You probably missed it last week, but Sali Berisha, the prime minister of Albania, has formally requested the Indian government to “return Mother Teresa’s remains” before August 2010, the 100th anniversary of her birth.  Berisha also asked France to return the remains of Ahmet Zog, who reigned as King of Albania from 1928 to 1939.

We’ll get back to Zog in a moment, but let’s start with Mother Teresa.  There’s just one tiny little problem with Berisha’s request:  although she was ethnically Albanian, she was born in Skopje, Macedonia.  Nothing like angering the Macedonians, which has a significant Albanian minority (who haven’t necessarily been regarded warmly by their compatriots) and which has had a major diplomatic dispute with Greece over its name since its birth.

The Indian Government was matter-of-fact in its response to Berisha’s request, saying that  “Mother Teresa was an Indian citizen and she is resting in her own country, her own land.” The spokesperson for the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa’s Catholic missionary, was a bit less circumspect, calling the request “absurd.”  The Conference of Catholic Bishops in India also stated Mother Teresa’s remains should remain in India.  Yet Berisha seems not to be bothered by these rebukes, saying that negotiations about her return would be intensified this year.

Then there’s Berisha’s request for King Zog’s remains, which borders on surreal.  Before (or since) Zog, Albania has had no history of monarchical rule.  In July 1928, then-President Ahmet Muhtar Bey Zogolli pushed a weak government to call elections for a constitutional assembly, which promptly created a constitutional hereditary monarchy and declared him Zog I, King of Albanians.

Zog ruled Albania for most of the interwar period, before fleeing during Italy’s 1939 invasion.  He never returned, moving from London to Cairo to Paris (with an abortive attempt to live in the U.S.).  In 1961, he died in Paris, where he is buried in the Thiasis Cemetery in a family plot.  He did leave a heir, “King” Leka, but a 1997 voter referendum soundly rejected reinstatement of the monarchy.

I called the French for a comment on Berisha’s demand but they were too busy laughing to be able to answer any of our questions.

Didn’t Charlie and I just blog about Albania being a strong candidate to provide ports for U.S. ships for a new U.S. security missile system in Europe?  Shouldn’t Albania focus on its new responsibilities to NATO and drill down on the necessary requirements for Council of Europe so it can join its EU neighbors?

But nooo.  It takes a lot to out-wacky the rest of the Balkans.  It’s not like the region hasn’t had more than its share of oddities.   It is not everyday that a government manages to create a diplomatic incident and look deeply stupid all at once.  As Balkan schlock goes, this is a a pretty superb can of crazy, something straight out of Monty Python.

Which is not that surprising, given that King Zog jokes were a regular feature of Monty Python’s Flying Circus:

Just how are the police combating the increase with the use of the occult? Ex-King Zog of Albania reports …(phone rings) Well we seem to have lost ex-King Zog there, but who cares.

Who cares, indeed.  Perhaps Prime Minister Berisha should spend less time on stunts and more on things that really matter.

Like trying to get somebody — anybody — to take the remains of Enver Hoxha off his hands.

Related posts

• Incredibly Bad Idea of the Day
• Five to Watch: The Rest of the World
• Will China Force Pakistan’s Hand?
• Where are the Media? Where is the Outrage?
• Whazzup to All the Ladies Hangin’ out in Mumbai

So the Pope wants a world government:

Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called for a radical rethinking of the global economy, criticizing a growing divide between rich and poor and urging the establishment of a “world political authority” to oversee the economy and work for the “common good.” . . .

More than two years in the making, “Caritas in Veritate,” or “Charity in Truth,” is Benedict’s third encyclical since he became pope in 2005. Filled with terms like “globalization,” “market economy,” “outsourcing,” “labor unions” and “alternative energy,” it is not surprising that the Italian media reported that the Vatican was having difficulty translating the 144-page document into Latin. . . .

Benedict also called for a reform of the United Nations so that there can be a unified “global political body” that allows the less powerful of the earth to have a voice, and called on rich nations to help less fortunate ones.

“In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all,” he wrote. . . .

Arguably the most environmentally-conscious pope in history, Benedict wrote that, “One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based on a realization that the notion of ‘efficiency’ is not value-free.”

In line with what he calls “respecting the intrinsic value of creation,” he also decried stem cell research, abortion and euthanasia.

So let me get this straight.  Benedict thinks we need a strong world government to regulate the excesses of the economy.  And address the plight of the world’s poorest and most disadvantaged.  And fix the environment.  And outlaw abortion and stem cell research.

Just a bit of a mixed message there, your holiness.  I guess we’re talking about a nunny state rather than a nanny state.

It will be interesting to see how some conservatives react to this.  Some of those who most ardently support the Pope’s stance on abortion also view the UN as a mortal threat to American sovereignty.  Will they change their mind if, as the pope appears to imply, black helicopters were used to shut down abortion clinics?

For the past decade, the Catholic Church in the United States has had conservative leaders who threaten to excommunicate any Catholic politician who is pro-choice.  Will they now also threaten to excommunicate any Catholic politician who is anti-UN?  Or votes to cut funding for the developing world?  Or is in the pocket of Big Oil?  Or who supports the death penalty?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Related posts

• Wonk’d: Why the UN Human Rights Council Blows
• Wonk’d: What’s Right with the United Nations
• Wonk’d: What’s Wrong with the United Nations
• While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia
• When Stupidity Strikes

A few years ago, my family gathered for my mother’s 85th birthday.   It was a nice get together — my brother, sister, and I don’t have the chance to be in the same zip code very often.  But as is the case with most siblings, we have our differences.  My sister and I tend to be much more progressive and my brother is quite conservative — and an incredibly devout Catholic.

I have no problem with that, though I strongly disagree with him on most (but not all) issues.  But during this particular get-together, we somehow got into a discussion of the Catholic church and World War II.  I had just read Hitler’s Pope, John Cornwell’s history of Pope Pius XII’s relationship with Nazi Germany, and suggested that that Pope had not necessarily acquitted himself well.  To say my brother vehemently disagreed was an understatement.  I’m guessing that, to this day, he would argue that I don’t know what I’m talking about, and to this day, I continue to believe he is in denial about the dark side of Catholic history.

Unfortunately, he’s not the only one.  Pope Benedict isn’t so good either.

Just to be clear, the Catholic Church has, over the past several decades, played an important role in promoting human rights — it has, particularly under the leadership of Pope John Paul II, who may have done more to end authoritarian rule in Eastern Europe than any other individual.  The Church has, since Vatican II, had a series of popes willing to speak out on behalf of the poor and the dispossed, those victimized by dictatorial rule and those suffering from the horrors of war.

But if it would be incorrect to paint the Church as a negative influence on world events, it would be as profoundly mistaken to suggest that it has been only a force for good.  In some ways, the Vatican continues to reflect the premodern outlook that dominated Church thinking up until the Second Vatican Council — an outlook that brought the world the Inquisition, the blood libel, and complicity in the Spanish and Portugeuse “conquests” of the new world.

The Church’s more recent actions certainly don’t rise to that level of iniquity, but they haven’t exactly reflected an interest in the universality of human rights.  At the UN and other international fora, the Vatican has allied itself with fundamentalist Muslim countries in opposing equality for gays and lesbians, sensible approaches to birth control, and other basic human rights. And the continued drive to make Pius XII a saint has generated considerable outrage among Jewish groups.

In that context, the Vatican’s failure to vet Richard Williamson, the excommunicated Holocaust-denying Bishop, is not a surprise.  The Vatican simply does not understand that its tortured past does not incline those outside the Churge to assume that its intentions are for the best.  In fact, I think it’s fair to say: They. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

I sincerely believe that Benedict did not know about Williamson’s track record, and that his decision was the product of bad advice, not bad intentions.  But I also believe that Benedict was determined to bring the Lefebvre ultra-ultraconservatives back into the fold, and that he wasn’t really interested in the details.

Keep in mind that Lefebvre and his followers argue that the Church lost its way as a result of Vatican II (a view that Benedict does not entirely dispute), so much so that they continue to insist on celebrating the Mass in Latin.  They want to return the Church to its premodern roots — they are quite literally more Catholic than the pope.

To its credit, the Vatican is now demanding a full recantation from Williamson:

The Vatican said on Friday that an apology by a traditionalist bishop who denied the Holocaust fell short of meeting the Holy See’s demand for a full and public recanting of his position.

British Bishop Richard Williamson, whose comments in January caused a worldwide uproar among Jews and Catholics, on Thursday issued a statement in which he said: “To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize.”

But chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Williamson’s statement “does not seem to respect the conditions” set forth by the Vatican on February 4, when it ordered Williamson to “in an absolutely unequivocal and public way distance himself from his positions” regarding the Holocaust.

But I still have to wonder why they’re even trying.  Why doesn’t Benedict just come out and say, “Enough already — we’re not going to bring Willilamson back.  He’s still excommunicated, but now it’s for more than just a few minor violations of canon law.  And I want to apologize to all those who have been hurt by our mistaken attempt to return him into the fold.  We are saddened and chastened by our mistakes.”  Instead, the Church keeps saying to Williamson, “Just say the words and everything will be okay.”

I’m sorry, Your Holiness, but it won’t be okay.  Even if Williamson were to recant, the reality is that he will have done so only to get back in your good graces.  And what happens when, sometime down the road, he says equally outrageous things?  What will you do then?

And why in the world would you want to have anyone in the Church who once denied the Holocaust?  When does outrage outweigh forgiveness?  When does the denial historical memory take precedent over the recognition  theological common ground?

Williamson is not merely a sinner.  He’s a relativist (something the current Pope has roundly and repeatedly condemned when it comes from the left) and a scoundrel.  And to paraphrase the Pope’s spiritual Father, he knows exactly what he is doing.

Related posts

• You Have the Right
• Wonk’d: How to Cover the Olympics
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• What Were You Thinking, Mary Carillo?
• Virtually Invisible in Sarajevo