disband the student group as is generally thought. He used a technique that was central to his philosophy. He firmly believed that you could radically alter power groups by identifying the precise centre of power and removing it. So he simply removed the priest who was advising the student group.
In reality, as Father Mario Senigaglia confirmed to me, Luciani’s personal view on divorce would have surprised his critics:
It was more enlightened than popular comment would have it. He could and did accept divorcees. He also easily accepted others who were living in what the Church calls ‘sin’. What outraged him was the biblical justification.
As Luciani had prophesied, the referendum resulted in a majority for the pro-divorce lobby. It left a split Church, a Pope who publicly expressed his amazement and incredulity at the result, and a dilemma for those who had to reconcile the differences between Church and State.
Luciani’s own dilemma was that he was committed to an unswerving obedience to the Papacy. Often the Pope would take a different position from that held by the Patriarch of Venice. When that position became public, Luciani felt it his duty publicly to support it. What he did on a one-to-one basis with members of his diocese frequently bore no resemblance to the Vatican line. By the mid-1970s he had moved even further towards a liberal position on birth control. This man, who upon the announcement of
Humanae Vitae
had allegedly declared ‘Rome has spoken. The case is closed,’ clearly felt that the case was far from closed.
When his young secretary Father Mario Senigaglia discussed with Luciani, with whom he had developed an almost father-son relationship, different moral cases involving parishioners, Luciani always approved the liberal view that Senigaglia took. Senigaglia said to me, ‘He was a very understanding man. Very many times I would hear him say to couples. “We have made of sex the only sin when in fact it is linked to human weakness and frailty and is therefore perhaps the least of sins”.’
It is clear that Albino Luciani did not want for critics in Venice. Some considered that he revealed a nostalgia for the past rather than a desire for change. Some labelled him to the right, others to the left. Others saw his humility and gentleness as mere weakness. Perhaps posterity should judge the man on what he actually said rather than on what others thought he should have said.
On violence:
Strip God away from the hearts of men, tell children that sin is only a fairy tale invented by their grandparents to make them good, publish elementary school texts that ignore God and scoff at authority, and then don’t be surprised at what is happening. Education alone is not enough! Victor Hugo wrote that one more school means one less prison. Would that that were so today!
On Israel:
The church must also think of the Christian minorities who live in Arab countries. She cannot abandon them to fortune . . . for me personally, there is no doubt that a special tie exists between the people of Israel and Palestine. But the Holy Father, even if he wanted to, could not say that Palestine belongs to the Jews, since this would be to make a political judgment.
On nuclear weapons:
People say that nuclear weapons are too powerful and to use them would mean the end of the world. They are manufactured and accumulated, but only to ‘dissuade’ the enemy from attacking and to keep the international situation stable.
Look around. Is it true or not that for 30 years there has not been a world war?
Is it true or not that serious crises between the two great powers, the USA and the USSR have been avoided?
Let’s be happy over this partial result . . . A gradual, controlled and universal disarmament is possible only if an international organization with more efficient powers and possibilities for sanctions than the present United Nations comes into being and if education for peace
In reality, as Father Mario Senigaglia confirmed to me, Luciani’s personal view on divorce would have surprised his critics:
It was more enlightened than popular comment would have it. He could and did accept divorcees. He also easily accepted others who were living in what the Church calls ‘sin’. What outraged him was the biblical justification.
As Luciani had prophesied, the referendum resulted in a majority for the pro-divorce lobby. It left a split Church, a Pope who publicly expressed his amazement and incredulity at the result, and a dilemma for those who had to reconcile the differences between Church and State.
Luciani’s own dilemma was that he was committed to an unswerving obedience to the Papacy. Often the Pope would take a different position from that held by the Patriarch of Venice. When that position became public, Luciani felt it his duty publicly to support it. What he did on a one-to-one basis with members of his diocese frequently bore no resemblance to the Vatican line. By the mid-1970s he had moved even further towards a liberal position on birth control. This man, who upon the announcement of
Humanae Vitae
had allegedly declared ‘Rome has spoken. The case is closed,’ clearly felt that the case was far from closed.
When his young secretary Father Mario Senigaglia discussed with Luciani, with whom he had developed an almost father-son relationship, different moral cases involving parishioners, Luciani always approved the liberal view that Senigaglia took. Senigaglia said to me, ‘He was a very understanding man. Very many times I would hear him say to couples. “We have made of sex the only sin when in fact it is linked to human weakness and frailty and is therefore perhaps the least of sins”.’
It is clear that Albino Luciani did not want for critics in Venice. Some considered that he revealed a nostalgia for the past rather than a desire for change. Some labelled him to the right, others to the left. Others saw his humility and gentleness as mere weakness. Perhaps posterity should judge the man on what he actually said rather than on what others thought he should have said.
On violence:
Strip God away from the hearts of men, tell children that sin is only a fairy tale invented by their grandparents to make them good, publish elementary school texts that ignore God and scoff at authority, and then don’t be surprised at what is happening. Education alone is not enough! Victor Hugo wrote that one more school means one less prison. Would that that were so today!
On Israel:
The church must also think of the Christian minorities who live in Arab countries. She cannot abandon them to fortune . . . for me personally, there is no doubt that a special tie exists between the people of Israel and Palestine. But the Holy Father, even if he wanted to, could not say that Palestine belongs to the Jews, since this would be to make a political judgment.
On nuclear weapons:
People say that nuclear weapons are too powerful and to use them would mean the end of the world. They are manufactured and accumulated, but only to ‘dissuade’ the enemy from attacking and to keep the international situation stable.
Look around. Is it true or not that for 30 years there has not been a world war?
Is it true or not that serious crises between the two great powers, the USA and the USSR have been avoided?
Let’s be happy over this partial result . . . A gradual, controlled and universal disarmament is possible only if an international organization with more efficient powers and possibilities for sanctions than the present United Nations comes into being and if education for peace
Similar Books
