THE TENTH CRUSADE

Judie Brown on Archbishop Fisichella

As a member of the Academy, I commented at length about those statements and joined with my fellow Academy members in protesting the statements and requesting a clarification of them from the Holy Father.

Following what I personally felt was an imprudent statement coming from Archbishop Fisichella, I wrote a letter to him requesting a clarification. Previous to that, I publicly praised the Brazilian archbishop for defending the truth of Catholic teaching and acting in accord with that teaching. In the days and weeks that followed, many Pontifical Academy members voiced similar concerns regarding the archbishop’s unfortunate remarks. To my knowledge, none of the members received an adequate response from Archbishop Fisichella. Sadly, the matter was not resolved prior to or during the February 11-13 Academy meeting and, as a result, the following statementwas issued by five Academy members.

Apparently, Archbishop Fisichella insisted the first paragraph of the letter be edited out of the published version and has further manipulated the situation to...vindicate himself!

Recently a number of letters have been sent to the Holy See, some of them from prominent figures in political and ecclesial life, explaining the confusion that has been created in various countries, especially in Latin America, following the manipulation and exploitation of an article by His Excellency Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on the sad affair of the ‘Brazilian girl’.” [Emphasis added]

What is not generally known is that this is not the original wording of the opening paragraph which it was intended to publish in L’Osservatore Romano. Fisichella obtained sight of the text prior to publication and demanded that the original paragraph be changed to read as in the published version. In this way he has been permitted to disclaim, with the apparent authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, all responsibility for the damaging impact of his article on the defense of innocent pre-born human lives. Responsibility for this damage belongs entirely to the way others have ‘manipulated and exploited’ his article! But not content with disclaiming responsibility for the damage his article has done, Fisichella in his address to the Academy on the 11th of February claimed that the vindication extended to the content of his article. This claim is indeed grave because the clear implication of the wording of that article is that there are difficult situations in which doctors enjoy scope for the autonomous exercise of conscience in deciding whether to carry out a direct abortion. It would appear, then, that the CDF ‘Clarification’ has failed to clarify the mind of Archbishop Rino Fisichella, and, if that is the case, it raises a troubling question about just how generally effective the ‘Clarification’ has been in dispelling the false understanding of the Church’s teaching about direct abortion conveyed by the 15 March 2009 article.

Far from creating unity and genuine harmony in the Academy, Archbishop Fisichella’s address on the 11th of February had the effect of confirming in the minds of many Academicians the impression that we are being led by an ecclesiastic who does not understand what absolute respect for innocent human lives entails. This is an absurd state of affairs in a Pontifical Academy for Life but one which can be rectified only by those who are responsible for his appointment as President.

What is the hold up on manning up over there?