Of course, not even all the todo about Obama's visit to the Vatican distracted me from the CDF clarification about procured abortion that appeared in the 7/11/09 issue of OR, posted in the afternoon of 7/10/09 [see 3 posts above] - if only because I did feel strongly that the OR had been 1) wrong, one-sided and hasty about its March 15 Page 1 commentary by Mons. Rino Fisichella about the case of the Brazilian girl (as was Fisichella himself); and 2) even more wrong to refuse to publish the reply of the Brazilian bishops concerned. It was making an ethical error twice in succession.
What I didn't realize because, foolish me, I didn't bother to check, was that Sandro Magister, who had conscientiously presented the case for both sides, would react promptly. He is appropriately glad that the OR 'rectified' its earlier mistake - even though it did so by what can only be called 'force majeure! It couldn't refuse to publish a formal Note of Clarification from the CDF written at the apparent behest of the Holy Father, could it? Pope trumps Bertone, any time!
Here is Magister's rather blunt reaction.
Retractions: The Holy Office
teaches Archbishop Fisichella a lesson
The CDF has issued a "clarification" that in fact repudiates the article published in
L'Osservatore Romano
by the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on the abortion performed on a Brazilian child.
ROME, July 10, 2009 - This afternoon, at the very same time as Benedict XVI was meeting at the Vatican with the United States President Barack Obama,
L'Osservatore Romano printed a "clarification" by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "on procured abortion."
The "clarification" is what many were waiting for after a controversial article published last March 15 by the same newspaper of the Holy See, signed by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
The "clarification" is printed on Page 7 of the newspaper of the Holy See, and is announced on the front page.
Fisichella's article concerned the case of an extremely young Brazilian mother-child who was made to abort the twins she was carrying in her womb, and was interpreted by many as justifying the double abortion.
There followed a lively public controversy, which
www.chiesa related in two extensive articles. But at the same time, the Vatican authorities received many protests about the article and requests for clarification through private channels.
These included the step taken by 27 of the 46 members of the pontifical academy for life. On April 4, they wrote a joint letter to Fisichella, their president, asking him to correct the "mistaken" positions he had expressed in the article.
On April 21, Fisichella responded to them in writing, rejecting the request.
On May 1, 21 of the signers of the previous letter then went to Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the CDF, asking the congregation for a clarifying statement on the Church's teaching on the matter of abortion.
The letter was delivered on May 4, but did not receive any reply. The writers learned from an official at the congregation that the letter had been forwarded to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, "because Fisichella's article had been written at his request."
Two members of the Pontifical Academy for Life then sent a dossier on the matter directly to the Pope.
On June 8, Benedict XVI discussed the case with Bertone, and ordered that a statement be published reconfirming that the Church's teaching on abortion is unchanged.
The "clarification" published in the July 11, 2009, issue of
L'Osservatore Romano, is precisely the fruit of this decision.
[
Magister then publishes a translation of the CDF note.]
I still would like to know what was Cardinal Bertone's stake in the whole muddle if it is true he solicited Fisichella's article! And why editor Vian did not have the gumption to question its rightness on doctrinal grounds (seeming to justify the abortion in this case), and on journalistic grounds (lack of facts about the case from the point of view of the bishops involved, since it was clear Fisichella based his article merely on media reports about the case].