The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionFinding the 'new' in Vatican news
by John L Allen Jr on Jan. 20, 2012
It's my birthday today, so I guess that means I can cry if I want to. Although I'm not exactly weeping, I do find myself grousing a bit about the way recent Vatican stories have played in most news coverage.
It's Journalism 101 that to count as "news," something is supposed to be previously unknown, out of the ordinary, or not widely familiar -- i.e., "new." This is where the contrast between "dog bites man" versus "man bites dog" enters the picture.
Yet on two recent storylines out of Rome, we've seen some remarkably "dog bites man" coverage while either playing down or missing what was new.
The pope's speech
One such case is Pope Benedict XVI's Jan. 9 address to diplomats, generally the pope's top foreign policy speech of the year. Coverage in the English-language media focused on the pontiff's statement that "policies which undermine the family," interpreted as a reference to gay marriage, "threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself."
In the same paragraph, the pope referred to marriage being between a man and a woman, so the gay marriage angle was fair game -- despite the fact that Benedict XVI never used the phrase, and despite the fact that it was hardly the main point of the speech, which ranged over the economic crisis, the environment, religious freedom and education, in addition to surveying a variety of global hotspots.
Yet assuming that focus is defensible, it's still debatable in terms of news value. After all, where would you put "pope objects to gay marriage" on the shock-o-meter?
By way of contrast, there was actually something new about the speech, a point with important consequences for the intersection of faith and politics.
In his discussion of the defense of human life, Benedict XVI cited two developments that he found encouraging in the last year:
- An October decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union banning the commercial patenting of embryonic stem cells.
- A resolution adopted in the same month by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemning prenatal selection on the basis of sex.
The novelty is that in both cases, political support for these moves came from the left, not the right. The legal complaint that led to the ban on patenting embryos was brought by Greenpeace, while the parliamentary resolution on prenatal selection was introduced by a Swiss socialist and feminist named Doris Stump. Needless to say, these are not exactly the fellow travelers one ordinarily associates with the political agenda of Benedict XVI.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
In effect, the pope's speech was a lesson in what Jeremy Rifkin has called "the new biopolitics," in which erstwhile enemies are suddenly on the same side.
In a growing number of biotech debates, including embryo patenting, genetic engineering and animal/human hybrids, the Catholic church and the pro-life movement find themselves allied with elements of the secular left, including environmentalists, feminists and anti-corporate activists. Their points of departure are obviously different, but they arrive at the same place. On the other side is a constellation of pro-business conservatives, the medical and scientific establishment, and libertarians opposed to any form of government regulation.
To some extent, those shifting sands remain hard to see because older bio-debates such as abortion and gay marriage still loom large. As the 21st century rolls on, however, the battle lines of the culture wars may be increasingly redefined, and the pope's speech offered proof of the point.
Now, there's something worth reporting.
The new cardinals
The other big storyline was Pope Benedict XVI's Jan. 6 announcement of 22 new cardinals, including 18 under the age of 80 and hence eligible to elect the next pope. Given that the bulk are Vatican officials (10), Italians (seven) and Europeans (13), news reports styled it as a crop reinforcing the conservative, and curial, stranglehold on the College of Cardinals.
"More Roman, Less Catholic," was one pithy header for the story.
Again, even if true, where's the news? Yet in this case, it's less true than it may seem.
First of all, this isn't likely to be a celebrated consistory on the Catholic right. This isn't the crop of November 2010, which featured conservative lions such as Cardinals Raymond Burke of the United States and Malcolm Ranjith of Sri Lanka. Instead, this group is composed mostly of ecclesial equivalents of Mitt Romney, meaning center-right pragmatists who inspire little ideological fervor.
Consider Archbishop Dominik Duka of Prague, a Dominican and a biblical scholar. Duka reportedly has called the older Latin Mass "a Baroque artifact for Baroque times" and has signaled openness to in-vitro fertilization if the destruction of embryos could be avoided. Archbishop Giuseppe Betori of Florence has tried to heal the historical divide between the progressive and conservative camps among Italian laity, and for his trouble, a traditionalist commentator has labeled Betori a "paleo-liberal," charging that he's part of a subterranean bloc of cardinals opposed to Benedict XVI. There's also Brazilian Archbishop João Bráz de Aviz at the Congregation for Religious, a friend of the Focolare who's had a good relationship through the years with the liberation theology movement in Latin America.
These guys may not be anybody's idea of a flaming liberal, but they're also not hardcore conservatives.
Second, the assumption that naming a lot of Italians and Vatican officials automatically makes the College of Cardinals more "Roman," in the sense of more insular and less in touch with the wider world, is open to question.
Take, for instance, Italian Archbishops Fernando Filoni, prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, and Giuseppe Bertello, president of the government of the Vatican city-state. Both are veteran diplomats who have served all over the world. Filoni was assigned at various points to Sri Lanka, Iran, Brazil, Jordan, Iraq and the Philippines, in addition to spending 1992-2001 in Hong Kong heading up a study mission on China. Bertello has served in Sudan, Turkey, Venezuela, Mexico, Ghana, Togo, Benin and Rwanda.
To be clear, these weren't pleasure cruises. Filoni was in Baghdad in April 2003 when the U.S.-led invasion began, while Bertello was in Rwanda in 1994 at the height of the genocide. As most Western diplomats fled, Filoni and Bertello both stayed on the job, insisting they couldn't abandon the local church or the missionaries. Both won high marks for their humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, even if both were ultimately powerless to stop the bloodshed unfolding around them.
In the abstract, is it really the case that Italians and Vatican officials such as Filoni and Bertello are bound to have a more narrow outlook than, say, a residential prelate from North America or Africa who's rarely traveled outside his comfort zone?
If you want an actual newsflash from this consistory, Filoni and Bertello hint at the headline: "Triumph of the Diplomats."
Five of the 18 new cardinal-electors named by Benedict XVI -- notably, the first five names on the list -- come out of the Vatican diplomatic corps. In addition to Filoni and Bertello, the former diplomats include:
- Portuguese Archbishop Manuel Monteiro de Castro, now running a Vatican court, who's previously served in the Antilles, El Salvador, Honduras and South Africa;
- Spanish Archbishop Santos Abril y Castelló, who replaced Cardinal Bernard Law as Archpriest of St. Mary Major after spending much of his career in Cameroon, Bolivia, Argentina and Slovenia; and
- Italian Archbishop Antonio Maria Vegliò, currently heading the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Refugees, who's spent time in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Lebanon and Kuwait.
All this is striking in light of the traditional Vatican rivalry between the two heavyweight departments that tend to dominate the place, the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In oversimplified terms, it's a contrast between diplomats and theologians -- between outward-looking figures focused on geopolitics and dialogue, and more inward-looking figures concerned with Catholic identity and doctrinal fidelity. (In theory, of course, these two instincts can be complementary, so the tension is usually a question of where one puts the emphasis.)
The 2005 election of Benedict XVI, whose previous job had been running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a quarter-century, was seen as a big win for the theologians. When the new pope tapped a former aide from the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as his Secretary of State, it seemed to put a slammer on that conclusion.
In that light, the consistory of 2012 shapes up as a good day for the diplomats -- and, perhaps, for the cosmopolitan, dialogue-oriented and practical mentality long associated with the world's oldest diplomatic corps. How that plays out in practice remains to be seen, but it's at least a fresh question to ponder.
Caveat emptor
In fairness, most of what I've outlined here amounts to insider baseball, either in terms of European politics or Vatican culture. It may be unrealistic to expect nonspecialized media outlets to work this kind of stuff into their day-one stories, especially given the deadline pressures of a 24/7 news cycle.
Moreover, it's not as if journalists had much help.
Imagine, for instance, if the Vatican had organized a news conference after the pope's speech to diplomats, where representatives of Greenpeace and the socialists had said something like, "We've got a truckload of differences with the Catholic church, but on the urgency of protecting life against scientific and commercial exploitation, we're on the same page."
Or imagine if the Vatican had staged a briefing with Filoni and Bertello after their nomination as cardinals was announced, in which they could have spoken about how their experiences in Iraq and Rwanda shaped their sense of the challenges facing both the church and the wider world.
Such efforts would have given public understanding a major boost in the right direction. Needless to say, they didn't happen.
What all this suggests, perhaps, is a basic lesson in caveat emptor. Given the dynamics of both the media business and of Vatican communications, it's unlikely that the novel aspect of most developments out of Rome, assuming there is one, will feature in the early rounds of most reporting and commentary.
In terms of finding the "new" in Vatican news, the bottom line thus is: Let the buyer beware.
[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR's senior correspondent. His email address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Caveat Emptor is part of the
Caveat Emptor is part of the story. But the ineptitude of the Vatican in communicating (or spinning) the significance of the news remains a major problem since, of course, most U.S. reporters on the 24/7 news cycle have no idea about the subtleties of Vatican policies and appointments, especially given the more narrow bombast from members of the U.S. hierarchy.
The Ratzingerian Church has
The Ratzingerian Church has become noteworthy for its obsession with theatricality and its propensity for incompetent buffoonery. With so many Catholics having left the Church or are about to leave, it just isn't news any more when 18 men in scarlet are added to the pope's peanut gallery of cheerleaders. This tragic-comedic farce in Rome is illustrative of the big bash aboard a luxury liner heading toward the iceberg and its inevitable doom.
Topping off the occasion would be Newt Gingrich suddenly being made a Knight of Holy Sepulchre parading through Florida in his cape, plumed hat, and sword.
Wow.
Wow.
John. The line is, "It's my
John. The line is, "It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to."
Thank you, once again, for a
Thank you, once again, for a clear and objective look at recent events. I have seen only one other editorial that pointed out the phrase "gay marriage" was never mentioned in Benedict's recent speech. That editorial quickly disappeared from view. I'm no Benedict fan, but I respect the man's intellect and thoughtfulness. It seems to me that the press repeatedly attacks him without real cause because they haven't bothered to read or listen. Thus, the sad state of so-called journalism in today's world. And it begs the question: why doesn't the Vatican get a seasoned, savvy press officer on board to help get the message out? Someone who says, "Here are the bullet points from this speech." Because there is steadfast refusal to do this, most people are missing the often remarkable statements and observations that come from Benedict. He has become the media's favorite target. Oh - and Happy Birthday, John!
Gay marriage wasn't
Gay marriage wasn't mentioned, then what pray tell was he actually talking about? Given the gay marriage issue was front and center across other Western jurisdictions?
This pope is a master with language. He doesn't spell things out because he knows people will do that on their own. As when he criticized Islam a few years ago, masking his critique behind a historical text.
We keep hearing how the Vatican needs better spin doctoring. Wake up. The Curia know exactly what they are doing.
Gay marriage wasn't
Gay marriage wasn't mentioned, policies that undermine families and human dignity wasn't spelt out either.
With the latest evidence, that celibacy isn't working and the countless absent fathers who are clergy needed rounding up too.
In particular when they have petitioned the relevant congregations through valid process.
Why should these vulnerable adults of tomrrow and today, have to present their credentials as father unknown.
What example is it setting for these men as potenial fathers.
Not all mothers would approve of the Papal Seal on legitimizing their sons or daughters, when intercourse was not the result of their birth.
It's blasphemous.
I've read that the profile of
I've read that the profile of the new cardinals were a copy and paste from the wikipedia, without mentioning the source, and that they were referred as "Catholics". If that is true, it means that the Vatican's press service is praticing good journalism? Happy birthday, by the way.
John, we should not miss the
John, we should not miss the first sentence of this article. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
As you get older you are
As you get older you are ENTITLED to get grumpy. Grump away!
AD MULTOS ANNOS, Mr. Allen.
AD MULTOS ANNOS, Mr. Allen. And speaking of "New Cardinals," have you any speculations on the possibility of one or two IN PECTORE - NO names please!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_pectore
http://tomgrace.net/content/trailer.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rQ_omK_8Q
A thrilling read:
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Cardinal-Tom-Grace/dp/1593154569
John, Happy Birthday! Your
John,
Happy Birthday!
Your articles are the BEST!
Thanks you for all you do to bring knowledge, understanding and wisdom to us through NCR.
Walt Sandell
Ditto! I come here just to
Ditto! I come here just to read John Allen.
Happy Birthday!
Thank God for John Allen.
Thank God for John Allen. Thanks to John Allen too; happy birthday. Note to NCR editors - John's reporting is why I, and I bet many others, subscribe. Please give him a raise. Where else is the reportage this deep and sensible? The only remaining mystery is why the heck the Vatican doesn't snatch him up and make him press secretary.
Happy Birthday! May you have
Happy Birthday! May you have many more years of excellent reporting (and personal joy).
I wonder if part of the knee-jerk press focus on pelvic issues (sex sells! Note to Vatican: Preface all documentds with "sex and the poor! or whatever..:=)....)jother than this obvious fact is that if they focused on the content of many speeches/documents we'd h ave to take seriously some Papal challenges to our current lifestyle and attitudes towards economics, the poor,etc......
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JOHN! My
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JOHN!
My father's birthday was also on January 20. And by the way, my father's name was also John.
Thank you for all you do for all of us who read and support NCR.
Reading through John Allen's
Reading through John Allen's latest, "Finding the 'new' in Vatican news", I felt grateful that we have such a news voice working in the heart of Rome and the Vatican. John understands the spread of perspectives within and without of the Vatican and brings a fullness of information written with clarity and respect for all sides. This hopefully helps each of us to feel affirmation for our own perspectives and, so important, helps us understand each other without the grousing and polemic.
Happy Birthday!
Happy Birthday!
The problem is: these
The problem is: these conflicts have made their ways down to the parishes. People who just want to worship in peace and (remember the days? ) joy.
It's just fight fight fight.. I personally am sick of it and will not participate.
The goal is to follow Christ. When will anyone remember that?
And it all starts with the failed institution in Rome which exists mainly for itself, not the members of the Church.
They don't even know how to dialogue with themselves or with others. Vatican II has been killed. Good luck boys..keep it up. it is getting nowhere.
Let me give you just some
Let me give you just some things Mahmoud Ayoub has come to know about Muammar al-Qathafi and has written (in 1987) on just a few pages from pp. 69-72 of his book on the religious thought of Muammar al-Qathafi:
"There is, in Qadafi's view, no justification for anyone to stir up conflict among Muslems and Christians and to claim by this to be defending either Islam or Christianity."
Qadafi believes that Islam, according to this Divine Conception is NOT the Islam which "Muslims" today recognise and accept."
[Before I continue with what is written here, I have to tell you that this is why the SUNI, Shi-ite and Sufi Muslems all call him a heretic.]
As Qadafi see it,"the original Quaranic view, this pure "Islam", LITERALLY means submission to God/God alone: which was the faith of all the prophets and their true devoted followers; therefore, the true Jews and the true Christians are also the true Muslims."
al-Qathafi himself wrote: (QUOTE) "that who ever believes in the Apostleship of our master Muhammed, WOULD HAVE ALSO BELIEVED IN ALL THE MESSENGERS WHO CAME BEFORE HIM; AS WELL AS THE SCRIPTURES which were revealed BEFORE him, Thus would the Divine Message to humankind be perfected." (UNQUOTE)
"This message is for all men. It is to worship together the One and Only God. Any other belief or conception is an act of associciating others in the worship of God".
(He means that it is merely LIP SERVICE and not real worship or belief.)
He says this "in light of these truths"...that this is a call for Christians and Jews to RETURN TO THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES and JUDGE BY THEM as it is clearly ststed in the QUARAN: 'Let the people of the GOSPEL judge in accordance with that which God has sent down in it. Whosoever does not judge in accordance with which God has sent down ---such are unrighteous.'
He goes on to say that those bigoted, self righteous among the Jews and Christians who edited, deleted or altered or distorted the meaning of the Holy Scriptures (meaning all the references to Muhammed in the Torah [the 4 Books of Moses] and in the Christian Gospels [[MATTHEW, MARK, JAMES & JOHN] do not fully represent the complete revelations which God sent down through Moses and Jesus).
Ayoub continues to reminice about what al-Qathafi spoke in February 1976 (a Libyan sponsored time of dialogue with Muslims and Christians): "IN that meeting, Qathafi again called for better understanding and cooperation among the peoples of Divine Scriptures: Jews, Christians and Muslims. (QUOTING al-Gathafi): 'Had the Muslims known of the Quaran truly, there would have been no essential disagreements which would lead to wars among them.'
al-Qathafi said ' The problem is that until today Muslims have NOT returned to the Quaran as they should, nor have the Christians and Jews returned to the true, or authentic [sahih] Torah and Gospel. It is this which has created conflicts among the people of faith.'
In al-Qathafi view, only Muslims are in error; while, for the Jews and Christians, it is both them and the altered Scriptures which are in error. (In both cases, the Scriptures have been INTERPRETED wrongly and the beliefs are impure.)
Ayoub writes that al-Qathafi purpose in promoting dialogue among the people of faith is to promote harmony and co-operation among them. HE IS A RELIGIOUS MAN; and thus sees himself as HAVING A COMMON CAUSE WITH RELIGIOUS JEWS AND CHRISTIANS in striving against atheism and MORAL DEPRAVITY...
al-QATHFI (himsef writes) QUOTE:
"It is imperative that conflicts among us should cease as much as this is possible...WE MUST OVERCOME OUR PROBLEMS IN ORDER THAT WE DO NOT PROMOTE ATHEISM AMONG OUR PEOPL AND PREVENT THEM FROM ABANDONING FAITH ALTOGETHER."
Muslims are obligated to accept the Quaran and to accept and venerate ALL the prophets of God from Adam to Muhammed. al-Qathafi says that God spoke of Muhammed's coming in all the Holy Scriptures previous to the Quaran; and that the deletion of the verses announcing his coming or preventing the signs of his prophethood and apostleship is a serious distortion of the Holy Scriptures and man's false interpretation of them.
He says that sectarian differences within eah of those Communities, needs to come to an end; and have each of those Communities become united as One (instead of a plurality of thought and interpretation).
al-Qathafi is a committed to the support of revolutionary movements REGARDLESS OF THE RELIGIOUS IDENTITY OF THE PEOPLES INVOLVED (as was the case of SERBIA AND IRELAND).
In that "MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN DOIALOGUE MEETING in TRIPOLI", al-Qathafi observed that erroneosly some "Muslims" believed that the war between Muslims and Chistians, or between Muslims and Jews, is a holy war!
This he asserted was a highly MISTAKEN VIEW! He said: (QUOTE)
"This is because JIHAD (or Amed Struggle) must always be between the people of faith and the REJECTORS of faith.BUT BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF BELIEVERS there is NOTHING CALLRED JIHAD: Rather it is WARFARE [QITAL]. ...The Quaran enjoins us to have dialogue with the people with the BOOK as our people, SINCE WER AND THEY ARE MUSLIMS to God," (UNQUOTE)
al.Qathafi went on to explain that the conflict with the State of Israel was not a religious conlict, but rather a POLITICAL CONFLICT with NO religious overtones. He said (QUOTE): "Any kind of religious fanactism is a crime. All that we wish is amnity and brotherhood among all the decendants of Abraham." (UNQUOTE)
Ayoub concludes the chapter: "al-Qadafi is guided by the Quaran in both his national and international relations. The Quaran, for that reason, invites the People of the Book 'to a common agreement' and purpose between them and the Muslims. It commends the true Christians for their tenderness and amnity towars the Muslims, and for their recognition of truth.
It acknowledges (with approbation) "those of the Community of Moses WHO JUDGE BY THE TRUTH and THOUGH IT DISPENSE JUSTICE"....
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=150103155104700&set=t.1000031504...
DECENCY & LOVE, of God, all his Creation and Mankind
Tripoli, before the '69 al-Fateh Revolution was the "FUN CITY" of North Africa.
In an interview in December 1972, Muammar al-Qathafi was accused by the Western interviewer, by saying that MUSLIMS have to endure auster, inhuman conditions! He replied: "I deny that there is a situation of austerity in Libya, unless you mean by austerity as the lack of places where women can be bought and sold [BROTHELS], and where there are no Taverns [sex and alcoholic BARS]. If this is what you think, then such ideas would have to be rejected by any reasonable, thinking person."
al-Qathafi's faith is his concern for the welfare of human beings. "Without faith, man becomes a slave of the Machine, but we Muslims are slaves to no one but God alone. We say openly that Islam is a call to progress; and that any othe system, such as Communism or Liberalism, is a call to reactionism."
The Islamic Greeting is "peace be upon you", just as it is said in the Roman-Catholic Mass. He further argued that since the motto of Musleims is "Peace", then they must be missionaries of Peace everywhere. Islam cannot be spread by force, but only by persuation. He concluded "We feel that the whole world is in need of Islamic faith. This is because, all other religions have become incapable of solving the spiritual problems of human kind. Islam is therefore the only religion capable of offering a final solution to humanity's problems."
As Muammar al-Qathafi sees it, "all those who firmly believe in God and do good, are Muslims. regarless of what specific monotheistic religion they adhere to." He concludes "I believe that all problems would be solved within the framework of the Divine Conception, within the framework of this reality: If we all were to believe in the One God, and do good, the problem would be finished. It would then not matter to me whether you follow Muhammed, Jesus or Moses."
Qathafi cites the Quaranic verse: "It is the religion (millah) of your Father Abraham; it is he who called you Muslims aforetime"..."Being a Muslim is therefore ancient, going back to the time of Abraham and even to the beginning of the Creation..." Yet we do not wish to turn true Christians into Islamists" (The true Chrstians are already Muslims.) "There are however, millions of people in the world, who are either without faith at all, or who adhere to 'natural' religions. We should seek first to, turn these millions of people to true religion: then all would be easy."
al-Qathafi has spoken good of Christian Missionary organisations spreading the Christian faith in the world (BUT, he wished that AMERICAN money was not behind such noble endeavors as with the many American Revivalist Fundamentalist Protestant preachers.) He wished that "the Cross and the Crescent work side by side in the world."
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=150776365037379&set=a.1361494731...
Didn't his own people
Didn't his own people overthrow and kill him?
This was really interesting.
This was really interesting. Hard to believe it's the Muammar Qaddafi that died so ignominiously in Libya last year, after what I thought was a lifetime of conflict and imposed misery for his people and so many other people in the world. I lived for 9 years with Moslems in Turkey, and found many of them warm-hearted, open and tolerant, so the idea isn't new to me. I just wouldn't have expected it from Qaddafi. Must have been different in his early youth.
Just curious: did anyone
Just curious: did anyone actually read all of this?
I am very, very uncertain as
I am very, very uncertain as to the point you are trying to make, and even more uncertain as to why? Can you distill your purpose into two or three sentences (but not more, please) for us?
Happy Birthday! And I've
Happy Birthday! And I've been saying for quite some time, that they should hire YOU. You get the news biz, and you can figure out how to get the story out. Maybe not as much fun for you, but sheesh, what a boon for the Vatican Press Office.
Perhaps another angle to the
Perhaps another angle to the non-news story of the election of the new cardinals is the Catholic Church has simply lost its position as a major church story. Perhaps a majority of Catholics don't care, and combined with most of the world that isn't Catholic that also don't care, who is it news for? And despite the electees background, there is something about being in the Vatican and donning the cardinal colors (as also in donning the bishop's mitre)that modifies and trumps one's background. And, as Mr. Allen notes, insider baseball may be interesting to hear once in a while, the majority of Catholics attend to see how the game is played and how they can play.
The US bishops, and the
The US bishops, and the hyper-Catholic right, will read the Pope's speech simply as renewed opposition to gay marriage and abortion. They are the superficial readers.
The new left "allies" of the Vatican do not see gay marriage as a threat to human rights and dignity. Same for abortion (with many favoring only early abortion, before the appearance of brain waves). They are simply reinforcing their opposition to sex discrimination and abuse of science. Opposing sex discrimination is not the motivation of the Vatican. The two are hardly allies.
John, happy birthday, From
John, happy birthday,
From what planet did you derive the idea that the election of benedict was a great victory for theologians? I totally missed it and I had been watching as
the Holy Office was locating and silencing many of our vey best theologians.
I believe Benedict politicked shamelessly for the Papacy. I believe he got
what he wanted along with a salty taste due to the explosion of the sex abuse
crisis of which he was definaitely a part, caught as many were by the change in the tide. I vividly remember being trained to avoid scandal at all costs.
The problem was and is that this attitude totally dismissed the needs of the
assualted and elevated the silencing and quashing on the scandal to a fine art. I do not blame Benedict any more than anyone else caught up in this sordid mess. You do have to understand they believed they were acting in the best interest of what they always referred to as Holy Mother Church.
Benedict as far as I can determine, beig true to form, will carefully load
the dice and try to position his favorite for election as the next pope.
I have faith that just as he came into a tainted papacy he will also fail
in his effort to 'procreate' his successor. Perhaps we may even see another
John 23. Banning the commercial patenting of Embryonic Stem cells was just
that, it did not ban the use of them per se, only the commercializing. In
other words its like an invention that is made puplic as opposed to private property. Not quite a condemnation of the process!
The gay part is agree with. Its all ado about nothing. The only thing new is that being gay is getting out of the closet. This is healthy for the world at large and also for the mental healh of so many of our most pastorally oriented clergy. There is nothing unnatural in being gay. To go with a thomist
approach... if something exists it exists according to nature.
You do stimulate long forgotten parts of my personal history.
God Bless, ad multos annos, may all sides always be heard.
TomC
Thank you very much for your
Thank you very much for your comment. Right now, we all need hope and faith on the Holly Spirit. While I was reading, I was reminded of something that people usually forget: Arschbishop Romero had a very "conservative" mindset, until he started sharing the sufferings of his people. So, no one can tell who the next John XXIII can be. I'll keep hoping and praying...
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday!
many happy returns of the
many happy returns of the day, john. you're the principal reason i subscribe to ncr.
Happy Birthday Mr.
Happy Birthday Mr. Allen:
Definitely some good news regarding the disparate partners supporting ethical choices. If no one is listening it may be because the Vatican will not listen to its own members regarding so many important issues and even tries to repress discussion of issues that are important to them. If we were brave enough to hold more conversations on important issues, we might find we have more surprise partners than we think.
Best,
Kathleen O'Connell
Happy Birthday!! A few years
Happy Birthday!! A few years back, you said you had three things going against you (according to many): 1) being a smoker, 2) being a hunter, and 3) being Catholic!!
I'm not big on the first two, but Keep the Faith!!
Happy birthday, John! From an
Happy birthday, John!
From an avid "down under" reader
Keeo up your honest, insightful and balanced reporting
Leo Kane
Gaudeamus igitur. Iuvenes dum
Gaudeamus igitur.
Iuvenes dum sumus.
Gaudeamus igitur.
Iuvenes dum sumus.
Post iucundam iuventutem.
Post molestam senectutem.
Nos habebit humus —
Nos habebit humus.
John, have a happy birthday and enjoy each day. Life is a wonderful experience no matter what perils and opportunities it brings.
Happy birthday, John. We met
Happy birthday, John. We met once at a CTA Conference in Milwaukee, discussing Notre Dame baseball scores.
I really value hearing about the background that most of us have little opportunity to know if it weren't for you, the themes and purposes and machinations that go on around what the world gets to see of the Vatican. The only person I know of that was as good at this as you was Peter Hebblethwaite of the Tablet and occasional columns in the NCR. I was devastated when he died at the end of 1994. There were so many things he interpreted for us that alleviated a lot of the anger the church's actions caused in me. He understood that the church thought and moved in centuries and millennia rather than decades and years, and found explanations (if not always justifications) for what the church did and thought. He knew all the stuff you do about the players on and behind the stage. It was an enlightenment when I started to read his columns.
You would undoubtedly make a good Vatican press secretary (do you speak languages?), and you probably already know about all the elements that would make that job frustrating (sort of like being President of the United States), but then you wouldn't have the time, or the freedom, to write for the NCR, and that would be bad for a lot of us. I hope you just stay where you are and go on doing what you do.
Dear John, Happy birthday! Ad
Dear John,
Happy birthday!
Ad multos annos, ad multas palmas!
Wishing success in your apostolate, I remain
Yours truly
F. Pimentel-Pinto
As always, Mr. Allen's
As always, Mr. Allen's commentary is insightful and informative; but the manner in which he constantly alibis for and absolves the news media of responsibility for failing to get the story right or do the most basic research is increasingly tiresome. So is his apparent insistence that the Vatican should employ an army of spin doctors, ad men and publicists to "help" reporters. It is the media's job to gather the facts, not have them spoon-fed to them. And why should the Vatican bother anyway, when all the Western media cares about is blasting the Church for its stance on abortion and gay "marriage"?
This insistence is puzzling, especially given Mr. Allen's acumen. HE manages to do his own research and get the story right; so why can't/shouldn't other reporters? Add to this the fact that Mr. Allen seems to think his fellow "journalists" possess no bias whatsoever against the Church (despite his own examples of such to the contrary) and are as interested as he is in being impartial and balanced, and the inescapable conclusion is that, for all his intelligence, Mr. Allen has a huge blind spot where his fellow journalists, their biases, and their incompetence are concerned.
Happy birthday John! I join
Happy birthday John!
I join with so many others who have expressed their gratitude to you and the editorial team at NCR for providing us with reliable, non-sensational, solid and accessible news. I like to think that you on your worst news day are still far better than some of your colleagues on other news sites on their best day!
Thank you for your ananlysis of the new cardinals. It had been something of a non-event for me, and many others I suspect, but your context demonstrates the value of doing the research. Despite some of the unbelievable nonsense that has emminated from Rome over the last few years, Benedict by comparison to his predecessor has shown a greater degree of pastoral concern for many of the flock. The sublte house cleaning of some of John Paul's more messy disasters may take a bit of time to understand, but he has done it. I don't see eye to eye with Benedict on some matters, but we are all Catholic together, it's Christ's Church after all and Catholics are a big, messy and sometimes happy family. And having just finished Tom Roberts excellent little book "Emerging Church" I do feel a lot better about belonging to MY dysfunctional family!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MR. ALLEN!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MR. ALLEN! IT'S HEARTENING TO READ WRITERS WHO KNOW THEIR VATICAN 101, OR IN WHATEVER CASE AND IN WHATEVER FIELD, KNOW THEIR 101. GREETINGS FROM HAITI!
BARNEY AUZA
A very happy birthday, dear
A very happy birthday, dear John and thank you for your commitment to us the readers hungry for a bit of clarity.
Switzerland's highrarchy is also being vaticanized and the little people, ignoring their own dignity just follow seeking desperately a meaning in their life.
Have the strength to push forward for more transparency.
Happy Birthday, John! And
Happy Birthday, John! And many happy returns marking equally fruitful years, but shedding any dim stuff of the past.
Everyone being any sort of audience for the Vatican, have the common human failing of perceiving through the filters of ones own perceptions/preconceptions. The Vatican took no steps to illuminate change, and the American press and many of the commentators above illustrate the results of running incoming data through filters. To some it's all about gay marriage. To some it's all about the nuclear family living in Christ. To some it's all about how we run this Church or try to. As noted, these "it's all abouts" color the perception of what the Vatican announced. As someone very interested in notions of common good and social justice, I too commit the reading-sin of searching for and focusing on words dealing with such commentary from Rome, and pay much attention to those when found.
Concurrently, everyone, organizational or individual, generally speaking, commits the sin of speaking as if everyone knows what the speaker knows. This is related to the above, but it has to do with blissful ignorance of how the audiences' perceptions are going to color what the speaker is saying. Thus a publicist very excited about European left-wingers joining forces with the Church on tinkering with genetics is failing to point out how that joining forces is or ought to be also true with issues of social justice and common good, since everyone knows this, but not everyone does! (The American right-wing has shown its talents to keep the USSCB focussed away from these common causes, while of course doing next to nothing to get rid of the problem they use for this purpose, i.e. abortion.)
The Vatican press office needs a change. It needs to be staffed not only with people steeped in knowledge of the Vatican, but also with people steeped in perceiving what's subjectively important to each of the myriad audiences and how to communicate, not to them, but with them. This is a major failing of the Vatican Press office, a failure to supply context and background with releases to specific audiences. The person running the Vatican press operation has to be one qualified to run the most important in the world while knowing the audiences are by no matter of means so well qualified. This was JPII's great gift, to speak to the audience in front of him.
And then there's the failures of the organizational offices to try to learn context. And then there are some just looking for some good red meat to provide to their carnivorous audience.
I absolutely agree on the
I absolutely agree on the upcoming bioethics issues. We saw this earlier this year when attention was brought to sex-selective abortions. As the inhumanity and inequality of practices condemned by the Church becomes more apparent, we will get more allies.
Dear John, I agree with all
Dear John, I agree with all those who say you are a superb reporter re all things Vatican. You report the "zeitgeist" there excellently and without editorial judgement. You say that even the most world-experienced cardinals, having served in the diplomatic corps all over the world, "may not be anybody's idea of a flaming liberal." I would argue that none of the new cardinals, as far as we know from any public statements, are liberal at all.
What is liberalism? It is a political philosophy, with origins in Christian ideas, that power emanates from the people and that rulers are chosen by the people from among the people to serve the people (very much like Scripture says about how priests and bishops were originally chosen).
In America, both the Republican and Democratic parties, philosophically, are classical democratic (small d) liberal parties, the Repubicans generally emphasizing individual rights (to own property, bear arms, etc.) and the Democrats generally emphasizing collective rights (to an education, health care, etc.).
The Church hierarchy, however, has been trained and schooled in another (and much older) philosophy entirely, the idea that power proceeds, not from the people below, but from above, from God to the pope, and then to the cardinals, archbishops and bishops, then to the priests and, finally, to the laity. That a few new cardinals may have what you think of as progressive ideas does not alter the basic paradigm one iota, the paradigm being pre-Vatican I, divine right, top-down, governance very like that of Ayatollah Khomeini's in Iran.
I suppose many in Rome would argue that this top-down governance is divinely ordained. Such as Louis XVI and many other past monarchs argued the same. But their incompetence, arbitrariness, and refusal to address the real concerns (or listen to the problems or ideas) of ordinary people, even people more educated than themselves, resulted in their undoing. The Church, by invoking "God," has held onto top-down governance for a couple more centuries but it will end sooner or later, perhaps far sooner than those in Rome imagine. The Spirit cannot be mocked.
Perhaps what the author sees
Perhaps what the author sees as NEW is simply irrelevant, inconsequential, uninteresting, or even not new.
Happy Birthday John, and all
Happy Birthday John, and all blessings and good things in this next year of your life.
I am troubled, however, by your article and all of the comments that have followed. I have to sort this through, but one or two points come to mind immediately. One is that the entire Vatican operation operates on outdated models more appropriate to the middle ages and as if it were still a feudal power. Their constant, miniscule, slestion of each word on the implied meanings rather than more honest communication is characteristic of a old dynasty consumed with fears of inflitration and sabotage. The rest of the world has moved on long, long ago, but not the Catholic Church. They (the Vatican) do not seem to get it that everybody else sees through this politik-speak. A second thought, and of far less significance, is that Pope Benedict is an academic, a theologian, who has a particular and unusual writing style. He is, I believe, summarily incapable of speaking or writing in simply clear language. And my guess is that he has aides who encourage this sort of style. In any event, it only serves to be a boring source of rhetoric that many grow weary of and tune out. Just like with many governments that have alienated its people, what the Pope and heirarchy have to say is mostly background chatter, when it doesn't have to be that way at all. In its present form, we all lose so much that could enrich our faith.
Post new comment