MondayVatican » MondayVatican – Lunacek Report » Pope Francis, a non-European to the conquest of Europe

Pope Francis, a non-European to the conquest of Europe

Andrea Gagliarducci — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:02:50 +0000

They seem to be two different things, not linked. Yet, there is a threat which links the ongoing discussions about the Synodal path on the family and what takes place in European institutions. Many are the issues that touch on the family and at the same time on the matter of religion in Europe. Starting with gender ideology, which agenda, with the recent approval of Lunacek report, has become the European Union agenda. These are the issues Pope Francis should speak about during his next trip to Europe.

It is the first time that a non-European Pope will visit European institutions. He will deliver two speeches, one in front of the European Parliament and the other one to the Council of Europe. A short program, as it may have been very much recommended by Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament, who studied at a Jesuit School but is also a self-proclaimed atheist.

Schulz feels a strong connection to the Pope with regards to poverty and the peripheries, and he hopes that Francis will speak precisely about these issues. In Schulz’s view, Pope Francis should talk toEuropean institutions about the need to welcome immigrants, and even to recall his visit to the small Italian Island of Lampedusa, the first trip of his pontificate. And Schulz – as well as radical secularists– is ok with the fact that the papal trip does not even include a pastoral meeting with the Catholic members of the European Parliament: this kind of program paves the way to reinforcing the notion that the Pope is a just a head of state, like any other.

Yet, Pope Francis may surprise everyone. The issues at stake are very important, and they deal not with European identity. They mostly deal with the human being, the way he is envisioned. They deal with the God’s project of creation.

This is where European issues and the Synod on the family follow the same path. Speaking about the family means speaking of God’s project of creation. It means addressing the complementarity between men and women, of their opening to life, of the way this opening to life becomes the fundamental fabric to build a just society. From Gospel to family to social commitment: this path cannot be broken.

But there have been attempts to break this path. At the Synod, African Bishops strongly denounced that in their countries, which are in need of financial aid, this aid is entwined with the requests for changes in the legislation. These changes are meant to introduce the ideology of gender, to break away from the idea of the natural family. In practice, if an African country needs a new irrigation system, itis obliged to introduce gay marriage in its legislation. Or to pass a law to consent to in- vitro fertilization. Or to any other law of the so-called Reproductive Health Rights, an euphemism used at the United Nations to promote the notion that abortion is a “right”.

It is not just an African problem. In 2012, the Report on the Social Doctrine of the Church in the World issued by the Van Thuan Observatory pointed out that the new colonization did not deal with the conquer and exploitation of States, but rather with that of the human being. The report also stressed that laws that potentially destroyed family and countered natural law have been used as a leverage to clear the way for a cultural colonization. Curiously, the country chosen as a case study was Pope Francis’ beloved Argentina.

Pope Francis proved to be very concsious of the issue. On November 15, meeting the Italian Association of Catholic Doctors, stigmatized abortion and euthanasia and stressed that “playing with life is a sin against God creator.”

Pope Francis may then be particularly conscious of the risks posed by a rootless Europe. Risks that must be faced in a Europe where religious freedom vacillates, as underscored by the most recent World Report on Religious Freedom issued by the Pontifical Foundation Aid for the Church in Need.

The most striking data of the report is that there are many European countries were the degree of lack of religious freedom is considered “of concern”, among these the highly civilized United Kingdom, Germany, France and the Netherlands. Scrolling the report, one finds out that in these very countries a Christian may be discriminated against on account of positions taken regarding family – from the choice of a Catholic school to the French protest against the institutionalization of gay marriage – and that Churches are attacked by radical secularists because they dare speak about these topics.

When he presented the report in Rome, Martin Kugler, a member of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, provided a gloomy picture of the situation, and underscored that «menaces to religious freedom are above all supported by groups of radical feminists, homosexual lobbies and radical laicists.»

Radical feminists – Kugler explained – think that non-restrictive laws on abortion and contraception, without any possibility of objection of conscience, are needed to pursue a real equality between man and woman; homosexuals want to show that homosexuality is absolutely normal, and aim to silence Christians and Muslims about their positionson homosexuality; radical secularists aim at excluding the religious point of view from public life, since in their view religious groups should not take any public stances.

This is intolerance masked as freedom, with a conception of progress that puts aside every notion of natural law. The basis for this masked intolerance are not new. They can be traced back to the change in the United Nations vocabulary, which the Holy See has denounced increasingly. The international organizations speak about Right to Reproductive Health, right to a dignified death, the right to choose a dignified life. All of these words hide one sole word – and notion: eugenics.

Eugenics is a word nobody wants to mention, since it brings to mind Adolf Hitler’s aberrations. However, eugenics is practiced every time a life is not considered dignified enough to be lived.

It is worth noting an interview that Carl Djerassi, the father of the abortifacient pill, recently granted to the British newspaper “The Telegraph”. In it, Djerassi clearly disclosed the pill’s endgame: that sex would become just a recreational activity. So much so that, starting in 2050, sperm and embryos would be routinely frozen in order to be used for in-vitro fertilization whenever it is considered convenient.

This is not just the practical negation of God’s project. It is also the negation of the human person, since in paternity and maternity lies the fundamental reason of his existence. Only paternity and maternity can give life to Paul VI’s civilization of love.

The recently beatified Paul VI, in drafting the encyclical Humanae Vitae, was keenly aware of the menace of designs which render the human person merely a sort of mechanical robot, with no sentiments, unable to give love a sense.

Such designs, it now seems, are becoming a reality in a rootless and 2012 Nobel Laureate for Peace Europe Union. Meeting European Bishops, Pope Francis has said he had not understood the reason why Europe did not include a mention to its Christian roots in the European Constitution. Those roots were not just an aspect of its identity. They signifiedcare for the human person – just think about the network of hospitals – that has now, it seems, disappeared.

Certainly, not everything is bad. In 2011, a lawsuit promoted by Greenpeace brought the European Court to rule that there cannot be profits from the destruction of human embryos, and that any procedure which implies the destruction of a human embryo cannot be patented. According to the ruling, however, it is possible to patent procedures that involve human embryos and are at the same time useful for that same embryo – i.e. analysis or care.

But this is just part of the narrative. Always in 2011, the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights labeled as “not coherent” the Italian law on the in-vitro fertilization, which forbade the pre-implant diagnosis of embryos.

On the one hand, a judgment that defended the embryo. On the other, a judgment that would open the doors to eugenics. Two cases that reveal how the rootless Europe has become mostly an unlimited bureaucracy. A concept of the human personis lacking at the core, as are values shared in common. Ideas and ideologies are carried forward through the so-called ‘soft law’, since whenever an appeal reaches the European Court, the final judgment becomes part of the common jurisprudence for all of Europe.

The Europe outlined by the Maastricht Treaty is very much technical and just barely human. As technical and barely human is sex without procreation; and as technical and barely human is a desktop project for a human person, discarding all the human beings that are not healthy or that simply do not meet our aspirations.

When Pope Francis speaks about the prevalence of a «throw-away culture», he has in mind the way that society treats the poor and other marginalized people – anyone who is discarded by society. But he is also probably referring to those discarded by transhumanism in the world. This is the European risk, now. This is the reason why a discussion about the family, the beauty of the natural family formed by man and woman and open to procreation, not only mirrors God’s design on men: It can serve as the greatest antidote to the human being without humanity that bureaucracies and international institutions want to impose.

A Pope, Nobel Laureate in Literature?

Andrea Gagliarducci — Sun, 18 May 2014 22:05:23 +0000

Pope Francis, some say, may be the first Pope to earn a Nobel Prize, for Peace. Only a few people know that, before Francis, the idea of proposing Benedict XVI for the Nobel Prize, in Literature, had been seriously considered.

Father Giuseppe Costa, director of the Vatican Publishing House, had this idea, as he recalled during the International Book Fair in Turin, where the Holy See was invited as a special guest.

Under a St. Peter’s Dome made of books, surrounded by works of the Vatican Museum and of the Vatican Apostolic Library, Father Giuseppe Costa explained that, yes, he had thought about initiating a campaign to give Benedict XVI the Nobel Prize in Literature, and had reached out to some major universities to promote the candidacy. The project did not take off, and then Benedict XVI resigned. The rationale at the root of the idea, however, is still valid: religious literature is not a “class B” literature, it has gravitas and addresses a market demand. While a “Francis’ bounce” is noticeable in religious publishing, a review about the cultural work that preceded “Pope Francis’ bounce” is in order.

Continually in dialogue with cultures, Benedict XVI attracted interest on the part of secular readers, so much that Ratzinger’s books were discussed and read in non-Catholic circles. The presence of Ratzinger’s books favored a stronger presence of Catholicism in the cultural debate. Joseph Ratzinger’s books had worldwide distribution. For example, widely discussed was his analysis about a rootless Europe, published in 1992. A time when the Treaty of Maastricht was about to bring to an end the Europe of subsidiarity, of Christian inspiration, and replaced it with a European Union mostly conceived as a financial institution. His interventions as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had been widely discussed and even criticized, laying grounds for fundamental cultural dialogue.

After the big evangelization of John Paul II, the Pope of reason was called to reinforce the building blocks of the Church. An appeal to the Church to recognize her own identity was much needed. Benedict XVI made that appeal. Also by ceding to the Vatican Publishing House the copyrights of the books he had published before being elected Pope. The decision had not come about by chance. It was part of a precise strategy of reinforcing the Vatican Publishing House, giving it the possibility to publish his opera omnia.

The Vatican Publishing House already controls the copyrights of the Pope’s statements, and it sells rights to their publication all over the world. There is a demand in the market for the words of the Pope. Every encyclical sells between 600,000 to 1 million copies. Every book written by a Pope will certainly be a best seller. Popes’ books are extremely profitable for the Vatican publishing house. Through these profits the publishing house can support other Catholic publishers and take a stand for identity, helping them not to be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the big (and very rich) secular publishers.

Benedict XVI’s choice was ultimately a choice of sovereignty. Despite that choice, there had anyway been some controversial decisions: two of the three books of Benedict XVI’s trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth had been given to a secular publisher, according to a marketing logic more than to a logic of delivering a message. A choice that proves the weakness of a Catholic world that lives under a sort of inferiority complex toward the secular world, believed to be better in distributing, advertising, and selling. These are flawed justifications. The Catholic Church is not a company aimed at building consensus or skyrocketing sales.

At the Turin International Book Fair, the Catholic publishers Greg Erlandson (Our Sunday Visitor), Albrecht Weiland (Verlag Schnell und Steiner GmbH,) Henrique Mota (Principia) and Giovanni Cappelletti (Italian Catholic Booksellers) discussed the state of the art of Catholic publishing. All of them underscored that there is a strong demand for religious books, especially thanks to the Pope Francis’ bounce. All of them complained that the major works of Catholic writers are preferably sold to secular publishers with a broad presence in the market, rather than giving them to Catholic publishers that could use the profits from their publication to foster and reinforce their network.

It may seem to be merely a cultural debate. It is not. It signals a lack of vision. What is really missing are influential Catholics with an impact in society. At an international level, there are just a few countries where the ideas raised in Catholic Social Teaching carry any weight in the debate (even in the political arena), and when they have an impact, they are always under attack. Just think about what happened in Finland and Hungary in the recent past, where Christian leaders with Christian-inspired electoral programs have been accused of homophobia. From a European point of view, lobbies ideologically against the Catholic Church carry ever more weight and influence, as it was proven – for instance – with the approval of the Lunacek report (the “EU Roadmap against homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.”) From an international point view, the Holy See is constantly under attack by the gender lobbies, that are even pushing the Church to change Church doctrine and canon law. On May 23, the final observations of the UN Committee Against Torture may follow this script once again.

It seems the Catholic world is standing by, watching these attacks with no cultural tools to fight them. The professionalization of Vatican communications (with expensive ad hoc advisors and external consultants now in charge of it) has not improved the quality of the debate because ideas to forge public opinion are lacking. Applying good communications techniques do not improve communications if the ability to give a real and deep content to the message delivered is still missing. The content can be deep only if it comes after an in-depth cultural movement nurtured within society.

Perhaps, the idea of giving a Pope a Nobel Prize in Literature should be considered again, in order to show the Catholic world that Catholicism is also a cultural challenge, to be lived and nurtured. And also to urge Catholics with the means to build up a Catholic network, to do so.

From Benedict to Francis. One year after, the same problems

Andrea Gagliarducci — Sun, 09 Feb 2014 23:05:31 +0000

One year after the historical resignation of Benedict XVI, a document of the UN Committee on the Human Rights simply proves that nothing has changed in the spirit of the world. In the end, Pope Francis must face the same demons and ghosts that have always been menacing the Church, and that consider the Catholic Church so dangerous that it becomes imperative to undermine its moral teaching and – why not – its international prestige. At the same time, the Holy See reaction shows that its internal problems have also remained the same.

The vile of the UN document is not in the accusations on the cases of child sex abuses by clergy, but rather in the “reach” of the concluding observations about the second Holy See Periodic Report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The committee even asked, several times, for changes or amendments to Canon Law, for example on abortion.Its observations also intrude into purely religious issues, implicitly attacking the secret of confession («due to a code of silence imposed on all members of the clergy under penalty of excommunication…»), and even regretting that «the Holy See continues to place emphasis on the promotion of complementarity and equality in dignity, two concepts which differ from equality in law and practice provided for in article two of the Convention and are often used to justify discriminatory legislation and policies.»

So, according to the UN Committee, composed of 18 independent experts, the Holy See should stop freely expressing its Gospel-rooted worldview. To justify their request, the members of the Committee even interpret article two of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which in fact only binds the states parties «to respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.»

Rather than an attempt to consider “the spirit” of the convention, the UN document sounds more like a general accusation, almost an attack on the Holy See sovereignty via an attack on its moral principles. It is a nuanced approach, since the distinction between Vatican City State law, Canon Law, and the international rights of the Holy See, is explained and considered. The document addresses the Holy See’s “moral authority”, acknowledges that the priests are not Holy See employees and that Vatican City State has no jurisdiction over Catholic-run schools. However, the committee then de facto asks the Holy See to take a firm stand on given issues. In the end, the committee is subtly asking the Holy See to change Catholic doctrine: to stop insisting on fundamental rights, on the complementarity between man and woman, and to stop combating abortion. In essence, the committee tries to persuade the Holy See to renounce to speak out loudly.

What has been most interesting to the media are the accusations on the handling of children sex abuses by clergy. The committee requests the Holy See to open up its archives and let it be known how many pedophile priests there are. However, the accusation that the Holy See made possible abuses on millions of children, and the criticism about the transfer of priests and well-known child sexual abusers «from parish to parish or to other countries in an attempt to cover-up such crimes, a practice documented by numerous national commissions of inquiry,» do not reflect reality. There is no mention of the exemplary commitment of Joseph Ratzinger, before and after becoming Benedict XVI, to combat child abuses. Nor is there any consideration of a Vatican City State law on sex abuse that, if used as an international legal standard, would make every other state outlaws in the fight against pedophilia.

In an interview granted to Vatican Radio, Silvano Maria Tomasi, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN Office in Geneva, noted that the UN document «seemed to have been written before the meeting of the committee with the Holy See delegation. The latter gave detailed and precise answers on several points, but the answers are not reported in this final document or seem to have been given serious consideration.» Tomasi also underlined that «probably some NGOs with interests in homosexuality, gay marriage or other issues, have provided input, strengthening in some way an ideological line.»

This ideological line is evident, since the gender theory vocabulary is widespread in the document. The committee asks for the acknowledgement of «reproductive health rights» (a euphemism for an alleged right to abortion), the request to eliminate from Canon Law the terminology about legitimate and natural children, even the exhortation to remove from Catholic textbooks «all gender stereotyping which may limit the development of the talents and abilities of boys and girls and undermine their educational and life opportunities.»

This vocabulary is pervasive in United Nations documents, and it is opposed by the Holy See in the name of an integral humanism oriented to the common good, which is the very international agenda of the Holy See.

That of gender is not a new ideology. The last Christmas greeting address of Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia focused on gender theory.

On that occasion – 21 December2012 – Benedict XVI stated that the very idea of human nature is in crisis, a crisis based on gender «as a new philosophy of sexuality.»

«The very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question,» noting that sexual complementarity, and one’s sex as a given, «is what is now disputed.»

He added that in the relativist ideology of gender, «man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question,» which also calls into question the nature of the family.

This speech is part of Benedict XVI’s legacy, who at that time had already decided when and how to resign.

Now, Pope Francis is called to pick up the thread again. According to sources, Pope Francis has said in a private audience with bishops that the gender ideology is «demonic». Yet, until now, there has not been an official Pope stance on these issues. The Pope has not showed support for the demonstrators of Manif pour Tous in France, who have protested against the institution of same sex marriage and the possibility of adoption for same sex couples in France. Nor has the Pope mentioned the protests in Europe on February 2, shortly before a vote on the Lunacek Report.

The report focuses on the “Yogyakarta principle”, according to which «the special rights for gay people are part of universal human rights.» All the 120 special rights of the gay community must be applied in order to fulfill, at the international level, respect for human rights. On February 4 the report was approved in the European Parliament. It is not binding, but the approval makes the document’s views the official position of the European Union.

The day after the approval of the Lunacek Report, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child final observations were made public. Perhaps a Pope’s preventive declaration would have helped. Or perhaps an articulated and timely communication by the Holy See was needed, challenging the document for his juridical overreach. This kind of reply did not take place if not two days after the release of the report, even though the report reached the Vatican almost two days ahead of its public release, and its content was well known to Vatican advisors on communications.

The strategy was not to prepare any immediate reply. It is hard to understand why this was the case. The Vatican experts that took part in the discussion of the first report in 1995 foresaw the risk that something like this could happen, and today they say that theyare not surprised at all about the language and content of the new document. Some experts even suggest that the Secretariat of State should reply through diplomatic channels. The Holy See, they proposed, should convene ambassadors accredited to the Holy See to complain that the committee went beyond its tasks, arrogating to itself the right to interpret the spirit of the Convention.

It was also well known that the international media was awaiting with great expectation the document, attracted by the questions on pedophilia. Many journalists got credentialed to the UN office in Geneva, their interest mostly focused on the clergy sex abuses scandal.

In fact, Vatican communications advisors were not even timely in presenting information about the Church’s struggle against pedophile in priests. They should have recalled that Benedict XVI reduced to laity almost 400 priests, explained the Holy See efforts to fight the abuses, or at least pointed out the special section about the Church’s response to abuse of minors in the homepage of the vatican.va website.

Vatican communications advisors did not think, either, about highlighting best practices. For example, in Italy there is the Meter Association chaired by Father Fortunato Di Noto. Meter has become an international reference on the fight against pedophilia. In 20 years, the Meter association has welcomed, accompanied and helped more than 1,200 victims of abuses, and denounced more than 1 million and a half pedo-pornographic web sites, thus creating a virtuous circle of information on the pedophilia issue which gave a lot of fruits. Unfortunately, Meter is at risk of ceasing to exist due to a lack of funding. It is however a beacon and an example in the Catholic galaxy combating pedophilia. Why have stories like that of Meter not been featured, in order to change the narrative of the media mainstream?

One year after Benedict XVI’s resignation, pedophilia, gender theory, and above all shortcomings in Holy See communications remain front and center issues to contend with. Despite the hiring of several advisors oncommunications, the Church is still reacting to the big issues of the day, instead of being ahead introducing them in their right light. This is the reason why the Church can be caught off guard in the debate. This was the case in 2006, when Benedict XVI delivered his famous lecture at Regensburg. From that starting point, Benedict XVI was able to start an unprecedented dialogue with Islam. It is now Pope Francis’ turn to build bridges of reason with a world always ready to attack the Church.