Gypsy Rondo - Part 2

What exactly did the Pope say on August 22 that set the various MSM websites, blogs and paper press ablaze with condemnations? And in what way were his words deformed by the press, leading many Catholics to reproach him for saying something that he did not say? Conversely leading some to condemn him for saying what he did in fact say?

Zenit, a website that publishes verbatim the words of the Pope has posted his speech before and after the Angelus on August 22. We are concerned only with the part of his speech that followed the Angelus. He greeted in different languages the pilgrims who had journeyed to his residence at Castel Gandolfo. Then he said in French:

"I cordially greet the French-speaking pilgrims, in particular the students of the parish of Sainte-Anne de la Butte-aux-Cailles, of Paris. The liturgical texts of this day tell us again that all men are called to salvation. It is also an invitation to learn how to welcome legitimate human diversities, in the manner of Jesus who came to bring together people of all nations and all languages. Dear parents, may you educate your children in universal brotherhood. May the Virgin Mary accompany you in the preparation of the school year that is approaching! Happy Sunday to everyone!"

Below is the French text:

Je salue cordialement les pèlerins francophones, en particulier les étudiants de la paroisse Sainte-Anne de la Butte-aux-Cailles, de Paris. Les textes liturgiques de ce jour nous redisent que tous les hommes sont appelés au salut. C'est aussi une invitation à savoir accueillir les légitimes diversités humaines, à la suite de Jésus venu rassembler les hommes de toute nation et de toute langue. Chers parents, puissiez-vous éduquer vos enfants à la fraternité universelle. Que la Vierge Marie vous accompagne dans la préparation de la rentrée scolaire qui approche ! Bon dimanche à tous!

Here is how a website called Catholic Culture reported his words, under the headline, "Pope Chides France on race policy"

In pointed remarks to French pilgrims who attended his midday audience on Sunday, August 22, Pope Benedict XVI said that parents should “educate your children to universal brotherhood.”

The Pope’s comments seemed clearly intended to reflect on the French government’s systematic campaign to expel Gypsies, which drew a rebuke from the Vatican last week. Pope Benedict said that the Sunday Scripture readings were “an invitation to know how to accept legitimate differences among humans, just like Jesus came to pull together men from every nation and speaking every language."

This is assuming that what he meant was that we must learn how to welcome (or accept?) people from all nations despite their differences because these differences are legitimate. (Note that the press used the verb "accept", but the French verb is "accueillir", "to welcome".)

But that really makes no sense. We know perfectly well that differences among peoples are "legitimate". The question is one of compatibility with other cultures, specifically French culture.

Le Salon Beige, a Catholic website that firmly supports the Pope on principle, reads the text differently. First the author Michel Janva points out that it is the Pope's duty to remind us that all men are called to salvation, and that any immigration policy must respect human dignity:

But it is important to note that immigrants (even legal ones) have duties towards the host country, and that heads of State have a duty to give priority to their own people.

Finally, it should be noted that all diversities are not legitimate (Benedict XVI, who in general knows what words mean and who does not speak unless he has something to say, here speaks of "legitimate human diversities"). Therefore, it is permitted to dismantle communities founded on illegitimate diversities. If the nomadic lifestyle is, a priori, legitimate, it is also clear that the redirecting of water, electricity, and other public services by certain illicit camps is in no way legitimate. I may add that I find extremely suspect that the "big time media" are only interested in Benedict's statements when there is some way of twisting them to make them useful in a political struggle...

However one takes the Pope's words, they do not seem to be of such overwhelming import that the media, the politicians and the talking heads of France have apoplectic fits and accuse the Pope indirectly of being a Nazi, which is what one of Sarkozy's advisers did. His name is Alain Minc (photo below), and for now his name is mud, but the situation is so crazy to begin with, that he comes across (to me) as a robot programmed to denounce the Church and to support Sarkozy's expulsion of the Roma which is a phony scheme at best. Others will (with some justification) see him as a typical Jewish government official who pulls the Holocaust card whenever he can. Here is some of what he said:

"I want to explode a little. This German Pope? To speak as he has done? In French? You can debate all you want on the matter of the Roma, but not a German Pope. John-Paul II, perhaps, not him."


But this makes no sense either. If Minc evokes the Holocaust, then he must think the Pope is in favor of the expulsions. There is no reason to believe such a thing nor is there any evidence that Minc read the Pope's words as Le Salon Beige read them, i.e., as a very nuanced statement on legitimate diversities. Therefore, he is condemning the Pope simply for talking about immigration and expulsion independant of what he (the Pope) is actually saying.

Minc's words greatly angered the Catholics. A Christian watchdog association - Observatoire de la Christianophobie, has launched a petition calling for Minc's resignation. The petition contains this paragraph:

"I find (your words) perfectly scandalous. From what you say, no German has the right to talk about immigration, on grounds that it was in Germany that the crimes of the National-Socialist regime were organized."

In addition Osservatore-Vaticano announces that Nicolas Sarkozy is distancing himself from Alain Minc (lucky Minc). Presidential spokesmen have said that Minc is not Sarkozy's full-time adviser, and that the president only sees him about once every trimester.

Note: This seems to be a quickly contrived way of getting Sarkozy off the hook. (Except that he created the hook he is hanging from. I maintain my belief that Minc only did what he was supposed to do.)

Even Salon Beige readers wonder if Minc's remarks were really spontaneous:

- And these sporadic pieces of advice are of course a free service?

- Sarko the Weather Vane has no idea which Saint to pray to.


Returning for a moment to the Pope's remarks, Front National vice-president Bruno Gollnisch (left) at first took them to be a criticism of France, then changed his mind when he read the text itself instead of the reports in the press. Salon Beige readers engage in a long discussion on Gollnisch's credentials as a true Catholic.

Analyzing the Pope's often cryptic comments, reconciling his comments with the daily situation in France, and choosing candidates in terms of Catholic doctrine, is an on-going hardship for French Catholics. Even though Le Salon Beige is traditional Catholic, it still seems to adhere to the principles of Vatican II, at least to some degree, simply because the Pope adheres to Vatican II.

I do not believe the Pope's remarks were earth-shattering at all, but I do wish he would be more straightforward on the issues confronting France. So long as he remains vaguely multi-cultural, and ambivalent on hot-button issues that are ripping the French State apart, Catholics themselves are going to be torn apart. They go against their faith if they vote for Sarkozy or the Socialist Party, and they feel guilty if they vote for the Front National. A genuine French statesman, patriotic, a defender of his people, pre-Vatican II Catholic, pro-Western and enlightened in the best sense of the term, is sorely needed and nowhere to be found, for now.

For those interested, the Catholic doctrine on immigration is discussed here - it's an interesting web page (in English). You will see that the Church doctrine is quite strict on the issue of immigrants' responsibilities.

Below, a regional newspaper clip describing the return of five Rumanian workers to France, following their "expulsion". The headline reads "They left for Rumania on Friday, they return today." The gist of this story is that they did not know they were illegally in France. A Rumanian intermediary apparently exploited the five carpenters. The French authorities expelled them, but welcomed them back. Note that this story is a bit different from the tale of the Roma.

I applaud anyone who managed to get through this post. So much ado about nothing. Except that it shows the insanity of not being willing or able to face the political and cultural realities squarely (this includes the Pope, I am very sorry to say), and the tower of Babel that ensues.