The Pope and the Prophet? Just kidding…
…Sort of. An Italian comedian, Sabina Guzzanti, said nasty things about the Holy Father at a rally in Rome and according The Times of London account is facing prosecution for “offending the honour of the sacred and inviolable person” of Benedict XVI. Apparently this is some hangover from the Lateran Accords of 1929, and it seems that the trigger for the investigation may be what Guzzanti said about Berlusconi, with whom she has sparred for a long time, rather than Benedict. The emerging nostalgia for Mussolini-era fascism is the truly alarming development.
Still, the Vatican may want to get out in front on this and knock it down. Otherwise we’ll be talking about Danish cartoons.
PS: Perhaps the Lateran codicil was a natural correlation with canon law, which, even after the 1983 revision, includes a physical attack on the Pope as one of six or seven (hard to figure out the exact number) actions incurring automatic excommunication. (See the relevant canon law here.)
One would hope a physical attack on the Pope would incur automatic excommunication (assuming the perpetrator was Catholic).
Obviously, this dust-up is part of Italian politics. I doubt Benedict himself cares to suppress free speech or that he cares very much what people say about him (probably including you, Mr. Gibson).
Yes, too self-referential, so edited appropriately. Thanks.
A friend of mine, an expert in Church history, often says that the Church is drawn to fascist forms of government. I do think some conservative elements in the church actually envy militant Islam’s ability to inspire fear and to control women. (Google “”muscular” Christianity).
Many of the arguments from conservative Catholics about the Danish cartoons weren’t defending free speech but complaining that insults to Catholics didn’t receive the same treatment.
I guess they do now.
Even if the Pope refuses to go forward with this, it will be an act of mercy, not justice. The precedent is set.
Canonical provisions only apply to Catholics.
Obviously, physical attacks on anyone should be prohibited. But these aren’t physical attacks. These are crude and outrageous jokes.
The Church’s Mission is to reveal, through the Grace of God, what is necessary for our Salvation. Developing Holy relationships and Friendships is one of the prerequisites. The Special Grace that has been given to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is so that the Living Word can remain consistent, yesterday, today, and always.
David, I think you should go to Rome and try to get the questions you have about the Church answered.
Even if the Pope refuses to go forward with this, it will be an act of mercy, not justice.
First, the Pope isn’t being asked “to go forward with” anything here. It’s a question of the Italian justice system enforcing [a particularly silly] Italian law.
Second, papal opposition to enforcing this particual silly Italian law could well be (and quite possibly ought to be) based on justice, not mercy.
Tom that’s a better way of putting it. But I don’t know Italian procedure. It might be that the Pope needs to file a complaint first, before the legal process of Italy can be triggered.
If he declines to file a complaint, he will be graciously refusing to press a legal claim against a wrongdoer.
But that doesn’t mean that the claim doesn’t exist.
The Italian justice system is notorious; indeed, saying so is almost redundant. I doubt this will amount to anything at all–I cannot believe that the Vatican would want to touch this, but I think what it really shows is the eerie facist tilt of the government (and the country?).
The Catholic Church has been caught up in it, to its credit, in protesting harsh measures (such as enforced fingerprinting) or Gypsies and immigrants, although the ancillary church organizations, like the magazine Famiglia Cristiana, are most outspoken and taking most of the heat.
It’s so nice to see how much folks appreciate David.
This kind of stuff was probably unthinkable years ago and surely the Italian justice system may leave something to be desired.
But, as BXVI’s recent trek to France indicated, respect for the church has clearly waned in many parts of Europe over hot button issues, while the political juice the Church possesses to enforce views or even demand respect more than civil institutions is far smaller.
Saying “How dare you?” even about crude humor may not cut it and, as some note here, may backfire if criminal action follows.
Instead of sending David to Rome, maybe we could ship Mr. Donahue over there to be the voice of objection, and, by moving him on, kill two birds with one stone.
Bob: You said,
…maybe we could ship Mr. Donahue over there to be the voice of objection, and, by moving him on, kill two birds with one stone.
First of all, who is “we”? And second, I believe our Constitution prohibits private citizens from forcibly deporting someone not guilty of violating any law. And finally, your use of the word “kill” in conjunction with Mr. Donahue is unfortunate. I believe you have revealed an emotional state perhaps not that useful to civilized discourse. But of course, you were only speaking metaphorically…
I’m curious as to why a physical attack on a pope should draw automatic excommunication. How about a bishop? a nun? a monk? a brother? a priest? a consecrated virgin? an average run of the mill pew potato? What is so special about the physical person of a pope to warrant such an automatic penalty? What if he was caught in flagrante delicto with one’s spouse? Abusing a child?
Forget about fascism. This provision in the Lateran Treaty recognizes the status of the Bishop of Rome as a monarch. I suspect the king of Italy would have had the same protection. What the provision does is extend to the monarch of Vatican City the same sort of protection that would belong to the monarch of Italy. Remember that as a part of this agreement the B. of Rome no longer claims to be the king of Italy, or at least some part of Italy, as Pius IX did and this successors–prisoners of the Vatican–until the lteran Treaty. Remember that triple crown!
Talking about law, eight years of Bush has decreased respect for US law. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/18legal.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Cathleen said: “A friend of mine, an expert in Church history, often says that the Church is drawn to fascist forms of government. I do think some conservative elements in the church actually envy militant Islam’s ability to inspire fear and to control women. (Google “”muscular” Christianity).”
Fascism is really a form of radical nationalism. When it creates an enemy that looks like an enemy that the Church seems to recognize (“Communism”, “Leftists”, etc.) some Catholics including clerics will embrace this nationalism with the idea that the state can be used to combat the enemy for the mutual benefit of the state and the religion. Fascist states of course are not about to share power with a religious institution (even in Italy) and nationalism is antithetical to Christianity (if only because it is a competing religion). But it is true that seeing photos of priests marching in Mussolini’s military parades does leave a lasting image in the mind.
My friend, Bob S. -nice sense of humor.
Of course much of what’s said here depends on whos eox is gored.
My comment that David should perhaps go to Rome was in regards to the Book he wrote. I thought it was well written but he appeared to have some questions regarding the teaching authority of the Magisterium. He is clearly a talented writer.
As usual, I’m bemused by Nancy”s mantra of the unchanging from the beginning magisterum post.
If Dabvid went to Roime, maybe he could hear from CDF, as it stated in its critique of Fr.Hryniewiocz(see NCR on line, September 17) how they deplore “the gratuitous judgement that the Roman Curia is going back to the old ecclesiology and ecumenical theology before Vatican II” and “are wishing to have a monopoly on truth.”
Of course that is in fact what many believe and with some reason, and would find such statements gratuitous symantecizations to the choir.
Maybe we could have a nice discussion some day on classical vs. historical methodologies -without too mucjh a priori.
Bob
“going back” is what they are not doing. Some never left.
Bob, the entire Deposit of Faith, the Fullness of Truth, can only be found in the Catholic Church. Christ has not left His Church, and promises to be with His Church until the end of Time.