GENTECH archive 8.96-97
potshots (& the pope) OFF-TOPIC
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: potshots (& the pope) OFF-TOPIC
- From: email@example.com (egidio reale)
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:49:45 +0100
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I think you were just taking the usual cheap potshots,
>The American Reporter
while not familiar with the expression you use: "potshots", I guess
I can infer some of its connotations at least, and shall therefore reply
for the last time on this subject. By the way, I got your posting twice
(and so did everyone else on the list), were you afraid lest I did not see
it? Or were you expecting a prompter reply?
Some of my comments, which were not intended to offend anyone (my
apologies if they did) were based on several years' worth of investigations
and court proceedings, relating to the Banco Ambrosiano bankrupcy (as well
as Roberto Calvi's strange 'suicide' from Blackfriars' Bridge, and the P2
deviated secret lodge), closely connected with the Vatican's economic
recovery. It is true that Mr. Woytila has never been even indicted, but
Cardinal Marcinkus on the contrary, a close friend and collaborator of his,
as well as head of IOR, was condemned repeatedly and cannot leave the
Vatican lest he be arrested.
It was not just the opposition's press, nor only the Italian one,
to cover these facts, although I am sure you are well aware, as a
professional in this field, that often relevant news pass unperceived by
the majority, when they are not overtly and cursorily dismissed.
Once again, I would like to stress the need to distinguish between
a religion in its purer form (e.g., theological tenets, mystical
literature, artistic and cultural legacy) and its mundane structure
(hierarchy, actual human representatives, and visible shortcomings);
criticising or raising doubts and objections about the latter does not
necessarily imply attacking the former, unless explicitly so. Criticising
Khomeini, for instance, does not necessarily mean attacking Islam.
I do not know what your religious background might be, but your
response would put you together with dogmatic ultra-Popist believers (yet
even the Church maintains the Pope's infallibility only on matters of
dogma, i.e., when he speaks ex cathedra on issues of faith, and at no other
time); I am sure, on the other hand, that you are well aware of voices of
dissent with the Pope, within the Roman Catholic Church itself, on various
matters ranging from exquisitely dogmatic to eminently practical, even from
recognised and respected figures. And the fact that some people might find
it objectable or not conforming to their wishes and beliefs, should not
prevent truth to be expressed.
P.S. I would suggest that, were you to follow the discussion, you do so
directly (my @address should appear on the posting's header), as I think we
may well have exhausted the other members' interest in all this. Even
clearly including a warning such as OFF-TOPIC in the subject line does not
justify any longer in my opinion the use of this bandwidth.