Vatican, Wall Street Journal dismiss world's worries - Column

National Catholic Reporter, Sept 30, 1994 by Thomas E. Blackburn

On Sept. 1, to my surprise, I read an essay by Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the Vatican spokesman. The surprise was not due to reading it or (much) to what it said but, rather, where it appeared.

The essay, "The Courage to Speak Bluntly," was part paean to the courage of Navarro-Valls' boss, Pope John Paul II, part foaming at the pen about homosexuality and mostly, by intention, an argument for the Vatican's obstructionist tactics at the U.N. Conference on Population and Development.

Leaving aside the sycophancy and frothing, translating Vatican Gothic into English and footnoting where appropriate, I generally agree with Navarro-Valls, whom The Wall Street Journal editorial page addresses as "Dr."

And that is, indeed, where I read it. Which automatically raises the question: Why should I agree at all?

The Journal's editorial page, presided over by one Robert W. Bartley, is the spokespage for one wing of the conservative movement of the Republican Party. It is just as faithful to its sponsors as Navarro-Valls is to his. In uneasy coexistence with reality and the news sections of its own newspaper, the editorial page pounds the drums for the proposition that those who have much should have it all and those who have little should give it to those who have much.

The editorialists oppose taxes not only because they take from the rich but because they reduce the amount the poor have left to turn over to the rich. They oppose regulation because it interferes with the natural flow of money upward. They oppose government programs because the poor might get something from them. I am a regular reader.

Material written for the page to accompany their well-crafted editorials usually, but not always, supports their position. Economist Herbert Stern is permitted to write things that one wishes Mr. Bartley would take to heart. But more typical is the piece that occupied the space before Navarro-Valls used it. Admitted, convicted and pardoned liar Elliot Abrams on Aug. 31 outlined his proposals for U.S. aggression against Cuba.

I feel pretty aggressive against Fidel Castro myself, but not because he failed to read Milton Friedman.

The Journal's editorialists' objections to the U.N. population conference are that: (a) Democrats are illicitly determining the U.S. position; (b) it smacks of social engineering; and (c) the United Nations is holding it. The Vatican's different objections are prolixly stated by Navarro-Valls.

The confluence in their thinking is best shown in one paragraph in the essay. It's the paragraph that would have kept most newspapers from running the piece. So it shows what people will think for ideology.

"First of all there is said to be, however much disputed on empirical grounds, a world population crisis. In this doubtful view, the need to control population ..."

The Vatican and the Journal may be right in doubting the population crisis, but they are about the only ones who do. Even the Vatican's other odd allies at the population conference, Muslim fundamentalists, admit things are getting a bit crowded in Cairo.

I suspect that much of the hyperventilation over the population crisis is motivated by a desire to avoid the personal inconveniences of dealing with it. But that's not to say it isn't there, which is difficult to do in the face of so much expert testimony that it is.

In any event, the way to engage the world in dialogue is not to start by doubting away what it's worried about.

On the day Journal readers were getting Navarro-Valls' doubts and strictures in undiluted form, the general media were reporting a news conference in which he called Vice President Gore a liar. Gore had said the United States isn't trying to legislate abortion for the world. Using a special Vatican charism that allows him to read minds from 7,000 miles away, Navarro-Valls pronounced Gore's statement to be signification contrary to Gore's mind.

Bartley probably wondered what else Navarro-Valls expected from a Democrat.

That was not the first time the Journal's editorial page was opened for a Vatican spin on Vatican news. The day Pope John Paul's Centesimus Annus was released, the Journal had a loving analysis declaring the encyclical in full conformity to the Journal's own basic theses (see above).

Vatican diplomacy has always been comfortable with organs of those who consider the lilies of the field because they own all the fields. Such organs were a rarity in this country until recently. That explains why it seemed strange to find the Vatican spokesman discoursing at length in a journal of financial speculation.

I know the Vatican's position. I know the Journal's agenda. Worrying about what to think of seeing them coincide on this issue has used up all the space I could have used to translate Navarro-Valls into English I could agree with.

Wonder how a Quayle button will look on a chasuble.