Archive for March, 2007


Samuele Bacchiocchi Round 4?

March 14, 2007

In his latest newsletter: ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 167 “The Achievements of the Cross – Part 2” Bacchiocchi lets us know that there has (at last been a response) to his request for the Pontifical Gregorian University to respond to what he has deemed false allegations.
“Those who have read my 50 pages response to the false allegations made against me by the General Secretary of the Pontifical Gregorian University, (Click Here to view) will be pleased to learn that finally I did receive an official and gracious letter dated February 23, 2007, from Gianfranco Ghirlanda, the Rector (President) of the Pontifical Gregorian University.
The letter is written in a cordial, irenic tone. In a masterful way, Rector Ghirlanda apologizes for some of the incorrect statements made by the General Secretary of the Gregoriana in a letter dated June 11, 2004, but on the other hand he defends the accuracy of some other statements.
Regarding the false allegation that I never received summa cum laude and the Pope’s Gold Medal, Rector Ghirlanda explains that the General Secretary meant that I did not receive these awards for the doctoral degree. He writes: “In her letter to Bishop Murray (of Kalamazoo), Dr. Bergami does not say that you never received a summa cum laude or a gold medal of Pope Paul VI, in as much as the letter was limited to the doctorate as its immediate object.” He goes on admitting that “In fact, you received the summa cum laude for the Licentiate, having earned the overall grade of 9.6, and for that distinction you received the gold medal with the figure of Pope Paul VI.”
I appreciate Rector Ghirlanda’s attempts to limit the statements of the General Secretary, Dr. Barbara Bergami, to the doctoral degree, but this is not the way her statements have been understood by the thousand of websites that defame me for falsely claiming to have received summa cum laude and a gold medal of Pope Paul VI.
Dr. Bergami simply wrote: “He did not receive summa from the Gregorian as he maintains.” This broad statement without qualification, suggests that my academic performance was not very good. This is confirmed by the “priest investigator” who wrote: “He never received a summa cum laude. . . . Also, FYI, his grades were not very good here.” Obviously this allegation is false, since I received 9.4 for the Baccaloreatus which qualified me for the magna cum laude and a silver medal, 9.6 for the Licentia which qualified me for the summa cum laude and a gold medal, and 9.2 for the doctoratus which qualified me for the magna cum laude.
The reason I failed to explain that I received the summa cum laude and the gold medal for the Licentia, is twofold. First, the Licentia is an essential part of the doctoral program. It represents the completion of all the doctoral class work and the defence of an abridged version of the doctoral dissertation. This gives seminarians the license or authorization to teach in Catholic seminaries. Second, very few people in the English-speaking world, would understand the distinction between the Licentia and the Doctoratus. The fact is that I received the academic distinctions of magna or summa cum laude for all the three phases of the doctoral program.
Regarding the publication of my dissertation, Rector Ghirlanda apologizes for the inaccurate statement contained in Dr. Bergami’s letter to Bishop Murray of Kalamazoo. He writes: “With regard to the publication of the doctoral thesis, I do wish to correct what is stated in the letter to Bishop Murray (‘He was not allowed to publish his dissertation in whole). Both the Director of the thesis, Prof. Vincenzo Monachino, and the second reader, Prof. Martinez-Fazio, certified that the thesis could be published, without being submitted to a second review, in part (Chapters IV, V, or VII) or in its entirety, indicating at the same time a series of obligatory corrections in their written judgement. . . . I apologize for this mistake, in the name of the University” (bold in the original).This apology is very important for me, because it puts to rest the false allegation I was allowed to publish only one chapter of my dissertation because “the dissertation had too many problems.” The fact is that I was allowed to publish both the abridged and unabridged versions of my dissertation because there was no need to submit for a “second review.”
Due to time constraints, I will limit myself to above few comments. I plan to prepare a fuller response and to post the scanned letter of Rector Ghirlanda at my website. Interested readers will soon find the full dialogue and documentation at my website.
I would like to express my gratitude to Rector Ghirlanda for taking time to examine my response and rectify some of the false allegations. Though some allegations still remain unresolved, in the spirit of Christian forgiveness I consider the case closed.

It seems that errors and misjudgements were made on both sides. At the very least, Bacchiocchi’s quest for self promotion led him to stretch the truth regarding his gold medal.

For those readers unaware, Bacchiocchi was recently diagnosed with colon cancer. He has more recently been diagnosed with liver cancer. I’d like to wish him and his family well in this battle.

My previous posts on this issue appear here, here, and here.


IRLA World Congress

March 2, 2007

Greetings from the 6th International Religious Liberty Association World Congress in Cape Town, South Africa.

First comment–way too many suits–don’t you guys know how to relax? Guess its my casual Australian side coming to the fore. I’m in a very small minority not wearing a suit; and an eve smaller minority of the tieless. Since there are those in their national dress–West Africa, Iran etc, I’m declaring Etnies, khaki pants & a casual shirt my national dress. My related observation is that the vast majority of delegates are male. Yes there are women present, but definitely in the minority, & many are attending as the spouses of delegates rather than in their own right (I can tell because of the various coloured tags we all wear.)

A number of the presentations have been excellent, some very brief highlights follow:

  • Every human right has a limit–the rights of others. Rik Torfs (Past Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium) also made the comment that limitations themselves must be limited”.
  • John G. W. (Anglican Priest in Cape Town) a panel presentation yesterday pointed out that “exclusivism is in direct contradiction to religious liberty”. He also made the comment that “religious liberty demands serious theological RE-thinking”.
  • Cole Durham (Brigham Young University) discussed APPROPRIATE restrictions on religious liberty, stating that “such restrictions must arise out of a concern for the human dignity of others”. Furthermore, “the point of these restrictions is to enable other communities to feel secure”.
  • Robert Seiple (ex US ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom) discussed the question of tolerance and exclusivity–is it possible to hold exclusive beliefs (one way to salvation for example) and be truly tolerant of others? His answer–there is a need for great humility concerning even our most closely held beliefs.
  • Veteran Bert Beach(Secretary General Emeritus of the IRLA who has attended every IRLA Congress including the first in 1977) stated that “Freedom and Fundamentalism are mutually exclusive”. He defined Fundamentalism in simple terms as being resolutely opposed to change and pluralism.
  • In the first break-out session I attended – “The American Experiment With Religious Freedom”, there was lively discussion amongst the panel & the other attendees. Panelist Lincoln Steed pointed out that that the US Constitution should not be seen as the origin of US religious freedom–but rather, as an expression of it. Another panelist, Nicholas Miller noted that in his opinion, the US was in the process of changing the philosophical basis for its support of religious liberty from a rights based approach to a position of tolerance based in paternalism; following 9-11.
  • Mitch Tyner (past IRLA legal counsel ) noted that it was up to the various faith traditions to “police” their own traditions & point out abuses of interpretation etc. Christians must therefore challenge fundamentalist Christians who espouse violence in any farm–“How dare you use the image of the Prince of peace to justify any form of violence?”
  • Vaughn James (Professor of Law at Texas Tech) pointed out that in his opinion, tolerance is the attitude that “I’ll grin & bear it, but I don’t love it—or even like it!” “Tolerance is a bad thing. The opposite of intolerance must be something better than tolerance. I’d like to suggest that the opposite of intolerance (and tolerance) is love.” James finished by quoting Bob Marley: “One Love!/One Heart!/ Let’s get together and feel all right!” Easily the most enjoyable presentation (dare I say–sermon?) of the Congress.
  • Ebrahim Rasool (The Premier of the Western Cape)–a practising Muslim gave an excellent presentation on how societal harmony can only be guaranteed if there is acceptance and tolerance of one another. He quoted John Kenneth Galbraith–considered to be one of the most significant American economists–“The more uncertain we become, the more dogmatic we become”.
  • The Congress for me ended on a sour note–in the final prayer offered by Clive Dottin (Director of Adventist chaplaincy ministries, PARL, and youth for the Caribbean Union Conference–though he is listed only as the Secretary General of the Caribbean RLA in the program–more on that in a moment. Clive’s prayer was sectarian & unacceptable at an interfaith meeting. It was embarrassing. It contained the phrase, “You cannot know unconditional love, unless you know the unconditional lover…In the name of Jehovah Jireh, The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, Amen.” How is this at all appropriate?

Maulvi Wahab Adam speaking

It was clear that the meetings were “a front for the SDA Church” in the words of one presenter (an SDA himself). The very few non-SDAs present were there mainly as presenters. It clearly had a Christian bias & the lack of non-SDA attendees was greatly disappointing. Perhaps we should face realities–the IRLA is SDA through & through (yes I’m aware the current President is a Baptist–Though I’m reasonably certain that all the other personnel are SDAs.) & we should stop pretending its not. The regional directors are all SDAs as far as I’m aware & the IRLA’s geographic divisions correspond to the Divisions of the SDA church. (The South American’s even slipped up in their video presentation & used the term “division”!) Isn’t it misleading to pretend otherwise?

I wonder also about some noticible absences–such as that of Amnesty International. Amnesty is the foremost organization defending human rights–including the right of religious freedom–and it was sad that they had not presence there.

You can check out the official website of the IRLA at: There will be copies of many of the various presentations available for download on the site. There are also .pdf copies of the IRLA’s journal Fides et Libertas also.

Other resources include Liberty magazine: (SDA) and the International association for religious fReedom (non-SDA) at:

A list of online organizations can be found at: