| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Cardinal Martino: the Vatican’s loose cannon |
| 2003-12-17 |
| by Michael Novack, National Review Online. EFL The Italian newspaper Il Foglio ran a piece Dec. 16 about the frustration at the Vatican, at the secretariat of state, with the imprudent, irascible anti-Americanism of Cardinal Martino, an unfortunate recent appointment (late last year) to the Institute for Justice and Peace, who has not ceased being an embarrassment to his superiors. Rantburg noted the most recent embarassment the other day. When I was in Rome last February, Cardinal Martino was already under heavy fire for his intemperate and irrepressible anti-Americanism. Even those who before the war leaned more to the Il Foglio pointed out today that Cardinal Sodano, the secretary of state (the official who functions something like a prime minister for the Vatican, the top leader of administration domestic and foreign), -- that is to say, the man within the Church hierarchy who actually has authority to make foreign policy statements in the name of the Vatican -- not only changed the whole title of the document on World Peace released today but also edited out the most offensive passages of Cardinal Martino, from whose department the draft arrived in the last few days. The title, for example, went from "International Law, a Way of The big Vatican news of the past month has been the major change in the way Islamic terrorism has been directly confronted, with gloves-off honesty in the Jesuit periodical Civilta Cattolica, whose pages are always cleared by the secretariat of state. -- In other words, if the pronouncements of Civilta Cattolica and those of Cardinal Martino conflict, Civilta Cattolica wins the argument. -- Over a third of the Christians of the Middle East have been driven out during the past decade, the journal reports, and it lists many abuses by extremists, against the background of much greater tolerance in the past. It also analyzes carefully just how the extremists function in practice. The immense relief experienced by the Catholic community in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has not gone unappreciated at the Vatican. In general, now that the American-led Coalition has acted firmly and with far better results than predicted last February by various spokesmen in the Vatican (they did not all speak with one voice), the Vatican has tried to help with the transition to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, and democratic Iraq. (Emphasis added.) The pope in particular never sided against the Americans, although without doubt he worked and prayed so that war would not in the end be necessary. He took pains to be clear that he is not a pacifist. (He had, after all, encouraged military action to relieve Kosovo of genocide and Croatia of intense suffering). He hoped America would not go to war. For myself, I am glad that in no way could the Vatican at that time have been seen as fomenting a war of "the Christians" against an Arab nation. On the contrary, the pope’s voice was the most audible and constant voice against war. To my mind, that is as it should be. The last thing we would have needed was a pope calling for war against an Arab nation. That last point is extremely important. Bin Laden wants a war between Islam and western civilization. We shouldn’t indulge him--there are a lot of Moslems on the side of civilization, and many more who can be persuaded to join us. As GWB recently said: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #12 Sue you? No, I'll just pity you for being so bitter. Sure do wonder what got you into "hate the religious" mode. And regardless of the religious angles, only the most stubborn and closed-minded would argue that the priests I know (above) are not an asset to the human race. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-12-17 11:35:31 PM |
| #11 "Showing"? I thought I stated it right up front. I don't like priests, ministers, mullas, or rabbis - of whatever religion. So sue me. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-12-17 6:19:28 PM |
| #10 Don't like any priests? Your prejudice is showing "mojo". Then you've not met the ones I have. The ones that help the homeless, visit the sick in local hospitals, provide counsel to families in grief (like 2 sets of families here, one lost a father in Iraq, the other a 2 year old daughter to the flu), feed the hungry (via time in a soup kitchen or out seeking donations locally from groceries,etc), operate the church facility including repairs, budgeting and funding, and still look after the spiritual welfare of the parish by hearing confessions s3everal times a week, and on top of all that, offering up masses at least twice a day, every day of the week, including Saturdays, and 4 times on Sunday. These guys are incredible human beings. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-12-17 5:25:27 PM |
| #9 "You can see it in their eyes as they work the wheels and levers of power: There really is such a thing as a free lunch." I don't like priests. Any priests. Get a job, ya bums... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-12-17 3:15:46 PM |
| #8 It appears the eligibility rules allow all cardinals under 80 to vote, and they suggest no more than 120 voting members in the conclave. Electoral regulations |
| Posted by: roger dodger 2003-12-17 2:04:46 PM |
| #7 There is a Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (a Jesuit, I think) and Cardinal Renato Martino. As to whether Martino has voting power, I'm not sure if only these 13 cardinals get to vote, or if every Cardinal votes. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-12-17 1:41:07 PM |
| #6 More commentary from Amy Welborn: "Choosing words carefully, as Martino should have done, is not important simply to avoid offense or scandal, but in order to communicate the entire truth. The entire truth is that Hussein was a dictator and a tyrant and a murderer and that the competent authorities have the right to do what they want with him, within the confines of international law. What bothers those bothered by Martino's statement is the absence of the whole truth, which, of course, also includes the suffering of Hussein's victims. . . . "For the thinking Catholic, who understands herself to be a part of a living Church that extends through time and space, the remarks of Martino should provide no threat to faith. A frustration, yes. An obstacle in evangelization, yes, and thanks a lot for that, buddy, but a threat to one's personal faith? I am at a loss to see why. For me, Cardinal Martino's statement is no more a threat to my faith than the spectacularly sinful life of a 15th century Cardinal or Pope. Same Church, the saints and sinners all exist on the same plane. It is a mystery, yes, and one worth unpacking - if our faith is revealed incarnationally, through stuff and words and music and yes, people, how do we see through the (always) less-than-adequate stuff and the (frequently) ridiculousness (and worse) of the people to Christ? And how do we help others do the same?" |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-12-17 1:27:58 PM |
| #5 A few years back I read a profile on a Cardinal Martini (as I recall) puffing him up as the next Pope. Is this the same guy? Is there a Martini and a Martino in the Cards lineup? |
| Posted by: Grunter 2003-12-17 1:19:26 PM |
| #4 JFM, Yes, Cardinal Martino is a member of the College of Cardinals. I was reacting to the more curious development of Martino's being transferred from his prior post as the Holy See's representitive to the UN (for something like 14 years) to his current position as head of something called the Institute for Justice and Peace. I've not heard of the IJP before the Reuters-BBC volley, and I suspect that Cardinal Martino's been pretty upset that too few other people have heard of it, either ;-). |
| Posted by: roger dodger 2003-12-17 12:55:36 PM |
| #3 Roger Dodger A cardianl is NOT mid-level: it is the last rank before pope and he has voting right for the next pope, unlike bishops and arch-bishops. You could dispute about the word filling and contend that it should be "not being vigialnt enough about who it admits into its ranks" but not about Martino's importance. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-12-17 12:13:03 PM |
| #2 Yeah, I read Reynold's snarky comment: '... will pay a price for filling its ranks with the bitter, the self-important, and the morally obtuse..." (emphasis added) This unprovable and a calumny. One mid-level prelate gets his fifteen minutes in a REUTERS dispatch and the entire Church hierarchy is condemned. As Mr. Novak points out, the Vatican's actions are profoundly more important than what Cardinal Martino says. One would think by now that G. Reynolds would wait 24 hours and read two additional sources before basing an opinion on something published by Reuters. |
| Posted by: roger dodger 2003-12-17 12:00:48 PM |
| #1 The mighty Instapundit has this to add: "It's true, of course, that the Church is made of human beings, as Novak also notes. It's just unfortunate that so many of the ones we hear from seem to resemble Cardinal Martino, and the Church -- like any other institution made up of human beings -- will pay a price for filling its ranks with the bitter, the self-important, and the morally obtuse. It is paying such a price now. And what's more, it deserves to." |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-12-17 10:54:36 AM |