16 June 2015

On the events surrounding the encyclical

So: as I understand it, the next encyclical was leaked ahead of time.  The person responsible for the leak, Sandro Magister, has had his Vatican press credentials revoked. 

However, this being the internet, everyone has an opinion on it, and, this being the internet, most of them are, to put it as charitably as possible, devoid of logic.  Here's the part that has caused the most consternation:  Apparently, a Vatican official has called the act of leaking the encyclical ahead of time 'heinous'.  Personally, I find the term slightly melodramatic, but I have no say in the matter. 

The first that I read to comment on this little affair was Fr.Z.  Father begins by explaining- after he published a link to the encyclical yesterday and began commenting on it- that usually one does not scoop the Vatican.  It is an unwritten gentleman's rule, apparently.

The Holy See’s spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, asked journalists to respect the “embargo”. I note that there was no indication of an embargo on the copy that I saw. That said, having spent a lot of time around the Holy See Press Office, it seems to me a solid and understood expectation not to jump out too far in advance of official releases. We just didn’t/don’t do that. Still, there wasn’t a clear indication of embargo that I could see. Perhaps it was included in some accompanying letter sent to Magister’s editor at L’Espresso.

I find the logic here a little specious: Father did not see anything that indicated there was an embargo, therefore it is okay that he linked  to it, although he is also aware that there is an understanding that he shouldn't, and so he did it anyway?  I don't find this convincing.  The Vatican released to the Press an item they intended to release to the general public later on in the week, so the press would have a chance to go over it and prepare their articles. This is a fairly common practice between governments and their agencies and the press. The understanding would have been to keep it under their hats until the proper time.  I don't see how they failed to understand that this was not to be released until the encyclical itself was released.

Then Father reaches the 'heinous' part, and he sets the tone that every other commenter I've read follows:

“Heinous”?  Like what ISIS does to children and women?

Cute.  And distracting.

Others are chiming in and claiming variations of this, or making other claims, like '"Why don't they call abortion heinous?" or "why don't they say something about the gays?" 

It is not a logical but a rhetorical move, and it is a weak one at that. It is purely rhetorical, because, logically,  it's nonsense.  What are you trying to say when you yoke these two things together?  The one has nothing to do with the other.  Are you saying that what Magister did was not bad because others do worse?  Are you arguing that bad is not bad because worse is worse?  This is the response of a child  in a playground who gets caught by a teacher:  "I wasn't that bad! So and So was doing something worse!  Why are you picking on me?"

Or are you saying that every time the Vatican speaks against this or that wrong doing, they must either preface their remarks or make an addendum that states: "And furthermore, these things are also wrong: starting with the A's..." Because they can't condemn anything unless they condemn everything?

What Magister did was wrong, people.  The Vatican spokesman is calling him out on it.  As I said, perhaps whoever called the act  'heinous' is overstating it, but pointing out that others do worse does not make what he did right.   Be adults, admit the mistake, and move on.


Julian Barkin said...

Good call out on this one, Bear. Pax Tibi Christi!

Vox Cantoris said...

The actual text is being released to the press 2 hours before the public. That is what is to be embargoed.

This was a leaked copy of a draft with no embargo.

Lombardi's action is as gross and unjust as his description using the word "heinous."

Bear said...

I'll only say this: It wasn't Lombardi who said as far as I can tell: Time cites a Vatican official telling someone else.

Vox Cantoris said...

Did you ever think we would live to see the Church reduced to a run-of-the-mill third-world type government by filled with apparatchiks?

If the encyclical is true and truth is from God, then what's the secret?

Are we not bothered that a Malthusian is in the presentation? I will reserve judgment on the document until I read it fully but how can the Church consult with such people?

Are the tin-foiled hat crowd right after all? Has the Church been infiltrated by communists and freemasons and homosexualists in an attempt to bring Her down and She is all that remains standing of Truth and Order?

What did Sister Lucia say?


It is time to steel ourselves for what is coming. It will come quick.

The Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was not done, there is no point in history that one can point that it was, and either Sister Lucia was delusional or she was not. Since it was attempted at least twice by Pius XII and one by Saint John Paul II, clearly they did not believe her to be delusional; what is holding them back?

Bear said...

None of what you bring up here has anything to do with my original post, other than to prove my premise that some are pointing out the wrongs of others to excuse their own. However, you seem to desire an answer, so here goes. In order:

Has the Church ever been competently governed? It seems to me the Vatican has always been a mess. It is perhaps the most biblical part of the Church, in the sense that the right hand has never known what the left hand is doing.

Evasion, and not at all relevant. The dates for the release are chosen for various reasons, and Fr. Z admitted in his own article that the release dates are to be respected.

I haven't followed the Malthusian thing. My impulse is to say that there probably never has been nor never will be a perfect board where no one has a flaw or seems to be in contradiction to the message, but that would be off topic. So never mind.

We have but one enemy, and yes, he has always been trying to infiltrate the Church and destroy it from within. He picks up whatever sword is useful to him at any given time, and callously tosses it aside as soon as it is of no further use to him. It has always been so.

I have heard so many variations on what Sister Lucia said, and all claim to be the one true authoritative thing that she said, that I cannot authoritatively comment on this. But this, too, is true: we always are, and always have been, at a moment of crisis. We are to persevere anyways. If things really and truly are this bad for us, and this is the generation facing mass martyrdom, then, as terrible as it seems, we are the luckiest generation in all of human history: Blessed are you who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for they will be called the children of God." And again: "Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets."

There are the words of Sister Lucia, but there is also the words of St Theresa of Avila: "Let nothing disturb thee, nothing affright thee. All things are passing away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things. Whoever has God lacks nothing; God alone suffices."

Puff the Magic Dragon said...

Russia isn't the enemy, today, the enemy is ISIS and funny Putin ( Russia) have said they will protect Christians.

Russia (or the USSR) collapsed.

I would argue then that at least one consecration was valid.

As for Russia and the Ukraine, they aren't spreading their lies, no one in the world agrees with them, no one is supporting them.

Vox Cantoris said...

Russia's errors have already spread. Godless secularism and socialism, it has already happened. Russia (Soviet Union) infiltrated the Church and undermined the faith. The damage has been done, but it is not "too late.". Rather than state it has been done, please provide the historical fact that "Russia" has been "consecrated to the IHM." You cannot because it has not happened. So, Sister Lucia must have been delusional and Our Lady never appeared at Aquito, LaSalette and Fatima.

Puff the Magic Dragon said...


Puff the Magic Dragon said...

and here


Puff the Magic Dragon said...

There are more if you'd like.

Puff the Magic Dragon said...


Vox Cantoris said...

At which one of these was "Russia" specified?

At which one were all the bishops of the world assisting?

Or was it all a lie?

Or are they lying now?

When was Russia converted? What does it mean to convert?

It clearly has not, nor has the world. Russia has spread its errors and there has been no peace.

Either it was all a sham or it has not been done.


But who am I?

No more an authority than yourself.

Puff the Magic Dragon said...


Puff the Magic Dragon said...

I can at least point to some articles other than mine own.

Puff the Magic Dragon said...

I am claiming NO AUTHORITY.

My links are to others including one that has copies of Sr Lucia's own letters confirming the valid consecration in 1984. And the last has historical evidence.

I am done.