Insight into the manufacture crises and mood manipulation of the liberal media-czars.
Editor:
We heard nothing on the TV news media about the 'relevance of the monarchy in Canada' until a week or two before the arrival of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall in Canada.
The survey the media manipulated must have been taken in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver in a mixed culture where a monarchy is seemingly unknown.
All during the royal visit, the TV media and especially the TV news presenters (Peter Mans-bridge, Tom Clark, etc.) had debates and long-winded discussions ad nauseam about whether Canada should drop the monarchy and become a republic. Manipulation was quite obvious.
Now I ask you, wasn't that a fine welcome for the Royals? On previous royal tours, there would be full coverage of the Royals' daily happenings, but during the recent tour we were shown snippets only, about two minutes in an hour-long newscast. Tells you what the TV media is about, doesn't it?
Also strange is the fact that since Prince Charles and the Duchess left Canada on November 12, there are no more debates, no more discussions on the monarchy. Why? The late Senator Eugene Forsey would turn over in the grave to know the TV media showed so little respect for our 'Royal Visitors.'
The TV news media has a lot to answer for the constant barrage of such untimely discussions of the monarchy when the Royals were in Canada. Present the news, don't manipulate it.
Doris F. Saar,
Pembroke, ON
http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2208232
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Irish Writer Reflects on Anti-Clericalism
Irish Times
In this edited extract from John McGahern’s 1993 essay, ‘The Church and its Spire’, recently reprinted in the posthumous collection, ‘Love of the World’, the novelist recalls growing up in Ireland at a time when ‘the Church had almost total power’
I WAS born into Catholicism as I might have been born into Buddhism or Protestantism or any of the other isms or sects, and brought up as a Roman Catholic in the infancy of this small state when the Church had almost total power: it was the dominating force in my whole upbringing, education and early working life.
I have nothing but gratitude for the spiritual remnants of that upbringing, the sense of our origins beyond the bounds of sense, an awareness of mystery and wonderment, grace and sacrament, and the absolute equality of all women and men underneath the sun of heaven. That is all that now remains. Belief, as such, has long gone.
Over many years I keep returning to a letter Marcel Proust wrote to Georges de Lauris in 1903 at the height of the anti-clerical wave that swept through France:
“I can tell you at Illiers, the small community where two days ago my father presided at the awarding of the school prizes, the curé is no longer invited to the distribution of the prizes since the passage of the Ferry laws. The pupils are trained to consider the people who associate with him as socially undesirable and, in their way, quite as much as the other, they are working to split France in two. And when I remember this little village so subject to the miserly earth, itself the foster-mother of miserliness; when I remember the curé who taught me Latin and the names of the flowers in his garden; when, above all, I know the mentality of my father’s brother-in-law – town magistrate down there and anti-clerical – when I think of all this, it doesn’t seem to me right that the old curé should no longer be invited to the distribution of the prizes, as representative of something in the village more difficult to define than the social function symbolised by the pharmacist, the retired tobacco-inspector and the optician, but something which is, nevertheless, not unworthy of respect, were it only for the perception of the meaning of the spiritualised beauty of the church spire – pointing upward into the sunset where it loses itself so lovingly in the rose-coloured clouds; and which, all the same, at first sight, to a stranger alighting in the village, looks somehow better, nobler, more dignified, with more meaning behind it, and with, what we all need, more love than the other buildings, however sanctioned they may be under the latest laws.”
Proust’s plea is for tolerance and understanding that come from a deep love, a love that is vigorous and watchful:
“. . . let the anti-clericals at least draw a few more distinctions and at least visit the great social structures they want to demolish before they wield the axe. I don’t like the Jesuit mind, but there is, nevertheless, a Jesuit philosophy, a Jesuit art, a Jesuit pedagogy. Will there be an anti-clerical art? All this is much less simple than it appears.”
The Church grows in the very process of change, Proust asserts, and he argues that it had assumed an influence even over those who were supposed to deny and combat it, which could not have been foreseen in the previous century, a century during which the Catholic Church was “the refuge of ignoramuses”. He names a number of great writers of the time to show that the 19th century was not an anti-religious century. Even Baudelaire was in touch with the Church, Proust argues, if only through Sacrilege.
There is no danger, even today, of the parish priest being excluded from a school ceremony in Ireland. In any of the small towns it would be as much as a person’s social life was worth to try to keep him away, which does not make Proust’s truth less applicable. If the 18th-century church in France was “the refuge of ignoramuses”, my fear is that the Church in 20th-century Ireland will come, in time, to be seen similarly, and my involvement was when it was at the height of its power.
Read further...
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29196
In this edited extract from John McGahern’s 1993 essay, ‘The Church and its Spire’, recently reprinted in the posthumous collection, ‘Love of the World’, the novelist recalls growing up in Ireland at a time when ‘the Church had almost total power’
I WAS born into Catholicism as I might have been born into Buddhism or Protestantism or any of the other isms or sects, and brought up as a Roman Catholic in the infancy of this small state when the Church had almost total power: it was the dominating force in my whole upbringing, education and early working life.
I have nothing but gratitude for the spiritual remnants of that upbringing, the sense of our origins beyond the bounds of sense, an awareness of mystery and wonderment, grace and sacrament, and the absolute equality of all women and men underneath the sun of heaven. That is all that now remains. Belief, as such, has long gone.
Over many years I keep returning to a letter Marcel Proust wrote to Georges de Lauris in 1903 at the height of the anti-clerical wave that swept through France:
“I can tell you at Illiers, the small community where two days ago my father presided at the awarding of the school prizes, the curé is no longer invited to the distribution of the prizes since the passage of the Ferry laws. The pupils are trained to consider the people who associate with him as socially undesirable and, in their way, quite as much as the other, they are working to split France in two. And when I remember this little village so subject to the miserly earth, itself the foster-mother of miserliness; when I remember the curé who taught me Latin and the names of the flowers in his garden; when, above all, I know the mentality of my father’s brother-in-law – town magistrate down there and anti-clerical – when I think of all this, it doesn’t seem to me right that the old curé should no longer be invited to the distribution of the prizes, as representative of something in the village more difficult to define than the social function symbolised by the pharmacist, the retired tobacco-inspector and the optician, but something which is, nevertheless, not unworthy of respect, were it only for the perception of the meaning of the spiritualised beauty of the church spire – pointing upward into the sunset where it loses itself so lovingly in the rose-coloured clouds; and which, all the same, at first sight, to a stranger alighting in the village, looks somehow better, nobler, more dignified, with more meaning behind it, and with, what we all need, more love than the other buildings, however sanctioned they may be under the latest laws.”
Proust’s plea is for tolerance and understanding that come from a deep love, a love that is vigorous and watchful:
“. . . let the anti-clericals at least draw a few more distinctions and at least visit the great social structures they want to demolish before they wield the axe. I don’t like the Jesuit mind, but there is, nevertheless, a Jesuit philosophy, a Jesuit art, a Jesuit pedagogy. Will there be an anti-clerical art? All this is much less simple than it appears.”
The Church grows in the very process of change, Proust asserts, and he argues that it had assumed an influence even over those who were supposed to deny and combat it, which could not have been foreseen in the previous century, a century during which the Catholic Church was “the refuge of ignoramuses”. He names a number of great writers of the time to show that the 19th century was not an anti-religious century. Even Baudelaire was in touch with the Church, Proust argues, if only through Sacrilege.
There is no danger, even today, of the parish priest being excluded from a school ceremony in Ireland. In any of the small towns it would be as much as a person’s social life was worth to try to keep him away, which does not make Proust’s truth less applicable. If the 18th-century church in France was “the refuge of ignoramuses”, my fear is that the Church in 20th-century Ireland will come, in time, to be seen similarly, and my involvement was when it was at the height of its power.
Read further...
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29196
The Bishops' Poor Case for Healthcare Reform
If and we mean, if, the Bishops have a moral case against Health Care Reform, they certainly haven't done a very good job of making it.
The ultimate constraint that we all face is knowledge -- what we know and don't know. The knowledge problem is pervasive and by no means trivial as hinted at by just a few examples. You've purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house you could have purchased that 10 years later would not have needed extensive repairs or was in a community with more likeable neighbors and a better environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person who would have made for a more pleasing spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: "I don't know."
Read further...
The ultimate constraint that we all face is knowledge -- what we know and don't know. The knowledge problem is pervasive and by no means trivial as hinted at by just a few examples. You've purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house you could have purchased that 10 years later would not have needed extensive repairs or was in a community with more likeable neighbors and a better environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person who would have made for a more pleasing spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: "I don't know."
Read further...
Chris Mathews is a Dumb Catholic
Is Chris Mathews a Dumb Catholic?
Newsbusters
Profiles of Chris Matthews often mention that Chris and his wife Kathleen attend Blessed Sacrament Church in northwest Washington. But there are times when Matthews seems pretty dumb on the Catholic basics. This passage in his televised lecturing of Bishop Thomas Tobin stood out:
Read further...
Newsbusters
Profiles of Chris Matthews often mention that Chris and his wife Kathleen attend Blessed Sacrament Church in northwest Washington. But there are times when Matthews seems pretty dumb on the Catholic basics. This passage in his televised lecturing of Bishop Thomas Tobin stood out:
A lot of Catholics agree or disagree in every poll I’ve seen about what the law should be [on abortion]. They generally accept the teaching authority of the Church, the Magistar, your teaching authority, your Excellency. Where the disagreement is what the law should be, what the penalty should be.
Read further...
Obama's Ethics Commission Ethical? You've got to be kidding me: HLI
Front Royal, Va., Dec 5, 2009 / 10:06 am (CNA).- Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President of Human Life International has called for Americans to be watchful of President Obama's appointments to the new Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, claiming the unlikelihood of the advisors to share the pro-life sentiment of the majority of Americans.
On November 24, President Obama signed an Executive Order creating the new Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, whose purpose is to advise the President on concerns emerging from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology.
Read Further...
On November 24, President Obama signed an Executive Order creating the new Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, whose purpose is to advise the President on concerns emerging from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology.
Read Further...
The Forces of Liberalism Are Attacking the Church
John Allen writes in NCR on the Pope's "headaches" that Holy Father might need the aspirin of liberalism to remedy the old nationalist headaches of populists; is it Pat Buchanan he is thinking of as well as remote Lombards and Venetians? As we read this we thought about the comparison between populist Catholics, assuming our definition is the same as Allen's and that he means to actually slur conservative (read actual) Catholics as being synonymous with nationalists and fascists, many of whom never the less, echo Oriana Fellaci's instinctual but rationally formed concerns for European Civilization in relation to Islam. Interestingly, Allen correctly points out that many Italians in the North, particularly the more nationalistically and Catholic minded, perhaps echoing similar intellectual movements in France like the Action Française, cling strongly to their Catholic identity, yet do, as John Allen maintains, retain a certain degree of anti-clerical feeling. Well, in a sense, who can blame them and in another, one wishes for a higher motivation still, that they may realize after all that the globalists (Allen calls them "centralists") who are strongly represented in the Vatican are, if we are really honest with ourselves, liberals who favor stronger centralization, government control and diminution of the things that define the nation.
The real issue then, John Allen's posturing notwithstanding, is the brain tumor of modernism. Pain is a good thing. If populists are causing the Holy Father a "headache" it must only be nature reminding him that something is wrong, and that reforms are needed to restore the heart of Europe to its everlasting Christian youth.
There are some evil men like John Allen's masters behind the furor in the Sex Abuse Scandal in the developing world. Of course, the liberals behind all of this aren't making us aware of the absolute deprivation of the poor in places like South Africa and Rhodesia whose regimes they lobbied for vociferously for more than a decade. They're much more concerned in getting some headway against the Irish Church and robbing its money by using the abuse scandal as a reason. They're already in the process of absconding with some 166 Million from the Christian Brothers, and they've used a convenience of accounting in San Francisco to finagle another 14.4 Million.
No doubt, lusting after the Church's millions, the Irish Republican Government and Gordon Brown's Labor Government have, like the Martians in HG Well's sci-fi novel, feasted their covetous eyes on the property of the Catholic Church after their failed social programs have failed to yield heaven on earth and left hell instead.
Ironically, men of their type had more to do with the scandal than does the Catholic Church itself. These liberals will blame "secrecy", but the real issue is the liberalism, and this media event was manufactured by them to whip up anger against Ireland's oldest and wisest institution by forces no one, not least of all those who are angered by this, understand.
Abuse takes place in government (and private schools) at a much greater rate than they have in Catholic schools, but there's a difference. First of all, the Government isn't interested in creating another shortfall, other religious denominations don't have any money, at least not compared to Catholicism and besides, the Church teaches a lot of things that many Europeans despise and let's face it, put a damper on living in the sleek world of tomorrow without guilt and all that medieval stuff.
The Church is easily demonized and it's wealthy. It sounds like a recipe for nationalization of assets to us.
Pope, President, Archbishop to discuss abuse scandal in Dublin.
Protest in Dublin, by 10 people with VOTF, another self-interested organization that will harp on pre-ordained issues which actually have nothing to do with the problem. They will insist that "secrecy" and "medievalism" are the problems when the real problem is something they themselves embody: liberalism. It really is indicated by the fact that VOTF wants to "change the structure of the Church."
Hopefully the Church strikes back against this non-sense by pointing out the liberals in their midst, as they have with Senator Patrick Kennedy. We need to do the same with the Bishops whose mismanagement gave the pretext to the government in the first place.
PITTSBURGH -- Catholics from the Pittsburgh area teamed up with the Washington DC group Insurrecta Nex to protest at the office of Sen. Bob Casey.
The Friday protest was to ask Bishop David Zubik and all U.S. bishops to deny Communion to senators who vote for health care reform covering abortion.
“If you vote for this bill, there’s child killing in it, then you will not be able to receive Holy Communion,” said one protester. “We’re tired of the treachery and the cowardice of so-called Catholic politicians who rebel against the teachings of Christ.”
Zubik responded in a statement that said, “The Church … has the responsibility to protect the sacredness of the Eucharist from any abuse, inclusive of politicizing Communion. If a time came where I must engage any individual for any reason in regard to reception of the Eucharist, that would be solely between myself as pastor and that person as a member of my flock.”
Zubik went on to say it would not be debated publicly.
Link to article....
The real issue then, John Allen's posturing notwithstanding, is the brain tumor of modernism. Pain is a good thing. If populists are causing the Holy Father a "headache" it must only be nature reminding him that something is wrong, and that reforms are needed to restore the heart of Europe to its everlasting Christian youth.
There are some evil men like John Allen's masters behind the furor in the Sex Abuse Scandal in the developing world. Of course, the liberals behind all of this aren't making us aware of the absolute deprivation of the poor in places like South Africa and Rhodesia whose regimes they lobbied for vociferously for more than a decade. They're much more concerned in getting some headway against the Irish Church and robbing its money by using the abuse scandal as a reason. They're already in the process of absconding with some 166 Million from the Christian Brothers, and they've used a convenience of accounting in San Francisco to finagle another 14.4 Million.
No doubt, lusting after the Church's millions, the Irish Republican Government and Gordon Brown's Labor Government have, like the Martians in HG Well's sci-fi novel, feasted their covetous eyes on the property of the Catholic Church after their failed social programs have failed to yield heaven on earth and left hell instead.
Ironically, men of their type had more to do with the scandal than does the Catholic Church itself. These liberals will blame "secrecy", but the real issue is the liberalism, and this media event was manufactured by them to whip up anger against Ireland's oldest and wisest institution by forces no one, not least of all those who are angered by this, understand.
Abuse takes place in government (and private schools) at a much greater rate than they have in Catholic schools, but there's a difference. First of all, the Government isn't interested in creating another shortfall, other religious denominations don't have any money, at least not compared to Catholicism and besides, the Church teaches a lot of things that many Europeans despise and let's face it, put a damper on living in the sleek world of tomorrow without guilt and all that medieval stuff.
The Church is easily demonized and it's wealthy. It sounds like a recipe for nationalization of assets to us.
Pope, President, Archbishop to discuss abuse scandal in Dublin.
Protest in Dublin, by 10 people with VOTF, another self-interested organization that will harp on pre-ordained issues which actually have nothing to do with the problem. They will insist that "secrecy" and "medievalism" are the problems when the real problem is something they themselves embody: liberalism. It really is indicated by the fact that VOTF wants to "change the structure of the Church."
Hopefully the Church strikes back against this non-sense by pointing out the liberals in their midst, as they have with Senator Patrick Kennedy. We need to do the same with the Bishops whose mismanagement gave the pretext to the government in the first place.
PITTSBURGH -- Catholics from the Pittsburgh area teamed up with the Washington DC group Insurrecta Nex to protest at the office of Sen. Bob Casey.
The Friday protest was to ask Bishop David Zubik and all U.S. bishops to deny Communion to senators who vote for health care reform covering abortion.
“If you vote for this bill, there’s child killing in it, then you will not be able to receive Holy Communion,” said one protester. “We’re tired of the treachery and the cowardice of so-called Catholic politicians who rebel against the teachings of Christ.”
Zubik responded in a statement that said, “The Church … has the responsibility to protect the sacredness of the Eucharist from any abuse, inclusive of politicizing Communion. If a time came where I must engage any individual for any reason in regard to reception of the Eucharist, that would be solely between myself as pastor and that person as a member of my flock.”
Zubik went on to say it would not be debated publicly.
Link to article....
Friday, December 4, 2009
Here are some Christmas ++Weakland O.S.B. Memories
rembert the ripper
Diogenes
Newly released depositions reveal that Nantucket's naughtiest nightowl, when he was an eminent pastor of souls, had an effective method for dealing with embarrassing documentation. He shredded it.
Didn't want inadvertently to disedify the cleaning lady, I suppose.
Everyone has his favorite Rembert Weakland story. Many lovingly recall his remark that pro-life Catholics "need a hug and a laxative." My own heart is particularly warmed by the priestly solicitude he displayed in August of 1984. In July of that year, three lay teachers at an archdiocesan school wrote the archbishop that Salvatorian Fr. Dennis Pecore was inviting boys to his bedroom for purposes of sexual mischief. Weakland turned the tables on the informants and sternly wrote back: "any libelous material found in your letter will be carefully scrutinized by our lawyers." The teachers took the point, but they ignored the threat and continued to plead for an intervention. For their pains, all three were fired. In January 1987 Pecore was convicted of sexual assault on a juvenile (and later sentenced to 12 years in prison for another sex offense). After paying out $600,000 to Pecore's victims, Weakland wrote in his May 26, 1988 Herald of Hope column: "Sometimes not all adolescents are so 'innocent,' some can be sexually very active and often quite street wise." The pastoral touch.
When the sexual abuse crisis exploded in early 2002, Weakland was still riding high, congratulating himself on his accomplishments as a "maverick" archbishop. In early March he wrote his priests: "I would suggest that we all relax a bit on our Lenten resolutions. The bombardment in the public forum about pedophilia in the Church has provided enough penance for everyone this year." Shortly thereafter Weakland's world exploded as former catamite Paul Marcoux made public love-letters from the archbishop, as well as a settlement by which $450,000 of Archdiocesan funds were paid him as hush-money.
Post-resignation Weakland seemed only dimly aware of his disgrace and continued to write petulant (if muted) criticisms of Pope John Paul II and other orthodox Catholics. More recently, in his autobiography, Weakland admitted to several homosexual liaisons in his career as priest and bishop. As is perfectly in character, the conclusion Weakland drew from his infidelities is that it's the Church that needs to rethink her teaching on sexuality and the priesthood. The image of Weakland shredding evidence of abuse with one hand while, with the other, throwing brush-back pitches at concerned layfolk provides a wonderfully rounded portrait of this most progressive of progressivist bishops.
Which brings me to my point: Uncle Di's Christmas Gift Suggestion for 2009. For that irony-impervious prelate on your holiday list, I highly recommend Unfailing Patience and Sound Teaching: Reflections on Episcopal Ministry in Honor of Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B. -- a bargain at only $49.27! Think of it as a down-payment on Paul Marcoux's trousseau.
P.S. I expect it'll be a surprise best-seller in Ireland this season.
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29181
Diogenes
Newly released depositions reveal that Nantucket's naughtiest nightowl, when he was an eminent pastor of souls, had an effective method for dealing with embarrassing documentation. He shredded it.
Former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland routinely shredded copies of weekly reports about sexual abuse by priests, according to formerly sealed testimony turned over to Milwaukee County's district attorney on Thursday.
[chop]
In the deposition, Weakland explains that he got copies of the weekly logs made by vicars in the archdiocese about ongoing problem priests. He said he would read them, then shred them because he didn't want to keep them in his office. He would "try to remember anything that is quite serious and important," and later discuss the matters with the vicar.
Didn't want inadvertently to disedify the cleaning lady, I suppose.
Everyone has his favorite Rembert Weakland story. Many lovingly recall his remark that pro-life Catholics "need a hug and a laxative." My own heart is particularly warmed by the priestly solicitude he displayed in August of 1984. In July of that year, three lay teachers at an archdiocesan school wrote the archbishop that Salvatorian Fr. Dennis Pecore was inviting boys to his bedroom for purposes of sexual mischief. Weakland turned the tables on the informants and sternly wrote back: "any libelous material found in your letter will be carefully scrutinized by our lawyers." The teachers took the point, but they ignored the threat and continued to plead for an intervention. For their pains, all three were fired. In January 1987 Pecore was convicted of sexual assault on a juvenile (and later sentenced to 12 years in prison for another sex offense). After paying out $600,000 to Pecore's victims, Weakland wrote in his May 26, 1988 Herald of Hope column: "Sometimes not all adolescents are so 'innocent,' some can be sexually very active and often quite street wise." The pastoral touch.
When the sexual abuse crisis exploded in early 2002, Weakland was still riding high, congratulating himself on his accomplishments as a "maverick" archbishop. In early March he wrote his priests: "I would suggest that we all relax a bit on our Lenten resolutions. The bombardment in the public forum about pedophilia in the Church has provided enough penance for everyone this year." Shortly thereafter Weakland's world exploded as former catamite Paul Marcoux made public love-letters from the archbishop, as well as a settlement by which $450,000 of Archdiocesan funds were paid him as hush-money.
Post-resignation Weakland seemed only dimly aware of his disgrace and continued to write petulant (if muted) criticisms of Pope John Paul II and other orthodox Catholics. More recently, in his autobiography, Weakland admitted to several homosexual liaisons in his career as priest and bishop. As is perfectly in character, the conclusion Weakland drew from his infidelities is that it's the Church that needs to rethink her teaching on sexuality and the priesthood. The image of Weakland shredding evidence of abuse with one hand while, with the other, throwing brush-back pitches at concerned layfolk provides a wonderfully rounded portrait of this most progressive of progressivist bishops.
Which brings me to my point: Uncle Di's Christmas Gift Suggestion for 2009. For that irony-impervious prelate on your holiday list, I highly recommend Unfailing Patience and Sound Teaching: Reflections on Episcopal Ministry in Honor of Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B. -- a bargain at only $49.27! Think of it as a down-payment on Paul Marcoux's trousseau.
P.S. I expect it'll be a surprise best-seller in Ireland this season.
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29181
Pro-Homosexual Jesuit Speaker in Archdiocese of St Paul, Minnesota
There is going to be a "Retreat" by a Jesuit who promotes the moral and psychological normalcy of Homosexuality and Liberation Theology and despite warnings from concerned individuals, the Archdiocese has steadfastly refused to do anything about these dissidents speaking in its jurisdication this evening and all day tomorrow.
Dennis McGrath, Communications Director for the Archdiocese of Minnesota who even warned us of the "Catholic Coalition for Church Reform", insists that he's been doing everything possible to keep Michael Bayly, a local homosexual activist, and speakers friendly to him off of Archdiocesan property as speakers or people involved officially with the Archdiocese in any way. We think that he would prefer there weren't any Catholics in the Archdiocese at all, you know, no oversight.
We've just been informed that Terri Griep, a freelance writer, who is organizing the talk is a close collaborator with Michael Bayly and is herself not "harmonious with Catholic teachings" regarding Homosexuality and Liberation Theology. She describes her mission with the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform this way.
Link to original...
Related Articles:
Perhaps Archbishop Nienstedt isn't a "real" conservative?
And he's soft on Marxism too!
Another... Jesuit...
Dennis McGrath, Communications Director for the Archdiocese of Minnesota who even warned us of the "Catholic Coalition for Church Reform", insists that he's been doing everything possible to keep Michael Bayly, a local homosexual activist, and speakers friendly to him off of Archdiocesan property as speakers or people involved officially with the Archdiocese in any way. We think that he would prefer there weren't any Catholics in the Archdiocese at all, you know, no oversight.
We've just been informed that Terri Griep, a freelance writer, who is organizing the talk is a close collaborator with Michael Bayly and is herself not "harmonious with Catholic teachings" regarding Homosexuality and Liberation Theology. She describes her mission with the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform this way.
Is it consistent with the Gospel message of transforming love and abundant life to construct and promote a theology that justifies denying lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons full expression of their sexuality and the human good of partnering? What might an alternative theology, one informed by the findings of science and the experiences and insights of LGBT people, look like?
The Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Work/Study Group of the 2010 Synod will explore the historical, biological, and psycho/social aspects of human sexuality – with particular emphasis on homosexuality. It will also make recommendations for the adoption of a theology that values and celebrates the lives and relationships of LGBT people.
The abovementioned event took place at Our Lady of Lords Catholic Church, Edina, Minnesota.
Link to original...
Related Articles:
Perhaps Archbishop Nienstedt isn't a "real" conservative?
And he's soft on Marxism too!
Another... Jesuit...
Driving all the Snakes Out of Ireland for St. Patrick's Day?
WIDESPREAD condemnation of the way the Roman Catholic bishops of the Dublin archdiocese dealt with paedophile priests over three decades culminated in a call for the expulsion of the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, over the Vatican’s failure to respond to the scandals (News, 27 November).
The independent commission established by the Irish government under Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy of the High Court examined complaints against 46 individual priests, involving 320 children, the majority of whom were boys. One priest admitted sexual abuse of more than 100 children.
It found that four Archbishops and several auxiliary Bishops of Dublin, including five now serving in dioceses of their own, seriously failed in their duty of protection towards children.
The Roman Catholic Church’s own rules and structures facilitated a cover-up, the report says, which included the movement of priests who were known offenders from one parish to another, thus allowing them to reoffend. It also failed to report offenders to the Garda Siochána, the police force of the Republic of Ireland, over the entire period of their tenure in office. The Gardaí, in turn, often deferred to the hierarchy by simply advising archbishops of complaints they themselves had received. RC prelates were thus regarded as being above the law of the State.
The inquiry described the behaviour of successive Archbishops of Dublin as showing “denial, arrogance, and cover-up” over a period from the 1970s until the 1990s. The Justice Minister of Ireland, Dermot Ahern, described the report as chronicling a scandal on an astonishing scale, and pledged that, in the Republic, no organisation or institution would be allowed to regard itself as superior to the State or its people. “A collar will protect no criminal,” he said.
Link to original...
Related Articles:
Irish Church in Trouble: Blame Liberals.
Dublin's Archbishop Silent on Catholic Teaching.
Irish Minister "demands" meeting with Nuncio.
Even Golden Brown wants to get in on the feeding frenzy and talk tough about evil in Northern Ireland.
At least Russia is more sensible than Ireland. They want to improve their relations with the Vatican. In our humble opinion, we think that Catholicism is too good for Ireland.
The independent commission established by the Irish government under Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy of the High Court examined complaints against 46 individual priests, involving 320 children, the majority of whom were boys. One priest admitted sexual abuse of more than 100 children.
It found that four Archbishops and several auxiliary Bishops of Dublin, including five now serving in dioceses of their own, seriously failed in their duty of protection towards children.
The Roman Catholic Church’s own rules and structures facilitated a cover-up, the report says, which included the movement of priests who were known offenders from one parish to another, thus allowing them to reoffend. It also failed to report offenders to the Garda Siochána, the police force of the Republic of Ireland, over the entire period of their tenure in office. The Gardaí, in turn, often deferred to the hierarchy by simply advising archbishops of complaints they themselves had received. RC prelates were thus regarded as being above the law of the State.
The inquiry described the behaviour of successive Archbishops of Dublin as showing “denial, arrogance, and cover-up” over a period from the 1970s until the 1990s. The Justice Minister of Ireland, Dermot Ahern, described the report as chronicling a scandal on an astonishing scale, and pledged that, in the Republic, no organisation or institution would be allowed to regard itself as superior to the State or its people. “A collar will protect no criminal,” he said.
Link to original...
Related Articles:
Irish Church in Trouble: Blame Liberals.
Dublin's Archbishop Silent on Catholic Teaching.
Irish Minister "demands" meeting with Nuncio.
Even Golden Brown wants to get in on the feeding frenzy and talk tough about evil in Northern Ireland.
At least Russia is more sensible than Ireland. They want to improve their relations with the Vatican. In our humble opinion, we think that Catholicism is too good for Ireland.
Why are Jews trying to Wreck Italy?
This is from an article in 2005 and it demonstrates not only longstanding Jewish intolerance of religious expressions outside of Judaism, but it shows a certain similarity with other planned cause celebs launched by the SPLC, ADL and ACLU. Hello, Saul Alinsky. The Italian government will ignore this judicial bullying.
Italian Jews’ Crucifix Stand
The leader of the Italian Jewish community has called for public displays of crucifixes to be outlawed.
In a statement released last week, Amos Luzzatto, Chair of the Italian Union of Jewish Communities (UCEI) spoke out against the symbols as irreflective of all members of society.
"We do respect the Christian people,” Luzzato said. “But a symbol of divine presence in a public school should be recognisable by the citizens of all faiths and it should address them all in an equal manner.
“Now, since every school hosts citizens with different beliefs or no belief at all, we should rather avoid displaying any symbol".
Silence broken
The new declaration broke the August quiet of Italian politics and followed Pope Benedict XVI’s homily on Assumption of the Virgin Day, August 15.
From his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, a village on a hill close to Rome, the Pope said that it is important to continuously display the divine presence "through the cross symbol in privates homes as well as in public buildings".
Since the revision of the 1929 Lateran Pacts of between Italy and the Holy See in 1984, the issue of displaying the crucifix in public buildings such as schools, hospitals and law-courts has been controversial and the subject of much debate.
In 2000, the Court of Cassation ruled as illegitimate the presence of the crucifix in polling stations. And, in its court order four year later, the Italian Constitutional Court, recognised that "The mandatory display of the Crucifix in classrooms would violate the state’s duty of equidistance with respect to different faiths and would contradict the need for a neutral public space".
However, the Court has somehow delegated the local authorities to decide whether to display the cross or not.
Rabbi reacts
Rome’s Chief Rabbi Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, reacted with detachment to the situation.
He declared to the press: "I think there’s absolutely no new official position of the Church on the issue" he declared.
"It is important that the Pope underlined the religious aspect of the symbol. Benedict XVI is a Pope who talks very openly. In the previous polemics some were defending the idea that the crucifix is a cultural symbol (of the Western world); it is clearly not the case and we must take note of this clarification," Di Segni added.
Link to original...
The response
Vatican Condemnation.
Judicial Activist, all part of the initial plan.
Italian Jews’ Crucifix Stand
The leader of the Italian Jewish community has called for public displays of crucifixes to be outlawed.
In a statement released last week, Amos Luzzatto, Chair of the Italian Union of Jewish Communities (UCEI) spoke out against the symbols as irreflective of all members of society.
"We do respect the Christian people,” Luzzato said. “But a symbol of divine presence in a public school should be recognisable by the citizens of all faiths and it should address them all in an equal manner.
“Now, since every school hosts citizens with different beliefs or no belief at all, we should rather avoid displaying any symbol".
Silence broken
The new declaration broke the August quiet of Italian politics and followed Pope Benedict XVI’s homily on Assumption of the Virgin Day, August 15.
From his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, a village on a hill close to Rome, the Pope said that it is important to continuously display the divine presence "through the cross symbol in privates homes as well as in public buildings".
Since the revision of the 1929 Lateran Pacts of between Italy and the Holy See in 1984, the issue of displaying the crucifix in public buildings such as schools, hospitals and law-courts has been controversial and the subject of much debate.
In 2000, the Court of Cassation ruled as illegitimate the presence of the crucifix in polling stations. And, in its court order four year later, the Italian Constitutional Court, recognised that "The mandatory display of the Crucifix in classrooms would violate the state’s duty of equidistance with respect to different faiths and would contradict the need for a neutral public space".
However, the Court has somehow delegated the local authorities to decide whether to display the cross or not.
Rabbi reacts
Rome’s Chief Rabbi Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, reacted with detachment to the situation.
He declared to the press: "I think there’s absolutely no new official position of the Church on the issue" he declared.
"It is important that the Pope underlined the religious aspect of the symbol. Benedict XVI is a Pope who talks very openly. In the previous polemics some were defending the idea that the crucifix is a cultural symbol (of the Western world); it is clearly not the case and we must take note of this clarification," Di Segni added.
Link to original...
The response
Vatican Condemnation.
Judicial Activist, all part of the initial plan.
Even the USCCB thinks Jesuits are Evil
It's not just a few bloggers, or the weight of popular opinion which holds that Jesuits aren't exactly Catholic; now a Capuchin Theologian, Fr Weinardy, almost like in the ancient theological debates of old, takes a Fordham Jesuit to the cleaners.
So, Jesuit institutions are categorically problematic and even the USCCB is aware of it. This Fordham theologian, Dr. Tilley, insists on hiding behind the notion that he is representing a kind of Catholic Theology to be comprehended by contemporary persons, but we wonder two things: whether or not his formulations are equal to or harmouniuos with the formulations of Catholic theology of the first centuries, do they express the same thing and granting that Jesuit theologians actually succeed in adding new light to the faith, does anyone really understand what they're saying after all is said and done? Under the penumbras of their theological praxis, modernist theologians of the Jesuit stripe often escape from the authorities and are allowed to present counterfeit theological positions as Catholic.
In reality, the stylish but unpopular theological formulations of Dr Weinardy bear a stronger resemblance to Simon Magus and the Gnostics throughout the ages than they do to the deposit of Faith. Again we ask the question: what's wrong with the Anglicans, they have openings don't they?
Back in 1993, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave an address in Hong Kong to the presidents of Asian bishops’ conferences on Christology, meaning the church’s teaching about Christ. Ratzinger criticized trends in contemporary theology that he believed gave too much away for the sake of accommodating religious diversity, and a footnote cited the work of Belgian Jesuit theologian Jacques Dupuis.
At that stage, Ratzinger’s footnote was no more than a scholarly citation, yet it signaled that Dupuis was on the radar screen of the church’s doctrinal authorities. For those paying attention, it thus came as little surprise that eight years later, Dupuis was subject of a critical Vatican “notification.” (Dupuis died in 2004.)
Right now, the memory of that episode might make Terrence Tilley, a Fordham theologian and past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, shudder.
In the most recent issue of the Quarterly of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat of Doctrine, subjects Tilley’s presidential address to the CTSA last June to a withering critique – in effect, suggesting that it offered clever rhetoric masking “doctrinal ambiguity and error.”
In very broad strokes, the CTSA is often perceived as leaning to the left in Catholic debate, while the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars has a reputation as more conservative.
Weinanday’s essay was affixed with a note that his views “do not necessarily reflect any position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” Of course, it’s also not quite the same thing to be targeted by a staffer for the U.S. bishops as to be singled out by the Vatican’s doctrinal czar and a future pope.
At the moment, there is no reason to believe that either Tilley or the CTSA is likely to face any sort of official investigation or reprimand. At a minimum, however, Weinandy’s essay is a reminder of the deep divides within the theological community, as well as the sometimes uneasy relationship between the church’s doctrinal authorities and its theological guild.
Though the disputes involved are complex, as with Dupuis the heart of the matter is Christology. The title of Weinandy's essay suggests that Tilley's views lead to "the demise" of the doctrine of the Incarnation, meaning that Christ was both fully God and fully human -- a charge that Tilley denies.
read further...
But then, there are many Bishops responsible for this non-sense going on right in their back yard. Fordham is Archbishop Dolan's problem.
Perhaps Henry Karlson of Fordham University can give us some insight into Liberalism, which he doesn't think is a sin.
So, Jesuit institutions are categorically problematic and even the USCCB is aware of it. This Fordham theologian, Dr. Tilley, insists on hiding behind the notion that he is representing a kind of Catholic Theology to be comprehended by contemporary persons, but we wonder two things: whether or not his formulations are equal to or harmouniuos with the formulations of Catholic theology of the first centuries, do they express the same thing and granting that Jesuit theologians actually succeed in adding new light to the faith, does anyone really understand what they're saying after all is said and done? Under the penumbras of their theological praxis, modernist theologians of the Jesuit stripe often escape from the authorities and are allowed to present counterfeit theological positions as Catholic.
In reality, the stylish but unpopular theological formulations of Dr Weinardy bear a stronger resemblance to Simon Magus and the Gnostics throughout the ages than they do to the deposit of Faith. Again we ask the question: what's wrong with the Anglicans, they have openings don't they?
Back in 1993, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave an address in Hong Kong to the presidents of Asian bishops’ conferences on Christology, meaning the church’s teaching about Christ. Ratzinger criticized trends in contemporary theology that he believed gave too much away for the sake of accommodating religious diversity, and a footnote cited the work of Belgian Jesuit theologian Jacques Dupuis.
At that stage, Ratzinger’s footnote was no more than a scholarly citation, yet it signaled that Dupuis was on the radar screen of the church’s doctrinal authorities. For those paying attention, it thus came as little surprise that eight years later, Dupuis was subject of a critical Vatican “notification.” (Dupuis died in 2004.)
Right now, the memory of that episode might make Terrence Tilley, a Fordham theologian and past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, shudder.
In the most recent issue of the Quarterly of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Capuchin Fr. Thomas Weinandy, executive director of the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat of Doctrine, subjects Tilley’s presidential address to the CTSA last June to a withering critique – in effect, suggesting that it offered clever rhetoric masking “doctrinal ambiguity and error.”
In very broad strokes, the CTSA is often perceived as leaning to the left in Catholic debate, while the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars has a reputation as more conservative.
Weinanday’s essay was affixed with a note that his views “do not necessarily reflect any position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.” Of course, it’s also not quite the same thing to be targeted by a staffer for the U.S. bishops as to be singled out by the Vatican’s doctrinal czar and a future pope.
At the moment, there is no reason to believe that either Tilley or the CTSA is likely to face any sort of official investigation or reprimand. At a minimum, however, Weinandy’s essay is a reminder of the deep divides within the theological community, as well as the sometimes uneasy relationship between the church’s doctrinal authorities and its theological guild.
Though the disputes involved are complex, as with Dupuis the heart of the matter is Christology. The title of Weinandy's essay suggests that Tilley's views lead to "the demise" of the doctrine of the Incarnation, meaning that Christ was both fully God and fully human -- a charge that Tilley denies.
read further...
But then, there are many Bishops responsible for this non-sense going on right in their back yard. Fordham is Archbishop Dolan's problem.
Perhaps Henry Karlson of Fordham University can give us some insight into Liberalism, which he doesn't think is a sin.
Catholic Charities may Close in DC after all.
It might not just be a matter of refusing government funds in the future which will cost the Diocese upwards of $9 Million but of the government revoking state licenses required for Catholic poor relief. This is the reward for all of those years in which Catholic Charitable organizations weren't very active in proselytism for the undoubted financial support of the Government; strings are attached to that money. Perhaps now is a good time to consider closing Jesuit and Catholic Colleges in the Nation's Capital and converting those properties to better use than they are now currently engaged? Now we're increasingly facing a wonderful situation where the Catholic Faith is illegal. Deo Gratias. We're just happy the Bishops are being intransigent about this.
Yesterday, the DC City Council passed the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009" with a nearly unanimous 11-2 vote, completing the first of three steps necessary to enact the bill into law.
In response to the tremendous support of the bill and the very high probability that it will pass the second step, in about 30 days, and continue into the books, the Archdiocese of Washington as well as other Christian religious leaders are weighing their options.
Although the bill does exempt religious organizations from celebrating same-sex marriages it does not protect nor exempt them from recognizing it as employers or social service providers.
The diminished capacity or capability is not just a monetary thing, it is also related to the certifications and licenses archdiocesan agencies need in order to provide particular services such as homeless services, mental health services, foster care, etc. Should the law pass, the city would be required to revoke current certificates and licenses or withhold their renewal. Therefore preventing the archdiocese, Catholic Charities, and other religious organizations, individuals, and agencies from providing those services because of their legitimately-held religious beliefs.
The Archdiocese of Washington has partnered with the other religious leaders around the nation, the ACLU, and other public-interest legal firms to assert their concerns regarding the narrowing of religious freedoms as well as seeking a balance of interests so that religious organizations, their social services agencies, and individuals can function without violating their faith tenets on same-sex marriage.
Link to original...
Yesterday, the DC City Council passed the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009" with a nearly unanimous 11-2 vote, completing the first of three steps necessary to enact the bill into law.
In response to the tremendous support of the bill and the very high probability that it will pass the second step, in about 30 days, and continue into the books, the Archdiocese of Washington as well as other Christian religious leaders are weighing their options.
Although the bill does exempt religious organizations from celebrating same-sex marriages it does not protect nor exempt them from recognizing it as employers or social service providers.
The diminished capacity or capability is not just a monetary thing, it is also related to the certifications and licenses archdiocesan agencies need in order to provide particular services such as homeless services, mental health services, foster care, etc. Should the law pass, the city would be required to revoke current certificates and licenses or withhold their renewal. Therefore preventing the archdiocese, Catholic Charities, and other religious organizations, individuals, and agencies from providing those services because of their legitimately-held religious beliefs.
The Archdiocese of Washington has partnered with the other religious leaders around the nation, the ACLU, and other public-interest legal firms to assert their concerns regarding the narrowing of religious freedoms as well as seeking a balance of interests so that religious organizations, their social services agencies, and individuals can function without violating their faith tenets on same-sex marriage.
Link to original...
Thursday, December 3, 2009
It's Socialism as Usual in Minnesota
Archbishop Nienstedt did mention subsidiarity in his brief interview today on MPR, but what he's asking for, ala Democratic Party, amounts to very direct government interference and more wealth confiscation on the part of the government. Insisting that the healthcare bill include "subsidiarity", the Archbishop suggested that it "move authority down to the lowest level," but he didn't elaborate on how increased centralization and wealth confiscation will involve subsidiarity, or how the mission of the Church to provide healthcare as She has in the past will not be hindered by this legislation.
As far as we know now, the Archbishop is still permitting a Marxist Jesuit to speak at Our Lady of Grace Parish in Edina, contrary to his own Guidelines regarding Catholic speakers.
by Tom Crann, Minnesota Public Radio,
Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio
December 3, 2009
St. Paul, Minn. — Archbishop John Nienstedt reiterated the Catholic Church's opposition to any health care reform bill that would allow abortion coverage, in an interview with MPR's All Things Considered on Thursday.
Nienstedt, the archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, called health care "essential for the human life and dignity of every person," [Even if we have to extort the money from taxpayers] but said the Catholic Church will not support health care legislation unless it meets specific church demands.
"I believe that health care reform is necessary," said Nienstedt. "I'm all in favor of that. The question is, What kind of health care do we want as a nation? And any health care program that would include the killing of the unborn is unacceptable."
Nienstedt said that parishioners should oppose any bill that allows abortion or euthanasia coverage, rations care for the elderly, or lacks a "conscience clause" to allow medical providers to opt out of performing abortions or other procedures they consider immoral.
The Catholic Church has attracted controversy for its lobbying efforts in the health care debate, particularly for its efforts to ban abortion coverage in public option insurance plans.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to U.S. senators in November urging lawmakers to oppose abortion coverage, provide coverage for illegal immigrants and expand coverage for low-income Americans.
"I don't see that as political muscle," Nienstedt said. "I think that's the moral voice of the church speaking."
Link to original...
Don't forget to call the coordinator of Jesuit Kevin Burke's retreat, Terri Griep, here's her social justice website.
As far as we know now, the Archbishop is still permitting a Marxist Jesuit to speak at Our Lady of Grace Parish in Edina, contrary to his own Guidelines regarding Catholic speakers.
by Tom Crann, Minnesota Public Radio,
Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio
December 3, 2009
St. Paul, Minn. — Archbishop John Nienstedt reiterated the Catholic Church's opposition to any health care reform bill that would allow abortion coverage, in an interview with MPR's All Things Considered on Thursday.
Nienstedt, the archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, called health care "essential for the human life and dignity of every person," [Even if we have to extort the money from taxpayers] but said the Catholic Church will not support health care legislation unless it meets specific church demands.
"I believe that health care reform is necessary," said Nienstedt. "I'm all in favor of that. The question is, What kind of health care do we want as a nation? And any health care program that would include the killing of the unborn is unacceptable."
Nienstedt said that parishioners should oppose any bill that allows abortion or euthanasia coverage, rations care for the elderly, or lacks a "conscience clause" to allow medical providers to opt out of performing abortions or other procedures they consider immoral.
The Catholic Church has attracted controversy for its lobbying efforts in the health care debate, particularly for its efforts to ban abortion coverage in public option insurance plans.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to U.S. senators in November urging lawmakers to oppose abortion coverage, provide coverage for illegal immigrants and expand coverage for low-income Americans.
"I don't see that as political muscle," Nienstedt said. "I think that's the moral voice of the church speaking."
Link to original...
Don't forget to call the coordinator of Jesuit Kevin Burke's retreat, Terri Griep, here's her social justice website.
Openly Lesbian "Catholic" Woman Is Member of USCCB Subcommittee For Health Care and Work
By James Todd
Pewsitter.com
December 3, 2009 - According to the USCCB website Mary Kay Henry was appointed to the USCCB Subcommittee for Health Care and Work in 1998. Now more than a decade later, Ms. Henry continues to provide consultation to the USCCB in this capacity – in spite of her open dissent from Church teaching on homosexuality.
Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV, who first reported this story, stated that when he called the USCCB their only immediate comment was that someone would get back to him. Mr. Voris in his daily video commentary states: “Where do the bishops find these people to consult? Surely, there has to be .. somewhere in America .. a faithful Catholic the bishops can turn to for advice on matters of health care.”
What Mr. Voris is referring to is the information found in Mary Kay Henry’s CV posted on the SEIU web site. The last paragraph of that CV follows.
“Mary Kay is also active in the fight for immigration reform and gay and lesbian rights. She is a founding member of SEIU's gay and lesbian Lavender Caucus. She and her partner, Paula Macchello, have been together for 20 years.”
There appears to be a growing distrust and credibility gap between faithful Catholics and the USCCB. Just last month the USCCB’s annual CCHD collection was challenged by a coalition of Catholic lay groups, over the CCHD funding of anti-catholic organizations.
Last year, immediately after the 2008 elections, CCHD finalized their decision to defund Acorn and end its many years of association with this controversial group.
Michael Hitchborn of American Life League, commenting upon CCHD funding controversy last month stated “Given how easily we discovered CCHD funding going to anti-Catholic causes, the only two possibilities are that the CCHD is incompetent or complicit.”
Mr. Hitchborn’s quote would seem to apply here, to the present association between Mary Henry and the USCCB, as well. A quick 5 minute search on the internet can uncover Ms. Henry’s CV including a statement about her “partner” of 20 years, her role as a founding member of a gay and lesbian organization, her active support for gay marriage, and her opposition to Prop 8 in California.
Link to original...
Pewsitter.com
December 3, 2009 - According to the USCCB website Mary Kay Henry was appointed to the USCCB Subcommittee for Health Care and Work in 1998. Now more than a decade later, Ms. Henry continues to provide consultation to the USCCB in this capacity – in spite of her open dissent from Church teaching on homosexuality.
Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV, who first reported this story, stated that when he called the USCCB their only immediate comment was that someone would get back to him. Mr. Voris in his daily video commentary states: “Where do the bishops find these people to consult? Surely, there has to be .. somewhere in America .. a faithful Catholic the bishops can turn to for advice on matters of health care.”
What Mr. Voris is referring to is the information found in Mary Kay Henry’s CV posted on the SEIU web site. The last paragraph of that CV follows.
“Mary Kay is also active in the fight for immigration reform and gay and lesbian rights. She is a founding member of SEIU's gay and lesbian Lavender Caucus. She and her partner, Paula Macchello, have been together for 20 years.”
There appears to be a growing distrust and credibility gap between faithful Catholics and the USCCB. Just last month the USCCB’s annual CCHD collection was challenged by a coalition of Catholic lay groups, over the CCHD funding of anti-catholic organizations.
Last year, immediately after the 2008 elections, CCHD finalized their decision to defund Acorn and end its many years of association with this controversial group.
Michael Hitchborn of American Life League, commenting upon CCHD funding controversy last month stated “Given how easily we discovered CCHD funding going to anti-Catholic causes, the only two possibilities are that the CCHD is incompetent or complicit.”
Mr. Hitchborn’s quote would seem to apply here, to the present association between Mary Henry and the USCCB, as well. A quick 5 minute search on the internet can uncover Ms. Henry’s CV including a statement about her “partner” of 20 years, her role as a founding member of a gay and lesbian organization, her active support for gay marriage, and her opposition to Prop 8 in California.
Link to original...
Irish Theologian Calls for Irish Bishops' Resignation
In addition to the opportunistic, traitorous as a Scythian and very liberal Archbishop Martin of Dublin, a different and much more credible voice speaks out asking for the Mitres of named Irish Bishops, in contrast to the Peace and Justice Bishop of Dublin, he speaks about the spiritual dimension of this outrage and the malfeasance of the Bishops who aided and abetted it.
A prominent Irish theologian who is former student of Pope Benedict’s has called on those Irish bishops who are named in the Murphy report on clerical abuse in the Dublin diocese “to resign immediately from their current pastoral positions”.
Dr Vincent Twomey, who is professor emeritus of moral theology at Maynooth, writes in a letter published in today’s Irish Times that “at the very least, it would seem, all were guilty of negligence – some, such as Bishop Donal Murray of Limerick, whose behaviour was described as ‘inexcusable’, more than others."
He adds, "But all were deemed guilty of inaction, of failing to listen to their conscience, as Mary Raftery put it on radio and television.”
Speaking to The Universe today, Dr Twomey said that the spiritual damage that had been done to the victims by the priests who abused them, and the damage done by the apparent inaction of the bishops, was "now being exacerbated by the bishops' failure to stand down and take repsonsibility".
The theologian underlines in his letter to the Irish Times that “the longer they delay in doing so, the greater the damage they will do to all faithful Catholics, and in particular to the survivors of abuse who are still paying the price for the sins of their priests and bishops”.
Dr Twomey is a member of the Pope Benedict’s Schülerkreis, an annual conference of the Pope’s graduate students who meet the pontiff every year to discuss theological issues.
In his letter, Dr Twomey writes that his “instinct is to defend the Church from unfounded attacks. But the revelations of the Murphy report are something else."
He adds, "The actions, or rather for the most part, the inactions of the bishops named there are simply indefensible.”
Yesterday, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin called on bishops and priests criticised in the Murphy report into the handling of clerical sexual abuse in his diocese between 1975 and 2004 to admit their mistakes and resign.
Five serving bishops who were auxiliary bishops in Dublin over the period of time investigated by Judge Yvonne Murphy’s Commission were criticised in the report, which was published last Thursday.
In what was seen as a response to a statement made by Bishop Donal Murray at the weekend saying his decision about whether to stay on as a bishop would be guided by the faithful of Limerick where he now serves, Archbishop Martin said he would be writing to all the auxiliary bishops who served in Dublin and who are named in the Dublin diocesan report to say that their responses to the report were a matter for the Catholics of the Archdiocese.
Dr Martin said he would need to be confident his priests could stand over their statements.
He added that what they did and did not do failed people in Dublin and they owed them a response. Everyone should stand up and take responsibility for what they did, he said.
Bishop Murray was an auxiliary bishop of the Dublin Diocese from 1982 to 1996.
Pressure has mounted on Bishop Murray to resign after the report branded his failure to investigate complaints against Fr Tom Naughton when later allegations were made as “inexcusable”.
Link to original...
And in a related story, we have another who should resign to a very austere Monastery (if there are any left) who is guilty of the same inaction and indifference as the Irish Bishops, Cardinal Egan. At least he's out of the game and can't do any more damage.
A prominent Irish theologian who is former student of Pope Benedict’s has called on those Irish bishops who are named in the Murphy report on clerical abuse in the Dublin diocese “to resign immediately from their current pastoral positions”.
Dr Vincent Twomey, who is professor emeritus of moral theology at Maynooth, writes in a letter published in today’s Irish Times that “at the very least, it would seem, all were guilty of negligence – some, such as Bishop Donal Murray of Limerick, whose behaviour was described as ‘inexcusable’, more than others."
He adds, "But all were deemed guilty of inaction, of failing to listen to their conscience, as Mary Raftery put it on radio and television.”
Speaking to The Universe today, Dr Twomey said that the spiritual damage that had been done to the victims by the priests who abused them, and the damage done by the apparent inaction of the bishops, was "now being exacerbated by the bishops' failure to stand down and take repsonsibility".
The theologian underlines in his letter to the Irish Times that “the longer they delay in doing so, the greater the damage they will do to all faithful Catholics, and in particular to the survivors of abuse who are still paying the price for the sins of their priests and bishops”.
Dr Twomey is a member of the Pope Benedict’s Schülerkreis, an annual conference of the Pope’s graduate students who meet the pontiff every year to discuss theological issues.
In his letter, Dr Twomey writes that his “instinct is to defend the Church from unfounded attacks. But the revelations of the Murphy report are something else."
He adds, "The actions, or rather for the most part, the inactions of the bishops named there are simply indefensible.”
Yesterday, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin called on bishops and priests criticised in the Murphy report into the handling of clerical sexual abuse in his diocese between 1975 and 2004 to admit their mistakes and resign.
Five serving bishops who were auxiliary bishops in Dublin over the period of time investigated by Judge Yvonne Murphy’s Commission were criticised in the report, which was published last Thursday.
In what was seen as a response to a statement made by Bishop Donal Murray at the weekend saying his decision about whether to stay on as a bishop would be guided by the faithful of Limerick where he now serves, Archbishop Martin said he would be writing to all the auxiliary bishops who served in Dublin and who are named in the Dublin diocesan report to say that their responses to the report were a matter for the Catholics of the Archdiocese.
Dr Martin said he would need to be confident his priests could stand over their statements.
He added that what they did and did not do failed people in Dublin and they owed them a response. Everyone should stand up and take responsibility for what they did, he said.
Bishop Murray was an auxiliary bishop of the Dublin Diocese from 1982 to 1996.
Pressure has mounted on Bishop Murray to resign after the report branded his failure to investigate complaints against Fr Tom Naughton when later allegations were made as “inexcusable”.
Link to original...
And in a related story, we have another who should resign to a very austere Monastery (if there are any left) who is guilty of the same inaction and indifference as the Irish Bishops, Cardinal Egan. At least he's out of the game and can't do any more damage.
Gays 'will never go to heaven', says cardinal
(AFP) – 1 day ago
VATICAN CITY — Homosexuals and transsexuals "will never enter the kingdom of heaven", a leading Roman Catholic cardinal said on Wednesday.
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan said that while the Church regarded homosexuality as an "insult to God", this did not justify discrimination against gay and transsexual people.
"Transsexuals and homosexuals will never enter the kingdom of heaven and it is not me who says this, but Saint Paul," the cardinal said, in comments reported by the Ansa news agency.
"People are not born homosexual, they become homosexual, for different reasons: education issues or because they did not develop their own identity during adolescence. It may not be their fault, but acting against nature and the dignity of the human body is an insult to God," he said.
Barragan, the retired head of the Vatican's Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, quoted a passage from Paul's epistle to the Romans which speaks of "men committing indecent acts with other men".
"Homosexuality is therefore a sin, but this does not justify any form of discrimination. God alone has the right to judge," the cardinal said.
"We on earth cannot condemn, and as human beings we all have the same rights."
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
VATICAN CITY — Homosexuals and transsexuals "will never enter the kingdom of heaven", a leading Roman Catholic cardinal said on Wednesday.
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan said that while the Church regarded homosexuality as an "insult to God", this did not justify discrimination against gay and transsexual people.
"Transsexuals and homosexuals will never enter the kingdom of heaven and it is not me who says this, but Saint Paul," the cardinal said, in comments reported by the Ansa news agency.
"People are not born homosexual, they become homosexual, for different reasons: education issues or because they did not develop their own identity during adolescence. It may not be their fault, but acting against nature and the dignity of the human body is an insult to God," he said.
Barragan, the retired head of the Vatican's Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, quoted a passage from Paul's epistle to the Romans which speaks of "men committing indecent acts with other men".
"Homosexuality is therefore a sin, but this does not justify any form of discrimination. God alone has the right to judge," the cardinal said.
"We on earth cannot condemn, and as human beings we all have the same rights."
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Guidelines aren't so Strict, Minnesota Archbishop Soft on Marxism
Dennis McGrath, the mouthpiece of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul, Minnesota, insists that a controversial speaker, Father Kevin Burke SJ, who is about to speak at a local parish, Our Lady of Grace in Edina, is a priest in good standing and there is no cause to invoke any sanctions against his coming visit and talk. While Mr. McGrath admits that the Church has admonitions about Liberation Theology, he won't admit that it condemns this Marxist ideological approach. McGrath insists that, "condemnation is much too strong a word." In reality the Church has condemned Liberation Theology and even if a specific condemnation weren't available at this point, many of its underlying principles. The Communications Director of the Archdiocese is wrong, the Church has condemned Liberation Theology and the Archdiocese (link) is hosting a well-known advocate of Liberation Theology and Homosexuality in opposition to his own rules not to host speakers whose writings are not in harmony with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Father Burke SJ has written and not retracted various treatises on Liberation Theology in praise of Marxists like Ignacio Ellacuria, who became a casualty of war when he assisted Soviet backed guerrillas in the Salvadoran civil war.
He also heads a faculty in Berkeley that features "Queer Studies". It's hard to see how this amounts to "being in harmony with the teachings of the Church."
When we brought this to the McGrath's attention, he accused the interviewer of not "loving homosexual persons" and went on for a while, insisting that they are certainly welcome in the Archdiocese.
We'd suggest that the Communications Director, given the large salary he receives to represent the Archdiocese in these matters, actually read the directives and teachings of the Church and Archdiocese he claims to represent.
At this point it seems clear where the Bishop and Dennis McGrath, ever eager to make false allusions himself, stand with regard to the teachings of the Church. We would in no way, of course, say that Archbishop Nienstedt or any of those under his leadership are Marxists or Homosexuals, naturally.
Related Articles:
Stricter Guidelines for Catholic Speakers.
Kevin Burke SJ.
Archbishop Nienstedt defends CCHD.
Father Burke SJ has written and not retracted various treatises on Liberation Theology in praise of Marxists like Ignacio Ellacuria, who became a casualty of war when he assisted Soviet backed guerrillas in the Salvadoran civil war.
He also heads a faculty in Berkeley that features "Queer Studies". It's hard to see how this amounts to "being in harmony with the teachings of the Church."
When we brought this to the McGrath's attention, he accused the interviewer of not "loving homosexual persons" and went on for a while, insisting that they are certainly welcome in the Archdiocese.
We'd suggest that the Communications Director, given the large salary he receives to represent the Archdiocese in these matters, actually read the directives and teachings of the Church and Archdiocese he claims to represent.
At this point it seems clear where the Bishop and Dennis McGrath, ever eager to make false allusions himself, stand with regard to the teachings of the Church. We would in no way, of course, say that Archbishop Nienstedt or any of those under his leadership are Marxists or Homosexuals, naturally.
Related Articles:
Stricter Guidelines for Catholic Speakers.
Kevin Burke SJ.
Archbishop Nienstedt defends CCHD.
Catholic Charities in D.C. Will Continue Operations Even If Bill Passes
Auxiliary Bishop Barry C. Knestout of Washington said despite news reports to the contrary, “Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same-sex marriage bill passes” in the District of Columbia’s City Council. Bishop Knestout made the commitment in an open letter to local Catholics posted on the Web site of The Catholic Standard, Washington’s archdiocesan newspaper. The bishop said the level of services will not be the same, though, because “without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services.” Arch-diocesan officials and other religious leaders in the district have said that if the council is going to pass the measure despite their objections, then it must include strong protections for religious conscience. Catholic Charities currently serves 68,000 people in the city, including one-third of Washing-ton’s homeless.
Link to... America
Link to... America
Moscow and Rome Making Progress
Inevitably, this is going to happen and it's just a matter of time. The friendly overtures on the part of the Bulgarians as well as the recent talks in Cyprus point to it, but there are negative reasons as well, threats that are far greater than the Turk.
By Oleg Shchedrov
MOSCOW, Dec 3 (Reuters) - The Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are making progress towards healing their 1,000-year-old rift, a senior Russian official said ahead of President Dmitry Medvedev's first visit to the Vatican.
But the Russian leader will not invite Pope Benedict to make an historic visit to Russia when the two meet on Thursday because he believes church heads should take the initiative, said the official, who refused to be identified.
"It is not appropriate for a secular leader to raise the issue in the absence of a hierarch," the official said. "They (Church leaders) should decide the issue themselves."
"However, a movement towards normalisation is clearly seen and things are moving in the right direction," he added.
The Russian Orthodox Church has revived dramatically since the collapse of communism and is now a powerful and influential force. Its leader, Patriarch Kirill, is often seen with Kremlin chiefs, top officials and visiting foreign leaders.
Visits by Russian leaders to the Holy See in the past have failed to help heal the rift between the churches.
But fresh hopes emerged when Kirill took power after the death of his theologically more conservative predecessor Alexiy II last December.
Patriarch Alexiy, who spearheaded the revival of his church after decades of Communist persecution, treated rival religions and churches with suspicion.
The Russian Orthodox Church has accused the Vatican of poaching for converts in its territory, including Slav neighbour Ukraine. The Catholic Church says it is only ministering to an existing flock of around half a million Russian Catholics.
The mediaeval Christian church split into Eastern and Western branches in the Great Schism of 1054 amid disputes over papal authority and the insertion of a clause into the Nicene Creed. The divide has never been healed.
Patriarch Kirill, who headed the Church's foreign relations department for many years before taking his present job, has shown less hostility towards Catholics than Alexiy.
German-born Pope Benedict, a theological conservative, is viewed by Orthodox hierarchs as a more welcome partner than his predecessor John Paul II.
John Paul hailed from Poland, a traditional enemy of Russia, and his fight against Soviet Communism was interpreted by the Orthodox Church as a crusade against Russia.
In March, Medvedev took part in a ceremony in which the Italian government handed a pilgrimage centre in the southern city of Bari to the Orthodox Church.
"I think relations (between the churches) are now becoming more open," the Russian source said. "These steps show they are working on the atmosphere and we appreciate this."
© 2009 Reuters
Link to original...
By Oleg Shchedrov
MOSCOW, Dec 3 (Reuters) - The Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are making progress towards healing their 1,000-year-old rift, a senior Russian official said ahead of President Dmitry Medvedev's first visit to the Vatican.
But the Russian leader will not invite Pope Benedict to make an historic visit to Russia when the two meet on Thursday because he believes church heads should take the initiative, said the official, who refused to be identified.
"It is not appropriate for a secular leader to raise the issue in the absence of a hierarch," the official said. "They (Church leaders) should decide the issue themselves."
"However, a movement towards normalisation is clearly seen and things are moving in the right direction," he added.
The Russian Orthodox Church has revived dramatically since the collapse of communism and is now a powerful and influential force. Its leader, Patriarch Kirill, is often seen with Kremlin chiefs, top officials and visiting foreign leaders.
Visits by Russian leaders to the Holy See in the past have failed to help heal the rift between the churches.
But fresh hopes emerged when Kirill took power after the death of his theologically more conservative predecessor Alexiy II last December.
Patriarch Alexiy, who spearheaded the revival of his church after decades of Communist persecution, treated rival religions and churches with suspicion.
The Russian Orthodox Church has accused the Vatican of poaching for converts in its territory, including Slav neighbour Ukraine. The Catholic Church says it is only ministering to an existing flock of around half a million Russian Catholics.
The mediaeval Christian church split into Eastern and Western branches in the Great Schism of 1054 amid disputes over papal authority and the insertion of a clause into the Nicene Creed. The divide has never been healed.
Patriarch Kirill, who headed the Church's foreign relations department for many years before taking his present job, has shown less hostility towards Catholics than Alexiy.
German-born Pope Benedict, a theological conservative, is viewed by Orthodox hierarchs as a more welcome partner than his predecessor John Paul II.
John Paul hailed from Poland, a traditional enemy of Russia, and his fight against Soviet Communism was interpreted by the Orthodox Church as a crusade against Russia.
In March, Medvedev took part in a ceremony in which the Italian government handed a pilgrimage centre in the southern city of Bari to the Orthodox Church.
"I think relations (between the churches) are now becoming more open," the Russian source said. "These steps show they are working on the atmosphere and we appreciate this."
© 2009 Reuters
Link to original...
Revolutionary San Francisco will Steal 14.4 Million Dollars from Church
Socialist confiscation schemes are nothing new and now the Archdiocese of San Francisco is being held accountable for 14.4 Million Dollars by the Revolutionary Government of San Francisco. Their hostillity isn't surprising given the Catholic Church's opposition to immoral practices like homosexuality. All in all, it sounds more like the continuation of the Masonic Government ofMexico's Revolutionary Government.
It will be very interesting indeed to see what kind of steely leadership will be provided by Archbishop George Niederauer.
By Ryan Thomas Riddle
Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting is the victor in the high-stakes battle against the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco. The church has been ordered to pay an estimated $14.4 million in transfer taxes to the city. But the victory comes on the heels of the California State Board of Equalization’s decision to slightly lower property taxes statewide.
On Tuesday, Dec. 4, the Transfer Tax Review Board voted 3-0 in favor of the Assessor’s Office, resulting in what the office is calling “the second largest transfer tax event in our city’s history.” The board decided that the Archdiocese’s extensive 2008 property transfers were taxable under the Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance.
Ting said via phone conference that board’s decision shows that his office has been “aggressive and fairly enforcing the law.” He added that while the Assessor’s Office may have turned a blind eye in the past, the board’s verdict shows that every taxpayer gets treated the same under his watch. “We have worked hard to ensure every taxpayer is being assessed transfer taxes in a fair and consistent manner.”
How the diocese is going to pay up has yet to be determined, according to Ting. The easiest way would be for the diocese to “cut a check,” he told the Guardian. However, it’s expected that the diocese won’t be able to file an appeal until the transfer taxes are paid. And until it does, the Assessor’s Office will continue to charge interest.
But the victory was also a case of “win some, lose some.” Board of Equalization (BOE) chairwoman Betty T. Yee’s office announced on the same day announcing the BOE’s decision to lower property taxes by 0.237 percent. The release calls this a “negative inflation factor.” Translation: deflation.
The release states: “This is the first time such a broad scale reduction in property tax base year values has occurred. Since the passage of Proposition 13, the inflation factor has never before been negative, and in all but five years the annual adjustment has been capped at 2 percent.”
Ting said “going negative isn’t a positive thing.” His office calculates that the city could potentially lose an estimated $3 million in property revenue for 2010-2011. However, the numbers are still being crunched. One thing is for certain: everyone will see a decrease in their property taxes.
“Every property owner in San Francisco that didn’t get a reduction will get a reduction,” Ting said.
However, one property owner will be exempt from the lower rate—the Archdiocese of San Francisco. According to the Assessor’s Office, the church doesn’t have to pay yearly taxes on its properties because of its non-profit status, which the Transfer Tax Review Board’s decision doesn’t change.
Link to original...
It will be very interesting indeed to see what kind of steely leadership will be provided by Archbishop George Niederauer.
By Ryan Thomas Riddle
Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting is the victor in the high-stakes battle against the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco. The church has been ordered to pay an estimated $14.4 million in transfer taxes to the city. But the victory comes on the heels of the California State Board of Equalization’s decision to slightly lower property taxes statewide.
On Tuesday, Dec. 4, the Transfer Tax Review Board voted 3-0 in favor of the Assessor’s Office, resulting in what the office is calling “the second largest transfer tax event in our city’s history.” The board decided that the Archdiocese’s extensive 2008 property transfers were taxable under the Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance.
Ting said via phone conference that board’s decision shows that his office has been “aggressive and fairly enforcing the law.” He added that while the Assessor’s Office may have turned a blind eye in the past, the board’s verdict shows that every taxpayer gets treated the same under his watch. “We have worked hard to ensure every taxpayer is being assessed transfer taxes in a fair and consistent manner.”
How the diocese is going to pay up has yet to be determined, according to Ting. The easiest way would be for the diocese to “cut a check,” he told the Guardian. However, it’s expected that the diocese won’t be able to file an appeal until the transfer taxes are paid. And until it does, the Assessor’s Office will continue to charge interest.
But the victory was also a case of “win some, lose some.” Board of Equalization (BOE) chairwoman Betty T. Yee’s office announced on the same day announcing the BOE’s decision to lower property taxes by 0.237 percent. The release calls this a “negative inflation factor.” Translation: deflation.
The release states: “This is the first time such a broad scale reduction in property tax base year values has occurred. Since the passage of Proposition 13, the inflation factor has never before been negative, and in all but five years the annual adjustment has been capped at 2 percent.”
Ting said “going negative isn’t a positive thing.” His office calculates that the city could potentially lose an estimated $3 million in property revenue for 2010-2011. However, the numbers are still being crunched. One thing is for certain: everyone will see a decrease in their property taxes.
“Every property owner in San Francisco that didn’t get a reduction will get a reduction,” Ting said.
However, one property owner will be exempt from the lower rate—the Archdiocese of San Francisco. According to the Assessor’s Office, the church doesn’t have to pay yearly taxes on its properties because of its non-profit status, which the Transfer Tax Review Board’s decision doesn’t change.
Link to original...
Glasgow's Archbishop criticizes Modern Art
Modern art is paganised and increasingly reflects a culture of death, Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow has said.
He was speaking a day after the Pope met more than 250 artists at the Sistine Chapel in Rome, urging them to embark on a "quest for beauty".
Archbishop Conti said in his homily at a Mass for artists in Glasgow that a lot of modern art was "incoherent and dispiriting".
He said: "If we can legitimately speak of a culture of death, much art reflects it: the body is defaced; the marital act prostituted; gender dissembled."
In particular he cited a play portraying Jesus as a transsexual, called Jesus, Queen of Heaven, and an exhibition displaying a Bible with abuse written on it. He has said it was "disgraceful" that both events received public funding.
He compared the offence they caused to Christians to the apparent offence given to a Finnish woman by the display of crucifixes in Italian classrooms - a complaint upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.
Archbishop Conti said the image of the crucified Christ was deemed offensive because it had become a challenge to secular society.
He quoted an editorial in L'Osservatore Romano which predicted a time when public places were stripped of religious symbols "for fear of offending others' sensibilities".
In Europe, he said, "the very foundations of our Christian civilisation are being disturbed", and modern art, as an expression of culture, reflected that.
The archbishop concluded his homily by urging Christian artists to use their work to bear witness to Christ, "and so countering all that obscures his beauty".
His appeal closely echoed that of Pope Benedict XVI in his meeting with 262 leading arts figures in the Sistine Chapel on Saturday.
Guests, who included artist Anish Kapoor, composer Ennio Morricone and Gomorra director Matteo Garrone - though not U2 singer Bono, who was invited but could not attend - sat underneath Michelangelo's Last Judgment and heard a choir sing music by Palestrina.
Pope Benedict told them that they had a "great responsibility to communicate beauty".
True beauty, he said, forced people to encounter reality and pointed them to the mystery of existence and, ultimately, to God.
The Pope appropriated the language of modern art criticism, saying beauty "gives man a healthy 'shock', it draws him out of himself, wrenches him away from resignation and from being content with the humdrum". He said it may even make the onlooker suffer, "piercing him like a dart".
He then distinguished between superficial beauty, which "rekindles desire, the will to power, to possess", and true beauty, which "unlocks the yearning of the human heart, the profound desire to know, to love, to go towards the other, to reach for the beyond". He said: "If we acknowledge that beauty touches us intimately, that it wounds us, that it opens our eyes, then we rediscover the joy of seeing, of being able to grasp the profound meaning of our existence, the mystery of which we are part."
The Pope said that beauty, whether in nature or in art, by pointing beyond ourselves, and "bringing us face to face with the abyss of infinity, can become a path towards the transcendent, towards the ultimate mystery, towards God".
The Pope urged artists to "enter into dialogue with believers". He said that faith "takes nothing from your genius or your art. On the contrary, it exalts them and nourishes them".
Zaha Hadid, an Iraqi-born architect, said afterwards that the audience "was quite an emotional experience". The American architect Daniel Libeskind described it as an "amazing step". Bill Viola, an American video artist, told the New York Times that artists had struggled for centuries "walking that fine line between creative freedom, between bending the rules" and breaking them. But he said the audience had "real potential for something interesting".
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, director of the Pontifical Council for Culture, organised the event. He has suggested that the Vatican should have its own pavilion at the next Venice Biennale art exhibition in 2011 as well as at the Frankfurt Book Fair.
Link to article...
He was speaking a day after the Pope met more than 250 artists at the Sistine Chapel in Rome, urging them to embark on a "quest for beauty".
Archbishop Conti said in his homily at a Mass for artists in Glasgow that a lot of modern art was "incoherent and dispiriting".
He said: "If we can legitimately speak of a culture of death, much art reflects it: the body is defaced; the marital act prostituted; gender dissembled."
In particular he cited a play portraying Jesus as a transsexual, called Jesus, Queen of Heaven, and an exhibition displaying a Bible with abuse written on it. He has said it was "disgraceful" that both events received public funding.
He compared the offence they caused to Christians to the apparent offence given to a Finnish woman by the display of crucifixes in Italian classrooms - a complaint upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.
Archbishop Conti said the image of the crucified Christ was deemed offensive because it had become a challenge to secular society.
He quoted an editorial in L'Osservatore Romano which predicted a time when public places were stripped of religious symbols "for fear of offending others' sensibilities".
In Europe, he said, "the very foundations of our Christian civilisation are being disturbed", and modern art, as an expression of culture, reflected that.
The archbishop concluded his homily by urging Christian artists to use their work to bear witness to Christ, "and so countering all that obscures his beauty".
His appeal closely echoed that of Pope Benedict XVI in his meeting with 262 leading arts figures in the Sistine Chapel on Saturday.
Guests, who included artist Anish Kapoor, composer Ennio Morricone and Gomorra director Matteo Garrone - though not U2 singer Bono, who was invited but could not attend - sat underneath Michelangelo's Last Judgment and heard a choir sing music by Palestrina.
Pope Benedict told them that they had a "great responsibility to communicate beauty".
True beauty, he said, forced people to encounter reality and pointed them to the mystery of existence and, ultimately, to God.
The Pope appropriated the language of modern art criticism, saying beauty "gives man a healthy 'shock', it draws him out of himself, wrenches him away from resignation and from being content with the humdrum". He said it may even make the onlooker suffer, "piercing him like a dart".
He then distinguished between superficial beauty, which "rekindles desire, the will to power, to possess", and true beauty, which "unlocks the yearning of the human heart, the profound desire to know, to love, to go towards the other, to reach for the beyond". He said: "If we acknowledge that beauty touches us intimately, that it wounds us, that it opens our eyes, then we rediscover the joy of seeing, of being able to grasp the profound meaning of our existence, the mystery of which we are part."
The Pope said that beauty, whether in nature or in art, by pointing beyond ourselves, and "bringing us face to face with the abyss of infinity, can become a path towards the transcendent, towards the ultimate mystery, towards God".
The Pope urged artists to "enter into dialogue with believers". He said that faith "takes nothing from your genius or your art. On the contrary, it exalts them and nourishes them".
Zaha Hadid, an Iraqi-born architect, said afterwards that the audience "was quite an emotional experience". The American architect Daniel Libeskind described it as an "amazing step". Bill Viola, an American video artist, told the New York Times that artists had struggled for centuries "walking that fine line between creative freedom, between bending the rules" and breaking them. But he said the audience had "real potential for something interesting".
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, director of the Pontifical Council for Culture, organised the event. He has suggested that the Vatican should have its own pavilion at the next Venice Biennale art exhibition in 2011 as well as at the Frankfurt Book Fair.
Link to article...
Swiss Bishops show their Internationalist Colors
Like windup automatons, these lunchroom Lenins at the Swiss Bishops Conference have been roused to play their divisive role for globular harmony in the face of Switzerland's auto-immune response against the evils of Islam. Either the Swiss Bishops are eager to please their Masters or they have been effectively conditioned to be hostile to their own motherland. These kinds of divided loyalties are commonplace, for example, a recent poll taken of Vatican Employees showed a clear Obama majority. Will someone put these dinosaurs to pasture and replace them with younger, orthodox men?
We look with hope that some day, real Bishops will come from the Monasteries to replace these men who are more like grocery store managers than prelates.
By John Thavis, Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The bishops of Switzerland said the country's ban on the construction of minarets, the Muslim prayer towers, represents an obstacle to interreligious harmony.
The ban aggravates interfaith tensions and could have negative repercussions on Christian minorities in Muslim countries, the bishops said in a statement Nov. 29.
The prohibition was adopted by Swiss voters in a referendum that passed with a 58 percent majority. There are about 150 mosques in Switzerland serving some 400,000 Muslims; only four have minarets and, unlike in Islamic countries, they are not used to call Muslims to prayer.
The bishops said the referendum campaign, promoted by right-wing parties, had used exaggeration and caricature, and demonstrated that "religious peace does not operate by itself and always needs to be defended."
"The decision of the people represents an obstacle and a great challenge on the path of integration in dialogue and mutual respect," the bishops said. Banning the building of minarets "increases the problems of coexistence between religions and cultures," they said.
The bishops said the measure "will not help the Christians oppressed and persecuted in Islamic countries, but will weaken the credibility of their commitment in these countries."
Swiss authorities said after the vote that the four existing minarets would be allowed to stand, and that there was no ban on the construction of new mosques.
Copyright © 2009 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
.
Link to article...
We look with hope that some day, real Bishops will come from the Monasteries to replace these men who are more like grocery store managers than prelates.
By John Thavis, Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The bishops of Switzerland said the country's ban on the construction of minarets, the Muslim prayer towers, represents an obstacle to interreligious harmony.
The ban aggravates interfaith tensions and could have negative repercussions on Christian minorities in Muslim countries, the bishops said in a statement Nov. 29.
The prohibition was adopted by Swiss voters in a referendum that passed with a 58 percent majority. There are about 150 mosques in Switzerland serving some 400,000 Muslims; only four have minarets and, unlike in Islamic countries, they are not used to call Muslims to prayer.
The bishops said the referendum campaign, promoted by right-wing parties, had used exaggeration and caricature, and demonstrated that "religious peace does not operate by itself and always needs to be defended."
"The decision of the people represents an obstacle and a great challenge on the path of integration in dialogue and mutual respect," the bishops said. Banning the building of minarets "increases the problems of coexistence between religions and cultures," they said.
The bishops said the measure "will not help the Christians oppressed and persecuted in Islamic countries, but will weaken the credibility of their commitment in these countries."
Swiss authorities said after the vote that the four existing minarets would be allowed to stand, and that there was no ban on the construction of new mosques.
Copyright © 2009 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
.
Link to article...
Maoists ended Monarchy in Nepal
What's the possibillity of restoring the Monarchy to Nepal and handing the Chinese their own back-yard insurgency? We didn't back the Afghani Monarchy when it was still in power and effectively running the country and now look at the mess we have.
Prakash Koirala
Senior Politician, Nepal
Prakash Koirala demands no introduction as he is a well known politician of this country. His association with the Nepali Congress was simply but natural because one of the founding fathers of the present day NC was his own father late B.P Koirala.
Junior Koirala differed with his uncle, Girija Prasad Koirala, on many issues of national interests. When enough had been enough, Junior Koirala quit the mother party or say he was sidelined by his own conspiratorial uncle.
Junior Koirala still commands respect and honor in his former party.
However, when Prakash Koirala went to the fold of the Nepali Monarchy, his prestige began swinging in his own mother party. Koirala claims that Nepal’s Monarchy could still be taken as the symbol of national unity and in an implied manner wants to see the now sidelined monarchy revived through the conduct of a referendum.
The rest, let’s listen to what Junior Koirala has to say on contemporary political events: Editor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGQ1: What prompted you Mr. Koirala to proceed with the “Nationality Preservation Campaign”? What are the prime objectives of this campaign? Will you please shed some light on what have you been doing of late? Your comments please!
Koirala: The country at the moment is undergoing through a very dangerous transitional period. The country and the Nepali nationality are under grave threat. Practically all the important national decisions are being taken in collaboration with the forces that represent the international community. Because of the intensified international pressure with each passing days, the country and its nationalism aspect is becoming weaker and weaker.
While, on the one hand, we make tall claims as regards the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and national independence, however, in practice foreign forces are being allowed in a naked manner to decide our fate. Analyzing the existing anomalies in the national politics, we have endeavored to move ahead with the campaign to preserve and protect Nepal’s nationalism which has been made weaker.
Link to article...
Prakash Koirala
Senior Politician, Nepal
Prakash Koirala demands no introduction as he is a well known politician of this country. His association with the Nepali Congress was simply but natural because one of the founding fathers of the present day NC was his own father late B.P Koirala.
Junior Koirala differed with his uncle, Girija Prasad Koirala, on many issues of national interests. When enough had been enough, Junior Koirala quit the mother party or say he was sidelined by his own conspiratorial uncle.
Junior Koirala still commands respect and honor in his former party.
However, when Prakash Koirala went to the fold of the Nepali Monarchy, his prestige began swinging in his own mother party. Koirala claims that Nepal’s Monarchy could still be taken as the symbol of national unity and in an implied manner wants to see the now sidelined monarchy revived through the conduct of a referendum.
The rest, let’s listen to what Junior Koirala has to say on contemporary political events: Editor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGQ1: What prompted you Mr. Koirala to proceed with the “Nationality Preservation Campaign”? What are the prime objectives of this campaign? Will you please shed some light on what have you been doing of late? Your comments please!
Koirala: The country at the moment is undergoing through a very dangerous transitional period. The country and the Nepali nationality are under grave threat. Practically all the important national decisions are being taken in collaboration with the forces that represent the international community. Because of the intensified international pressure with each passing days, the country and its nationalism aspect is becoming weaker and weaker.
While, on the one hand, we make tall claims as regards the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and national independence, however, in practice foreign forces are being allowed in a naked manner to decide our fate. Analyzing the existing anomalies in the national politics, we have endeavored to move ahead with the campaign to preserve and protect Nepal’s nationalism which has been made weaker.
Link to article...
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Tom Golisano is Pro-Life, for real this time.
It is now apparent that Tom Golisano who gave 4 Million Dollars to Ave Maria University, is really pro-life all alone. It wasn't clear before, but now it is.
Catholic Online
CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) - I recently wrote an article on the generous four million dollar gift received by Ave Maria University from Tom Golisano. Some within the broader Pro-Life and Catholic community raised issues concerning the acceptance of the gift, others concerning the naming of the new athletic facility after the donor.
Among those who questioned the naming of the facility was the Cardinal Newman Society. They did so in a public press release. Out of respect for both Ave Maria and the Cardinal Newman Society we offer the full text of the response of Ave Maria University to the Cardinal Newman Society. We also offer the CNS statement below this story:
****
Read further...
Catholic Online
CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) - I recently wrote an article on the generous four million dollar gift received by Ave Maria University from Tom Golisano. Some within the broader Pro-Life and Catholic community raised issues concerning the acceptance of the gift, others concerning the naming of the new athletic facility after the donor.
Among those who questioned the naming of the facility was the Cardinal Newman Society. They did so in a public press release. Out of respect for both Ave Maria and the Cardinal Newman Society we offer the full text of the response of Ave Maria University to the Cardinal Newman Society. We also offer the CNS statement below this story:
****
Read further...
Communist Agitprop
From the same old foes:
OPINION: AFTER THE first wave of revelations over a decade ago, the sexual abuse of children by the clergy was explained away by the Roman Catholic Church by the bad apple theory – that these isolated “sexual acts” were transgressions by a minority of weak priests. In the wake of the Dublin diocesan report, that explanation has been amplified to include institutional failures of decision-making in dealing with offenders and victims, and a culture of secrecy and cover-up, writes MAUREEN GAFFNEY
But tidying up corporate governance and instituting a more transparent culture is not going to resolve the scandal of clerical sexual abuse. That will require the church to face up to a much more profound problem – the church’s own teaching on sexuality.
Consider the list of issues the church has failed to deal with credibly since the 1960s: premarital and extramarital sex; remarriage; contraception; divorce; homosexuality; the role of women in ministry and women’s ordination; and the celibacy of the clergy. All have to do with sexuality.
Read further...
And the same old "friends"
Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said he is not happy with the response of bishops to Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.
Read further...
Archbishop of Dublin cries crocodile tears and portrays himself as the good guy, here.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Another Jesuit...from Berkeley
Prepare for Christmas with Advent Retreat ―The Advent of Open Eyes‖ is a retreat for adults, led by Kevin Burke, S.J.—Friday evening, Dec. 4 and Saturday all day, Dec. 5 at OLG. Father Burke, a Jesuit, is a professor of theology at Santa Clara University in California. The retreat is sponsored by the Ignatian Associates of the Twin Cities, OLG and Loyola Spirituality Center. Cost is $25, if paid by Fri, Nov. 27. Brochures, with registration forms and more information, are available in the kiosk in the Commons. Call Terry Griep at 651-457-4339.
_________________________________
Kevin Burke SJ from Berkeley Union, Theological Seminary is an exciting and brave modern thinker, writer, champion of the poor, sexual minorities, he is a truth teller and a storyteller. He teaches and is the president of Union Theological Seminary, which hosts some of the world's foremost queer scholars.
He is an authority on Jesuit Revolutionary, Ignatio Ellacuria, who, although he was scorned and condemned by authority, was ever eager to join arms with the brave men of the FMLN who challenged North American Imperialism.
Not only is Kevin Burke SJ challenging our historico-theological assumptions but he is also engaged in directing our gaze within to address the oppression of sexual minorities whose marginalization today is such a burden on the conscience of the Church.
Come see how Liberation Theology is relevant for the future of "prophetic utopian realism". (qf. The Ground Beneath the Cross, preface)
"Nor is discrimination based on sexual identity new (even if such discrimination manifests itself in particularly virulent forms under the aegis of modernity) what is new is the realization that we cannot understand the reality of sexual preference apart from the culture that express and repress it. As each of these examples suggests the new attention to cultural diversity involves the humbling acknowledgement that we cannot access the signficance of such diversity apart from a genuine encounter with members of diverse cultures." ( Kevin Burke SJ - Discernment and Truth)
_________________________________
Kevin Burke SJ from Berkeley Union, Theological Seminary is an exciting and brave modern thinker, writer, champion of the poor, sexual minorities, he is a truth teller and a storyteller. He teaches and is the president of Union Theological Seminary, which hosts some of the world's foremost queer scholars.
He is an authority on Jesuit Revolutionary, Ignatio Ellacuria, who, although he was scorned and condemned by authority, was ever eager to join arms with the brave men of the FMLN who challenged North American Imperialism.
Not only is Kevin Burke SJ challenging our historico-theological assumptions but he is also engaged in directing our gaze within to address the oppression of sexual minorities whose marginalization today is such a burden on the conscience of the Church.
Come see how Liberation Theology is relevant for the future of "prophetic utopian realism". (qf. The Ground Beneath the Cross, preface)
"Nor is discrimination based on sexual identity new (even if such discrimination manifests itself in particularly virulent forms under the aegis of modernity) what is new is the realization that we cannot understand the reality of sexual preference apart from the culture that express and repress it. As each of these examples suggests the new attention to cultural diversity involves the humbling acknowledgement that we cannot access the signficance of such diversity apart from a genuine encounter with members of diverse cultures." ( Kevin Burke SJ - Discernment and Truth)
Do I hear 7 Bishops?
6th Bishop Refuses CCHD Collection.
By Patrick B. Craine
TULSA, Oklahoma, November 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, Oklahoma also chose not to contribute to the national collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) has confirmed, making him the sixth bishop confirmed to have done so.
In a letter to the pastors of his diocese, read at Masses on the weekend of the November 21-22 collection, Bishop Slattery informed the faithful that the funds contributed to the CCHD collection would be reserved for use within the diocese.
Msgr. Patrick Brankin told LSN that Bishop Slattery made his decision in the week before the collection, in light of the evidence released this fall implicating numerous CCHD grantees in activities contrary to Catholic teaching.
"What [the Bishop] decided was that he would take up the collection, but any of the funds that were generated would be used in the diocese," said Msgr. Brankin. "[The funds] would be used for the kind of self-help promotion groups that would be normally funded by [CCHD], but they would be under the bishop's oversight."
In the months leading up to the November collection, members of the newly-formed Reform CCHD Now (RCN) coalition produced several reports documenting how numerous CCHD grantees have promoted or are promoting activities contrary to Church teaching, including abortion, contraception, and same-sex "marriage." In fact, on the Friday before the collection, RCN claimed that $1.3 million is allocated to questionable groups.
Bishop Slattery made his decision due to concern about the "scandal" of CCHD's inappropriate use of funds, said Msgr. Brankin. "Obviously the reason [for his decision] is the bishop did not want to cause scandal, considering the lack of oversight that's been evidenced at the [CCHD]," he explained.
"It's an embarrassment that this scandal, that that sort of stuff, goes on," Msgr. Brankin continued. "Bishop Slattery did not want the people of the diocese to be scandalized, or God forbid, that the money that they contribute would be used for something that is inconsistent, or contrary, to Catholic moral and ethical teaching. Pro-life, pro-family - we've got to support that."
The week before the collection, Bishop Slattery joined the rest of his brother bishops at the USCCB plenary meeting in Baltimore. There they heard a defence of the CCHD from Bishop Roger Morin, chairman of the USCCB subcommittee that oversees the organization.
In making his decision, Bishop Slattery was "very conscious" of Bishop Morin's report, said Msgr. Brankin, in which, he says, Bishop Morin "addressed" the problems with CCHD and admitted the need for more "responsible" oversight.
"That's fine," he said, "but I think [Bishop Slattery] is taking a cautious stand in saying 'I want [CCHD] to succeed. I want them to correct mistakes. But I don't want our people to be afraid that by contributing to the [CCHD], somehow they might be contributing to this kind of anti-life, anti-Catholic effort.'"
This is the first year Bishop Slattery has chosen not to contribute to the national CCHD, and "he's leaving next year's an open question," said Msgr. Brankin.
"The bishop is very strongly pro-life," he added, noting, for example, that he had just been to a diocesan meeting planning for the January March for Life. "He wants as many people as can, here in Tulsa, to march in support and in solidarity with the March in Washington. So, he's just very strong in that."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Fifth Bishop Didn't Take Up National CCHD Collection
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112510.html
Bishop Bruskewitz on CCHD: Bishop Morin Was a "Bit Too Dismissive" of Concerns
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112410.html
Four US Bishops Did Not Take up Collection for Embattled CCHD
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112305.html
$1.3 Million in CCHD Funds Going to Questionable Groups: Reform Coalition
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112306.html
List of Bishops:
Bishop Robert J. Baker - Birmingham, Alabama
LSN: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112305.html
Bishop John O. Barres - Allentown, Pennsylvania
LSN: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112305.html
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz - Lincoln, Nebraska
LSN: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112410.html
Bishop Victor Galeone - St. Augustine, Florida
Statement: http://faithcatholicdigital.com/publication/?i=25105&page=1
LSN: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112510.html
Bishop Robert C. Morlino - Madison, Wisconsin
Statement: http://www.madisondiocese.org/Portals/0/OEC/SOWDI/CCHD%20Collection%202009%20-%20Faithful.pdf
Link to article....
Bishop Edward J. Slattery - Tulsa, Oklahoma
Back to Top
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09113010.html
By Patrick B. Craine
TULSA, Oklahoma, November 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, Oklahoma also chose not to contribute to the national collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) has confirmed, making him the sixth bishop confirmed to have done so.
In a letter to the pastors of his diocese, read at Masses on the weekend of the November 21-22 collection, Bishop Slattery informed the faithful that the funds contributed to the CCHD collection would be reserved for use within the diocese.
Msgr. Patrick Brankin told LSN that Bishop Slattery made his decision in the week before the collection, in light of the evidence released this fall implicating numerous CCHD grantees in activities contrary to Catholic teaching.
"What [the Bishop] decided was that he would take up the collection, but any of the funds that were generated would be used in the diocese," said Msgr. Brankin. "[The funds] would be used for the kind of self-help promotion groups that would be normally funded by [CCHD], but they would be under the bishop's oversight."
In the months leading up to the November collection, members of the newly-formed Reform CCHD Now (RCN) coalition produced several reports documenting how numerous CCHD grantees have promoted or are promoting activities contrary to Church teaching, including abortion, contraception, and same-sex "marriage." In fact, on the Friday before the collection, RCN claimed that $1.3 million is allocated to questionable groups.
Bishop Slattery made his decision due to concern about the "scandal" of CCHD's inappropriate use of funds, said Msgr. Brankin. "Obviously the reason [for his decision] is the bishop did not want to cause scandal, considering the lack of oversight that's been evidenced at the [CCHD]," he explained.
"It's an embarrassment that this scandal, that that sort of stuff, goes on," Msgr. Brankin continued. "Bishop Slattery did not want the people of the diocese to be scandalized, or God forbid, that the money that they contribute would be used for something that is inconsistent, or contrary, to Catholic moral and ethical teaching. Pro-life, pro-family - we've got to support that."
The week before the collection, Bishop Slattery joined the rest of his brother bishops at the USCCB plenary meeting in Baltimore. There they heard a defence of the CCHD from Bishop Roger Morin, chairman of the USCCB subcommittee that oversees the organization.
In making his decision, Bishop Slattery was "very conscious" of Bishop Morin's report, said Msgr. Brankin, in which, he says, Bishop Morin "addressed" the problems with CCHD and admitted the need for more "responsible" oversight.
"That's fine," he said, "but I think [Bishop Slattery] is taking a cautious stand in saying 'I want [CCHD] to succeed. I want them to correct mistakes. But I don't want our people to be afraid that by contributing to the [CCHD], somehow they might be contributing to this kind of anti-life, anti-Catholic effort.'"
This is the first year Bishop Slattery has chosen not to contribute to the national CCHD, and "he's leaving next year's an open question," said Msgr. Brankin.
"The bishop is very strongly pro-life," he added, noting, for example, that he had just been to a diocesan meeting planning for the January March for Life. "He wants as many people as can, here in Tulsa, to march in support and in solidarity with the March in Washington. So, he's just very strong in that."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Fifth Bishop Didn't Take Up National CCHD Collection
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112510.html
Bishop Bruskewitz on CCHD: Bishop Morin Was a "Bit Too Dismissive" of Concerns
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112410.html
Four US Bishops Did Not Take up Collection for Embattled CCHD
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112305.html
$1.3 Million in CCHD Funds Going to Questionable Groups: Reform Coalition
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112306.html
List of Bishops:
Bishop Robert J. Baker - Birmingham, Alabama
LSN: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112305.html
Bishop John O. Barres - Allentown, Pennsylvania
LSN: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112305.html
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz - Lincoln, Nebraska
LSN: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112410.html
Bishop Victor Galeone - St. Augustine, Florida
Statement: http://faithcatholicdigital.com/publication/?i=25105&page=1
LSN: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112510.html
Bishop Robert C. Morlino - Madison, Wisconsin
Statement: http://www.madisondiocese.org/Portals/0/OEC/SOWDI/CCHD%20Collection%202009%20-%20Faithful.pdf
Link to article....
Bishop Edward J. Slattery - Tulsa, Oklahoma
Back to Top
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09113010.html
Bishop of Calgary Suspends FSSP
In another very public but tolerated case of clerical-abuse, the Bishop of Calgary has decided to suspend the FSSP Parish in his Diocese. It's not the first time the Department of Public Safety has made imperious, pusillanimous and unreasonable demands designed to attack the truths of the Catholic Faith.
From: [parvenu74]
Sent: November 30, 2009 10:09 AM
To: bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca
Subject: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?
Dear Bishop Henry,
On the front page of your diocese's website, I see there is a letter in which you are forbidding the distribution of communion on the tongue due to H1N1 concerns. Separately, I have heard that you have forbidden the Parish of Saint Anthony's in Calgary, which is serviced by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter, to offer Mass using the Missal of 1962 because that Rite of Mass is incompatible with communion given in the hand.
Is this true?
-----
From: Bishop F.B. Henry
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?
Dear Michael
The Fraternity ahs informed me that they are unable to comply with the directives in my pastoral letter re reception of communion. Therefore, the Latin Mass will be suspended until the temporary sanctions have been lifted as recommended by the Medical Officer of Health.
Peace, Bishop Henry
November 25, 2009
Rev. C. Blust, FSSP
St. Anthony’s Parish
5340 4th St. SW
Calgary, AB, T2V 0Z5
Dear Fr. Blust and My Brothers and Sisters of the Latin Mass Community of St. Anthony’s
The sacraments (and sacramentals – like holy water) are entrusted by Christ to the church which is responsible for determining through regulation the manner of their proper celebration. The bishop is the chief liturgist in the local church or diocese. In the event of a pandemic, we ought to try to reduce the possibility of transmission of a virus and protect the faithful – also the body of Christ. Our current liturgical restrictions in Calgary aim to do precisely that . This is a difficulty for some but we must remember that a Catholic spirituality is not an individual affair but communitarian from the get-go. For the love of our brothers and sisters we have mandated the sacrificing of a personal preference in the manner of Eucharistic reception for a temporary period.
Receiving communion on the tongue is not a dogma of faith. Nor is it an absolute. Since the Eucharistic Celebration is the Paschal Banquet, it is desirable that in keeping with the Lord's command, his Body and Blood should be received by the faithful who are properly disposed as spiritual food. In the Diocese of Calgary, all the faithful may receive communion on the tongue or in the hand - this also applies to the faithful who choose to celebrate the Eucharist with the Latin Mass community at St. Anthony’s, Calgary and St. Patrick’s, Medicine Hat. However, due to the current N1H1 pandemic and in accordance with recommendations received from the Medical Officer of Health, communion on the tongue is temporarily suspended.
I want to be perfectly clear: no one is to be denied the Eucharist, what is at issue is the manner of reception.
Participation in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is a source and means of grace even apart from the actual reception of Holy Communion. It has also been long understood that when circumstances prevent one from receiving Holy communion during mass, it is possible to make a spiritual communion that is also a source of grace. Spiritual communion means uniting oneself in prayer with Christ’s sacrifice and worshiping him present in his Body and Blood.
Nevertheless, the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion.
Wishing you all the best, I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+ F. B. Henry
Bishop of Calgary.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3425913.0.html
From: [parvenu74]
Sent: November 30, 2009 10:09 AM
To: bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca
Subject: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?
Dear Bishop Henry,
On the front page of your diocese's website, I see there is a letter in which you are forbidding the distribution of communion on the tongue due to H1N1 concerns. Separately, I have heard that you have forbidden the Parish of Saint Anthony's in Calgary, which is serviced by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter, to offer Mass using the Missal of 1962 because that Rite of Mass is incompatible with communion given in the hand.
Is this true?
-----
From: Bishop F.B. Henry
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Subject: RE: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?
Dear Michael
The Fraternity ahs informed me that they are unable to comply with the directives in my pastoral letter re reception of communion. Therefore, the Latin Mass will be suspended until the temporary sanctions have been lifted as recommended by the Medical Officer of Health.
Peace, Bishop Henry
November 25, 2009
Rev. C. Blust, FSSP
St. Anthony’s Parish
5340 4th St. SW
Calgary, AB, T2V 0Z5
Dear Fr. Blust and My Brothers and Sisters of the Latin Mass Community of St. Anthony’s
The sacraments (and sacramentals – like holy water) are entrusted by Christ to the church which is responsible for determining through regulation the manner of their proper celebration. The bishop is the chief liturgist in the local church or diocese. In the event of a pandemic, we ought to try to reduce the possibility of transmission of a virus and protect the faithful – also the body of Christ. Our current liturgical restrictions in Calgary aim to do precisely that . This is a difficulty for some but we must remember that a Catholic spirituality is not an individual affair but communitarian from the get-go. For the love of our brothers and sisters we have mandated the sacrificing of a personal preference in the manner of Eucharistic reception for a temporary period.
Receiving communion on the tongue is not a dogma of faith. Nor is it an absolute. Since the Eucharistic Celebration is the Paschal Banquet, it is desirable that in keeping with the Lord's command, his Body and Blood should be received by the faithful who are properly disposed as spiritual food. In the Diocese of Calgary, all the faithful may receive communion on the tongue or in the hand - this also applies to the faithful who choose to celebrate the Eucharist with the Latin Mass community at St. Anthony’s, Calgary and St. Patrick’s, Medicine Hat. However, due to the current N1H1 pandemic and in accordance with recommendations received from the Medical Officer of Health, communion on the tongue is temporarily suspended.
I want to be perfectly clear: no one is to be denied the Eucharist, what is at issue is the manner of reception.
Participation in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is a source and means of grace even apart from the actual reception of Holy Communion. It has also been long understood that when circumstances prevent one from receiving Holy communion during mass, it is possible to make a spiritual communion that is also a source of grace. Spiritual communion means uniting oneself in prayer with Christ’s sacrifice and worshiping him present in his Body and Blood.
Nevertheless, the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion.
Wishing you all the best, I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+ F. B. Henry
Bishop of Calgary.
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3425913.0.html
Don't just Ban Marriage in California. Ban it Altogether.
The truly sad and despicable part of this is that the gentleman proposing the ban is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. He wants to support Gay Marriage, and do so by demonstrating how ridiculous a ban on divorce would be. The ridiculous part is how ridiculous the inhabitants of the 21st Century have become since the world became dominated by crass materialism. There are two countries where divorce is still illegal. Another commentator thinks that the Proposition would be overturned if it were ever voted in by some miracle, pointing the fact that the Federal Government would strike it down. Actually, the Judiciary wouldn't tolerate it, they despise and almost universally reject the transcendent and the metaphysical.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.
In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.
The effort SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.
In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.
The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.
"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.
Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 1,100. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.
Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.
Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.
Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.
Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.
As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.
No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.
Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.
"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.
Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.
"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.
Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.
He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."
Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."
Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.
"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."
Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.
"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.
The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.
California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.
While most SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.
In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.
The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.
"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.
Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 1,100. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.
Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.
Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.
Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.
Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.
As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.
No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.
Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.
"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.
Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.
"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.
Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.
He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."
Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."
Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.
"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."
Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.
"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.
The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.
California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.
While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.
"It's a worthwhile conversation to have," said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. "I don't think it's just a frivolous thought."
On the Net:
* 2010 California Marriage Protection Act: http://www.rescuemarriage.org
Read article...
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.
In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.
The effort SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.
In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.
The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.
"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.
Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 1,100. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.
Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.
Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.
Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.
Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.
As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.
No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.
Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.
"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.
Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.
"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.
Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.
He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."
Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."
Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.
"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."
Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.
"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.
The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.
California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.
While most SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.
In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.
The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.
"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.
Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 1,100. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.
Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.
Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.
Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.
Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.
As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.
No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.
Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.
"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.
Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.
"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.
Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.
He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."
Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."
Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.
"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."
Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.
"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.
The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.
California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.
While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.
"It's a worthwhile conversation to have," said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. "I don't think it's just a frivolous thought."
On the Net:
* 2010 California Marriage Protection Act: http://www.rescuemarriage.org
Read article...
Bishop Bruskewitz addresses CCHD's Incompatibillity with Catholicism
"We question the ideology of [CCHD]," The good Bishop basically puts it in a nutshell and says what so many of his brother Bishops refuses to say.
LINCOLN, Nebraska, November 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) --Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska explained in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com today his reasons for dropping the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) collection in his diocese, saying that CCHD head Bishop Roger Morin was "a little bit too dismissive" of concerns brought against the organization.
Bishop Bruskewitz is one of five bishops confirmed so far to have chosen not to take up the collection this year for the national CCHD, the USCCB's domestic anti-poverty arm. The others included Bishop Victor Galeone of St. Augustine, Florida; Bishop John O. Barres of Allentown, Pennsylvania; Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin; and Bishop Robert J. Baker of Birmingham, Alabama. In addition, at least three other U.S. bishops have called for reform of the CCHD.
"We question the ideology of [CCHD]," the bishop explained in the interview, "and ... we are shocked at the scandalous participation with the ACORN organization and also the participation with other organizations of questionable moral values or standards."
The organization came under fire in the months leading up to this past weekend's national collection due to reports documenting how numerous grantees have promoted or are promoting activities contrary to Church teaching, including abortion, contraception, and same-sex "marriage." In fact, the Reform CCHD Now coalition announced last week that $1.3 million is allocated to questionable groups. Additionally, critics have charged CCHD with favoring "left-leaning" groups in the spirit of infamous community organizer Saul Alinksy.
CCHD ceased funding ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), a liberal network of community activism groups, last year due to concerns about "financial management" and "political partisanship." CCHD had given ACORN over $7 million in grants during the previous ten years. ACORN came under renewed scrutiny this year after sting operations caught several ACORN offices condoning child prostitution and sex trafficking.
"It's so extremely controversial," the bishop said about CCHD. There have been "many negative resonances about it from people throughout the diocese and beyond the diocese," he said, adding that the "controversial character made it appear that [CCHD] was not effective" in meeting its purposes.
His diocese doesn't "rule [CCHD] out entirely," he said, but he would only reconsider the collection if there were "some changes in the organization itself, or its purposes, or its goals."
The collection "served very little purpose for us," he said, noting that the Lincoln diocese has not received funds from CCHD. "We do have a very extensive Catholic Social Services, St. Vincent de Paul activity here in the diocese," he said, "which supplies the needs of those who are impoverished, of those who need assistance to come out of poverty."
Bishop Roger Morin, chairman of the USCCB's subcommittee on the CCHD, delivered a passionate plea in defense of the organization at last week's USCCB plenary meeting. While pledging their commitment to ensure grantees' respect for Catholic teaching, he decried the "outrageous" allegations made by CCHD's critics that it funds pro-abortion or anti-family organizations.
But Bishop Bruskewitz expressed displeasure with Bishop Morin's report, saying the bishop did not adequately consider the criticisms brought against the CCHD.
"I didn't think [the report] took into account sufficiently the negatives that have been bantered about with regard to the organization," he said. He said Bishop Morin was "obviously defending the organization he had been involved in different areas," and now for which he's the chairman.
The report, further, "lacked some of the interests" that concerned people "have brought to the fore," he said. "I think he was perhaps a little bit too dismissive of them."
Nevertheless, he maintained that he has "no objection" to people supporting CCHD should they choose. If "people [who] like this organization ... want to send money to it, even from my diocese, they can," he said. "But I'm not going to take up the collection."
Link to original...
LINCOLN, Nebraska, November 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) --Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska explained in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com today his reasons for dropping the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) collection in his diocese, saying that CCHD head Bishop Roger Morin was "a little bit too dismissive" of concerns brought against the organization.
Bishop Bruskewitz is one of five bishops confirmed so far to have chosen not to take up the collection this year for the national CCHD, the USCCB's domestic anti-poverty arm. The others included Bishop Victor Galeone of St. Augustine, Florida; Bishop John O. Barres of Allentown, Pennsylvania; Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin; and Bishop Robert J. Baker of Birmingham, Alabama. In addition, at least three other U.S. bishops have called for reform of the CCHD.
"We question the ideology of [CCHD]," the bishop explained in the interview, "and ... we are shocked at the scandalous participation with the ACORN organization and also the participation with other organizations of questionable moral values or standards."
The organization came under fire in the months leading up to this past weekend's national collection due to reports documenting how numerous grantees have promoted or are promoting activities contrary to Church teaching, including abortion, contraception, and same-sex "marriage." In fact, the Reform CCHD Now coalition announced last week that $1.3 million is allocated to questionable groups. Additionally, critics have charged CCHD with favoring "left-leaning" groups in the spirit of infamous community organizer Saul Alinksy.
CCHD ceased funding ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), a liberal network of community activism groups, last year due to concerns about "financial management" and "political partisanship." CCHD had given ACORN over $7 million in grants during the previous ten years. ACORN came under renewed scrutiny this year after sting operations caught several ACORN offices condoning child prostitution and sex trafficking.
"It's so extremely controversial," the bishop said about CCHD. There have been "many negative resonances about it from people throughout the diocese and beyond the diocese," he said, adding that the "controversial character made it appear that [CCHD] was not effective" in meeting its purposes.
His diocese doesn't "rule [CCHD] out entirely," he said, but he would only reconsider the collection if there were "some changes in the organization itself, or its purposes, or its goals."
The collection "served very little purpose for us," he said, noting that the Lincoln diocese has not received funds from CCHD. "We do have a very extensive Catholic Social Services, St. Vincent de Paul activity here in the diocese," he said, "which supplies the needs of those who are impoverished, of those who need assistance to come out of poverty."
Bishop Roger Morin, chairman of the USCCB's subcommittee on the CCHD, delivered a passionate plea in defense of the organization at last week's USCCB plenary meeting. While pledging their commitment to ensure grantees' respect for Catholic teaching, he decried the "outrageous" allegations made by CCHD's critics that it funds pro-abortion or anti-family organizations.
But Bishop Bruskewitz expressed displeasure with Bishop Morin's report, saying the bishop did not adequately consider the criticisms brought against the CCHD.
"I didn't think [the report] took into account sufficiently the negatives that have been bantered about with regard to the organization," he said. He said Bishop Morin was "obviously defending the organization he had been involved in different areas," and now for which he's the chairman.
The report, further, "lacked some of the interests" that concerned people "have brought to the fore," he said. "I think he was perhaps a little bit too dismissive of them."
Nevertheless, he maintained that he has "no objection" to people supporting CCHD should they choose. If "people [who] like this organization ... want to send money to it, even from my diocese, they can," he said. "But I'm not going to take up the collection."
Link to original...
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Monarchist urges end to barrier against Catholics
Canwest News Service
November 29, 2009
The strongest supporters of Canada's constitutional monarchy are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other Commonwealth leaders to "modernize" the centuries-old rules of succession that bar Catholics from the throne.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to informally discuss possible reforms to the 1701 Act of Settlement with fellow Commonwealth leaders during their summit in Trinidad.
Robert Finch, chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, said that such reforms would mean that those pushing for this country to become a republic would "no longer be able to claim the monarchy discriminates against Catholics."
He said: "The queen has no official religious role whatsoever in Canada, so it really shouldn't be an issue to allow Catholics to become king or queen of Canada."
The succession issue is a long-standing source of objections from many Catholics and critics of the monarchy in both Canada and Britain. A British MP's bill to rewrite provisions of the 1701 act was scuttled this year by the government -- but with assurances from Brown that reforms would be considered after discussions with other Commonwealth countries.
Link to original...
November 29, 2009
The strongest supporters of Canada's constitutional monarchy are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other Commonwealth leaders to "modernize" the centuries-old rules of succession that bar Catholics from the throne.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to informally discuss possible reforms to the 1701 Act of Settlement with fellow Commonwealth leaders during their summit in Trinidad.
Robert Finch, chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, said that such reforms would mean that those pushing for this country to become a republic would "no longer be able to claim the monarchy discriminates against Catholics."
He said: "The queen has no official religious role whatsoever in Canada, so it really shouldn't be an issue to allow Catholics to become king or queen of Canada."
The succession issue is a long-standing source of objections from many Catholics and critics of the monarchy in both Canada and Britain. A British MP's bill to rewrite provisions of the 1701 act was scuttled this year by the government -- but with assurances from Brown that reforms would be considered after discussions with other Commonwealth countries.
Link to original...
New York Times OP-ED: Bugnini as the Architect of Liturgical Modernism
WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.
All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”
Read further...
All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”
Read further...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)