Vatican Radio: Cheri Blair as “devout Catholic”. Interesting.

Marconi also nods.

From Catholic Culture on something from Vatican Radio, still under the director of the papal spokeman Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ.

Vatican Radio pays tribute to ‘devout Catholic’ Cherie Blair
October 18, 2011
In an interview devoted largely to Cherie Blair’s charitable works, Vatican Radio characterized the wife of the former British prime minister as a “devout Catholic” and neglected to refer to her repeated criticism of Catholic moral teaching.

During the 15-minute interview, Blair discussed the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women, called for a greater role for women in the Church, and paid tribute to missionary and teaching sisters.

This Cheri Blair?

Cherie Blair

Technorati Tags: , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Lighter fare, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Vatican Radio: Cheri Blair as “devout Catholic”. Interesting.

  1. Ben Trovato says:

    Yes, that Cherie Blair – the one who promotes contraception and abortion, credits contraception with her own success, and is married to Tony Blair, the chap who used to try to run this country and was a prominent anti-life politician, who was received into the Catholic Church without recanting any of his anti-life words or actions…. If she’s a devout Catholic, I’m a teetotaller!

  2. Fabrizio says:

    The poor! Do not forget the poor! For instance shut down Vatican Radio and use all its budget for the poor. We’ll won’t be tempted to leave and go look for another H. Mass the next time we’re treated to the 92145849327th homily scolding family men and hard working moms in the pews with many children for their “greedy” lifestyles and their “consumerism” as “the poor” suffer deprivation and destitution.

  3. marknelza says:

    In amazing that, in this time of instant access to almost any information one could possibly need via the internet, that media often fails to do their research properly first. Especially Vatican Radio, who, by virtue of the name “Vatican”, most Catholics would readily accept as the truth, nothing but the whole truth! Come on Catholic media, upstage your secular colleagues, by doing your homework before jumping at a story.

  4. Supertradmum says:

    I am amazed. She and Tony attacked publicly the Pope in 2009 over condoms, AIDS, and homosexuals. But, for a long time, have we not seen the erosion of common sense and real Catholic reporting coming out of the Vatican media?

    It is the age of mediocrity in the media everywhere.

  5. “Vatican Radio, still under the director of the papal spokeman Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ.” Yes, well…

  6. doodler says:

    I’m saddened to see such personal abuse directed against anyone.

  7. Ygnacia says:

    I suppose nowadays, a ‘devout’ Catholic is one that attends Mass with any regularity. Wow.

  8. TNCath says:

    Sometimes I wonder if Vatican Radio and L’Osservatore Romano actually keep up with what is going on in the world.

  9. Father G says:

    I just noticed something:

    If you listen to the interview at the following link, you will hear the words “devout Catholic” used to introduce Cherie Blair: http://212.77.9.15/audiomp3/00284829.MP3 The interview begins at 13:15.

    But if you listen to the same interview at this link, the word “devout” has been edited out: http://212.77.9.15/audiomp3/00284983.MP3

    Both links are from the Vatican Radio website.

  10. DisturbedMary says:

    Another SJ moment….

  11. avecrux says:

    Maybe next week they can do a special on “devout Catholic” Nancy Pelosi…. or Joe Biden… or Dick Durbin… or…. hang on – could they talk to Rick Santorum?

  12. benedetta says:

    The article says that

    “..she spoke to participants at a recent conference in Rome organized by the Women’s Studies Institute at the Pontifical Atheneum Regina Apostolorum. Mrs. Blair said she was surprised and pleased to learn that such an institute exists…”

    I think we have to take into account that many seemingly accomplished women of high stature of a generation have possibly taken quite a lot of the falsehoods and deceptions about the Church, the Holy Father, and more as dogma supporting a way of life and career and may increasingly realize that there is a great deal they were not aware of or accepted a bitter and false rendition of in advancing career and stature. Also we have to give some room for the hope and possibility that such persons, when the truth about various statements or wrong assumptions is pointed out, evolve, change, convert, develop, update, grow, and allow them the leeway to do that gracefully and mercifully. I do hope though that her work for women doesn’t premise itself as valuable because of an enshrined right to terminate a child’s existence in the womb and that her Foundation is able to respect women’s dignity and the Church’s advocacy for that.

  13. irishgirl says:

    Vatican Radio and L’Osservatore Romano really have no clue…..
    ‘Another SJ moment….’-right on, DisturbedMary!

  14. Christopher says:

    Oh come on, it’s not quite as absurd as this claim to devotedness (yes, it’s work safe):
    http://icydk.com/2007/04/18/jenna-jameson-my-secret-cancer-struggle/

  15. bennedetta, that’s not quite the point here. the point is not whether CB was duped by modernism, maybe she was. the point is, why would L’OR hold her up as model of Catholic feminism. exactly how far does the “i was duped” excuse run?

  16. benedetta says:

    Hello Dr. Peters, The lifesite article was from a couple years back. I was wondering whether or not there were any recent statements stating the same tired misconceptions and abortion based supposed equality or anything from the Foundation she heads up. I suppose L’Or was running an article about her speaking to the Women’s Studies Institute which presumably extended an invitation.

    Perhaps since she gave those rabid statements a few years back she has had a change of heart and no longer wishes to urge others to think and say false or hostile things about the Holy Father and the Church.

    Her Foundation’s work may be exemplary for its work, it is not easy to tell from this article alone what areas it is involved in on behalf of women internationally, and perhaps her decision to speak at this Intitute’s invitation signals for her some interest in being reconciled with the body which she labeled falsely.

    As far as why would L’Or do this or that, one could similarly ask, why do certain Catholics involved in media and politics pander to a bigoted viewpoint and harp on it almost constantly. But, as it is with former Speaker of the House Pelosi, here it is the same: the generation of children lost do in fact matter, they matter to the mothers and they matter to everyone, and they matter to God. This is a far better feminism than the politically popular one which styles itself as owing existence in the first place to the “right to kill” the unborn.

  17. Lily says:

    Father G, that is hilarious. If you listen closely, the announcer actually says, “She’s also a’d– Catholic.” I think they did the best they could on the editing. :)

  18. Supertradmum says:

    I suggest that readers who either think that Ms. Blair is a real Catholic, or that she is a model for us all, should read her autobiography, Speaking for Myself, in which she admits using contraceptives and writes about sex in her pre-married life in a rather cavalier manner. Remember also, that she and Tony renewed their marriage vows in a Hindu ceremony a few years ago, rather than in a Catholic Mass. Why defend this person?

  19. John Nolan says:

    Those like Cherie Blair with left-liberal leanings who are also practising Catholics are in something of a quandary. It’s easier for conservatives to reconcile their view of society with that of the Church. Tony Blair could not vote ‘pro-life’ and remain leader of the Labour Party; he always claimed that he was against abortion but had no right to impose his views on everyone else. Tory MPs can and do speak and vote according according to their consciences, and if the ‘metrosexual’ David Cameron tries to sell gay marriage to his party he is going to run into trouble.

    Mrs Blair is a competent, though far from outstanding barrister specializing in human rights law; she owes her public profile to the fact that she was the wife of a prime minister, something she exploited shamelessly. Though some claim she is more intelligent than her husband, she is no intellectual. I can’t see why any Catholic institution should want to solicit her opinions and presumably pay for the privilege (the Blairs have a certain reputation for money-grubbing). What she says in public can and should be criticized, but I would hesitate to call anyone a bad Catholic, being all too well aware of my own shortcomings.

  20. Okay, benedetta. I don’t disagree with most of what you say, I just think it’s missing the point here. I think L’OR should be held to a higher standard of smarts than, well, nearly everybody else, but that might be just be me.

  21. Martial Artist says:

    @Dr. Peters,

    Please rest assured that it isn’t “just you!” I am in wholehearted agreement with you on the standards to which L’OR should be held, and I seriously doubt that it is just the two of us (or even three of us, by which I include our blessed presbyteral host).

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  22. benedetta says:

    The L’Osservatore wrote a story about a person of notoriety who is leading an international foundation who was invited to speak at a Pontifical institute. If we ask why the press organization is covering it then we must also ask why she was invited to this institute if she has indeed chosen to stand by the admittedly hurtful and false statements she said some years ago about the Holy Father and our Church after her husband has left office. I am just wondering, admittedly, ‘aloud’, not at all to take issue with the concerns stated here but truly whether she has changed her views since. It does say that she was “surprised” and one wonders whether there are other things she may be surprised to learn. As Edward Peters says, I guess it could fall under the “was duped” category but still we should also ask about the other sort of coercion or conditioning at work especially towards persons involved in politics. Maybe I am wrong. But I suspect that there is a reason why in this country one political party prohibits the full expression of the range and diversity of opinions which naturally exist with respect to the problem of a generations lost to abortion and that very party is known for officials who wish to be known as Catholics yet at the same time will not only advocate for increased abortion but also on occasion express pretty serious falsehoods about the Church and the Holy Father.

    If the level of coercion directed at people just living their lives and opposed to abortion has become onerous and palpable, it stands to reason that the pressure imposed is likely quite acute when it comes to those in public life.

    It is true that many women regret having had abortions. It is also true that women come to regret advocating for more and more of it, especially through supporting or sponsoring legislation or by doing any number of other things which have not been constructive to society as a whole let alone the ’cause’.