Monarchists in Iran, sentenced to be hanged.

You might wonder what a Catholic Monarchist's sympathies might be for men of Islamic Faith who favor the restoration of the progressive regime of the late Shah. The Shah was the legitimate ruler of Iran, and therefore, a target of Marxist Revolutionaries as well as the Theocratic Republicans who eventually did oust him. It's in recognition of these facts that he might be regarded as a brother to Catholic legitimists. Mutual cooperation between us is a hopeful sign of the conversion of this land of poets to the true Faith. Indeed, the Shah's Persia was friendlier to the small Catholic Church there than the regime now in power and cooperation with the Iranian monarchists is reminscent of the friendship which existed of old between the Jewish Nation and the Persian Empire in the times of the Babylonian Captivity.


Official statement of the International Monarchist Conference (IMC)

From Iranian sources, we learn that two other Iranian monarchist militants, members of Association Monarchy of Iran have just been condemned to hanging by the revolutionary Tribunal of Teheran following the demonstrations of last June.

It is act of Hamed Rouhinejad and Arash Rahmanpour, this 20 years old last only.

With the journalist Mohammad-Reza Ali-Zamani, are thus three monarchist militants who, if the international community does not mobilize itself, will be carried out in the days which come, victims of Iranian Islamic revolutionary terror.

The International Monarchist Conference invites to be mobilized within the “Comitee for the release of Mohammad-Reza Ali-Zamani” to obtain the grace and the release of these three men.

Mobilization! Help us! Help them…

freezamani@monarchiste.com
http://internationale.monarchiste.com/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=151478437097

S.ROUSSILLON
Secrétaire général de la CMI
General secretary of the IMC

Leo XIII speaks on Christopher Columbus

Many forget the exquisitely medieval character of the expedition, the kinds of men who embarked on this adventure and the reasons they came. This voyage was undertaken with great hope fulfilled in the discovery of a strange land which received the Catholic Faith and built a new hybrid civilization. It was at once Catholic, Indian, European, Mediterranean and glorious.

Now that four centuries have sped since a Ligurian first, under God's guidance, touched shores unknown beyond the Atlantic, the whole world is eager to celebrate the memory of the event, and glorify its author. Nor could a worthier reason be found where through zeal should be kindled. For the exploit is in itself the highest and grandest which any age has ever seen accomplished by man; and he who achieved it, for the greatness of his mind and heart, can be compared to but few in the history of humanity.


By his toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness, been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to gentleness and humanity; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life.


Europe, indeed, overpowered at the time by the novelty and strangeness of the discovery, presently came to recognize what was due to Columbus, when, through the numerous colonies shipped to America, through the constant intercourse and interchange of business and the ocean-trade, an incredible addition was made to our knowledge of nature, and to the commonwealth; whilst at the same time the prestige of the European name was marvellously increased.


Therefore, amidst so lavish a display of honour, so unanimous a tribute of congratulations, it is fitting that the Church should not be altogether silent; since she, by custom and precedent, willingly approves and endeavours to forward whatsoever she see, and wherever she see it, that is honourable and praiseworthy. It is true she reserves her special and greatest honours for virtues that most signally proclaim a high morality, for these are directly associated with the salvation of souls; but she does not, therefore, despise or lightly estimate virtues of other kinds. On the contrary, she has ever highly favoured and held in honour those who have deserved well of men in civil society, and have thus attained a lasting name among posterity.


For God, indeed, is especially wonderful in his Saints - mirabilis in Sanctis suis; but the impress of His Divine virtue also appears in those who shine with excellent power of mind and spirit, since high intellect and greatness of spirit can be the property of men only through their parent and creator, God.


But there is, besides, another reason, a unique one, why We consider that this immortal achievement should be recalled by Us with memorial words. For Columbus is ours; since if a little consideration be given to the particular reason of his design in exploring the mare tenebrosum, and also the manner in which he endeavoured to execute the design, it is indubitable that the Catholic faith was the strongest motive for the inception and prosecution of the design; so that for this reason also the whole human race owes not a little to the Church.


We say not that he was unmoved by perfectly honourable aspirations after knowledge, and deserving well of human society; nor did he despise glory, which is a most engrossing ideal to great souls; nor did he altogether scorn a hope of advantages to himself; but to him far before all these human considerations was the consideration of his ancient faith, which questionless dowered him with strength of mind and will, and often strengthened and consoled him in the midst of the greatest difficulties. This view and aim is known to have possessed his mind above all; namely, to open a way for the Gospel over new lands and seas.


[I]n his mind, he sought first of all to extend the Christian name and the benefits of Christian charity to the West, as is abundantly proved by the history of the whole undertaking. For when he first petitioned Ferdinand and Isabella, the Sovereigns of Spain, for fear lest they should be reluctant to encourage the undertaking, he clearly explained its object: "That their glory would grow to immortality, if they resolved to carry the name and doctrine of Jesus Christ into regions so distant." And in no long time having obtained his desires, he bears witness: "That he implores of God that, through His Divine aid and grace, the Sovereigns may continue steadfast in their desire to fill these new missionary shores with the truths of the Gospel."


He hastens to seek missionaries from Pope Alexander VI, through a letter in which this sentence occurs: "I trust that, by God's help, I may spread the Holy Name and Gospel of Jesus Christ as widely as may be." He was carried away, as we think, with joy, when on his first return from the Indies he wrote to Raphael Sanchez: "That to God should be rendered immortal thanks, Who had brought his labours such prosperous issues; that Jesus Christ rejoices and triumphs on earth no less than in Heaven, at the approaching salvation of nations innumerable, who were before hastening to destruction." And if he moved Ferdinand and Isabella to decree that only Catholic Christians should be suffered to approach the New World and trade with the natives, he brought forward as reason, "that he sought nothing from his enterprise and endeavour but the increase and glory of the Christian religion." And this was well known to Isabella, ... [f]or she had declared of Columbus that he would boldly thrust himself upon the vast ocean, "to achieve a most signal thing, for the sake of the Divine glory." And to Columbus himself, on his second return, she writes: "That the expenses she had incurred, and was about to incur, for the Indian expeditions, had been well bestowed; for thence would ensure a spreading of Catholicism."
Leo XIII
Quarto abeunte

The Curious Cardinal

As providence would have it, there was an recently published interview in NCR about the aforementioned Cardinal George whose statement on interreligious dialogue with the Jews leaves us in little doubt that he has a very circumscribed notion of the Church's mission to the world, including the Jews.

John Allen's soft-ball interview leaves some questions unanswered, but does admit a blithe admonition to an indeterminate and perhaps fabled duality in the American Church, those elusive Liberals and Conservatives. Incredibly, the Cardinal accuses the mythical polarity of focusing too much on Bishops, assuming that they have more power than they have and an obligation to correct and on the other hand wishing they didn't have too much power. He admonishes both of these legendary antognists to focus more on Christ, but doesn't fail to relinquish responsibillity for the problems he identifies, feebly, like Catechesis, the sorry state of Catholic Charitable institutes, and Liturgy.

Considering the Cardinal's more recent "clarifications" on Interreligious Dialogue with the Jews, he's talking about himself when he describes Liberals. Wishing he had less authority than he does, perhaps, or still worse, wishing that since, "the conservatives wish to descend into sectarianism" that all of these distinctions between the beliefs of various religions are meant to be ignored. Somehow, our focus on Christ and work among with poor with a leftist missionary organisation like St'Egidio will cause us to forget those petty doctrinal problems and the poor showing so many priests make when it comes to the Liturgy. In all of this, he strikes me as a less potent, understated, and therefore perhaps more dangerous version of his sulferous predecessor, Cardinal Berardin.

What this all amounts to, more than a fawning softball interview by a bootlicking journalist, is the Bishop telling the laity that things will continue basically as they have and that they need to keep giving and obeying.

Moreover, by the end of this interview, I was still in the dark about what His Lordship meant by improving Evangelization. I think he's implying that we need to be less Catholic and more Universalist, that we can leave behind this implausible sectarianism as the dusty relic of a bygone age and other such cliché. Perhaps his "plant" is that there is no plan, or at least not one he's going to tell anyone else.

The American Bishops "Revise" Statement on the Jews

The Catholic Bishops of America are circulating a letter on official Jewish-Catholic dialogue. It makes statements which suppose to invoke interreligious dialogue to create greater understanding between Catholics and Jews. More importantly, there is a concern for the "hurt feelings" of Jews who dislike the idea of being targeted for conversion by Catholics. Despite many scriptural and doctrinal teachings to the contrary, five courageous Bishops have made the following statement, to wit, “Jewish covenantal life endures till the present day as a vital witness to God’s saving will for his people Israel and for all of humanity.”

The implication is that Catholics and Jews don't have a good relationship historically, and that poor relationship has been caused by the active assertion that the Catholic Church maintains the inferiority and ineffectiveness of their religion toward salvation. The Bishops attempt to address that problem in the following six point statement which suggests that Jews will not have to consider this a deliberate or even implicit attempt to Baptize them.[1]

At the end of the day, whatever the actual intentions of these Bishops, whether it is a tit for tat arrangement of some kind, an act of cowardice or possibly an act of complete ignorance, the clarity of these documents and their actual force remain in question, although a good case can be made that these statements either say too little or say too much in obvious contradiction of the Catholic Church's mission in Matthew 28:16-20.

Mr. Robert Sungenis and an interlocutor handle this discussion pretty handily. [2]

There is also a blissfully hopeful article written in NCR. If you look long and hard enough at the article you can see the feeble hand that wrote it is not long for this world. Here

The Bishops who signed this document are:

Cardinal George of Chicago, Cardinal William H. Keeler, retired archbishop of Baltimore, USCCB episcopal moderator of Catholic-Jewish relations; Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of Atlanta, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs; Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y.

At least three of them have enourmous problems controlling the sexual improprieties of their priests and are also guilty of turning a blind eye to dissenters in their Universities.

The National

A Kurdistan politician, dreaming of an independent region for Christians, offered free homes as they fled the violence in Baghdad after the US invasion. His secrecy about the plan, however, has raised the suspicion of his opponents, Phil Sands, foreign correspondent, reports.

Vatican City, Oct 6, 2009 / 03:16 am (CNA).- The Italian daily Il Foglio published today an article entitled "L'ascia del vescovo pellerossa - Charles j. Chaput contro Notre Dame e l'illustre cardinale sedotto dall'abortista Obama" ("The ax of the Red Skin Bishop - Charles J. Chaput against Notre Dame and the illustrious cardinal seduced by the pro abortion Obama") in which the Archbishop of Denver contests some of the strongly pro-Obama assertions made by Cardinal Georges Cottier last July in the International Catholic Magazine “30 Days”.

Il Foglio is one of the most influential intellectual dailies in Italy, dedicated more at analyzing than covering the news. Its director is one of the most famous Italian contemporary thinkers, Giuliano Ferrara.

Despite being an agnostic, Ferrara is a long time admirer of the though of Joseph Ratzinger.

On its Tuesday edition, Il Foglio publishes a front page interview to Cardinal Francis George, and devotes the full third page to Archbishop Chaput’s comments to the original Cottier’s essay.

The Archbishop’ article, originally submitted under the more modest title of “Politics, Morality and a President: an American View,” focuses on what it meant to the Church in the US President’s Obama speech at the University of Notre Dame, which Cardinal Cottier, Theologian Emeritus of the Pontifical Household, described in 30 Days in a very positive light.

Here is the full text in English of Archbishop Chaput’s article published today in “Il Foglio”, exclusive from Catholic News Agency.

Politics, Morality and a President: an American View

One of the strengths of the Church is her global perspective. In that light, Cardinal Georges Cottier’s recent essay on President Barack Obama (“Politics, morality and original sin,” 30 Days, No. 5), made a valuable contribution to Catholic discussion of the new American president. Our faith connects us across borders. What happens in one nation may have an impact on many others. World opinion about America’s leaders is not only appropriate; it should be welcomed.

And yet, the world does not live and vote in the United States. Americans do. The pastoral realities of any country are best known by the local bishops who shepherd their people. Thus, on the subject of America’s leaders, the thoughts of an American bishop may have some value. They may augment the Cardinal’s good views by offering a different perspective.

Note that I speak here only for myself. I do not speak for the bishops of the United States as a body, nor for any other individual bishop. Nor will I address President Obama’s speech to the Islamic world, which Cardinal Cottier mentions in his own essay. That would require a separate discussion.

I will focus instead on the President’s graduation appearance at the University of Notre Dame, and Cardinal Cottier’s comments on the President’s thinking. I have two motives in doing so.

First, men and women from my own diocese belong to the national Notre Dame community as students, graduates and parents. Every bishop has a stake in the faith of the people in his care, and Notre Dame has never merely been a local Catholic university. It is an icon of the American Catholic experience. Second, when Notre Dame’s local bishop vigorously disagrees with the appearance of any speaker, and some 80 other bishops and 300,000 laypeople around the country publicly support the local bishop, then reasonable people must infer that a real problem exists with the speaker – or at least with his appearance at the disputed event. Reasonable people might further choose to defer to the judgment of those Catholic pastors closest to the controversy.

Regrettably and unintentionally, Cardinal Cottier’s articulate essay undervalues the gravity of what happened at Notre Dame. It also overvalues the consonance of President Obama’s thinking with Catholic teaching.

There are several key points to remember here.

First, resistance to President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame had nothing to do with whether he is a good or bad man. He is obviously a gifted man. He has many good moral and political instincts, and an admirable devotion to his family. These things matter. But unfortunately, so does this: The President’s views on vital bioethical issues, including but not limited to abortion, differ sharply from Catholic teaching. This is why he has enjoyed the strong support of major “abortion rights” groups for many years. Much is made, in some religious circles, of the President’s sympathy for Catholic social teaching. But defense of the unborn child is a demand of social justice. There is no “social justice” if the youngest and weakest among us can be legally killed. Good programs for the poor are vital, but they can never excuse this fundamental violation of human rights.

Second, at a different moment and under different circumstances, the conflict at Notre Dame might have faded away if the university had simply asked the President to give a lecture or public address. But at a time when the American bishops as a body had already voiced strong concern about the new administration’s abortion policies, Notre Dame not only made the President the centerpiece of its graduation events, but also granted him an honorary doctorate of laws – this, despite his deeply troubling views on abortion law and related social issues.

The real source of Catholic frustration with President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was his overt, negative public voting and speaking record on abortion and other problematic issues. By its actions, Notre Dame ignored and violated the guidance of America’s bishops in their 2004 document, “Catholics in Political Life.” In that text, the bishops urged Catholic institutions to refrain from honoring public officials who disagreed with Church teaching on grave matters.

Thus, the fierce debate in American Catholic circles this spring over the Notre Dame honor for Mr. Obama was not finally about partisan politics. It was about serious issues of Catholic belief, identity and witness – triggered by Mr. Obama’s views -- which Cardinal Cottier, writing from outside the American context, may have misunderstood.

Third, the Cardinal wisely notes points of contact between President Obama’s frequently stated search for political “common ground” and the Catholic emphasis on pursing the “common good.” These goals – seeking common ground and pursuing the common good – can often coincide. But they are not the same thing. They can sharply diverge in practice. So-called “common ground” abortion policies may actually attack the common good because they imply a false unity; they create a ledge of shared public agreement too narrow and too weak to sustain the weight of a real moral consensus. The common good is never served by tolerance for killing the weak – beginning with the unborn.

Fourth, Cardinal Cottier rightly reminds his readers of the mutual respect and cooperative spirit required by citizenship in a pluralist democracy. But pluralism is never an end in itself. It is never an excuse for inaction. As President Obama himself acknowledged at Notre Dame, democracy depends for its health on people of conviction fighting hard in the public square for what they believe – peacefully, legally but vigorously and without apologies.

Unfortunately, the President also added the curious remark that “. . . the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt . . . This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us.” In a sense, of course, this is true: On this side of eternity, doubt is part of the human predicament. But doubt is the absence of something; it is not a positive value. Insofar as it inoculates believers from acting on the demands of faith, doubt is a fatal weakness.

The habit of doubt fits much too comfortably with a kind of “baptized unbelief;” a Christianity that is little more than a vague tribal loyalty and a convenient spiritual vocabulary. Too often in recent American experience, pluralism and doubt have become alibis for Catholic moral and political lethargy. Perhaps Europe is different. But I would suggest that our current historical moment -- which both European and American Catholics share -- is very far from the social circumstances facing the early Christian legislators mentioned by the Cardinal. They had faith, and they also had the zeal – tempered by patience and intelligence – to incarnate the moral content of their faith explicitly in culture. In other words, they were building a civilization shaped by Christian belief. Something very different is happening now.

Cardinal Cottier’s essay gives witness to his own generous spirit. I was struck in particular by his praise for President Obama’s “humble realism.” I hope he’s right. American Catholics want him to be right. Humility and realism are the soil where a commonsense, modest, human-scaled and moral politics can grow. Whether President Obama can provide this kind of leadership remains to be seen. We have a duty to pray for him -- so that he can, and does.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15876

Lefebvrist Priest praises Opus Dei

The website of the German District of the SSPX has accused the Tagespost of censorship and provides evidence. [Kreuznet.de] http://www.kreuz.net/article.9951.html

Finally, an opponent who can think logically - but "Die Tagespost" has censured him.The website of the German District of the SSPX recently reported this in a recently published article.

The question is Rev. Martin Rhonheimer, a Swiss Opus Dei priest and professor at the roman Opus Dei Univerrsity Santa Croce. On the 27th of September, Rev. Rhonheimer published an opinion piece in the German paper, "Tagespost", which later was posted by the neo-conservative Linz based 'kath.net'.

According to the testimony of the Pius website, Rev. Rhonheimer demonstrated, "unsual clarity", that the Church has changed its doctrine on religious freedom in the Second Vatican Council:

"Himself a partisan of the new teaching, is still honorable enough, to repudiate the quest for harmony beteween the traditional teaching and the documents on Religious Freedom of the Second Vatican Council" - maintains the website.

Rev. Rhonheimer concedes that SSPX Fr. Mathias Gaudron is correct in a letter to the editor, likewise, against the falsity of this concord:

"That was for the Tagespost too much honor for an SSPX priest, for the corresponding section can only be read on 'kath.net'" commented the website and cited the "publicly censured" portion:"

Father Mattias Gaudron has in fact, dialogue participant of the german Society of Pius X in a letter to the editor (compare, "Die Tagespost" from June, 6 2009) brought the subject matter to the point. While, for instance, according to H. Klueting ('Tagespost' from May 5, 2009 page 18) the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on 'Freedom from coercion" is reduced and falsely accorded an unbroken continuity, Father Gaudron put his finger on the decisive point:

The disagreement does not come from the question of repudiation of coercion - here is complete agreement -, rather, 'if and how far one may limit the exercise of false beliefs and their publication', said Father Gaudron. It constintutes then in fact a break in continuity, or in the word of Benedict XVI.: Discontinuity.

"The website maintains, that this opinion "felicitously" distinguished from the editorial letter by Professor Nikolaus Lobkowicz, "Peter Gaudron and the whole Society of Pius X on the 9th of June proposes, not between the right to error and the limits of the rights of the State, to hold error, could not distinguish and with that only demonstrate their own ignorance of the subject."

Father Peter's answer on 'Tagespost' was not published:"The 'Tagespost' appears to be intent on following the course of the German Bishop's Conference, that there can be no dialogue with the Society of Pius X and that they should be refused where possibile from expressing their opinions."Rev Rhonheimer cites the Website: "any way you twist and turn, one can't get round therefore: It is precisely this teaching of the Second Vatican Council which has been condemned in the Encyclical 'Quanta Cura'."

The Website acknowledges, that Rev. Rhonheimer is also against the eminent Munich philosopher Robert Spaeman who in April in the 'Tagespost' had addressed attempts to reconcile the two, in the question of Religious Freedom to assert an unbroken continuity between the conciliar and post-conciliar teaching.

Really, Rev. Rhonheimer allows that he is not completely convinced of this position: "It is however contestable"

He turns himself on the earlier proposed attempts at reconciliation of the french Old Rite Benedictine, Father Basil Valuet, or the Jesuit, Fr. Bertrand de Margerie.Finally, he holds them for "hopless and factually amiss": "They employ confusion, while such pleasconceal the originality of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. "

Fr. Rhonheimer also maintains, that Pope Benedict, who is informed of the Council's condemned alteration of the teaching and cites from his Christmas Speech to the Roman Curia of 22nd December 2005:

"The Second Vatican Council through the redefinition of the relationship between the Faith of the Church and certain fundamental elements of modern thought have newly considered or even corrected or even some of the past pronouncements."

Thus says the Pope himself, that the Church acccording the Second Vatican Council is different than before.

Curious New Beginnings

Capturing the last few late summer hours, I suffered an intense desire to write something tonight, to be curious and capture the thought before it fades into nothing and I forget once waking a fantastic dream and lands to which I can never return.