I am surprised to realize how much I am hoping for a progressive change here. I need to go lie down. I'm just setting myself up for disappointment, I know
Of all the cardinals making up the Conclave, only two were part of the same Conclave that elected Wojtila: Ratzinger and an American. All the others were carefully selected by Wojtila, which was anything but open to dissent. I wouldn't hold much hope of somebody significantly closer to the values and principles of Vatican II to be elected, alas.
Er... actually, I have been thinking in the last few days about how close Catholicism and Communism are. Both in the good and the bad. I wanted to compose a lengthy blog post. I would write it, but there's still this lurking worry about the next time I'll have to cross the borders into the US...
And yes, Maradiaga it was. Well, most bishops and cardinals are not exactly wildly radical, but he seems to be one of those names as "progressive".
Giacomo: I agree with the sentiments quoted in yesterday's NY Times Week In Review: that the next Pope will not be American, because most of the College of Cardinals are from Europe and the developing world, both areas very much under US influence, and they don't want to hand over the Church to the US, too. Plus, we're way too liberal here.
Last I heard, the US Church wasn't particularly liberal after the last wave of papal appointments
I am more inclined to believe that the next Pope will instead be from a Third World country, where the Church is actually expanding in numbers and influence, and the brand of Catholicism practiced is overwhelmingly dogmatic and conservative.
That is not true of Latin America, and actually all the hopes of progressive at the moment seem to be pinned on two South American candidates, Hummes and the Honduran I never remember the name of. Both seem to be somewhat close to the Liberation Theology.
I don't think Karol Wojtila was a bad man. Far from it. I think he was a deeply conservative Pope, whose decisions reversed the trend of the Second Vatican Council, and where as such antidemocratic, as well as being wrong-headed and driving a lot of people away from the Church. He silenced intellectual dissent, no, he silenced intellectual debate, within the Church, left behind a vast majority of like-minded cardinals, driving the hierarchy ever farther from the flock, and where his policies actually had an impact on the world at large, it was mostly a negative impact.
It's not as if these things were not said before, especially from within the Church. But it seems to me that now is the time to remind people of them.
One of the reasons it is wise to remember the actual content of his tenure is that I suspect a lot of the love and respect he was paid was due to his certainly charismatic presence more than his real teachings. Mostly, when I heard him speak, I heard nothing but vacuities and pious vagueness. As a man he was undoubtly very likeable. It is probably wise to point out to people than likeability is not the best yardstick to measure political, or religious, worth.
As for why every critizing voice, no matter how polite, is taken as offensive - well, I think that does not reflect well on the memory of the man. There ought to be better ways to defend his legacy than to growl at people to shut the fuck up.
Probably isn't going to be Sistus Sestus, eh. :-)
I have been repeatedly and in no uncertain terms been shut up in these past few days whenever I have tried to voice my lack of despair for the death of the old man. In one case, when gushingly reminded that "We had all had the same Pope", I pointed out that this was only if we were Catholic, and as a result people started bemoaning the bad taste of those who were bad-mouthing the Great Man.
I must say that I am, as well as vastly irritated (you'd have to live in Italy to appreciated the extent of the hagiology going on), quite baffled. Mind you, I was moved to great pity by his condition, these last few years and especially these last few days. And I am more than willing to admit that in many things his heart was in the right place.
Strangely enough, it was in the right place most especially when it came to things he could not influence directly. It's pretty easy to preach for peace when you know nobody's going to listen to you anyway. It's easy to make strongly-worded but somewhat vague pronouncement towards the respect of human rights.
Then you accept to travel to a country ruled by absolute dictator, whose hands run with blood, and not only you shake his hands, not only you greet the masses from a balcony at his side, not only you celebrate a private Mass for him and his immediate family, but you can't find the time to meet with that part of your Church that in the same country has fought against torture, kidnappings, death squads, etc.
Come to think of it, I can think of at least two instances of this pattern.
It's also easier to speak approvingly of Woman in general and then refuse to let the actual women active in the Church have any power or influence.
It's a good thing to preach forcefully against discrimination and for tolerance, but it's less good when you not only have nothing kind to say about homosexual, but actually say that holding a Gay Pride in Rome was an offence to God and the heart of Christianity.
I have been subjected to intense Popification for the past 27 years. I have listened to every Angelus, I have seen every pastolar voyaging, I have been told at length about all youth meetings. I couldn't help it because the media in this supposedly secular country never missed an opportunity of Pope-showing. I am at a loss to understand the charisma. It was obviously there, but I seem to be impermeable to it. And it's not because I'm anti-Catholic, as a matter of fact, I have quite a lot of sympathy for Catholicism in general and individual Catholics.
Terry: yes, I've been at Arlington myself and been duly touched. (Except by the Challenger memorial slab, my, is that thing ugly *g*).
And yes, this is very much on my mind right now. The US military seems to consider non-American lives much less worthy than American ones, and this becomes twice creepy when you realize just how (sarcasm)much (/sarcasm)they value their own soldiers.
DavidB: I'm still curious if Iraqis themselves should be sternly told that they shouldn't pay ransom for their own either.
I realize this is a matter of parents anguish and not actual children fear, but when I was a kid, the two things that traumatized me deeply were Bambi (not the mommy death scene: I didn't make it to that. I was absolutely terrified of the scene in the dark cave and had to be carried howling from the cinema) and "Blessed be the meek", an SF short story about sheep turning feral and killing people in Australia. The Karel Thole cover especially haunted me for years. Oh yeah, and cows completely freaked me out.
Personally, I am in favour of paying ransoms. Not paying a ransom in this case is tantamount to sentencing your citizen to death. This would be absolutely unacceptable to Italian public opinion, but it would be unacceptable to me as well. It's one of those cases when you have a whole lot of bad choices and telling the terrorists "go ahead and behead her" would not be, in my opinion, morally defensible. Of course the money is going to be put to nefarious use, but, on the one hand, it's not as if the insurgents seem to be out of resources, and on the other hand, they are perfectly able to, and in fact do, kidnap Iraqis as well. I hope nobody is going to attack the Iraqis because they pay to get their loved ones back. Though at this point it would really not amaze me if somebody did.
One of the things paying ransom is for, in this case, is the protection of the freedom of information. You may not like what a journalist is writing, but the fact that journalists do go in a war zone and do report on it is a great service to your own citizenry. People need information to make informed choices, and they need it especially to decide if they want their own troops to participate in a war. In a word, defending a journalist in a hot war zone means defending the freedom of your own citizens. This, as the ad goes, is priceless.
Another thing that should be noted is that by targeting the foreign press the terrorists may gain a short-term financial advance, but their long-term goal is quite obviously to get all witnesses out. They do not want foreigners, they especially do not want journalists. Giuliana Sgrena bitterly said that the Iraqi people would dearly like their voice to be heard on the international stage, but right now this is simply not possible. The problem so is not so much that the kidnappers may buy more guns - they have shown to be able to wreak a lot of havoc with very little money - but that they managed to achieve a full media black-out. They wanted that. And they got it.
The strange thing is that looking at Calipari's funeral I thought how much better Americans would do this, American do this (anybody seen Gardens of Stone?). The flag would be matte, wrapped tightly and neatly, and the three stripes would fall precisely symmetrical instead of the green being slightly showing more than the red. The uniforms would be smarter. There would be gleaming buttons, smart snapping to attention, and that fascinating business with folding the flag triangularly.
I've seen all this, and so it's not as if it's not done. The ceremonial is there. Somebody somewhere in America's past thought that its fallen deserved to be honored. Americans can mourn just as well as anybody, and they certainly are not lacking in patriotism.
Of course, nobody stops to hold a full State funeral in wartime. You can only do it now and then, not every day of the year for years, with multiple caskets.
Still. The Israeli do it. Is it because they are solidly behind their soldiers? Yes, well, but Italians are overwhelmingly against this war and this doesn't stop them mourning collectively.
I guess it has to do with being uncomfortable with letting people perceive the full scale of the loss. Just as with the landmines ad, really. A sacrifice that people face in the full knowledge of what it would entail and the worthiness of the cause strengthens the unity of the nation and its resolve. Churchill promised blood, sweat and tears, and the British said, oh, well, ok. A sacrifice that came from a war declared on false premises.... eh. Best not dwell on it.
All in all, I guess we should be grateful that they haven't found a way to use the dead to their ends. like they did with 9/11. Because I think we would witness celebrations that would rival the May Parade if they had.
No dispute on the industry standard from here. I'm the first to bemoan it. Though Meridiano Zero is an island of professionalism and care I have to say.
And we haven't been able to achieve much in Iraq, not even with our experience in peacekeeping. We thought so until Nassirya. It wasn't true.
Oh yes. Edward Luttwak speaks a passable Italian, and totally adores appearing on TV and shocking the natives. I think he gives a great and continuing contribution to the image of the United States of America in Italy.
Non credo che abbiamo incontrato, signora; riconosco il suo nome ma perche non lo so.
That should be "Non credo che ci siamo incontrati". You recognize my name because I've been pretty active in online fandom.
Eeeeuuuw.
But what kills me is that he has kind words to say both about Pat Wrede and Lois MacMaster Bujold on his site. Not to mention praising Charlie Stross and Umberto Eco.
I don't know. Just doesn't compute.
Oh, and just as I was saying, oh, good, not all the creepo weirdo bigots live over here - the guy actually lives in Italy. I almost even thought I knew him, but I don't think it's him.
This thing about inability to assess one's level of competence has been buzzing around in my head for days now. Partly because I work beside people who read the slushpile and regularly push it towards me, because they find it entertaining when I start sputtering and then get scathing.
I have this disturbing feeling that just as the incompetent send us their pride and joy, the truly talented are burning their manuscript in their fireplaces because they underestimate themselves.
I guess a lot of decent people in journalism resign because they have made some honest mistake, leaving only the shameless to thrive.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 16 |
Total: 16 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Anna Feruglio Dal Dan:
Show all comments by Anna Feruglio Dal Dan.