« FLU trumps GIRMS | Main | My Contribution »
December 17, 2003
Hudson on Martino
From his e-letter
And why pick this moment, when the entire world is celebrating his capture, to criticize those who caught him? Martino's comments suggest more than just an opposition to the war but a reflexive bias against America's actions... even her intentions.It's important to remember that Cardinal Martino doesn't represent
the official opinion of the Vatican. He is NOT the mouthpiece of the
pope. So why is he so often quoted in the news? During the run-up to
the war with Iraq, even the Vatican -- who loudly denounced the war
-- felt the need to quiet him. It was no longer simply his anti-war
comments that were becoming problematic, but his anti-American stance
as well.
And because Martino has made himself so highly visible, his comments regularly appear in the news and drown out those of Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the official spokesman for the Vatican; the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano; and the new Secretary of Relations with States, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo. It looks like Martino is pushing his own agenda instead of stepping aside and letting the appropriate officials in the Vatican speak for themselves.What's more, anti-life politicians have taken advantage of Martino's
outspokenness to make him appear to be "the voice of the Vatican" and
drive a wedge between the Catholic laity and true pro-life
politicians who may disagree with Martino's foreign policy. The
cardinal's comments aren't limited to the religious sphere; they
carry weight in the political world as well... without having the
benefit of true teaching authority behind them.To protest that this despot had to endure a tongue depressor is,
frankly, just silly. The entire civilized world is rejoicing that
this genocidal murderer was peaceably captured -- the Iraqi Interim
Governing Council (IGC) praised the capture and called it a "huge
victory" for the entire human race. Why would Martino do any less?He did say, "It's true that we should be happy that this arrest has
come about," but then immediately qualified that statement by
cautioning against future violence and saying that it wasn't a "total
solution to the problems of the Middle East."But who on earth said it was?
Martino spent many years representing the Holy See at the United
Nations. His tenure of the U.N. mission was very successful --
especially in the defense of life in developing countries -- and made
him worthy of his present position.But the plain fact is Martino's comments make him appear insensitive
to the boon this capture represents for the Iraqi people. Rather than
criticizing the U.S. military for airing 30 seconds of Saddam's early
detainment, he would have been better off expressing his sincere,
unqualified wish that this capture will be the start of a path to
peace and justice for Iraq.Peace and justice... isn't that, after all, Martino's department?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83420c79b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hudson on Martino:
» Pity Party for One Dictator from Too Much To Dream
I must say that I find all the fuss over the supposed humiliation of ex-serial-killer-and-leader Saddam Hussein because his ENT exam wash shown on tv to be quite curious. In all my years of having doctors peer at my uvula... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 18, 2003 6:52:47 AM
Comments
Thanks for sharing this.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Dec 17, 2003 11:48:13 AM
It's also worth checking out what the indispensible Michael Novak had to say about the good Cardinal:
http://www.michaelnovak.net/
Posted by: Tomq at Dec 17, 2003 11:50:22 AM
If the world had only seen thirty seconds of Saddam's examination, I wouldn't really complain. But, as was the case with too much 9/11 footage, the video of Saddam's examination, the tongue depressor, checking his head for lice (?), was played over and over again. There was plenty of footage of Saddam sitting in custody, but the humiliating stuff was what they released, what was aired (surprise). It is undignified and unbecoming.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Dec 17, 2003 12:10:06 PM
I disagree with the Holy See's (and Cardinal Martino's) position on the legitimacy of the war against Iraq for many reasons that I won't go into here. However, I do agree with Martino that the videotape of Saddam Hussein was an offense against his dignity. It has long been considered to be contrary contrary to the dignity of prisoners of war by distributing humiliating photos. By any moral (as opposed to legal) standard, he is a prisoner of war, and to display pictures of him being poked and prodded in a culture where touching a person (much less a deposed head of state) is considered to be a gross insult. I doubt seriously whether we would have showed the world a video tape of us poking and prodding Emperor Hirohito of Japan who like Saddam Hussein was the head of a brutally evil military machine that was responsible for the rapine and deaths of thousands of civilians and our POWs. I certainly would like to think that we (Americans) could have done better.
For what it's worth, I don't have any feelings of pity for Saddam. Yet, despite the fact that he is a monster of iniquity, Saddam remains a human being, not a space alien, who has a natural right to his digntiy, and I am no position to judge Cardinal Martino's feelings of pity for the man.
Were his words ill-advised? His words have been the source of much confusion. He would have been better off if he simply kept his mouth shut. Ill-advised and ill-formulated as his words were, they were hardly beyond the pale.
Also, if you surf the web, you will find many left-wingers who believe that Cardinal Martino is a shill for the U.S. Government and American agri-business interests because he sponsored a seminar on GM food in which - so they claim - he stacked the deck of expert in favor of GM food. Prescinding from the merits (or lack thereof)of these people's arguments, it only shows that when it comes to an evaluation of whether Martino is an anti-American crankpot or a boot-licking American patsy, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 17, 2003 12:12:55 PM
Why quote him? Because he's the head of the commission for Peace'n'Justice, that's why. He's not some no-name Italian bishop!
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmartinorr.html
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Dec 17, 2003 12:13:25 PM
I look forward to the day by day,point by point,detail by detail,of the horrors this man was responsible for; then those who opposed this war can comment,if they have the guts!
Posted by: tonymixan at Dec 17, 2003 1:10:55 PM
Patrick -- we did something worse. We demoted Hirohito from god to mortal. What kind of offense against cultural dignity was that?
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Dec 17, 2003 1:35:23 PM
Patrick:
I think some sort of offense against Saddam's dignity (in the broadest, secular sense of that word) was absolutely essential. This was a man who built a cult of personality, capitalizing on the Arabs' honor-based culture, that held his country in the grip of fear for decades, and even right to that very day from hiding. That "spell" (and yes, I do intend the connotation of magic), that aura of godhood (and yes, I intend those connotations also) HAD to be broken -- not primarily for the sake of demoralizing Iraqi guerrillas, though hopefully it will do that too, but for the sake of the possibility of building a decent society in Iraq. So, not only did we have to take pictures of him, those pictures had to show him as a mere mortal -- dirty and disheveled, a "coward" who allowed himself to be taken prisoner, a man who gets his teeth examined like anyone else. Obviously, there'd be such a thing as too much offense to his dignity as a human (I guess ... a prostate exam), but given that his mouth DOES have to be checked for immediate security reasons (cyanide pill and all), this seemed like a reasonable choice.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Dec 17, 2003 2:00:49 PM
Amen, Victor!
His prisoners should have been treated as well!
Posted by: Carrie at Dec 17, 2003 2:28:38 PM
Hear, hear, Victor!!! I, for one, cannot believe that some of us are bothered because of the supposed "rude" treatment of Saddam. He's very, very lucky that he was found by our civilized American soldiers. Otherwise, his head could be on a pike and his body could have been dragged through the streets. It's amazing to me that no matter how well we (America) do, it's never going to be good enough.
Posted by: Laurrie at Dec 17, 2003 4:19:25 PM
Andrew Sullivan has already framed the issue of same-sex marriage debates by Martino's gaffe, to this effect:
who are Vatican prelates who have such tender compassion on the likes of Hussein to suddenly be so crystalline pure in their rejection of the needs of gay people and their families?
However you try to argue with it, the effect of this approach will be devastating. And it *will* be used. Often. And again. It is precisely the kind of argument pragmatic, fairness-oriented Americans are very prone to be open to. Rhetorically (not logically), it's a closer.
Posted by: Liam at Dec 17, 2003 5:28:52 PM
May I point out that, according to the Wall Street Journal, that Saddam pulled a knife on "Euro-weenie" Cardinal Etchegaray earlier this year?
When Saddam Hussein met with papal emissary Cardinal Roger Etchegaray in Baghdad a few weeks ago, the Iraqi dictator responded to questions about why he wasn't cooperating with United Nations weapons inspectors by drawing a long knife. Holding it for the cardinal to see, he ran his finger along the sharp edge of the blade--it was an obvious gesture at intimidation.
But Mr. Etchegaray wasn't stricken with fear. He simply reached into his pocket and drew out a rosary.
"We Christians have weapons too," the cardinal told the dictator.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110003181
I wonder how many of us would be as brave as His Eminence faced with a knife from Saddam - a man who would not hesitate to use it if he felt it served his purposes. Let us think about stories like this before we start dismissing Cardinal Martino and his fellow churchmen for expressing "pity" for this thug of a man.
Oh, and Michael T. I get your point, but I would submit that American forces objectively did nothing to Emperor Hirohito that denigrated his human dignity, but instead bent over backwards to preserve it. As for his divine dignity - well - that's another story.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 17, 2003 8:09:29 PM
Liam: However you try to argue with it, the effect of this approach will be devastating. And it *will* be used. Often. And again. It is precisely the kind of argument pragmatic, fairness-oriented Americans are very prone to be open to. Rhetorically (not logically), it's a closer.
Exactly right. And you and I can argue until we're blue in the face why Andrew Sullivan is wrong and disingenuous in his comparison, but it won't make a dime's worth of difference to average people. The man on the street sees a high-ranking leader in a Church that says the nice gay couple next door are living mortal sin and shouldn't be allowed to "marry" ... yet this same leader feels sorry for a mass-murdering dictator being shown on television with a tongue depressor in his mouth.
It was the same thing re: child sex abuse and You Name It: "Why should I listen to the Church when it tells me to do [fill in the blank] when these bishops turn a blind eye to the rape of children by priests?" Well, I could tell you why if you had six minutes to spare, but my argument could be logically airtight, and it's not going to make a lot of emotional sense to the listener. And you know what? If I weren't a Catholic who was firmly convinced and well catechized, it wouldn't make a lick of sense to me either.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 17, 2003 8:20:40 PM
Preach it, Rod.
The reason why the sex-abuse and the cover-up IS relevant to absolutely everything (in a way that Church teachings are not) is because of the generalized Scandal that it creates against the Church in the broader society. All you have to do to know what a Grave Scandal against the faith actions like this cardinal's are (and the sex-abuse and coverup) is just surf secular news sites or speak to non-Catholics.
Or as the Catechism puts it (2285)
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others.
Spiritual death of little ones tied to abuse of teaching offices. Prophetic.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Dec 17, 2003 8:41:35 PM
Kevin Jones hits it perfectly:
"Yes, the Church should be more like Christ, who came not for grievous sinners but for the righteous. She should cast her pitiless stare across the world, granting mercy only to those who deserve it, and withholding it from unworthy devils like Hussein. Her prayer shall be "Lord, thank you for not making me a sinner, like that dictator." Her damnations shall reconcile the world and usher in the peace and justice we all so richly deserve."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=chezami&comment=107168353629334799#207906
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 17, 2003 9:01:28 PM
The fact that Cardinal Martino would even make such idiotic comments shows the extent of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-Arab sentiment among Vatican prelates.
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.
Cardinal Martino is not alone. He represents a substantial body of opinion in Rome, opinion that this pope has failed to confront forthrightly.
Then again, given this pope's flaccid response to the clerical abuse crisis, what should we expect?
Posted by: Joseph DHippolito at Dec 17, 2003 9:33:05 PM
Patrick, love without justice is an enabler. Ask anyone who has coped with a substance abuse situation to find out what this sort of forgiving love will accomplish.
Christ preached love, but never suggested we abandon the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, or the concept of hell.
Joseph, I can't figure out what it is about Rome and the Arabs. Very very few of them are Christian. So why the love affair with Islam? I simply don't get it. Is Rome still Catholic?
Posted by: Carrie at Dec 17, 2003 10:28:35 PM
I think that a problem with what Cardinal Martino said was that he felt sorry for Saddam. My hubby said the same but then acknowledged that it was only a feeling that was evoked from seeing the images. It's not what we FEEL, it is what we know and THINK. Feelings can be misleading. Andrew Sullivan FEELS stuff about homosexuality. We have to engage our mind and reason and then choose the right thing. Feelings follow after. They aren't too reliable except to tell us a little about ourselves at that moment. So when I tell someone I feel this or thus rather than tell them my reasoning, it automatically puts up a red flag to the listener even as the listener doesn't realize what's just happened. One cannot argue with feelings. One becomes defensive in the face of feelings rather than reasoning out the situation.
On another note, what happened to Saddam and his examination will also happen to us at the final judgment when everyone will know each others' thoughts, sins, makeup. It just came to him early, even as we really don't know him like we'll know him in the afterlife.
Heck, we even know what was in his refrigerator and strewn around his house when we took him.
Posted by: Jeanne Schmelzer at Dec 17, 2003 10:37:36 PM
I wonder if the folks who found themselves so filled with pity for Saddam, having seen him shown on TV getting his piehole inspected, would have had the stomach to watch as much video of dead women and children on the streets of Halabja, gassed by Saddam.
Honestly, y'all, some of you sound like you come from another universe, not my own.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 17, 2003 11:24:16 PM
Carrie wrote:
"Love without justice is an enabler ... Christ preached love, but never suggested we abandon the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, or the concept of hell."
YES, YES, YES, YES. That's what "love" now means in this day and age. From the perspective of seeing the Church as a necessarily countercultural institution (which is obviously not exhaustive, but it is one reasonable understanding), what we need from it *TODAY* in our Luv Culture is Judgment and Justice. Not only did Jesus not say to do away with judgment or the Ten Commandments, but He said *exactly the contrary.*
In fact, there's a brilliant film scheduled for release next year, that I have already written about here ...
http://cinecon.blogspot.com/2003_09_07_cinecon_archive.html#106340393635869908
... that deals exactly with this matter. And will be (and has been among Festival audiences) widely reviled for it.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Dec 18, 2003 12:26:10 AM
Victor,
At the risk of beating a tired horse to death, the Luv culture of Roman Catholicism mirrors rather too closely the Luv culture of Rosicrucianism. Roman Catholic Luv culture is rather recent. We talked a lot about "charity" before the Council. Back when we talked a lot about "sin."
Luv culture promotes way too much of "Do what thou wilt." Would anyone listen if I suggested Responsibility culture for a change?
Posted by: Carrie at Dec 18, 2003 12:37:49 AM
"Sincere, unqualified wish."
Trans: Preach only that part of the Gospel with which I, Hudson, deign to agree.
Isn't it liberals for whom "sensitivity" is supposed to be the summum bonum?
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Dec 18, 2003 2:46:22 AM
I must say I am finding this prissy dismay over a simple ENT exam to be rather curious. You would think that Hussein had been shown stripped naked in a public square in Baghdad.
By the way, while pity may be a normal human reaction to seeing any person in the low condition that the dictator was found in, it's not exactly a laudable emotion if it is not qualified. It becomes ostentatious when the object of pity has committed as many crimes as this one has. The Hussein-pitiers seem to be saying, "Look what humanitarians we are! We're so much better than all you primitives with your uncomfortable and difficult 'justice' ideas!" Or as has already been pointed out, this distorted idea of "love" is no better than the "love" that drives relatives of drug addicts to help their junkie relations score a hit.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Dec 18, 2003 6:24:23 AM
It would appear that Patrick Rothwell has made the mistake so many others have before, confusing legal or social or cultural definitions of dignity with the theological definition.
We did absolutely nothing in that video tape that showed disregard for "Saddam Hussein as a being made in the image and likeness of God." Maybe if we'd trussed him nude to the heavy cannon of one of those armored behemoths we have over there and paraded him through Tikrit while we played "Look, Saddamites, where your precious leader is now" on the loudspeaker, but as it stands his dignity has not been offended in the least.
Not only is Saddam's dignity wholly intact, so are his ears, fingers and toes. That's a great deal more legal and social dignity than he ever extended another human being over which he held power.
In short, if the Cardinal was using a theological definition he was mistaken. If he was using some other definition he needs to close his trap and get his mind back on what's important.
Posted by: Franklin Jennings at Dec 18, 2003 7:37:10 AM
Once and for all let's drop the argument that anyone is objecting to a "simple ENT exam" -- I haven't read anyone objecting to that. What's being objected to is the televising of it, which does seem contrary to common standards, including, reportedly, the Geneva conventions. If it's correct that the televising of the exam violates those conventions (and I haven't had the chance to look it up myself), what is our justification for violating a standard of international law?
I thank God we do have Cardinals like Martino --- and for that matter, someone like Patrick Rothwell,who can always be counted on to blog the truth, unpopular or not.
Posted by: SJ at Dec 18, 2003 8:17:11 AM
