- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Another Perspective
L'Osservatore Romano and the Illuminati
The Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, ran an inexplicably soft front-page editorial about Barack Obama's record on April 29th. One would have thought, pace Ron Howard and Dan Brown, that a member of the "Illuminati" had wormed his way into a staff position and scribbled the editorial in the hopes of damaging the Church.
The editorial claimed that Obama has "moved with caution," and that the fears of pro-lifers about him are unfounded: he "does not seem to have established the radical changes that he had aired." He may even be "rebalancing" his policies "in support of motherhood." The editorial also declared that Obama's policies are opposed to all cloning, which is false. (He is open to cloning for research, as revealed by his constant and careful use of "reproductive" as a qualifier before "cloning" in his statements.) Then the editorial added in the final stretch: "Signals of innovations in the Obama administration are undeniable. Above all on matters of the care of environment and in particular the partnership that seems born with Beijing."
Unbelievable.
In January, members of the dominant media cast Vatican officials as clueless oafs for not even knowing that Bishop Richard Williamson had downplayed the Holocaust. But L'Osservatore Romano's astonishingly clueless pro-Obama editorial generates hosannas from them.
Like clockwork, E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post seized on it to needle American Catholics who are protesting Notre Dame's decision to honor Obama: "We now know that the reaction of right-wing Catholics to Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama falls into the category of 'more Catholic than the pope.'"
The author of the editorial, Giuseppe Fiorentino, whom Dionne describes with respect as "L'Osservatore's frequent foreign affairs contributor," is not a member of an Enlightenment-era secret society but he is a fact-challenged "enlightened" European liberal. That such a staggeringly stupid and irresponsible column from him managed to appear in the Pope's own newspaper should scare Catholics more than Ron Howard's lame movie.
Who is vetting articles there? The head of Internet research for the Williamson case?
As I wrote last week for Catholic World Report, orthodox Catholics in America reeling from Notre Dame's blown kiss to Obama have a right to ask: Et tu, L'Osservatore Romano? With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Were Obama given a rating by the Catholic Church according to her official moral teachings (rather than Fiorentino's European liberalism), it would be zero. On every single contested issue that touches on the natural moral law—from abortion to gay civil unions to euthanasia to dispensing abortifacients to teens at Rite Aid—he is gravely wrong.
Assessing Obama's record is not even a close call. Any Catholic who is even remotely paying attention knows that during his first hundred days he has advanced policies that contradict the teachings of the Church baldly. What would Obama have to do to excite L'Osservatore Romano's attention? Physically take a torch to Catholic hospitals? Perform abortions himself?
Am I getting too worked up here? I don't think so. Yes, I know the editorial is not surprising at one level -- the Curia is crawling with European liberals capable of the pompous, sniffing, recklessly obtuse opining on display in Fiorentino's column—but the timing of it is a little surprising and very disgusting.
Look what Dionne does with it: he writes that the "article will strengthen the liberal claim that the Catholic right's over-the-top response [to Obama] is rooted at least as much in Republican and conservative politics as in concern over the abortion question." Wrong, E.J.: it is entirely rooted in the fact that Obama is formally cooperating in the killing of children and the destruction of the family.
"Largely lost in the Notre Dame furor is the extent to which the ferocity on the Catholic right has emboldened moderate and liberal Catholics to fight back," Dionne continues, adding that the "current issue of America magazine, published by the Jesuits, includes a sharply worded editorial criticizing the 'divisive effects of the new American sectarians' which 'have not escaped the notice of the Vatican.'"
Really? Dissenting modernist Jesuits are listening to the Vatican again and reading L'Osservatore Romano? And Vatican officials in turn are fretting that "right-wing Catholics" are defending the Church's magisterium at the expense of civil concord?
Well, it is a topsy-turvy world these days. Do a movie about this illuminati at the Vatican, Ron Howard.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Breaking Fast With Bill Safire
- Joe Being Joe
- Obama's Vision Through History
ADVERTISEMENT
El Rey| 5.8.09 @ 7:11AM
Come George, don't act surprised.
The Vatican has been shamefully MIA in the cultural war for over a generation now, with the best evidence being the American bishops it appointed and tolerated.
JP| 5.8.09 @ 7:38AM
El Rey,
The Second Vatican Council established a greater level of independence for national Bishops from the long arm of the curia. By 1970, most nations established thier own national bishops conferences, which would hopefully relay magisterial teachings within the national borders of each nation. Even the appointment of Bishops is usually done after "consultation" with the local bishops and prelates. The hope was to give each diocesesan bishop more leeway.
The sad fact is the Pope really doesn't have the authority he once enjoyed. The obvious danger of course is that each national bishop's conference could evolve into its own "vatican". Yes, the Pope can remove bishops, even laiticize them or excommunicate them. But this is rarely done.
Forty years ago, the Vatican, in a fit of collegial egalitarianism watered down its authority. The ideal was to see the Bishop of Rome as a First Amoung Equals. Sadly, this had backfired.
One note of optimisim is the united front that our Bishops have taken in relation to Notre Dame. I don't know if Fr Jenkins thought he could pull a Fr Hessburgh; but, this is not 1967, and what Fr Jenkins has done is fired a shot not only across the bow of Bishop D'Arcy, but at the authority of the USCCB. This is not a replay of the Land o'Lakes Conference (which Fr Hessburgh issued a statement of independence from Rome).
Finally, this Pope is very very careful with his public utterances. He will attempt first to allow the Bishops to work this on thier own via Canon Law. If the Brothers of the Holy Cross refuse to discipline Fr Jenkins, then the Vatican will get involved. The Bishops have made thier points very clear. The ball is in Fr Jenkins court. If the President receives his honorary degree, things could get interesting.
John| 5.8.09 @ 8:31AM
JP,
Alas, they won't. The Roman Catholic Church remains the Bride of Christ. I will follow it until the day I pass into eternity, whatever God grants me in His divine mercy.
The "church", however is another thing. The man driven, man managed, and man run church based in Rome is often too slow when it needs to be fast, too fast when it needs to be slow, and tragically hampered by the weaknesses of the men running it (or not running it, in this case.)
The church has been playing with "Christic Marxism" for most of the last Century. The human desire to "have everyone live as equals in a divinely dedicated community". The latest overt manifestation of this impulse was "Liberation Theology". John Paul II placed it in the box and context in which it belonged, and the overt support for it within the church was dried up.
Well, sadly as in most everything human, the Liberation Theologists merely undocked from the label, and began calling themselves a "Social Justice Ministry".
The truth is that a very large portion of the people sitting in Catholic pews on any given Sunday, are there on their own terms, not the Magisterium's. They don't go to Confession, They practice artifical birth control. They openly advocate for the abolition of the male priesthood. They have procured abortions for daughters who have "made mistakes". The cafeteria is open, and as long as the envelopes are possessed of checks, they will be welcomed with open arms and closed eyes.
The Church is being wounded, because the church will not teach, and refuses to actually discipline itself, and therefore projects the lack of discipline on the laity in the pews.
So, "they don't really mean it..." becomes the eternal refrain of damnation.
Well, God does mean it... and I suppose we all will have to stand before Him and account for ourselves.
This is a "teaching" moment, and I fear the lesson will never be professed, and certainly never acted upon.
r/John
Matt| 5.8.09 @ 12:42PM
Prompted by your article I sent this message to L'Osservatore Romano:
Your praise for Obama in the editorial by Giuseppe Fiorentino is sycophantic betrayal. My wife and I have sacrificed in order to follow Church teaching and raise 9 children. If we were to do what Obama says, and abort our offspring, we'd be condemned as bad Catholics. But Obama gets praise because he's rich and powerful. L'Osservatore Romano belongs in the Eighth Circle of Dante's Inferno.
joseph| 5.8.09 @ 12:42PM
I am from the Caribbean and in the Nov 2008 American Elections at least 80% or more of Catholic priests and other members of the Catholic hiriechy wanted Barrack Obama to become President of the United States.
So what is new !!
Tim| 5.8.09 @ 3:01PM
Matt
I am reminded of Dante's image of the Devil's ass being filled with fly sized Friars.
Mike from Maryland| 5.8.09 @ 5:16PM
My old Polish grandmother, who was a very devout believer, went to Mass every morning, once said, "The walls of Hell are lined with priests." She was no fool. But I would have said, " ... with American bishops."
Tom| 5.8.09 @ 8:19PM
In view of that article and the newspaper's puff pieces on "Angels and Demons," it's time to pull the plug on the "new" L'Osservatore Romano.
Firestone| 5.9.09 @ 12:27AM
One would have thought, pace Ron Howard and Dan Brown, that a member of the "Illuminati" had wormed his way into a staff position and scribbled the editorial in the hopes of damaging the Church.
You do realize that is a work of fiction? And that the Illuminati doesnt really exist? OK? Are you confused?
fulu| 5.9.09 @ 1:29AM
Of course they are, reality is a gambit for these morons.
Hell's Here| 5.9.09 @ 2:33AM
One thing we're not confused about, pro-aborters: Since 1973 roe v wade, 51 million babies have been slaughtered in our country alone. Chew on that reality, liberal morons.
Conservative One| 5.9.09 @ 2:35AM
Dim-witted evil really does exist, as evidenced by the liberal fools on this thread.
DaveS| 5.9.09 @ 8:53AM
JP: You are wrong about the effect of V2 on the role of bishops. The local conferences mean nothing in terms of teaching on faith and morals.
JewishOdysseus| 5.9.09 @ 11:41AM
Fear not, people, the Vatican has just announced that the clueless author of this OR story, Mr. Fiorentino, has now been replaced.
By Father Michael Pfleger, of Chicago.
[siiiiigh]
mike| 5.10.09 @ 7:59PM
What do you expect from the bunch that protects child molesters and bishops that knew and shielded them?
The Catholic Church is rotting, apparently from the head down.
Pingback| 5.12.09 @ 11:08AM
Steynian 354 « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.13.09 @ 7:57AM
Steynian 354 | acorn 8 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Philboyd Studge| 5.21.09 @ 11:09AM
Obviously the Vatican "doesn't know what it means to be Catholic".
Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 11:12PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie