Beautiful story, Benefan. And told in the kind of reporting I expect journalists to do, which makes the objects and subjects of the story alive and engaging. (As a journalist, I had a simple criterion for reporting: If I were reading the story, instead of reporting it, what would I like to know about the subject?, then try to provide as much relevant detail as possible.) Thank you for unearthing these gems...

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 16/07/2006 20.37]

WORLD RELIGIOUS LEADERS WRITE TO THE G8

VATICAN CITY, JUL 18, 2006 (VIS) - At the close yesterday in St. Petersburg, Russia, of the summit meeting of leaders of the world's most industrialized nations (G8), a declaration from participants in a world gathering of religious leaders was also read out. Their meeting was held in Moscow, Russia, from July 3 to 5.

"Let us keep the peace that God has given us" write representatives of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Shintoism, highlighting the need for "religion to continue to be the true and solid foundation of peace and dialogue between civilizations," and for "it never to be used as a source of division and conflict."

The declaration identifies the challenges facing humanity today, from the defense of human life in all its stages to the relationship between justice and economics, without overlooking "the scandal of poverty." The text also condemns all forms of terrorism and extremism as well as the violence that seeks justification in religion. It also deplores the activities of pseudo- religious groups and movements "which attack the freedom and wellbeing of peoples."

The world meeting of religious leaders was organized by the inter-religious council of Russia. The Catholic Church delegation was presided by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and also included Cardinal Paul Poupard, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. In his contribution to the debate, Cardinal Poupard highlighted the necessity for religious and civil authorities throughout the world to collaborate for the good of humanity, and the need to face the challenges of globalization, while always respecting the dignity of human beings.

For more detail on the bizarre story of Archbishop Milingo, here is an article from the Kenya Times.


Could the real Bishop Milingo rise up?


By CHRIS OYUGA

He has never ceased to cause ripples and occasional waves since his ordination as a priest in 1958 in the parish of Chipata, in Zambia.

I vividly remember him during a pilgrimage to Rome by young African seminarians in 1987 pontificating thus: “You must work hard to become priests in order to re-Christianize Europe. The developed world is running dry spiritually.”

Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, the charismatic cleric whose “non-conventional” healing ministry, public marriage and call for an end to mandatory celibacy for priests led to one controversy after another with the Vatican, is stocking a fresh one---he now plans to embark on an independent charismatic ministry to reconcile married priests with the Catholic Faith.

“There is no more important healing than the reconciliation of 150,000 married priests with the ‘Mother Church,’ and the healing of a Church in crisis through renewing marriage and family,” notes the 76-year-old archbishop.

Personally ordained by Pope Paul VI in 1969 at the young age of 39, Milingo was recalled to Rome in 1982 amidst controversy over faith healing powers. His ministry to: “Preach the Gospel, heal the sick and cast out devils,” flourished in Europe, and his popularity grew despite efforts by the Vatican to restrict his ministry.

Working from Rome under the protection of Pope John Paul II, his marriage to a South Korean acupuncturist in 2001 scandalised the Church. His marriage, predictably, was not recognized by the Church.

He appeared to have given the mater second thoughts, abandoned his distraught wife subsequently declaring that ... “out of respect and love for the Holy Father, he honoured the pontiff’s request to return to his healing ministry in Rome.

“Archbishop Milingo is not seeking to defy or divide the (Roman Catholic) Church, but is acting out of deep love for the Church and concern for its future,” notes Archbishop George Augustus Stallings, founder of the African American Catholic Congregation. Married priests from Italy, South America and the United States will join the archbishop as he launches a ministry for the renewal of family for the future of the Catholic Faith.

“The Church has nothing to lose by allowing priests the option to marry. Historically, out of holy marriages have come priests, popes, and loving servants of God and the Church,” Milingo says.

Not averse to controversies, it will be recalled that Archbishop Milingo first seriously unruffled the Church’s feathers in May 2001, when he became an avid supporter of Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church. At the age of 71, Milingo baffled many when he wed 43-year-old Korean acupuncturist in New York.

Baffled men and women of the faith found it cynical that a perfectly well grounded theologian cum philosopher like Milingo could turn overnight into a disciple of an individual who claims to be a demi-god cum-Messiah/Christ.

According to the Moonies, as the followers of Rev Moon are referred , Jesus Christ, the pillar of Christianity, was neither divine nor resurrected. But Moonies believe that “there was no redemption at the cross there was no salvation,” and that he, Rev Moon is the “second Messiah.”

On August 24, 1992, Rev Moon was controversially reported to have told followers : “In early July, I spoke in five cities around Korea at rallies by the Women’s Federation for World Peace (WFWP). There, I declared that my wife, WFWP President Hak Ja Han Moon, and I are the True Parents of all humanity. I declared that we are the Saviour, the Lord of the Second Advent, the Messiah.”

Any wonder that some close associates of Archbishop Milingo to date still wonder if Milingo had his brain scrambled to join a sect that does not relate to his theological or philosophical training and belief pedestal.

Interestingly, during the wedding, there was another archbishop who too was tying the knot at the same time. That was George Stallings Junior. Stallings had broken away with the Vatican in 1989 on ground that the Roman Catholic Church was racist and deaf to the concerns of black members. He subsequently founded the Omani Temple African-American Catholic Congregation in Washington, D.C.

But strangely enough, though Stallings has repeatedly said that the world’s Jesus isn’t black enough (he once burned a portrait of “the white Jesus”), he didn’t want his wife to be African-American. Instead, he asked Moon for a Japanese wife because they’re “gentle,” “take care of the kids,” and don’t “party all the time.” Needless to say, several of the black women in his congregation took offense at the comments.

Was it by coincidence that while making his latest move, Milingo was in the company of Archbishop Stallings?

Milingo’s latest move has not only shaken friends and foes alike, but also seems to have deeply betrayed his writings, beliefs and aspirations as a priest, bishop and finally archbishop besides unmasking theologian-priest with three shockingly mysterious faces.

After marrying, Milingo and Sung went to South Korea for a honeymoon which he said was “not very sweet’’ before living together in New York for a few months.

And soon after cementing his relations with Vatican after the controversial marriage, Milingo consigned himself to a quiet retreat in Argentina from where he penned, a scintillating theological masterpiece ……..”Fished out of the Mud”.

In the book, jointly written with an Italian journalist, Michele Zanzucchi, Archbishop Milingo describes his sojourn with Ms Sung as being “ all so strange, only comparing it to “ a strange dream.’’

In the book, Milingo goes on to claim that Rev Moon had intended to use him to establish an African Catholic Church with him as its head and states: “I didn’t realize what I was getting myself into. I only understood later that it (the wedding) was a way of them getting total control over me. One day, one of the last I spent with Maria Sung, the whole thing seemed so absurd to me that I was praying to God: Lord, make me die, Lord make die.”

That was then a 72 -year -old Milingo confessing about his romance with Ms Sung and dalliance with Reverend Sun Myung Moon. This was Milingo the theologian claiming to have been blackmailed and brainwashed! This was a different archbishop Milingo who won the hearts of millions of Catholics, both liberal and conservatives, across the globe, with his speech at the “Fatima 2000” International Conference on World Peace held between Nov. 18 and 23, 1996 in which he charged that there were high ranking Catholic clerics involved in devil worship, fornication and adultery and accused the church of tolerating individuals who broke the laws of celibacy and chastity.

In his address Milingo went on : “Secret affairs and marriages, broken celibacy, illegitimate children, rampant homosexuality and illicit sex have riddled the priesthood to the extent that the UN Commission on Human Rights has investigated the church for sexual abuse.”

This is the selfsame Milingo, now agitating for married priests. Clearly, does it take one so many years to understand the defects of celibacy? Ever wonder why the number of individuals becoming priests and bishops is fewer? Perhaps St Thomas Aquinas could have aptly answered this question in his “Summa Theologea” when he quipped : “It is field for the chosen few.”

Jesus Chris is believed to have said thus on celibacy :”Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Matt. 19:11–12).

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. The church, as Archbishop Milingo aptly puts it in his book, “Fished out of the Mud”, needs strong people able to withstand temptations. Such temptations could come in the form of being wedded by Rev Moon or joining Archbishop Stallings for unknown cause.

Archbishop Milingo will be hard pressed to convince whether he has lost the faith or is he acting out of deep love for the Church and concern for its future.

Policies challenge conscience rights of Oregon pharmacists, doctor

PORTLAND, Ore. (CNS) -- A new policy of the Oregon Board of Pharmacy has prompted objections from pro-life supporters because it requires pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs such as the morning-after pill or medications used in assisted suicides to actively help a patient find a pharmacist who will dispense the drugs even if it violates their consciences. "Fully respecting the consciences of pharmacists should extend to respecting the professional ethical integrity not to refer for prescriptions which violate the conscience of the individual pharmacist," said Bob Castagna, executive director of the Oregon Catholic Conference. "Whether contained in administrative regulation or state statute, public policy should recognize that freedom of conscience is rooted in the federal and state constitutional protections of freedom of religion," he added. Pharmacists who fail to refer would be guilty of "unprofessional behavior," the board said in the new policy statement, approved June 7.

[More damage from Katrina.]


'They pretended they were God'

Doctor, 2 nurses allegedly killed patients with lethal drug dose


From Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston
Tuesday, July 18, 2006

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- In the desperate days after hurricane Katrina struck, a doctor and two nurses at a flooded New Orleans hospital allegedly killed four patients by giving them a lethal drug cocktail, Louisiana's top law enforcement official said Tuesday.

"We're talking about people that pretended that maybe they were God," Attorney General Charles C. Foti Jr. said, announcing second-degree murder charges against Dr. Anna Pou, Lori L. Budo and Cheri Landry.

"This is not euthanasia. It's homicide," Foti said. (Watch how a mercy killing probe led to murder charges -- 1:41)

The charges stem from the post-Katrina deaths of some patients at New Orleans Memorial Medical Center.

An affidavit said tests determined that a lethal amount of morphine was administered on September 1 to four patients ages 62, 66, 89 and 90. Hurricane Katrina swamped the city on August 29.

'Lethal cocktail'
According to the court document, the morphine was paired with midazolam hydrochloride, known by its brand name Versed. Both drugs are central nervous system depressants. Taken together, Foti said, they become "a lethal cocktail that guarantees that you die."

The doctor and nurses were taken into custody late Monday, following a 10-month investigation that continues. Each was charged with four counts of being a principal to second-degree murder and released on $100,000 bond.

Sources have told CNN the conditions at the hospital were dire, and the killings allegedly were carried out to speed evacuation. Foti would not discuss possible motives on Tuesday.

"We feel that they abused their rights as medical practitioners," was all he would say.

Attorney asserts innocence
Rick Simmons, Pou's attorney, issued a statement saying his client "is innocent of the charges and we intend to vigorously contest them."

He also criticized how the arrest was handled.

"I told them that she is not a flight risk. I told them that she would surrender herself," he told CNN. "Instead, they chose to arrest her in her scrubs so that they could present her scalp to the media."

The lawyer for Landry, John Di Guilio, told CNN he was surprised at his client's arrest. He said Landry plans to enter a "not guilty" plea and contest the charges against her.

Foti for months has been investigating whether hospital and medical staff euthanized some patients. He is expected to outline what he thinks happened to some of the 45 Memorial Hospital patients who were found dead in August after the hurricane evacuations.

"We obviously think it's a very credible. ... We spent a lot of time, energy and manpower working on this case, ... so we think it's a good case," Foti told CNN in February.

Euthanasia was discussed
In October, CNN reported exclusively that after deteriorating conditions -- with food running low and no electricity -- some medical staff openly discussed whether patients should be euthanized.

Dr. Bryant King, a contract physician with Memorial who was working before and after the hurricane, said another doctor came to him and recounted a conversation the doctor claimed she had with a hospital administrator.

According to King, the doctor said that the administrator suggested patients be put "out of their misery."

King said when he objected this physician acknowledged his concerns, but he said that "this other (third) doctor said she'd be willing to do it." King told CNN that he later that day saw one doctor holding a handful of syringes. He left, King said, because he believed the doctors would follow through with their suggestion of euthanasia. However, King never saw any wrongdoing occur.

Shortly after he began his investigation last year, Foti issued 73 subpoenas to hospital staff and physicians after he said the hospital owner, Tenet Healthcare Corp., was not cooperating in the investigation.

Since then tissue samples have been sent to a private East Coast lab to determine if fatal doses of medicine, including the painkiller morphine, were in the bodies of any of the dead, New Orleans Parish Coroner Frank Minyard told CNN in December.

Meanwhile, Tenet announced Tuesday that it is selling three New Orleans-area hospitals, including Memorial Medical Center, which has been closed since Katrina.

Editor's Note: CNN, which broke the hospital deaths story, was nominated Tuesday for an Emmy in Outstanding Investigative Journalism: "Death at Memorial Hospital."

Sisters of Providence plan trip to Rome

Staff report
The Tribune-Star

Pope Benedict XVI will canonize Blessed Mother Theodore Guerin, foundress of the Sisters of Providence of St. Mary-of-the-Woods, during a celebratory Eucharistic Liturgy on Oct. 15 at the Vatican.

The Sisters of Providence are planning a weeklong pilgrimage trip to Rome that is open to the public.

The trip package will include the Vespers service the night before the canonization, tickets to the canonization ceremony and the Mass of Thanksgiving on the day after the canonization.

Also included will be an audience with the pope and papal blessing at St. Peter’s Square, tours of ancient Rome, the Catacombs, the Appian Way, the Sistine Chapel, Vatican museums and the private chapel of the popes.

The trips will be Oct. 11-18 or Oct. 12-19.

Detailed information is available at www.spsmw.org, or by calling the Office of Congregational Advancement at (812) 535-2806.

Information about celebrations at St. Mary-of-the-Woods will be announced at a later date.

[Modificato da benefan 19/07/2006 17.05]

This is a most interesting interview, but my problem with it is that it assumes the reader knows exactly what 'custody of the Holy Land" means. A few paragraphs to explain it, who is behind it, how is it administered, which 'friars' are referred to, etc., would be helpful. One of the first rules of journalism: never assume every reader knows the background of what you are reporting on!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Reflecting on the Custody of the Holy Land
Interview With Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa

JERUSALEM, JULY 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- In May 2004, Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa, 41, accepted the responsibility for the Custody of the Holy Land.

In this interview conducted by Giampiero Sandionigi, he evaluates his experience.

Father Pizzaballa, was your nomination a surprise for you or were you prepared for it?
No, I didn't expect it in the least. Before the appointments are made the friars are consulted two separate times. The result of the first is made public; the second is secret. It is sent to Rome, where inquiries and evaluations are conducted.

After the first round of consultations, I understood that I was "at risk." For me, it was very surprising because I was not a member of the previous government. My life was fairly marginal with respect to the rest of the Custody. And finally, there was the age factor: I was only 38/39 years old. The Custos is usually older.

How is it that a community whose average age is not young turns toward a young candidate?
I don't know. Maybe there was a desire for renewal. It may be that later on, in encountering actual changes, there is some fear, but the desire to change was there. I should also say that our community is an international one in which the nationality factor counts. When we speak of the Custody we think first of Jerusalem, which remains a conservative environment, but there are also more peripheral communities that belong to the Custody. I think they had a great deal of influence.

Did that make it easier to say yes?
I talked about it and I gave it a great deal of consideration before saying yes or no. Obedience is not only doing just what the superiors order. When the community chooses you in such an obvious and deliberate, honest manner, if you do not have serious reasons to refuse, there is no sense in saying no. You have to accept in a spirit of service.

Perhaps more than some of your brothers have experience in working with the Jewish component of this society. During your mandate is the Custody going to pay cultural attention to the Jewish world?
Traditionally, the Custody was always close to the Arab world. This is a fact that is part of our history and is in our genes. In addition, some of the friars are of Arab origin. It is also true, however, that during these two years -- because of my knowledge of the language -- contact with Israelis has been facilitated.

Contact has been facilitated, but this has also created misunderstandings, inevitable in the Holy Land, where every word and every punctuation mark can be misunderstood or interpreted according to differing intentions.

Interaction with the Jewish world is important, starting with the fact that a large number of our activities take place in Israeli territory. One doesn't know very well what it comprises, how it should be practiced, what should be practiced. It is a practice that must be built over time.

From the point of view of operational choices, one of my first decisions was that the young religious in formation would study at least one of the three languages spoken in the contexts that come into contact with the Custody (Arabic, Hebrew or Greek).

The perspective of insertion into the Israeli domain is, therefore, an integral part of the formation process. We also pursue concrete initiatives of activities and meetings with the cultural and administrative institutions of the State of Israel to resolve problems and study together common working strategies, in the field of tourism and pilgrimage, for instance.

Your new responsibilities brings you two other aspects: contact with pilgrims and ecumenical relations with the other Churches present in the Holy Places. Could you speak on this?
From this point of view, my work has completely changed. Before, I was in charge of a little parish. Now the perspective and life style are completely changed. The contact with the pilgrims is beautiful. Every day I welcome one or two groups to St. Savior's Monastery. Last year I welcomed thousands of pilgrims, mostly Italians, but not only.

These meetings are always very stimulating. I speak and the pilgrims ask me questions. Many of them are young and it is interesting to get a sense of how they perceive their pilgrimage and their encounter with the reality of the Holy Land. Among the recurring themes is that of dialogue and the scandal of the division among the Churches. Another question that comes up frequently is peace. Young people have trouble understanding why it is difficult for Israelis and Palestinians to meet and talk with each other.

What strikes me the most strongly is the desire for a better knowledge of the Bible and the Gospel. The pilgrims in general, and also the young people, are aware of having a knowledge gap, and that is a beautiful aspect. I always say that the way to judge if a pilgrimage is well done is if, at its end, the pilgrim asks more questions than he has answers. When we ask ourselves a packet of questions, that means the pilgrimage was of service.

Now we come to relations with the other Churches. Meetings with the heads of the other communities are primarily, though not exclusively, institutional. These are not only formal relations, though the formal aspect has its importance. We are in the East, and we must devoid ourselves of a certain, slightly snobbish, Western approach.

Modes of contact and dialogue in the Orient are very different from ours. Religious authorities have a certain role, and it is appropriate to remain in it. If one doesn't enter this mode of behavior, it creates scandal and is not understood. The "coffee ritual" is very important. It has a whole hierarchy that must be considered.

A few illustrative examples: When the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, in paying protocol-required visits, decides to come first to the Custody, this must be understood as a mark of kindness and an attentive compliment. The size of the delegation is also important, whether there are ten, twenty or five members.

These are things that permeate the types of relations among the Churches and also represent public forms of meeting and becoming acquainted. One can limit oneself to the formalities, not going beyond the requisite polite formulas. On the other hand, after the polite formulas, one is seated and then can begin to speak and exchange points of view on concrete problems or documents to be written together. Not to take part in official visits is impolite.

But that is not all. Together with the heads of the Churches, the patriarchs, we have a breakfast from time to time in order to speak more freely -- outside of the formal occasions -- about common problems and strategies.

Finally, it must be remembered that at the Holy Sepulcher the friars and the Orthodox monks live literally under the same roof and share the same spaces. They learn to know each other, to respect or not respect each other, as in any property sharing relationship.

What does your new role mean in terms of your human experience? Has everything changed?
Before, I had a simpler life style with lots of time to pray, to work, to study. Now, to start with, I have no more private life. If I want to go out to eat with someone, I have to ask my secretary to enter the meeting into my schedule and to check whether or not I am free.

Then, my work involves a great deal of solitude. It's inevitable: if you want to remain free, particularly in a micro-context, you have to be alone. Finally, one perceives -- and this may be human -- that when you have responsibility your interpersonal relationships also change. You often suffer from this, and sometimes you are even required to disappoint the people you care for or respect. You have to take this into account.

You travel a great deal. You share the experience of the Holy Land with other Churches, but you can see the experience of these Churches. Do you discuss this with the friars when you return home?
Yes, I talk about it and the friars are interested. I must admit, however, that these trips are often spent in institutional meetings. I do note a great deal of interest in the Holy Land and I have come to understand during these two years that we are incapable of presenting our reality professionally, so that it becomes known. Therefore, I am trying to invest a great deal of energy and resources on this point. It is important.

The Holy Land cannot remain alone. Since the time of the first collection organized by the Apostle Paul, our life at Jerusalem has no sense unless -- as well as having roots in the territory -- it is in very deep union with the Churches of the whole world.

You have Holy Land Commissioners in many countries of the world. In what sense would you say that there are still some rough edges to smooth?
The commissioners are tied to a classic, traditional model of disseminating information about the Holy Land. In November we are holding their first international congress. This will be the first time that they are all meeting together. Until now, they only had conferences by language group. I think an Italian commissioner would be interested to know what the Americans are doing. We can discover how the commissioner in Japan works, or the how the Hong Kong friars speak about the Holy Land in China.

Furthermore, we need to evaluate the situation, count ourselves and see who we are and where we are; compare the situation as we see it from the Custody with how the commissioners see it. Until now, there has been a communications deficit. If we want the commissioners to represent us around the world, they have to be closely tied to us.

We are also trying to study new communication strategies, because the world is changing and the role of the commissioner is not only to collect resources, but also to dispense information about the Holy Land. If people don't know what is happening in the Holy Land, they cannot give concrete assistance.

After two years as Custos, is there something that is particularly on your heart?
I experience some pain in my relationship with the friars. At the beginning of my term I promised to meet them and listen to them. I didn't even know some of them. I have to admit that this area is more tiring than I had thought, firstly because the friars are dispersed among different countries and it is difficult to meet them, but also because in spending time with them you notice that there are different visions and perspectives that you have to respect and understand. The themes of formation and of communication among ourselves are particularly delicate. Dialogue has to begin here first of all, and I sense that I am going to have to invest more effort in this regard.

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 21/07/2006 15.21]

I Had a Dream: The Music of Palestrina and Gregory the Great Had Come Back


An exclusive interview with maestro Domenico Bartolucci. Who killed Gregorian chant and polyphony – and why. And how to bring them back to life. Benedict XVI? “A Napoleon without generals”

by Sandro Magister
www.chiesa

ROMA, July 21, 2006 – The concert conducted in the Sistine Chapel at the end of June by maestro Domenico Bartolucci, in Benedict XVI’s honor and with his attendance, has certainly marked a turning point in the dispute over the role that music has, and will have, in the Catholic liturgy.

But for now, it is a merely symbolic turning point.

The new direction has been indicated with authority. “An authentic renewal of sacred music can only come follow in the pathway of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony,” Benedict XVI said on that occasion. This is a pope whose “great love for the liturgy, and thus for sacred music, is known to all,” Bartolucci emphasized in his greeting of introduction.

But the goal still seems a long way off. Bartolucci, in his nineties, is a first-rate witness to the misfortunes that have plagued sacred music over the past half century. An outstanding interpreter of Gregorian chant and of the polyphony of Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, he is at the same time the victim of their near annihilation.

When the curia of John Paul II planned and carried out the dismissal of Bartolucci as director of the papal choir of the Sistine Chapel, only Joseph Ratzinger, then a cardinal, was on his side.

Now, with the election of Ratzinger as pope, there is a real chance that the course of this drama will be reversed, and that Gregorian chant and polyphony will be returned to their central place in the Church. But neither Benedict XVI nor Bartolucci are so naïve as not to perceive the extreme difficulty of this undertaking.

For the Church to draw once more from the treasury of its great sacred music, there is, in fact, the need for a formidable effort of reeducation, and for liturgical reeducation even before musical.

This is what Bartolucci makes clear in his interview with “L’espresso” no. 29, 2006, reproduced in its entirety below.

In it he says, among other things:

“I am an optimist by nature, but I judge the current situation realistically, and I believe that a Napoleon without generals can do little.”

That Benedict XVI is, in this field, a “Napoleon without generals” was seen, for example in the vigil and Mass he presided over and celebrated in Valencia last July 8-9, organized by the Pontifical Council for the Family and by the Spanish bishops’ conference.

The vigil slavishly followed the canons of the television shows, with presenters, guests, comics, singers, and dancers.

And the songs at the Mass reproduced the “popular” style that invaded during the pontificate of John Paul II: a style unceremoniously described and assessed by Bartolucci in the interview that follows.

Here, then, is the barnburner interview, conducted and transcribed by the expert in classical music for the weekly “L’espresso,” Riccardo Lenzi:


When the cantor was like a priest

An interview with Domenico Bartolucci


Q: Maestro Bartolucci, no fewer than six popes have attended your concerts. In which of them did you see the most musical expertise?

A: In the most recent one, Benedict XVI. He plays the piano, has a profound understanding of Mozart, loves the Church’s liturgy, and in consequence he places great emphasis on music. Pius XII also greatly loved music, and played the violin frequently. The Sistine Chapel owes a great deal to John XXIII. In 1959 he gave me permission to restore the Sistine which, unfortunately, was in bad shape, partly because of the illness of its previous director, Lorenzo Perosi. It no longer had a stable membership, a musical archive, or an office. So an office was obtained, the falsettos were dismissed, and the composition of the choir and the compensation for its members were determined, and finally it was possible to form the children’s choir as well. Then came Paul VI, but he was tone deaf, and I don’t know how much of an appreciation he had for music.

Q: Was Perosi the so-called restorer of the Italian oratorio?

A: Perosi was an authentic musician, a man utterly consumed by music. He had the good fortune of directing the Sistine at the time of the motu proprio on sacred music, which rightly wanted to purify it from the theatrics with which it was imbued. He could have given a new impulse to Church music, but unfortunately he didn’t have an adequate understanding of polyphony in the tradition of Palestrina and of the traditions of the Sistine. He also entrusted the direction of the Gregorian chant to his vice-maestro! His liturgical compositions were frequently noteworthy for their superficial Cecilian style, far from the perfect fusion of text and music.

Q: Perosi imitated Puccini...

A: But Puccini was an intelligent man. And his fugues are greatly superior to those of Perosi.

Q: Was Perosi in some sense the harbinger of the current vulgarization of sacred music?

A: Not exactly. Today the fashion in the churches is for pop-inspired songs and the strumming of guitars, but the fault lies above all with the pseudo-intellectuals who have engineered this degeneration of the liturgy, and thus of music, overthrowing and despising the heritage of the past with the idea of obtaining who knows what advantage for the people. If the art of music does not return to its greatness, rather than representing an accommodation or a byproduct, there is no sense in asking about its function in the Church. I am against guitars, but I am also against the superficiality of the Cecilian movement in music – it’s more or less the same thing. Our motto must be: let us return to Gregorian chant and to polyphony in the tradition of Palestrina, and let us continue down this road!

Q: What are the initiatives that Benedict XVI should take to realize this plan in a world of discotheques and iPods?

A: The great repertoire of sacred music that has been handed down to us from the past is made up of Masses, offertories, responsories: formerly there was no such thing as a liturgy without music. Today there is no place for this repertoire in the new liturgy, which is a discordant commotion – and it’s useless to pretend that it’s not. It is as if Michelangelo had been asked to paint the general judgment on a postage stamp! You tell me, please, how it is possible today to perform a Credo, or even a Gloria. First we would need to return, at least for the solemn or feast day Masses, to a liturgy that gives music its proper place and expresses itself in the universal language of the Church, Latin. In the Sistine, after the liturgical reform, I was able to keep alive the traditional repertoire of the Chapel only in the concerts. Just think – the Missa Papae Marcelli by Palestrina has not been sung in St. Peter’s since the time of Pope John XXIII! We were graciously granted the permission to perform it during a commemoration of Palestrina, and they wanted it without the Credo, but that time I would not budge, and the entire work was performed.

Q: Do you think that the assembly of the faithful should participate in singing the Gregorian chant during liturgical celebrations?

A: We must make distinctions in the performance of Gregorian chant. Part of the repertoire, for example the Introits or the Offertories, requires an extremely refined level of artistry and can be interpreted properly only by real artists. Then there is a part of the repertoire that is sung by the people: I think of the Mass “of the Angels,” the processional music, the hymns. It was once very moving to hear the assembly sing the Te Deum, the Magnificat, the litanies, music that the people had assimilated and made their own – but today very little is left even of this. And furthermore, Gregorian chant has been distorted by the rhythmic and aesthetic theories of the Benedictines of Solesmes. Gregorian chant was born in violent times, and it should be manly and strong, and not like the sweet and comforting adaptations of our own day.

Q: Do you think that the musical traditions of the past are disappearing?

A: It stands to reason: if there is not the continuity that keeps them alive, they are destined to oblivion, and the current liturgy certainly does not favor it... I am an optimist by nature, but I judge the current situation realistically, and I believe that a Napoleon without generals can do little. Today the motto is “go to the people, look them in the eyes,” but it’s all a bunch of empty talk! By doing this we end up celebrating ourselves, and the mystery and beauty of God are hidden from us. In reality, we are witnessing the decline of the West. An African bishop once told me, “We hope that the council doesn’t take Latin out of the liturgy, otherwise in my country a Babel of dialects will assert itself.”

Q: Was John Paul II somewhat accommodating in these matters?

A: In spite of a number of appeals, the liturgical crisis became more deeply entrenched during his pontificate. Sometimes it was the papal celebrations themselves that contributed to this new tendency with dancing and drums. Once I left, saying, “Call me back when the show is over!” You understand well that if these are the examples coming from St. Peter’s, appeals and complaints aren’t of any use. I have always objected to these things. And even though they kicked me out, ostensibly because I had turned 80, I don’t regret what I did.

Q: What did it once mean to sing in the Sistine Chapel?

A: The place and the choir formed a unity, just as music and the liturgy formed a unity. Music was not a mere ornament, but it brought the liturgical text to life, and the cantor was something like a priest.

Q: But is it possible, today, to compose in the Gregorian style?

A: For one thing, we would need to recover that spirit of solidity. But the Church has done the opposite, favoring simplistic, pop-inspired melodies that are easy on the ears. It thought this would make people happy, and this is the road it took. But that’s not art. Great art is density.

Q: Don’t you say any composers today who are capable of reviving such a tradition?

A: It’s not a question of aptitude; the atmosphere just isn’t there. The fault is not that of the musicians, but of what is asked of them.

Q: And yet the monks of Santo Domingo de Silos have sold millions of CD’s of Gregorian chant. There’s also the Third Symphony of Henryk Gorecki, with its medieval references...

A: These are consumer phenomena that hold little interest for me.

Q: But there are authoritative composers who have put the faith at center stage, like Pärt or Penderecki...

A: They don’t have a sense of the liturgy. Mozart was also great, but I doubt that his sacred music is very much at its ease in a cathedral. But Gregorian chant and Palestrina match seamlessly with the liturgy.

Q: In effect, Mozart’s letters don’t convey any great religious sentiment. And yet, in the “et incarnatus est” of his Mass in C minor, that soprano phrase from the wind instruments perfectly explains to us the mystery of the incarnation...

A: Don’t forget that Mozart’s father was a Chapel Master. And so, whether he wanted to or not, he breathed deeply of the air of the Church. There is always something very concrete, especially in a man’s childhood, that explains such spiritual depth. Think of Verdi, who as a child had a priest as his first music instructor, and played the organ at Mass.

Q: Do you feel a bit lonely, with no heirs?

A: There’s no one left. I think I’m the last Chapel Master.

Q: But in Leipzig, at the church of Saint Thomas, there is the sixteenth Kantor since the time of Bach...

A: In Germany, in the Protestant arena, the children of the composer of the Brandenburg concerti jealously safeguard their identity. Verdi rightly said that the Germans are the faithful children of Bach, while we Italians are the degenerate children of Palestrina.

Q: Speaking of Verdi, great sacred music isn’t always compatible with the liturgy....

A: Certainly. Verdi’s Requiem Mass cannot be called a Mass suitable for the liturgy, but think of the power with which the meaning of the text comes through! Beethoven, too: listen to the opening of the Credo. It’s entirely different for the Cecilian movement. These are the masterpieces of sacred music that have a rightful place in concert performances.

Q: Bruckner was also very inspired...

A: He has the defect of being longwinded. His Mass for wind instruments, the one in E minor, is rather tedious.

Q: Was Mahler correct in saying that he was “half god and half simpleton”?

A: That’s right. He had some extraordinary moments, such as his masterful treatments of the arch. But then he began to exaggerate, and then...

Q: And do you like Mahler?

A: He’s like Bruckner – some beautiful moments, but rather repetitive. One would like to shout at him at a certain point: knock it off, we get it!

Q: According to Ratzinger, there is music as a mass phenomenon, pop music, which is measured by the values of the market. And then there is the educated, cerebral music that is destined for a small èlite...

A: This is the music of the moderns, from Schönberg on, but sacred music must follow the spirit of Gregorian chant and respect the liturgy. The cantor in the church is not there as an artist, but as a preacher, or as one who preaches by singing.

Q: Do you envy the Eastern Churches at all?

A: They have not changed anything, and rightly so. The Catholic Church has renounced itself and its particular makeup, like those women who have plastic surgery: they become unrecognizable, and sometimes there are serious consequences.

Q: Was it your father who brought you close to music?

A: He was a workman at a brick factory in Borgo San Lorenzo, in the province of Florence. He loved to sing in church. And he loved the romanze of Verdi and Donizetti. But at that time, everybody sang: the farmers while they were dressing the vines, the shoemakers while they were working a sole. There were bands in the piazza, during the holidays music directors came from Florence, and the area theatre had two opera seasons each year. It’s all gone now.

Q: In Italy, the authorities have cut off financing for the orchestras and theatres...

A: They were right to do so. Those organizations have too many people who are just dead weight. Take, for example, the administrative offices: at first there were four or five persons, now there are twenty or twenty-five.

Q: In what sense can Palestrina, Lasso, or Victoria be considered relevant?

A: For their musical density. Palestrina is the founding father who first understood what it means to make music; he intuited the necessity for contrapuntal composition linked to the text, unlike the complexity and the rules of Flemish composition.

Q: For the philosopher Schopenhauer, music is the summit of all the arts, the immediate objectification of the Will. For Catholics, can it be defined as the direct expression of God, as the Word?

A: Music is Art with a capital “A.” Sculpture has marble, and architecture has the edifice. You see music only with the eyes of the spirit; it enters within you. And the Church has the merit of having cultivated it in its cantories, of having given it its grammar and syntax. Music is the soul of the word that becomes art. It most definitely disposes you to discovering and welcoming the beauty of God. For this reason, now more than ever the Church must learn to recover it.

Germany seeks EU ban on stem-cell research funding


Thu Jul 20, 2006
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Germany pressed its EU partners to ban European funding for embryonic stem-cell research, a day after President George W. Bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded such work in the United States.

"The European Union science programme should not be used to give financial incentives to kill embryos," German Research Minister Annette Schavan wrote in a letter seen by Reuters on Thursday before a meeting on EU science funding on Monday.

"The current proposal from the European Commission and the European Parliament does not rule this out."

Most EU governments, backed by the bloc's executive and lawmakers, want to maintain the possibility of public funding for potentially life-saving research projects.

Supporters of embryonic stem-cell research say it uses only excess cells discarded by fertility clinics and that the work can help find cures for chronic diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

Critics, including the main Christian churches, say it is unethical because it involves destroying human life.

European countries have widely differing national laws, with Britain actively encouraging stem-cell research. Germany, with an aversion to genetic experimentation rooted partly in the legacy of Nazi abuses, effectively bans it.

Stem-cell research would receive only a small fraction of the EU science budget of some 51 billion euros ($64.3 billion) in 2007-13 but Germany is hoping to rally a coalition of mainly Roman Catholic countries to block it.

A draft ministerial decision proposed by Finland, which holds the 25-nation bloc's rotating presidency, would rule out EU funding for research on human reproductive cloning, genetic modification of human beings and artificial creation of human embryos solely for research purposes.

But it would allow funding for research on human stem cells.

As well as Germany, other countries that have put down a reservation on the issue are Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia.

Diplomats said Germany was hoping to persuade Italy, home of the Roman Catholic church, to join the objectors, creating a blocking minority that would force an amendment.

A narrow majority in the European Parliament voted last month in favor of allowing continued public funding for stem-cell research. If Germany can force an amendment in the council of EU governments, parliament would have to reconsider the issue on a second reading.

[Modificato da benefan 21/07/2006 17.38]

Benefan, thank you very much for your post 1444. Bartolucci is still as honest and straight-forward in his assessments and the expression of his thoughts as in 1989 when I had a memorable discussion with him. Let us pray that Benedict gets his generals....

[Fr. Fessio strikes back.]

Charlotte Church faces Catholic boycott over Nazi Pope jibe


21st July 2006
The Daily Mail

One of the world’s largest Roman Catholic publishing houses has refused to sell any works by Charlotte Church after she called German-born Pope Benedict XVI a ‘Nazi’.

The directors of US-based Ignatius Press were offended when the Welsh singer mocked the Church in the pilot of her forthcoming eight-part Channel 4 television chat show.

Miss Church, dubbed the ‘voice of an angel’ before she turned her talents to popular music, also dressed up as a nun and pretended to hallucinate while eating communion wafers imprinted with Ecstasy smiling faces.

She smashed open a statue of the Virgin Mary to reveal a can of cider inside, said she worshipped St Fortified Wine, and stuck chewing gum on a statue of the child Jesus.

Now Ignatius Press, a company considered a “Catholic Amazon” because of the vast range of books, DVDs, cassettes and videos it sells online, has announced that Miss Church’s products have been withdrawn from its website and catalogue.

The company said: “It is with regret that we do this. Miss Church possesses a great gift from God, and in the past she has used her talents to offer praise and glory to our Lord.

“But we cannot stand by a young woman who uses her stature in the media to mock the Eucharist, slander the Holy Father, and denigrate the vows of religious women,” it continued.

“Therefore, our catalogues and website will immediately withdraw all compact discs, cassette tapes, DVDs and VHS tapes that feature Miss Church. Please join us in praying for this troubled young woman,” they added.

Miss Church, 20, was raised a Catholic and sang for Pope John Paul II at the Vatican at the age of 12-years-old.

But she made clear her dislike for Bavarian-born Pope Benedict, 79, shortly after it was reported that he considered the Harry Potter books as ‘subtle seductions’ capable of corrupting young Christians. Miss Church has read the entire J.K. Rowling collection.

The pilot for The All New Charlotte Church Show was filmed before a live studio audience last week. The show to be broadcast this autumn by Channel 4 will be scheduled as a peak-time Friday night rival to Jonathan Ross’s chat show on BBC 1.

And it is likely to be just as controversial. During the pilot show, Miss Church also referred to actress Keira Knightley as a ‘scrawny bird’ and said Victoria Beckham was as ‘thick as two short planks’.

Ignatius Press is the world’s primary English-language publisher of the writings of Pope Benedict XVI. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the company had exclusive rights to his works, and has published 25 books by him.

But after his election as Pontiff in April last year, Benedict transferred the copyright for his works to the Vatican’s own publishing house, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Ignatius Press was founded by Father Joseph Fessio, a Californian Jesuit who studied under the pope at the University of Regensburg in Germany in the 1970s and who continues to be a close friend.

Pope Benedict, the son of a German policeman who was opposed to Nazism, was forced into the Hitler Youth as a child and during the Second World War he served briefly on an anti-aircraft battery.

In May, he forcefully denounced the crimes of his country’s Nazi past when he visited the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp during a visit to Poland.

THANK YOU FR. FESSIO!!! Thank you Benefan for sharing this article... very interesting. So, let me get this straight... Charlotte Church doesn't like Papa because he considers the Harry Potter books as ‘subtle seductions’ capable of corrupting young Christians and she has read the entire collection?!?!?! Is she for real??? OH PLEASE... Charlotte... grow up!

Nan - my grandmother would have said:"This girl is getting to big for her boots."

Date: 2006-07-22

Families Without Children

Report Reveals Changes in Attitudes Towards Kids

PISCATAWAY, New Jersey, JULY 22, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Life without children is a growing social reality for an increasing number of American adults.

This is the conclusion of the 2006 edition of "The State of Our Unions" report on marriage, released last week by the National Marriage Project. The project is based at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Up until recently, for most people, the greater part of adult life was spent with young children forming part of the household. A combination of marrying later, less children and longer life expectancy means, however, that a significantly greater part of adult life is spent without kids being in the house.

The report, titled "Life Without Children," was authored by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe. They start by noting how many recent publications complain of the difficulties in raising children. Many surveys also show that parents report lower levels of happiness compared to non-parents. In fact, an increasing number of married couples now see children as an obstacle to their marital happiness.

This isn't to say that children are rejected by the majority of couples. Nevertheless, there is a growing feeling of trepidation about taking on the responsibilities of parenthood. Of course, bringing up kids has never been easy, but there are good reasons why a growing number of parents are feeling increased pressures, the report explains.

A weakening of marriage bonds contributes to the difficulties of having children. Cohabiting women, the report explains, may postpone childbearing until they have a better sense of the long-term future of the relationship. If they wait too long, however, this places them at risk for never having children. Being in an unhappy marriage is another source of uncertainty. Couples who are worried about getting divorced are the most likely to remain childless.

Changing families

Citing Census Bureau reports, Whitehead and Popenoe lay out just how much family structures have changed.

-- In 1970 the median age of first marriage for women was just under 21years-old. The age of first marriage has now risen to just short of 26. Women who have a four-year college degree marry at an even later age.

-- In 1970, 73.6% of women, ages 25-29, had already entered their child-rearing years and were living with at least one minor child of their own. By 2000, this share dropped to 48.7%. For men in the same age bracket in 1970, 57.3% lived with their own children in the household. In 2000 this had plummeted to 28.8%.

-- In 1960, 71% of married women had their first child within the first 3 years of marriage. By 1990, this almost halved, to 37%. So after getting married, couples now experience a greater number of child-free years.

-- In 1970, 27.4% of women and 39.5% of men, ages 50-54, had at least one minor child of their own in the household. By 2000, the shares had fallen to 15.4% and 24.7%, respectively.

-- In addition, a growing number of women are not having any children. In 2004, almost one out of five women in their early forties was childless. In 1976, it was only one out of ten.

-- The proportion of households with children has declined from half of all households in 1960 to less than one-third today -- the lowest in America's history.

In general, then, a few decades ago life before children was brief, with little time between the end of schooling and the beginning of marriage and family life. Life after children was also reduced, with few years left before the end of work and the beginning of old age.

Less fun

Contemporary culture has quickly reflected the changes in family life, the report observes. It is increasingly common to find the years spent raising children portrayed as being less satisfying compared to the years before and after.

Adult life without children is depicted as having positive meaning and purpose, and as being full of fun and freedom. Life with children, by contrast, is seen as full of pressures and responsibilities.

In general, life without children is characterized by a focus on the self. "Indeed, the cultural injunction for the childless young and the child-free old is to 'take care of yourself,'" the report comments.

The years spent bringing up children is just the opposite. Being a parent means focusing on those who are dependent and subordinating adult needs to the requirements of the children.

By way of compensation traditional culture normally celebrated the work and sacrifice of parents, but this has now changed. Increasingly, the popular image of parents is a negative one. The new stereotypes range from the hyper-competitive sports parents who scream at their own kids, to those who ignore the problems their undisciplined children cause for others in public places.

The latest variant are the so-called "helicopter parents," who get their name from the way they supposedly hover over their children and swoop down to rescue them from any negative consequences of their behavior.

Television programs have long made fun of fathers, notes the report. More recently mothers are also being shown as unfit, unable to carry out their responsibilities without the help of a nanny, or as being over-indulgent and negligent.

By contrast a number of the most popular television shows in America in recent years, such as "Friends" and "Sex and the City," celebrated the glamorous life of young urban singles.

Bias against children

What does this portend for the future, the report asks. For a start, less political support for families. In the last presidential election, parents made up slightly less than 40% of the electorate. Less votes translates into less support for funding of schools and youth activities. Already a number of communities across the nation are trying to hold down property taxes by restricting the construction of affordable single family housing.

In cultural terms the bias against children is likely to grow. Entertainment and pastimes for adults -- gambling, pornography and sex -- is one of the fastest growing and most lucrative, and exciting, sectors of the economy.

By contrast, being a devoted parent is increasingly subject to a ruthless debunking, the report notes. In fact, the task of being a mother is now seen by a growing number as being unworthy of an educated women's time and talents. So the more staid values supportive of raising children -- sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity -- will receive less attention.

"It is hard enough to rear children in a society that is organized to support that essential social task," the report observes. "Consider how much more difficult it becomes when a society is indifferent at best, and hostile, at worst, to those who are caring for the next generation," it concludes.

The family, "founded on indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman," is where men and women "are enabled to be born with dignity, and to grow and develop in an integral manner," explained the Pope in his homily concluding the World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain, on July 9.

"The joyful love with which our parents welcomed us and accompanied our first steps in this world is like a sacramental sign and prolongation of the benevolent love of God from which we have come," he noted.

This experience of being welcomed and loved by God and by our parents, explained Benedict XVI, "is always the firm foundation for authentic human growth and authentic development, helping us to mature on the way towards truth and love, and to move beyond ourselves in order to enter into communion with others and with God." A foundation that is increasingly being undermined in today's society.

Date: 2006-07-22

God is Winning

Religion Refuses to Fade Away in a Modern World

NEW YORK, JULY 22, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Far from fading away in the shadow of modernity and prosperity, religious fervor is, in fact, growing. This is the argument of an article, "Why God is Winning," published in the July-August issue of the magazine Foreign Policy.

The authors, Timothy Samuel Shah and Monica Duffy Toft, explain that one of the most recent confirmations of their thesis was the win last January of the Hamas party in the Palestinian elections.

After the election, one supporter of Hamas replaced the flag flying over the parliament with a banner proclaiming Mohammad. Soon afterwards the violent protests in many countries over the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed provided further evidence of the strength of Islamic fervor.

This was not just an isolated incidence, Shah and Toft maintain. "Voices claiming transcendent authority are filling public spaces and winning key political contests," they say.

Religiously-inspired politics has played an important role in situations such as the fight against apartheid in South Africa and the victory of Hindu nationalists in India in 1998.

In the United States, evangelicals have played an increasingly important part in elections in recent years. "Democracy is giving the world's peoples their voice, and they want to talk about God," the article notes.

The strengthening of religion is taking place at a time when democracy and freedom has spread in the world. The opening up of political processes in countries such as India, Nigeria, Turkey, and Indonesia during the past decade led to a much greater influence by religion in political life.

A similar trend has taken place with regard to economic life. Even though poverty is still a serious problem in many countries a lot people are now better off in economic terms. But as the world's population has become wealthier and more educated they have not turned their backs on God. A case in point is the rapid economic development in China, accompanied by a strong growth in religious belief.

Citing data from the World Christian Encyclopedia, the Foreign Policy article points out that the two largest Christian faiths -- Catholicism and Protestantism -- and the two largest non-Christian religions -- Islam and Hinduism -- have increased their share of the world's population in the year 2000 compared to a century earlier.

The four religions together accounted for 50% of the global population at the start of the 20th century. This had risen to nearly 64% by the beginning of the 21st century, and it could rise to nearly 70% by 2025.

Neo-orthodoxy

But the religious upsurge is not evenly distributed, point out Shah and Toft. "Today's religious upsurge is less a return of religious orthodoxy than an explosion of 'neo-orthodoxies,'" they argue.

These groups have in common the ability for good organization and political savvy. They are also quick to utilize new technologies to reach potential believers and translate their numbers into political power. This has been the case with Hindu groups in India, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in the Palestinian territories and the Pentecostals in Brazil.

There are concerns, however, that such groups may be too extreme in their views and that they can also provoke civil conflicts. But even if there are negative aspects to some uses of religious fervor, religion has played a positive role in supporting democracy and human rights in many countries.

Shah and Taft further explained their case in an interview posted on the Web site of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In the text, dated July 18, they note that attention has been focused in recent years on Islam. It is not just an Islamic question, however, and the Islamic question needs to be understood in a broader context of religion in the world.

They also admitted that a number of Western countries, among them European nations, Canada and Japan, are quite secular. Even so, religious debates and groups still play a role in these countries. In Europe, for example, many recent debates on issues such as Turkey's entry to the European Union or immigration, involve Islam and the role of religion in European identity.

In trying to account for the current strength of religion, Shah and Taft opine that a change began in the late 1960s and accelerated in the 1970s and 1980s. In the developing world, the secular leaders and ideologies that promised progress began to fail. This was the case, for instance, in both Egypt and Iran.

The subsequent defeat of Soviet communism accelerated this process, creating a vacuum that religious groups were able to fill. In addition, a number of "prophetic" religious leaders, from John Paul II to Islamic figures, have exercised a large degree of authority and influence over their followers in recent times. The mobilization of religious believers in the United States has also been an important factor in influencing political and social life, with consequences both inside and outside America.

Until recently, however, religion's role in politics was given little weight by analysts. That has changed now and both academic circles and governments are taking religion more seriously.

Global resurgence

Another view of religion in the modern world comes from Ronald Inglehart, chairman of the World Values Survey, and a professor at the University of Michigan. A transcript of an interview with Inglehart at the National Press Club, dated May 8, is also available on the Pew Web site. The most recent values survey, the fifth, is now being carried out, with results to be published next year.

Inglehart underlined the complexity of the situation regarding religion. In many countries religion is declining. But, he continued, "there are more people alive today with traditional religious beliefs than ever before in history, and they're a larger percentage of the world's population than they were 20 years ago."

There was secularization involved with economic changes, although the United States does provide an exception to this process. But the secularization took place mainly in the period of industrialization, and is still going on in some countries. This led to a decline in religion in many countries and the weakening of established religious organizations. In many Western nations, for example, church attendance is down.

The situation has changed, however, in the post-industrial or knowledge-based societies. In these countries there is an increasing debate over issues related to religious values, for example, over the question of same-sex marriage.

So while traditional churches may still face many challenges, there is a greater interest among the population for spiritual questions. Questions of culture and religion, therefore, do have greater weight in today's world.

Inglehart also pointed out that there is a notable difference between the economically advanced countries and the developing nations. The new interest in religion in developed countries is different in that it is less accepting of authority and linked to what is termed new age beliefs. In the developing countries, however, there is significantly more emphasis on traditional religion and this has not changed in recent years. In fact, they are not secularizing and are placing more emphasis on traditional religion.

This divergency in religious attitudes is a possible source of conflict, Inglehart noted. This conflict is not inevitable, but is a potential fault line where it could occur. So globalization has not brought with it greater conformity and convergence in terms of cultural and religious values. A situation that will no doubt be closely studied in coming years.

In his column ALL THINGS CATHOLIC for 7/21/06, John Allen expands on the exclusive interview he got with 'apostate' Archbishop Milingo of Zambia....
---------------------------------------------------------------

Last Friday, I traveled to Washington, D.C., to interview Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, the famed Zambian exorcist whose on-again, off-again, now on-again marriage to a Korean acupuncturist hand-picked by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in 2001 created one of the most titillating Vatican soap operas of recent memory.

In the end, Milingo responded to a personal appeal of Pope John Paul II and returned to ecclesiastical discipline, apparently swayed in part by the argument that the turmoil surrounding him was worsening the late pope’s health.

Now, however, Milingo has broken with Rome again, turning up last week in Washington in the company of Archbishop George Stallings, leader of the breakaway African American Catholic Congregation, and surrounded by key personnel in Moon’s Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. Milingo says he wants to push the Catholic church to reconcile with the roughly 150,000 priests who have left active ministry to become married.

[We carried Allen's original report earlier in this thread]

One might be tempted to see Milingo’s vicissitudes as a sort of side-show unworthy of serious news attention. Yet I covered the events of 2001 in Rome, and I can testify that the Vatican took them seriously indeed -- in part out of pastoral concern for a member of the episcopal college, but also out of fear that Milingo’s high public profile backed by Moon’s vast resources could represent a major headache for the Catholic church, above all in Africa.

The nightmare scenario was that Milingo would go back to Africa and found his own church, perhaps uniting the various breakaway Catholic factions that already exist, offering a married priesthood and greater acceptance of traditional African spirituality, especially healing and the casting out of demons.

That such thinking is not entirely a flight of fancy is indicated, among other things, by recent news that a Kenyan priest, Fr. Godfrey Siundu, has recently married and led several of his brother priests into a schismatic faction known as the “Reformed Roman Catholic Church.”

Because Milingo is a validly ordained Roman Catholic bishop, he could theoretically consecrate other bishops and create a genuine schism, an outcome the Vatican would move heaven and earth to try to avoid.

In our interview, Milingo denied he has any intention of challenging Rome on his home turf. Anyone who has followed the surprising ups and downs of the Milingo story over the years, however, can be forgiven a degree of doubt as to whether this is truly the last word on the subject.

Excerpts from the Milingo interview:

Last time you were in the public eye, the story ended with a surprise meeting with John Paul II at Castel Gandolfo. Do you intend to seek a meeting with Benedict XVI?
So far, I see no reason for such a meeting at the time being. I want to move ahead with my mission to help married priests and so on. I have written to the Holy Father, I sent him two letters, explaining where I am, and that after America I will return to Zambia.

Why did you make your break now?
I always asked myself, is this the right thing I have done? My doubts, difficulties, and questioning … kept on for five years. It was worsened by the situation in which I was living at Zagarola. I found myself literally surrounded by spies, there by the authority of the Vatican. I might have been satisfied with that, but they continually attacked my mission, which is preaching the gospel and casting out devils.

What was the difficulty?
All my problems come from the lack of appreciation [by church authorities] for the spiritual gifts I have. It was too much for them to believe that in the modern world, I can simply say ‘let this happen,’ and it happens.

Let us not hide the facts, let us be very honest. [After I returned in 2001], I spent four years helping the sick. Why was I not accepted in the Catholic church? They never asked, ‘How is it that Milingo has these powers?’ This is what they’ve forgotten. The Lord has given gifts to the church, the first of which is preaching the gospel. ‘It is not I, but Jesus who is in me,’ as St. Paul said.

A woman from Modena once called me, and said that 20 days after the birth of her child, there is no milk in her breasts. I told her to get a glass of water, and that I would bless it from here. I did it over the phone, and told her to drink it. Immediately afterwards, she began making milk. They can’t accept that.

In Milan, I once saw a woman who seemed dead. I put a handkerchief in her mouth, and held her hand. I felt the blood begin to move, and she came back to life completely. She is alive today.

… It reached a state I could not tolerate. … Some bishops couldn’t even stand my name. Some bishops jumped so high at the mention of my name, it was as if the church had springs. God almighty … I asked the Lord, ‘Why do you have such a structure that separates itself from humanity?’ People come and seek help from me. When they know when Milingo is here, thousands come. How is it that [church authorities] don’t see, don’t appreciate, what I am doing?

Do you plan to create a new church in Africa with Rev. Moon’s backing?
No, Rev. Moon has only talked to me about what they are already doing in some places, with dialogue with the Buddhists, reconciliation between the Palestinians and Israelis, and so on. He told me that they cannot [make decisions] about my needs. ‘You plan yourself what you’d like to do,’ he told me. I’m just doing as Jesus did, and I can find my own way. I want to find a way to preach the gospel.

So you are not going to create or attach yourself to a rival to the Catholic church?
We have no ambition at all, in any way, to do anything of that kind.

I have been impressed with how delicate [Moon’s followers] are with the Catholic church. I went fishing three times with Rev. Moon, and I was very surprised by the simplicity I’ve seen in that man. He speaks of living for others, and I’ve seen what he has done. What John XXIII talked about in Pacem in Terris, working for peace, this is what the Family Federation [for World Peace and Unification, Moon’s organization] is doing. They send ambassadors of peace to different places and so on.

I’m also impressed with the priority they put on marriage. In our church, sometimes marriage is not valued. In Europe, they applaud homosexuality, and there are even nightclubs where people swap husbands and wives. The Synod on the Family produced a document, Familiaris Consortio, defending the family, and this is what Rev. Moon is saying.

… I feel very strongly that I can be an intermediary to reconcile the Catholic church with Rev. Moon.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Has there been a serious study or investigation done anywhere, I wonder, into the 'powers' and 'miracles' that Archbishop Milingo speaks about? Or even any independent corroboration of the 'phenomena' he describes?

If he has genuine healing powers - wich would come from God, as he rightly points out, but not from the fact of his being a priest or an archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church - and wishes to start a family of his own, why can he not just do it as a layman?

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/07/2006 3.50]

Church drops Nazi nun slur


Monday July 24, 09:55 AM
UKnews.com

Welsh singing sensation-turned-chat show host Charlotte Church has dropped a controversial sketch from her upcoming TV show after receiving a barrage of complaints.

Church shocked the pilot's studio audience recently when, wearing a nun's outfit, she ate communion wafers printed with Ecstasy smiley faces, before pretending to hallucinate. She then smashed a statue of the Virgin Mary to reveal a can of cider inside and branded Pope Benedict XVI a "Nazi".

Television chiefs later axed the scene from the forthcoming series insisting they want it to be as up-to-date with current affairs as possible, but The Sun reports they secretly feared reprisals.

US Catholic publishers Ignatius Press have already banned the Crazy Chick singer's music in protest.

A Carmelite's View From Haifa
Interview With Sister Maria Giuseppina

HAIFA, Israel, JULY 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A Carmelite convent in Israel is being inundated with phone calls since the new round of strife begin in the Holy Land.

In this interview sent to ZENIT through the Carmelite order, Sister Maria Giuseppina, prioress of the Carmelite Convent of Haifa, talks about the way the religious are living these times of tension in Israel.

What is the atmosphere in the country, where the population lives with the fear of a new alarm siren or the anxiety of having to run to a shelter before a new bombing raid?
We have experienced the tension of the situation since July 13, when it was announced that they would begin to bomb Haifa, and the rockets arrive with a certain frequency.

The first fell that same night near the Stella Maris Basilica, on the road that goes down to Haifa. A woman died from a heart attack, and then more people have died because of these attacks.

The whole population is in a state of alarm. Thank God, schools are on vacation, but they have had to close the great University of Haifa, and working mothers have been told: "Stay at home with your children." Everything works slowly.

How are the religious living these moments?
We live them in solidarity with the Israeli people, with the Arabs and with the Jews.

We listen to the news and follow instructions. We have been told not to stay in our cells, which look out onto the sea, the direction from which the rockets come. That is why, we have changed our rooms, moving them to the corridors or changing to cells that don't look out onto the sea, out of prudence.

As for the rest, we continue with the same way of life. When there is an alarm sign, we go to the safest room and listen to the news on the radio. When all is over, life begins again.

We pray much and trust in the Lord, to whom we turn in this situation where we cannot see the end, as the two sides are locked in their positions. That is why we hope there will be interventions from on high, not only of the Lord but also of the powerful ones of the earth, to convince them to put down their weapons.

Had you seen signs of what might happen before the conflict broke out?
On Thursday afternoon, July 13, the sister who went to market returned saying that she had heard that that night the bombing of Haifa would begin.

When the first rockets were fired we were in recreation. Before that moment, we didn't think this could happen, as it had never happened in Haifa.

Do people ask you for help?ople ask you for help?
Yes! For example, a girl we knew came to ask us to let her die in the convent, as a rocket had fallen near her home and she was very scared.

Our telephone rings from morning till night: Many people from abroad and from the country call us to ask what is going on and how we are.

Sunday, July 16, was the feast of the Virgin of Carmel, but few people came to Mass, as a bomb exploded causing nine deaths. Everyone was frightened and stayed at home. There is much fear, but at the same time life goes on ...

If you wished to make and appeal or a request, what would you say?
As Carmelites, we are in prayer, and we pray, but we ask all Christians worldwide to pray, as the Holy Land is loved by all and our communities are here at the service of all.

Pray that the situation will change and that the desired peace will finally come. It is an appeal we make with all our heart!

Thanks to Gerald Augustinus for the lead to this story on
www.tomroeser.com/blogview.asp?blogID=22613

7/22/2006
Loyola’s New Theology Chair Teaches
Gay Love is Just as Good as Heterosexual; Condemns “Heterosexism”;
Says Church’s Moral Law
Will Ultimately Change t
o Reflect Her Views


Fidelity to Bible Doesn’t Mean We Should Replicate All 1st Century Morality, Says Dr. Patricia Beatty Jung, Celebrated Speaker at Gay Rallies.

Another article from The Wanderer, the nation’s oldest national Catholic weekly.
By Thomas F. Roeser

CHICAGO-No sooner did the institution calling itself “the nation’s largest Catholic university”, DePaul, establish anacademic minor called “Queer Studies: 101” then Loyola University of Chicago named as chairman of its theology department a woman Ph.D who supports a system of morality at wide variance with Church tradition.

She wants to get the Church and the nation to give equal respect to the cause of homosexual love and says the Church’s moral code will change to reflect hers.

Which means that while the authenticist Catholic Citizens of Illinois petitions Rome to either make DePaul conform to Church teaching on sexual morality or strip it of its Catholic designation, Jesuit Loyola has promoted a woman who says since morals evolve anyhow, one day the Church will join her.

Meanwhile, she says, her formal academic interest is centered on “the moral evaluation of pleasure and sexual diversity.”

“Pleasure and sexual diversity: 101”? Not yet, but her barrage against exclusive heterosexual morality has enlivened many campuses where she has guest-lectured, including St. Mary’s at Notre Dame, Indiana.

The new Jesuit chairman of theology is Patricia Beattie Jung. According to Loyola’s web-site, she runs a department that has long been interested what it describes as the “critical appropriation of personal faith and sympathetic appreciation for the beliefs of others.” (It is also greatly interested in appropriations from the taxpayers, about which more later)....

[You may continue to read the rest of the article at the link given above.]

United States Catholic Catechism for Adults Available July 31

From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website
WASHINGTON (July 25, 2006)—Beach reading? Perhaps not. But the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults is both history making and full of local color.

Its availability on July 31 by USCCB Publishing will mark the first official catechism produced by the Catholic Bishops of the United States since the creation of the Baltimore Catechism. Unlike the Baltimore Catechism with its 421 questions and answers so familiar to many generations who used it as children, this catechism is aimed specifically at adults and does not require rote memorization. Instead, it promotes a command of Catholic faith, prayer life and morals through a more accessible writing style and numerous, often unexpected, features.

The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults is an adaptation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992. At that time the Pope urged that local catechisms be developed to better address specific situations in different countries. The adult catechism is meant to present Catholic teaching comprehensively and authoritatively but with a view to American culture and experience. The intended audience includes those who are preparing for the Sacraments of Initiation through the RCIA process, young adult Catholics, Catholics who may have drifted away from the practice of the faith or lost sight of its treasures, and all who may seek to know more about Catholic belief and practice.

Six years in the making from start to finish, the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults was authorized by the American Bishops in June, 2000, as a project of the USCCB Committee to Oversee the Use of the Catechism. Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, at that time Bishop of Pittsburgh and himself the author of an adult catechism, was chairman of the five-bishop editorial oversight board that handled the writing. Development of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults entailed three national consultations and drafts, and the processing of more than 10,000 suggested amendments. The adult catechism was approved overwhelmingly by the bishops at their November, 2004 general meeting and received the necessary recognitio from the Holy See in November of 2005.

The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults follows the universal catechism’s arrangement of content: “The Creed: The Faith Professed”; “The Sacraments: The Faith Celebrated”; “Christian Morality: The Faith Lived”; and “Prayer: The Faith Prayed.” It teaches the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the Sacraments, moral principles, and the heritage of the Doctors and saints of the Church. As the Introduction puts it, “it is an organic and systematic expression of the Apostolic Tradition, expressed in an inspired way in Sacred Scripture and authoritatively interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.” The text also provides basic information on the sacramental language, practice, and discipline of the Eastern Churches.

Each chapter in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults includes a Story or Lesson of Faith; Teaching: Its Foundation and Application; Sidebars; Relationship of Catholic Teaching to the Culture; Questions for Discussion; Doctrinal Statements; Meditation and Prayer.

The Preface and each of the 36 chapters opens with a story about a saint, a biblical figure or other exemplary Catholic, most of them American, both to invite reflection and to demonstrate the contribution of American Catholics to U.S. society. These brief biographies include, among many others, Archbishop John Carroll, the first Catholic Bishop in the United States; St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, foundress of the parochial school system; Rose Hawthorne Lathrop, daughter of novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne, who founded an order of nuns to care for terminally ill cancer patients; John Boyle O’Reilly, 19th century editor of the Pilot, Boston archdiocesan newspaper, who spent years helping Irish immigrants through the process of cultural assimilation while vigorously defending the rights of African Americans and Native Americans; Sr. Thea Bowman, convert, singer, and educator, who proclaimed in song and speech the black spiritual culture of the rural south; the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who edified millions by his faith-filled acceptance of suffering and death; Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker Movement and a candidate for sainthood; labor leader Cesar Chavez; St. Katherine Drexel, the Philadelphia heiress who founded a religious congregation to serve the disadvantaged and who spent her personal fortune building schools in the rural U.S. West and South; and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, philosopher, author, unrivaled television preacher, and head of the Propagation of the Faith.

Following the section of each chapter that addresses aspects of faith as applied to U.S. culture are questions that allow readers to explore personal and communal ways of internalizing the teachings of the Church.

Each chapter contains a review of points of doctrine covered in the chapter. Chapters conclude with meditations drawn from a saint or spiritual writer. “A catechism needs to be more than a summary of teachings,” it says. “God has called all of us to prayer and holiness. Doctrines are distillations of prayer and thought made possible by the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church. Prayer is the gate that leads us to a deeper understanding of the Word of God and to the hidden treasures of doctrinal teachings.”

NOTE: The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults is available from USCCB Publishing (No. 5-450, 664 pp. $24.95).

Because the Holy Father has shown continuing concern over the current conflict in the Middle East, here is a report on what took place at the international conference in Rome today to seek a solution to Israeli-Lebanon hostilities. Normally, military and political matters would not otherwise be within the purview of this forum's interests, unless they directly affect the Catholic Church as, for instance, radical Islam does.

26 July, 2006
LEBANON
Rome conference calls for ceasefire
and international force in Lebanon

Lebanon must be helped in its reconstruction and in exercising effective control over its entire territory. Kofi Annan and Condoleeza Rice admit that lasting peace can only be achieved if Syria and Iran are engaged.


Rome (AsiaNews) – There is the “utmost urgency” to reach a ceasefire to open the way for a humanitarian intervention and the deployment of an international force that would help Lebanon in its reconstruction and in fully exercising effective control over its entire territory (thus addressing the issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament).

In a nutshell these are the key points agreed upon by all the participants to the International Conference for Lebanon held today in Rome and released to the press in a joint statement by the meeting’s Italian and US chairpersons.

For his part, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the conference "to urge the Security Council to call for an immediate cessation of hostilities”. Lebanon, he said, should be given time and space “to extend its authority [. . .] throughout the country”. And “for solutions to last, it will also require the constructive engagement of the countries of the region, including Syria and Iran.”

European Union foreign ministers announced that a special meeting for next Tuesday, August 1, to discuss the Lebanon crisis.

The Organisation of the Islamic Council announced that it would meet next week to discuss the crisis in Lebanon and called for an immediate ceasefire.

In the conference’s final statement the participants expressed the “international community's deep concern about the situation in Lebanon and the violence in the Middle East” as well as their “determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a cease-fire”, which, in their view, “must be lasting, permanent and sustainable”.

The participants also agreed that an “International Force in Lebanon should urgently be authorized under a UN mandate” and discussed “concrete steps that would allow [. . .] Lebanon to exercise effective control over all of its territory.”

They also agreed that an international conference of donor countries who want to help Lebanon should be organised. So far the country has suffered damages estimated at US$ 2 billion.

For Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, “some progress has been made” but “much remains to be done”.

It is now up to the UN Security Council to ask for an immediate ceasefire as a first necessary step towards urgent humanitarian actions and the deployment of an international force. This would not only enable Lebanon to fully control its territory but would also start a true peace process, something that necessarily involves Syria and Iran.

US Secretary Rice has implicitly accepted this after Kofi Annan said Hezbollah’s backers had to be engaged. Ms Rice said: “we are deeply concerned about the role of Iran” in Lebanon, but “Syria also needed to do its part”. She added that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria itself had a role to play in convincing Iran not to use extremist forces.

“There is much work to do and everyone has a role to play”, she said, in the region where “[w]e cannot [. . .] return to the status quo ante”.

Meanwhile Beirut airport saw a Jordanian C-130 transport plane arrive with humanitarian aid, whilst in Tehran, “students” are said to be getting ready to leave to bring help to Hezbollah.

Godless Morality? Why Judeo-Christianity Is Necessary for Human Rights


By Edward Feser
Crisis Magazine

Europe will return to the Faith, or she will perish. The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith.” So wrote Hilaire Belloc in 1920, when the death of Christianity on the European continent appeared to loom over the horizon.

Now that horizon seems to have been reached. A mere 21 percent of Europeans say they regard religion as “very important” to them, and even fewer—a paltry 15 percent—attend weekly worship services of any kind. Only 41 percent even believe in a personal God. The heartland of what was once Christendom has become a vast empire of sometimes intolerant secularism.

L ast year, the candidacy of distinguished philosopher Rocco Buttiglione for commissioner of justice for the European Union was rejected on the grounds that he is a believer in traditional Catholic moral teaching on sexuality— despite the fact that Buttiglione made it abundantly clear that he was opposed to using the power of the state to enforce this teaching.

Needless to say, Europeans generally do not appear much worried by this turn of events, and most certainly wouldn't endorse Belloc's apocalyptic prognosis. There are exceptions, though. Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor Pope John Paul II have expressed alarm at the trend and called for a “re-evangelization” of the continent. Nor can the concerns of these men be dismissed as stemming merely from a manifest vested interest.

Some prominent thinkers who are neither religious nor even politically conservative—most recently the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who is both an atheist and a leftist—have expressed the view that the values of individual rights, moral equality, and human dignity might not survive the decline of the Judeo-Christian cultural framework within which they first developed. And there are very good reasons for believing that there's an essential connection between those values and the framework in question—a connection that ought to lead even non-believers to hope for the revival of the religious traditions of Western civilization. A thoroughly secularized Europe will not long remain a free and civilized Europe.

The idea that a human being per se has an inherent dignity began with the Jews. It is well-known that the ancient Israelites were unique in insisting that their God was not merely one tribal deity among others, but was the very Creator of the universe in whose image all men were made.

What is perhaps less widely realized is that this distinctive metaphysical conception of God served as the foundation of a distinctive moral outlook. For given that every human being reflects the image of God Himself, it follows that every human being has a worth that surpasses that of anything else in creation, and that every human being is, in this respect, of equal worth. Moreover, this God—being an omniscient Lawgiver—commands all men to act in a manner consistent with their unique status, and will hold those accountable who fail to do so. The Jewish conception of God has, accordingly, often been described as an “ethical monotheism”: No arid philosophical abstraction, it calls on men to change their behavior toward each other as well as their opinions about the nature of the divine.

Christianity inherited this universal moral interpretation of monotheism from the Jews and carried it further. So important are human beings in God's plan that God Himself condescended to become one of them in the person of Jesus Christ, suffered the indignity of death on the cross to pay the penalty for their sins, and was raised from the dead to guarantee for them the possibility of eternal life. These doctrines of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection elevated human dignity to the greatest conceivable limit, as evidenced by the manner in which the Church worked out their implications over the centuries.

From the beginning Christians took the view that God was not merely a distant First Cause but an ever-present and all-loving Father, whose call to every human being was to become a son or daughter who would dwell in His household forever. This developed into the concept of theosis or “divinization,” in which the aim of the Christian life was to take on—as far as is possible for a finite creature—the very nature of God Himself. As St. Athanasius put it, “God became man so that man could become God.” This perfecting of man would make possible the Beatific Vision, an everlasting direct communion with the divine; children now become adults, as it were, capable of mature fellowship with their Father.

The social and political consequences of this lofty vision of human beings' place in the cosmic scheme of things were dramatic. The shabby treatment afforded the poor, the crippled and diseased, and the otherwise powerless in pre-Christian pagan societies was no longer considered morally tolerable. The Roman practices of gladiatorial combat, infanticide, and infant abandonment were abolished, as was abortion. The sexual act was no longer to be treated as a means by which a man might exert his dominance over women and other men (and, now and then, perhaps pro-create, too), but was elevated to the status of a physical manifestation of a marital love mirroring that of Christ for His Church. Fornication and adultery were prohibited for men no less than for women, and divorce and polygamy were condemned as incompatible with respect for the dignity of marriage.

For these and other reasons, the status of women improved immeasurably. Wives could no longer be regarded as the property of their husbands, or as mere breeding machines or instruments for personal pleasure. A man was now expected to find release for his sexual appetites only under the condition that he bind himself to one woman for life, forsaking all others and undertaking not only to provide for her and for every child that might be born as a result of their union, but to love and sacrifice for her as Christ had for him.

Feminists who somehow see in this a paradigm of sexist oppression fail to realize how vastly superior it was historically to the status of women in every culture outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, the improvements that have occurred in such cultures—the abolition of sati (the practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre), foot binding, and clitoridectomy, for instance—have typically come about precisely as a result of the influence of that tradition. And as Alvin Schmidt documents at length in Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization , the Judeo-Christian tradition is the direct source of all of the moral reforms concerning the treatment of the individual—such as the abolition of slavery—that modern Westerners take for granted, and that have spread from the West to much of the rest of the world.

That tradition is also the direct source of the notion of universal human rights, which has become a hallmark of the rhetoric of internationalist bureaucrats of the European stripe otherwise contemptuous of Europe's Judeo-Christian heritage. The distinction (if not separation) between church and state has always existed within Christianity, and its import was in part the putting of strict limits on the power of government: Ecclesiastical authority served to counter-balance the state, and to protect families and individuals from its overweening ambitions.

The Christian Scholastic thinkers of the medieval period, St. Thomas Aquinas chief among them, developed a sophisticated system of natural-law ethics according to which there is an objective and rationally ascertainable moral order, against which the legitimacy of all social conventions and the decrees and actions of every ruler must ultimately be judged. The late Scholastic successors of these thinkers derived from the natural law the first well-worked-out theories of natural rights as a way of putting humane limits on the power that European rulers could claim over the native inhabitants of their new colonies. Spanish theorists like Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de Las Casas argued that the American Indians, though unbelievers, could not justly be deprived of their life, liberty, or property: As fellow human beings, they were no less subject to the natural law than were Christians, and thus they possessed the same natural rights as Christians.

Within the context of Protestant Christianity, John Locke developed the version of the natural-rights theory that has been most influential within the Anglo-American political tradition. Locke starts with the idea that human beings are God's workmanship, and thus His property, “sent into the world by His order and about His business.” If every human being is owned by God, though, then anyone who harms another's life, liberty, or property thereby damages what belongs to God. To avoid the violation of God's property rights, it follows that we are obliged not to harm any other human being in these ways; this entails treating them as having natural rights to their lives, liberty, and property. Relative to God, every human being is a servant who must account for his actions to a divine Master, and thus has no right to himself; but relative to every other human being, he is a self-owner who cannot be used as a means to others' ends.

It's clear enough that the moral ideals that Western secularists value had—as a matter of historical fact—a theological origin. But could they not be given a foundation instead in some other, non–Judeo-Christian religious tradition—or in a purely secular philosophy? It doesn't appear so. For the dignity that the Western tradition has attributed to human beings derives entirely from the idea that their distinctive attributes—reason and free will, personhood and moral choice—reflect the very nature of the ultimate reality that is God Himself.

Non-Western religions typically downgrade the significance of human beings and of the personal attributes that distinguish them from the lower animals. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism tend to see ultimate reality neither as a heavenly Father nor as a moral lawgiver and judge, but as an impersonal absolute existing beyond good and evil and indifferent to human concerns. Salvation, as viewed by these religions, tends to be understood not in terms of the continued existence after death of the person, in a perfected form, but instead as something close to the opposite: the extinction of the self—indeed, the disappearance of the illusion that any genuine self ever existed at all.

Even Islam, despite its historical relationship to Judaism and Christianity, has a very different conception of God. Allah is not a heavenly Father whom the believer may approach as a son or daughter, but a forbidding and over-powering Will to which one simply submits as to an irresistible force. Neither the idea of man as made in God's image nor the notion of free moral choice is much emphasized, and is often even regarded with suspicion. Salvation, accordingly, is not a matter of becoming more fully God-like and attaining the Beatific Vision, but mainly of gaining access to an everlasting cornucopia of decidedly creaturely delights—food, drink, and the company of beautiful women (albeit some Muslim theologians would give these a symbolic interpretation).

It is no surprise, then, that the concept of the dignity of man as unique in all of nature and the bearer of inviolable natural rights did not develop within these non-Western religions. Nor is it obvious, given their conceptions of human nature, that this concept could easily take root if transplanted into such alien soil.

Might some purely secularist justification for this ideal nevertheless provide a common basis on which all could support it? Here too there are serious difficulties, especially since the concept of human nature endorsed by most contemporary secular theorists seems closer to that of the religions outside the Judeo-Christian framework than to the one enshrined within it. Ever since Darwin (if not before), secular thinkers have been increasingly prone to assimilate human beings to the lower animals and to debunk any suggestion that their capacities for reason and will are qualitatively different from the capacities of other creatures. Indeed, the very idea that human beings have an objective, fixed nature or essence and a natural end or purpose—the core presuppositions of traditional natural-law theory—is derisively rejected by such theorists.

Philosopher Derek Parfit speaks for what might be a majority of contemporary secular intellectuals in holding that there is no objective reality corresponding to the traditional understanding of the concept of a “person.” Human beings exhibit certain continuities in their psychological and bodily characteristics over time, and certain discontinuities. Sometimes the discontinuities are minor, and sometimes—as in brain damage, mental illness, sex-change operations, and so forth—they are great. In neither case, though, is there a permanent abiding “self,” much less a soul, underlying these various characteristics. As in Buddhism, the notion of the self, or of an immortal soul destined for eternal life in heaven or hell, is an illusion.

Such trends in modern thought have led Columbia University legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron (who is by no means a member of the so-called religious right) to suggest that it is a very serious question whether the Western ideal of equal human rights can be given a secular justification. In his book God, Locke, and Equality , Waldron notes that even Locke—who, as an Enlightenment-era Protestant, abandoned the medieval Scholastic notions of an objective human essence and natural ends or purposes, and with them the traditional foundations of belief in natural law and natural rights—faced a grave problem of how to justify belief in human equality. Locke's solution was to appeal to the idea that even if there are no fixed boundaries to human nature, human beings at least have a capacity for reason that is adequate to lead them to a belief in God, and thus to grasp the idea that they are His creatures and responsible to Him for how they treat others.

The Scholastics had believed that even though man's fixed essence and natural end or purpose derive from God in some ultimate sense, we can infer from this essence and natural end a doctrine of natural law and human rights without appealing directly to God's will. But Locke, rejecting these core notions, has nothing left but God's will to appeal to: Since we can't—in his view—know anything about human nature per se that will tell us that we have any rights, we have to rest content with the knowledge that we are God's property, and thus that we'd be violating His rights if we harmed one another.

Locke's theology was thus absolutely crucial to his political theory—a theory that was perhaps the chief intellectual influence on the American Revolution—and accordingly, he regarded atheism with utter horror. “The taking away of God,” he said, “though but even in thought, dissolves all.” For this reason, though Locke was the preeminent theorist of religious toleration in early modern philosophy, he emphatically denied that toleration could be extended to atheists, for atheism undermined the very possibility of any justifiable belief in equal human rights.

As Waldron acknowledges, denial of toleration to atheists is not a serious option for us today. But he argues that this does not mean that there isn't a serious problem of how belief in human equality can be justified on secular grounds. Indeed, the problem is especially acute given that contemporary intellectuals are even less inclined than Locke was to believe in a fixed human nature or a natural human purpose or end. They regard human beings as nothing more than the accidental and purposeless products of the blind forces of natural selection; as differing from other animals only in degree rather than in some absolute metaphysical way; and as having no nature that cannot in principle be changed via social and/or genetic engineering. Nor, to state the obvious, can a direct appeal to God's will come to their rescue as it did for Locke: Such theological concepts are, to the modern intellectual, even more abhorrent than the notions of natural ends and essences.

So what is left to form the basis for a doctrine of natural human equality or universal rights? Justice McLean's dissent in the infamous Dred Scott decision defended the cause of justice even for a slave on the grounds that “he bears the impress of his Maker…and he is destined to an endless existence.” McLean did not say, after the fashion of naturalistic secularism, that a slave is—like every other human being—merely one meaningless product of evolution among others, destined for annihilation; nor did he say that the slave's sense of “self” is an illusion reflective of nothing metaphysically deep, and that the idea that he partakes of a universal, fixed human nature is a mere medieval superstition. And it is not easy to see how such a deflationary conception of human beings could support a condemnation of slavery as objectively unjust.

The state of things in contemporary secular moral theorizing does not appear to provide much ground for optimism. Benedict XVI, in a speech given just prior to his recent election, warned that “we are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.”

The very idea of universally binding moral standards—including standards of justice that could justify a commitment to human rights—is regarded as passé by much of the intelligentsia. Some commentators in the academy, and especially in academic philosophy, have criticized the pope's statement on the grounds that relativism (understood as the doctrine that there is no such thing as objective truth) is not nearly as prevalent among intellectuals as the popular image would have it, and that postmodernism and other explicitly relativistic doctrines constitute the views only of a loud minority rather than a prevailing orthodoxy. There is at least a grain of truth in this response: Most intellectuals do not doubt the objective truth of science, for example, and even where ethics is concerned, at least many of them believe that the liberalism they tend to be committed to comprises universal moral principles that ought to be accepted by every reasonable person.

Still, to dismiss the pope's warning on this basis would miss the point. Whether most professors believe that there is objective truth even where morality is concerned, modern intellectual life has been relentless in its assault on traditional moral and religious views and in promoting the idea that the only respectable intellectual attitude is one of constant questioning of all received ideas. This has had the result that most of what ordinary people still regard as the paradigms of moral and religious truth—namely, traditional opinions on these matters—have been derided by the intellectual class as mere prejudices, and that any firm commitment to an opinion on such questions has come to seem irrational and dogmatic. The lesson that the average non-intellectual has taken away from this is that intellectuals believe that most people's judgments about morality are mere expressions of subjective feeling, and that everyone ought at least to be open to the possibility that other people's moral views might be just as good as one's own.

To be sure, this is not what professional philosophers mean by “relativism,” for it leaves it open that there might actually be such a thing as objective moral truth—regardless of whether it corresponds to traditional views and whether we should ever let ourselves be too confident that we have discovered it. But it is part of what most other people seem to mean by “relativism,” or at least has some of the ingredients they fear in relativism.

If traditional views are simply wrong, and no view can be held except in a tentative way, then it seems inevitable that there can never be widespread commitment to any moral principles substantial enough to hold a society together. When every man sees himself as rationally permitted—indeed even obliged—to follow only those moral rules that seem reasonable to him, then he can only regard policies that are based on other rules (whether or not they are accepted by a majority of his fellow citizens) as having no moral authority. The consequences of this view are precisely those cited by the pope: Nothing is recognized as certain, and the arbiter of moral truth becomes, in practice, “one's own ego and one's own desires.”

The secular moral theories favored by contemporary liberals only tend to reinforce this outcome. For instance, utilitarianism, as interpreted by most of its contemporary advocates, holds that the ultimate aim of morality is to maximize the satisfaction of individuals' subjective preferences. This claim is presented as objectively true, and in that sense is not relativistic. But insofar as it makes the fulfillment of individual desires, whatever they happen to be, the point of morality, it seems clearly vulnerable to the pope's criticism—as can be seen from the conclusions (pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, even pro-bestiality and necrophilia) well-known utilitarian philosophers like Peter Singer derive from the theory.

Of course, utilitarians do not hold that every desire ought to be gratified—they would say that the fulfillment of some desires (such as a fleeting desire to kill someone who has just cut you off on the freeway) might lead to the frustration of many others (since the relatives of the other driver might exact revenge on you), and thus should be ruled out. But utilitarianism notoriously has a tendency to entail the possibility—at least in principle—of sacrificing some people for the sake of others, if this would maximize the overall satisfaction of preferences. It is, for that reason, generally regarded as incompatible with any robust conception of justice and individual rights. And it is certainly incompatible with any notion that human beings have a special dignity: In holding as he does that some brain-damaged infants have less value than some animals (who also have desires that can either be fulfilled or frustrated), Singer is merely following an “animal rights” tradition within utilitarianism that goes back to Jeremy Bentham, the theory's spiritual father.

Most liberals would likely prefer some kind of “social contract” theory to utilitarianism. The idea here is that the fundamental principles of morality are whatever rules self-interested, rational individuals would agree to follow in their dealings with one another. But the more seriously this sort of theory takes the motives of real, flesh-and-blood, rationally self-interested people, the harder it is to see how it could support any substantial commitment to universal human rights. For a “rationally self-interested” person might be one who sees no reason why he shouldn't take advantage of others—even to the extent of depriving them of their lives, liberty, and property—if this can serve his purposes and if he can get away with it.

Some social contract theorists try to avoid this problem by arguing that a rationally self-interested person would not adopt such an attitude, since if he got a reputation for holding it he might find that others would not trust him enough to have any significant dealings with him. Whatever one thinks of this sort of strategy, though, it's clear that it once again gives us a theory that puts “one's own ego and one's own desires” in the driver's seat. And since there's very little in the way of moral rules that all real-world, rationally self-interested persons would plausibly agree to, we seem once again bereft of any principles substantial enough to hold a society together. Moreover, if the rules apply only to those who agree to them, then anyone who doesn't agree to the rules—anyone who either cannot or will not “sign the social contract,” as it were—would fail to have any rights at all. The possibility of universal human rights would therefore be ruled out. (It is no surprise, then, that contemporary secular social contract theorists tend to favor abortion and euthanasia no less than utilitarians do.)

Other social contract theorists, most prominently the liberal philosopher John Rawls, do not in fact regard the actual motives of flesh-and-blood human beings as significant. Rawls starts instead by asking what rules would be agreed to by idealized rationally self-interested individuals—those who exist behind what he calls a “veil of ignorance” that hides from each of them knowledge of his race, sex, class, religion, and any other potentially biasing factor. Rawls thereby avoids the problems alluded to above, but at a cost. For since he does not appeal to the motives that real individuals actually have, it is hard to see how the principles he wants to defend can be binding on real-world human beings. Indeed, as he approached the end of his life, Rawls came increasingly to acknowledge that he had not provided a justification of his conception of justice that could reasonably be expected to convince anyone who was not already broadly sympathetic to its ideals.

And secularist liberal philosophers like Richard Rorty have appealed to Rawls's work to show that the liberal conception of justice and rights is one that cannot be given a foundation outside a society that is not already essentially liberal. In Rorty's view, different societies—liberal and illiberal, free and totalitarian—ultimately have different fundamental moral commitments, and there is no hope for the project of finding an objective standard outside all of them by reference to which some might be judged better than others. Here we see even more explicitly how a secular liberal moral theory seems to lead to the kind of relativism the pope was speaking about—and also how it confirms Waldron's fears that a belief in basic human equality might be incapable of a rational justification on purely secular grounds.

It should be emphasized that nothing said here is meant to imply that the irreligious cannot believe in human dignity, justice, and rights. Nor is it denied that some societies outside the Judeo-Christian tradition do indeed have free social and political institutions. It does seem, though, that where those institutions exist outside the West, they have either been imposed by the West, or imported from it on the basis of their perceived economic benefits. Moreover, where certain specific freedoms do not seem essential to the economic benefits, they have often been abridged—as in newly capitalist China, Singapore, and other exemplars of the ideology of “Asian values.”

The idea that all human beings as such have an inherent dignity—and that this entails a doctrine of objectively valid, absolute, and universal human rights—seems to exist only in the Judeo-Christian West, and the moral (as opposed to economic or political) pressure other societies might feel to conform to this idea seems to come only from the West. Those who value these ideals, even if they are not personally religious, would seem therefore to have an interest in the continued health of the Judeo-Christian tradition; for whatever basis this or that individual person might have for endorsing these values, it is not at all clear that they can be maintained at the societal and global levels in the absence of that tradition.

At this point in history, it is in the United States, the leader of the Western world, that the Judeo-Christian tradition seems healthiest. In its European heartland, that tradition is dying. And many of the differences between Europe and the United States where moral and political opinion are concerned seem clearly linked to this difference in religious outlook.

From the point of view of many Americans, Europeans are too willing to submit themselves to smothering state bureaucracies, caring less for individual freedom and responsibility than for the security the government claims to provide. They are also, from this point of view, excessively prone to evaluate human action in impersonal social-scientific terms rather than by reference to moral categories, and are therefore increasingly incapable of recognizing evil for what it is—hence the tendency of European commentators to treat a Palestinian bomber who intentionally targets children and an Israeli soldier who accidentally kills a child while defending himself as morally equal.

And then there is the apparent obsession with legalizing and even celebrating all manner of vices—such as pornography and drugs—to a far greater extent than has occurred in the United States; the collapse of marriage and the traditional family in many European countries, along with an alarmingly low birthrate; and the vigorous promotion of euthanasia. We're left with a continent that appears to see no greater end in life than to eat and drink well as far as possible at others' expense, to work little, and to copulate frequently without the bother of marriage or children; to idle away the remaining hours with various entertainments and illicit pleasures; and, when these distractions start to bore, to end this pointless existence as painlessly as possible with a quick injection at the hands of a government physician.

If this is a caricature, it is hardly a groundless one. And from the traditional Judeo-Christian perspective, the way of life it describes already sounds halfway like a description of hell. It is surely understandable if those still committed to that perspective might wonder if it is a harbinger of worse things yet to come.


Edward Feser is the author, most recently, of The Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction (Oneworld, 2005) and editor of the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Hayek (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

4 Positive Aspects of Talks on Lebanon:
Analysis by the Vatican's 'Foreign Minister'

VATICAN CITY, JULY 27, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The 15-nation conference held in Rome on Wednesday failed to produce an immediate cease-fire, but there were significant results, says the Vatican secretary for relations with states.

Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo participated as an observer in the international conference, and in this interview aired today on Vatican Radio, he offers his analysis of the meeting.

The international conference for Lebanon was held yesterday, at the initiative of the United States and Italy, in which the Core Group on Lebanon and other countries took part. The Vatican press office announced that a delegation led by you was present in the capacity of observer. Can you explain this?
Archbishop Lajolo: As is known, the Holy See is directly interested in peace in the Middle East, as it has demonstrated on several occasions.

Yesterday, at the invitation of the United States and Italy, the Holy See was able to participate in the capacity of observer; by its nature, this is the role with which the Holy See generally participates in international organizations.

What is your judgment on the conference?
Of course it is positive that it was called with such speed at the initiative of the Italian government, and that it focused its attention on the most urgent needs of the present time.

The conclusions gathered in the declaration of the two co-presidents, the secretary of state of the United States, Condoleezza Rice, and the Italian minister of foreign affairs, Massimo D'Alema, have been considered rather disappointing. What is your opinion?
It's true, the expectations of the public were certainly high, but for the well-informed who understand the difficulties, it could perhaps be said that the results were significant. Above all, I would like to underline these positive aspects:

One, the fact that countries from various parts of the world, from Canada to Russia, came together in an awareness of the gravity of what is happening in Lebanon, reaffirming the need for the country to regain full sovereignty as soon as possible, and that they made a commitment to help her.

Two, the request to form an international force, under the mandate of the United Nations, to support the regular Lebanese army in security matters.

Three, the commitment to offer immediate humanitarian aid to the people of Lebanon and the guarantee of support in rebuilding by calling a conference of donor states. Several participant countries have anticipated the offer of considerable aid, though it is still insufficient to cover the country's enormous needs.

Four, also positive is the commitment adopted by the participants, after the official closing of the conference, to remain in constant contact concerning further developments in the intervention of the international community in Lebanon.

But what has caused this sense of disappointment?
Above all, by the fact that there was no request for an immediate cessation of hostilities. Unanimity among the participants was not achieved because some countries maintained that an appeal would not have produced the desired effect. And it was felt more realistic to express a commitment to achieve without delay a cessation of hostilities, a commitment which can, in fact, be maintained.

Another problematic issue was the fact that the conference limited itself to inviting Israel to exercise the greatest restraint. By its nature, this call has a certain inevitable ambiguity, while respect for the innocent civilian population is a precise and binding duty.

What is the judgment of the Lebanese government?
On one hand, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora had the opportunity to fully explain the dramatic nature of the situation of the country and to present his own plan for the immediate and definitive resolution of the conflict with Israel.

On the other, he was also able to witness and further encourage the positive efforts being made by the international community to help the Lebanese people, to put an end to the conflict and to reinforce his government's control of the country.

Yesterday evening, Prime Minister Siniora, accompanied by the minister of foreign affairs, Fauzi Salloukh, requested a meeting with the Vatican secretary of state and with me.

He expressed great appreciation for the commitment with which the Holy Father in person, and the Holy See, follow the conflict that is racking Lebanon, and he requested continuing support for his country in the international arena.

He also recalled Pope John Paul II's words, who defined Lebanon not only as a country, but as "a message" for all peoples of harmonious coexistence among various religions and confessions in one state.

This is the historical vocation of the Lebanon, which must be able to be realized. The Holy See will continue to offer all the means at its disposition so that the country will return to be that "garden" of the Middle East, as it was before.

In the capacity of observer, have you had the possibility to influence, at least indirectly, in the works of the conference?
An observer does not have the right to speak, and I was not asked. I believe, however, that the silent presence of the observer of the Holy See at the table of the leaders of delegations had a clearly perceptible significance.

After this conference, what is the Holy See's position on this subject?
The Holy See remains in favor of an immediate cessation of hostilities. The problems on the table are many and extremely complex, and precisely for that reason cannot all be dealt with together, while bearing in mind the general picture and the overall solution to be achieved, the problems must be resolved per partes, beginning with those that are immediately resolvable.

The position of those who maintain that conditions must first be created so that any truce is not once again violated, is only apparently one of realism, because those conditions can and must be created with means other than the killing of innocent people.

Benedict XVI is close to those peoples, victims of confrontations and of a conflict foreign to them. The Pope prays, and with him the entire Church, for the day of peace to come today and not tomorrow.

He prays to God and appeals to political leaders. The Pope weeps with every mother weeping for her children, with all those weeping for their loved ones. An immediate suspension of hostilities is possible, and, therefore, necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------

It is truly unrealistic of anyone to expect that a one-day conference would lead to any dramatic resolution that would immediately 'stop the hostilities' in the Middle East. No one is more aware of this than the Pope who did not say he expected a ceasefire to result immediately out of this conference!

Years of major conferences and shuttle diplomacy have failed to produce any lasting 'truce' in that region, and further talk, with all the best will in the world on the part of the mediators, will be futile and remain just talk, for as long as radical elements in the Arab and Islamic world refuse to grant Israel's right to exist!

I think the interviewer showed remarkable naivete in the questions he posed to Archbishop Lajolo. He could have asked the Archbishop what he thought would be realistic conditions for a ceasefire that both sides would agree to, but did not!

Even if the conference had adopted a unanimous resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, does anyone really think that Israel would say 'Yes' without the Hezbollah first sending back the two Israelis they took hostage? What could be simpler, if the Hezbollah - and their puppetmasters Iran and Syria - really wanted to end Israel's military reprisals? And now, they've gone and killed 9 civilians in yet another random rocket attack on an Israeli city.

Hezbollah started all this, and their spokesman said so yesterday, saying "We did not think kidnapping those two soldiers would provoke that response from Israel!" So????

The one note of hope is if an international peacekeeping force that is not - God forbid! - under the United Nations, but perhaps under a combined NATO-Arab league banner, could be deployed ASAP to enforce a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon and make sure that all Hezbollah nests in the area are wiped out.

Cardinal Sodano said something sensible for once when he said in an interview after the Rome conference that a UN force would not be the best idea as they have proven themselves quite inept and ineffective in the past. [Not to mention corrupt, as countless stories have attested!]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 29/07/2006 2.05]

[This is so sad.]

Catholics Face Crisis Over Retired Nuns


Friday July 28, 2006 1:01 AM
By RICHARD N. OSTLING
AP Religion Writer

With tens of thousands of U.S. nuns over age 70, the Roman Catholic Church is facing a massive financial shortfall for the care of retirees in religious orders - a gap that over the long term dwarfs costs from the clergy abuse crisis.

Though billions of dollars have been salted away, there still remains an unfunded future liability of $8.7 billion for current nuns, priests and brothers in religious orders. The financial hole is projected by a consulting firm to exceed $20 billion by 2023.

A June survey by the church's National Religious Retirement Office, not yet released to the public, puts spending for retiree care at $926 million last year alone. That compares with a total of $499 million received over the last 18 years from annual special parish collections to aid retirees.

The retirement realities far overshadow the burden from well-publicized sexual abuse cases, which have cost the American church more than $1 billion since 1950, with tens of millions of dollars in pending claims.

In some ways, religious orders face the same problem as many governments: increasing numbers of older retirees need benefits, but there are fewer workers to support them. America's younger workers pay now for the Social Security benefits of seniors, while younger religious support their older generations by caring for them.

Sisters, who make up 82 percent of retirees, are especially vulnerable.

Between 1965 and 2005, their numbers plummeted from 179,954 to 68,634, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.

With far fewer younger novices being recruited, the majority of sisters are now more than 70 years old, the retirement office's new survey said. Even though sisters usually work until age 75, caring for the retired population is a huge task.

The problem is discussed in the new book ''Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church's Betrayal of American Nuns'' (Doubleday) by former New York Times religion editor Kenneth Briggs. The book's main theme is that church authorities vetoed sisters' hopes for dramatic changes that would provide more freedom and effective ministries in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council.

When Briggs completed his research, the annual care cost was running at $800 million and aid collections then totaled $480 million. He reports that the annual collections generate more than twice the receipts from the next largest special appeal, showing the regard parishioners have for the sisters and other retirees.

Briggs writes that the looming financial threat ''sapped the creative energies of communities.'' But Sister Andree Fries, the 64-year-old executive director of the U.S. retirement office, disagrees.

She says ''the impact is more minimal than one might think'' because members of orders ''are very much about mission'' and not worrying about their future needs. Also, orders are ''spending their future retirement money for current bills'' - so they are not uncomfortable at the moment.

What about the projected multi-billion-dollar gap? ''Is it a big number? Yes,'' Fries said. ''Am I discouraged that we'll ever get there? I'm sobered, but not discouraged, because religious are can-do people.''

Some religious orders are financially healthy, but Fries' office reckons that only 4 percent of current sisters are adequately funded for their retirement needs. Typically, the problem is worst in smaller orders.

Religious orders are totally independent from dioceses in administration and finance. But they often serve in schools and other parish or diocesan institutions, so bishops and parishioners naturally feel a responsibility to help.

The religious orders' plight first gained national attention with a 1985 Wall Street Journal article by John Fialka. Contacted by fellow Catholics who offered donations, Fialka helped organize SOAR (Support Our Aging Religious), which pioneered in fundraising and last year received $1.4 million to aid retirees.

The U.S. bishops then followed suit, sponsoring their first annual collection in 1988 under the new retirement office, co-sponsored with three organizations of women's and men's orders.

The annual December collection was scheduled to cease next year, but at their June meeting the bishops agreed to extend the program another 10 years. Also, the retirement office plans to increase training for orders on how to manage investments, buildings and other assets.

Hundreds of orders have been forced to sell off assets to cover expenses.

I had intended to post this earlier this week but could not do it when I had the chance and so, it slipped my mind. It's a great story in itself for archaeology and Church scholarship, but it's the sentence I highlighted below that gave me chills...

By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 25, 10:56 PM ET


DUBLIN, Ireland - Irish archaeologists Tuesday heralded the discovery of an ancient book of psalms by a construction worker who spotted something while driving the shovel of his backhoe into a bog.

The approximately 20-page book has been dated to the years 800-1000. Trinity College manuscripts expert Bernard Meehan said it was the first discovery of an Irish early medieval document in two centuries.

"This is really a miracle find," said Pat Wallace, director of the National Museum of Ireland, which has the book stored in refrigeration and facing years of painstaking analysis before being put on public display.

"There's two sets of odds that make this discovery really way out. First of all, it's unlikely that something this fragile could survive buried in a bog at all, and then for it to be unearthed and spotted before it was destroyed is incalculably more amazing."

He said an engineer was digging up bogland last week to create commercial potting soil somewhere in Ireland's midlands when, "just beyond the bucket of his bulldozer, he spotted something." Wallace would not specify where the book was found because a team of archaeologists is still exploring the site.

"The owner of the bog has had dealings with us in past and is very much in favor of archaeological discovery and reporting it," Wallace said.

Crucially, he said, the bog owner covered up the book with damp soil. Had it been left exposed overnight, he said, "it could have dried out and just vanished, blown away."

The book was found open to a page describing, in Latin script, Psalm 83, in which God hears complaints of other nations' attempts to wipe out the name of Israel.

Wallace said several experts spent Tuesday analyzing only that page — the number of letters on each line, lines on each page, size of page — and the book's binding and cover, which he described as "leather velum, very thick wallet in appearance."

It could take months of study, he said, just to identify the safest way to pry open the pages without damaging or destroying them. He ruled out the use of X-rays to investigate without moving the pages.

Ireland already has several other holy books from the early medieval period, including the ornately illustrated Book of Kells, which has been on display at Trinity College in Dublin since the 19th century.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Today, American Papist, who had carried the above item on www.americanpapist.com/blog.html had this follow-up:

A follow-up to yesterday's story about an ancient Irish Psalm book being found last week in a bog ... open to Psalm 83. A couple people made some comments that I found interesting:

Michael Austen: The psalm it was open to gives me a pretty eerie feeling.

MVH: Wow, I read this story yesterday and I immediately looked up Psalm 83.

I'll tell you, there are no coincidences with God. The most chilling parts for me were in the second and third stanzas:

Ps 83:3-4 "They are laying plans against your people, conspriring against those you cherish; they say, "Come, let us annihilate them as a nation, the name of Israel shall be remembered no more!" [my emphasis]

Verses 5, 6 "They conspire with a single mind, they conclude an alliance against you, the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites . . ."

V[erse] 8 ". . . even Assyria has joined them . . ."

Verse 18 is also telling, "Let them know that you alone bear the name of Yahweh, Most High over all the earth."

Just read the whole thing!
www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm83.htm

I'd agree - kind of eerie. Well, at the very least, Psalm 83 reminds us that Israel has been going through this kind of treatment from the surrounding nations for quite some time...

Here is a translation of Sandro Magister's blog today -

A lightning bolt
hits 'Civilta Cattolica'


La Civilta Cattolica has been hors de combat since Tuesday, July 25. Telephones, e-mail website have all collapsed, thanks to a lightning bolt which hit Villa Malta, site of the historic Jesuit magazine of Rome which is printed under the control and previous authorization - page by page - of the Vatican Secretariat of State.

The magazine's latest issue dated 7/15/06 sent to subscribers contains at least two attention-grabbing articles.

The first is an editorial - usually unsigned - but this time signed by no less than the most famous Jesuit today, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.

In it, Martini responds to the not-easy question: "What is the service that the Society of Jesus is called on to render to society today?"

His answer is that Jesuits should keep as their primary commitment the spiritual exercises patterned after those of their founder St. Ignatius, with relative "spiritual discernment."

This means, he says, that "God has a plan and a mission for each of us, and leads us to fulfill our assignment in the relaization of His plan."

In the case of Cardinal Martini, the last big 'task' he had was the 'Dialog for life' published in L'Espresso magazine on April 21, 2006 - an intervention that raised annoyed reactions from the Church hierarchy.

Three months later, his signed editorial in La Civilta Cattolica makes us think that an olive branch has been exchanged between him and Church authorities.

The second eyebrow-raising article is by the magazine's cinema critic, Father Virgilio Fantuzzi. It analyzes the last film of Nanni Moretti called "The Caiman."

The analysis is acute, the writing is brilliant, and Fr. Fantuzzi is really an outstanding critic.

But this time, hs has come up with a further show of bravura, thanks perhaps to his Vatican editors - because in 13 pages of his critique, he succeeds in not mentioning even once, directly or indirectly, that the 'caiman' in the film is Silvio Berlusconi [immediate past prime minister of Italy and its richest magnate]!

Catholics must unite behind the pope for peace


By Raymond L. Flynn
7/31/2006
National Catholic Register (www.ncregister.com/)

During a conversation I had with Pope John Paul II in July of 1993 at his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, he said something to me that I keep thinking as I watch in horror on TV, day after day, the heavy pounding of Israeli missiles landing in southern Lebanon towns.

The holy father said to me, “The future of Lebanon is very troubling; much pain and much suffering. People should be able to live in peace and practice their own religious beliefs in the Middle East. Tragically, they are not able to. I’m troubled that many innocent people will continue to be victims of intolerance and injustice. The crisis in the Middle East can only be settled with prayer and good will, not by bombs, hatred or terrorists.”

The holy father said two other things to me that I believe are important today as we look for solutions to the senseless killing in the Middle East.

His first point surprised me when he said, “In any conflict, it is always the powerful that must give way to the weak if justice is to be achieved.” His second point was something I’ve heard him say before: “The voice of Catholics must be raised in the civic arena once again. The moral strength of any democracy will depend on its ability to protect freedom while at the same time providing it with the necessary ethical foundations. Concern for the common good has the driving force behind the notable involvement of America’s Catholics in the life of their nation.”

Unfortunately, a lot has changed with Catholics in America since the pope said these words to me in 1993. His call for faithful citizenship and political responsibility has all but fallen on deaf ears.

Catholic elected officials consistently vote and speak against traditional Catholic teachings and values, but get rewarded by Catholic voters re-electing them to public office. Even though Catholics are taught growing up that participation in the political process is a moral obligation, too many Catholics are uninformed about how their elected officials vote.

Forty percent of Catholics don’t even vote. Even if they do vote, they often vote for party, not principle. They unwittingly support politicians who are more concerned about what’s popular and politically correct, not what’s morally correct and important to the values of our country and society.

Deeply troubled with the lack of moral and political leadership in our nation, I recently wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI, which I would like to share with you. In the letter I wrote “that the Middle East is in crisis. Thousands of innocent Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis are being killed and nobody has been able to do anything about it. We are experiencing a complete breakdown of moral order and international law.

“No political leader, party or institution speaks for, represents or has the moral courage necessary to bring peace and justice to the Middle East.”

I went on to respectfully urge Benedict XVI “to reach out and appeal to faithful Catholics worldwide to become active and vocal in this moral crisis. Catholics’ moral voices are not being heard in the political arena. You must provide the moral leadership to restore peace and stability in the Middle East. The world community of faithful Catholics anxiously awaits and needs your message. Only when the people of the region treat each other with dignity and respect will peace come to the Holy Land.

“There are over 64 million Catholics in the United States and 1.2 billion worldwide. You must lead us with one voice for peace and justice in the Middle East. Your message will be listened to by all three great religious faiths in the Middle East, Muslims, Jews and Christians.”

Catholics in the United States must also commit themselves to a new form of political participation focused on moral principles, not on the demands of powerful special interests.

The U.S. government must not allow foreign policy to be determined by political extremists or powerful special interest groups. Benedict XVI should invite world religious leaders to Assisi, as Pope John Paul II so effectively did (I was there) when he appealed for peace in Bosnia in the 1990s.

The Israeli military must stop its brutal bombings and killing of innocent women, children and elderly in Lebanon. The Catholic Church’s moral voice, rooted in its principles and values of the dignity and respect for all God’s children, must be heard. Special interest politics is driving American foreign policy. This is morally reprehensible and damaging our reputation as an objective and fair participant on the world stage.

The pope must speak out, and Catholics everywhere, especially in the United States must support him. It is time for Catholics to accept the challenge of faithful citizenship.

Muslims, Jews and Christians must be able to live side by side in Lebanon and the Middle East. This must be the cornerstone of America’s foreign policy. The U.S. government hunts this objective by consistently taking sides in the conflict.

Catholics must demand that our political voice be no longer ignored. Catholics must begin to realize that the moral and political voice of our faith and church has been severely diminished. Catholic political leadership has been weak, timid and ineffective. The voice of Catholic values is ignored and non-existent in the media today.

Yes, there are plenty of Catholics who are journalists and commentators in the American media, but their profession requires them to be politically correct and poplar with those who dominate and control both politics and the media today.

Catholics may be more than 64 million in number in the U.S., but our influence and political voice is growing weaker and weaker. Pope Benedict XVI may be the only hope for peace and justice in the world. Catholics everywhere must unite behind him.

- - -

Author and commentator Raymond L. Flynn is the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, and former mayor of Boston.

Abortion in the UK:
Calls Mount for a Change to 1967 Law

LONDON, JULY 29, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Official data for 2005 show a slight increase in abortion for England and Wales. The total number of abortions on women resident in the two areas was 186,416, compared with 185,700 a year earlier, a rise of 0.4%, according to information published July 4 by the Department of Health. [That's 180,000+ souls denied the opportunity of an earthly sojourn, ie., human existence as God intended for Homo sapiens.]

In addition, last year there were 7,937 abortions for non-residents of England and Wales, mostly women from Ireland, which takes the overall total for the year to 194,353. The great majority of abortions, 89%, were carried out before 13 weeks gestation; 67% were before 10 weeks. There were 137 abortions carried out for pregnancies beyond the 24th week.

Overall, the abortion rate was 17.8 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44. In terms of age distribution the abortion rate was highest, at 32.0 per 1,000, for women in the 20-24 age group.

The government, through the National Health Service, paid for 84% of abortions carried out in 2005. The majority, 79%, were carried out on single women, a proportion that has been on the rise since 1995, when it was at about two-thirds.

"The high percentage of abortions -- 66% -- within the first nine weeks of pregnancy is clear evidence, if any were needed, that abortion is provided on demand in the UK," said Julia Millington of the ProLife Alliance. "And the marked increase in the number of early abortions makes it difficult to regard this as anything other than abortion being treated as a method of contraception," she added in her reaction to the data in a press release July 4.

Another concern raised over the figures regards abortions carried out on young girls. In 2005 there were 1,083 abortions performed on girls under age 15. The Department of Health grouped together the statistics for the last three years regarding abortions on girls under age 14. In 2003-2005, there were 33 abortions performed on girls under age 13, and 409 abortions on girls aged 13.

"It is shameful that the government should promote secret abortions for girls under the age of consent and insist that their parents aren't told," said John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection for Unborn Children (SPUC).

Smeaton decried the pressure on doctors to maintain strict secrecy regarding abortions for young girls. In a SPUC press release dated July 5, Smeaton stated: "The Department of Health wrongly claims that health professionals are required by law and by their professional code of conduct to provide children under the age of 16 the same confidentiality as people over the age of 16."

The official figures also revealed that 1,900 abortions were under "ground E" of the law, which permits abortion if there is a risk that the child would be born handicapped. The Department of Health revealed that chromosomal abnormalities were reported for about 39% of cases under ground E, and congenital malformations in about 45%.

Down syndrome represented 22% of all ground-E cases and was the most commonly reported chromosomal abnormality. Some of the data for ground-E cases was not released on an annual basis, due to the small numbers involved. In the years 2003-2005, there were 11 abortions with a principal medical condition of the congenital malformations cleft lip and/or cleft palate.

The issue of abortions in the case of cleft palates received widespread attention in 2004, when Anglican cleric Joanna Jepson took the police to court in an unsuccessful effort to bring to justice doctors responsible for the abortion of a 28-week-old unborn baby with the condition.

Another notable item detailed in the statistics was the level of women who have more than one abortion. In each year of the 2003-2005 period, 32% of women undergoing abortions had one or more previous abortions. This proportion has risen from about 28% since 1995.

Statistics recently released also show abortion on the rise in Scotland. A total of 12,603 abortions were carried out in 2005, the BBC reported May 24. This was 142 more than the previous year, and is the highest level since abortion was legalized in 1967. Some 3,304 abortions were carried out on women and girls under 20, and of these 341 were for girls under 16.

Commenting on the data in the Sunday Times on May 28, Katie Grant observed that abortion continues to increase despite all the millions of pounds spent on sex education programs, and despite contraception being freely available. Abortion, she noted, "is no longer being used as a last resort but is increasingly treated as just another form of contraception."

The official reaction to abortion does not help the situation, added Grant. All the government does is to promote more and more explicit sex education and to hand out ever greater numbers of condoms, she commented. This ignores the emotional scars of abortion on young girls. "Indeed," Grant observed, "it could be argued that encouraging a girl under 16 to have an abortion is a particular type of abuse."

In the face of high levels of abortion, calls have been made for a change in the law. In June, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor did just that when he met with the secretary of state for health, Patricia Hewitt. The archbishop of Westminster told Hewitt that it was time for Parliament to review the 1967 Abortion Act amid mounting concerns at the frequency and number of abortions, according to an archdiocesan press release dated June 21.

During the meeting the cardinal cited opinion polls showing that most women in Britain want the law tightened to make it harder to terminate a pregnancy.

"This is not primarily a religious issue," stated Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor. "It is a human issue. Abortion is the wrong answer to fear and insecurity. As a society we need to look at ways of supporting women who find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy.

"People know, perhaps instinctively, that the goodness of a society is known not by its wealth but by the way which it treats the most vulnerable of human beings, the ones with little or no claim on public attention."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would support a debate on the law on abortion because he is "troubled" by the current legislation, the Sunday Times reported June 18. Blair's view on the issue came after a private meeting held Scottish Catholic leader Cardinal Keith O'Brien.

Nevertheless, "The government has no plans to change the law on abortion," said a spokeswoman for the Department of Health, according to a June 21 report by the BBC.

On July 3 the BBC reported that more than 60 British members of Parliament have signed a Commons motion backing a review of the abortion law, given the scientific and medical changes since it was drawn up in 1967. Phil Willis, chair of the science and technology committee in the Commons, said the issue should be looked at again, warning it was unwise to ignore changing circumstances.

In the meantime, efforts by activists to use some of the more graphic tactics common in other countries to protest abortion have run into legal obstacles. Edward Atkinson, a 74-year-old pro-life campaigner was jailed for four weeks after sending "offensive" pictures of mutilated fetuses through the mail, reported the Independent newspaper on May 8. The photos showed severed limbs and a fetus without its head.

The target of the photos, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, also punished Atkinson, by removing him from a waiting list for a hip replacement. Showing people the graphic results of laws that allow the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies is, it seems, too much for British sensibilities.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 01/08/2006 0.21]

Priests and Communists in Poland:
Interview With Historian Peter Raina

WARSAW, Poland, JULY 30, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Some Polish clergy who lived under the Communist regime are being falsely named as a former spies by government officials, says historian Peter Raina.

Peter Raina, author of numerous books on Modern Church History, analyzes in this interview with ZENIT the truth of the relationship the clergy had with Communists.

Raina obtained a doctorate from the University of Warsaw and taught Contemporary History at the University of Berlin. He has written essays and articles on Father Jerzy Popieluszko, killed by the Communist regime, and Father Konrad Hejmo, accused by the press of being a Russian spy in the Vatican.

This interview was conducted for ZENIT by Wlodzimierz Redzioch.

A few weeks after the death of the Servant of God John Paul II a widespread campaign of denigration of the Polish clergy began. They were accused of having collaborated with the Security Services of the Communist regime.

The first priest to be the object of such accusations was Father Konrad Hejmo, a very well-known person in Poland and in the Vatican because for 20 years he headed the center for Polish pilgrims in Rome, and accompanied groups of pilgrims that visited the Pope.

The headlines of newspapers worldwide were terrible: "Communist Spy in John Paul II's Court," to mention one of the most widespread. You have described the Father Hejmo affair as "a lynching of the priest." Could you explain what is behind this lynching?
I have written in detail on the "Hejmo affair" in my book published in Polish entitled The Anatomy of Lynching [Von Borowiecky Publishers], but I can briefly go over this sad story.

Not even two weeks after John Paul II's death, Dr. Leon Kieres, director of the National Memory Institute, reported that one of the priests close to the Holy Father furnished information to the Security Services.

As the director did not reveal the name of the alleged spy, at first all thought it was an old friend of Cardinal Wojtyla, Father Mieczyslaw Malinski. In the following days, Father Malinski had to repeat to the media that it wasn't him.

A few days later, moreover, Kieres revealed in a spectacular manner to journalists the name of Father Hejmo.

But sadly, from the beginning the news spread by the director was dubious or false. First of all, he informed journalists that he had received Father Hejmo's dossier from the Interior Ministry only on April 14, 2005. Later it was discovered that he was already in possession of the material since December 2, 2004.

The questions then arise: Why did the Interior Ministry send the material, relative to Father Hejmo, in December 2004? Who requested this material?

According to the norms established by the Polish Parliament on the functioning of the National Memory Institute, state organs can request the institute to check if a person who is to occupy a post in the administration of the state had collaborated with the Communist Services. But Father Hejmo had no desire to occupy a post in the state apparatus! Why, then, did they decide to concern themselves with his case?

Moreover, director Kieres could not reveal publicly, as the institute's statute states, the name of the verified person. Why then did it decide to do so, bringing on itself also the criticisms of the Guarantor of Citizens' Rights?

The "Hejmo case" is just one of many. Then it was Father Drozdek's turn, rector of the very well-known Marian shrine of Zakopane, and that of others.

How was the apparatus of repression of the clergy organized in Poland?
One of the main objectives of Communist totalitarianism was the psychological destruction or physical elimination of opponents. Physical persecution consisted in the use of violence, including murder. Psychological terror served to destroy a man's personality.

Useful for this were long years of seclusion in prisons, often in complete isolation. Every citizen could find himself in a "dead-end" situation.

All had to be conscious that their private life, professional career and future depended on the Security Services -- in Polish "Sluzby Bezpieczenstea," or SB. The security apparatus was part of the structure of the Interior Ministry, where there was a special department, called Department IV, which was concerned specifically with the struggle against the Church; then there was talk of the struggle against the "reactionary clergy."

There was also an office of special investigation -- "biuro C" -- that gathered information on "suspicious" persons.

It must be said that despite the persecutions, which lasted over long years, the Communist authorities did not succeed either in destroying the Catholic Church or in breaking its ties with the people, as many other non-Communist organizations have.

The reason for this failure was the profound root of the Church in Polish society. The Communists also failed because at the head of the Church in Poland in those difficult years was a great pastor and statesman -- Poland's primate, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski. His stance toward totalitarianism became the symbol of the struggle against Communism.

How did Security Services officials succeed in getting priests to collaborate and in what did this collaboration consist?
The Security Services used two methods. First, was the anti-ecclesial policy of the authorities; for example, the abolition of religion classes in schools, the ban on the organization of religious ceremonies, the hindering of the use of the media by the Church.

The second method, psychological terrorism, was much more treacherous.

The ways of terrifying priests were many and it is worthwhile to enumerate a few: the more zealous priests were accused of activities against the state and of service to the imperialist enemy. They were tried in spectacular farcical trials that ended with capital punishment or long detention punishments. Some priests, as for example Father Kaczynski, died in prison.

Attempts were made to compromise priests to be able to blackmail them. It was common practice to gather all the information possible on the habits of each priest: if he liked alcohol or women, if he was frustrated in his work.

Often, women-agents were used to create some compromising situation for a priest; photographs were taken secretly or the agent would say she was pregnant. Then, being able to blackmail the priest, a proposal was made for collaboration with the Services. Collaboration with the SB consisted in furnishing information on the situation of the parish, the parish priest's activity, the conduct and convictions of the bishop, etc.

In every province, the Offices for Religious Confessions -- Urzad ds. Wyznan -- operated, linked to the Secret Services, which controlled the activities of ecclesiastical organizations. Every time the Polish episcopate published a pastoral letter containing a criticism of the Communist system, every local bishop was called by the president of the province for a meeting in which he had to give explanations and clarification on such a letter.

On those occasions, state officials used the method of the "carrot and stick": They passed from threats to offers of help -- for example, in the construction of a new church -- if the bishop promised to distance himself from the primate.

In general, the bishops rejected all collaboration and for this reason churches were not built. The financial police controlled maliciously the parishes' bills and taxes; seminarians were mistreated during their compulsory military service.

State censorship was generally limited to the printing of ecclesiastical magazines. The increase in the printing depended on the decision of the employee of the Office for Religious Confessions, which collaborated with the Secret Services.

With priest-directors or secretaries of magazines, the method was used which I would call "something in exchange for something." Promises were made to give permission to increase the printing or to furnish more paper -- the distribution of paper then was completely in the hands of the state -- if those in charge of magazines committed themselves to provide information about the members of the editorial board. Some of those in charge, with the verbal permission of superiors, accepted such blackmail because the possibility of increasing the religious press's printing was regarded as a priority.

One of the most-used weapons of blackmail by the Secret Services was the granting of a passport to be able to travel abroad. Every citizen that applied for a passport was requested to attend a meeting in the SB offices.

Also valid in these cases was the "something in exchange for something" rule: The citizen was given a passport if he promised to furnish information, and the Services wanted to know everything about people.

Obviously this rule was also valid for priests who, to be able to study abroad -- many priests dreamed about visiting Rome and doing their studies at the pontifical universities -- or to be missionaries, had to request passports. Generally, the priests would recount events without any significance to satisfy in some way the official of the Services, who took notes on everything.

Were members of the old repression apparatus judged for their crimes after the fall of Communism?
Sadly, no. Some criminals of the Stalinist period, the '50s, were condemned, but almost none from the following period -- from the '60s to the '80s. This impunity is the fault of the governments that have followed in the post-Communist period.

What has become of the huge files of the Communist Secret Services?
All that occurred and occurs in the old files of the Communist Services is something strange and outside the norm. I'll give you an example, beginning with the first post-Communist government of Tadeusz Mazowiecki.

The prime minister appointed as minister of the interior his colleague Kozlowski, assistant editor in chief of Krakow's weekly Tygodnik Powszechny. With the permission of Minister Kozlowski, four persons, among them two activists of the old political opposition, a historian and a journalist, scrutinized the files for six weeks.

The sole fact that Kozlowski would allow strangers to have access to the files with state secrets is an illegal act, which would be punished in a state of law.

Officially, these people were "ordering" the files of the Interior Ministry, but an employee of the ministry itself said privately that "certain persons" destroyed their dossiers. Moreover, the historian himself admitted recently to having collaborated with the Secret Services in the '70s during his stay as a student in Federal Germany.

Nothing is known however about what the journalist did in the archives. The fact is that, in the meantime, it was discovered that persons of the editorial board of Tygodnik Powszechny collaborated with the Services. The topic is much more disagreeable if one thinks of the ambience that often arises today as the nation's "free voice."

People have the right to know the truth about these people.

According to the decision of the Polish Parliament -- Sejm -- the Secret Services' archives should have already been for a long time in the depths of the so-called National Memory Institute -- in Polish, "Instytut Pamieci Narodowej," IPN -- but this isn't the case. Part of the archives has been kept in the ministry and, paradoxically, former officials of the Service are employed to order the archives. We can only imagine the results of such work.

What forces and reasons are behind this media lynching of the clergy in Poland?
I have no doubts at all: Behind this lynching are certain former Communist realms together with the liberal cosmopolitan realms that want to compromise the Church in the eyes of the citizens. It is no accident that they have elected people who have a certain moral prestige in the society.

The moment obviously is not accidental: The earlier mentioned realms waited for the death of the Pope they feared, to unleash a frontal attack on the Catholic Church.

Accusations against priests are based on written reports by members of the Security Services. How valid are these documents?
The documents of the Services that I was able to consult personally are credible, but each document must be read carefully and one must know how to evaluate it.

We must not forget how these reports were written. Often officials added something to their reports to be seen to work well. It could happen that officials said they paid an agent, when it wasn't true, because the money ended up in their pockets.

It must be emphasized that to meet with officials of the Services does not mean one is a collaborator.

Therefore, before accusing some one, one must be certain that the accused had signed the document of collaboration or that he received money. One cannot declare publicly that some one was an agent or a spy only because he met with the officials of the Services. This means to denigrate the person.

Since Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz has become archbishop of Krakow, they have also started to accuse priests in that city of being collaborators of the Communist Secret Services.

These accusations have also been pushed by a priest, Father Isakowski-Zalewski, who, without the archbishop's permission or any scientific preparation, started to scrutinize the documents of the Services. This priest then called a press conference to distribute the list of the alleged "spies."

Cardinal Dziwisz opposed this to avoid denigrating the priests. The cardinal's decision was harshly criticized by some of the Italian media. How do you assess Cardinal Dziwisz's decision?
Cardinal Dziwisz's decision is very just, because Father Isakowski-Zalewski has not behaved properly, not even according to the law. If he has succeeded in obtaining his dossier from the National Memory Institute, he is free to publish its content.

But why does he threaten to publish the names of other priests? And how is it possible that the institute gave him the dossiers relating to other persons? According to the law, the institute can give such dossiers only to historians for their research, but Father Zalewski does not engage in historical research; he seeks rather to arouse clamor around his case.

The control of citizens to verify if they collaborated with the Communist regime must be done with much responsibility. That is why Cardinal Dziwisz's initiative to create a special diocesan commission to study the phenomenon of collaborationism among the priests is important and laudable.

The majority of Poles are disappointed because in democratic Poland criminals of the past Communist regime, organizers and executors of the terror system have not been prosecuted. Moreover, the victims, namely priests, are subjected to public condemnation by the media, making them victims for a second time.

And something even stranger: The journalists and judges who faithfully served the Communist dictatorial state have not been prosecuted. Why all this?
It is true that democratic institutions function in Poland, but Poland has not yet reached the condition where a true state of law governs. Sadly, the political struggle looks to seats and private interests and not to the interest and good of the nation.

Opportunism has prevailed. The media is characterized by extremism and not by impartiality. I would say this is a new form of totalitarianism and in this climate victims of Communist totalitarianism are lynched for the second time.

31 July, 2006
IRAN
The arrogance of the mullahs
and pessimism of the people
by Darius Mirzai

For its ayatollahs, Iran is the “most powerful and zealous” country, at the centre of international political and religious debate. But in the country, ever more isolated, the fear of war is growing while the economy and freedom are suffocated.

Tehran (AsiaNews) – Growing tension in the Middle East; accusations of backing Hezbollah; international attention focused on Iran… all this generates a mix of government pride and fear among the people, of vainglory of the mullahs and pessimism of ordinary people.

There is no let up in threats of UN sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile, the state radio, the usual mouthpiece of the regime, has already announced that Iran will not accept the demands and proposals of the international community about its nuclear plans.

On Friday, 28 July, at the main prayer of the Islamic Republic in Tehran, ayatollah Ahmad Khatami solemnly declared: “Mankind should start thinking about a new United Nations, because the current organisation is dead and produces nothing.”

On a political level, nervousness and fear is there: the nuclear rhetoric was complemented by regular protestations of innocence about backing Hezbollah: there is only “spiritual, moral and diplomatic” backing, nothing military or financial. People are not rejoicing about the “victories” of the Shiite militia over the Zionist army, because they fear the escalation of the war spilling over into Iran.

The importance of Tehran on the regional and international chess board, from religious and political points of view, is misleading. In 29 July, hojjatoleslam Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie, Information Minister [in other words, the Secret Services- ed], stated: “Iran has today reached the zenith of its power and majesty, domestically and abroad, despite efforts by enemies to keep it in a backward position.”

The speech continues with heightened rhetoric: “Islamic Iran is now in a high position and radiates in the world, including the Islamic world. Iran is the most powerful and zealous nation on earth.”

To an outside observer, all this propaganda seems to be blind arrogance. The economy of the country is going pretty badly: trade and traffic are still working, but there are very few investments. To buy petrol (in country that produces oil), the government has decided to sell some of its foreign currency reserves. Meanwhile, unemployment and poverty are on the rise, and so is uncertainty.

To protect itself, the Iranian power base is isolating the country, setting it apart from the rest of the world. The changes feared by the West, expected since Ahmadinejad was elected, are taking place now, a year later.

Censorship is becoming stronger in the country: bit by bit, Ahmadinejad has allowed the infiltration of “revolutionary” people or ideas into the state forces of order, the street police and the firemen.

There are “modesty patrols” to monitor women’s dress and make-up; the fight against immorality (read use of the internet and satellite TV); repression of all dissidents – trade unionists, intellectuals, journalists and so on. Only a few dissidents are in prison but the majority of those outside, like the Nobel laureate, Shirin Ebadi, are out "on bail".

Human rights organizations and the international community are practically powerless in their attempts to protect these “free” people, who are always threatened with arbitrary arrest.

In Tehran, youth are laughing at the announcement of a ban on using the word “pizza” (substituted by a word in Farsi that is translated as “extendable meal”) or “mobile phone” (“companion telephone”) or “helicopter” (revolving wings).

The Emperor Reza Pahlavi (1925– 941) had ordered the Persian Academy to create a Farsi lexicon to eradicate words in Arabic. Ahmadinejad is targeting words from Indo-European or “imperialist” languages like English or French.

For the Iran of the mullahs – not of the ordinary people – Arabic is ideally and symbolically a mother language. But Farsi is, and will always be, an Indo-European language. Iran cannot be transformed into an island: it is on the trade routes between India and Europe, a country where fear, pessimism and so much vainglory reign.