(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)
The Mystery of the Vatican
12/17/2003
Many of you have probably come across it already, but I just wanted to note that Michael Novak gives me reason to believe that I may have been too quick to conflate Martino and the Vatican:
When I was in Rome last February, Cardinal Martino was already under heavy fire for his intemperate and irrepressible anti-Americanism. Even those who before the war leaned more to the French/German position than to the American were dismayed by his uncalled-for comments. ...
The immense relief experienced by the Catholic community in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has not gone unappreciated at the Vatican. In general, now that the American-led Coalition has acted firmly and with far better results than predicted last February by various spokesmen in the Vatican (they did not all speak with one voice), the Vatican has tried to help with the transition to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, and democratic Iraq.
I regret, and offer general apologies, that I'm not up-to-date with much that goes on at the Vatican and that I am decidedly lacking in familiarity with the internal wranglings there. However, perhaps two factors mitigate my ignorance. The first is that Martino's statement was taken by many non-Catholics as representative, and in some cases, it must be rebuffed as such. The second is that there are some, who are (or present themselves as) much more in-the-know on matters Catholic than I, who defended Martino's comments as no more than an example of a diplomat fulfilling his duty (perhaps imprudently) "to be the Vatican's ambassador of human dignity to the world."
Posted by Justin Katz @ 10:39 PM EST
6 comments
So, what exactly is the problem with Mr. Popcak's defense of Martino's remarks?
Joe Marier @ 12/17/2003 11:10 PM EST
Hello Joe,
For the most part, I was just highlighting the differing views on how Martino's statements fit into his role as a spokesman for the Church. Novak says Martino's superiors are frustrated with his reflexive anti-Americanism; Popcak says Martino said exactly what he should have said.
But while we're on the topic, it seems to me that Popcak completely ignores the question of whether the videos of Saddam Hussein amount to "public humiliation" on such a scale as to be an affront to his dignity. Moreover, while anybody is expressing concern for a monster like Hussein, human though he may be, it would seem appropriate to stress that he brought his downfall — literal and spiritual — on himself and that he put himself in the top tier of initiators of atrocity in the process. Higher-ups in the hierarchy ought also to be very aware that, with such expressions, they send ripples throughout the world which have such results as Amy Welborn notes (e.g., "obstacle to evangelism").
Frankly, to continue, I'm not so sure that the likes of Martino would so enthusiastically defend my dignity, as Popcak asserts, depending on the reason that it became a question. I don't know enough about him to say that as more than a vague impression, but from what I have read, I don't think it unreasonable to doubt.
Similarly, with Popcak, you need only search his name on this blog to see that I haven't held the highest opinion of him. There's something in his tone and his attitude that cuts into all debates about the Church and how we ought to interact with it and its spokespeople with the insinuation that he (Popcak) is perfectly in line with the one true way to view the question and everybody else has just got to deal with that truth.
Which brings us back to the main reason that I linked to him here: he dispenses all debate about Martino's prudence or even the degree to which his reaction is rational in order to defend, as inarguably proper, a statement that even others within the Vatican apparently found inappropriate.
Justin Katz @ 12/17/2003 11:39 PM EST
Saddam spent 3 decades bombarding the people of Iraq (and others) with images--on billboards, murals, gigantic statues and artworks, movies, and 24/7 television programming--suggesting he was a demi-god. He had created an illusory status for himself, much as Hitler did.
His tyrannized subjects were terrified of him, half-believing that his dignity was actually of an order higher than theirs.
The brief images of him with a popsickle stick over his tongue subverted that false, pretentious status. He looked merely human, which is all he is. Thus, his true dignity was preserved in its presentation.
The brief film was a spiritual antidote to spiritual poison, or, if you prefer, nutritious food after a diet salted with poison.
It is quite false to see tragedy in his current situation, as Caridnal Martino claimed. Tragic figures like Oedipus or Antigone ultimately exhalt the very essence of humanity. They triumph spiritually even in the midst of crushing, helpless defeat.
Saddam didn't appear as a hero on that tape. He could not have been more mundane. He wasn't depicted exhibiting spiritual endurance. He just had a guy look at his tonsils, like each one of us sometimes does.
The moment, like the man, was banal.
If viewers had had no idea who the man being examined was nobody would have thought he was being humiliated. It could have been a prosaic medical training tape.
Viewers who remembered his glowering Luciferian grandeur, his bombastic threats, the stories of unspeakable cruelties were satisfied by his grubbiness, his silence, and his powerlessness to do harm.
Tragic heroes are in some sense victims. That is why applying the category of tragedy to Saddam, as Martino did, is so shallow. He is no more a victim than Hitler in his bunker, or Ted Bundy in the prison chow line.
The observation that the brief film amounted to psyops is obtuse. Of course, it was, we are at war. Psyops are perfectly legitimate. I hope this op worked as intended for the intention was just.
There are always dangerous implicit in such operations. Did Martino caution us to beware of going too far? That Saddam, like Satan, insofar as he exists still participates in Good because existence is good in itself, quite apart from anyone's evil will?
No, Martino falsely claimed that we were treating Saddam like a cow when he was treated like an ordinary human patient. He claimed Saddam was in the midst of a personal tragedy because his regime had evaporated, but all demonic illusions evaporate eventually, and thank God they do.
George Lee @ 12/18/2003 11:54 AM EST
Justin, Martino's comments *are* representative -- not of the Church as a whole, but of a substantial body of anti-American, anti Semitic, pro-Arab sentiment in the Vatican.
Remember how L'Osservatore Romano, during the siege of the Church of the Nativity, accused the Israelis of descecrating Christ's birthplace (though Palestinian terrorists were holed up and abusing the priests and nuns there).
Remember how Absp. Hilarion Capucci, on an Vatican diplomatic mission to Iraq, praised Iraq's support for the Palestinian "cause" (which included gifts of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers).
Remember how Saddamite toady Tariq Aziz received a warm welcome from Vatican prelates while Michael Novak received the cold shoulder from them as he went to argue the U.S. case for war.
Remember how this pope constantly condemns Western "cultures of death" for tolerating abortion and contraception yet has never described the Palestinian Authority in such a way -- though the PA's education ministry encourages students to "martyr" themselves and has never formally renounced suicide bombing as a political strategy.
Justin, there's no love lost between the Vatican and Israel (despite the fact that this pope was the first to establish diplomatic relations with that state), or between the Vatican and the U.S. All intelligent Catholics must admit this and stop trying to justify what Martino said.
Then again, too many Catholics (like Popcak) equate loyalty to the episcopal hierarchy with faith in Christ. They're gonna get some surprise at the Second Coming...
Joseph D'Hippolito @ 12/18/2003 01:30 PM EST
BTW, Justin, you have absolutely no need to apologize for your comments. Your outrage was appropriate. Popcak is a toady; ignore him.
Joseph D'Hippolito @ 12/18/2003 01:31 PM EST
Joseph,
Just to clarify: the apology was for my confusion about the significance and breadth of comments coming from Vatican Cardinals. I guess it has to be a tentative apology, because there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about what represents whom and how the hierarchy interacts internally.
And, it must be continually repeated, so much of it filters to us through biased, often hostile, media outlets.
Justin Katz @ 12/19/2003 01:25 PM EST