Posted on 07/28/2009 5:22:19 AM PDT by markomalley
ROME, JULY 27, 2009 (Zenit.org).- I first walked through Bernini's colonnade in May 1984. I was going to the Vatican Library to do research for a dissertation in medieval history.
By chance, my topic was very similar to the topic Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, chose for his post-doctoral dissertation, "The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure," and this gave me material for conversation when I met with Ratzinger on several occasions in the 1980s and 1990s.
On my very first visit to the Vatican library, I met a young scholar named Paolo Vian, son of the renowned Italian Catholic scholar, Nello Vian. Paolo graciously "showed me the ropes" during that summer at the library, helping me enormously.
I soon met Paolo's older brother, Gian Maria Vian, then a young professor of patristics at the University of Rome, and also a "Vaticanista," reporting for the daily paper of the Italian bishops' conference, Avvenire -- the same Gian Maria Vian who today is the controversial editor of L'Osservatore Romano, known as the "Pope's newspaper."
In the years that followed, I had many occasions to talk with Gian Maria, a man of wide culture and ready wit, and I occasionally dined at his home with him and his wife (she suffered a long, debilitating disease, and sadly passed away several years ago).
So I have known Gian Maria Vian for 25 years, and can call him my friend. Indeed, I saw him several times during July in Rome, and we were able to speak at length.
Controversy
The editor's recent positive attitude toward Obama has put Vian at the center of several critical debates in Catholicism today, and has led many to question even the "Catholicity" of L'Osservatore Romano.
In a series of articles this year, Vian and writers he chose have argued that Obama does not seem as much of a pro-abortion president as had been feared.
This has raised eyebrows among those active in the pro-life cause -- and sparked anger.
At the time of the emotionally charged debate over Obama's commencement address May 17 at Notre Dame, which was protested by over 80 U.S. bishops and boycotted by former U.S. Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon because of Obama's extreme pro-abortion record, Vian justified his more lenient position on the president: "We have noticed that his (Obama's) 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."
U.S. Catholic theologian Michael Novak described Vian's pro-Obama position as "star struck" and "teenage," and said that Vian's political perspective seems "like a blind observer of faraway events -- completely ignorant."
Vian defends himself by saying that the paper is adopting a "waiting and seeing" policy. He said, "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."
Have Vian, and the Vatican, been downplaying Obama's vehemently pro-abortion voting record and the pro-abortion record of his administration for "tactical" reasons? And, is such a position morally defensible?
More color!
Benedict XVI chose Vian to take over the editorship of L'Osservatore Romano in 2007.
Until two years ago, the paper's relationship to the Vatican was like that of Pravda to the Kremlin in the old U.S.S.R.
I remember how I and the other Vatican journalists would always look eagerly for articles signed only by three asterisks -- that was the not-so-secret "code" that those articles were "authoritative," approved at the very highest level of the Vatican.
But the rest of the paper was -- sorry to say -- boring.
"When I took over the paper," Vian says, "the Pope wrote me a letter in which he said that L'Osservatore had to be present in the cultural debate. The Pope asked me for more international coverage, more attention to the Christian East, and more space for women."
So, Vian hired L'Osservatore's first-ever female staffer.
And he adds: "When the deputy editor and I were invited to see the Pope to talk a bit about the paper three weeks after we were appointed, he gave us to understand that he'd like to see a few more pictures in it."
Vian decided to use color photographs every day on the front and back. But the new editor's impact has been most significant in the paper's content.
The big picture
A month before President Obama's scheduled visit to see the Pope on July 10, Vian published an editorial that took a positive view of Obama's first 100 days.
Conservative Catholics in the United States and elsewhere were appalled that, despite Obama's moves to provide greater access to abortion and stem-cell research, the paper was not denouncing Obama. There were calls for Vian to resign.
When I spoke with Vian a few days ago, I asked him about this controversy. He told me that he still has the "full support" of the Vatican's Secretariat of State. (In fact, Vian is a personal friend of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Pope's secretary of state.)
What can explain Vian's position -- and, by implication, the position of the Secretariat of State, and, perhaps, of the Pope himself?
Vian told me that the "big picture" needs to be kept in mind, that the Holy See's agenda, while always and unswervingly pro-life, nevertheless includes many other issues, such as social justice, disarmament, the Middle East and Cuba.
Vian's position illustrates the considerable differences between the European and American viewpoints on many critical issues of our time. The Europeans (like Vian) focus on points of agreement, and the Americans (like Vian's critics) focus on points of disagreement.
I do think Vian -- and even the Secretariat of State -- may be "naïve" about Obama and his intentions.
But I also believe that Americans can become so intent on one grave moral injustice (abortion and the manipulation of human embryos, both of which are always profoundly wrong) that they can ignore other areas of possible agreement.
Is it possible to find a balanced solution, giving proper weight to both points of agreement and disagreement?
The Papal way
The best approach may be the one chosen by Benedict XVI himself in his meeting with Obama on July 10.
I was in the Vatican on that occasion. I saw Obama as he stepped out of his car, and I attended the press conference after the meeting was over.
And two points were clear: the Pope was receiving Obama with warm friendship, and yet, he was not compromising the truth of the Church's teaching about life. In fact, he made it a special point to hand the president a Vatican document which explains in detail the reasoning behind the Church's teaching that abortion is always wrong, and experimentation on human embryos is always a violation of the dignity of human life.
The booklet, "Dignitas Personae" (dignity of a person), condemns artificial fertilization and other techniques used by many couples, and also says human cloning, "designer babies" and embryonic stem-cell research are immoral.
The document defends life from conception to natural death, and a Vatican statement issued after the meeting said the topics discussed included "the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one's conscience."
The Pope's private secretary told reporters after the meeting: "This reading can help the president better understand the Church's position on these issues."
We do not know if Obama has read that booklet. (That is something I would like to know, because the arguments in that booklet are compelling.)
The point is, the possibility of reaching Obama with a reasoned argument in defense of life was increased by the way Vian presented Obama's position during the spring. Obama was entering the Vatican on July 10, not as an enemy, but as a human being, to whom the Pope could appeal as one man to another.
Naïve? Perhaps. Time will tell. And the Church will be ready to defend her beliefs if Obama makes clear that he will persist on a course that is directly opposed to those teachings.
Interestingly, on July 23, it was reported that Obama's health care legislation may be held up due to the opposition of a group of conservative Democrats in the U.S. House who have vowed not to vote for any bill that doesn't include explicit language banning the use of federal funds for abortion.
They, as well as most Republicans, charge that abortions will otherwise increase if more women have insurance coverage that pays for the procedure.
Obama, when asked if he would favor federally subsidized insurance plans that covered abortion, said, "As you know, I'm pro-choice. But I think we also have the tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care."
Hearing this, pro-choice activists are concerned. "We're certainly worried," says Marilyn Keefe, director of reproductive health programs at the National Partnership for Women and Families. "Abortion is basic healthcare for women. We're worried about the possibility that existing coverage will be rolled back."
Perhaps the Pope's meeting with Obama had some good effect.
The article brings up a good point, though, in my opinion.
Vian told me that the "big picture" needs to be kept in mind, that the Holy See's agenda, while always and unswervingly pro-life, nevertheless includes many other issues, such as social justice, disarmament, the Middle East and Cuba.
Vian's position illustrates the considerable differences between the European and American viewpoints on many critical issues of our time. The Europeans (like Vian) focus on points of agreement, and the Americans (like Vian's critics) focus on points of disagreement.
I do think Vian -- and even the Secretariat of State -- may be "naïve" about Obama and his intentions.
But I also believe that Americans can become so intent on one grave moral injustice (abortion and the manipulation of human embryos, both of which are always profoundly wrong) that they can ignore other areas of possible agreement.
This brings up one point that I think conservative Christians, particularly conservative Catholics have actually ceded to the socialists: the topic of "social justice" (or, as Ratzinger said in Caritas in Veritate, "gratuitousness")
We reflexively recoil when we hear the term "common good," knowing that an advocacy for socialism follows. What we should do is go on the offensive: strongly declaring that a government run ___fill in the blank___ inherently cannot contribute to the common good!
Speaking for us Catholics, we all heard John 8 (loaves & fishes) this last weekend. I will wager that at least 75% of us heard something about "caring and sharing" in the homily that followed (rather than the true lesson: God providing for our need if we step forth in confidence). How many of us have confronted the homilist, in charity?
How many Catholic sources have condemned the healthcare bill solely for the abortion and euthanasia aspects in it (indicating that it would be fine by them if it didn't contain those provisions)? How many of us have confronted this point (responding to the bloggers, writing to the papers, etc.)? Again, not from just an anti-socialist perspective, but a Christian anti-socialist perspective (that such a healthcare initiative would actually strip people of their dignity, remove any ability for us to stand in solidarity as a people, and damage the common good...to say nothing of removing the idea of subsidiarity from the healthcare mechanism)
The fact of the matter is that there are NONE of Bambi's social initiatives that correspond to Christian Social Teaching (in general) or Catholic Social Teaching (in particular). Not just his positions on abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia, but none of them. We, as conservative Christians, need to stop ceding the social justice ground to the liberals. We need to take that ground back!
You are absolutely right.
“...Benedict XVI, chose for his post-doctoral dissertation...”
Ahhh, the infamous Habilitationsschrift. Imagine, they have to write two dissertations to be taken seriously.
I understand what you are saying, it is just the words “social justice” have come to mean “Communist, environmental, Socialist..., agenda” to me. The American style of social justice is to pretend you really, really care about the human plight and urge the government to do something about it rather than actually doing something about it yourself.
The Christian “style” of social justice is a wee bit different from “pretend you really, really care about the human plight and urge the government to do something about it...”
:)
As it has to most people. The hijacking of the language is a speciality of the left.
The American style of social justice is to pretend you really, really care about the human plight and urge the government to do something about it rather than actually doing something about it yourself.
And that is what needs to be taken back. The language of "Caritas in Veritate" provide us a great opportunity to do so.
I definitely agree but the Christian style has sorely been missing, it has become secularized. People have lofty ideas but they have often separated them from Christian charity.
This problem didn’t start recently, it has grown since the Depression as people relied on the government to do what they should be doing while relying on God.
Here’s an example: Why would I give monetary charity to a young, single mother? She has food stamps, HUD housing, WIC, medicaid, can get daycare benefits and tanif. She is better off than I am and has no worries to go with it because the help isn’t dependent on what she does.
The US is still a Christian nation and as such Christians have given us the welfare nation because they cared enough to not want these people to starve but not enough to actually take care of it themselves and pawned it off on the government.
**The fact of the matter is that there are NONE of Bambi’s social initiatives that correspond to Christian Social Teaching (in general) or Catholic Social Teaching (in particular). Not just his positions on abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia, but none of them. We, as conservative Christians, need to stop ceding the social justice ground to the liberals. We need to take that ground back!**
Well said!
Barack and Benedict XVI
Did President Obama Mislead Pope Benedict? [Catholic Caucus]
The Vatican Welcome Mat for Obama (not really)
Obama Lies to Pope... Obamacare Will Force Americans to Fund Abortion
The Pope’s Gift to the President and to Us
Will Obama's Catholic Critics Now Be Respectful [Liberal WHINE Alert]
Pope Presses Obama On Abortion Stem Cells
Pope Benedict Spoke to Obama on Right to Life, Freedom of Conscience [Catholic Caucus]
The Little Green Book (behind the scenes at the meeting between Obama and the Pope)
Benedict XVI Offers Life Lessons to Obama (at Vatican meeting today)
Markomalley put it very well. Government action is *never* the equivalent of Christian charity. It turns the forced donors into misers who hate their neighbors, and the recipients into slaves or housepets. It also perpetuates the *least* productive, efficient, and humane ways of “helping” the poor.
I would like for Pope Benedict to have made this point more strongly than he did, but I think it’s implied in his emphasis on “truth.”
Actually, I think that a reasonable read of CIV would show that he made an extraordinarily strong case.
That encyclical will, in a few years (the Lord tarrying) prove to rank up there with Rerum Novarum. It introduced a brand new term to the social teaching of the Church: gratuitousness. Along with the new term. He introduced a new paradigm along with it. Specifically, that social justice provides a person what is rightly theirs, but gratuitousness provides them with what is ours — with no expection that they owe us anything in return. And that this gratuitousness is the basis from which we should give.
This is an incredibly powerful concept that directly challenges the basis for structural government assistance and the welfare assistance.
It was probably just too subtle for me. I do better when the concepts are delivered with a sledgehammer.
The article does not note the President’s practice of saying what he cannot possibly mean. My guess is that if the health bill passes, it will fund contraception, abortion and embryonic stem cell research, because this is already the policy of the Obama administration.
“Government action is *never* the equivalent of Christian charity. It turns the forced donors into misers who hate their neighbors, and the recipients into slaves or housepets.”
TC, that’s the best two sentences I’ve ever seen you post. You are absolutely right. All we have to do is look around us....
And m, you’ve posted a fine article. This in particular struck me:
The point is, the possibility of reaching Obama with a reasoned argument in defense of life was increased by the way Vian presented Obama’s position during the spring. Obama was entering the Vatican on July 10, not as an enemy, but as a human being, to whom the Pope could appeal as one man to another.”
This very observation has been made by a number of Orthodox clergy and hierarchs. They were very pleased and not at all surprised, but then again, +BXVI is VERY well thought of and highly respected in Orthodox circles.
I do agree that the author makes an interesting point and one that drives me up a wall when I'm with some of my more conservative Catholic friends. Their zeal for all things moral when it comes to sex blocks out a whole lot of other topics. They just don't think about it. It doesn't enter into their plane of consciousness.
One of the bigger bones of contention I have in discussion is a progressive income tax. Some of my friends haven't considered the morality of such confiscation. Is it just to take from those who produce and outright give to those who don't? It should be the giver's choice. When the government does it, there is no choice. And then there's national defense. Yes, it involves weapons and shooting, but only when provoked. It's a gigantic jobs program that gives us security in the exchange. The troops are also there to help out during natural disasters.
So, there is some validity to the author's points. Don't apologize or compromise on life issues, but consider so many other topics where Church teaching is just as clear and has been purposefully misrepresented over the years.
I wouldn't say that about myself, nor do I think you should imply that about yourself. The problem with this encyclical is that everybody was spinning it to suit their own agendas even before it was released. It was very difficult to read the document without hearing the spin surrounding it.
That spinning was the reason I refused to get involved in deep arguments (like some of the FR threads I was pinged to for the first couple of weeks after its released) about this encyclical until I had a chance to digest it.
My suggestion: wait a couple of months, so that the spin can finally die down on it and then read it at a relaxed pace.
Granted, they co-opted it.
But we allowed it and gave it to them.
One of the bigger bones of contention I have in discussion is a progressive income tax.
Agreed completely. But it goes back to Tiki's original point of how the liberal thinks:
The American style of social justice is to pretend you really, really care about the human plight and urge the government to do something about it rather than actually doing something about it yourself.
So rather than getting involved ourselves, we allow ourselves to be taxed and then let the government do it.
I like, "I've had another baby boy. We're both healthy!" ;-)
Obama was entering the Vatican on July 10, not as an enemy, but as a human being, to whom the Pope could appeal as one man to another.”
I keep noticing that the Holy Father is seeing things differently from the way I, for example, see. This is a good thing!
It would be a good idea to read it again in a while - maybe when Ignatius puts out a booklet with nice big type. It was a struggle to assimilate what he actually said through the fog of what I would like him to say, or the way I would like him to say it. (Categorically, in short words ;-).
Frank is gaining a pound a week, and I’m such a zombie that it’s a wonder I can comprehend a Barbara Cartland novel, let alone the Pope’s cogitations!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.