Outrageous: Italian PM calls Pope Benedict a liar in newspaper

Watch it. That's my pope you're talking about:

The Italian newspaper Il Giornale, owned by the family of Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, carries a headline today dominated by the words “Ha mentito” - “he lied”, referring to Pope Benedict XVI. The paper is busy stirring up trouble over the claims by Swedish TV, due to be aired tonight, that the Vatican knew in advance about the Holocaust-denying background of Bishop Richard Williamson before his excommunication was lifted.

The words “he lied” are admittedly taken from the programme. But it’s a malicious allegation: Benedict has told no lies whatsoever regarding this matter, even if Vatican officials working for him have a case to answer. (UK Telegraph Blog)

Damian Thompson has the full background.

Here's hoping the Vatican press office vigorously and competently defends the pope against these unfair accusations.

I mean, there's a first for everything.

Carla Bruni criticizes Pope Benedict XVI on condoms

Carla Bruni has evidently had a religious de-awakening:

"Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy said: "I was born Catholic, I was baptised, but in my life I feel profoundly secular.

"I find that the controversy coming from the Pope's message – albeit distorted by the media – is very damaging.

"In Africa it's often Church people who look after sick people. It's astonishing to see the difference between the theory and the reality.

"I think the Church should evolve on this issue. It presents the condom as a contraceptive which, incidentally, it forbids, although it is the only existing protection," she told Femme Actuelle, the women's magazine." (UK Telegraph)

Gerald Warner responds:

"Even from a secular viewpoint, if we did not have the wise words of Carla Bruni to guide us we might have lent credence to the Catholic abstinence campaign in Uganda which reduced the 18 per cent HIV infection rate among adults in 1992 to 5 per cent in 2007.

Without Bruni, we might be tempted to listen to uninformed commentators such as the director of the AIDS Prevention Center at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies who said: "The best evidence we have supports the Pope's comments."

Gotta love British irony.

Gay Catholics call Pope's condom comments `amazingly insensitive'

Like, amazingly:

Nicole Sotelo, Communications Director of Call To Action, said, "Catholics throughout the world understand that condoms save lives. We must stop making orphans of children throughout the world because of misinformation. To this day, the Vatican bans the use of condoms by Catholics. This is just morally wrong." (Dallas Morning News Religion Blog)

Thanks for the guidance.

If this guy won't get excommunicated, who will?

My basic take on Robert S. McElvaine stinker piece in the Washington Post On Faith column was "Fine, let him have his way - excommunicate him." I mean, here's a guy who seems to make his career off being a bad Catholic. No one would listen to him if he wasn't Catholic ... and the Church has tools to fix this.

Consider what my father Ed Peters has to say:

In fewer than 500 words, McElvaine manages to insult meanly and repeatedly Pope Benedict XVI and to impugn (sophomorically, I grant, but nevertheless clearly and directly) a half-dozen important Church teachings on sacraments, ecclesiology, and moral doctrine. If McElvaine's column does not constitute a violation of, among other norms, Canon 1369, then folks, I am never going to recognize it when it is violated.

Now, it's one thing for the bishops to have ignored gross insults to themselves (I think they were wrong to have done that last year, but I can see why they might have acted thus). But it is entirely something else for them to ignore the kind of venom that McElvaine has just poured out on the pope. Their pope. Our pope.

He lays out a clear road-map out for how to deal with McElvaine.

The law is there for a reason.

More on Condoms

Some follow-up links to the story we've been covering the last couple days:

• The Cathoholic: Condoms, the Pope & Africa
• NRO: Benedict Has It Right (good article)
• Kathryn Jean Lopez: Media coverage of papal comments on AIDS in Africa is March madness.
• Whispers: Damage Control, PopeTrip Edition
• Off the Record: African wife-beaters urged to practice "safe-sox"

Outrageous: Take them at their word - Excommunicate them.

How Robert S. McElvaine slunk his way into a Washington Post's "On Faith" column I'll never know. Unless the column is a joke.

McElvaine's entry ("impeach the pope") sure is laughable and - I would argue - actionable. It's clearly offensive. Some quotes:

"Amid all the justified outrage we all feel at Bernie Madoff and the AIG bandits, let us save some intense outrage for Pope Benedict XVI."

"I am a Catholic and the idea that such a man [as Pope Benedict] is God's spokesperson on earth is absurd to me."

"Let's start a movement within the Catholic Church to impeach Pope Benedict XVI and remove him from office. While we're at it, let's replace him with a woman.
He reversed the excommunication of a Holocaust denier. Will he excommunicate me for pointing out that he is a misogyny denier?
If this be heresy, make the most of it."

Well heck, fine with me. Excommunicate him if that's his wish. He's certainly guilty of being an idiot.

Plus he has insulted a figure beloved by literally hundreds of millions of people. Plus he's ignorant of basic truths of historical fact, demonstrating absolutely no good will or honest desire to verify his libelous claims about the Catholic Church in the process. Plus he does all of this as a Catholic - causing grave scandal to the faithful.

"On Faith" should be embarrassed to welcome such malevolent contributions.

And while we're at it, let's add another to the excommunication docket:

The pope's comment was "irresponsible and dangerous", said Jon O'Brien, head of Catholics for Choice, adding that "few Catholics and even fewer medical personnel agree with his stance." (AFP) [More damning evidence here.]

At least O'Brien is bought and paid for, McElvaine is trying to draw attention to his new anti-Catholic book.

A dose of NYT snarkiness in reaction to the pope's letter

Rachel Donadio of the New York Times gets snarky {my comments in brackets}:

Pope Admits Online News Can Provide Infallible Aid {Haha. Get it? INFALLIBLE aid. I'm so clever.}

The letter released Thursday in which Pope Benedict XVI admitted that the Vatican had made “mistakes” in handling the case of a Holocaust-denying bishop was unprecedented in its directness, its humanity and its acknowledgment of papal fallibility. {not to be confused, of course, with the Pope's charism of infallibility when speaking authoritatively on matters pertaining to faith or morals. Just so we're clear.}

But it also contained two sentences unique in the annals of church history. {unique, sure. important - well, maybe.}

“I have been told that consulting the information available on the Internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on,” Benedict wrote. “I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news.” {They could start with subscribing to AmP. Oh wait, they probably already do! ;-) }

In other words: “Note to the Roman Curia: try Google.” {Wow, Rachel, you're about the seven hundredth person to make that suggestion. What incisive advice!}

The Vatican, a 2,000-year-old monarchy built on the ruins of the Roman Empire and run by octogenarians, has officially recognized the demands of the 24-hour news cycle, not a 24-century one. {Oh brother - where did this line come from? I mean, ya know what? The Church will be here in another 2,000 years - and the New York Times won't be. You can quote me on that.}

In his disarmingly human letter, Benedict acknowledged the “avalanche of protests” elicited after he revoked the excommunication of four schismatic bishops in January ... {it's "disarmingly human" only to someone who doesn't know the Pope. C'mon - you're writing for the New York Times for pete's sake - have you been any paying attention at all to who this man is?!}

... In the ensuing weeks, the pope said he had not been aware of Bishop Williamson’s views at the time he revoked the excommunication, and he repeatedly condemned anti-Semitism.

But the criticism did not stop, as Catholics and Jews alike questioned the pope’s moral authority. {His moral authority?! How was it a question about his moral authority?! That's a new one to me. I think some people specifically asked if the Pope endorsed Williamson's kooky views on the Holocaust. That's it.}

... Speaking to reporters at the Vatican on Thursday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict had taken the criticism to heart. “He demonstrates that he was touched and that he listened to what was said, even on the Internet,” Father Lombardi said. {It's where the game is being played now.}

The rest of the article is rather ho-hum.

The other story: Pope Benedict and the SSPX

My intensive coverage of the Maciel situation put all other stories on the back burner in the past 48 hours.

But there is something else important happening: the ongoing controversy surrounding Pope Benedict, the SSPX, and Bishop Richard Williamson.

It's another complicated situation, so I'll try to summarize and shed some lights on where things stand now:

Liberal Catholic theologian Hermann Haering's call for the pope to step down, I think, is preposterous.

Things got more serious when German Chancellor Angela Merkel rebuked Pope Benedict and asked him to "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial and that there must be positive relations with the Jewish community overall."

The pope's brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger, shot back: "[the pope] doesn’t need me to defend him. But it angers me how unjust and badly informed the people who are attacking him are."

I'd of course, agree with Fr. Ratzinger. Of course Pope Benedict supports positive relations with the Jews. He's been working for that his entire ecclesiastical and papal career!

So how did we get here? Two things: a) bias against the Church and b) admittedly poor handling by the Vatican. This is not the first time the Vatican has badly bungled the handling of a delicate situation, and it is frustrating - to say the least - that this still regularly happens.

Vatican expert Sandro Magister explains:

A few days after the events, the lifting of excommunication from the four Lefebvrist bishops is increasingly manifesting itself at the Vatican as a double disaster, of governance and of communication. In the disaster, Pope Benedict XVI found himself to be the one most exposed, and practically alone.

{Magister reviews Pope Benedict's deep theological understanding and teaching about the issue of SSPX reconciliation, etc.} But little or nothing of this {papal explanation} was stated in the decree issued on January 24 by the Holy See. In the "vulgata" diffused by the media, with this decree the Church of Rome was simply clasping the Lefebvrists to its bosom.

{Now the twist:} Then, to make the misunderstanding worse, there came the uproar over an interview with one of the four bishops granted clemency, Richard Williamson of England, in which he supported ideas denying the Holocaust.

In the media all over the world, the news read as follows: the pope clears a Holocaust denier bishop from excommunication, and welcomes him into the Church.

Magister's hypothesis (underlining mine):

The question comes naturally: was all of this really inevitable, once the pope had decided to lift the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops? Or was the disaster produced by the errors and omissions of the men who are supposed to implement the pope's decisions? The facts point to the second hypothesis.

The decree revoking the excommunication bears the signature of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the congregation for bishops. Another cardinal, Darío Castrillón Hoyos, is the president of the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei," which, ever since its creation in 1988, has dealt with the followers of Lefebvre. Both of these cardinals have said that they were taken by surprise, after the fact, by the interview with Bishop Williamson, and that they were never aware that he was a Holocaust denier.

At this point Magister goes on to describe one failing after another. Two main points:

• "The media release of the decision also seems to have been entirely negligent. The Vatican press office limited itself, on Saturday, January 24, to distributing the text of the decree, in spite of the fact that the news had already leaked out a few days earlier, and a fiery controversy was already growing around the statements denying the Holocaust made by Williamson.... And yet, if nothing of this was done, it was not the fault of the Vatican press office and its director, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, but of the offices of the curia from which they receive their orders. These offices of the curia converge in the secretariat of state."
• "So then, throughout the entire affair of the lifting of the excommunications for the Lefebvrist bishops, the secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, despite his highly active and outspoken nature, distinguished himself by his absence. His first public comment on the question came on January 28, during a conference in Rome at which he was speaking. But more than words, what were lacking from him were actions equal to the gravity of the situation. Before, during, and after the issuing of the decree. Benedict XVI was left practically alone, and the curia was abandoned to disorder. The fact that Benedict XVI has given up on reforming the curia is now before the eyes of all. But it is conjectured that he compensated for this non-decision by entrusting the leadership of the offices to a tough, dynamic secretary of state, Bertone. Now this conjecture has also been shown to be lacking. "

Magister's final point:

"Bertone's personal devotion to Benedict XVI is beyond all doubt. Not so that of the other curia officials, who continue to have free rein. It is possible that some of them deliberately oppose this pontificate. It is certain that most of them simply do not understand it, do not measure up to it."

Wow, that's alot to take in. Given this state of affairs, it should not surprise us that there has been no official Vatican reaction to other current controversies - notably the Maciel meltdown. Quite simply: they have their hands more than full.

Magister's analysis jives with John Allen's Jan. 30th column: "The Lefebvrite case: What was the Vatican thinking?":

On the lecture circuit, I'm sometimes asked for my opinion about the Vatican's communications strategy. My glib answer generally is, "As soon as they have one, I'll be glad to tell you what I think of it."

The line usually draws a few chuckles. However, this week's furor over the lifting of the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, including one who's a Holocaust denier, offers a reminder that the lack of PR savvy in Rome is actually no laughing matter. {Read his entire column.}

While the Vatican Information Service released a brief communique on the subject today, they are also taking more drastic measures, including, apparently, demanding that Bishop Williams recant.

It's pretty evident that Vatican officials from top to bottom really dropped the ball on this one, and gave the detractors of the Church a clear opportunity of working against her in the court of common opinion. I say this because it's nothing new for people to attack the Church in public, it is something out of the ordinary for Vatican officials to be so pell-mell in their response, up to and including pointing the figure at one another.

(I think it's worth noting, as Whispers does here, that the release of Bp. Williamson's Swedish TV interview might have been timed to embarrass the pope. Nonetheless, Williamson's record is far older than this interview and the situation could have been avoided altogether.)

I hope this is a serious reality check. And maybe it's time to hire a couple research assistants. I know how to use Google pretty well.

And because Pope Benedict is so very alone on this - and unjustly being attacked - I would ask readers to sign this petition to publicly support him.

Video: Woman attempted to bite Pope at Midnight Mass

Scary:

Details:

A psychiatric patient intended to bite Pope Benedict in the neck during a foiled attack at the Midnight Mass at St Peter’s over Christmas.

Erwin Niederberger, the press officer for the Swiss Guards, told the Swiss online magazine 20 Minuten that the hooded figure tackled to the ground by the Pope’s security people on Christmas eve was a mentally disturbed Italian woman. Neither Benedict XVI nor the rest of the congregation seemed fazed by the incident. (More)

We must continually pray for the safety of our Holy Father.

Ph/t: Insight Scoop.

Pope Benedict XVI under-fire for 'negative' statements

Who the heck does Marco Politi think he is?

Pope Benedict XVI has come under fire from a leading Vatican watcher as "The Pope who says No" following a series of "negative" Vatican statements on homosexuality, the disabled and bio-ethics.

Marco Politi, the veteran Vatican correspondent of La Repubblica, said this was "yet another papal no" after Vatican opposition to UN declarations on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the rights of the disabled, on the grounds that they could be seen a sanctioning gay marriage and abortion.

"It is one veto after another" Mr Politi wrote. "Not to this, no to that. No, no, no". He said the Vatican was clearly aware that under Pope Benedict it was acquiring a reputation for "banning everything", since it had issued a "pre-emptive statement" noting that "on a superfical first reading" the document on bio-ethics "might give the impression of being a collection of prohibitions". "But that is precisely the public perception", Mr Politi said. (UK Times Online)

Oh brother, nothing new here. Mr. Politi risks acquiring a reputation for "missing the point of everything".

As I first heard my parish priest say, behind every No of the Church (and of God), is a deeper Yes. The Church affirms the dignity of the person and denies those procedures which endanger it.

And the rest of the article is a catalogue of inaccuracies. It always really gets me the way the UK tabloids can be so anti-Catholic, and specifically anti-Pope. I realize this was an Italian journalist, but the UK tabloids are always seem eager to pick this sort of trash reporting up and republish it.

I have to say, finally, that the published comments made in response to the UK Times article reveal a wonderful example of faithful Catholics actively defending the Church and the Pope online. Good for them!

Cartoon: From the Anti-Papist Archives

Odd how not all that much has changed since this cartoon was drawn.

Call Larry King Live tonight about anti-Catholic Bill Maher

That's what ALL is asking its members (and you) to do:

American Life League is asking its 300,000 supporters to call the "Larry King Live" show Tuesday night, August 19, and ask Bill Maher why he hates Catholics. The HBO talk show host will appear on Larry King's cable show to talk abour politics and his show "Real Time." Maher's latest project, "Religulous," a "mockumentary" whose title is a combination of the words "religious" and "ridiculous."

Maher makes no secret of his hatred for religion: "I have hated the Church way before anyone else," Maher said in 2002.

But the comedian's long history of anti-Catholic vitriol came to a head in April, at the time of Pope Benedict XVI's first apostolic visit to America. On his show, Maher claimed that Pope Benedict XVI "used to be a Nazi," called the Catholic Church "the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia" and said, "If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you 'pope.'"

ALL has collected over 30,000 signatures on its FireBillMaher.com web site since April. The organization demands that Time Warner fire Bill Maher for his hate speech and now asks those same supporters to voice their concerns on "Larry King Live."

"Why is Larry King giving this guy yet another platform to spew hate-filled propaganda against millions of Catholics?" asked Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. "Why are we letting this kind of bigotry stand? There's been enough anti-Catholicism in this country; we don't need Larry King and Bill Maher fanning the flames of hate."

American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

American Life League: Fire Bill Maher http://firebillmaher.com/

CNN: Larry King Live http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/

Reuters: American Life League Unleases FireBillMaher.com http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS171345+18-Apr-2008+PRN20080418

Stuff that ticks me off....

Close to the top of the list .... anti-Catholic condom-throwers:

When Catholic youth around the world converge in Sydney, Australia for World Youth Day, they will be handed condoms in an attempt to protest the Pope’s unwavering opposition to abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

The NoToPope Coalition, a group of abortion, homosexual and atheist activists, including Raelians and the Socialist Alliance, will reportedly number between 1,000 and 5,000 protestors. They plan to distribute condoms to pilgrims en route to the Papal Mass at Randwick Racecourse July 20. (LifeSiteNews)

I remember people doing this at WYD '05 in Germany. I'm not sure if it was the same group, but it's a good thing I never personally saw them in action because I would have given them a piece of my mind - to start.

"Catholic League declares end to Rev. Hagee controversy"

Proof that, yes, apologies can put some things to rest.

Or at least should.

Not like we'll see any apologies on this one, however.

L’Osservatore Romano nails La Sapienza profs for Wikipedia misuse

How. Embarassing.

The Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano is reporting that 67 professors from La Sapienza University in Rome who wrote a letter opposing a visit by Pope Benedict XVI based their opposition on a quote taken out of context from Wikipedia.org.

The professors portrayed themselves as defenders “of freedom of research and of knowledge.” “In the name of ‘freedom of research and of knowledge,’ they have taken false information to be true, accepting an assertion without checking whether it is factual,” the Vatican newspaper reported. - CWNews

Icing on the proverbial cake:

“That Wikipedia in all likelihood is the source of the quote is evident by the fact that the letter from the 67 professors makes reference to a speech by Cardinal Ratzinger on March 15, 1990 in Parma. The speech was given, but it took place in Rome, at La Sapienza University on exactly that day,” L’ Osservatore continued. “The surprising thing is that whoever took the quote from Feyerabend could not have read the rest of the entry in Wikipedia, as he would have realized that the meaning of Ratzinger’s statement is exactly the opposite of what the 67 claimed the Pope was saying.”

“Each person is free to judge if this way of using reason is correct or if it is an act of disloyalty. The risk of reason folding to the pressure of interests and to the attractiveness of utility is exactly the risk which the Pope would have warned the staff of La Sapienza about had he been able to speak there,” the Vatican newspaper stated in conclusion.

I don't think this discovery can be overplayed as it brings out several important points: 1) This is a scandal to the protesting La Sapienza professors. 2) This ellucidates the anti-catholic and anti-papal bigotry in play here. 3) L'Osservatore Romano should be praised for its original journalism and forthright presentation of the facts.

Public reading of Pope's lecture at La Sapienza results in standing ovation

Zenit reports:

The rector of Rome's Sapienza University announced that he will re-invite Benedict XVI to visit the institution.

Renato Guarini affirmed this after the inauguration ceremony today that was supposed to have included a lecture given by the Pope. The Vatican announced Tuesday that the visit would be postponed, due to what the Pope's secretary of state called a lack of the "prerequisites for a dignified and tranquil welcome."

A small protest that eventually reached the point of several students occupying the rector's offices motivated the Holy See to cancel the visit. The protestors called the Pope "hostile" to science and took issue with a 1990 speech by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the Galileo case.

The 1990 speech in its entirety showed the protestors to have taken Cardinal Ratzinger's words out of context.

Guarini said, "I will offer a new invitation to the Pope, Benedict XVI." He said the invitation would "be in accord with the desire of the majority of Sapienza's academic community."

During the inauguration ceremony, a professor read the discourse the Holy Father had prepared for the occasion. A standing ovation and students' shouts of "Long live the Pope" followed the reading.

Bertone explains Pope's cancellation of appearance (+ full text of address)

CNA fills us in:

Due to this planned disturbance, the Secretary of State wrote to the rector that “the prerequisites for a dignified and tranquil welcome were not present” and that “it was judged opportune to postpone the scheduled visit in order to remove any pretext for demonstrations which would have been unfortunate for everyone concerned".

Cardinal Bertone also explained why the Pope decided to send his address to the university’s rector. In the letter, the cardinal relates that since the majority of professors and students wished to hear "a culturally meaningful word, whence to draw stimuli for their own journey in search of truth, the Holy Father has instructed that the text he prepared for the occasion be sent to you".

CWNews provides us with a copy of the full text.

The Associated Press has decent coverage of this story.

Meanwhile, in related news, the UK has decided to treat anti-Pope Benedict posters as a hate crime.

Finally, a brief letter to the editor published in the NYT notes: "How ironic that those in opposition should resort to threats of violence to suppress, in the putative interest of science, a discussion of religion. Viva Galileo! Viva Benedict XVI!"

At least we're not the only ones who are making the connections.

update 2: LifeSiteNews offers coverage.

Recap: Black eye for La Sapienza, good day for Catholic free speech

The day-after reactions to the news that Pope Benedict would not, after all, attend the inauguration of the academic year at La Sapienza university because of protests have been, on the whole, critical of those in the University who attempted to curtail the Pope's right to free speech.

Zadok, who has been ground zero on this story from the start, has this to report:

The Italian press is reporting that that Cardinal Ruini, the Pope's vicar for the Diocese of Rome, is encouraging the faithful to give a large show of support for the Pope by attending the Papal Angelus at noon on Sunday. Needless to say, there's no way I'm missing that.

Mainstream political opinion in Italy is almost entirely in support of the Pope with reference to the whole Sapienza debacle. Even those who do not agree with him see this as a defeat for the principle of free speech. Amongst ordinary Italians there tends to be an attitude of great embarrassment that the Pope seems to be more welcome in Turkey than he is in the country's largest university. Some of the signatories of the notorious letter which opposed the Pope's attendance are also trying to nuance their position. They claim that the letter should have been private and that it was 'used' by the protesters in a way that was not intended. The rector of the university is speaking of a 'defeat for reason and secularism.'

Catholic students from the Sapienza university were also prominent at today's Papal audience. They were showing that if the Pope couldn't come to them, then they were going to go to the Pope.

They appeared both at his general audience today in the Paul VI hall, as well as the outdoor segment.

AsiaNews reports:

"Freedom, Freedom!": the shout raised by a group of university students of the Communion and Liberation movement, at the beginning of today's general audience, met with warm applause from the six thousand persons present in the Paul VI audience hall, and was an echo of the decision Benedict XVI took yesterday not to go to the La Sapienza university of Rome. The decision was due to opposition from a small group of teachers and students, against the invitation that had been extended to him to participate in the inauguration of the academic year. "So there are three places where the pope cannot go: Moscow, Beijing, and the university of Rome", commented one of the young people present at the audience. "If Benedict does not go to La Sapienza, La Sapienza comes to Benedict", read one of the banners that the young people raised.

The pope did not mention the affair, not even in the greeting that he addressed to the students.

Here are images of the supporters:

Even a Moroccan women's group has voiced public support of the Holy Father's freedom of speech.

Of course, there's still plenty of jerks weighing-in on the situation, such as "infoshop news" which touts itself as an "indipendent news service." They titled their report "Pope Scared off by Threat of Loud Music" and continue:

Students had threatened to blast dance music at the pontiff, and also to dress up as nuns. Pretty scary stuff.

But then as a cardinal, Benedict once attacked rock and pop music as the "work of the devil."

And nuns, well, what Pontiff wouldn't be afraid?

They can have their laugh, from today's events it is clear that this tale is far from finished.

Here's how the LA Times tried to hype it:

It's a big deal when the pope agrees to speak at an event that isn't church-related.

It's an even bigger deal when public protest forces him to cancel.

Veteran Vatican-watchers said they'd never seen anything quite like it. Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday abruptly called off plans to speak at Rome's prestigious La Sapienza university, after students and professors rallied to proclaim him pontiff non grata.

... Italy lives in the shadow of the Vatican, and mainstream politicians rarely challenge or criticize the pope.

But still reports:

Officials in both the government and the opposition were quick to lament the protests that waylaid Benedict.

Prime Minister Romano Prodi expressed "solidarity" with the pope and condemned the "unacceptable attitudes of intolerance."

The left-wing minister for family policy, Rosy Bindi, who has clashed with the church on reproductive health and similar issues, said she was "very saddened" by the episode. "This is not a pretty day for our democratic republic," she said.

"You don't have to agree with what he says, but the right to speak must not be denied to anyone," Universities Minister Fabio Mussi said, according to the Italian news agency Ansa.

Pier Ferdinando Casini, head of a main Christian Democratic party, said that with professors like this, "we must fear for the future of our children."

One of the (many) staggering ironies of this whole thing?

La Sapienza was founded 700 years ago by ... Pope Boniface VIII.

I guess this just reveals how far back the tradition of Papal anti-intellectualism can be found.

Uh-huh, sure.

[photo credits: AP Photo/L'Osservatore Romano, Handout]

update: CNA on Cardinal Ruini's rally cry in support of Pope Benedict this Sunday:

"Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope’s Vicar for the Diocese of Rome, has called on the faithful to gather this Sunday in St. Peter’s Square during the recitation of the Angelus to show their support for Pope Benedict XVI after his visit to La Sapienza University in Rome was cancelled amid protests from students and faculty."

update 2: CNA reports:

"I don't come to impose the faith, but to ask of you the courage for the truth," these were the opening words of Pope Benedict's speech that he was supposed to deliver tomorrow at La Sapienza University in Rome.

Other follow-ups:

• ABC News: Students show support for Pope after protests
• LifeSiteNews: Students Flock to Pope's Wednesday Audience After Speech Cancelled over Protests
• CathNews: Chanting students support Pope after canned visit

Photo: "The Pope is Against the University."

The poster, I believe, reads "The Pope is Against the University."

So against the Univesity, in fact, that he has spent most of his life studying and teaching in them.

[photo credit: AFP/Filippo Monteforte]

Breaking: Pope's visit to Sapienza U. cancelled due to protests!

Zadok in Rome reports:

It seems that as part of the protests, the Rector's offices were occupied by students today.One has to imagine that security concerns and the dignity of the Holy Father were the primary concern here. One suspects that many at the Sapienza University are ashamed what the actions of their colleagues have brought about.The Pope will, however, be sending the text of his proposed address to the Sapienza.

The report comes from Ansa.it (in Italian).

update: the AP has confirmed:

Pope Benedict XVI has canceled his visit to a Rome university following protests by professors and students, the Vatican said Tuesday.

"It was considered opportune to skip the event," the Vatican said in a statement about Benedict's planned visit and speech Thursday at La Sapienza, a public university.

Instead, the pope will send his speech to the university, the Vatican said.

AP full coverage here. Notable: "He said 63 instructors – out of a total of 4,500 – had signed the letter. He had said students would have been allowed to gather in a designated area Thursday during the pope's visit."

I'm guessing this visit was nixed due to security concerns. This AGI report quotes the Rector of the University saying that "Should there be tension, that will be due to infiltrations." Apparently there was some concern that non-students would show up and cause trouble. Earlier today, "About 100 students ... occupied a building at Rome's La Sapienza university", CWNews reported. Yahoo! News has a slideshow of related images.

Reuters reports that instead, the Pope will send the text of his address to the University.

I hope it opens with something along the lines of "Dear beloved blockheads..."

When this story broke, I had just finished writing this previous post on the same topic: "The ugly, ignorant face of anti-papism on display".

It's dissapointing to see these protesters "get their way" and prevent the Pope from visiting. They should really be ashamed of themselves, but I'm not holding my breath to see their actions condemned by tonight's media recounting of the situation. At any rate, if the Pope's safety was in jeopardy, that's another thing entirely.

But really, what does it say about the academic community in Italy if they can't even provide for the safety of one of the most staunch defenders of the free exercise of reason. Doesn't anyone remember Regensburg?!

Picture/Report: The ugly, ignorant face of anti-papism on display

It's not only the intolerance and double-standards that outrages me, it's the laughable and pathetic ignorance of history and what the Church actually teaches and is that these people are demonstrating.

Just give this EuroNews report a read (also features video):

"A planned visit by Pope Benedict to Rome's most prestigious university has unleashed a wave of protest. The Pontiff is due to speak at La Sapienza on Thursday at a ceremony launching the 2008 academic year. But defending science as secular, some students and members of staff want his invitation withdrawn. More than 60 professors have written to the university rector, saying they are offended and humiliated by the Pope's views.

At the forefront of the protest, Professor Marcello Cini said: "As teachers of this university, we all have different backgrounds and cultures and we cannot accept an outside authority coming here to tell us what is right and wrong."

[AmP: This statement sounds like the plaintive whinings of a 2-yr-old. And I'd really like to see Prof. Cini explain what he means by the Pope telling folks what is right and wrong. Does that means he forces them? (He can't) Does that mean he claims unique scientific knowledge (He doesn't) ... really, what a sloppy nonsensical statement from this brave defender of human reason and academic pursuit!]

A speech made by the Pope nearly two decades ago has sparked anger among academics. They say it shows the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger favoured the Church's heresy trial against Galileo in the seventeenth century, for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun."

[AmP: Let's pause for a moment here. Are these folks actually protesting the Pope's visit because they believe Pope Benedict ... is a modern geocentrist?! Is that the most sophisticated objection the entire posse can latch upon? A 20-yr-old lecture where the Pope could be construed as supporting .... my goodness, it's not even worth completing the sentence. I'm sure it's not so simple.]

Anyway, the mind boggles at this type of public farce.

And to return briefly to the Galileo charge, I find it recurrently illuminating about the nature of the anti-Catholic project that they always must go back hundreds of years and exhume the ghost of Galileo's trial controversy whenever they try to caste the Church as "anti-reason." Really, is that the best they have?

I think it's revealing that the ultimate answer to my question is - yes, that's really the best they have.

[photo: AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia]

Report: "Pope set to face 'sonic siege' during visit to Rome university"

Anti-Catholic proponents of tolerance act ... not just intolerantly, but positively bestially:

Students at Rome's main La Sapienza university plan to disrupt Pope Benedict XVI's planned visit to their campus later this week with blasts of loud rock music.

The group of left-wing physics students on Monday launched an 'Anti-Clerical Week' of events ahead of Benedict's scheduled arrival on campus on Thursday.

'In a university which should be ... a place of cultural growth, research and conscientious and secular criticism, La Sapienza Rector Renato Guarini has instead decided to invite Pope Joseph Ratzinger to inaugurate the academic year,' the students said on their website, referring to Benedict's name before his 2005 election.

Benedict as pontiff 'condemns centuries of scientific and cultural growth by affirming anachronistic dogmas such as Creationism, while attacking scientific free-thought and promoting mandatory heterosexuality', the students, who use the name, Physics Collective, said.

Featured events included screenings of a film on the life of Galileo Galilei - the Italian Renaissance scientist whose theories on astronomy provoked the ire of the Catholic Church - as well as debates on topics such as evolution and homosexuality.

The protests are set to culminate with a 'sonic siege' involving music played from loudspeakers mounted on a truck in the campus' main square during Benedict's main address, students said.

[Read the whole story.]

Update: And sadly, you can't even count on the academic "adults" to set a good example:

• TimesOnline: "Scientists protest against Pope"
• John Allen: "The pope, modern science, and a canary in the coal mine"
• Commentary from Jeff Miller.

Roland Martin is making a fool of himself, and CNN isn't helping

Earlier in the week I read up briefly on the controversy concerning Roland Martin's screed against Pope Benedict and the issuing of the CDF document clarifying what Lumen Gentium says about the nature of the Church.

Today NewsBusters does an excellent job of revealing Martin's offensive double-standards, and is right to peg CNN along with him:

Martin's column, as described by CNN, "are part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts, and points of view." CNN's own past indicates that they probably aren't going to make the "range of perspectives" very broad. When controversy erupted over the Danish Mohammed cartoons in 2006, they took the following stance: "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam." Apparently, the same kind of respect won't be shown to Catholics who might be offended by Roland Martin's column. In their own descriptive for the column, CNN summarizes Martin's viewpoint with the following: "This is evidence of [Pope Benedict's] ego being more important than work of Christ, columnist says."

Martin became a CNN contributor earlier this year, and besides his regular appearances on "American Morning," has written a couple of columns on religion and politics on CNN's website. In the first article on the subject, he criticized Christian conservatives' focus on abortion and homosexuality. In the second, he continued his criticism of pro-life Christians. In both of these articles, Martin identifies himself as a Christian.

I guess my bigger problem than Martin's own vituperation is CNN's endorsement of him. Crazies abound, but it's when news agencies like CNN give such folks a popular platform that things get bad.

Around St. Blog's, Carl Olson of Ignatius Press finds this "shameful and pathetic" (Go Carl) and Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers is seeing about writing a response editorial. Go Jimmy. I hope he does. Martin's comments go far beyond stating a difference of opinion and he should answer both for his false statements and accusations.

Also, I think Jordan Potter in Jimmy's combox makes a good point when he says:

"Another sign that Roland Martin is an anti-Catholic bigot is that he obviously did not read the new CDF document that he is mocking and derisively dismissing. Either that, or he read it and has chosen to deliberately lie about what it says. Take your pick -- but either way, he's a bigot, and lacking in intellectual honesty."

Martin has a blog and I'm happy to see that some Papists are making their voices heard. Maybe with a little charity and intellectual challenge Martin will reconsider his words.

Vatican uses the "T(errorism)" word to describe anti-papal attacks

Reuters has coverage:

The Vatican's official newspaper accused an Italian comedian on Wednesday of "terrorism" for criticizing the Pope and warned his rhetoric could fuel a return to 1970s-style political violence.

In an unusually strongly worded editorial, L'Osservatore Romano said a presenter of a televised May Day rock concert, which is sponsored by Italy's labor unions, had launched "vile attacks" on Pope Benedict in front of an "excitable crowd."

"This, too, is terrorism. It's terrorism to launch attacks on the Church," it said. "It's terrorism to stoke blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life and love for man."

At the concert, held every year in front of the Saint John in Lateran basilica -- Rome's cathedral where Pope Benedict sits as bishop -- one of the presenters, Andrea Rivera, spoke out against the Pontiff's stand on a number of issues.

"The Pope says he doesn't believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the Church has never evolved," he said.

The surprising thing here is how vitriolic the OR's editorial was worded. I'd like to see the text myself. It should be remembered that there is a great deal of tension between the Catholic Church and Italian society these days for a variety of reasons mentioned in the coverage linked above/below.

CWNews has its coverage here.

Dom asks the interesting question about the source of funding/sponsorship for the concert, considering it was held right outside the Basilica of St. John Lateran.

Still, "terrorism" I think was a poor choice of word for the editorial. "Terrorism" is one of those attention-grabbing words nowadays that can denote prettmuch anything one wishes to claim is "really bad." Heck, wikipedia has a whole page arguing about its strict definition. See Also: tragedy (anything really sad). And for the inverse usage: heroism (anything really good).

How about let's just say the guy was being a jerk and leave it at that?

Right on: the double standard of liberals re: PBA decision

Rob Dreher, (the fellow behind Crunchy Cons and one of the regular bloggers at BeliefNet) who I had the pleasure of meeting at a recent conference, hit this one on the head today:

Diogenes at the Catholic World News blogsite observes that when religious believers bring their faith to the public square and reach conclusions that liberals dislike -- in this case, the Catholic justices on SCOTUS and their upholding the partial-birth abortion ban -- we have to furrow our brows and worry about the separation of church and state being breached. But when religious believers do the same thing and reach, or are likely to reach, conclusions approved of by liberals -- as is the case with Barack Obama -- well, the media's got no real problem with that. [More...]