NOTABLES - People who make the news, not necessarily Church-related

WELL DONE, AMBASSADOR GLENDON!
You don't need Notre Dame to validate who you are and what you have done for the church and in the Church!


From

and



Mary Ann Glendon, in a letter to President Jenkins faxed just this morning, declines the Laetare Medal.

---

April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree.

This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision — in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops — to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

---

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

Ambassador Glendon is a brave woman!

Much braver and more faithful than some of the Jesuits in charge of Notre Dame and Georgetown universities, who seem to be on their knees worshipping Obama more than their Creator.

Ms. Glendon is also a model of modern Catholic female leadership--intelligent, well educated, strong, yet loyal to the Church and the pope, unlike some of today's well educated nuns who seem more interested in personal honors and a church in their own image and likeness rather than supporting and strengthening the church that Christ founded.

Congratulations, Ambassador Glendon!

True or False? I'm guessing false but wouldn't it be amazing?


Agca says he is now a Catholic

CathNews
Published: April 30, 2009

In a letter written from a Turkish prison, Mehmet Ali Agca, author of the failed attempt against Pope John Paul II in 1981, claims to have renounced Islam and embraced the Catholic faith.

Italian weekly Diva e people donna published the letter, French journal 7s7 reports.

"I am looking for an Italian woman, who wants to correspond with me. Obviously (I hope) she is Catholic because from May 13 2007, I decided to renounce the Muslim faith and becoming a member of the Roman Catholic Church," Agca writes.

"I have decided to return peacefully to the (St Peter's) square and to testify to the world of my conversion to Catholicism," he says in the letter written in Italian.


"Just for a day, I would wish to return to Rome to pray at the tomb of John Paul II to express my filial appreciation for his forgiveness," he adds.

Questioned by AFP in Turkey, his former lawyer Mustafa Demirbag, said he was "very skeptical" about the conversion, given the steps required to receive baptism.

Ali Agca also claimed to have expressed his desire to visit St Peter's Square to Pope Benedict XVI, without having received "no response to date". He also claimed to have informed the Vatican of his conversion.

"For the Vatican, I may still be the man who tried to assassinate the Polish Pope, but now I have changed, I am a different man," he says.

Mr. Blair’s cafeteria

George Weigel
Denver Catholic Register
April 29, 2009

This past Lent, in the course of an interview with Attitude, a gay magazine, Tony Blair said that Pope Benedict XVI’s “entrenched attitude” toward homosexual behavior was less tolerant than that of many ordinary Catholics. “There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does,” the former British prime minister and recent Catholic convert opined, “and there are many fantastic things this pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.”

Well, that’s certainly a relief. I was beginning to worry that Blair’s conversion would set in motion a chain of events that would result in gays being burned at the stake throughout Her Britannic Majesty’s lands.

In December 2007, Tony Blair said the following, as he was received into the full communion of the Catholic Church:

“I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”

Among the things the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God is the truth about the human person, which includes the truth about the sexual nature of the human person, which includes the truth that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. So what is going on here? There would seem to be only two possibilities.

The first is that Mr. Blair understood what he said during the ceremony of his reception into full communion, but did not believe the words he spoke. In other words, he made a false oath. This seems unlikely, given Mr. Blair’s public record as a man of honor who stands by his convictions, right or wrong, popular or unpopular.

The second is that Mr. Blair was woefully ill-catechized prior to his reception into the full communion of the Church. That seems more likely, and fits neatly with a related fact, namely, that Mr. Blair’s wife, Cherie, has been known to harbor dubious views about the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. Thus the new archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, might wish to have a look into the state of catechesis in England’s premier Catholic see—not so much as a punitive matter (although someone was clearly derelict in their duty here), but as a means of seizing an opportunity to remind English Catholics that the Church’s defense of the dignity of the human person (which Mr. Blair applauds) is very much involved in the Church’s teaching on sex (which Mr. Blair deplores, or at least dislikes).

In his interview, Blair compared the situation of religious communities holding classic moral beliefs to that of a political party on the ropes: “You can either...hold onto your core vote...[saying] ‘Let’s not break out because if we break out we might lose what we’ve got, and at least we’ve got what we’ve got so let’s keep it,’ or...you say, ‘Let’s accept that the world is changing, and let us work out how we can lead that change and actually reach out.’”

Plan B, we may be sure, did not occur to Edmund Campion as he was tied to the rack during the English Reformation.

There is something terribly sad about all this. By all accounts, Tony Blair is a man with longstanding, serious religious and spiritual interests; he is also a man of obvious intelligence. Yet, judging by his Attitude interview, he is ill-informed about the nature of the Church and ignorant of the “yes” behind the Church’s “no” to the morality of homosexual acts—which is a “yes” to the good of sexual love within marriage. And judging by a lecture Blair gave at Westminster Cathedral shortly after his conversion, he knows little of the Church’s social doctrine, preferring instead a mishmash of leftist pieties.

Tony Blair is being cheated by the Church he embraced. And the whole Church is being cheated as well, for a well-catechized Blair could be a powerful witness to Catholic truth in a moment when that truth, a deeply humanistic truth, is under fierce assault.

Archbishop Nichols?

How the Iron Lady granted Pope Benedict XVI an audience in Rome

By Nick Pisa
Mail Online
Last updated at 1:41 AM on 28th May 2009

In her heyday she would probably have given him some stern advice on how to run the Vatican.

But yesterday Baroness Thatcher was happy to exchange pleasantries with Pope Benedict XVI.

The 83-year-old former Prime Minister, who met both Benedict's predecessors, visited St Peter's Basilica as the highlight of a week-long holiday at the Roman villa of Lady Carla Powell, whose husband Charles used to advise her on foreign policy.

Lady Thatcher, 83, braved the heat of strong sunshine to await the Pope's arrival, standing in the front row of the crowds outside St Peter's Basilica.

She was accompanied by friend and historian Paul Johnson, known for his conservative Catholic views, and Catholic convert Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, who is writing a biography on Baroness Thatcher.

Moore has described an earlier meeting when the Pope was plain Cardinal Ratzinger. He wrote about how he was struck by 'his embarrassing courtesy. I handed him an article I had written about becoming a Catholic, assuming he would put it "on file". Instead he read the whole thing right through as I sat before him.'

Paul Johnson is a British Roman Catholic journalist, historian, speechwriter and author. Johnson first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine.

He announced in the New Statesman earlier this month that he was escorting Baroness Thatcher to the Vatican. He said: 'Of all the popes I’ve known since Pius XII (who died in 1958), Benedict XVI is the most difficult to see. He is a hands-on boss, running an enormous machine, and only sees visitors when there is real business to be done.'

She listened intently as Pope Benedict gave a sermon on St Theodore the Studite a medieval monk known for his the love of hard work - a virtue also attributed to the former premier who was renowned for the long hours she put in during 11 years in office.

Afterwards the Pontiff was introduced to Baroness Thatcher who, as protocol dictates, was dressed in black with a matching mantilla, and the two shook hands warmly.

They spoke for several minutes. Mr Moore held an umbrella over her to shade her from the sun as she spoke to the Pope.

Lady Powell said: ‘She was delighted to meet the Pope and the two had a private conversation.

‘She is 83 years old, but is a real icon.

‘I organised her holiday here and the visit to the Vatican and she has had a wonderful time.’

Lady Thatcher's health has deteriorated since she suffered a series of minor strokes in 2002, but she remains active.

Before meeting the Pope Lady Thatcher, the daughter of a Methodist minister, laid a wreath of white roses on the tomb of Benedict's predecessor, Pope John Paul II, in the crypt below St Peter's - a man she admired greatly, particular for his stance against Communism, and whom she had met twice.

She had also met Pope Paul VI when she was leader of the Opposition in 1977.

Today's meeting and those previous Vatican visits could make some think she may be considering following the path of one of her successors, Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicism in 2007, six months after stepping down as prime minister.

But Lady Powell laughed off any such speculation.

‘I think there is more chance of Pope Benedict becoming a methodist than Baroness Thatcher converting to Rome,’ she said.

Lady Thatcher was the latest in a series of British visitors to the Vatican in recent weeks which has included Gordon Brown and Prince Charles.

Lady Powell's villa in the village of Palombara Sabina on the outskirts of Rome has become the place for British politicians to spend time in the summer, and past guests have included David Cameron and his family, Cherie Blair and Peter Mandelson.

Sorry about the Twitter ad. I need to work on my photo posting. Also, I don't have a clue why the print in this article turned blue.

I have an uncomfortable feeling about Prof. Diaz since he refuses to talk about his views on life issues and since he was a big supporter of Kathleen Sebelius. I am afraid we are soon going to hear things about him that we hoped we wouldn't hear.


Hispanic theologian chosen for Vatican ambassador

By ERIC GORSKI
Associated Press
May 27, 2009




A Hispanic Roman Catholic theologian who was an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign will be nominated to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, the White House announced Wednesday.

Miguel H. Diaz, 45, an associate professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, would be the first Hispanic to serve as ambassador to the Vatican since the United States and the Holy See established full diplomatic ties in 1984. Diaz was born in Havana.

The announcement comes in the same week Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools, to the Supreme Court. She would be the high court's first Hispanic justice.

The selection of a Vatican ambassador rarely attracts scrutiny. But Diaz's nomination comes as tensions run high in the U.S. church over Catholics' voice in the public square and the politics of abortion.

Obama's recent commencement speech and acceptance of an honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame — Diaz's alma mater and the nation's flagship Catholic university — provoked controversy and criticism from dozens of Catholic bishops because Obama's abortion stance clashes with a core church teaching.

The previous ambassador to the Vatican was Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard University professor and conservative Catholic scholar with longtime Vatican ties. Glendon turned down Notre Dame's top honor, the Laetere Medal, because of the school's decision to honor Obama.

In an interview with Catholic News Service at Obama's inauguration, Diaz said he was looking forward "to moving beyond the politics of fear to the politics of hope." He said Obama was "committed to working" with people who defend "life in the womb" and deeply respects people who hold positions he does not agree with.

"Wherever we can, we should advance life at all stages," Diaz said.

Reached at his home Wednesday, Diaz read a brief statement expressing gratitude for the opportunity and saying, "I wish to be a diplomatic bridge between our nation and the Holy See, and if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I will continue the work of my predecessors and build on 25 years of excellent relations with the Holy See."

He declined to answer questions about his positions on issues, saying it would be inappropriate before his confirmation hearing.

One potential point of conflict is Diaz's support for the nomination of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic whose abortion rights record angered conservative Catholics. Diaz was among 26 Catholic leaders and scholars who signed a statement hailing Sebelius as "a woman of deep faith" and citing her a record on immigration, education, health care and reducing abortion rates in Kansas.

The son of a waiter and a data-entry operator, Diaz was the first person in his family to attend college. He taught religious studies and theology at Barry University, the University of Dayton and Notre Dame. From 2001 to 2003, he was academic dean at St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary in Boynton Beach, Fla.

Diaz is fluent in English, Spanish and Italian. He is past president of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States, and a father of four.

According to public records, Diaz donated $1,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint committee of Obama and the Democratic National Committee. He served on the Obama campaign's Catholic advisory board.

Diaz was far from the most visible — or controversial — Catholic to campaign for Obama. Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic law professor and former Reagan administration lawyer, was targeted by conservative Catholics and denied Communion by one priest for his support for Obama.

Kmiec, who was mentioned as a possible Vatican envoy, applauded the choice of Diaz on Wednesday, calling him "a gifted theologian and a natural teacher. And his love for the faith is unquestioned."

Cathleen Kaveny, a Notre Dame law and theology professor who also served on the Obama campaign's Catholic advisory committee, said it was significant Obama chose a theologian and a representative of one of the fastest growing demographics in the U.S. church, Hispanics.

"He is not a big donor, he's not a big professor," she said. "He's someone very knowledgeable about the Catholic tradition and Catholic theology. What you see is President Obama taking seriously not just Catholicism as a political force but as an intellectual force."

The advocacy groups Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good issued statements Wednesday night praising the choice of Diaz.

Obama is scheduled to travel to Italy in July, and the next U.S. ambassador to the Vatican would likely play a role in arranging a possible meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. Other shared interests between the U.S. and the Vatican include Middle East peace and relations with the Muslim world.

[Modificato da benefan 29/05/2009 05:10]

Opposition to Vatican envoy fades quickly

Conservative Catholics aren't happy with Obama's selection of St. John's University professor Miguel Diaz, but they applauded the Minnesota theologian's strengths.

By JEFF STRICKLER,
Star Tribune
Last update: May 28, 2009 - 8:52 PM

Despite some early grumbling by conservative Roman Catholics, it appears that the nomination of Minnesotan Miguel H. Diaz as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican is headed for quick and easy Senate confirmation hearings.

Diaz's nomination was lauded by his Vatican counterpart in Washington on Thursday; it also was revealed that Pope Benedict signed off on the nomination before it was announced Wednesday evening.

Conservative Catholics were not initially enthralled with the nomination, but they quickly realized that there wasn't much they could do about it.

Diaz, 45, a Cuban-born theologian at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict in Collegeville, Minn., has focused his energies on strengthening the church's multicultural foundations. In the process he has skirted many of its most-volatile issues.

"President Obama has selected a man whose writings do not address such hot-button issues as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, doctor-assisted suicide and gay marriage," said Bill Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League. "In that regard, it appears that this is a safe choice."

It became even safer after Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the papal nuncio in Washington, offered an unexpected endorsement of Diaz. While attending an event at the Catholic University of America, Sambi surprised onlookers by stepping up to a microphone to congratulate Diaz and say that he is excited, "as his partner on the other side, to collaborate with him on what is our main reason of life: to improve relations."

Later in the day, Rocco Palmo, a reporter for the Tablet, a weekly Catholic newspaper based in London, reported on his blog that church officials had confirmed that the Vatican approved the nomination beforehand.

Abortion is hottest issue

Diaz was an adviser to Obama's presidential campaign and has continued to support his administration. His endorsement of Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as secretary of Health and Human Services is the basis for Donohue's concerns. Sebelius, a Catholic, supported selective restrictions on abortions while governor of Kansas.

While Diaz's support doesn't mean that he endorses all of Sebelius' views, "it is disconcerting, nonetheless," Donahue said.

When reached by the Star Tribune, Diaz declined to speak on issues that might come up during his nomination hearings, a standard practice among nominees.

While providing little ammunition for critics, he has created a long list of admirers through his work, especially his efforts to strengthen ties between the central church and Hispanic parishes.

"President Obama has appointed someone who can help build mutual understanding among Catholics in this turbulent time, particularly when such bridges are so sorely needed," said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats, a political organization based in Boston.

Even the Catholic League conceded in a second phone call that the nomination is not without a plus side.

"His interests in immigration and the environment mesh very well with those of the Vatican," spokeswoman Susan Fani said. "We wish they would have found someone who was more outspoken on abortion, but, on the other hand, he is someone we can work with."

Boys Town founder Fr. Flanagan warned Irish Church about abuse

1946: Fr. Flanagan slammed Ireland’s reform schools as 'a disgrace to the nation'

By
JOHN FAY
IrishCentral.Com Staff Writer
Updated Friday, May 29, 2009, 11:44 AM

Father Edward Flanagan, founder of “Boys Town” made famous by the Spencer Tracy movie, was a lone voice in condemning Ireland’s industrial schools back in the 1940s –and he was viciously castigated by church and government for doing so.

Fr. Flanagan, from Co. Roscommon, left Ireland in 1904 and was ordained a priest eight years later. In 1917 he was living and working in Omaha, Nebraska, when he hit upon the idea of a "boys town," which offered education and a home for the poor and wayward boys of Omaha.

However, demand for the service was so great that he soon had to find bigger premises. Boys Town, built on a farm 10 miles from Omaha, was the result.

The center was open to all. There were no fences to stop the boys from leaving. Fr. Flanagan said he was “not building a prison." "This is a home," he said. "You do not wall in members of your own family.”

Boys Town eventually became so well-known - and so well-respected - that Hollywood and the U.S. President came calling. Spencer Tracey and Mickey Rooney starred in the 1938 movie "Boys Town," and it made a national hero out of Fr. Flanagan. He was internationally renowned as “the world’s most foremost expert on boys’ training and youth care.”

When World War II ended in 1945, President Harry S. Truman asked Fr. Flanagan to tour Asia and Europe, to see what could be done for the homeless and neglected children in those regions.

Fr. Flanagan decided to return to the land of his birth in 1946 to visit his family, and also to visit the “so-called training schools" run by the Christian Brothers to see if they were "a success or failure.”

The success of the film "Boys Town," meant Fr. Flanagan was treated like a celebrity on his arrival. His visit was noted by the The Irish Independent, which said that Fr. Flanagan had succeeded “against overwhelming odds,” spurred on by the “simple slogan that 'There is no such thing as a bad boy.'”

But Fr. Flanagan was unhappy with what he found in Ireland. He was dismayed at the state of Ireland's reform schools and blasted them as “a scandal, un-Christlike, and wrong.” And he said the Christian Brothers, founded by Edmund Rice, had lost its way.

Speaking to a large audience at a public lecture in Cork’s Savoy Cinema he said, "You are the people who permit your children and the children of your communities to go into these institutions of punishment. You can do something about it." He called Ireland’s penal institutions "a disgrace to the nation," and later said "I do not believe that a child can be reformed by lock and key and bars, or that fear can ever develop a child’s character."

However, his words fell on stony ground. He wasn't simply ignored. He was taken to pieces by the Irish establishment. The then-Minister for Justice Gerald Boland said in the Dáil that he was “not disposed to take any notice of what Monsignor Flanagan said while he was in this country, because his statements were so exaggerated that I did not think people would attach any importance to them.”

Fr. Flanagan was a devout Catholic, a man who Catholics and non-Catholics world-wide had deemed a hero. He was the Mother Theresa of his day.

Despite that, the Irish Church and the Irish authorities felt comfortable ignoring Fr. Flanagan, ignoring the fact that he was considered to be an expert in the matter of providing for the education and upbringing of boys who were otherwise considered to be “lost causes.”

When he arrived back in America Fr. Flanagan said: "What you need over there is to have someone shake you loose from your smugness and satisfaction and set an example by punishing those who are guilty of cruelty, ignorance and neglect of their duties in high places . . . I wonder what God's judgment will be with reference to those who hold the deposit of faith and who fail in their God-given stewardship of little children."

Again, his efforts fell on stony ground.

What was it about the Irish Church and the Irish authorities that made them so insular that they felt comfortable dismissing someone of Fr. Flanagan's stature? Despite the fact that Fr. Flanagan was a popular hero to many Irish people, his words had no sway with those in authority, whether in the government or the Church.

And, once those who endorsed the industrial school model survived Fr. Flanagan's broadsides, they must have known that no one would challenge them again. They were right, for 50 years anyway.

Not since the penal times has the Catholic Church been so threatened in Ireland. Only this time the damage is all self-inflicted and not imposed by an outside force. Unless strong Catholic characters arise from the wreckage we have now, the Church in Ireland is doomed.

Here's TIME Magazine's take on Obama's choice of US ambassador to the Vatican.


Obama's Vatican Pick: Boosting Hispanic Catholics

By Amy Sullivan
TIME Magazine
Sunday, May. 31, 2009

Barack Obama has an uncanny ability to disarm critics, especially those itching for a fight, and it was on full display this past week. His choice of federal judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court nominee, of course, got all the attention. But another key appointment of a Hispanic with top-notch credentials and a compelling personal story also showed just how good the President is at keeping his opponents off balance. In fact, in selecting Catholic scholar Miguel Diaz to be the new ambassador to the Holy See, Obama not only neutralized potential controversy, but he highlighted a potential weakness of the American Catholic Church these days.

If confirmed, the Cuban-American Diaz would be the first theologian to hold the diplomatic post, and he would become one of the country's most influential Hispanic Catholics. The choice is a shrewd one for a White House that has been under fire from leading conservative Catholics in the first few months of the Administration. What could have been an ugly confirmation battle may well proceed with all the rancor of a first communion party.

While the relationship between the United States and the Vatican has become an important one, the two have only enjoyed full diplomatic relations since 1984. Over the past 25 years, ambassadors to the Holy See have either been Catholic politicians or close personal friends of the President who appointed them. Ronald Reagan chose California businessman William Wilson, Bill Clinton selected former Boston mayor Ray Flynn and former congresswoman Lindy Boggs, and George W. Bush's first ambassador was former RNC chair Jim Nicholson.

Nominating a Catholic pol to the position would have been a risk for Obama. His selection of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to lead the Department of Health and Humans Services generated protests from conservatives who questioned whether a politician who supported abortion rights could be a real Catholic. A Catholic politician — even with pro-life views — would probably have been subjected to a thorough review of her record and asked to explain any votes against abortion restrictions.

Instead, Diaz is a Catholic theologian and professor at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University in Minnesota. He is a board member of the Catholic Theological Society of America, and a scholar of the German theologian Karl Rahner, one of Pope Benedict's mentors. Diaz also happens to be pro-life and served on the Obama campaign's Catholic advisory group during the 2008 campaign. Like Sotomayor, he is the child of immigrants and was the first person in his family to attend college.

If Diaz's background as a theologian insulates him from inquiries about an abortion voting record, his Hispanic identity puts any potential critics in a bind as well. The American Catholic church may be the one institution more worried than the GOP about losing Hispanics. One-third of U.S. Catholics are Hispanic and among younger Catholics, the percentages are even larger. A full 60% of American Catholics under age 30 are Hispanic. Father Thomas Reese of the Woodstock Theological Center recently noted on the Washington Post's OnFaith site that studies show one out of three Catholics has left the church over the course of their lives. "The only reason Catholics continue to be a stable percentage of the U.S. population," he wrote, "is that Hispanics are making up for the white Catholics who are leaving."

Even so, the U.S. Catholic church has been slow to respond to this new reality. Only 9% of active Catholic bishops in this country are Hispanic and just one of the 31 archbishops is a Latino. Religion & Ethics Newsweekly reported last year that only 6% of Catholic clergy even speak Spanish. There are exceptions — the new archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, delivered part of his inaugural sermon there in Spanish, and Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney has been a strong national voice in favor of immigration reform.

But as in central and South America, the Catholic church is steadily losing Hispanic congregants to Evangelical denominations. A 2007 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey found that half of Hispanic Catholics prefer charismatic worship styles and practices. In some cases, they are able to find that in Catholic parishes. But where they can't, they are turning to Pentecostal and other Evangelical traditions instead. Although 68% of Hispanics in the U.S. are still Catholics, that percentage has dropped from 78% in the early 1970s.

The job of ambassador to the Holy See is unusual — there are no visa issues to deal with, no military actions to observe and report. At a conference on Thursday at Catholic University to discuss the past 25 years of U.S.-Vatican relations, former ambassador Jim Nicholson said that one of his duties in the post was preparing a quarterly memo to the State Department outlining his best guess of who would be elected as a successor if the Pope died. Pope Benedict would probably prefer to debate Rahner's theological arguments with Diaz than to speculate about his own demise. But he will find in Diaz a representative of the American Catholic church's future — and an indication that the new Administration not only intends to take its relationship with the Vatican seriously, but that it won't make it easy for conservative Catholics to attack it.

Former Archbishop of Westminster
won't join Tony Blair's
Faith Foundation after all
By Hilary White




LONDON, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNew.com) – Until today, the website of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation (TBFF) still carried a note saying that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor was expected to join their Advisory Council. But today a statement from the organization has said that the Cardinal will not join the Blair Foundation after all.

Parna Taylor from the Foundation told LifeSiteNews.com via e-mail, “We can totally understand Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wanting to review his commitments” since his retirement. Taylor said that the Foundation had “always valued the private advice” given by the Cardinal.

“While they support the broad aims of the Foundation,” Taylor continued, “we do not expect the Advisory Council members to agree with Tony Blair on every aspect of policy past or present. Their role is to provide advice and guidance, alongside many other senior religious figures who provide such insights on a less formal basis.”

The Tablet news magazine reports that since Blair launched his Foundation in 2008, “it had been intended that the cardinal would join the advisory council once he had stepped down as Archbishop of Westminster.”

It is unclear precisely why the Cardinal has reconsidered joining the Foundation. However, his plans to do so had been heavily criticised by many faithful Catholics and members of the life and family movement in Britain.

Tony Blair, who was received into the Catholic Church by Cardinal O’Connor himself in December 2007, has been described by John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, as the “principal architect” of the culture of death in Britain during his decade as Prime Minister, largely on account of his support for abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

But Blair’s stock with the Catholic Church seems to have fallen since the installation of Archbishop Vincent Nichols as the replacement of the long-serving Cardinal O’Connor.

After Blair gave an interview to a homosexualist magazine in which he chastised Pope Benedict for refusing to change the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, Nichols commented that the former Prime Minister’s strong “political instincts” have not helped his understanding of his religion.

Nichols told the Times, “Maybe he lacks a bit of experience in Catholic life.”

The Blair Foundation states that its purpose is “to promote respect and understanding about the world's major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world.”

Blair himself has described the work of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation as encouraging "faiths" to come together, overcoming differences in "doctrine."

A large part of his work, he said, is to urge religious leaders to reinterpret "religious texts" metaphorically rather than literally. He said religious leaders need "to treat religious thought and even religious texts as themselves capable of evolution over time."

But Blair has been dispraised even by many on the left for his lack of depth as a religious leader.

In May, the Guardian’s Hugh O'Shaughnessy wrote that the “wheels are coming off” Blair’s religious project. O’Shaughnessy quoted Dr. Ghada Karmi of Exeter University who called him “at best – a total irrelevancy.”

O’Shaughnessy noted that having annoyed the Vatican, and given “the hostility – and ridicule – that the Blairs and their associates stir up” he is “increasingly unlikely to achieve his ambition of becoming president of the EU.”

Stephen Pound, a Catholic Labour MP said that Blair’s “hubris” is “extremely counterproductive.”

“Entrance to the Vatican is only gained through a series of iron-clad, hermetically sealed, heavily padlocked and bolted doors, and I can hear them creaking shut as we speak.”





Since Blair's gratuitously insulting remarks about the Pope came around the time of the papal visit to the Holy L:and (I think), i couldn't spare a moment to huff and puff over his perfidy, pandering to a homosexual magazine but also exposing himself for what he is. He should join up his Foundation to Hans Kueng's. They basically have the same goaL: to promote a new world religion of secularism whose precepts are totally dictated by whatever is current thinking in liberal circles.

Blair's criticism of the Pope for the Catholic position on homosexuality was even far more offensive than Carla Bruni's ill-considered criticism of the Pope for what he sasid about condoms - if only because by preparation, experience and qualifications, he is far superuior to Ms. Bruni.

For all his erudition and intellect, what he does not seem to see is that the Catholic Church can preach what it must preach, at any time, any place, and in all the ways that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are applicable. But that does not mean it can impose its doctrine on anyone, not even Catholics - each one is responsible to God for the decisions they make about deviating from orthodox Catholic teaching.

So what's Blair's beef? Because the homosexuals dislike Catholic teaching? Why did he even become Catholic anyway, when all his social thinking is so in tune with Britain's - and Europe's - prevailing secular relativistic anti-Catholic culture?

At the service of the Church

Thomas Peters discusses his popular blog [American Papist]

Interview by Jeremy Lott
Catholic World Report
May 2009 issue

Thomas Peters is the owner of the popular Catholic insider blog American Papist, which recently received its two millionth visitor. Peters has attracted a large audience by regularly giving readers smart, quick news and analysis of all things Catholic: from papal appointments to scandals to new ministries. Peters talked with CWR about blogging, Notre Dame, Barack Obama, and the “Papist Picture of the Day.”

CWR: The title of your blog is interesting. Many Catholics would not use the term “papist” to describe themselves, or would do so half jokingly. You provide an actual definition for readers. (“n. A Catholic who is a strong advocate of the papacy.”) Are you trying to rehabilitate the term?

Thomas Peters: I’m not necessarily trying to rehabilitate the term, I’m trying to rehabilitate the idea that following the pope is, in the final analysis, a really good idea. “Papist” is, of course, historically a term of derision used against Catholics. Using the term to describe myself is both a way to send a clear message about who I am, and it challenges the world to confront and (ultimately, I pray) discard the anti-Catholicism that has dogged the Church, particularly since the Enlightenment. Give us a second look—we’re nice people.

CWR: Why do you blog? What do you hope to accomplish with your website?

Peters: I blog because the topics I cover interest me, and people tell me that it’s useful to them. My set of goals for American Papist has developed over time as my circumstances have changed and its popularity has increased. I hope American Papist is a service to the Church, and specifically to Catholics in America.

I don’t necessarily have a plan for where it’s going to go next, but whatever decisions I’ve made so far, in general, seem to have been for the good. I’ve tried to embrace the flexibility of the blog format that lets me go where the story is, and change course quickly to focus on something that’s important at the moment. Long-term I think I’ve retained readers because of focusing on highly important stories, providing reliable commentary that is hopefully at least a tad more informed, and well, the Papist Picture of the Day seems to keep people smiling.

CWR: Who is more photogenic: John Paul II or Benedict XVI?

Peters: In all fairness to Papa Benny, I think JPII was more photogenic. His acting experience made him more aware of the camera and I think he’d love to see how Catholics have taken to using new media to spread his New Evangelization. Papa Benny looks best as Cardinal Ratzinger with a beer stein in his hand—there are many such photos circulating on the Internet.

CWR: Church scandals are a frequent subject at American Papist. One writer who was upset with your coverage of the Legionaries of Christ accused you of practicing not “Catholic journalism” but “Catholic punk.”

Peters: There is always a danger toward sensationalism in reporting, and especially the reporting of scandal. I think mainstream journalism—and especially blogs—are especially prey to this, but Catholics are called to a higher standard.

I would say, as an aside, that the majority of the criticism I’ve received for my reporting of various scandals comes from those with some sort of personal ties to them. You can always tell when you’ve hit a nerve, because the intensity of backlash is of a very different kind and higher level than simple disagreement in perspective. It takes a great deal of experience to report a volatile story fairly, and it’s something I’ve had to learn quickly as American Papist’s readership—and correspondingly, responsibility to the public—has multiplied so rapidly.

Luckily there are two built-in critique avenues available to a blogger: I have open comments boxes where people are free to (charitably) disagree with me, and I post my email publicly. I make a careful effort to listen to criticism but only if I’m presented with an argument. Shouting never convinces anyone, and neither does ALL CAPS. I do think truth is fundamentally at the service of the Church and her members, so that’s my guiding light when it comes to how I report a story.

CWR: What got you started blogging?

Peters: I had done some social-networking type journals before. I was a literature major in college and like writing, plus I’m a “newsie.” I found I was emailing people stories I thought were interesting, and some of them suggested starting a blog, probably because they were annoyed by my emails. At that point I realized if I wanted people to read my stuff I’d have to make it interesting and accessible.

I took a lot of cues from popular Catholic bloggers at the time in terms of finding sources, but soon realized that no one was presenting quite the take on things that I wanted to supply. It was one of those situations where I thought, “Someone should be doing this, and until they start, I’ll do it in the meantime.” I wanted to write a blog that friends my age and with similar interests would want to read. One of my measures of blog success is if I find I can be writing a story, and seamlessly transition into a conversation with a friend about it later that day. Blogging for me is a high-level conversation, just online.

CWR: What do you think of Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to deliver the commencement address?

Peters: I have a lot to say about the Notre Dame invitation. Catholic education in America is of intense interest to me, having gone to a Catholic college and two Catholic graduate schools. Plus it’s a small Catholic world and an even smaller Catholic academic world, so I have friends at most of these institutions.

While the signs in the past few years have been encouraging when it comes to Notre Dame, I see Father Jenkins’ invitation of President Obama as a scandalous step backward when it comes to Catholic institutions providing a distinctive voice in the public discourse and challenging secular society to uphold fundamental human goods like the right to life.

CWR: What do you think about the calls to rescind Obama’s invitation to speak?

Peters: I think people have to be careful what they demand after they decide that they don’t like the fact that Obama has been invited. As I said in my first sustained coverage of the story, I don’t see a way that Notre Dame can realistically dis-invite a sitting president once they have invited him. At minimum I think the university should honor its claim that it invited the president to promote dialogue.

I’d like to see them take another step and provide a challenging critique of his record on issues of fundamental importance to Catholics. I think they also should seriously re-examine how they interact with the culture on important issues of the day. This whole situation makes it way too easy to conclude that the administration of Notre Dame weighs their success not by their fidelity to the teachings of Christ and his Church, but by their incorporation into the mainstream of secularizing America.

CWR: The Notre Dame flap wasn’t the only example of a prestigious Catholic institution recently lending its clout to pro-choice politicians. For instance, you wrote about the fact that the Knights of Malta were about to induct former Washington, DC Mayor Anthony Williams. Why?

Peters: Again, I think we’re witnessing the gradual erosion of Catholic institutions in the US. This sort of thing is already far more advanced in Europe, and it’s a wonder that Catholic institutions in America have retained their integrity thus far.

We have to fight to preserve this, and I think public accountability—through blogs and new media—is an excellent way to do this. We also have to be aware of our audience when we call these Catholic institutions to task, otherwise regardless of the outcome, the media will continue to perpetuate these harmful stereotypes of what it means to be a convicted Catholic today.

CWR: One of the things that differentiates your blog from many progressive Catholic blogs is that you write about both threats from within the Church (scandals) and threats from without. A recent American Papist story had to do with the Connecticut legislature. Tell us about that.

Peters: I think it was Mark Shea whom I first heard call Catholic Internet tipsters his “web elves.” They do yeoman’s work in keeping me and other “uberbloggers” up to date on what’s happening around the country and in the Church. Most of these people are regular Catholic Joes and Joelles who read their local paper, but there are also many “involved” folks who keep me up to speed.

I heard about the Connecticut situation from Catholics in the Connecticut pews, from people who work at Catholic organizations and parishes, and from some of the “players” on the Catholic side of things. From what I understand, the legislators who introduced it have a vendetta against the Church—because of her public resistance to homosexual marriage—and tried to sneak through the Connecticut Congress this bill that would essentially deny bishops and priests their right to administer parish finances. The whole idea was absurd because their stated reason for the legislation (fraud by a couple Catholic priests) was actually a situation in which the Church was the victim of robbery. No legislation should punish the victim in a robbery, and the bill was blatantly unconstitutional as well.

But the difference this time around was that Catholic blogs (humbly, American Papist played a big part) and Bishop Lori (who is a real firebrand despite his soft-spoken way) spearheaded a concerted public protest. I think anti-Catholic legislators will think twice before they try something like that again.

CWR: Do you expect these sorts of attacks to multiply in the future?

Peters: Yes, it will happen again, so I’m proud to see how willing Catholics of all walks of life are to defend the Church when she comes under attack. The Church becomes a sign of ever greater contradiction in a world that is trying to avoid God and the good news announced by his Son. It’s my little prayer that a few people might hear that good news by stumbling across American Papist. So spread the word.

And another interview with American Papist


American Papist, Thomas Peters

by Denise Hunnell, M.D.
Examiner.com
June 9, 2009

Within the last decade, a Catholic blogging community has developed to bring an authentically Catholic identity to cyberspace. One of the preeminent Catholic bloggers makes his home here in the D.C. Metro area. Thomas Peters has authored the award winning American Papist blog since 2005. He moved to Washington D.C. from Michigan two years ago. In addition to winning numerous blog awards he has appeared on CNN, BBC World News, NBC Nightly News, The Today Show & MSNBC, and has also appeared in or been quoted by Our Sunday Visitor, The Boston Globe, National Catholic Reporter, EWTN Global Radio, Catholic News Agency, News Busters, LifeSiteNews, Inside Catholic, Busted Halo, Holy Smoke, The Huffington Post, Catholic Online, Catholic Culture, Catholic Exchange, National Catholic Register, etc. I recently had the opportunity to interview Thomas about his life as a young Catholic blogging star living in D.C.

Q: You have become one of the premier Catholic bloggers in the nation in an amazingly short time. What do you think is the key to your rapid rise in readership? What do you offer that some other blogs might not?

A: AmP's rise to prominence has certainly been dizzying. At current levels, AmP is a 3-million visit per year blog. That's a lot of people. It's hard for me to pin down what has accounted for its success, but some good circumstances certainly helped. AmP has a two-level approach, I try to keep track of most "important" things, so people are at least aware of what is going on, and second I do "megacoverage" of what I consider to be a very important story. Thus, visitors can have some confidence that they'll be aware of most the important things happening and, if they are interested, they can also get the latest and most detailed information for a critical story, which often includes exclusive information.

Q. Is there a certain demographic that you target in your blog?

A: I began AmP as a "youth blog" for young adults, focusing on stories that I think interest my generation more, but I also have a high ideal for what youth are capable of understanding, so as its worked out that I talk about pretty much everything. I do, however, typically have a bit more media and humor than your average "news" blog.

Q: Has your move to the Washington D.C. area changed the focus of your blog?

A: Since coming to Washington DC there is certainly more politics. It’s the name of the game in this town. DC has incredible opportunities for meeting important figures both in politics and the Church. The Pope visited last year. I met and talked with Archbishop Burke in May. I think it would be foolish not to take advantage of these opportunities when they are a short bus ride away. DC also has a singular network of young Catholic professionals, so I'd say my coverage has benefited from that group of friends and the fascinating things they are doing. As I often say, blogging for me is a way to continue and begin real life conversations.

Q: What is your favorite Catholic thing to do in the Washington D.C. area?

A: DC has so many great Catholic events that it's hard to choose. I'd say the yearly Vigil of All Saints put on by the Dominican Friars near CUA is one of my favorites. In early October look at www.dhs.edu for details! It's packed so count on getting there early.

Q: Is there a saint that you turn to for intercession for your blogging efforts?

A: I like praying to the "four Thomases", as I call them. St. Thomas the Apostle for courage to spread the gospel far and wide, St. Thomas Aquinas for wisdom to articulate the faith clearly, St. Thomas of Canterbury for determination in compromising nothing in pursuit of the truth, and St. Thomas More (my patron saint) for the prudence to judiciously decide how to say things properly. They've kept me in pretty good shape.

Q: Do you have any goals or plans for future development of your American Papist site?

A: I can't answer anything specifically, but it has become clear to me in the last couple months that AmP is getting too big to be a one-papist project. I'm looking into ways to bring some of my trusted friends on board as content editors/contributors and yes ... comment moderators. Of course I should talk to them more about that possibility first. But I think such assistance would really help me multiply my effectiveness in delivering the content that AmPsters have come to expect.

Vian’s Choice

An interview with the editor-in-chief of L’Osservatore Romano.

By Delia Gallagher
National Review Online
June 17, 2009

When the director of the Vatican newspaper, Gian Maria Vian, declared a few weeks ago that “Obama is not a pro-abortion president” — a comment that came after an editorial which, on balance, spoke positively of the U.S. president’s first 100 days — ire was raised across the Atlantic. Many U.S. commentators on the Vatican roundly reviled him as a lone, liberal voice: unrepresentative of “real” Vatican thinking, ignorant of U.S. politics, and in charge of a paper that is not taken seriously at the Vatican. He was even called a traitor and pro-abortion.

U.S. commentators may take umbrage at what he says, but they are wrong not to take him seriously. American Catholics who wish to understand the sometimes vastly different Vatican view of things would do well to know more about Vian and why he said what he did.

Gian Maria Vian is firmly ensconced in the Vatican inner circle: He was personally tapped by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state, and the pope’s trusted right-hand man, for the job as editor-in-chief. He has known and worked with Bertone for 25 years. His family have been close collaborators with popes for over a century: Pope Benedict XVI called the Vian family “illustrious . . . with a great tradition of faithful service to the Holy See.”

Vian’s grandfather, Agostino, wrote for L’Osservatore Romano and was married in 1903 by Pius X, then patriarch of Venice. His father, Nello, also a contributor to the paper, was chief Vatican librarian and close friend of Paul VI; Gian Maria was baptized by Paul VI in St. Peter’s Basilica.

In other words: He’s not coming out of left field.

Since taking the helm of L’Osservatore Romano in October 2007, he has been widely praised in Italy for renewing the paper, transforming it from an unread chronicle to a sure place for eye-catching and original articles: Ask Vatican journalists, and they will tell you they now read the paper to get their stories.

Just last Wednesday, I attended the book launch of Vian’s new volume, In Defense of Pius XII (not yet published in English). At the event, the former editor of Italy’s conservative daily, Corriere della Sera, lauded L’Osservatore Romano under Gian Maria’s leadership. Sitting next to Vian, in the front row, was Cardinal Bertone.

All this is not to say that Vian’s views are those of the secretary of state or the pope. His statement is an “unofficial” view; and sometimes, for an organization with diplomatic responsibilities, an unofficial view is convenient. Diplomats in Rome read L’Osservatore precisely because they know it reflects Vatican thinking at the highest levels.

In my analysis, Vian’s statement and the L’Osservatore Romano’s appraisal of the Obama presidency so far may be the Vatican’s unofficial way of “raising the bar” for the new American president who is expected to visit the pope in July. What better way to receive the man who will have great power over important issues than in a climate of confident expectation, rather than condemnation? Even if “they” did not say it, they may not mind that it has been said.

DELIA GALLAGHER: You were quoted as saying, “It is my clear conviction: Obama is not a pro-abortion president.” On what basis do you hold this conviction?

GIAN MARIA VIAN: I made that statement in an interview to an Italian journalist of Il Riformista who called me on the day the president was at Notre Dame for the controversial ceremony of the conferring of the law degree honoris causa. I was in Barcelona; I gave the interview over the phone and based my observation primarily on the speech President Obama gave on that occasion — a speech which demonstrated openness. In this sense, I said that he didn’t seem a pro-abortion president.


GALLAGHER: What do you mean?

VIAN: He considered abortion, at least in his speech at Notre Dame, as something to prevent and, above all, he said, we must proceed in the attempt to widen the consensus as much as possible because he realizes that it is a very delicate issue.


Of course, Senator Obama made decisions that certainly cannot be defined as pro-life, to use the American term. He was, rather, pro-choice. Yet I believe that the senator’s activity prior to his presidential election is one thing, and the political line he is following as president of the United States is another.

We have noticed that his entire program prior to his election was more radical than it is revealing itself to be now that he is president. So this is what I meant when I said he didn’t sound like a pro-abortion president. Besides, he stated that the Freedom of Choice Act is no longer a top priority of the administration.

Naturally, it is also a sort of wishful thinking. Let’s hope that my conviction is confirmed by the political actions of the administration. This is basically the same attitude of watching, waiting, and hope of the Catholic bishops of the United States.

GALLAGHER: Did you hear from the pope or the secretary of state about your comment that Obama is not a pro-abortion president?

VIAN: No. It was an interview on the fly. As usual, I didn’t ask permission from either the secretariat of state or the pope. It was an impression that I communicated based on the speech he had just given. President Obama said we should try to confront this question without too much division, that it is a tragedy, a frightening drama, let’s look for common ground — I think his words should be appreciated.


GALLAGHER: Some would say they are only words and it is his voting record and actions which speak more loudly.

VIAN: I admit that it is legitimate to be diffident in the face of the words of a president who previously has demonstrated a pro-choice line, but I hope that he changes. I hope that he understands that a politics of pro-life is good politics, not because it is religious, not because it is Catholic, but because it is human. This is what the Church repeatedly says, and in particular Pope Benedict XVI. The appeal to natural law is important because it is not based on religious principles, it is based on human principles which can be agreed on by all.


GALLAGHER: So you were fully aware of the record of the senator, the criticisms of the U.S. bishops, and the political situation in the U.S.?

VIAN: When we published the infamous article on the first 100 days, we wrote that the moderation that President Obama had so far demonstrated compared to what was expected in no way eliminated the reasons for criticism that the U.S. Bishops Conference expressed many times.

So mine was not an ingenuous statement. I must say that it was an interview which mirrored my personal point of view and that what is more important is what is published in L’Osservatore Romano. The editorial line of the paper is above all reflected by what is published in the paper, but the two things aren’t that far apart.

I realize that Obama is much more pro-choice than McCain, who was his adversary, but Obama won and let’s hope that that his actions on these themes are less radical than they have been before the elections. At least that is the case so far.


GALLAGHER: On the article judging President Obama’s first 100 days: Did you hear any reaction from the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Bertone?

VIAN: No. Naturally we spoke about it because it created a lot of noise but he did not say that it was an article that wasn’t right or should not have been printed.

The article on the first 100 days was written by the head of international news, Dr. Giuseppe Fiorentino. I reviewed it and added some things on the ethical questions saying, again, that this greater moderation shown by the President compared to the propaganda of then-Senator Obama does not mitigate criticism, especially in the field of bio-engineering, the use of embryonic stem cells, and, in general, with respect to ethical questions. That he is more moderate than expected does not mean that there is approval, obviously, on the part of the Holy See, or of its newspaper.


On the ethical question, Michael Novak accused me in the Italian paper, Liberal, of actually being pro-abortion. Given the fact that Novak has come to visit us at the paper and was very kind and said he would be happy to write for us and is besides a gentleman, I responded to his article in a very cordial manner saying that such an accusation towards the newspaper of the pope, that it is a pro-abortion paper, makes me smile, so as not to say in a more crude manner that it is ridiculous.


GALLAGHER: Should a reader interpret the editorial line of the newspaper to be also that of the pope and the secretariat of state?

VIAN: Well, we need to distinguish something here. The paper is not official: It is not the expression, in every single part, of the point of view of the Vatican, that is, of the secretariat of state. But it is obvious that it is an authoritative point of view of the Holy See, because ours is the only newspaper of the Holy See and has a century and a half of history. We were started during the American Civil War. We were started in 1861. It’s a paper with a very long history and it has always been rightly interpreted as the expression of the thought of the Holy See, without a doubt, but that is not to say that every word that comes out in the paper is exactly the thought of the pope or the secretary of state.

GALLAGHER: But the average reader would assume that he will find in the Vatican’s newspaper an editorial line that is in agreement with the pope.

VIAN: Let’s say that L’Osservatore Romano expresses a line generally in agreement with the Holy See. This is obvious because the paper is owned by the Holy See. My editor, in the Italian sense of the owner of the paper, is the pope, via the secretariat of state. I could not possibly create a paper in disagreement with the owner, just as no newspaper director could create a paper in dissension with the owner. If I ran the newspaper like that, I would have already been fired.


GALLAGHER: Do you receive regular feedback from Cardinal Bertone or the pope on articles that you publish?

VIAN: I am here since the fall of 2007 and I have never had a problem. The pope and the secretary of state have so far given me and the newspaper their full confidence.

I know the paper very well: My grandfather wrote for this paper, my father wrote for this paper, my brother wrote for this paper, and I wrote for this paper from 1977 until 1987 — and then 20 years later I’ve come back as director. I knew the paper very well, it was the newspaper that arrived at home every day when I was a child.

I did not imagine I would find the autonomy that I have found here. Sure, we have made mistakes. But I jokingly say that it’s my editor, the owner, who is infallible, not me, not us.

We make mistakes, but so far not the pope, the secretary of state, or anyone in the secretariat of state has ever said, ‘You’ve made a serious error.’

They are happy that we do our job and we are happy that they do their jobs. We work in autonomy except in a few areas of particular interest on international questions and then we work in close collaboration with the secretariat of state.


GALLAGHER: What are those areas?

VIAN: Nuclear themes, disarmament, Iran for example, Korea, but especially Iran. In general, the Near and Middle East is a sensitive area. Then there is China. On these international themes we are in constant contact with the secretariat of state.


GALLAGHER: Does that mean they review your articles, make suggestions?

VIAN: We send them the articles, but only on those international themes. And I must say that it’s very rare that they tell us no, you can’t publish this because, although I’m new, my journalists know their work very well. Apart from that, they send us the texts of the pope and there is really nothing else, to tell the truth.

I decide the editorial line of the paper, which I evaluate together with the heads of the paper’s departments: Vatican, international, cultural, and religious news.

GALLAGHER: So the pope does not intervene directly?

VIAN: The first request of the pope was: more room for international news, more attention to the Eastern Christians — Catholics such as the Maronites and the Melkites, but also the Orthodox churches — and more space for women.


GALLAGHER: What did the pope mean by “more space for women”?

VIAN: The pope wishes to highlight as much as possible the role of women in the Church and in the Roman Curia. Ssome even said that he had wanted a woman as director of L’Osservatore Romano, which has always been directed by lay people.

I interpreted his request of more space for women as indicating both a desire to increase the number of women working at the paper — about a quarter of our staff are women — and I hired the first full-time woman journalist in the history of the paper, as well as giving more space to stories and issues about women. On bioethical issues, particularly abortion, I prefer that we have a woman write the story.

Our interview with Mary Ann Glendon, then U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, was conducted by a woman, Prof. Lucetta Scaraffia, and published on the front page of the paper with a full-color photo of the two.


GALLAGHER: Mary Ann Glendon declined to receive an award and speak at Notre Dame, to protest the Obama invitation and support the bishops . . .

VIAN: It was a brave choice and I have the greatest respect for it and for Mary Ann Glendon. She is a well-respected intellectual and a courageous woman who was a very good American ambassador to the Holy See.


GALLAGHER: Do you think your editorial line could be seen as undercutting the U.S. bishops?

VIAN: No. In our international religious news we systematically support the position of the U.S. bishops. I said very clearly that to consider L’Osservatore Romano as distant or not supportive of the U.S. bishops’ conference is false, it is a game played by those who want only to use our paper to paint a picture of divided Catholics.

Unfortunately, L’Osservatore Romano is misused by everyone for their own agenda: The theo-cons, the neo-cons use it for their purposes; liberals try to use it to say the Vatican is distancing itself from the bishops. This is unacceptable; it has never happened and I deny that accusation most fervently. L’Osservatore Romano has never distanced itself from the bishops. In fact, after the comments which appeared primarily on the Internet from the U.S., we reiterated that the paper is absolutely at the side of the American bishops and that their position cannot be considered a political stance.


GALLAGHER: What do you mean by a political stance?

VIAN: Well, they say that the conference, or at least the presidency of the U.S. bishops’ conference, has a conservative Republican line — no. On questions such as the defense of life the bishops speak in the same way to Republicans as they do to Democrats.


GALLAGHER: But you have said that Obama is not a pro-abortion president, which is not the position of many U.S. bishops.

VIAN: I don’t know the opinion of all of the American bishops, but we have collaborators in the U.S., and I am in contact with the English section of the secretariat of state and also have personal contact with some American bishops.


GALLAGHER: Have you heard from any of the bishops on this topic?

VIAN: Recently and directly, no. I learned indirectly of the reactions of cardinals and bishops in the United States and their opinions are very varied. Besides, in politics, there are no dogmas; there are no dogmas of faith. A Catholic can vote Republican or Democrat. In fact, there were Catholics who voted Democratic.

GALLAGHER: But if a Catholic in good conscience should not vote for a candidate who supports abortion, often they can only choose the Republican.

VIAN: In fact, the paper has never taken political positions, not in Italy, Spain, nor in the U.S., also because the Holy See has diplomatic relations with countries and therefore institutional relationships with different states outside of particular administrations — so it would be absurd if the Holy See were to support Republicans rather than Democrats.


GALLAGHER: Some U.S. Catholics feel that the Vatican, predominantly European, does not understand their particular situation; that there is a more liberal, leftist, socialist European culture here that influences the way you see the U.S.

VIAN: I respect this point of view. Naturally, any American who is versed in politics will be more prepared than I am on the topic. I am European, Italian, and have a cultural formation obviously different from an American, but this does not equal a liberal point of view, in the American meaning of liberal. Or a socialist point of view. I don’t recognize myself in this description.

There is a problem between Europe and America, this is true. Pope Benedict says that the U.S. has much to teach Europe because it gives public space to religion that is not invasive but democratic, respectful of all opinions. On his pastoral visit to the U.S., the pope cited a beautiful distinction of the United States: He said that the United States is a secular country for love of religion. I second that sentiment entirely. I, too, believe Europeans must learn from the U.S. how to be more open to a serious consideration of religion and its public consequences.

At the same time, Americans should not assume that everything that comes from Europe is leftist and should be ignored.

I have always had great respect and admiration for America, perhaps also because my father studied, in the early Thirties, library science in Ann Arbor, Michigan, sent by the Vatican Library; and he always had great memories of his time there. I have always enjoyed American Catholics because they offer a new point of view, younger and very useful sometimes for the whole Church.


GALLAGHER: How much do you think your thinking about President Obama represents the thinking at the Vatican?

VIAN: I don’t think Obama has yet defined a precise line on certain questions. Of course his decisions on international help for reproductive health are dangerous because they could signify supporting the campaign in favor of abortion, which is unacceptable. Were this to be confirmed, it would be unacceptable. But I don’t think one can ask for a condemnation or a benediction a priori. We need to see day by day what happens. At L’Osservatore Romano we are doing that — waiting and seeing — and we hope that the wishes of the bishops find confirmation and we hope that Obama does not follow pro-choice politics; not because we want him to follow Catholic politics, but because we hope and want Obama to guide politics at the service of the weakest, and the weakest are the unborn, the embryos.


GALLAGHER: And the fact that he has not done so as senator . . .

VIAN: I thought that — and Dr. Fiorentino too — McCain would win. I was impressed by McCain’s fair-play attitude in conceding the election, when he said: Obama is also my president. I met former president Bush when I came with the pope to the White House and I thought he was very likeable. I think Bush was very courageous in his politics from many points of view, of course with errors that he has admitted. but I believe history will reevaluate him. But Obama is now president of the United States. He is president of the United States! Let’s hope his politics are good and if not, we will criticize him.

It is not the job of the director of L’Osservatore Romano to conduct the foreign affairs of the Holy See. I just do the newspaper and try to do it as best I can, in a balanced way. I try to correctly inform my readers on the present administration, as I did with the previous one. If the present administration makes morally inadmissible choices, we will report it as such by reporting the criticism of the administration that the U.S. bishops make.


GALLAGHER: Some say the newspaper isn’t taken very seriously at the Vatican . . .

VIAN: L’Osservatore Romano counts here and I hope that it will continue to count and become even more important.

I have said that there has been a misunderstanding because people don’t read L’Osservatore Romano, which I understand because it’s in Italian. Unfortunately we don’t have the money to translate every single article into English.

I think that if American Catholics could read L’Osservatore Romano every day, and did not trust wire reports — although some of the agency writers are very good . . . but getting information from bloggers is like going to the bar where everyone has his own opinion. But debate is good. I’m happy that L’Osservatore Romano is being talked about.

In Boston, Israeli diplomat speaks of Rome

Posted by Michael Paulson
Boston Globe
June 19, 2009 02:02 PM

The past year has been an eventful one for Jewish-Catholic relations – there were controversies over the revival of an allegedly anti-Semitic Good Friday prayer and the lifting of the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop, and then there was the visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Israel. In the middle of it all was Mordechay Lewy, a longtime Israeli diplomat who serves as Israel's ambassador to the Holy See.

Lewy, who previously represented Israel in Germany, Sweden and Thailand, visited Boston this week, primarily to speak at a conference at Boston College, and I spoke with him Friday morning at his hotel in Newton.

Here are edited excerpts of our conversation:

Q: Why do relations with the Vatican matter?
A: We can not afford, as a Jewish state, and we can not afford as a Jewish people, to continue on after 1,900 years of bad experience, traumatic experience with the Christian world. Now, if we take the Christian world as a whole, it's quite an amorphic body. But at least if we have a well known structure, as the Catholic Church, with a top echelon of it in Vatican, I think that would be a missed opportunity not to get along with them as much as we can, knowing that we will not ever be able to come to terms on all aspects the questions which lie between us.

Q: You've been at the Vatican for a year. What have you learned?
A: From the books you can see that it is an absolute monarchy, but it is not. Far, far from that. Structural absolute monarchy doesn't mean that the monarch is trying to exercise, on every day basis, his authority. You are reducing your authority if you are using it too often. In military terms, if you have a power of deterrence, keep the power, don't use it, because after using it, everybody will know what you are worth. You can also (apply that) with authority. If you are really applying it all the time, you are likely to get a lot of frictions, and by that you are losing at least a degree of the authority you had at the beginning. And I think the pope is very well aware of that.

Q: What do you actually do on a day to day basis?
A: (laughs) Try to convince Jews that the menorah is not any more in the cellar of the Vatican Museum. I'm not joking. I've had very many requests of that kind. To intervene, to find it, and to bring it back in a diplomatic pouch. There is a legend that says the menorah from the Second Temple, after the destruction, was the war booty of Titus, brought to Rome, was shown where war victories were shown, in a temple of peace. It's shown in the Arch of Titus.

Q: What else?
A: There are a lot of issues between the Vatican and Israel where the Vatican is coming to us. Often I am a go between, as many ambassadors are. Most of the requests are in the realm of the broad concept of religious freedom, which Israelis subscribe to, but theory is one thing, and another thing is how to implement it.

Visa issues are a very serious problem, and I can not say we are solving the problem, but we are alleviating it. It is one thing to come to Israel as a tourist, it's not a problem at all, but another thing is if a clergyman would like to stay more than three months. And if a Syrian Catholic would like to come, or is invited by his church, to assume a priestly post in Jerusalem, he has Syrian documents, he will be not admitted, as long as Syria is defined as enemy country, he will not be able, in spite of the fact that there is religious freedom. So this is a problem which we have to see how we can alleviate it.

Q: Does Israel have an interest in preserving a Christian population?
A: It's not a question. We are obliged to. To be a holy land is not only a blessing, it's a burden. And if you are saying 'holy to three monotheistic religions,' it's an obligation to make it happen, or to preserve it as it is, but not to work against it.

Q: What is your assessment of the pope's visit?
A. The visit was a success. No doubt.

Q: There was some criticism of the way he characterized the Holocaust.
A: People who were expressing those disappointments, which to my mind were unjustified, were on second or third thought retracting them. It didn't cast a real shadow on the visit. It was filling the columns in the press for one or two days. The speeches of the pope were of enormous importance to everybody, not only to us, but to everybody. What he contributed at Yad Vashem was a completely different approach which was an enrichment to the culture of memory, and it was almost a wake-up from an unexpected corner for people to think a little bit differently, and not to expect a ritual. This pope is not one who is getting into existing patterns of rituals – it's not a challenge for him intellectually – so he would like really to set his mind and contribute his own thoughts, which are rather deep thoughts about what Yad Vashem means.

This pope…didn’t come as a German pope, and this was a second misreading of him – I never saw him as a German pope, although we communicate in German with each other – he wasn't elected as a German pope, and he doesn't see himself as a German pope, no matter what the Germans say. So it's more through the head, the theological mind…He's not a newcomer to sort out what kind of approach Catholics should have toward Judaism as a result of the Second Vatican Council. He has contributed a lot, and we have a friend in him. This is often misunderstood, because he's a conservative. He is an example that you can be a conservative in terms of theological approaches, (and) also in terms of what he calls the hermeneutic of continuity after the Second Vatican Council, and then, all of a sudden, still be very friendly to Jews. This is a little bit surprising for many liberals within the Catholic Church who feel very much frustrated and think that the main prerequisite of this liberal spirit is their approach to Judaism. We need to work a lot to make them understand that continuity doesn’t mean necessarily to have anti-Jewish approach.

Q: What about the controversy over the Catholic Church's relationship with the Society of Saint Pius X?
A: This is a very, very severe problem. Matters of excommunication are not our problem – we should not interfere. But if these internal matters are affecting the public sphere, to the extent that they affect our own attitudes and emotions…Williamson's reconciliation, without the Holocaust denial, would not have made this affair sexy to everyone. The Holocaust denying was the point which brought the whole Jewish interference, which was not into the internal matters of the church but to the Holocaust denying…This was a rare case where he (the pope) admits mishaps in the church.

Q: Is this issue over?
A: No. It's not over when it comes to the effort of bringing them (the Lefebvrites) back to the church. I don’t think that many of them would like to go back. They are likely to become a daily provocation, or an embarrassment at least. They are going to consecrate new priests. They are conducting negotiations, but they seem not to want any results.

But this affair was for us, at least in one sense, productive. It was clearly said by the church that no Holocaust denier can assume any function as bishop…Now the parameters are clear. We got the clarification which we needed, because they are going to embarrass the church indefinitely, to my mind, because they don’t want to go back, some of them. This is my read.

Q: Does Israel have a role to play in the canonization of Pius XII?
A: Canonization is not our concern. We don’t believe in beatification. What concerns us is the historical role of Pius XII. This is a real issue which has been, to my mind, deliberately, but still mistakenly, combined with the matter.

Q: Do you have a position on Pius XII's historic role?
A: Historically speaking, I think he was neither a hero nor a villain. It is probably the right thing to think of a more balanced view of him. The problem is that we are looking at him through the filter of a post-conciliar church. He is definitely a protagonist of the pre-conciliar church, and the pre-conciliar church has, as its main assignment, to seek all possible means to salvation for its own flock. He is not a pope for the Jews; he is not a pope for the Mohammedans; he is not a pope for everyone who was not Catholic. 'My main task is to save the souls of the Catholic Church.' This is why he did a concordat with the Germans. He didn't make a concordat because he was Hitler's pope. This is a mistaken concept. He did it in order to survive, to make it happen that the church can survive a godless regime. This was the term that they used. He tried also to make a concordat with the Soviet Union, but the Russian Orthodox Church didn't like this idea. It is wrong to look for any affinity between him and the Nazis.

It is also wrong to say that he didn’t save Jews. Everybody who knows the history of those who were saved among Roman Jewry knows that they hid in the church, they hid in Roman monasteries, in the Vatican itself people were hidden. To look for written evidence, an order of the pope, well…this is odd. This is not how it works.

Q: So I hear you explaining why he was not a villain. Why was he not a hero?
A: He was very, very timid. He was a diplomat. This is why the curia is very much advocating for him as a saint. He was brought up politically by Benedict XV, who was the protagonist of neutrality during the First World War, wanting to keep up relations with everyone in order to get involved in mediation, humanitarian aid, good things. This is the concept with which Pius XII, as a pupil of Benedict XV, approached the Second World War. He misread, completely, the situation. He can not be blamed for it. He was who he was, with shortcomings. To be neutral meant for him to be quiet, to rely on quiet diplomacy. The main argument is why he was silent, not why he didn't help. And by the way, after the war, he was silent as well. If we take the whole tenure, before the war and after the war, he was silent all the time. He never spoke up. He was saying…the church was victim of those regimes. With that mindset, there's not much space to have a place to have another victim, if you feel yourself a victim. And, by the way, that's our problem in the Middle East.

Eucharistic Congress stirs priestly vocations

Cardinal Marc Ouellet tells of the many new venues of evangelization

The 2008 International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City lit the flame of Evangelization.

DEBORAH GYAPONG
CANADIAN CATHOLIC NEWS
Week of June 22, 2009

QUEBEC - A year after the 2008 International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City, Cardinal Marc Ouellet sees much fruit growing in his diocese.

He notes a rise in priestly vocations, a stronger passion for the new evangelization and a new unity among parishes, religious communities and new Catholic movements.

"It is very uplifting to see a new enthusiasm," he said in an interview from Quebec City June 16. "We've been re-evangelized by the Eucharistic Congress.

"The joy of the faith has grown in our hearts and we are more determined and full of confidence to bring the Good News further."

To mark the anniversary, the diocese held several days of events, starting with a special Mass on Corpus Christi June 11, followed by a two-hour Eucharistic "march" through the Old City.

It included a stop for prayers outside the Quebec Parliament that served as "a message we are still on the front lines of proclaiming the Gospel to the world," he said.

GOD CALLED
Since the Congress, nine young men have entered Quebec's Grand Seminary, another nine have entered the Redemptoris Mater Missionary Seminary he founded in 2007.

As well, 21 students, "younger vocations preparing for the long term," have entered the minor seminary he established after the congress.

"This is very encouraging," he said. "So that's a sign of a blessing from God and building a future that will be corresponding with God's plan."

Ouellet recently ordained two new auxiliary bishops and a restructuring of his diocese to promote the new evangelization.

The congress, which brought thousands of pilgrims to the city, presented huge fundraising challenge, he said, but it left a surplus of more than $500,000.

Some of that surplus has gone to continue the diocese's web-based television portal ECDQ-TV that continues to televise news conferences, events and homilies over the Internet.

ECDQ was established to allow people from around the world to participate in the congress' catechesis and celebrations. It provided coverage of the recent Eucharistic Festival, including the march.

The fourth Montée Jeunesse or Youth Summit was held in Quebec City this year, but next year it moves to Ottawa. Established in the years of preparation for the congress, the summits are "becoming a national eucharistic youth movement," he said.

CLEAR VISION
Also part of the restructuring, people in his diocese have a "clear vision" of more "co-operation" among Catholic communities. "The mission of the Church is realized by communities," he said, naming parishes, religious communities, movements and associations such as St. Vincent de Paul that fights poverty.

"That cooperation is a fruit of the Eucharistic Congress, because that's exactly what we lived," he said. The fruit of the Eucharist is unity and love.

Ouellet sees an intimate connection between the Eucharistic Congress and Pope Benedict's Year of the Priest that begins this week.

Ouellet ushered in the Year of the Priest June 16 to mark the 350th anniversary of the day Bishop Francois Laval arrived in Quebec City.

Ouellet played a key role as relator general of last October's Synod of the Word of God in Rome.

He looks forward to the pope's upcoming message on the synod, which he said will also provide an opportunity to "deepen" the message of the Eucharistic Congress "to understand more deeply the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist."

FAITH'S CORE
"When Christ says 'This is my Body, and 'This is my Blood' he is not just comparing his identity with an object," the cardinal said. "He is saying and achieving something very real and that's the core of our faith."

Ouellet said he still meets confused Catholics who have lost the sense of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

"I'm convinced the Synod of the Word is a complement to the Synod on the Holy Eucharist," he said. "Each strengthens our faith in the efficiency of the Word of God."

"When we proclaim the Word of God in the assembly, Christ is speaking to us," he said.

The beauty of the sacramental life of the Catholic Church is that the unique event of Christ's self-offering on the cross for the redemption of the world is made present in every celebration of the Holy Eucharist, he said.

This is a mystery full of meaning that cannot be comprehended fully, he said. "We are completely enlightened and blown away by the richness of this gift."

ST. THÉRÈSE'S ASTRONAUT VISITS VATICAN

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 24, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The U.S. astronaut who carried relics of St. Thérèse of Lisieux into space and put them in orbit around the earth attended Benedict XVI's general audience today.

On a Discovery shuttle mission one year ago, Colonel Ronald Garan brought the relics given to him by a Carmelite community in New Caney, Texas.

The astronaut had called the women religious before his space flight to ask for prayers, and at that time he told them he could take some small item into space on behalf of the community.

The sisters reported that the words of St. Thérèse came to mind: "I have the vocation of an apostle. I would like to travel over the whole earth to preach your name and to plant your glorious cross on infidel soil. But oh, my beloved, one mission would not be enough for me, I would want to preach the Gospel on all five continents simultaneously and even to the most remote isles. I would be a missionary, not for a few years but from the beginning of creation until the consummation of the ages."

Garan stated that he will be bringing a second relic of the saint to space on his next mission, which is scheduled for March 2011.

The colonel is also the founder of the Manna Energy Foundation that, by using NASA technology and U.N. funding, is implementing a unique system to make potable water in the villages of Rwanda.

Iran struggling with 'Shi'ite messianism,' cardinal says

By John L Allen Jr
National Catholic Reporter
Created Jun 24, 2009

Interview with Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice

One noteworthy recent initiative in Catholic/Muslim relations is the Oasis project, launched by Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice in 2004. Though Oasis does not shy away from theological conversation, its accent is on understanding Islamic cultures, sometimes expressed as the ‘Islam of the people’ – what in journalistic parlance might be called ‘the Muslim street.’ In particular, Oasis is interested in the interplay between traditional cultures and the new forces of pluralism and mixture of peoples driven by globalization. (Scola likes to use the Italian term ‘meticciato’, which roughly corresponds to ‘mestizo’, to convey this idea.)

On Monday and Tuesday of this week, June 22-23, the scientific committee that directs Oasis met in Venice to take up the subject of ‘intepreting traditions in a time of blending.’ In conjunction with that event, I interviewed Scola, 67, on the current state of Christian/Muslim relations.

In light of current events, Scola’s comments on Iran seem especially interesting. In a nutshell, he suggested that a form of ‘Shi’ite messianism,’ corrupted into a political ideology, may be part of the problem in terms of Iran’s checkered relationship with the West – but that it’s ‘reversible.’ He also suggested that the 1979 Iranian revolution and all that’s followed offers a useful reminder to the secularized West that history is sometimes still forged by ‘theological options.’

The full text of the interview follows.

1. Why the choice of ‘tradition’ as the theme for the annual meeting of Oasis?

Each of us, in making daily decisions in work, in our relationships, even when we rest, starts with an interpretive hypothesis about reality that we’ve received from preceding generations – in other words, a tradition. Oasis, as you know, wants to investigate the “process of mixing of civilizations,” and while the actors in this mixture are single individuals, they’re all heirs of a tradition. The problem, naturally, is how these traditions relate to one another. Are we prisoners of our tradition, as multiculturalism has it? Do we have to put our traditions in parentheses in order to adhere to certain abstract universal principles? Or, with a truly revolutionary attitude, do we even have to abolish them? In reality, tradition presents itself to us as a patrimony that has to be interpreted, because it’s a fact of experience in constant evolution, which is all the more evident in a pluralistic society such as ours.

2. The pope talks about ‘inter-cultural’ rather than ‘inter-religious’ dialogue. What do you think this distinction means? Does he too possibly have in mind the weight of tradition?

I believe that the Holy Father wants to emphasize that the Christian faith, which is the child of an incarnate God, and because it’s offered to humanity as an answer to the questions of daily life, immediately becomes a culture. There’s no pure ‘faith,’ which then enters into relationship ‘with the different cultures.’ Moreover, every faith and every religion is always subject to cultural interpretations. The relationship between faith and culture is inevitable, and circular. Just think about all the different points of view we in the West have with regard to ‘the Islams.’ Therefore, there simply is no inter-religious dialogue that isn’t at the same time inter-cultural.

The pope’s approach in no way intends to limit the dialogue, but rather to define it rigorously. What’s in play aren’t ‘pure faiths,’ but faiths as they’re culturally interpreted. That has nothing to do with relativism: The Truth is incarnate. That applies to Christianity in itself, to all the religions, and thus to inter-religious dialogue.

3. In Jordan, the Holy Father proposed an ‘alliance of civilizations’ between Christians and Muslims. What do you think the aim of such an alliance would be?

The pope himself gave the answer at the end of his speech at the airport in Amman: ‘To grow in love for the Almighty and Merciful God, and in fraternal love for one another.’ Together Christians and Muslims can offer witness to an ‘expanded reason,’ capable of opening itself to the dimension of the Absolute.

4. In your view, what were the principal fruits of the pope’s trip to the Holy Land?

Pope Benedict’s trip to the Holy Land was a lesson in realism. At the beginning, it looked like an “impossible trip” because it seemed destined to make everybody unhappy. Intead, Benedict XVI inserted himself into the vast ranks of Christian pilgrims to the holy places. He walked in the footsteps of the Incarnate God, who died and rose again for the salvation of human beings. He traced the paths that throb with the suffering of the Christians who live there. In the name of the entire Catholic church, he embraced the Christian community on that edge of the Middle East, the ‘lit candle that illuminates the holy places.’But this embrace – precisely because it was performed in the name of Him who is the way of truth and life – also included, though in diverse ways, our Jewish brothers and the Muslims who live in the land given to our father Abraham. It’s the universal and incarnate proposal of Christ that leads the Christian faith to encounter with every religion, with every vision of reality.

5. What’s your view of President Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo?

I’m curious to hear from participants in the Oasis meeting what effect the words of the American president had on the populations of the Middle East, especially the Christian minorities. His speech seemed to me very political. It was extremely lucid in indicating the challenges that the United States must confront, decisive in suggesting certain changes in direction, and even audacious in favoring a greater role for regional actors. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the arguments offered in support of a ‘new beginning’ between Muslims and the United States are fragile, and some historical readings were distorted to suit the necessities of the moment. Obama was forced to pass over some of the points of greatest friction. It was an understandable choice from a tactical point of view, but it can’t hold up for very long.

6. What are you hearing from your contacts in Iran these days? Looking down the line, it seems that Shi’a Muslims and Catholics share certain traits: A strong clerical hierarchy, a theology of sacrifice, and deep currents of popular devotion. Does this suggest that Catholicism can play an important role in a dialogue with Iran, where Shi’a Islam is dominant?

Three accents strike me in the Shi’a tradition: the necessity of a continual actualization of revelation in certain physical persons, to the point of overcoming a too-rigid conception of divine transcendence; the lively expectation of eschatological fulfillment; and the reflection on the problem of evil. I have the impression that we’re not well informed on these points, despite the enormous work of study and analysis that’s been done by specialists in recent years. We know Shi’ites better than we know Shiism!

The Oasis network really hasn’t arrived yet in Iran, so what I know about what’s happening is what I see and read in the mass media. I don’t doubt, however, that many people in Iran want better relations with the West. We must not forget that Persian culture has shown itself to be extraordinarily fertile and receptive.

The principal probelm, if I can put it slightly audaciously, is that Shi’ite messianism, almost unable to bear the weight of the exepectations with which is is structually bound up, has been converted over the centuries, at least in some circles, into a political ideology. We’re talking about a long process that’s not linear, which experience a brusque acceleration with the 1979 revolution. As Westerners, we were caught off guard. We had forgotten that history is also sometimes forged by ‘theological options.’

In any event, all this is reversible.

7. One sometimes has the impression that any step toward Muslims by the Catholic church is experienced by Jews as a step away from them, and vice-versa. How do we balance these two relationships?

When he arrived in Paradise, Dante asked the blessed if they weren’t annoyed by one another, defensive of their goods and jealous of those touched by the others. The response was no, because with love, the more it’s shared the more it grows. That point holds true for Christians, well beyond their own limitations, also in the arc of history.

‘Readiness for dialogue’ is a good, and a good is always to be shared. If you’ll forgive the crude comparison, it’s not like a cake which, if I eat it, you can’t – or if the Jews get it, the Muslims can’t have it. When dialogue isn’t a tactic, but, as Bonhöffer said, it opens the dialogue partners to “the depths of reality,” then a step forward with Muslims not only doesn’t mean a step back in relations with other religions, but on the contrary, it acts as a stimulus.

With regard to Judaism, it’s written into the DNA of our own faith. I’ve never forgotten the words that Cardinal Henri de Lubac said to me in long-ago 1985: ‘If Christianity must be inculturated, then it must inculturate into the history, which is still unfolding, of the Jewish people who are our roots.’

PLEASE SAY A PRAYER FOR MICHAEL JACKSON

It was quite shocking to emerge from my work-enforced coccoon this afternoon to learn that he died suddenly of what appears to have been a heart attack. He was the last pop music star I ever listened to - I had thought I would never be interested in pop music again after the Beatles, but then came the 1980s and Michael's stunning albums starting wtih 'Off the Wall' and culminating with the unbelievably compelling THRILLER that was historic in so many ways - for music video, for the music industry, for the artist himself....And for the first time in my life, as I was approaching 40, his music led me to dance, not socially, but as a form of 'active meditation' (in which you throw yourself completely into the music and the dance, and the extreme physical movement takes you 'out of yourself' - the basis for some mystic schools such as the 'whirling dervishes'), and believe me, the music from THRILLER was perfect for that...

THRILLER the album and the music and the video was just spectacular, and I was very happy for the little boy who had first caught my ear when he sang this beautiful song about a mouse named Ben... I never wanted to believe all the bad things said about him - and that began happening to him - in later years, and I was extremely saddened by it all, true or not, and prayed for him.... I deeply mourn both that little boy and the father of three that he became...

Barack Obama may think he is America's first 'post-racial' celebrity, but Muhammad Ali (another one of my alltime heroes) and Michael Jackson were there on the worldwide stage long before him as 'beyond race' celebrities - individuals the world took to its heart for the exceptional personalities that they are, warts and all, and for the inexplicable but very real and intense emotional connection they managed to make with people of all ages and cultures across the world, without thinking 'he's black'....

I hope he died in peace, and may he rest in God's peace....

Spengler wasn't so kind.


The Anti-Priest of an Anti-Congregation Encounters Anti-Life

David P. Goldman (Spengler)
First Things
Friday, June 26, 2009, 1:28 PM

Full disclosure: I never watched a Michael Jackson video all the way through until today, after reading in The New York Times that “in the Philippines, a dance tribute was planned for a prison in Cebu, where Byron Garcia, a security consultant, had 1,500 inmates join in a synchronized dance to the ‘Thriller” video.” Jackson always seemed to me unspeakably silly when he wasn’t genuinely creepy, but the mass outpouring of grief at his death made me curious enough to view the cited item on YouTube.

All music in some way is sacramental and all public performance has some religious character, but Jackson cultivated his image as a lay practitioner of pop spirituality more than any performer in his market segment, through the soppy universalism of “We are the World” as well as through his identification with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and, according to recent rumor, with Islam. The feel-good guru Deepak Chopra claims that Jackson was writing a song about the environment and wanted Chopra’s help with lyrics.

Just what sort of priest was Jackson, and what was his congregation? In the Judeo-Christian world, music enhances individuality within the congregation. That is clearest in the singing of four-part hymns, something that Protestant congregations learned as a matter of routine (the standard teachers’ manual used in Saxony in Bach’s childhood had sections on reading, arithmetic, and four-part singing). The harmonious combination of different voices recreates the unity-in-individuality of a Judeo-Christian congregation.

There is very little harmony in Jackson’s songs; they depend on a few simple, phrases and a great deal of rhythmic repetition. Rather than find himself in the congregation, the individual loses himself in the crowd. The audience of a rock concert is an anti-congregation, in that the intent of the exercise is to destroy individuality, and its lead singer is an anti-priest. If the music that accompanied the Christian liturgy from the dawn of Western counterpoint emulates creation—out of the fundamental tone comes a multiplicity of tones that act harmoniously in time—the repetitive, static and sterile drone of Jackson’s music is a species of anti-creation.

If creation is life, anti-creation is anti-life. It does not surprise me that the personal lives of our anti-priests consist of flight from life, into drugs (which seem to have killed Jackson), or psychosis (e.g., pedophilia and dysmorphia). The anti-priest of an anti-congregation has encountered anti-life.

Certainly an original point of view by the very literate David Goldman, who obviously does not appreciate Michael Jackson's music at all nor any part of him!

But what he says about the music destroying the 'individuality' of the crowd is another way of expressing what I (and probably countless others) feel about this music and the 'technological' way it is expressed: it tends to drive the listener out of himself, and in those who are so inclined - as Sufi mystics are - it can lead to the meditative space for contemplating God. Of course, I doubt this applies to those who attended Jackson's concerts,

I really wasn't planning on making any more posts on Jackson - my post last night was an immediate personal reaction I needed to discharge. But AsiaNews has this story that says more than I can...or perhaps tells me that the connection I felt with Jackson was somehow something Asian wired into my psyche!


Asia mourns for Michael Jackson


Hong Kong, June 26 (AsiaNews) - There is no place in Asia - as in the rest of the world – where people are not remembering and praying today for Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop" who died last night in Los Angeles from cardiac arrest at 50 years of age.

It is still not clear the cause of death but some suspect that it was due to stress and diet drugs that the singer was taking prior to a new world tour in July, with which he wished to draw the curtain on his career.

For everyone he was a musical genius who transformed the music of the 80s and 90s into a breathtaking spectacle. His gestures, his style of dance, his way of dressing still influence generations of young people.

But his genius was overshadowed by a bizarre way of life and sex scandals: Jackson described himself as a "Peter Pan" (the myth of eternal adolescence, adulthood without responsibility); he preferred to stay in the company of boys, had a chimpanzee as a friend and had a very high, almost feminine, tone of voice. He had undergone plastic surgery several times to transform his face and (perhaps) lighten his skin.

His fame, his successes also overwhelmed in his life, his two marriages and three children. As a result of being convicted for paedophilia and failing to honour certain contracts, Jackson - who in the end retired, living in silence - had large debts.

From a family of Jehovah's Witnesses, Michael, seventh of 9 children, seems to have become a Muslim last year, changing his name to Mikail.

In China the death of Michael Jackson is the front page of all media. The most popular web site, the Sina.com defines him as "the most outstanding singer of all time."

In Singapore many sites and blogs have opened up sections for comments and condolences on his death. Many remember his concert in the city-state in 1993.

In addition to celebrating his musical greatness, some highlight his somewhat deviated personality, but say that "his songs make me to sing," "touch my heart and make me cry."

Malaysia hopes he will be remembered like the Princess Diana of England. In Kuala Lumpur, where in 1996 a concert was almost banned because considered too "vulgar" for the conservative Muslim state, his many fans are remembering him and celebrating his influence.

"We hope he will be remembered forever, like Princess Diana" says Noh Yusof, a 29 year old lawyer. But others point out the "gray areas" that have marked the life of the popular singer.

Ivan Ho, 48 years and expert in technology says that "success went to his head”. "He was a crazy type – he states - with all money, he could given much more to charity rather than spend it on surgery”.

The fans in Japan were among the most avid supporters of Michael Jackson and the news of his death was a real shock. Michiko Suzuki, music critic who met the singer several times in the'80s, says that most likely the country will be in mourning for a long time. "At the time every one was copying the 'moonwalk' [a step backwards which made him famous worldwide, ed]. He was a true superstar. "

A video shot a prison in the Philippines province of Cebu, has been seen worldwide. In the pictures you see more than 1500 prisoners in the rehabilitation centre that imitate the steps and movements of the Jackson song "Thriller." The video on YouTube has received 23 million hits since it was published. Fans are inundating the videoclip with comments and messages mourning the death of American pop-star.

In South Korea Michael Jackson had a huge crowd of admirers. In Seoul his dances and his movements have been widely emulated by local pop stars. "He was already a star when I was a child - comments Kim Nam-kyu, 36 years - with his death it is as if I have lost part of my memories of childhood."

At a concert held in Seoul in October 1996, Jackson met with Cardinal Stephen Kim Sou-hwan during a visit to the cathedral of Myeongdong. Two years later the singer would have liked to perform in the demilitarized zone on the border between the two Koreas, in sign of peace and reconciliation between the two countries. The project was shelved in the midst of polemics raised by those who did not want a show at a time of severe political and economic crisis.

In India all major newspapers give ample space on their websites to the death of Michael Jackson, recalling his career, the controversy of his private life and they invite the public to leave messages of condolence.

The news of his death was like a cold shower, especially for his fans, scattered across major cities. The King of Pop had visited India in'96 giving a concert in Andheri Sports Complex in Mumbai.

Acclaimed and besieged by thousands of young people and curious onlookers, Michael Jackson had won over many fans with his performance, but it also raised several controversies. The more conservative circles of society criticized the cost of the show, which was considered excessive, and its content, deemed too Western.


Whatever it is, or however he will be judged eventually, I do thank Michael most sincerely for the hours of fun, delight and pleasure that his music gave me, as it obviously did to millions across the globe.

To this day, when I hear the opening bars of 'Thriller' or 'Billie Jean', I am invaded by sheer delight as I am when I hear the opening bars of 'I Saw her Standing There' or 'Yesterday' or any song from the 'Sergeant Pepper' album - exactly the same delight I feel when I hear the music of the great composers of classical music.

And at least, no one has accused him of leading his fans to crime or vice or any negative things.