Pope, Mexico, and Walls

Dear Pope: 

You argue against walls, against states, and in favor of the universal church which stands as one against the affront of nation-states, which separate humanity and divide.

Yet, the church in Mexico speaks of traitors to the nation ... not to the church.

STOP.

The traitors are those who work against the interests of their country.  In Mexico - it would be a government who pushes the poor to flee - they would be the traitors.  Please advise your diocese papers accordingly.

Mexicans who help build Trump wall 'traitors,' top Archdiocese says

Reuters

March 26, 2017

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexicans who help build U.S. President Donald Trump's planned border wall would be acting immorally and should be deemed traitors, the Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico said on Sunday, turning up the heat on a simmering dispute over the project.

In a provocative editorial, the country's biggest Archdiocese sought to increase pressure on the government to take a tougher line on companies aiming to profit from the wall, which has strained relations between Trump and the Mexican government.

"Any company intending to invest in the wall of the fanatic Trump would be immoral, but above all, its shareholders and owners should be considered traitors to the homeland," said the editorial in Desde la fe, the Archdiocese's weekly publication.

On Tuesday, Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo warned firms it would not be in their "interests" to participate in the wall. But the editorial accused the government of responding "tepidly" to those eyeing the project for business.

A spokesman for the Archdiocese, which centers on Mexico City and is presided over by the country's foremost Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Norberto Rivera, said the editorial represented the views of the diocese.

Trump says he wants to build the wall to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the U.S. southern border. He has pledged Mexico will pay for the wall, which the Mexican government adamantly says it will not do.

The Desde la fe editorial, which was published online, said the barrier would only feed prejudice and discrimination.

"In practice, signing up for a project that is a serious affront to dignity is shooting yourself in the foot," it wrote. Mexican cement maker Cemex has said it is open to providing quotes to supply raw materials for the wall but will not take part in the bidding process to build it.

Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, another company specializing in construction materials, has also signaled readiness to work on the project.

(Reporting by Dave Graham and Lizbeth Diaz; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Evil

So, I have a short story.  One day at college, I was talking to my Humanities teacher - Dr. Robert Sullivan.  And for whatever dimwit reason, I decided to tell him about a book I had read - The Amityville Horror.  For me it was the scariest thing I had ever read, and I knew he was an academic and very philosophical ... he never exhibited any degree of interest in anything so ... purely emotional.  He taught us about Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, and was by no means overly demonstrative except when it came to being rational or critical of ideas.  He was also a former priest who married a former nun and together they had ten children.  He spent decades teaching philosophy at the college and passed away in 2007.  Anyway, so I was telling him about this book and as it all vomited forth, my first reaction was - OMG, he is going to think I am a whack job (partly because listening to the words I was spewing forth - I thought I was a nut job).

 Instead he said to me - if you had seen the things I saw in [South America] (I don't recall now if it was Bolivia or Peru), you'd believe in the evil you've just described ... and it was even worse than the book, I read the book. 

He walked into his office, picked up some books and said we had to get to class.  That was the last time we ever discussed that.

He explained that he had been a priest in South America for years, and during that time, what he experienced and saw made him a believer, not only in what he preached, but in the deep and dark parts so often marginalized as too theatrical today - the evil that lurks and possesses men.  Just because we do not come face to face with the evil everyday, doesn't mean it or worse, isn't there.  We are just fortunate, as of that moment, to have not experienced that evil.

A few days ago I was reading an article/interview with Father Gary Thomas from the Diocese of San Jose, California.  He is one of 14 mandated, trained exorcists in the United States.  One of the last statements he made in the interview caught my attention (interview had been on evil / Satan / exorcists):

 "There’s lots of people in our culture that think it’s all make-believe. If people saw what I saw, they’d be at church every single week.”  


Two men, many years apart, one a former priest turned PhD; the other a mandated exorcist for the Catholic Church, one from Arizona and wherever it was in South America, the other up in San Jose and wherever it is he has been.  Both men said the same thing.

'The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe'



Reuters
1/6/2011

VATICAN CITY — God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said Thursday.

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, the day the Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," he said in a sermon to some 10,000 people in St. Peter's Basilica on the feast day.

While the pope has spoken before about evolution, he has rarely delved back in time to discuss specific concepts such as the Big Bang, which scientists believe led to the formation of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.

Researchers at CERN, the nuclear research center in Geneva, have been smashing protons together at near the speed of light to simulate conditions that they believe brought into existence the primordial universe from which stars, planets and life on earth — and perhaps elsewhere — eventually emerged.

Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality."

He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many questions unanswered.

"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth," he said.

Benedict and his predecessor John Paul have been trying to shed the Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, challenging the words of the Bible.

Galileo was rehabilitated and the Church now also accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism — the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible — and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.

But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.






















church

Catholic Church Ordains a Married Man

There are always exceptions and rarely are they publicized.  Much better to show the defiance of the church and refusal to budge on issues than show exceptions.




Catholic church ordains married man


Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43am EST


BERLIN (Reuters) - A married father of two was ordained as a priest by the Catholic Church in Germany on Tuesday after receiving an exemption to priestly celibacy from Pope Benedict XVI.

Harm Klueting, a theologian and former Protestant pastor, will not have to adhere to the Church's celibacy law for the duration of his marriage, the diocese of Cologne said.

The case sheds light on a little-known 60-year-old Roman Catholic church law that allows ordained clergy from other Christian faiths to become priests.

"This happens seldom but it's not unusual," diocese spokesman Christoph Heckeley said, adding that it is more usual in Scandinavia.

The 61-year-old converted to Catholicism in 2004 after which he served as a deacon and taught religious history at universities in Germany and Switzerland. He currently teaches at the University of Cologne where he will also serve as a priest.

Last year a married father of four was ordained as a priest in Regensburg, southern Germany.

Klueting's ordination comes as theologians and Catholic politicians in Germany have pressured the Vatican to end priestly celibacy and the German church struggles to overcome a wave of clerical sex abuse scandals and a priest shortages.

The Roman Catholic Church also launched its first ordinariate for disaffected Anglicans in England and Wales this year, which will see it take in bishops, priests and laity.

Five traditionalist Church of England bishops have applied to join the ordinariate, a Church subdivision retaining some Anglican traditions, and about 30 groups of parishioners are due to cross over, Church leaders told journalists.

It was not clear how many priests would convert in the move, prompted by traditionalist opposition to Church of England plans to ordain women bishops. Married Anglican priests will be accepted but married bishops cannot retain their higher status. The ordinariate, announced by Pope Benedict in 2009, allows those Anglicans opposed to women bishops, gay clergy and same-sex blessings to convert to Rome while keeping many of their traditions.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
catholic

Turkey: Full of Mentally Unstable Men?

Apparently so. 



Pope: No Religious Motive in Bishop’s Death


June 4, 2010 - 12:04 PM
by: Greg Burke


Just hours after a Catholic bishop was killed in Turkey, the Vatican said it was the work of a mentally unstable man, and Pope Benedict also tried to downplay the incident on Friday.

Speaking to reporters on his way to a three-day trip to Cyprus, Benedict said while the circumstances of the killing are still not clear, it was not politically or religiously motivated.

“We should not blame it on Turkey or on the Turks,” the Pope told us as he came to the back of the plane at the start of the trip. “It’s clear that it’s not a political-religious assassination.”

Italian-born Bishop Luigi Padovese was stabbed to death early Thursday afternoon at his home in Iskenderun, Turkey, near the Syrian border. Shortly afterwards, authorities arrested his driver, and said the man had recently been suffering from depression and mental instability.

“We’re still waiting for a full explanation, but we don’t want to mix up this tragedy with Islam,” Benedict said. “It’s a separate case that saddens us but shouldn’t be allowed to cast a shadow over the dialogue.”

Another Italian priest, Father Andrea Santoro, was killed in Turkey in 2006, and the man arrested in that case was also described as mentally unstable.

Turkey is overwhelmingly Muslim, and while the country hopes to join the European Union, critics point to a lack of religious freedom in the nation.

The timing of Padovese’s killing was significant, as the bishop was scheduled to travel to Cyprus for Pope Benedict’s visit this weekend.

Cyprus has been divided since Turkey invaded the country in 1974. The Turks currently holds nearly 40 percent of the island. Benedict will not visit the Turkish side of the island but will spend the night at the Vatican embassy, which sits right on the dividing line.

On his first day, Benedict was greeted warmly by both Catholics and Orthodox, but quickly saw how tense the situation on the small island is, as a Cypriot Orthodox bishop told him that Turkey was trying to take over the entire nation.

“It has turned the Orthodox Christians of Cyprus out of their ancestral homes, where they had lived for centuries,” said His Beatitude Chyrsostomos II at an outdoor ceremony in Paphos. “They want to make everything Greek and Christian disappear from occupied Cyprus.”




Let me think about this for a moment.  According to the Church, the Pope, il papa himself - the One sanctified by God to carry His word, infallible ... said it was not something we can blame on Islam.  So ends the story, if I believe in the infallibility of il papa - which I do, and I don't.  Of the office and the man when seeking God's grace in truth and justice, but not when that man seeks a detente with Islam over truth.

Christendom loses when we ignore the tactics used by some who are a bit ... awkwardly and uncomfortably Muslim.  What was the name of the man who shot Pope John Paul II?  I can't recall.  And neither can I recall where he was from.  Of course, no connection.

Two Bishops and a Pope - two murdered and one seriously wounded, by three deranged Muslim males.  Of course that is possible.  So let us check England, France, the US, Germany, Russia - and see if we can find 3 Islamic religious figures murdered or seriously, and all 3 must occur in the same country.  ???  A hint: the answer has fewer letters than the hoped for (by some) answer.  NO.   What about the flotilla brigade - the Turkish contingent onboard, singing death to Jews and a hoped for martyrdom.  Are they also deranged?  No says their Prime Minister, just the guy who killed the Bishop, and the Pope goes along with the charade.

If we are very quiet and pay attention we can hear the warnings.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Turkey

Mexican Immigration: Handing out ID cards in California

Mexican consulate moves illegal immigant ID card handout

By: Sara A. Carter
National Security Correspondent
06/03/10 12:37 PM EDT

Mexican government officials have moved their satellite consular office from the Catalina Island Country Club to a Catholic Church – citing protection under the Vienna Convention - after it was discovered that they did not have the appropriate paperwork to issue the island’s illegal immigrants identification cards.

Since The Washington Examiner reported that the management of the club, on the island of Catalina, discovered that the event was not a multi-cultural celebration as they had been told and refused to allow the Mexican government to set up shop.

The Mexican officials will provide "matricular" card services to Mexican nationals at St. Catherine’s Church, on the island.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican whose district includes Catalina Island, is heading to the island by helicopter today to confront the officials.

“If the Catholic Church insists on preventing immigration law from being enforced, then they should step up and pay the bill. Let the Catholic Church open up its schools for free and use their vast resources to pay for the benefits of illegals if they feel it’s such a moral issue,” Rep. Rohrabacher told The Examiner. “I don’t exactly see Cardinal Mahoney announcing the sale of catholic church property to pay the bills for illegal immigration. This holier than thou hypocrisy has got to stop.”




**************************************


Mexico opens California office to provide ID for illegals


By: Sara A. Carter
National Security Correspondent
June 3, 2010

The Mexican government is opening a satellite consular office on Catalina Island -- a small resort off the California coast with a history of drug smuggling and human trafficking -- to provide the island's illegal Mexican immigrants with identification cards, The Washington Examiner has learned.

The Mexican consular office in Los Angeles issued a flier, a copy of which was obtained by The Examiner, listing the Catalina Island Country Club as the location of its satellite office. It invites Mexicans to visit the office to obtain the identification, called matricular cards, by appointment.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican whose district includes Catalina Island, said handing out matricular cards will exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

"Handing out matricular cards to Mexicans who are not in this country legally is wrong no matter where it's done," he said. "But on Catalina it will do more damage. It's a small island but there's evidence it's being used as a portal for illegals to access mainland California."

Rohrabacher added, "If there were a large number of Americans illegally in Mexico and the U.S. consulate was making it easier for them to stay, Mexico would never permit it."

Mexican officials with the consular office in Los Angeles could not be reached immediately for comment. The matricular consular identification card, is issued by the Mexican government to Mexican nationals residing outside the country, regardless of immigration status. The purpose is to provide identification for opening bank accounts and obtaining other services. But the cards are usually used to skirt U.S. immigration laws, since Mexicans in the country legally have documents proving that status, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said.

In 2004 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI officials called the card an unreliable form of identification. The agency said that Mexico lacks a centralized database for them, which could lead to forgery, duplication, and other forms of abuse.

Officers with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said their agency was asked by Mexican officials not to enforce U.S. immigration laws on the island while the cards were being issued.

"It amazes me every time that the Mexican government has the gall to tell us what to do," said an ICE official, who asked not to be named. "More surprisingly is how many times we stand by and let them. This is just an example of one of hundreds of requests we've had to deal with."

In April, Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies seized a boat carrying large quantities of marijuana and detained three Mexican nationals who said they were being smuggled into the United States.

The island has a sizable Mexican migrant population. Most are undocumented low-income workers.

1:15pm UPDATE:

Mexican government officials have moved their satellite consular office from the Catalina Island Country Club to a Catholic Church – citing protection under the Geneva Convention.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
immigration

Britain and the Pope: Bless us for being so rude.

We best not offend Muhammad, no cartoons, no caricatures, and certainly no long list of actions that may be questionable morally, nor his extolling certain behaviors top his followers Western Civilization may find offensive.  But, the Pope, head of the largest Church in the world - permissible to ridicule and mock him.  Everything religious is bad - pro-life, Catholic, anti-abortion, opposed to gay marriages - bad bad, and worse, unenlightened. 

It is very disturbing to watch this attack and tear down of a man who did not do anything to hurt anyone - unlike many in the secular world who go through their lives tearing down one person after another while claiming they never intended to hurt anyone, yet they leave bodies strewn about like plane wreckage as they go.  To watch these people attacking the Church, yet petrified to even think about the idea of criticizing ... say, Mohammad ... shows who and what they really are.

If I were them, I would think very very carefully about their actions, because the end result may well be soemthing incomprehensible to them at this time, but anyone who can look beyond five minute intervals may find an unimaginable nightmare awaiting us, and them, if they are so lucky as to hurt the Church.  Just saying.





Ministers apologise for insult to Pope


The Government has apologised to the Pope over official documents that mocked his forthcoming visit to Britain by suggesting he should bless a gay marriage and even launch Papal-branded condoms.



By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
24 Apr 2010
The Telegraph


Pope Benedict XVI Photo: AP The astonishing proposals, leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, were contained in secret papers drawn up earlier this month by civil servants following a 'brainstorm’.

The ideas, included in a memo headed 'The ideal visit would see ...’, ridiculed the Catholic Church’s teachings including its opposition to abortion, homosexual behaviour and contraception. Many appeared to be deliberately provocative rather than a serious attempt to plan an itinerary for the September visit.

Head of Roman Catholic church in England urges faithful to remain brave The proposals, which were then circulated among key officials in Downing Street and Whitehall, also include the Pope opening an abortion ward; spending the night in a council flat in Bradford; doing forward rolls with children to promote healthy living; and even performing a duet with the Queen.

In reference to the hugely sensitive issue of child abuse engulfing the Catholic Church, the Government document suggests that the Pope should take a “harder line on child abuse – announce sacking of dodgy bishops” and “launch helpline for abused children”.

The document was sent out by a junior Foreign Office civil servant with a covering note admitting that some of the plans were “far-fetched”.

Recipients of the memo were furious at its content and an investigation was launched. One senior official was found responsible and has been transferred to other duties.

Yesterday the Foreign Office issued a public apology after being approached by The Sunday Telegraph, while Francis Campbell, the UK ambassador to the Vatican, met senior officials of the Holy See to express the Government’s regret.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, was “appalled” to hear of the proposals, according to a source close to him, and blamed “a colossal failure of judgement” by officials involved.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “This is clearly a foolish document that does not in any way reflect UK Government or Foreign Office policy or views. Many of the ideas in the document are clearly ill-judged, naive and disrespectful.

“The text was not cleared or shown to Ministers or senior officials before circulation. As soon as senior officials became aware of the document, it was withdrawn from circulation.

“The individual responsible has been transferred to other duties. He has been told orally and in writing that this was a serious error of judgement and has accepted this view.

“The Foreign Office very much regrets this incident and is deeply sorry for the offence which it has caused.

The Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nottingham, was astonished and angered by the proposals.

He said: “This is appalling. You don’t invite someone to your country and then disrespect them in this way.

“It’s outlandish and outrageous to assume that any of the ideas are in any way suitable for the Pope.”

The Papal Visit Team reports to Dame Helen Ghosh, the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and ultimately to Jim Murphy, the Scotland Secretary, who is responsible for the trip.

The "ideal visit" list was circulated within Whitehall by a junior Foreign Office official, an Oxbridge graduate in his 20s.

In an emailed memo dated March 5, headed "Policy planning ahead of the Pope’s visit", he invited senior colleagues to attend an "inter-faith meeting" the following week to discuss themes for the visit.

Attached to the memo were three "background documents", including the "ideal visit" list, which he said would form the basis of discussions. He added in the memo: "Please protect; these should not be shared externally. The ‘ideal visit’ paper in particular was the product of a brainstorm which took into account even the most far-fetched of ideas."

Recipients included Nicola Ware, a senior Foreign Office official, as well as officials at 10 Downing Street, the Department for International Development, and the Northern Ireland Office.

The exercise appears to have been intended to ensure a high impact for the papal visit and to identify areas such as development and climate change on which the Government and the Vatican could co-operate, but the list of ideas has caused offence.

Bishop McMahon said Catholics would be concerned that the document reflects the existence within Whitehall of officials prejudiced against people of faith, and predicted that it would cause embarrassment for the Government. The Prime Minister said in last week’s party leaders’ debate that he was looking forward to the papal visit, but ministers have clashed repeatedly with the Catholic Church over legislation.

There is understood to be increasing unease at the Vatican over the level of hostility that the Pope is likely to face in Britain, with protests and even threats of arrest from secularists. The disclosure of the secret proposals is bound to deepen concerns and cause dismay among the country’s four million Catholics.

Further suggestions on the "ideal visit" list are that the Pope should reverse the Church’s "policy on women bishops/ordain woman" and that the Vatican should "sponsor a network of Aids clinics".

Another of the three background documents, titled "Papal Visit Stakeholders", lists figures and groups that the officials consider significant to the tour, and ranks them in order of how "influential" and "positive" each one is perceived to be.

The Queen, David Cameron, and Tony Blair are all ranked as highly influential and positive. It rates Susan Boyle, the singer, as more influential than Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster.

Wayne Rooney, the footballer, who was married in a Catholic Church, is considered to be a negative influence, as are Madonna, the singer, and Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist professor. "Pro-choice groups", homosexual pressure groups and the National Secular Society are all viewed as negative.

 
 
 
 
 
 
religion

The Church and Perception

You would think from recent headlines that the Pope was in the room with the priest pedophiles watching, and then allowed them to escape justice.  The headlines are reminiscent of the yellow journalism of the 1890s - pushing the US toward war with Spain, in this case, yet another onslought against the Church.



The Pope and the New York Times Cardinal Ratzinger did more than anyone to hold abusers accountable.


By WILLIAM MCGURN
April 6, 2010
Wall Street Journal

Unlike the Roman papacy, in certain circles the New York Times still enjoys the presumption of authority. So when the front page carries a story headlined "Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Deaf Boys," people notice.

Written by Laurie Goodstein and published March 25, the thrust is twofold. First, that the Rev. Lawrence Murphy, a priest who abused children at St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee from the 1950s to the 1970s, went unpunished. Father Murphy, she wrote categorically, "was never tried or disciplined by the church's own justice system."

This all feeds the kicker: "the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency." In other words, Murphy got off scot-free, and the cardinal looked the other way.

Ms. Goodstein cites internal church documents, which the Times posted online. The documents were provided by Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan. They are described as "lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee."

What she did not tell readers is that Mr. Anderson isn't just any old lawyer. When it comes to suing the church, he is America's leading plaintiffs attorney. Back in 2002, he told the Associated Press that he'd won more than $60 million in settlements from the church, and he once boasted to a Twin Cities weekly that he's "suing the s--t out of them everywhere." Nor did the Times report another salient fact about Mr. Anderson: He's now trying to sue the Vatican in U.S. federal court.

None of this makes Mr. Anderson wrong or unworthy of quoting. It does make him a much bigger player than the story disclosed. In fact, it's hard to think of anyone with a greater financial interest in promoting the public narrative of a church that takes zero action against abuser priests, with Pope Benedict XVI personally culpable.

Asked about the omissions in an email, Ms. Goodstein replied as follows: "Given the complexity of the Murphy case, and the relative brevity of my story, I don't think it is realistic for you to expect this story to get into treating other cases that these attorneys have handled."

Martin Nussbaum, a lawyer who is not involved in the Murphy case but who has defended other dioceses and churches in sexual abuse suits, emailed me four interesting letters sent to Murphy from three Wisconsin bishops. These documents are not among those posted online by the Times. They are relevant, however, because they refute the idea that Murphy went unpunished.

In fact, the letters from these bishops—three in 1993 and one in 1995, after fresh allegations of Murphy's misconduct—variously informed the priest that he was not to celebrate the sacraments in public, not to have any unsupervised contact with minors, and not to work in any parish religious education program.

It's accurate to say Murphy was never convicted by a church tribunal. It's also reasonable to argue (as I would) that Murphy should have been disciplined more. It is untrue, however, to suggest he was "never" disciplined. When asked if she knew of these letters, Ms. Goodstein did not directly answer, saying her focus was on what was "new," i.e., "the attempts by those same bishops to have Father Murphy laicized."

As for Rome, it did not get the case until 1996, when the archdiocese of Milwaukee informed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Back then, the CDF handled abuse cases when they involved a breach of confession (Murphy was accused of using the confessional to solicit boys). At that time, too, the only real option for reducing Murphy to the lay state was a church trial. And the bishops in Wisconsin did begin a trial.

Ms. Goodstein's original article said simply that Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy halted Murphy's trial after the priest sent the cardinal a letter saying he was dying and asking for clemency. A follow-up Times article last Thursday clarified that Rome came down the way it did because Murphy had shown "apparent good conduct" for the last 24 years, and "it would be difficult to try him" because "so much time [had] passed between the crimes and the trial."

Plus, his bishops had already stripped Murphy of his priestly faculties, the equivalent of taking a doctor's medical license. Does all this really suggest people callously looking the other way?

A few years later, when the CDF assumed authority over all abuse cases, Cardinal Ratzinger implemented changes that allowed for direct administrative action instead of trials that often took years. Roughly 60% of priests accused of sexual abuse were handled this way. The man who is now pope reopened cases that had been closed; did more than anyone to process cases and hold abusers accountable; and became the first pope to meet with victims. Isn't the more reasonable interpretation of all these events that Cardinal Ratzinger's experience with cases like Murphy's helped lead him to promote reforms that gave the church more effective tools for handling priestly abuse?

That's not to say that the press should be shy, even about Pope Benedict XVI's decisions as archbishop and cardinal. The Murphy case raises hard questions: why it took the archbishops of Milwaukee nearly two decades to suspend Murphy from his ministry; why innocent people whose lives had been shattered by men they are supposed to view as icons of Christ found so little justice; how bishops should deal with an accused clergyman when criminal investigations are inconclusive; how to balance the demands of justice with the Catholic imperative that sins can be forgiven. Oh, yes, maybe some context, and a bit of journalistic skepticism about the narrative of a plaintiffs attorney making millions off these cases.

That's still a story worth pursuing.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Catholicism

Line in the Sand

Persecution of Christians.




At last, Christians draw a line in the sand against their PC secularist persecutors


The Telegraph

By Gerald Warner
November 24th, 2009



At long last, Christian leaders have faced up to their persecutors in the secularist, socialist, One-World, PC, UN-promoted axis of evil and said: No more. In the popular metaphor, they have drawn a line in the sand. For harassed, demoralised faithful in the pews it will come as the long-awaited call to resistance and an earnest that their leaders are no longer willing to lie down supinely to be run over by the anti-Christian juggernaut. This statement of principle and intent is called The Manhattan Declaration, published last Friday in Washington DC.

It is difficult to believe that so firm an assertion of Christian intransigence in the face of persecution will not have some beneficial effects even here. For this Declaration is no minor affirmation by a few committed activists: on the contrary, it is signed by the most important leaders of three mainstream Christian traditions – the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and Evangelical Protestants. For an ecumenical document it is heroically devoid of fudge, euphemism and compromise.

The Manhattan Declaration states that “the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions”.

For Barack Obama, the PC lobby, the “hate crime” fascists and, by implication, their opposite numbers in Britain, the signatories have an uncompromising message: “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.” That is plain speaking, in the face of anti-Christian aggression by governments. The signatories spelled it out even more unequivocally: “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”

In a world where a Swedish pastor has been jailed for preaching that sodomy is sinful, similar prosecutions have taken place in Canada, the European Court of Human Rights (sic) has tried to ban crucifixes in Italian classrooms, Brazil has passed totalitarian legislation imposing heavy prison sentences for criticism of homosexual lifestyles, Amnesty International is championing abortion, David Cameron has voted for the enforced closure of Catholic adoption agencies, and Gordon Brown’s government has just been defeated in its fourth attempt to abolish the Waddington Clause guaranteeing free speech – this robust defiance is more than timely.

The signatories are unambiguously expressing their willingness to go to prison rather than deny any part of their religious beliefs. Those signatories are heavyweight. On the Catholic side they include Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia; Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop Emeritus of Detroit; the Archbishops of Denver, New York, Washington DC, Newark, Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Louisville; and other Bishops. The Orthodox include the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America and the Archpriest of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. There are also the Anglican Primates of America and Nigeria, as well as a host of senior Evangelical Protestants.

In terms of influence on votes and public opinion, this is a formidable coalition. It has served notice on the US government that further anti-Christian legislation will provoke cultural trench warfare and even civil disobedience. As regards the sudden stiffening of resistance among the usually spineless Catholic leadership, it is impossible not to detect the influence of Benedict XVI.

We need more declarations like this, on a global scale, and the requisite confrontational follow-up. This is Clint Eastwood, make-my-day Christianity – and not before time. From now on, any governments that are planning further persecution of Christians had better make sure they have a large pride of lions available for mastication duties. The worm has turned.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Christian

The Church and the Anglicans

Pope and Anglican leader agree on closer relations



By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Sat Nov 21, 2009

VATICAN CITY – After offering a home in his church to disaffected Anglicans, Pope Benedict XVI assured the archbishop of Canterbury on Saturday that he is still committed to seeking closer relations between Catholics and Anglicans.

Archbishop Rowan Williams said he came away convinced there was no "dawn raid" on his church by Rome, telling Vatican Radio he wishes "every blessing" for those who want to become Catholics.

[I have two thoughts on this - 1) The Pope is an incredible man, deserving of sainthood upon death, for spending 5 minutes with that man.  Looking at the picture of the two of them, I imagined sitting across from Rowan, rising from the seat and jumping at him like a wolf, grabbing him by the neck and throttling him until he spits out an apology for everything he has done to England, and Christianity.  2) So bloody what if it was a dawn raid - and what would he do if it was?  Whine like a 2 year old.  Complain.  Cry. Maybe file a complaint with the UN or ask a shari'a court to hear his complaint. ]


Williams and Benedict met privately for 20 minutes in what the Vatican called "cordial discussions," as part of what has clearly been a difficult visit by the Anglican leader.

The Vatican said in a brief statement that the two leaders "turned to the challenges facing all Christian communities" and the need "to promote forms of collaboration and shared witness in facing these challenges."

Referring to the recent overture for traditional Anglicans upset over the ordination of women and gay bishops to become Catholics, the Vatican said the talks reiterated "the shared will to continue and to consolidate the ecumenical relationship between Catholics and Anglicans."

Williams' visit to Rome had been long planned but the Vatican overture to conservative Anglicans, for which he admittedly received little advance notice, cast a shadow over the trip and raised questions about the future of relations between Rome and the 77-million strong worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes the U.S. Episcopal c.Church.

In the interview after the papal audience with Vatican Radio, Williams acknowledged the handling of the Vatican move put Anglicans "in an awkward position for a time. Not the contents so much, as some of the messages that were given out. So I needed to share with the pope some of those concerns and I think they were expressed and heard in a very friendly spirit."

Williams said he came away assured that it "did not represent any change in the Vatican's attitude to the Anglican communion as such; and a very strong statement came out."

In a personal gesture, the Vatican said the pope presented the archbishop with a gold bishop's cross as a gift.

Since coming to Rome on Thursday, Williams has sought to downplay the implications of the Vatican's unprecedented invitation.

The Vatican says it was merely responding to the many Anglican requests to join the Catholic Church and has denied it was poaching converts in the Anglican pond.

But the move already has strained Catholic-Anglican relations and is sure to affect the worldwide Anglican Communion, which was already on the verge of schism over homosexuality and women's ordination before the Vatican intervened.

In a speech at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Williams was gracious in referring to the Vatican's new policy, which he called the "elephant in the room." The policy was an "imaginative pastoral response" to requests by some Anglicans but broke no new doctrinal ground, Williams said.

He spent the bulk of his speech describing the progress that had been achieved so far in decades of Vatican-Anglican ecumenical talks and questioning whether the outstanding issues were really all that great.

Anglicans split from Rome in 1534 when English King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment. For decades, the two churches have held theological discussions on trying to reunite, part of the Vatican's broader, long-term ecumenical effort to unify all Christians.

But differences remain and the ecumenical talks were going nowhere as divisions mounted between liberals and traditionalists within the Anglican Communion itself.

The new policy allows Anglicans to convert to Catholicism but retain many of their Anglican liturgical traditions, including married priests. The Vatican will create the equivalent of new dioceses, so-called personal ordinariates, for these former Anglicans to be headed by a former Anglican priest or bishop.

Estimates on the number of possible converts has ranged from a few hundred to thousands.

[Imagine the number 500,000 and keep imagining a higher figure world wide]

Williams — the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion — wasn't informed of the change until right before it was announced.

It remains to be seen how the new policy will affect Pope Benedict XVI's planned trip to Britain next year. Saturday's Vatican statement did not mention it.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
church

The Church, the DC Council, and Charity

The Catholic Church answers only to God, not to the whim of foolish humans who vacillate on any given issue depending on their political flavor of the day.

The Church has every right to act in accordance with what it believes, just as we, as individuals, have the right to stand up for a cause we believe in, to shout to the rooftops that we support a cause or idea, and argue for the defense of the right of anyone (which is legally construed to include entities - of which the Church would be one) to say and do that which is protected by our Constitution, and in the case of the Church, by a power considerably higher than human values.

Recently, the Church has informed the Washington D.C. city council that it will change its policy in regard to social services in the city, if the council approves a same-sex marriage bill.

Reverend Dr. Dennis W. Wiley, Pastor of the Covenant Baptist Church released a statement:

Yesterday, the leadership of the Catholic Church made clear that they are choosing a cynical political ploy over their call to serve the neediest among the community.

It is not political Mr. Wiley, any more than your comments are political. It is what the Church stands for - it cannot, and in all honesty must not bend to the will of man on issues much higher than how you (generic for the broader group outraged) feel about any given issue.


It is very simple - because YOU believe something does not make the opposite of what you believe HATEFUL or BAD.  I understand that in your very enlightened position, you understand such judgments reflect on you, not the Church, and I would opine that you want to maintain the high ground, and appear OPEN and ENLIGHTENED, not petty and hateful yourself.  Therefore, why will you not recognize the right of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to hold an opinion on matters of morality even if you and your very tiny frame of reference do not understand. You would not enjoy having the Atheists of America determine what scripture you must use, or how you address God in your sermons ... why do you believe it is justified to threaten and attack the Church for a decision it deems significant.


Catholics have a choice, to become Protestant and believe whatever it is they wish to believe about whatever they wish, or remain Catholic and adhere to the rules and policies of the Church. No one forces us to be Catholic or Protestant - we choose. If the actions of the Church offend Catholics in Washington, they may convert to one of the many other options available to them - choice. It is not for the Church to conform to man; man conforms to the Church, or goes elsewhere. The Church has a right to refuse to serve anyone it may wish to - if the individual does not conform to Church standards. EVERY church has this right and every church enforces it - you just do not hear about it when the Methodists discipline someone because quite honestly, no one cares. I feel that it actually would be very serious if the Methodists disciplined someone - when you have few rules, it is hard to violate anything.


It is that simple.


Some will call this a matter of hate - that the Church has a choice between doing the right thing and continuing charity to all or showing disrespect and hate.


So simple are the minds of enfeebled fools who spew stupidity at every opportunity, and so obvious to any sentient being.


Fools are attacking the Church for its right to hold people to standards, yet those who attack also hold a standard, yet due to the Church holding a different position that does not conform to the fools standard, the Church is attacked. Interesting irony.






Pathetic hypocrisy more like it.













church

Catholic Church: Welcomes Back Anglicans

The London Times
October 22, 2009




400,000 former Anglicans worldwide seek immediate unity with Rome

Ruth Gledhill, Sophie Tedmanson, Giles Whittell and Richard Owen


Leaders of more than 400,000 Anglicans who quit over women priests are to seek immediate unity with Rome under the apostolic constitution announced by Pope Benedict XVI. They will be among the first to take up an option allowing Anglicans to join an “ordinariate” that brings them into full communion with Roman Catholics while retaining elements of their Anglican identity.

The Pope’s move is regarded by some Anglicans as one of the most dramatic developments in Protestant christendom since the Reformation gave birth to the Church of England 400 years ago.

Archbishop John Hepworth, the twice-married Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, who led negotiations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, said he was “profoundly moved” by the Pope’s decision and would immediately seek the approval of the group’s 400,000 members worldwide to join.

He described the development as “a moment of grace, perhaps even a moment of history”.

As fully-fledged Anglicans also seek refuge from liberalism in the shelter of Rome, it is feared that the proposal could deal a deadly blow to the 77 million-strong Anglican Communion, which already faces schism over homosexual ordination.

Up to 500 members of Forward in Faith, the traditionalist grouping that opposes women bishops, are meeting this weekend to debate the Pope’s offer of a home for former Anglican laity and married priests.

Many are waiting for the publication of a code of practice by Rome to flesh out what is on offer before deciding whether to go.

Insiders believe that Rome’s new canonical solution to the Anglican crisis could tempt entire dioceses and possibly even a province.

More than 440 clergy took compensation and left the Church of England, most for Rome, after the General Synod voted to ordain women priests in 1992. More than 30 returned.

The Pope has made it significantly more attractive for Anglicans to move over this time by offering a universal solution that allows them to retain crucial aspects of their identity and to set up seminaries that will, presumably, train married men for the Catholic priesthood. But any serving clergyman would face a marked loss of income. A job as a clergyman in the Church of England comes with a stipend of £22,250 and free accommodation. Catholic priests earn about £8,000, paid by their parish and topped up by a diocese where the parish cannot afford even that.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, indicated that there would be no compensation this time. It was only introduced at the last minute previously as a way of getting the whole women’s ordination package through the General Synod with the necessary two-thirds majorities.

Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Catholic who retired this year as the Anglican Bishop of Rochester, welcomed Rome’s “generosity of spirit” in its recognition of Anglican patrimony. But he made clear that many issues needed to be resolved before decisions could be made. The two “flying bishops” appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to care for opponents of women priests also said that this was not a time for “sudden decisions”.

Andrew Burnham, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, and Keith Newton, the Bishop of Richborough, who went last year to Rome to begin talks with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said: “Anglicans in the Catholic tradition understandably will want to stay within the Anglican Communion. Others will wish to make individual arrangements as their conscience directs. A further group will begin to form a caravan, rather like the People of Israel crossing the desert in search of the Promised Land.” In the US a writer for the Jesuit magazine America expressed fears that some newcomers would be “nostalgists, anti-feminists and anti-gay bigots”.

At Notre Dame University in Indiana, scholars forecast a migration of Catholics into the new Anglican Catholic rite because of the sudden freedom to marry that it would grant. Professor Lawrence Cunningham called the Vatican’s move a “stunning” endorsement of the married priesthood, adding that it would have immediate repercussions for Catholics. It would “raise anew the question, ‘If they can do it, why can’t the priests of Rome?’ ”

Archbishop Robert Duncan, of the Anglican Church of North America, which broke away from the Episcopal Church over the ordination of the gay Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire, said: “We rejoice that the Holy See has opened this doorway, which represents another step in the co-operation and relationship between our Churches.”

In Rome, Vittorio Messori, who has co-written books with the Pope, said that the Anglican Communion was already losing followers because of female and gay priests. “More Muslims go to the mosques in London than Anglicans go to church” he said. “The exit of half a million Anglicans to Rome will only confirm a trend.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
church

Obama is a better Catholic than the Pope - says a Kennedy.

I have a very difficult time understanding the Kennedy's. I admit, I was once very enamored by the family - their history, their struggle, and their sadness. I felt very deeply that the loss of President Kennedy changed our nation, and what he did offer, and could have given us, would have made us a better country. I believed John F. Kennedy was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, and ever would have. The day he died, we lost more than a president - we lost a hero. The Kennedy's lost a brother, uncle, husband, and father - but the nation also lost something that day - our future.

Five years later we went through it all over - losing another Kennedy who could have led us out of the darkness. Another man, another Kennedy - yet another brother, uncle, cousin, husband, and father.

The nation spiraled downward. A mess awaited us, and an ever deeper darkness awaited the Kennedy's. They became a farce. Ted couldn't drive, his sons followed their father down the road of addiction. Robert's sons had no sense of self and lost themselves to vices. Only John's two children found any sort of life away from the failure of public life.

And now, another Kennedy lectures the Pope on who is a better Catholic. Il Papa, His Holiness, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope ... or Barack Obama.

She is clear enough - the Pope was, in his previous life, the head of the church's office of doctrine. He has a little more authority to speak on the issue of what the church stands for Ms. Kennedy than you or any and all members of that family of yours - if they can pull themselves out of the bottle or the whorehouse.

If is not for you, Ms Kennedy to tell the Catholic Church what it should and should not believe. It is not for you Ms. Kennedy to do ANYTHING but adhere to church doctrine or find yourself another faith. I have a personal favorite - Islam. You will find them very accommodating.

His Holiness does not need me or anyone else to defend him, nor do we need to defend the Catholic Church from a contumacious demimonde.

Barrack Obama does not have a moral compass to wave around nor does he speak for any Catholic although he may speak for you - no one has said you are a Catholic. Ms Kennedy, I think you know this but just in case you missed the message - the POPE speaks for all Catholics and if you don't like it - go elsewhere.

Without a Doubt


Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.


Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Newsweek Web Exclusive


Tomorrow Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama's controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama's appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.


In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.


It's fitting that Obama's visit comes just days after the publication of "Charity in Truth," a Vatican encyclical that declares unions, regulation of capitalism's excesses, and environmentalism to be ethical imperatives. The document gives moral credence to Obama's message and to progressive politics writ large.


Even more intriguing is the pope's support for political activism, which he refers to in the encyclical as "the institutional path … of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly." As a member of a family that preached that politics is an honorable profession, I see that he is opening the church to roles that for too long have been neglected. Here Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics—and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail. They agree, too, on poverty and Middle East peace. So far so good on papal-presidential concordance.


But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others' shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women's equality and gays' cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches."


That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.


In the same vein, American bishops in the 1970s struggled to produce a paper that would address the concerns of women. After nine years of effort, they gave up. Why? According to Bishop P. Francis Murphy, bishops see themselves as "teachers, not learners: truth can not emerge through consultation." Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.)


In 1979, Sister Theresa Kane, the head of the Sisters of Mercy and the president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, greeted Pope John Paul II on his first visit to the United States by proposing that the Church provide "for the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of our Church," including the priesthood. This was greeted with revulsion at the Vatican, which insists that the only people who can represent God in the priestly role are those with male sex organs.


Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think. Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays. But 54 percent of American Catholics find gay relationships to be morally acceptable, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, against all scientific evidence and protestations from clergy on the ground, the pope claims that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS. Seventy-nine percent of American Catholics disagree, according to a 2007 poll by Catholics for Choice.


When Sen. John Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic, ran for president in 2004, several bishops decided to deny him communion. A poll done at the time by Time magazine showed that 73 percent of American Catholics disagreed with that decision, and 83 percent said the bishops' move wouldn't change their vote. In fact, more than two thirds said the church shouldn't try to influence the way Catholics vote at all or tell candidates—even Catholic ones—what stance to take.


For Obama, respectful disagreement and a willingness to recognize differences was the animating spirit of the presidential campaign, and it was central to his Notre Dame speech. That is the kind of politics many Catholics practice. They're tired of watching the church grasp frantically for control at the expense of truth and love. In America last November, it showed: 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama.


Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him.


Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is author of Failing America's Faithful: How Today's Churches Are Mixing God With Politics and Losing Their Way.

Democrats (Losercrats) believe Abortion is an Economic Issue

She is utilitarian. She is very practical. She is also very, very, very misguided. She is the worst Catholic I have ever had the mispleasure of hearing or knowing about (next to John Kerry).



On THIS WEEK with George Stephanapoulos on Sunday:



STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.




Democrats are racist

Communion and the Church

Pro-choice politicians take papal Communion
Priest delivered sacrament directly to Kennedy

By Julia Duin THE WASHINGTON TIMES Daily, May 9, 2008

Despite a 2004 order from the future Pope Benedict XVI barring pro-choice Catholic politicians from the Communion table, a quintet of elected officials flouted his wishes twice during his recent six-day visit here by partaking of the sacrament right before his eyes.

The bishops whose job it is to enforce the pope’s wishes have been all over the map in responding. While New York Cardinal Edward Egan publicly chastised former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani for taking Communion during an April 19 Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, the bishops of Washington, Boston and Norwalk, Conn., have not disciplined members of their flock who partook April 17 at Nationals Park.

In fact, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a liberal Massachusetts Democrat, got a personalized delivery of Communion, said Dan Skehan, a businessman from Lancaster, Pa., who sat in Section 216 directly above the senator.

Minutes before the rest of the enormous crowd lined up to receive the sacrament, Mr. Skehan and his two sons spotted a priest making his way down the steps to the senator to hand him the consecrated host.

“ It was obviously prearranged,” Mr. Skehan said, “maybe out of regard for his girth and lack of mobility. I turned immediately to both my sons and said, ‘Oh my gosh, look at that.’ Everyone in my section, which was filled with people from Lancaster, said, ‘That is outrageous. How could they do that?’”

They were aware that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — had told American bishops in 2004 that pro- choice Catholic politicians should first be privately admonished to cease their activism on the abortion issue and then — if there was no change — to refuse the sacrament.

At first, on April 30, archdiocese spokeswoman Susan Gibbs denied that Mr. Kennedy had partaken, saying such a scenario “wouldn’t be possible.”

Then on May 1, Mr. Kennedy’s office e-mailed The Washington Times a onesentence statement saying the senator had indeed received Communion at the Mass.

Mr. Skehan was incredulous that the archdiocese would plead ignorance.

“They know which priest was assigned to distribute Communion in that section,” he said. “Those priests couldn’t wander around. They had 47,000 people receive Communion in 15 minutes. That was orchestrated. They knew who was where.”

The Catholic Church teaches that the consecrated host is the body and blood of Jesus Christ and that to take it while consciously in a state of sin is, citing the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:29, “to eat and drink your own damnation.”

The other pro-choice Catholic politicians who took Communion at Nationals Stadium were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat; Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat; and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat.

As word of Cardinal Egan’s chastisement spread, the Washington archdiocese released an April 28 statement explaining why Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said nothing.

“The decision concerning the refusal of Holy Communion to an individual can best be made by the bishop in the person’s home diocese with whom he or she presumably is in conversation,” it said. “Archbishop Wuerl respects the role of the local bishop as each bishop grapples with this decision.”

As criticism mounted, the archbishop defended himself in the May 1 issue of the Catholic Standard, the archdiocesan newspaper.

“I have not accepted suggestions that the Archdiocese of Washington or episcopal conferences have some particular role that supersedes the authority of an individual bishop in his particular church,” he wrote.

The Washington Times then contacted the home dioceses of Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Dodd to ask whether those bishops had taken any disciplinary action against the politicians.

No response came from the Archdioceses of San Francisco and Boston, nor the Norwalk, Conn., diocese.

Boston Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley announced in April 2004 that prochoice politicians should abstain, an instruction Mr. Kerry ignored at an April 11, 2004, Easter Mass in Boston. Four days later, Mr. Kerry met with Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop of Washington and chairman of a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops task force on bishops and pro-choice Catholic politicians.

The contents of that 45-minute meeting were not publicized, but the senator has continued to take Communion.

In the days before Benedict’s visit to the U.S., the American Life League (ALL), based in Fredericksburg, Va., ran newspaper ads with photos of prochoice politicians along with a note to the pope: “Don’t give these people Holy Communion because there’s blood on their hands, and here are pictures so you can identify them.”

“Archbishop Wuerl is right that it’s up to the bishop to discipline their members,” said ALL spokesman Michael Hichhorn. “But to deny Communion is not a disciplinary action; it is a defense of the Holy Eucharist.”

Robert Royal, president of the Faith and Reason Institute, said local Catholics were discussing Archbishop Wuerl’s predicament and that he knows “several” cardinals and bishops who have told pro-choice Catholics to stay away from the altar.

“Wuerl is right in that legislators who work here in Washington are really under the jurisdiction of their home bishop and that’s where this should be dealt with,” he said. “But you could argue these people live a lot of their lives here in D.C.”

“I suppose the archbishop of Washington could decree that pro-abortion Catholics not partake,” he said. “But he’d need strong backing from his brother bishops. You could argue against Wuerl’s position to say these people are highly public but the entire dynamic of the Catholic Church is that the bishop in his own diocese is sovereign.”

Recycle or Go To Hell

This would be a good poster for the tree-hugging environmentalists. perhaps an effort by the church to attract more attendees.

Telegraph, March 3, 2008. The Vatican warns that not recycling has become a new mortal sin (not a venial one for which there is hope).

Just Do It!

So says the Pope. A vatican sanctioned sex guide is encouraging churchgoers to make love more often ...

The book - It's a Sin Not To Do It written by Roberto Beretta and Elisabetta Broli.


___________________________________________________


Population issues admittedly do play a role in this book, even if not explicit. Concern that Europe will be awash in non-Catholics soon enough ... and it may well be too late.