Hmmm? Does Mr. Encina have any proof that this was related to the display or just a random act?

I'm saddened by HIS lack of open-mindedness and jumping to conclusions.

Unfortunately this does not surprise me, a rather large segment of the population of Baltimore does not respect books and education.

Pratt communications director Roswell Encina says: "I'm not sure if its the title of her book or the huge display across from the Basilica that set this person off. ..."

++++++++++++++++++++

The vandalism is inexcusable. Period.

But as long as the book's being discussed, note that the Flash banner atop its Web site (http://www.mistressofthevatican.com/) says it tells a story the Catholic Church has "hidden for 350 years."

Nonsense!

The Church hasn't hidden anything. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6124), the Church disputes "the accusation, made by Gualdus (Leti) in his "Vita di Donna Olimpia Maidalchini" (1666), that [Pope] Innocent [X]'s relation to her was immoral" and argues that the claim has been rejected as slanderous by all reputable historians.

Again: rock through window = bad. If a Catholic did that, confession and restitution are called for.

But what's with the Pratt poking a stick in the eye of its neighbor and Mt. Vernon Cultural District co-founder? No other books worthy of being highlighted in the windows?

If indeed the act was motivated by the content of the window; then it is no less than an act of domestic terrorism. The whole premise of terrorism is to influence the actions of others through violence. Vandalizing a window at a public library that has provided so much to so many for so long is unforgivable, regardless of religious belief. I hope they find the person who perpetrated this crime and bring them to justice. And I have checked, there are other books and authors highlighted in other windows.

Regardless of the display, this is unacceptable. It's a shame that some people have no sense of what is right and wrong.

Isaac wrote:

"If indeed the act was motivated by the content of the window; then it is no less than an act of domestic terrorism. "

++++++++++++++++++++

Not quite on the scale of Tim McVeigh or Bill Ayers, but certainly wrong. On that we all agree.

Back to the book, though, bibliophiles: is it or is it not wrong to promote a book with a lie?

This book's Web site states that the Catholic Church has "hidden" the story. To the contrary, the Church has hidden nothing -- it simply disputes that Pope Innocent X behaved immorally with the so-called "mistress" even as it acknowledges his other personal shortcomings. (Who among us doesn't have those?)

Much as I love the Pratt, I'd argue that it's been a party to the shameless, unethical hyping of this book.

Hi there: This is the author. Yes, a reputable nineteenth century church historian named Ludwig von Pastor (who produced 40 fabulous volumes!) asserts there was no sex between Innocent and his sister-in-law, though he does not quote any source for this. It is not possible that a man who was born almost 200 years after her death would know for sure about her relationship with the pope. Though he heavily cites sources for almost every other assertion, he mentions no contemporary documents or witnesses who affirmed there was nothing going on. And Ludwig von Pastor, though a wonderful historian, saw his history through a pro-Catholic lens. On the contrary, Cardinal Pallotta called her a whore to her face, and on June 28, 1648, the Roman diarist Giacinto Gigli wrote "it was publicly known that Donna Olimpia had slept with her brother-in-law before he became pope, and people were always talking about this.” In 1644 the Venetian ambassador wrote "that his deeply-rooted affection involved more than platonic sympathies." These are contemporary sources among the 450 or so footnotes in my book. Perhaps Pastor didn't see them, or ignored them, but he offered nothing to refute them, other than saying they weren't true.

I have been to the two palaces Olimpia designed, and in both she had an inner door between her bedroom and her brother-in-law's -- which might or might not signify a romantic relationship. Certainly they did work late at night together on church affairs.

I spoke today to the Pratt security guard who said the camera had captured images of a man who appeared to come from across the street, where the Basilica of the Assumption is located, though they don't know if he came out of the church itself. He was white and well dressed, in his thirties, and stared at the display before leaving the range of the camera, where he picked up a rock from construction and threw it at the window. This doesn't seem to be a random act of vandalism. He seemed deeply perturbed by the poster.

I would like to think that the Catholic Church, with its rich, colorful 2,000 years of history going straight back to Jesus, need not be threatened by a history book. Popes hundreds of years ago were also kings of a country called the Papal States, and had conflicting responsibilities of church and state. I think most of them did the best they could, but they were human, and not angels. The core theology remains unchanged and unchangeable. It is silly to deny that the Borgia pope made a mess of things, or that many other popes had children they amply provided for. It is on the historical record. But Olimpia's story is unique (bearing in mind Pope Joan never existed) in that she was a woman running the show for her indecisive brother-in-law, who may also have been her lover. If anything, my book shows how many abuses of nepotism and corruption the church has corrected since then. We can't change history, throwing a rock certainly won't do so, but we can learn from it and see how far we've come. Eleanor

Thoughtful reply. Thank you.

But you didn't address the point that your book's Web site states that this is a "secret the Catholic Church has hidden for 350 years."

This is not true: even by your own accounting, whether this woman was Innocent X's mistress is a matter of dispute, not something the Church has "hidden." Your sources (Leti, et al) and research provide only circumstantial evidence (gossip and slander, if one is feeling less charitable: the fact that "people were talking" proves only that people talk) that he did; the Church says he didn't while acknowledging he had personal shortcomings. Only God and Innocent's confessor know for certain the nature of his relationship with Olimpia.

Let's also be clear: the Church—which invited Christopher Hitchens to the Vatican in 2003 to testify against Mother Teresa's canonisation—is not threatened by this. A cursory reading of G.K. Chesterton (The Everlasting Man, etc) would reveal far greater challenges it has faced and overcome. If the person who threw the rock was a Catholic, all that indicates is that that person allowed anger to overcome reason for moment. Perhaps to him, this book gratuitously sullies the reputation of the dead (de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est). Regardless, the Church's response to that, as stated in the Catechism, is that he should make immediate confession and restitution.

I really hope whoever did it feels bad about it. It seems he is the one who felt threatened, or felt that his faith was threatened and reacted in a burst of anger without thinking clearly. I do hope he confesses, does penance, and most importantly, reimburses the Pratt Library for the cost of the window. Perhaps he could do this anonymously, as a donation. I believe it cost something like $1,000.

It would have been nice if he had read the book without making such a snap judgment. The Catholic Review said "Herman has an engaging style and creates an interesting read about Maidalchini, Rome and the state of the church at that time.” And I certainly didn't sully Innocent. He was hardworking, incorrupt by standards of the time, and tried very hard to be a good pope, though circumstances and his own greedy family seemed to work against him. I make this point repeatedly. So far the only angry people are those who haven't bothered to read it and have jumped to conclusions.

You write, "the Church says he didn't (have a romantic relationship with Olimpia).... Only God and Innocent's confessor know for certain the nature of his relationship with Olimpia." But if only God and his confessor, who was sworn to secrecy, know this, please tell me how the church can know this for sure? This is not logical.

They base this statement on a late nineteenth-early twentieth century very pro-Catholic historian, ignoring contemporary sources. I agree that contemporary sources are not always correct in their opinions, but it is all we have to go on in terms of documentation and should, therefore, be acknowledged as a possibility, and not categorically denied, a denial based on no evidence whatsoever.
Eleanor

Eleanor Herman wrote:

You write, "the Church says he didn't (have a romantic relationship with Olimpia).... Only God and Innocent's confessor know for certain the nature of his relationship with Olimpia." But if only God and his confessor, who was sworn to secrecy, know this, please tell me how the church can know this for sure? This is not logical.

+++++++++++++++++++

Fair point. I'll have to look into the Church's case more carefully. It has the difficulty of proving a negative.

In the meantime, perhaps you'll explain why your book's Web site claims "For almost four centuries this astonishing story of a woman's absolute power over the Vatican has been successfully buried – until now." when, quite obviously, it hasn't.

And as far as the alleged relationship "shak[ing] the Catholic Church to its very foundations": Christ is the foundation of the Church. I suspect He's seen worse human behavior.

Hi there Jamie, I'm back again.

It was more her bossing the Vatican hierarchy around that shook the church up. If she had been the pope's brother or brother-in-law, or his Cardinal Nephew, it wouldn't have been a problem. But she was a woman, and in those misogynistic days, it was truly scandalous. Catholics throughoug Europe were embarrassed, and the heretics roared with laughter at the situation, which was made much worse by the suspected romantic relationship. As a result of the scandals of Innocent's reign, the church began to take important corrective measures as regards nepotism and corruption, though the church never does anything truly quickly, and gives all changes due consideration. Innocent XII finally outlawed nepotism in 1692, though it limped along another two centuries, depending on who was pope, and the last clear act of nepotism occurred in 1879 when Pope Leo XIII made his brother a cardinal. If you read my book, while you might not agree with everything, I think you would learn a lot about the church in those times, and as I am sure you know, customs and traditions have nothing to do with the core theology. I would like to personally invite you to my lecture on September 16. I think you would enjoy it! Do come if you can, and introduce yourself. I don't know that you and I are so very far apart in our opinions. Starting this research, I knew nothing of the Catholic Church except some negative things about the Spanish Inquisition (which, I later found out, was not under the pope, but the king of Spain.) I was really impressed by the beautiful theology, and the history straight back to Jesus, and might even convert if it weren't for, well, the woman issue. I can't get around that.
E