ADDENDUM TO THE POPE SCANDAL

The Editors-in-Chief of Il Resto del Carlino[1] and La Nazione[2] on October 27, 1961, received the following telegram from New York:

The article by Giuseppe Prezzolini published in your respected newspaper on October 22, contains several mistakes. One of them is particularly egregious in that it insults and offends the dignity of more than 2,200 dinner guests, including Cardinal Spellman, Governor Rockefeller, Mayor Wagner and hundreds of other respected members of our community, and it accuses them of being disrespectful toward Italy. Mr. Prezzolini states that while the Italian anthem was being played, everyone, including Mr. Pope, continued in their conversation and nobody stood up. This statement is totally false in that the Italian anthem was never played, this time or any other time. The Columbian dinner is an American celebration. The Columbian Committee respectfully requests the retraction of this statement.

Signed: Fortune Pope, President Columbus Citizens Committee.

The telegram by Fortune Pope, editor of the Progresso Italo-Americano deserves the following condemnation: it is reckless. And here are the reasons. In my article of October 22 I listed a series of events that prompted the consul general of Italy in New York to refuse to participate in the ceremonies of the Italian American community chaired by Pope. Pope had been found guilty of defrauding his business partners but has been free on parole for a year after returning the money. He and his brother had been labeled “stupid” by the judge.

1)      In addition, he had sold road salt to the city defrauding it for about half a million dollars, a sum he was forced to return.

2)      None of these facts were ever reported by the Progresso Italo-Americano, whose readers were told only that that its editor was found guilty based on a “technicality.”

3)      Despite the requests of civil and religious authorities that he step down, Pope insisted on being again the marshal of the Columbus Day parade and wanted to chair the gala dinner for the same occasion.

4)      Despite all this, the parade attracted a large public, on orders from the political bosses, union bosses and the heads of the city’s public departments.

5)      Despite all this, the parade was attended by the governor of the state, the mayor and Cardinal Spellman, who, from the steps of the cathedral, waved at Pope with a friendly gesture and a smile. The first two personages spent time in friendly chats with him.

6)      The entire situation was rather extraordinary and I tried to explain that the reason lies in the corrupt atmosphere of American cities. I also emphasized the moral indifference of many Italian Americans.

7)      In the course of my analysis I mentioned that when the Italian anthem was played at the Columbus dinner, the participants did not stand up. I asked a number of questions as to the possible interpretations of this behavior, including the possibility that the report was inaccurate.

I maintain that Mr. Pope’s telegram is reckless because he only refutes one point. It is therefore obvious he cannot refute any other facts reported in my article (similarly, he has not refuted any other article I have written about him and his newspaper.) He is also reckless because he does not realize he is implicitly admitting I told the truth about everything else. Even if it turned out, as he claims, that my report on the events at the dinner were false, the fact remains that everything else must be true. The story about the anthem, by the way, was not the premise, nor the central point, nor the conclusion of my article: it was a marginal episode that, whether true or false, does not detract from the value of the larger point I was trying to make. Mr. Pope’s protestations remind me the logic of the thief who defended himself in court by saying: “I am accused of stealing a watch at 12:57. In reality I stole it at 12:30, therefore the accusation is false and I must be acquitted.”

But, is this circumstance, this detail, this fine point truly false, as Mr. Pope maintains? Let’s see. Let me begin with the fact that, unlike several other journalists, I was not invited to the gala and everybody can easily guess why (and it is not an issue). I wasn’t there in person, therefore I do not know directly if the Italian national anthem did play, nor whether the guests heard it or not. A journalist is a bit like a historian of the present and historians would never be able to write anything if they could only write about things they witnessed in person. Even newspapers would be half of what they are if journalists could only report what they saw with their own eyes. Thus, since I could not attend the Columbian dinner, I asked Gianfranco Piazzesi,[3] a colleague from my same newspaper, if he knew anything about it. He had not attended the dinner either, however, he had heard that the Italian national anthem had been played and that the guests had not stood up. He gave me the name of the person who had passed the information to him and I talked to this person on the telephone. The person in question is extremely authoritative, with a very important position and is very well equipped to report about this kind of affairs. In no uncertain terms his answer was: he attended the dinner; the anthem was played and some Italians stood up while everybody else remained seated. He also observed that, in that precise moment, at the honor table Pope kept at his conversation without standing up. This detail was not particularly important but it added a bit of color and I used it as a brush stroke to make the painting more vivid. As to the reason for Pope’s behavior, whether it was planned that way or if it was an oversight, I mentioned the two possibilities in the form of question since I had no direct knowledge of the real answer. The only thing that matters to me now is whether my report was correct. In retrospect I don’t think I would change a thing.

When I found out about Pope’s complaint, I asked the same person if he could reconfirm what he had told me. He did; and he also talked to Pope’s personal secretary telling him[4] that he and other people had heard the Italian anthem; that they had stood up and noticed that everybody else had remained seated. Pope’s secretary responded with a statement by the keyboard player who declared he had not played the Italian anthem. Contrary to this version, I found two more people who confirmed that the anthem had played: they know what it sounds like and it is impossible they could be mistaken. Confronted with these conflicting statements, one could think that the people who confirmed that the anthem had played are victims of a case of collective hallucinations. By the same token, one could also believe that the keyboard player who claims he never played it is the victim of a case of selective amnesia. Either hypothesis is believable. To me it matters that everything I wrote on October 22 about Mr. Pope has been confirmed and accepted without refutation by Pope himself. As to the little story about the anthem, my conscience is clear: I did everything within reason in order to ascertain the truth within the constraints of my sources. For this reason I am addressing my response not to Mr. Pope but to the public that has the right to know if what I wrote is true or false.

New York, November 7, 1961.