Speaking of a wider context for this Pontificate, from a Catholic point of view, that is provided very well by the new format adopted by Vittorio Messori and Andrea Tornielli, editorial director and managing editor, respectively, of the online journal La Bussola Quotidiana (The Daily Compass), in which they discuss the major events of the week in the Church and in the world.
With Andrea asking the questions and giving his own opinions, Messori replies - a format they used very well in the book PERCHE CREDO published in 2009, in which Messori explains all the reasons why he is a believer and explains the life and the background that made him rediscover the faith of his childhood as an adult... I post this not because I think what they have to say is necessarily true or valid - in any case, they are always interesting, and even informative in many ways - but because it is an indication of how two prominent lay Catholics 'loyal to the Pope', as their founding manifesto implies, think in the Age of Benedict.
TABLE TALK:
On Libya, global warming,
school uniforms in Spain,
and the Pope's book
with Vittorio Messori and Andrea Tornielli
Translated from
April 2, 2011
Vittorio, for this our seventh appointment 'at the table', it is obligatory to begin once again with the Libyan crisis. There has been some sort of scandal over the fact that Italy was not included in the 'club' of nations who have taken it on themselves to decide the fate of Libya. What do you think of our exclusion?
Dear Andrea, you know how I detest victimism, and that I prefer to say what I believe to be the truth above and beyond any rhetoric. In this case, 'patriotic' rhetoric.
I believe that every nation, much like every person, ultimately gets what it deserves. Unfortunately, Italy's diplomatic discredit has been long-standing. It has precise historical reasons that are not unfounded.
It is based above all on the fact that in the last century, on the occasion of three world wars (the two that are called such, plus the Cold War that followed), our country has been considered either a traitor or unreliable by its allies of the moment.
It started with the Great War (WWI) and the fact that Italy betrayed its Triple Alliance - with Germany and Austria-Hungary - and changed sides at the last minute in the hope of coming out with some gains. Likewise in the Second World War, after Sept. 8, 1943 (when the Mussolini government allied to Nazi Germany was toppled), Italy again betrayed its ally.
Excuse me for interrupting, but in the second case, it was a 'betrayal', to use your term, that was definitely understandable. It had to do with breaking off from Nazism and the alliance forged by Hitler with the Fascist regime. I don't think that was a shameful choice at all....
Don;t misunderstand me. I am not getting into the political or even moral merit of specific choices, but simply citing a series of objective circumstances. At that time, Italy broke the so-called 'Pact of Steel' with Germany which had been solemnly signed.
And finally in the Cold War, the Americans always considered us unreliable because Italy had the largest, most organized and most influential Communist Party in the West. We were considered so questionable diplomatically as well as militarily that during the conflict with the Soviet Union, NATO considered Italy a lost cause, with a Communist fifth column that was perfectly organized for sabotage.
And now, in the case of Libya, our government did all it could to avoid making a definitive choice that would make our allies more trusting. First, Berlusconi allowed the use of Italian bases and airplanes to enforce the UN-sanctioned 'no-fly zone', but then, he expressed sorrow for what was happening to his friend Qaddafi and added that Italian planes flying over Libya would not shoot at anything.
In short, it's an attitude that has been judged as a decision to straddle the fence, which has been a tradition of modern Italy...
I will interrupt you once more. Last week, you, like other authoritative commentators here at Bussola, expressed many doubts about the hypocrisy of the so-called 'humanitarian' motivation for the intervention...
And once again, do not misunderstand me. Even here, I will not enter into the merit of the military operation since we have discussed that thoroughly and criticized it. Nor do I rule out that there may be justification for the stand taken by the Berlusconi government. But if it was against this war, it should not have allowed use of Italian bases. As Bismarck said at the end of the 19th century in his peremptory way: "Italy always betrays".
In any case, Italy has never been a secure reference point on the international scene. And diplomacy has a long memory - and so to leave Italy out of great decisions is a sort of guarantee for the countries that do count. I would prefer that Italy acknowledges reality and drop any poses of outraged nationalism or victimism.
Staying with the Libya question, what future do you see for that country?
But even the very expensive and often useless secret services of the major allies do not know what they need to know, much less the so-called experts and all the consummate politicians who depend on them!
What is certain, as we saw in the Libya Conference in London last week, is that other nations are trying to decide the fate of Libya without the participation of the Libyan people - the Western powers will decide for them. Or at least, they want to. And we know how these things usually end.
As usual, the realities on site have nothing to do with armchair planning. From my direct contact with persons who have worked for years in Libya, I am told that it was the one North African country where no one was seeking to flee, before now. The per capita income was more than double that of Tunisia and Egypt.
And not only did the Libyans not seek to leave despite open borders on all sides - but great masses of people from the Maghreb (sub-Saharan Africa) and Egyptians came to Libya in search of work and better living.
Among other things, Qadddafi has been trying to complete the great task of tapping the ocean of fresh water lying under the Sahara desert, which would be capable of transforming the nations of the region into gardens.
And now, everyone is mouthing the axiom invented by Sarkozy that the entire Libyan people is in revolt against Qaddafi. I am not defending him or his leadership but merely pointing out that it is not true that everyone in Libya was lying prostrate under his autocracy.
And also that not everyone, especially in Africa, is particularly crazy about holding regular and free elections especially if their living conditions are fairly good and improving.
Then how do you explain the apparent exultation of the people of Benghazi to be 'finally' liberated from Qaddafi?
Actually, and at least on TV, we have not really seen great assemblies of people, but a few armed men scurrying among the dunes in tourist minibuses, occasionally firing a gun in the air to play their role for TV cameras or posing in front of Libyan tanks shattered not by them but by the allied airstrikes.
In any case, one must recall some history and geography. Libya as such was a 'nation' that did not exist - it was an invention by us Italians when we conquered the territory in the Belle Epoque (early 20th century). Before that, under the Ottoman Turks, there was Tripolitania, with its capital in Tripoli, and Cyrenaica, with its capital in Benghazi.
It was Italy that united these two regions by force, giving it the name that the ancient Romans had used to refer to all of North Africa, something only a few students of history now recall.
But there is a millenary history of hatred between the Cyrenaic and Tripolitan tribes. And so, the West is acting in error here as it did in Afghanistan, where there is a democracy that has nothing to do with the Anglo-Saxon model, but a 'democracy' that conforms to regional tribalisms, according to what the tribal chiefs say.
The heroic fight of Benghazi against the dictator is an expression of that perennial tribal hatred, and Qaddafi understands this. It has nothing to do with the noble and politically correct sentiments called democratic or liberal held by Euro-American politicians and the media who support them.
On another topic: It is officially spring, after an extremely cold and rainy winter. I know you have a pebble in your shoe regarding alarmism over supposed global warming...
Yes, I was rather amused by a cartoon I recently saw in the
New York Times - which as everyone knows is most ecologically correct. It showed this cartoon on page 1 with an American family - mother, father and two children - kneeling on the snow and praying, "Lord, please give us a little global warming!"
You know quite well that environmentalism is above all an ideology, and like all ideologies, if the facts contradict their scheme, then too bad for the facts!
We have all noted that lately, winters have been colder, with more sleet and snow than usual. But to force these realities to conform with the theory of global warming, its advocates have been circulating strange explanations. First, they point out that climatic patterns cannot be seen by opening your window when you wake up. Then they say that since both the North and South ice poles have been melting, they release a massive amount of vapor that gives rise to more snow and rain... And so on, with such buffooneries that have nothing to do with genuine science.
I think that environmental alarmism represents not just a gigantic hoax but worse: it is a ferocious ideology that considers man as the only harmful creature on the planet. The Greens advocate economic and demographic 'de-growth', and an environmental fanatic like Charles of England has more than once publicly wished for an epidemic or virus that could wipe out half the global population.
Behind this hoax of global warming - and we now know from e-mail disclosures how its principal scientific advocates admitted to falsifying data in order to fit their theories - are the Greens and others who hope to gain more votes by their alarmism, not to mention the economic interests of those involved in so-called alternative energies.
But at the basis of this environmentalist ideology is a conviction that is pagan, and profoundly anti-Christian, and it is too bad that many Catholics, including some in the Church, take the fanatics seriously. It may reach a point where man is left as the only unprotected species on the planet
[everything else being protected by law against him!]
Now they want to protect even cockroaches and mosquitoes, but not man! The goal seems to be not human extinction but at least a drastic reduction of the human population since man is the major obstacle to the triumph of Nature, which they have divinized as pagan religions did.
What did you think was the worst news of the week?
Something from Spain - Zapatero's latest feat. His Minister of Education has proposed that all those who go to state educational institutions, from the primary grades to college, should wear a single uniform. At a time when even priests - unfortunately - no longer dress uniformly, and even the military, who are allowed to go about in civilian clothes outside official hours.
It might seem just a curious and amusing proposal, and some Spanish conservatives may think it is a return to the 'good old days'. But it is a serious and troubling matter. For two reasons which I will explain.
The first is demagoguery - it proclaims the demagoguery of a supposedly classless society, where everyone dresses the same way, and the rich cannot dress ostentatiously compared to those with lesser means. The eternal, ever-recurring myth of egalitarianism. It is also
a Marxist demagoguery, like the Mao jacket which was imposed on all Chinese, male and female alike. An initiative that is typical of totalitarian regimes.
The second reason it makes me uneasy is because if is the nth manifestation of the most dangerous of realities, that of an 'ethical state', a government of morality which would impose virtue on its subjects.
I read the declaration of the Spanish minister. She said it was time to put an end to students who waste their time shopping, who spend too much money on what they wear. The moral state tells you how to live - it already prohibits smoking, obliges the biker to wear a helmet and phosphorescent clothes, urges people to eat less to avoid obesity, now requires not just a calorie count but the cholesterol content of foods served in restaurants, places absurd and punitive limits on alcohol for drivers. Let it not tell me what to wear. Keep the Government of Virtue out of my wardrobe, and let parliament worry about how to improve the standard of living but not my personal behavior.
And which news was most welcome?
To see that the Pope's new book on Jesus has become a bestseller in many countries according to all the lists I see on the Internet. Even in the most secularized countries like France and Germany.
I am comforted by this. Of course, I know that high sales figures do not necessarily mean effective reading. But even if it sells much more than it is truly read, the fact that people want to have the book at home is still a sign of interest, despite everything else, in Him on which our faith is based.
Just to round off the discussion of the Libyan issue here, I translated what they discussed in their March 26 talk:
TABLE TALK:
On the war in Libya, hypocrisy,
and Jesus's realism about the poor
with Vittorio Messori and Andrea Tornielli
Translated from
March 26, 2011
Dear Vittorio, last week in the space of about 48 hours, we found ourselves at war with Libya. Personally, I find it hypocritical to call what is taking place a UN operation and without using the word 'war'. Granted that the military action, pushed by France in great haste, is said to have a humanitarian reason - to prevent Qhaddafi from the massacre of his own people. But it is actually a true and proper war. With incalculable consequences - and not at all well calculated, I think - especially for Italy. What do you think?
Andrea, alas. it is too easy to answer you. Many have already said so - that what has prevailed here is the usual tangle of hypocrisy and contradictions that characterize post-modern ideology and politics.
Behind the humanitarian reason are obviously economic interests, political ambitions. In the case of France, just think of France which since 1930 [its conquest of Algeria], has thought of North AFrica as 'hers' and has not been resigned to the independence of those countries. Libya was an Italian colony, but the Gallics had wanted it to be Francophone too...
I said that it is far too easy to take this situation for the usual thing... But let me try to go deeper into it. Because the problem is in the very idea of a 'humanitarian war', which is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. In itself, it is a truly unprecedented juridical monster born out of today's hypocrisy.
How 'humanitarian' has been the calvary, which is far from over, of the Iraqis who ended up in the meatgrinder of the Empire of Goodness, those who wish to impose their brand of democracy whether the people want it or not.
[In the case of Iraq, though, it turns out the Iraqis did, as they have shown, surprisingly and impressivley, through how many national elections now, even at greta risk to their lives! Almost as though it was a trade-off they are willing to accept for the completely unexpected and otherwise insupportable consequence of unprecedented domestic terrorism.]
War should be war, and peace, peace! Enough with the euphemisms and circumlocutions. And yet, why has nobody thought of bombing China for what its government has been doing to the Tibetans or for gunning down student protestors in Tienanmen Square? No one has ever proposed to bomb New Dehli for massacres perpetrated by Indian troops in Kasmir. The fact is that no one would dare to do to India and China what they are now doing to Libya and what they did in Serbia about 10 years ago. Obviously, because both China and India have nuclear arms.
And that champion of cynicism in its travesty of justice which is the International Court of Justice at The Hague - it's the Nuremberg of poor nations, good for trying Serbian colonels, and at the most, perhaps some Sudanese military, if at all. Representatives of countries that count or have friends who count have never ended there nor will they ever.
On the other hand, no other country has earned so many solemn condemnations and hartsh reprimands then Israel from the United Nations. Which does not always follow what it's told. And why? Because besides the fact that it has the protective umbrella of the USA, Israel itself has its own nuclear arms...
[But probably at least 90 percent of the anti-Israel resolutions at the UN are almost obligatory showpieces for the hostility of Israel's many enemies in the UN that would seemingly deny Israel any right to defend itself against enemies who make no secret they want to destroy her or drive her out of the Middle East. Using Messori's own argument, Iran and its minions in Lebanon and Syria would long ago have tried to crush her were it not that Israel has nuclear capability, and Iran doesn't have it yet.]
What do you think of the name chosen by the Western anti-Qaddhafi combatants - the 'coalition of the willing'...
It reminds me of Boy Scouts. I think of the eager boy who wished to help a little old lady across the street even though she was not planning to cross the street. It is a label that inspires good feelings and is not necessarily aasociated with the hail of bombs and missiles raining down on Libyan cities and military targets.
There was a similar coalition of the willing that bombarded Belgrade which then allowed the Kosovo Muslims to persecute Kosovo Christians without hindrance. And in that case, we cannot forget that the Serbs also indulged in ethnic 'cleansing' even if we know know - from independent and fairly accurate investigations later - that many episodes were exaggerated in order to inflame public opinion... But do such conflicts require supranational governance and management on an international level?
There will always be visionaries, utopians, idealists - in short, ingenuous and naive people, even though they may have the best intentions - who invoke a single planetary government as the answer to any of the world's ills. But God forbid!
Obviously, Andrea, these are my personal opinions that I express within the context of Catholic freedom. I speak as a believer but I have never claimed to represent all believers. They represent my point of view as a member of the Church - not the teachings of the Church.
And it is a legitimate freedom. A saint famous for his granitic orthodoxy, Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, used to say that for Catholics, there are not, there cannot be, and there should not be dogmas on political ro social matters.
Having said this, I can think of no worse incubus than a world government, which would transform all wars into civil wars - which are the msot terrible - and whose principal instrument would be an invasive and omnipotent supranational police. Where can you seek refuge then if you are persecuted? And who would choose the leadership called on to govern the world?
Remember that this idea of a world government is a characteristic of the reign of the Anti-Christ, as authoritative Catholic writers have hypothesized in the past two centuries. From the perspective of believers, we should not forget that God loves diversity - and so we have various races, various languages, various cultures.
The fact that the world is not in black and white, but multi-colored, is not an error to be corrected but a value to be protected. Diversity is a divine gift. Obviously the Christian wishes that everyone comes to an understanding, to agreements, to unions even, but without cancelling colors, races, cultures. The popular saying is correct which says "The world is beautiful because it is diverse".
I agree. But you must admit that something must be done to stop massacres or genocide. I have so many doubts about the war that has been launched against Libya. But in principle, I do believe there are cases where it is a duty to intervene.
Look, let me leave the area of geopolitics, to the fact that Jesus himself said disconcerting things about the world. He said that all of it is subject to sin. He said things that deoagogues, including Christian ones, would like to 'erase' because it is against their own disastrous utopias, as we have seen with the Catho-communists and those who advocated liberation theology.
For example, Jesus said the poor will always be with us... Inspite of all our revolutionary dreams, there will always be poverty in the world .. To go on, the League of Nations was born after the Great War at the initative of the idealist and ‘willing’(therefore dangerous) President Woodrow Wilson. He was convinced – that naïve Yankee – that the League would guarantee world peace. In fact, it accelerated in a way the coming of the Second World War. .. And so, after the Second World War, the United Nations was born, following the collapse of the League of Nations, for the same noble reason: to guarantee world peace. It has since authorized armed interventions under the hypocritical motivation of ‘humanitariansm’… So, I repeat, the idea of a planetary Sanhedrin which will decide how everyone is to live is not a dream to be realized but an incubus to flee from…
P.S. I missed seeing it earlier, but on 3/28/11, the following article appeared in AsiaNews which talks about the good points about Qaddhafi that are never reported in the West, and expands on some of the points that Messori makes above.
www.asianews.it/news-en/Gaddafi-a-controversial-dictator-21...
It is written by Fr. Piero Gheddo, the remarkable 84-year-old who founded Asianews in 1987 and is currently head of thr History Division of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions (PIME, from its Italian name), the parent entity of AsiaNews. Covering the work of the missionaries of PIME, he has lived in at least 70 countries and has written 70 books about the missions. He is also the postulator for the sainthood causes of four contemporary missionaries. The point of Gheddo's AsiaNews article is not to defend Qhaddafi from all the things he is guilty of but to give him credit for the good that he has done.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 04/04/2011 13:24]