| L'Osservatore Romano Needs a New Editor |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 5/20/09 |
|
Something is seriously wrong at L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper. When it wrote glowingly of President Obama's first 100 days in office, everyone scatched their heads and wondered "What's going on?" The article stated there had been no radical changes in Obama's first 100 days -- "Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed." There was no mention of the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, the ending of the conscience protection for medical care workers, increased funding for abortion providers, pro-abortion appointments to key administration positions like the head of Health and Human Services. Most importantly, there was no mention of the widely-recognized White House strategy of approximating the effect of FOCA in a piecemeal fashion. Yesterday OR published an article praising Obama at Notre Dame for seeking "common ground" on abortion. It's now clear that the paper needs a new editor. The article did not even mention the 79 U.S. bishops who openly criticized Notre Dame for giving Obama an honor at its recent commencement. One of those bishops was the president of the USCCB, Cardinal George of Chicago. "The search for common ground seems to be the road chosen by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, to confront the sensitive abortion issue," L’Osservatore Romano says. And then this:
Completely predictable? Why? Perhaps, because President Obama is the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States and some Catholics found it offensive he was being honored by the best-known, best-loved Catholic Univeristy in the nation? OR does not delve into this point of view or quote from any of the bishops who expressed it. The damage will be done by the Associated Press story being published around the country, giving the impression that the Vatican officially approves of both Notre Dame's decision and -- most tragically -- Obama's position on abortion. OR has had a new editor since September 2007: Giovanni Maria Vian. Prior to his appointment at OR, Vian had been a professor of the philology of ancient Christian literature at Rome's "La Sapienza" University and a regular writer for the newspaper of the Italian Bishops' Conference.
What OR publishes should not be considered the official position of the Vatican unless it is published under the name of the appropriate Vatican archbishop or cardinal. However, it is certainly natural for the public to view anything published in the "Vatican" newspaper as having the blessing of the Curia and the Holy Father himself. It should be mentioned, as the Catholic News Agency notes, that the same edition of OR contained an article criticizing Obama with quotes from Archbishop Chaput, which both the Associated Press and the USCCB"s news service did not mention. Vian has already caused the Vatican to officially deny an article he published in OR about the need to reopen the Catholic position on brain death. In September 2008, the Vatican spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, S.J., stated the article in OR "cannot be considered a position of the magisterium of the Church." We need Rev. Lombardi to make a similar statement regarding Vian's positioning of Obama as a president seeking "common ground" on abortion. Vian evidently does not realize that Obama's idea of seeking "common ground" is to hold a conference call with his 28-year old head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Joshua DuBois, and a handful of pro-life leaders to discuss the bogus promise of "abortion reduction." If L'Osservatore Romano continues to treat Obama and his administration this way, the Catholic supporters of Obama will believe themselves completely vindicated, and understandably so. I can only imagine how a good number of our bishops are feeling about OR and Giovanni Maria Vian this morning. It is possible, of course, that Vian is simply misinformed. If so, that can be corrected, and Vian can begin publishing accurate information and commentary on the new administration. If not, the Vatican newspaper definitely needs new leadership. I urge our readers to write to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, and to indicate to him the great harm that is being done by these articles. His address is simply: Secretariate of State
Readers have left 14 comments. ...and let's not forget the LOR's very strange move in March 2009 to publish an article by Archbishop Fisichella in which the head of the Pontifical Academy of Life criticized Archbishop Sobrinho for excommunicating those involved in a 9-year-old's forced abortion of twins. Odd. Very unsettling. Written by Laurie Olsen Thank you for your excellent article. I too was very dismayed at "L'Osservatore Romano's" position on Pres. Obama's speech at Notre Dame, and also their assesment of his first 100 days in office. Concerning theser two articles I said to myself- "This is a Catholic newspaper that is supposed to report on the Vatican perspective? What is going on here?" I'm glad others are wondering the same thing as I am.... Glenn Dallaire http://www.stgemmagalgani.com Written by Glenn Dallaire I think that the Vatican can take care of itself without our writing letters of protest. I would not worry about it. Written by Austin L'OR is causing more confusion for the people than it is helping the people. After all it seems that the Vatican's so-called official paper is being edited by America magazine or the Catholic Reporter. Written by Tobias The people are not as stupid as the clergy thinks. Is this perhaps a case of trying to be more Catholic than the Pope? Rather than trying to enforce orthodoxy among anyone and everyone, it might be better to help the poor. Most of us are not that obsessed about what the Vatican newspaper says anyway. Written by Austin I agree with Deal Hudson article, we must let those in charge, or those who make comments as the editor of L,Osservatore Rameno know, think before you write. And the Vatican, should get on the ball here. Yes there are many a person in this world, who do believe every thing they read. Look how many catholic fell for Obama speeches. He did make it clear he was PRO CHOICE, How many came out and SAID OBAMA IS PRO CHOICE. Yet over half of us americans did not listen carefully to what Obama was saying. He was clear, yet we put him into office. We have to speak out and LOUD AND HARD. Written by JEB The people are not as stupid as the clergy thinks. Is this perhaps a case of trying to be more Catholic than the Pope? — AustinRather than trying to enforce orthodoxy among anyone and everyone, it might be better to help the poor. Most of us are not that obsessed about what the Vatican newspaper says anyway. The Newspaper does not represent the Pope or the Magisterium. People are confused when they think that they do. Writing to the paper to get its facts straight is a worthwhile endeavor to help the poor. It might be better Austin if you help the poor, too. The poorest of the poor- the unborn! Austin are you one of those paid bloggers. If you are, your boss should know that you are not very good. Written by Unpaid blogger Austin: Is this perhaps a case of trying to be more Catholic than the Pope? Rather than trying to enforce orthodoxy among anyone and everyone, it might be better to help the poor. I don't understand your habit to reflexively dismiss this topic. Do you somehow believe that the OR's reporting doesn't create a false impression regarding Obama and the extent to which his policies are, and are not, intolerable to God? It does. The media habitually portrays Catholic dissenters as "the reasonable folk" and the pro-life faithful as "extremist nut-jobs." Every time they can list another bishop, another Catholic politician, another Jesuit, or, hey, why not the Vatican newspaper -- as being in agreement with this view, it gives additional "cover" for the dissenters and throws cold water in the faces of the faithful. Or do you believe that concern about abortion, Catholic dissent, and scandal is mutually-exclusive with concern for the poor? It isn't. In fact, you should take note that it's the more politically-rightward members of American society who care most for the poor. The percentage of their pre-tax household income which they (including right-leaning Catholics) give to the poor is nearly double that of those on the political left (including left-leaning Catholics). They also volunteer their time more often, and more of it. They also give blood more often. They are, in short, far more generous to the needy. That the political right in America is the genuine champion of the little guy while the left mostly postures and throws other people's money around to make themselves look/feel good is, statistically speaking, very old news. Yet these (the right-wing Christians) are the same folk who're loudest on abortion, aren't they? These are the folk who show up on street corners outside abortion clinics -- and who protested the Obama & Jenkins Show at Notre Dame. Interesting: Those who care most for the poor, also stick up for the unborn. Apparently, the two concerns aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that "standing up for the little guy" (through alms and volunteerism and the like) goes hand-in-hand with standing up for the littlest guys (and gals), who're being legally killed before they have a chance to draw their first breath. So why the irritable tone? Why the desire to change the subject, when Deal et alia bring the subject up? Respectfully, R.C. P.S. I apologize if I've mis-characterized your views/feelings on this matter. I had only your two posts in this thread, plus the little I remembered from other threads, from which to draw a conclusion. So if I have misread you, then, "my bad." Written by R.C. Our Lady of Fatima formally requested the consecration of Russia in 1929, the same year the Vatican sold the Papal States for a mountain of money. Exempted from taxation during the war, the Vatican Treasure reached a fantastic sum! After the assasination of Abino Luciani, Pope John Paul II sent a sum of money to Poland that some say approached 100 million dollars. Interpretation of Third Secret based on the book, "In God's Name" by David Yallop: And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it'. (BRIEFLY) A Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. (ALBINO LUCIANI) Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain. (HOLY TRADITION) At the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; (DOGMA PRESERVED IN PORTUGAL) Before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins. (THE CHURCH AFTER THE COUNCIL) And half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; (THE SPIRITUALLY DEAD HIERARCHY) Having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers. (THE VATICAN MAFIA) Note: Having had to kill a Pope, the Vatican Mafia made sure the successors were men they could count on not investigate the finances! Written by Steve I totally agree, but for this: lets write the Pope and not Bertone. If we write Bertone, our letters may have no effect. But if we write Benedict XVI he will hear us, because he has shown that he hears the faithful, who petition him for the good of the Church. Written by Roman Catholic Deal You are correct. Thank you for the clarity and honesty presented here; the Vatican newspaper definitely needs either new leadership or better fact checking or both. Three cheers for honesty. Judie Brown  Written by Judie Brown Macaulay said the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. I suspect the Catholic Neocons are being contained. And that's a very good thing- it's delightful to watch them fume, rationalize and demonize as they are pushed back to the fringe. Cheer , Cheer for L'Osservatore Romano and Old Notre Dame!! Written by TK Macaulay said the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. I suspect the Catholic Neocons are being contained. And that's a very good thing- it's delightful to watch them fume, rationalize and demonize as they are pushed back to the fringe. Cheer , Cheer for L'Osservatore Romano and Old Notre Dame!! — TKAmen! Written by Wes TK, Wes: Let's break that down, and exhibit the implications of your view: Macaulay said the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. (a.) If the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church of Christ, then it owes its longevity not to any sociological strategem, but to the miraculous breathed-in power of the Holy Spirit. If its longevity is for any other reason, it is not the one true church, and should be abandoned and held in contempt, and all its edifices destroyed. (b.) What objective standard do you use to distinguish between "fanaticism" (always a bad thing) and "faithfulness"...or even "zeal," which the Lord commends? Do you have a standard at all? Or do you merely apply "fanatic" as a label to anyone whose behavior makes you uncomfortable about your own lack of faithfulness to the teachings of the Church, either in voting or in personal morality? I hold that any reasonable definition of "fanatic" you might offer cannot be construed to include those who strenuously object to Notre Dame's honoring of Obama, without including many of the saints as well. But perhaps you can prove me wrong. By all means, take your best shot! I suspect the Catholic Neocons are being contained. How on earth did the term "neocon" enter the discussion? There's no way to know the foreign-policy positions of the folk who object to Obama's being honored by Notre Dame, or whether any of them have a Jewish background, which is what many academics mean when they use the term "neocon." Previously you were careless in using the word "fanatic," not to mean something objectively defined, but as a slapdash invective roughly translating to "people I don't like." Are you doing the same thing here with the word "neocon?" Is your definition of "neocon" basically "people I don't like," again? And that's a very good thing- it's delightful to watch them fume, rationalize and demonize as they are pushed back to the fringe. Au contraire: Most discourses from those who opposed honoring Obama were delightfully calm and even-handed (Glendon's letter comes to mind). But if they weren't? What then? Is anger always inappropriate? No; and sometimes a polite, urbane discussion is morally emasculating. Frankly your words here sound like those of the "good Germans," frowning and tut-tutting at those of their countrymen who had the temerity to raise their voices in defense of their Jewish neighbors. What a shame it took so many deaths before those voices could escape being viewed as "the fringe." Cheer, Cheer for L'Osservatore Romano and Old Notre Dame!! Do as you will. I suppose partisan feeling and school spirit create, for some, greater bonds of loyalty than does the Savior. Or for that matter, the unborn. After all, the school has football games and newspaper editorials can make us feel good about out politics. What do the Savior and the unborn have, apart from the words of life and a right to life? ...which are invisible abstractions. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind, eh, TK? Wes? So, do as you will. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Written by R.C. |
|
 |
