Martino? There he goes again!

National Review Online ^ | Dec. 17, 2003 | Michael Novak

[Unam Sanctam]

The Italian newspaper Il Foglio ran a piece Dec. 16 about the frustration at the Vatican, at the secretariat of state, with the imprudent, irascible anti-Americanism of Cardinal Martino, an unfortunate recent appointment (late last year) to the Institute for Justice and Peace, who has not ceased being an embarrassment to his superiors.

When I was in Rome last February, Cardinal Martino was already under heavy fire for his intemperate and irrepressible anti-Americanism. Even those who before the war leaned more to the French/German position than to the American were dismayed by his uncalled-for comments.

Il Foglio pointed out today that Cardinal Sodano, the secretary of state (the official who functions something like a prime minister for the Vatican, the top leader of administration domestic and foreign), not only changed the whole title of the document on World Peace released today but also edited out the most offensive passages of Cardinal Martino, from whose department the draft arrived in the last few days.

The title, for example, went from "International Law, a Way of Peace," to the less ideological "An Ever Timely Commitment: Teaching Peace." Other rhetorical flourishes were also edited out, according to Il Foglio.

The big Vatican news of the past month has been the major change in the way Islamic terrorism has been directly confronted, with gloves-off honesty in the Jesuit periodical Civilta Cattolica, whose pages are always cleared by the secretariat of state. Over a third of the Christians of the Middle East have been driven out during the past decade, the journal reports, and it lists many abuses by extremists, against the background of much greater tolerance in the past. It also analyzes carefully just how the extremists function in practice.

The immense relief experienced by the Catholic community in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has not gone unappreciated at the Vatican. In general, now that the American-led Coalition has acted firmly and with far better results than predicted last February by various spokesmen in the Vatican (they did not all speak with one voice), the Vatican has tried to help with the transition to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, and democratic Iraq.

The pope in particular never sided against the Americans, although without doubt he worked and prayed so that war would not in the end be necessary. He took pains to be clear that he is not a pacifist. (He had, after all, encouraged military action to relieve Kosovo of genocide and Croatia of intense suffering). He hoped America would not go to war.

For myself, I am glad that in no way could the Vatican at that time have been seen as fomenting a war of "the Christians" against an Arab nation. On the contrary, the pope's voice was the most audible and constant voice against war. To my mind, that is as it should be. The last thing we would have needed was a pope calling for war against an Arab nation.

I put on the table in the Vatican my own reasons why war might be necessary (not the reasons of the American government, for which I had no authority to speak), and also ways in which it could be avoided. (See here and here.) I thought I behaved in the way a conscientious layperson ought to behave, according to the teaching of John Paul II and the new Catechism. I gave reasons in conscience, in a field where lay competence has its own recognized validity. It would have been cowardly not to do so.

I believed, and hoped, that the pope understood very well why and how I acted.

As for Cardinal Martino, he has made clear on many occasions how bitterly he feels toward the United States on many fronts, not only in the case of Iraq. He has not been altogether prudent. He does not seem to be aware of how oddly his behavior comports with the far more nuanced and modulated views of those around him with greater authority than his.

The church is made of human beings, and such things are a matter of our daily life-"Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo dat gloriam!" as the chorus of Henry V gloriously puts it. "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Thy name be the glory."

[polemikos]

See here and here.

[NeoCaveman]

Martino is an idiot.

The U.S. gives Saddaam a shave, a haircut, and presumably three hots and a cots and Martino refers to us "treating him like a cow". That would be a promotion fo Saddam because the tyrant was caught living like a rat.

[Desdemona]

ping

The Vatican needs to do something to muzzle this guy.

[ex-snook]

Bush can prove the Pope wrong when he the terrorist alert colors disappear.

[NYer]

The immense relief experienced by the Catholic community in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has not gone unappreciated at the Vatican.

Except, of course, by Martino.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Romulus]

The immense relief experienced by the Catholic community in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has not gone unappreciated at the Vatican.

This appears to contradict your assertion elsewhere that "the Vatican is simply wrong to condemn the United States for ridding the world of this criminal scumbag."

So are they relieved or not?

[Unam Sanctam]

The war was condemned as illegal and immoral. I think that is at least debatable and not a slam dunk.

[Romulus]

You're entitled to your opinion. But I'm interested to see what evidence you have of the Vatican's condemnation of the US.

Cardinal Martino is a silly man for many reasons, but his ability to feel pity for the wretch Saddam is an occasion of grace.

[Unam Sanctam]

I cite from two curial officials below (citations come from http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/quotes.htm ):

Archbishop Jean Louis-Tauran, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, Conference at Rome hospital, February 24, 2003:

"A war of aggression would be a crime against peace….No rule of international law authorizes one or more states to intervene unilaterally….The resources of international law must be fully employed, and the consequences of an armed intervention on the civilian population must be carefully weighed."


Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican Secretary of State, interview with Italian Reporters, January 29, 2003:


"We're asking for reflection not only on whether a war would be just or unjust, moral or immoral, but also whether it is opportune to irritate a billion followers of Islam….We are against the war. That is a moral position, and there's not much that needs to be said about whether (the war) is "preventive" or "nonpreventive." It's an ambiguous term. Certainly the war is not defensive."

[Romulus]

I see condemnation of unnecessary war here, but not condemnation of the US.

[sinkspur]

Cardinal Martino is a silly man for many reasons, but his ability to feel pity for the wretch Saddam is an occasion of grace.

Martino despises the United States.

The Vatican can beat up on the United States because it knows it will suffer no repercussions for doing so, as it certainly would if the Pope came out in favor of a war against an Arab country.

Silence is not golden, apparently, among the red hats in Rome, and they make fools of themselves (and, by extension, the Church) with their ridiculous rantings against the war.

I don't care if they are opposed to the war, but I DO care when they spout foolishness that reflects badly on the Catholic Church.

[Salvation]

From Deal Hudson of Crisis Magazine in an email:

Dear Friend,

I'm sure everyone is happy that Saddam Hussein was finally captured.
It's just that some people have a strange way of showing it.

When the world saw images of a disheveled Saddam submitting
passively to a medical examination by a military doctor on Sunday,
the reaction was overwhelmingly joyous. The Iraqis were dancing in
the streets, celebrating the fact that Saddam would never threaten
them or their families again. Here at home, the feeling was much the
same -- relief that this near-inconceivably brutal tyrant had reached
the end of his reign of terror.

But for others, the images weren't cause for celebration. Instead,
they were an opportunity to criticize American foreign policy and the
handling of Saddam's capture.

Sound too far-fetched to be true? Just have a look at what Cardinal
Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department,
had to say about it: "I felt pity to see this man destroyed, [the
doctor] looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have
spared us these pictures."

Not pictures of Saddam's mass graves, or torture chambers, or
mutilated subjects... No, the good Cardinal objected to pictures of
Saddam's dental exam.

Bear in mind that these images served a concrete purpose. For one,
it was important that Iraqis -- and people everywhere, really --
could see with their own eyes that the Americans had captured who
they said they'd captured. Especially for the Iraqis, seeing Saddam
without the trappings of his tyranny would help them shake their
long-held fear and dread of the man who haunted their lives. He
wasn't a threat to them anymore.

In addition, the footage showed clearly that Saddam was receiving
humane
treatment: Doctors were caring for his health, confirming that he
had not been injured or abused. Later images showed a washed and
shaven Saddam -- not the kind of treatment that the anti-American
camp would expect of us. It was important to document that treatment
publicly.

And yet Martino not only empathizes with Saddam but criticizes the
government's decision to release these images. Certainly it's
important to remember Saddam's humanity in the months ahead -- as
heinous as his crimes are, he is still a person with human dignity.
But can anyone really say that showing a picture of his dental exam
is somehow demeaning his humanity?

And why pick this moment, when the entire world is celebrating his
capture, to criticize those who caught him? Martino's comments
suggest more than just an opposition to the war but a reflexive bias
against America's actions... even her intentions.

It's important to remember that Cardinal Martino doesn't represent
the official opinion of the Vatican. He is NOT the mouthpiece of the
pope. So why is he so often quoted in the news? During the run-up to
the war with Iraq, even the Vatican -- who loudly denounced the war
-- felt the need to quiet him. It was no longer simply his anti-war
comments that were becoming problematic, but his anti-American stance
as well.

And because Martino has made himself so highly visible, his comments
regularly appear in the news and drown out those of Joaquin
Navarro-Valls, the official spokesman for the Vatican; the Vatican
Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano; and the new Secretary of
Relations with States, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo. It looks like
Martino is pushing his own agenda instead of stepping aside and
letting the appropriate officials in the Vatican speak for
themselves.

What's more, anti-life politicians have taken advantage of Martino's
outspokenness to make him appear to be "the voice of the Vatican" and
drive a wedge between the Catholic laity and true pro-life
politicians who may disagree with Martino's foreign policy. The
cardinal's comments aren't limited to the religious sphere; they
carry weight in the political world as well... without having the
benefit of true teaching authority behind them.

To protest that this despot had to endure a tongue depressor is,
frankly, just silly. The entire civilized world is rejoicing that
this genocidal murderer was peaceably captured -- the Iraqi Interim
Governing Council (IGC) praised the capture and called it a "huge
victory" for the entire human race. Why would Martino do any less?

He did say, "It's true that we should be happy that this arrest has
come about," but then immediately qualified that statement by
cautioning against future violence and saying that it wasn't a "total
solution to the problems of the Middle East."

But who on earth said it was?

Martino spent many years representing the Holy See at the United
Nations. His tenure of the U.N. mission was very successful --
especially in the defense of life in developing countries -- and made
him worthy of his present position.

But the plain fact is Martino's comments make him appear insensitive
to the boon this capture represents for the Iraqi people. Rather than
criticizing the U.S. military for airing 30 seconds of Saddam's early
detainment, he would have been better off expressing his sincere,
unqualified wish that this capture will be the start of a path to
peace and justice for Iraq.

Peace and justice... isn't that, after all, Martino's department?

Talk to you soon,

Deal


******* WHAT REALLY CAUSED THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH? *******

Sex abuse scandals... irreverent liturgies... homosexuality in the
seminaries... liberal theology preached from the pulpit...

You know all about the crisis in the Church. But you've never heard
the full story. When did the collapse in the Church occur... and what
REALLY caused it?

Fr. Benedict Groeschel knows. He was there when it happened... 10
years BEFORE Vatican II.

What he saw will surprise you.

Click here to learn more:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/products.htm

[rogator]

"I don't care if they are opposed to the war, but I DO care when they spout foolishness that reflects badly on the Catholic Church."

The Vatican stated yesterday that Martino was speaking only for himself. Vatican bigwigs either need to make it clear that they are speaking only for themselves on political issues or better yet not speak at all.

[presidio9]

ping