Few images in recent Catholic history will be remembered like the ones that marked Benedict XVI’s last day as pope: Bidding farewell to well-wishers at the Vatican, the departing pontiff boarded a helicopter, en route to Castel Gandolfo, the papal summer residence just outside Rome. Upon arrival, he was greeted by the town’s residents, who heard him deliver his last address as pope, in which he spoke movingly about being a pilgrim of the Lord.

The occasion gave rise to some surprisingly sympathetic stories about the papal residence, which has an eventful history. In a report for the New York Times, Elisabetta Povoledo described how the papacy first laid claim to Castel Gandolfo (originally a small fortress) in 1596, but did not really become associated with it until 30 years later, when Pope Urban VIII, who had a wing built on the side which overlooks Lake Albano, made it an official papal residence. Pope Alexander VII later commissioned Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the great Baroque architect, to construct a second wing, and successive popes have made further additions and renovations. Today, writes Povoleda, the residence has become something of a world unto itself: “The pontifical villas of Castel Gandolfo cover a triangle-shaped swath of the town, totaling about 135 acres. A working farm provides produce—fruits and vegetables, oils, eggs and dairy products—to the pope’s kitchens, both here and in Vatican City.”

After noting that Castel Gandolfo retains “considerable interaction” with the local 9,000 residents, Povoledo commented:

Townspeople of a certain age still recall the protection given by Pope Pius XII after Allied troops landed in Anzio in 1944 and the area became an open war zone. Some 12,000 people found refuge in the pontifical villas. ‘Around here there are many people named Pio or Pia, Eugenio or Eugenia,’ in honor of Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pius XII, said Pier Paolo Turoli, an administrator of the Pontifical Villas at Castel Gandolfo.

This remarkable acknowledgement of papal humanitarianism was refreshing, given how frequently the modern Times has mistreated Pius and the Church. Yet Povoledo’s coverage is thoroughly in keeping with the Times‘ own wartime reporting, which—at least back then—was quite fair to Pius XII.

During the German occupation of Rome, and particularly in a series of reports published in February, 1944—on the 11th, 15th, and 18th of that month—the Times covered the Holy See’s heroic work for endangered refugees, underscoring the pope’s efforts to secure their protection. (Concurring with Povoledo, these dispatches reported that somewhere between ten to fifteen thousand people were being cared for at Castel Gandolfo alone.)

The National Catholic Welfare Conference said . . . the Pope had opened the Papal villa at Castel Gandolfo, including the official apartments, to some 15,000 persons, mostly women and children. . . .

The Vatican radio on Feb. 15 stated that more than 10,000 refugees still remained at the Papal villa, adding that it was not yet possible for them to go elsewhere. Consequently, the broadcast said, any warlike action against the Papal villa not only would be a violation of its extra-territorial rights but would imperil thousands of defenseless people.

Re-reading these reports brought back memories of my own visit to the historic papal site. In September 2008, I participated in a conference on Pius XII and the Jewish community, which culminated in a special audience with Pope Benedict XVI at Castel Gandolfo. His address, recalling Pius XII’s compassion and support for the war’s many victims, had tremendous symbolic significance, since it was at Castel Gandolfo where persecuted Jews had been given refuge by Pius XII. When Rome was finally liberated, they came to personally thank him for the life-saving assistance he had provided. On June 22, 1944—just weeks after the liberation—the Palestine Post (today’s Jerusalem Post) reported from Vatican City:

Several thousand refugees, largely Jews, during the weekend left the Papal Palace at Castel Gandolfo—the Pope’s summer residence near Marino—after enjoying safety there during the recent terror. Besides Jews, persons of all political creeds who had been endangered were given sanctuary at the Palace. Before leaving, the refugees conveyed their gratitude to the Pope.

The Catholic Herald of Britain also covered this extraordinary event at the time, which is important, since a number of critics have questioned whether Jews really were rescued by Pius XII at Castel Gandolfo. They certainly were.

In addition to the Times report, Germany’s Der Spiegel ran a largely positive story about Castel Gandolfo, also focusing on World War II. While the magazine seems unaware of Pius XII’s quick and decisive protests against the German round-up of Rome’s Jews, it does record his anti-Nazi convictions (as well as those of his predecessor, Pius XI), and goes on to note how Pius XII “would order churches, cloisters and other Vatican properties—including Castel Gandolfo—to be used to shelter for those being targeted.”

Castel Gandolfo has been far more than just a papal retreat: it has served as a life-giving enclave which represents the highest values of Christianity. As such, it is a fitting location for the pope emeritus to stay and pray at, before taking up permanent residence back in Rome.

Today, America honors the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and what he meant to our nation. In so doing, we will likely focus on his achievements—understandably so, since they were so impressive, and continue to grow. But it’s equally important to remember the many struggles that preceded them. From the moment King entered the public square, determined to counter evil with good, he was questioned, challenged and assailed. Some of his own allies thought him unrealistic; many conservatives judged him subversive, and the FBI hounded and monitored him. Today, that is largely forgotten, as all three recognize his greatness: progressives, as an activist for peace and social justice; conservatives, as a defender of the Natural Law and Biblical truth; and the U.S. government, as a symbol of national unity and American principles.

Even after passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, King never rested on his laurels. He continued to fight for his ideals, even in the face of hostility and opposition. Nowhere was that clearer than in his very last address—his famous “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech. Not as well known as his “I Have a Dream” speech, it is equally moving and prophetic. In a way, it is a brief narrative and microcosm of his extraordinary life.

In the spring of 1968, King had travelled to Memphis, Tennessee, to support black public works employees, who were striking because of unequal treatment. On April 3, he spoke powerfully on their behalf, but also about much larger themes, particularly his high expectations for America’s democracy, and how it was falling short:

The nation is sick, trouble is in the land, confusion all around. That’s a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see all the stars. And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a way that men in some strange way are responding. Something is happening.

One of the developments that stirred King was the activity of the evangelists he was speaking to that day: “You know what’s beautiful to me is to see all of these ministers of the Gospel. It’s a marvelous picture. Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher? Somewhere the preacher must have a kind of fire shut up in his bones, and whenever injustice is around, he must tell it.” He warned his fellow ministers, however, that speaking out would come at a price, citing the Gospel and difficult experiences from his own life.

The next day, King fell victim to an assassin’s bullet, tragically dying when he was just thirty-nine. According to biographer Taylor Branch, medical examiners discovered that King actually “had the heart of a 60 year old,” likely due to the extreme stress he endured. No American ever suffered more for truth and justice than Reverend King.

Despite efforts to secularize him, and certain personal failings in his own life, King was a deeply Christian figure. Those of us who believe, as did King, that America would be elevated by a greater adherence to Judeo-Christian principles, can draw strength from his public witness.

Among the many lessons from Reverend King’s life are that faithful Christians should pursue their dreams, but be willing to make sacrifices, and be prepared to endure doubt, ridicule and even persecution. Worthy dreams are usually accomplished only after tribulations, and intense struggle. But if we don’t lose heart, and remain faithful to God, it will all be worth it. As Reverend King himself said, in the closing words of his inspiring Mountaintop address:

And then I got into Memphis, and some began to say the threats or talk about the threats, or what would happen to me. . . . Well, I don’t know what will happen now; we’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop, and I don’t mind. . . . Like anybody, I would like to live a long life—longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will, and He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain, and I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I’m happy tonight. I’m not worried about anything—I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

The recent news that Cardinal Elia Dalla Costa has been recognized as “Righteous Among the Nations” by Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial is a welcome, and a much-deserved, honor. Dalla Costa, the archbishop of Florence during World War II, “played a central role in the organization and operation of a widespread rescue network,” said Yad Vashem in its November announcement. He “recruited rescuers from among the clergy, supplied letters to his activists so that they could go to heads of monasteries and convents entreating them to shelter Jews, and sheltered Jews in his own palace.”

Numerous witnesses have testified to Dalla Costa’s personal involvement in rescue. Lya Quitt testified that “she fled from France to Florence in the beginning of September 1943 and was brought to the Archbishop’s palace where she spent the night with other Jews who were being sheltered there. The following day they were taken to different convents in the city.”

Giorgio La Pira, a leader of the Italian resistance, described Dalla Costa as “the soul of this ‘activity of love’ aimed to save so many brothers;” and Father Cipriano Ricotti remembers being summoned to Dalla Costa’s office: “The Archbishop asked me…if I believed that I could devote myself to helping Jews. He immediately gave me a letter of instruction he had written, so that I would have the authority to turn to monasteries—many of which may not have opened their gates, had I not such a letter in my possession—so as to find shelter for the numerous suffering persons.”

Dalla Costa’s honor coincides with the publication of two important new books that explore different dimensions of the Second World War, one distressing, the other inspiring.

The first is Complicity in the Holocaust by Robert P. Ericksen, a bleak portrait of capitulation and collaboration during the Nazi era. It is painful (but necessary) reading, for it reminds us how easily and shockingly prominent individuals, including self-professed Christians, fell sway to the radical evils of racism, anti-Semitism and nationalism. The one significant drawback of Ericksen’s book is its partial and often one-sided examination of the Churches. His evaluation of the Catholic Church, for example, is so dark and sweeping that, at one point, he suggests the Holy See—if not Catholicism in general– was naturally inclined toward fascism.

He also repeats some (now quite outdated) errors about Pius XII. For a corrective to this view, one should read “Fascism and Catholicism,” a brilliant wartime essay (1941) by Dietrich von Hildebrand, the great German Catholic philosopher and early opponent of Hitler, who, tellingly, is missing from Ericksen’s narrative, as is von Hildebrand’s praise of Pope Pius XII.

The second work which helps balance the deficiencies of Ericksen’s otherwise valuable volume is The Catholic Bishops of Europe and the Nazi Persecutions of Catholics and Jews by Vincent Lapomarda, S.J., which recounts the courage and compassion of prominent Catholic prelates who resisted Nazism. Father Lapomarda, who heads the Hiatt Holocaust Collection at Holy Cross college, is the author of a previous acclaimed study, The Jesuits and the Third Reich, which established how many members of the Society of Jesus—who took a special oath of fidelity to the pope—actively opposed Hitler and his crimes.

Against the literature which depicts the wartime Church as almost entirely passive or collaborationist, Lapomarda’s work proves that Catholic resistance to Nazism—even amidst collaboration and betrayal—was extensive, and often heroic. In a country-by-country analysis of Catholic resistance in Nazi-occupied lands, Father Lapomarda compiles the many interventions made by the Catholic hierarchy for persecuted Jews during the wartime era, and makes clear (as he did in The Jesuits and the Third Reich) how these rescue measures had the support of the Vatican. This was recognized at the time, even if it is sometimes forgotten or denied today.

When Jean Cardinal Verdier, the archbishop of Paris and outspoken opponent of Nazism, died in 1940, the New York Times commented: “Cardinal Verdier like Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, was the especial champion of persecuted Jews. Besides extending monetary and material aid to Jewish refugees finding sanctuary in his archdiocese, he also called on all Christians ‘to pray that the evils that the Jews are now suffering shall cease.’ This appeal was made in April, 1933, and was followed by many similar ones.” (New York Times obituary, April 9, 1940.)

It is important that Catholics and Christians acknowledge the failures and complicity of certain Christians during the Nazi era—where guilt is beyond question—but it is equally important that unjust allegations be answered, and that those who did live up to Christianity’s teachings are recognized and applauded. Fortunately, there is increasing understanding and appreciation of this.

Shortt, the religion editor of the Times Literary Supplement, has written an important and powerful book which coincides with the Catholic Church’s increasing and necessary push for a greater protection of the rights of Christians.

Several months ago, in writing about Day’s “dynamic orthodoxy,” I put forward the reasons I thought she merited sainthood, despite the controversial aspects of her life. Now, following the bishop’s initiative, Day’s extraordinary life is again being held up as a model of sanctity—especially for those who’ve fallen, but now in the process of repairing their lives.

As Cardinal Dolan noted, Day’s early life was anything but encouraging, in that it involved sexual immorality, an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and an abortion. And yet, like so many sinners who’ve returned to God—and even become saints—she was radically transformed by the Gospel, and, once Catholic, never looked back.

Her devotion to her new-found faith was all-consuming, and one of the main reasons for her proposed sainthood. “Dorothy Day was a woman of the Church: She loved being a Catholic,” said Cardinal Dolan in a sermon several years ago. “She loved the Catholic Church. I’m not talking about some nebulous, generic Church. She loved the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, Roman Church.” 

In our day, the Cardinal continued, there are many who try to separate Jesus from the Church and formulate their own brand of independent Christian spirituality. But for Day, and for all faithful Catholics, this is a “no can do” proposition, for orthodoxy holds that Christ founded a Church precisely to guide the faithful. One is inconceivable without the other.

Cardinal Dolan’s comments are instructive, for they point to the source of Dorothy Day’s greatness: her profound commitment to the riches of Catholicism led by a hierarchical, authoritative Church, not by arbitrary “free spirits.” This is often missed by those who write about Day, as if she was merely a rebel whose political anarchism (which developed into a deep Christian  personalism) translated into an anti-episcopal attitude. They don’t understand that Day’s life makes no sense unless you first understand she centered it around Christ and His Church. Belief in the reality of the supernatural, the reliability of the Scriptures, the power of the sacraments, the efficacy of prayer, the binding truth of the magisterium as communicated by the pope and bishops in union with him–these are the things that motivated Day to act on behalf of the poor and for peace, not worldly ideology.

Alas, Day’s life continues to be viewed—constantly but mistakenly—through the lens of secularism. Her cause has become a political football. The New York Times, the New Yorker, and more than a few “progressive” Catholics have all tried to appropriate day for the Left (never mind that she was a thoroughgoing opponent of birth control, abortion, homosexual activity, women priests and trendy liturgies).

But some on the Right have been no less susceptible to misreading her. Ever since she began her spiritual journey, Day has been accused of being a dreamer, a political naïf, a fifth columnist and quasi-Communist fellow traveler. It’s a mysterious charge, given that Day became a Catholic to escape from the relativism and violent materialism of the Marxist-oriented Left—and, in turn, help others avoid it themselves. The earliest days of her Catholic Worker period underscore this. The Palm Beach Post of February 14 1937, reporting on one of her speeches, described her, if anything, as an active anti-Communist: “Miss Day probably is more familiar with actual communistic activities than any other woman in America today and has proved by her practical activities the power of applied Christianity to overcome the forces of anarchy and destruction.”

Two years later, the Norwalk Hour of February 10, 1939, reported that Day would be part of a series of Catholic speakers kicked off by Fulton J. Sheen (no one’s idea of a fellow-traveller), and would be speaking about the Catholic Workers. Their movement, said the Hour,

has spread rapidly throughout the United States and abroad. Being new and different and Dorothy Day herself a convert, it is in many places suspect. It is perhaps open to some criticism, but there are few, if any, who question Dorothy Day’s sincerity and her Christ-like love of the poor.

The Catholic Worker organization believes that by opposing the abuses which make Communism flourish and by showing the positive  program of Catholic writers on social justice, they can reach the man in the street. . . .

Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker organization believe that the streets should not be left to the Communist. . . . Many strikes are Communist-led and the workers are misled to believe that the Communist solution offers justice for labor.

Day believes in combating Communism by using their own tactics [provided they are consistent with Catholic teaching]. Whether we agree with her in everything or not, she should bring us a message of special interest at this time, when there is so much unrest in the world.

These appreciative and measured comments reveal that many understood Dorothy Day long before her transcendent Christian witness became lost amidst the ideological shouting match of the secularized and hyper-politicized Left and Right.

If we want to rediscover the true Dorothy Day—the spiritually disciplined and devout one—we should go back and read her marvelous autobiography, The Long Loneliness, and All is Grace, the  best biography of her, written by longtime colleague Jim Forest. We should acquire her diaries and letters and study them, and pour over her countless articles for the Catholic Worker. If we do, we may not always agree with her prudential judgments—and sometimes strongly disagree with them—but if we believe in the truths of Christianity, and are committed Catholics, we will be inspired by the voice of a woman, who, on all things essential, stood up for Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and served our Lord and Savior exceptionally well.

Though they welcome converts to their cause, the sincerity of Romney’s evolution, from social liberalism to traditionalism, is still questioned. While many believe he has earned their trust, others haven’t been persuaded—at least not yet–and their apprehensions were heightened by a string of recent events.

First, in an interview with CBS news, shortly before the GOP convention, Romney declared: “My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother.”

As is well-known, a “health” exception for abortion can be so broadly defined as to allow for virtually any kind of abortion. (In fact, Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton made this clear).

A spokesman for the Romney campaign quickly tried to recover: “Gov. Romney’s position is clear: he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”

The “health” exception was dropped, but a number of pro-lifers weren’t altogether impressed. Catholic Culture’s Phil Lawler said of Romney:

“His campaign now says that his latest gaffe-a virtual acceptance of the Roe decision—was a misstatement of his real beliefs. But it’s the sort of misstatement that could only be made by someone who has not devoted enough attention to the issue to recognize the pitfalls in the language.”

There was more to the CBS interview:

“Romney, however, told [reporter Scott] Pelley that the issue amounts to a distraction. ‘Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court. The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts.

It’s been settled for some time in the courts.’” To which Lawler replied:

“The issue is settled, he says. Does that statement fill you with confidence that Romney would seize an opportunity to press the offensive against abortion? Does the GOP candidate sound anxious to appoint federal judges who would be likely to re-open a question that has already been settled?”

As if to underscore Lawler’s concern, Romney then delivered his convention acceptance speech, which—while well-received in some quarters–gave limited attention to social issues:

“As President, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion.”

Excellent—especially in contrast to an Administration which glaringly dishonors all three—but don’t the gravity of these issues merit more than a mere three lines?

Governor Romney had an opportunity to expand upon his moral and cultural vision for America at the recent Values Voter Summit, but chose not to attend personally. Instead, he sent a taped message in which he again pledged to “uphold the sanctity of life, “defend marriage, not try to redefine it,” and “preserve the American spirit of one nation under God.”

But, as soon as one thought he might develop those themes—which would have been natural for a values summit—Romney immediately switched back to his seemingly favorite topic, economics. (Watch his video address here.)

In a Los Angeles Times piece about Romney’s message to the values Summit, Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said that he felt Romney was gaining traction among social conservatives, despite his rocky relationship with them. Then came this revealing comment: “Perkins said the enthusiasm among social conservatives was building, which he attributed more to Obama administration policies than to Romney.” (Emphasis added).

If this election turns out to be close, Governor Romney is going to need every traditionalist vote he can to win. He can’t just expect to back into the Presidency, or assume enough people will support him because he is a successful businessman, or because he isn’t Barack Obama. Romney needs to attract conservative-minded independents and Democrats with more developed and inspiring talks about their deepest held convictions, even as he outlines and highlights his economic plans for a struggling America.

In fairness to Governor Romney, and as Hugh Hewitt shows in his admirable biography of him, the Governor can be much more than a one-dimensional “money man,” and can, in fact, speak eloquently about innocent human life and the social issues– at length and in-depth– when he chooses to. That candidate, however, hasn’t been seen much lately. The question is, when will that Mitt Romney show up in the campaign, and if he does, will it be in time to make a difference?

“What strikes me most of all in reading Chesterton is that his real audience is today’s audience. When he wrote, the things he described must have seemed fantastic to his contemporaries, but we live in a time when we’ve seen his prophecies fulfilled. I think really Chesterton therefore is a writer, a journalist, who speaks it chiefly to us. I was thinking for example of a comment he made a long time ago, when he said that the next great heresy is going to be an attack on morality, and especially on sexual morality. He said not to be so afraid of the Russians and the Bolsheviks. He said, ‘The madness of tomorrow is far more in Manhattan than in Moscow.’”

“He believed that a consumerist culture had a greater power to undermine morality than any totalitarian system. He said when real evil comes, it always comes from within.”

(For the full interview, click here.)

As Father Boyd reminds us of Chesterton’s prophetic insights, Cardinal Dolan confirms that Manhattan and indeed the entire Archdiocese of New York has become “mission territory.” (New Yorkers shouldn’t feel too isolated, since they have plenty of competition elsewhere.)

Far more than earlier times, however, Catholics have embraced the “great heresy,” so they need the New Evangelization as much as anyone. As one observer commented on Catholic Culture’s website:

“Cardinal Dolan is correct and in fact every city in the United States that has a significant Catholic population should be considered mission territory. Catholics in America are confused because they no longer know what the Church’s real position is on the key moral issues … One of the primary reasons for this confusion is the pervasive silence of the Church’s pulpits—to speak out on these key moral  issues in a fashion that is clear, loving and steadfastly Catholic. As a result, many Catholics have been led astray by a secular-oriented society, and by various high-profile Catholics who have publicly embraced and defended it. These high profile Catholics are in the government, media, academia, social services, and even the clergy/religious. It appears that Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop Charles Chaput, and other Church leaders are finally realizing the true nature and seriousness of this problem. Hopefully, this will result in the Bishops taking the lead and also directing their local parishes to boldly speak out against the forces of secularism confronting today’s Catholics. For too long the pulpits have been asleep (Bishops and local parishes). It is now time that they are awakened.”

Chesterton, one trusts, would agree.

Writing in the National Catholic Register, Father Brian Mullady makes the point well. Acknowledging that many regard excommunication as a “strange holdover from the medieval Church,” he explains why it remains as valid as ever, and can actually serve as an act of mercy: “Its intent is always to restore the offenders to truth and communion.” Dr. Edward Peters, canon lawyer and author of Excommunication and the Catholic Church, concurs, while correcting common misunderstandings people have about the measure. For example, many believe excommunication expels a Catholic from the Church and condemns that person to hell—it does neither (only God can determine a person’s ultimate fate)—but it does deprive Catholics of certain rights, and urgently calls them to reform their lives.

Of course, excommunication can be misused, and has been. Joan of Arc was famously excommunicated in the fifteenth century for political reasons, but the Church later repudiated that condemnation, and declared her a saint. More recently, Mary MacKillop (1842-1909), an extraordinary Australian nun who dedicated her life to the poor, was excommunicated by her bishop (for alleged insubordination), but was soon reinstated, and completely exonerated. In 2010, Pope Benedict canonized her.

Precisely because the penalty of excommunication is so weighty, it needs to be applied with great prudence and care—“only after all other efforts to correct a person have failed,” as Father Mullady writes–and even then, its results can be unpredictable.

Surveying the history of excommunication, one finds both successes and failures. In the early Church, St. Ambrose used the threat of excommunication to successfully compel Emperor Theodosius I to repent for his crimes against the people of Thessalonica. Similarly, in the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII excommunicated King Henry IV for his anti-papal activities, eventually leading to the King’s famous act of penance and reception of absolution at Canossa. In more recent times, Popes and bishops have publicly excommunicated (or confirmed the automatic excommunication of) modernist theologians, those who engage in schismatic acts, racial segregationists, and Catholics involved with abortions. Some of these Catholics eventually reconciled with the Church, thankfully, proving the value of excommunication.

“On the other hand,” writes Father Mullady, “the excommunication of Martin Luther, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I had little effect personally or on their followers. The use of this as a weapon created sympathy for the offender and often led to a more solid backing of dissent.” Similar risks remain today.

Still, because certain prominent and influential Catholics continue to “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” (Canon 915), many Catholics believe the penalty should be invoked more frequently. They have a case. Even if excommunication does not lead to the immediate reform of the individual involved, it can serve as a teaching moment for others. As Father Mullady notes: “Excommunication can serve as a clear statement to the faithful of the serious nature of our moral doctrine . . . For dissenters deeply involved in the public forum, failure on the part of Church authorities to provide some needed corrective is tantamount to carte blanche to the faithful to believe whatever they want. The impression is given that the truths of our religion are a smorgasbord from which one can pick and chose.”

Catholic prelates also have an obligation to do what is right for their own spiritual welfare. Just as the Lord appointed Ezekiel a “watchman for the House of Israel,” and held him accountable, so too are bishops guardians of the faithful, and accountable to God. St. Ambrose put it this way: “When a priest does not talk to a sinner, then the sinner will die in his sin, and the priest will be guilty because he failed to correct him.”

Catholic prelates who have the courage to protect the faith should be prepared for the consequences, however. Strong disciplinary measures are often met with equally fierce resistance. After the aforementioned Pope Gregory VII thought he had reconciled King Henry IV, Henry soon went back to his old ways, and incurred a second excommunication. The king then sent his armies into Rome, forcing the pontiff to flee. Gregory VII, widely regarded as among the best popes ever, was later declared a saint. He died in Salerno, with the memorable words: “I have loved justice, and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.”

All true, and those reporters who worked for those ends deserve full credit and honors. May we produce more journalists like them. But it is only fair to point out–since many media admirers do not–that many reporters within that same media often fall prey to sensational and irresponsible reporting; make unfair and even reckless allegations against innocent people; allow partisanship to overwhelm their objectivity; and, most notoriously, try to rationalize and justify the culture of death.

Rare is the mainstream reporter or columnist who is willing to repudiate the pro-choice outlook for a pro-life stand. But there are exceptions. Among them is Nat Hentoff, whom Mark Judge recently paid tribute to for his remarkable conversion:

“A famous liberal who was a staple at the Village Voice and who had a column in the Washington Post, in the 1980’s Hentoff actually let himself be swayed by evidence about abortion.”

“It happened when Hentoff was reporting on the case of Baby Jane Doe, a Long Island infant born with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which is excess fluid in the cranium. With surgery, spina bifida babies can grow up to be productive adults. Yet Baby Jane’s parents, on their doctor’s advice, had refused both surgery to close her spine and a shunt to drain the fluid from her brain. In resisting the federal government’s attempt to enforce treatment, the parents pleaded privacy.”

As Hentoff told the Washington Times in a 1989 profile, his ‘curiosity was not so much the case itself but the press coverage.’ Everyone on the media was echoing the same talking points about ‘women’s rights’ and ‘privacy.’

“Whenever I see that kind of story, where everybody agrees, I know there’s something wrong,’ Hentoff told the Times.”

Hentoff investigated the case, and the abortion industry in general, and “what he found shocked him,” writes Judge. “He came across the published reports of experiments in what doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital called ‘early death as a management option’ for infants ‘considered to have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood.’ He talked with handicapped people who could have been killed by abortion.”

When Hentoff’s pro-choice friends heard about his new pro-life convictions (which, to them, were heresies), they were aghast, but he didn’t back down: “Here were liberals, decent people, fully convinced themselves that they were for individual rights and liberties but willing to send into eternity these infants because they were imperfect, inconvenient, costly. I saw the same attitude on the part of the same kinds of people toward abortion, and I thought it was pretty horrifying.”

For voicing such views, Hentoff has become a solitary man in many liberal circles–even though, as an ardent civil libertarian, he is hardly a political or social conservative. His courage and independence on the issue of life deserves note.

Hentoff’s transformation is recounted in The Debate Since Roe: Making the Case Against Abortion 1975-2010, a powerful collection of essays from the Human Life Review, which has received excellent reviews and which other reporters could learn a great deal from.

None of which is to excuse the Vatican. If it turns out that better oversight, organization and background checks could have prevented these scandals, Catholics should be the first to broadcast that finding, and hold those responsible accountable. Self-examination and moral purity should be constant demands for any believing Catholic. The faithful do the Holy See no favors when they remain silent about suspected corruption, or prudential errors from the highest quarters of the Church. Of course, even if the Vatican overhauls its entire system, with exacting and efficient standards, that won’t guarantee against additional scandals, since temptation and sin can never be eradicated from the human heart.

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has acknowledged the need “for truth and clarity, for transparency” in investigating what happened. In his first public comments on the scandals, Pope Benedict was both humble and sensible, saying they “brought sadness” to his heart, while affirming his faith they would be overcome, and rebuking the “entirely gratuitous” speculation of the media which was presenting a “completely unrealistic image of the Holy See.”

Among those images is the idea that the Vatican is a nest of self-centered prelates, constantly bickering with one another, careening from one crisis to the next, as Pope Benedict–supposedly unable or unwilling to end the chaos—locks himself away in his private study, trying to escape from it all by writing books. “Never has the sense of disorientation in the Catholic Church reached these levels,” wrote one Italian academic dramatically in the Corriere della Sera, evidently unaware of far worse scandals in the history of the Church. Another professor, from Georgetown University, said of Benedict: “He’s a solitary scholar and he’s not interested in the bureaucracy. His real ambition seems to be to finish the third volume of his book” on Christ.

In the same story in which this comment appeared, the Reuters correspondent felt compelled to add that Benedict “has devoted considerable time in office to writing a major study entitled, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ rather than administering the Church.” (emphasis added).

Benedict, of course, is hardly incapable of multitasking, and has appointed a host of very impressive bishops (particularly in the U.S.), while also writing brilliant books for the faithful. His writings and speeches reveal him to be a deeply pastoral pope, not the remote and reactionary pontiff his detractors depict him as.

Fairness toward Benedict, however, is in short supply these days. Reuters ended its story with another hostile quote from a critic who called Benedict’s pontificate a “tin ear papacy,” adding. “This all seems to be a power game that matters only to the power players. It seems to be a Church hierarchy further distancing itself from people in the pews.”

That would come as surprising news to the one million strong believers who came to celebrate their faith with Benedict in Milan recently, in the immediate aftermath of the scandals, in a dynamic expression of solidarity.

Many believe Benedict’s papacy is going to have long-term and very positive consequences for the Church and our culture. Can one say the same about today’s mainstream media?