------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polish spies in John Paul II assassination attempt

Researchers have uncovered evidence that the Polish secret service was also implicated in a series of assassination attempts that culminated in the shooting of John Pal II in 1981, following an earlier attempt to kill the Pope during a visit to the Polish Marian shrine of Jasna Gora in 1979.

The revelations are made in an article in Polish weekly Wprost by Leszek Szymowski who was assisted by Marek Lasota, a research fellow of the Polish Institute of the National Memory.

The authors detail evidence confirming that the Soviet KGB planned and led all efforts to "eliminate" the Polish Pope, from 1978 up to 1989, when the Communist regime finally collapsed in Poland, and soon after in all Eastern and Central European countries of the former Soviet Bloc.

According to the website Oracle Syndicate the new evidence delivers a crushing blow to all "conspiracy theories" invented by the Soviet disinformation experts or circulated in the West, which blamed Turkish right wing groups or even the CIA.

The new evidence, found in Berlin in the archives of the East German communist secret service, also confirms the role of the Bulgarian secret services.

The researchers say that the Kremlin allotted to East German intelligence the task of countering all reports and accusations against the Bulgarians.

However, what was not known earlier was the participation of the Polish secret services in the preparations for the plots against the Pope, the researchers say.

The researchers also say that a total of 21 or 22 attempts on the life of John Paul II were planned between 1978 and 1989.

However, the whole picture concerning these attempts remains dim.

For a long time, this code-name used by the Polish special service, was mistakenly linked to a singular provocation, led by a super-secret "Section D" of the SB in Cracow, in 1983. "Section D" was a special operations group, secretly organised in the Polish Ministry of Interior to carry out criminal operations against the Church.

This particular action aimed at compromising a Cracow priest, Andrzej Bardecki, an editor of Tygodnik Powszechny weekly paper and one of the closest friends of then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyla. In 1983, special SB agents Grzegorz Piotrowski, Barbara Szydlowska and Barbara Borowiec (women agents) broke into the apartment of the priest and left there provocative materials. The provocation failed.

In 2005, research by the Polish Institute of National Memory (IPN) discovered that the "Operation Triangolo" embraced a series of hostile actions against the Pope, carried out by the Polish communist secret services.

These shocking findings showed that the assassination of John Paul II had become the most important goal in the history of the communist special services in Poland. The Polish communist services worked for at least four years on a plan to kill the Polish Pope.

However, the secret files on "Operation Triangolo" disappeared from the archives on 11 April 1989 when a special delegation of the KGB officers came to Warsaw to secure and move out these documents. These documents are still kept as "top secret" in Moscow, the researchers say.

Church's 'Black Bishop' under scrutiny

In another story, a Roman Catholic seminary in Rome is opening its archives on the late Bishop Alois Hudal, who is accused of helping Nazi war criminals escape trial.

The Italian news service ANSA said researchers hope the documents at Rome's Teutonic College will shed light on the so-called Black Bishop.

Hudal, who died in 1963, was head of the Teutonic College during and immediately after World War II, ANSA asid. He was known for his pro-Nazi views and is alleged to have helped many Nazi war crimes suspects escape trail - including Franz Stangl, commander of the Treblinka concentration camp in Poland.

Much of the evidence against against Hudel has been collected by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish organization that works to find Nazi war criminals, ANSA said

Kerala: Asia's Cradle of Christianity
appeared in "Today", a leading daily of Manila, Philippines

Christianity took root on the Malabar coast (now Kerala) in the first century AD around the seven churches that St. Thomas established there. Christian faith has since flourished across the land, coexisting with other religions. Now 11 of the 23 dioceses in India are in Kerala.

Kerala is a narrow stretch of lush green territory that lies on the southwest coast of the Indian subcontinent. Hindu legends claim that Kerala rose from the sea as a gift of God. The name Kerala means "the land of coconuts". The scenic beauty of Kerala is one of the most outstanding in India. The entire land is interlaced with rivers, placid lagoons, paddy fields and coconut palms. Plantations of rubber, tea, coffee, pepper, cardamom, cloves, cinnamon and other spices cover the highlands in the east, earning Kerala the nickname of "the spice coast of India".

The lure of spices attracted traders from the Middle East and Europe to the many trading ports - Calicut, Cranganore, Cochin, Alleppey and Quilon - long before the time of Christ. And it was on a trading vessel plying between Alexandria and the Malabar coast that St. Thomas the Apostle arrived in Cranganore in 52 AD.

There he began preaching the Gospel. His teachings were accepted not only by those who chose to become Christians but also by those who chose to remain Hindus. The teachings eventually got integrated into the beliefs and traditions of the local communities, into their family history, into their songs and dances. St. Thomas established seven Christian communities or churches in Kerala. They are in Cranganore, Paravur(Kottakavu), Palayoor, Kokkamangalam, Malayattoor, Niranam, Chayal (Nilackal) and Kollam (Quilon). Throughout Kerala, one can find Christian families that are proud to claim descent from ancestors who were baptized by Apostle Thomas. Sankarapuri, Pakalomattom and Maliekal are the prominent ones. Some details of this combined tradition may be found in songs - the "Rabban Pattu", the "Veeradyan Pattu", the "Margam Kali Pattu" and others that now exist in written records.

The Church in Kerala had a high missionary spirit. Christians from Malabar spread their faith as far as Maldives and Indonesia.

St. Thomas Christians were considered high caste, along the Hindu tradition, with special privileges granted by the kings. The archdeacon was the head of the Church, and Palliyogams (Parish Councils) were in charge of temporal affairs. There were women deacons. They had a liturgy-centered life with days of fasting and abstinence. Their devotion to the St. Thomas Cross was absolute. Their churches were modelled after Hindu temples. In short, the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala had blended well the ecclesiastical world of the East Syrian Church with the socio-cultural environment of their homeland. Thus, the East Syrian Church was Hindu in culture, Christian in religion and Syro-Oriental in worship.

In 1498, when the Portugese navigator Vasco da Gama landed on the Malabar coast, there were an estimated two million Christian souls across the land, and they had 1,500 churches under the jurisdiction of a single Metropolitan who lived in Angamale. Besides, the Church had, by then, expanded to the neighbouring Mylapore and Nilgiris as well as northward along the Arabian Sea coast to Goa, Saimur (Chual), Thana, Sopara, Gujarat and as far as Sind, now a part of Pakistan. This, indeed, was the Golden Age of the East Syrian Church.

The arrival of Vasco da Gama, however, marked the start of a turning point and heralded a new struggle for the East Syrian Church. Because the Portugese, who later established trading posts in Goa, Daman and Diu north of Kerala, moved against the East Syrian Church leading to tragic, ecclesiastical incidents.

According to Joas de Castro, the Portugese Viceroy in Goa in 1548, the sword of the Portugese was wielded "mainly against the centuries-old Christians of Kerala". This was because only in Kerala did the laity stand steadfast against Western colonization, and maybe the Portugese, who were under the Roman Church, considered everything outside Roman as heretic.

The move against the Syrian Church was followed by Western Church establishing a European diocese in Goa in 1534. In 1557, Pope Paul IV declared Goa an archdiocese with its supremacy extending from the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa to China, and all Christians, including the East Syrian Church, brought under its jurisdiction. The East Syrian Archdiocese of Angamali then became a dependent of Goa.

This Europeanization process led to divisions in the Church, as there was considerable resistance against Western domination. The Christian communities then split into many groups - East Syrian Catholics, West Syrian Catholics, Syrian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian Orthodox, Marthoma (those who accepted the Anglican Church but with the Eastern Liturgy), Church of the East (those who accepted the Nestorian Patriarch), and the Latin Church.

In 1887 Pope Leo XIII issued the bull of "Quod Jam Pridem", which liberated the Syrians from the jurisdiction of the Latin prelate of Verapoly and placed them under two Eparchies - one in Trichur and the other in Kottayam (both in Kerala). More recently, on January 23, 1993, a papal declaration again upgraded Ernakulam to major Arch Episcopal Church with the title of Ernakulam Angamaly.

Today, there are 23 dioceses in India. Eleven of them are in Kerala with a number of priests from Kerala working in many parts of the world. Kerala has one vocation (priest brother, sister) for every 70 Catholics. No other community in the world has so many vocations. Most of the Syrian families have a priest, a religious guide and mentor.

Thomas Madden Dispels Myths

ST. LOUIS, Missouri, OCT. 10, 2004 (Zenit.org).- The Crusaders were not unprovoked aggressors, greedy marauders or medieval colonialists, as portrayed in some history books.

In fact, Thomas Madden, chair of St. Louis University's history department and author of "A Concise History of the Crusades," contests that the Crusaders were a defensive force that did not profit from their ventures by earthly riches or land.

In fact, Thomas Madden, chair of St. Louis University's history department and author of "A Concise History of the Crusades," contests that the Crusaders were defensive wars, not wars of conquest.

Madden shared with ZENIT the most popular myths about the Crusades and the modern findings that prove them wrong.

Part 2 of this interview will appear Monday.

Q: What are some common misconceptions about the Crusades? the Crusaders?

Madden: The following are some of the most common myths and why they are wrong.

Myth 1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.

This is as wrong as wrong can be. From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.

In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities -- these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core.

And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest.

Myth 2: The Crusaders wore crosses, but they were really only interested in capturing booty and land. Their pious platitudes were just a cover for rapacious greed.

Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe's population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.

Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades.

Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.

After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.

Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.

They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt.

They were very mindful of Christ's exhortation that he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ. They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."

Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.

This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades.

It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context.

The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender.

In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.

By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property and were allowed to worship freely.

As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.

Myth 4: The Crusades were just medieval colonialism dressed up in religious finery.

It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region. It was the Muslim East that was powerful, wealthy and opulent. Europe was the Third World.

The Crusader States, founded in the wake of the First Crusade, were not new plantations of Catholics in a Muslim world akin to the British colonization of America. Catholic presence in the Crusader states was always tiny, easily less than 10% of the population. These were the rulers and magistrates, as well as Italian merchants and members of the military orders. The overwhelming majority of the population in the Crusader states was Muslim.

They were not colonies, therefore, in the sense of plantations or even factories, as in the case of India. They were outposts. The ultimate purpose of the Crusader states was to defend the holy places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and to provide a safe environment for Christian pilgrims to visit those places.

There was no mother country with which the Crusader states had an economic relationship, nor did Europeans economically benefit from them. Quite the contrary, the expense of Crusades to maintain the Latin East was a serious drain on European resources. As an outpost, the Crusader states kept a military focus.

While the Muslims warred against each other the Crusader states were safe, but once the Muslims united, they were able to dismantle the strongholds, capture the cities, and in 1291 expel the Christians completely.

Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war.

Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.

These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate byproduct of Crusade enthusiasm, but they were not the purpose of the Crusades. To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes

Q: Do you think the struggle between the West and the Muslim world is in any way a reaction to the Crusades?

Madden: No. That may seem a strange answer when you consider that Osama bin Laden and other Islamists often refer to Americans as "Crusaders."

It's important to remember, though, that during the Middle Ages -- really up until the late 16th century -- the superpower of the Western world was Islam. Muslim civilizations were wealthy, sophisticated and immensely powerful. The West was backward and relatively weak.

It is noteworthy that with the exception of the First Crusade virtually every other Crusade launched by the West -- and there were hundreds -- was unsuccessful.

The Crusades may have slowed Muslim expansionism, but they in no way stopped it. Muslim empires would continue to expand into Christian territories, conquering the Balkans, much of Eastern Europe and even the greatest Christian city in the world, Constantinople.

From the Muslim perspective the Crusades were not worth noticing. If you had asked someone in the Muslim world about the Crusades in the 18th century he or she would have known nothing about them. They were important to Europeans because they were massive efforts that failed.

However, during the 19th century, when Europeans began conquering and colonizing Middle Eastern countries, many historians -- in particular nationalist or royalist French writers -- began to cast the Crusades as Europe's first attempt to bring the fruits of Western civilization to the backward Muslim world. In other words, the Crusades were morphed into imperialist wars.

Those histories were taught in the colonial schools and became the accepted view in the Middle East and beyond. In the 20th century, imperialism was discredited. Islamists and some Arab nationalists then seized on the colonial construction of the Crusades, claiming that the West was responsible for their woes because they had preyed on Muslims ever since the Crusades.

It is often said that people in the Middle East have long memories; it is true. But in the case of the Crusades, they have a recovered memory: one that was manufactured for them by their European conquerors.

Q: Are there any similarities between the Crusades and the war against terror today?

Madden: Aside from the fact that soldiers in both wars want to serve something greater than themselves that they hold dear and long to return home when it is over, I see no other similarities between the medieval Crusades and the war against terror. Motivations in a post-Enlightenment secular society are very different from those in the medieval world.

Q: How are the Crusades different from Islam's jihad, or other wars of religion?

Madden: The fundamental purpose of jihad is to expand the Dar al-Islam -- the Abode of Islam -- into the Dar al-Harb -- the Abode of War. In other words, jihad is expansionistic, seeking to conquer non-Muslims and place them under Muslim rule.

Those who are then conquered are given a simple choice. For those who are not People of the Book -- in other words, those who are not Christians or Jews -- the choice is convert to Islam or die. For those who are People of the Book, the choice is submit to Muslim rule and Islamic law or die. The expansion of Islam, therefore, was directly linked to the military successes of jihad.

The Crusades were something very different. From its beginnings Christianity has always forbidden coerced conversion of any kind. Conversion by the sword, therefore, was not possible for Christianity. Unlike jihad, the purpose of the Crusades was neither to expand the Christian world nor to expand Christianity through forced conversions.

Instead, the Crusades were a direct and belated response to centuries of Muslim conquests of Christian lands. The immediate event that sparked the First Crusade was the Turkish conquest of all of Asia Minor in the 1070s through 1090s.

The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in 1095 in response to an urgent plea for help from the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople. Urban called the knights of Christendom to come to the aid of their Eastern brethren.

Asia Minor was Christian. Part of the Byzantine Empire, it had been first evangelized by St. Paul. St. Peter had been the first bishop of Antioch. Paul had written his famous letter to the Christians of Ephesus. The creed of the Church was penned at Nicaea. All of these were in Asia Minor.

The Byzantine emperor begged the Christians of the West for aid in recapturing these lands and expelling the Turks. The Crusades were that aid. Their purpose, though, was not only to reconquer Asia Minor but also to recapture other formerly Christian lands that had been lost due to Islamic jihads. This included the Holy Land.

In a nutshell, therefore, the major difference between Crusade and jihad is that the former was a defense against the latter. The entire history of the Eastern Crusades is one of response to Muslim aggression.

Q: Did the Crusaders have any success at converting the Muslim world?

Madden: I would note that in the 13th century some Franciscans began a mission in the Middle East to seek to convert Muslims. It was not successful, largely because Islamic law makes conversion to another religion a capital offense.

This attempt, though, was separate from the Crusades, which had nothing at all to do with conversion. And it was by peaceful persuasion.

Q: How did Christendom rationalize its defeat in the Crusades? Were the Crusaders defeated?

Madden: The same way that the Jews of the Old Testament did. God withheld victory from his people because they were sinful. This led to a large-scale piety movement in Europe, whose aim was to purify Christian society in every way.

Q: Did Pope John Paul II in fact apologize for the Crusades? Has he actually condemned them?

Madden: This is an odd myth, given that the Pope was so roundly criticized for failing to apologize directly for the Crusades when he asked forgiveness from all those that Christians had unjustly harmed.

Our Holy Father did not condemn them, nor did he apologize for them. He apologized for the sins of Catholics. More recently it was widely reported that John Paul II apologized to the patriarch of Constantinople for the Crusader conquest of Constantinople in 1204.

In truth, though, the Pope only reiterated what his predecessor Pope Innocent III [1198-1216] said. That too was a tragic misfire that Innocent had done everything he could to avoid. He apologized for the sins of Catholics who took part in the Crusades. Yet he did not apologize for the Crusades themselves or even the outcome of the Crusades.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VATICAN CITY, JULY 13, 2005 (Zenit.org).- One of the prevailing historical interpretations of the Second Vatican Council betrays the event, says the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers in a new book.

Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, in "Vatican Council II: Counterpoint for Its History" (Vatican Publishing House), describes as "unbalanced" and "ideological" the analysis of the event made by some schools of historians, in particular the so-called Bologna Group.

He elaborated on his view in this interview with ZENIT.

Q: Some historians, such as professor Giuseppe Alberigo and his collaborators [in the Bologna Group], have presented the Second Vatican Council as a discontinuity in the history of the Church, a conservative Curia against progressive theologians, tradition against renewal, a Paul VI who betrays John XXIII. What is your opinion?

Archbishop Marchetto: Whoever reads my book will realize that, while trying to situate myself in the historical interpretation of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, taking into account the framework of the general historiographic "tendencies," I retain my specific vision of what the Catholic Church is, also historically.

Therefore, I see Vatican II in continuity with all the ecumenical councils, not as a shooting star, but as part of a constellation, though having some of its own characteristics. Hence, it does not constitute a break, a sort of birth of a new Church.

This is, after all, the thought of John XXIII, of Paul VI, of John Paul II and also of Benedict XVI, to only mention the Popes.

The opposition between "conservative Curia" and "progressive theologians" is also a simplification, as within the Curia there were different sensibilities and tendencies.

An example of this was Cardinal Cicognani who unblocked the stagnant situation of the first schema on the Church, giving a green light to Cardinal Leo Jozef Suenens for a new writing, although in fact it was not totally new, as according to him, 60% of the earlier schema remained in the second.

The opposition between John XXIII and Paul VI, which would separate "John's Council" from Paul VI's, in December 1963, is groundless, and this is not just my opinion, but also that of professor Roger Aubert. According to him, there is only one conciliar line between the two Popes of the Council. There are other examples, but my answer is already quite lengthy.

Q: According to the "History of Vatican Council II," written by Giuseppe Alberigo and his collaborators, Pope Paul VI betrayed the progressive thrust that stemmed from the Council, on two essential topics: collegiality in regard to the primacy of Peter, and the moral judgment on the use of contraceptives. What happened and what did Paul VI do?

Archbishop Marchetto: As I have already explained, the profound sense of the debate was the image of Catholicism, an ecumenical Council, with its search for consensus, which would unite -- the word "aggiornamento" is used, updating -- the two spirits of Catholicism, fidelity to Tradition and the incarnation of what I call "the today of God."

This was the idea that united John XXIII and Paul VI, despite the diversity of their personalities. In the volume I present the ideas of one and the other, in communion. … For me, in the end, Tradition and renewal embraced in the Council.

In regard to the two topics you mentioned, the first, collegiality, was rather an ecclesial characteristic of the first millennium, which was rediscovered, so to speak, by Vatican II. It was placed, without contradiction, next to papal primacy, exercised personally, which developed especially in the second millennium.

In this case also the conjunction "and" reveals itself Catholic: collegiality and primacy, as one cannot speak of collegiality if, in the college, its head -- the Bishop of Rome -- is not there.

In regard to the use of contraceptives, without going into the ethical judgment of the magisterium, it must be admitted that Alberigo's accusation of a "conciliar silence" is not justified, as it is not right to speak, as he does, of a "trauma caused throughout the Christian world by the encyclical 'Humanae Vitae.'"

Q: You have described the analysis of Vatican II made by the Bologna Group as "unbalanced" and "ideological." What do you think are its most serious errors?

Archbishop Marchetto: From the beginning I have defined as "ideological" the interpretation made by the "Bologna Group." And where ideology exists there is a lack of balance, extremism, blurred vision.

I will limit myself to take up all that I wrote about Alberigo's conclusions in Volume V of his history of the Council, namely, the already mentioned opposition between John XXIII and Paul VI; the question of "modernity" -- what does it mean?; the tendency to consider "new" schemas which were not new; the judgment of "lack of a head" in the conciliar assembly; the partisan view on religious liberty.

Q: You say there are more exact and balanced studies and analyses that explain the meaning and history of Vatican II. Which are they?

Archbishop Marchetto: I might mention, for example, the works of Cardinal [Leo] Scheffczyk, which in Italian is entitled "The Church: Aspects of the Post-Conciliar Crisis and Correct Interpretation of Vatican II," with a presentation by Joseph Ratzinger, as well as that of Monsignor Vincenzo Carbone, entitled in Italian "Vatican Council II, Preparation of the Church for the Third Millennium."

In 1994, professor A. Zambarbieri published a small volume on "The Councils of the Vatican," which for me constitutes the best brief study published up to now on the great Vatican synod.

I would add the work of Antonio Acerbi, which is very critical of Alberigo, in his "Minutes of the Meetings Held in the Episcopal Seminary of Bergamo 1998-2001."

Lastly, I think I cannot forget the new Pope, in particular some of his reminiscences, in "La mia vita. Ricordi (1927-1977)" [in English: "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977] which led me to ask him to write others. But now this is no longer possible.

Q: What do you hope to achieve with your book? Has the time arrived to discuss Vatican II in truth and charity?

Archbishop Marchetto: In the preface of my book I wrote: "My desire is to contribute to write, finally, a history of Vatican II, which will overcome the grave conditionings -- that is why the title mentioned 'counterpoint' -- created up to now by a vision that I describe as ideological from the start and that imposes itself as a monopoly in the publishing market."

If my hard effort and my going against the current for years has served to break a monopoly and to create freedom of research among historians, to study Vatican Council II in a wider dimension than that realized to date, I would feel profoundly happy.

In any case, dialogue is important also among historians, and my history of the historiography on Vatican II over the past 15 years is an attempt to make a contribution. Moreover, "counterpoint" also refers to music, to harmony, to overcoming one-sidedness.

In this connection, at the end of his presentation of my book in the Capitolio of Rome, Cardinal Camillo Ruini said: "The interpretation of the Council as a rupture and a new beginning is coming to an end. Today it is an extremely weak and groundless interpretation in the body of the Church. The time has come for historiography to produce a new reconstruction of Vatican II that is finally a true history."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How the Church Helped Build the West

Book Highlights Catholic Contribution

NEW YORK, JUNE 4, 2005 (Zenit.org).- No institution has done more to shape the West than the Church. This is the thesis of a just-published book, "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" (Regnery Publishing), by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

The Catholic Church, Woods notes, has come in for a bad press in the past few years. And many people are only aware of the darker parts of Church history. This book sets out to change that, by succinctly dealing in a series of thematic chapters with a number of areas where the Church played a crucial role.

Western civilization, Woods is careful to add, does not derive exclusively from Catholicism. Nevertheless, it is easy to forget just how much the Church contributed in such areas as art, music, architecture, science and law.

A strongly negative view still persists regarding the Middle Ages, even though Woods affirms that just about all historians have now rejected the old prejudice of this period as the "Dark Ages." While there was indeed a period of decline in the sixth and seventh centuries, this was due to barbarian invasions and constant wars. The destruction would have been worse if it had not been for the Church's efforts at maintaining some kind of order.

Modern civilization owes a particular debt to the work of countless monks during the Middle Ages, Woods points out. It was in the monasteries that the great Roman texts were copied and preserved for future generations. And even though over the centuries many monasteries were destroyed by successive waves of barbarians they would spring up again to continue their task.

The medieval monasteries were also vital in the development of agriculture. In particular, the many thousands of Benedictine establishments played a crucial role in clearing and developing land. They also introduced the local populations to important techniques, such as cattle rearing, cheese making, water management and raising bees. Cistercian monasteries also played a vital role, Woods adds, in areas such as the development of water power and metallurgy.

A time of learning

Far from being a period of ignorance the Middle Ages saw the birth of the university system. The Church was at the center of this advance, which took off in the second half of the 12th century in centers established in Paris, Bologna, Oxford and Cambridge. The papacy, Woods explains, also played a central role in establishing and encouraging the universities. By the time of the Reformation, 81 universities had received a papal charter.

Modern science also owes a large debt to the Catholic Church. Most people remember the Church's conflict with Galileo, which was not nearly so negative as popular myths would have it, Woods argues. The Church was at the center of scientific advances, with many clergymen combining their divine vocation with an interest in science.

In the 13th century, the Dominican St Albert the Great, for example, was considered one of the precursors of modern science. And Robert Grosseteste, chancellor of Oxford University and bishop of Lincoln, is described by Woods as being considered to have been one of the most knowledgeable men of the Middle Ages. He was, among other accomplishments, the first to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment.

The Church's involvement with science would continue in later centuries. In the 17th century Father Nicolaus Steno of Denmark was credited with setting down most of the principles of modern geology. And in the 17th and 18th centuries the Jesuits made many important contributions to science, particularly in areas such as mathematics and astronomy.

Art and architecture also owe a great debt to the Catholic Church. When the iconoclasts, who were opposed to images of religious figures, sought the destruction of religious art in the eighth and ninth centuries, it was the Church that resisted this heresy.

In the following centuries Catholic patronage, through the construction of the great cathedrals and the commissioning of innumerable works of art, was at the center of European art and architecture. The popes, in particular, as patrons of many great artists were behind the production of many masterpieces.

International law

The discovery and conquest of the New World presented Catholic theologians with the task of developing what should be the legal and ethical principles governing the treatment of the native peoples in the new territories. One of the best-known of these thinkers was Francisco de Vitoria, a Dominican who is credited with helping to lay the foundations of modern international law. He defended the principle that all men are equally free and have the same right to life, culture and property.

Vitoria, along with other figures such as fellow Dominican Bartolomé de las Casas, played an important role in defending the native populations against those who sought to treat them as a subhuman class, thus legitimizing slavery and other kinds of ill treatment. Injustices were committed in spite of these efforts, notes Woods, but the Spanish theologians made important contributions to concepts such as natural rights and the just war.

Many other aspects of Western legal systems also owe their origin to the Church, explains Woods. The legal code developed by the Church for its own use, canon law, was the first systematic body of law developed in medieval Europe and formed the basis for subsequent secular legal systems.

Church influence was vital in ensuring, for example, that a valid marriage required the free consent of both the man and the woman. And the Church's defense of human life meant that the Greek and Roman practice of infanticide was discontinued. Other barbaric practices such as trial by battle or blood feuds were eventually discouraged due to the Church's influence. Canon lawyers also introduced principles such as reducing legal liability due to mitigating circumstances.

Charitable works

Catholic charity is another field examined by Woods. From the first centuries the Church sought to alleviate the suffering caused by famines and diseases. Inspired by the Gospel the faithful were encouraged to donate money to the Church to be used to help those in need.

In the early Church, hospices were organized to care for pilgrims, ransomed slaves and the poor. Other groups, such as widows and orphans, also benefited from institutions set up by the Church. The establishment of hospitals on a large scale also stems from initiatives organized by the Catholic Church from the fourth century onward. And, during the Middle Ages, monasteries became the providers of medical care in many areas.

The extent of this aid was such that many who were otherwise hostile to Catholics, from pagans to Protestant reformers and Enlightenment figures such as Voltaire, all paid tribute to the Church's charitable work.

Woods also notes that when King Henry VIII suppressed the monasteries in England and confiscated their properties the subsequent loss of charitable aid led to civil uprisings in some parts. And the nationalization of Church property during the French Revolution meant that more than a half-century afterward, in 1847, France had 47% fewer hospitals than in 1789.

Woods concludes by affirming "So ingrained are the concepts that Catholicism introduced into the world that very often even movements opposing it are nevertheless imbued with Christian ideals." The Catholic Church, he continues, "did not merely contribute to Western civilization -- the Church built that civilization." Contemporary civilization has cut itself off from this foundation more and more, Woods notes, in many cases with negative consequences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------