Magister gives his interpretation of the reactions to Cardinal Martini’s interview:

At a Vatican accustomed to the crystal-clear preaching of pope Joseph Ratzinger, with the truth of heavenly and earthly things carved out neatly each time with a fine chisel, the ten pages of doubts, hypotheses, and “gray areas” of cardinal Carlo Maria Martini in dialogue with bioethicist Ignazio Marino published in last week’s edition of “L’espresso” came like the manifesto of an antipope.

Ah, subtlety!

The Italian bishops’ conference, CEI, at which Martini, though absent for two years, has been the guest of stone in opposition to cardinal president Camillo Ruini, has opted for silence. Ruini, caught at close quarters on Friday, April 21, when “L’espresso” had been on the newsstands for a few hours, brusquely pushed the microphone aside. “Avvenire,” the newspaper of the CEI, restricted its coverage of the news to a small inside article, purged of all of the controversial topics. The only official of the CEI who has expressed himself publicly is bishop Dante Lafranconi, whose interview is reproduced below.

But the sparks are flying in private. And to retrace the criticisms that cardinals and bishops are directing against Martini, but do not want to propose personally and out loud, one must follow a somewhat tortuous path.

In the piece, Magister reproduces an editorial by Pietro De Marco, a professor at the university of Florence and at the theological faculty of central Italy:

Cardinal Martini’s positions may not, in themselves, diverge seriously from the ordinary magisterium. They are cautiously “permissive” on individual cases – which is the practice of the confessor. And here lies the problem that the cardinal does not seem to grasp: his considerations lack, in spite of their refinement and thoughtfulness, the distinction between the norm that is part of the constitution and teaching office of the Church on the one hand, and on the other the “epikeia,” the prudential, subjective, charitable judgment, which belongs to the order of jurisdiction, of the external and internal forum, and of penitential practice.

The cardinal seems not to see – perhaps he does not intend to emphasize – the special function of norms with respect to the “formation of consciences.” Norms cannot be substituted, and they include prohibitions. So it seems exquisitely utopian-moralistic to suggest that the formation of the conscience should prevail over the law in the teaching of the Church. Norms and the individual conscience are simultaneously inseparable and marked by reciprocal transcendence.

So who gains by charging the bioethics conflict with being founded on pretext, or even “opportunist”? Of course, one can think of removing reasons and emotions from the active resistance that the Catholic hierarchy and culture bring against liberal-radical “modernizations.” Whether or not the two conversants wanted to weaken a Catholic subjectivity they do not appreciate, the damage produced even by the mere embarrassment created in Rome by cardinal Martini’s interview is evident.

But even greater is the damage that his “openness,” however cautious, can provoke on the stability of the pro-life consensus and on the consequent decision of many Christians and of significant secular minorities to give battle on this terrain.