NOTABLES - People who make the news, not necessarily Church-related

Versione Completa   Stampa   Cerca   Utenti   Iscriviti     Condividi : FacebookTwitter
Pagine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, [20], 21, 22, 23, 24
Wulfrune
00martedì 3 marzo 2009 16:56
Wow thanks Teresa for the Lehmann pictures. I don't read Spanish though I can occasionally make it out, so this blog is new to me. What on earth is Lehmann doing? He resembles Papageno in that cage! (P-P-P-P-Pa-Pa-Pa..... Oh Please....) can one imagine Kardinal Ratzinger dressing up as an eejit for a secular festival?

LOL at your 'out-Mahoneyed'!! Though I think it would take a lot to out-Mahoney, but he's getting there....

I find it all very depressing. The Linz thing is really bothering me for some reason. The out and out disobedience and rudeness towards the HF is so dispiriting. Dissing from the secular sphere I can take, it means the Pope is doing something right and challenging all those secular attitudes, but from within? And from bishops?

Ghris Gillibrand has a petition in German supporting the Pope, I have signed it (though there is no facility to state one is from the UK). It's got over 16,000 sigs so far and is an excellent message of support. I encourage everyone who loves papa Ratzinger to go over three and SIGN. I'm linking Chris' page as he has the English translation, you then follow his link to the petition itself.
Petition of Support to Pope Benedict XVI
_benevolens_
00martedì 3 marzo 2009 22:12
Lehmann and carnival

I would like to come to Cardinal Lehmann's defence on this. Carnival is - and I beg the German sorelle to correct me if I'm wrong - an important element of German culture. People of all walks of life - including politicians, celebrities and clergy - regularly take prominent roles in the 'official sessions'. So Cardinal Lehmann is by no means an exception. Nobody would for instance doubt for one moment Cardinal Meisner of Cologne's complete conformity with everything Papa stands for nor his unshakeable loyalty and orthodoxy. Still, he has also been seen in carnival attire before:





as has Papa's staunch supporter and devout Catholic Gloria von Thurn und Taxis:



And let's not forget that Papa himself as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1989 was decorated with (and accepted!) a carnival 'order', even posing with the carnival princess (second pic on the left):






cowgirl2
00martedì 3 marzo 2009 23:41
Fasching / Karneval
Oh yes!! Kard. Meissner is a classic! You should see him perform the (un)official theme song of Köln -> viva Colonia! It's a riot!!! That song certainly does not run acc. to the catechism, since it mentions wine, song, love and lust... ( I think he always tries to skip the lust part) [SM=g27823] But! The song also includes God!

Mainz and Köln are crazy about their Carnival, I think even as the Bishop you can't get away from it.
The Bavarian version is a bit more subtle, since the humor in Bavaria can't be compared to the humor of the Rhine area... but, Clerics certainly take part in it.

No rebuke necessary in that case. But ONLY in that case!! [SM=g27817]

**********

You're right. It is an important element of our culture. I'm still in the process af assimilating my Bostonian husband into Bavarian culture - whether he likes it or not [SM=g27828] . But, even after nearly twenty years of marriage, he still doesn't get Fasching. Ts - too bad!!
Simone55
00giovedì 5 marzo 2009 00:24
talking about carnival......
......look what carnival can do to normally serious people!
This is Gloria, she had her performance in Aachen in 2008. She became a member of a carnival assosiation "wider den tierischen Ernst".

If you can manage it to watch the whole video, her mom and her kids were also there.

By the way, I think she was great!

s256.photobucket.com/albums/hh190/simone-55/?action=view¤t=WiderdentierischenErn...
(I am not sure, which link will work)



benefan
00venerdì 6 marzo 2009 02:57

talking about Gloria....


My gosh, what a trooper! That woman has a future on Broadway. She'd be perfect in "Hello, Dolly". Her son, the tall guy in blue with the headband, is a nice looking guy. He's the heir to a massive fortune, girls, and still available.

Thanks for the eye-opening and entertaining video, Simone. Loved it. [SM=g27823]




TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 18 marzo 2009 12:21
Cardinal Castrillon speaks
about the Williamson case

by César Mauricio Velásquez
Translated from

March 18, 2009




Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos says that he became aware of the statements of Bishop Richard Williamson about the Holocaust only after the reaction from the Jewish world and the bishops of German, Switzerland and Austria.

In an interview with El Tiempo [a Colombian newspaper; the cardinal is Colombian], the cardinal speaks about the Williamson case and his role in it, and he also reveals that his mediation ahd been sought when the King of Thailand wished to grant asylum to Saddam Husssein and 500 of his associates before the Iraq war in 2003.

Cardinal Castlllion was in charge of dialog with the FSSPX and he has been criticized for allowing the lifting of the excommunication before Williamson could retract his controversial statements about the Holocaust.

The episode, which caused a worldwide controversy last month, provoked Jewish representatives to protest the papal gesture towards someone who denies that gas chambers werre used against Jews by the Nazis and minimizes the number of Jewish victims by Hitlere's regime.


What was your role in mediating with the Lefebvrian bishops whose 4excommunication was lifted?

I had to carry on the dialog, but that does not mean that I was the only one talking to Mons Fellay [superior-general of the FSSPX]. I always had with me the group necessary within the Holy See each step of the way.

So when we speak of the ecommunications, it was not strictly a dialog between Castrillon and Fellay alone, no, no, no! I did not negotiate with anyone. It was a commission of cardinals, inluding Cardinal Ratzinger, which began this long before he became Pope. I did not do anything that was not done collegially.


How did you learn of Williamson's words about the Holocaust?

When there was this tremendous reaction from the Jewish world and the bishops of the areas most sensitive to the issue (Germany, Switzerland and Austria), then we learned of it. An official report came to us on February 5.

But the Lefebvrians were not excommunicated for reasons of dotrine or morality but because they had been ordained without papal mandate.


Was there any earpulling after the Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, said that you had the responsibility to know what Williamson has said?

He did not exactly say that, and if he did, it would be absurd, an
idiocy, because our work at the Commission was not about studying the lives of these bishops. The only relevant thing we had to know was that they were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre without permission.


And to lift the excommunication, it was not necessary that Williamson make a retraction?

No one would have demanded a retraction becuse neither the Holy Father nor we at the Commission knew what he had said.


And if you had known, would you have asked for a retraction before the recall?

I think not, because the issue is something historical, not moral. But out of prudence, the Holy Father might have said let us wait [until this is cleared up]...

I do think it was imprudent of Fr. Lombardi to make the statement he did to La Croix, because it was unnecessary to make judgments on other persnos nor to say that a cardinal ought to have known things which there was strictly no reason for me to know.

If anyone had to know something, it would be the cardinal who has to know about the lives of the bishops of the Church, Cardinal Re.


Were you aware of what Fr. Lombardi said?

Frankly, I did not make a big deal of it. He wrote me a letter of apology. We have been good friends.

.....


[A more competent journalist might have elicited much more from the cardinal, who biviously, was not inclined to say anything more than he was asked!]
TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 18 marzo 2009 13:39
Media risks making politics a religion
by marginalizing the Church,
Archbishop Chaput says

i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt96/MARITER_7/CNA.jpg




Washington D.C., Mar 17, 2009 (CNA).- Unless the media improves its basic understanding of Catholic beliefs and practices, it risks marginalizing the Church and replacing its voice in society with politics, a set of beliefs “with the same vestments, but less conscience,” Archbishop Charles J. Chaput told a gathering of prominent journalists on Tuesday at the Pew Forum.

Though the Archbishop of Denver had been invited to Washington, D.C. to address the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life about the political obligations of Catholics, he began his remarks with a discussion of media coverage of the Catholic Church.

His audience consisted of several prominent journalists including Sally Quinn, Moderator of the Washington Post's “On Faith” section; Time Contributing Editor Amy Sullivan; Washington Post Politics Columnist E.J. Dionne; New York Times Washington Correspondent David Kirkpatrick; and Tony Spence, Editor-In-Chief of Catholic News Service.

“Public understanding of the Catholic role in our political process depends, in large part, on how the mainstream media frame Church-related issues,” the archbishop began.

Noting Mother Teresa’s joke that she’d rather bathe a leper than meet the press, Archbishop Chaput said many people in the Church, especially active Catholics, might feel similarly wary of the media.

“Now it turns out that I don’t feel the same way,” he told the journalists. “In my experience, dealing with the press has usually been rather enjoyable. I’ve worked with some very good journalists. I don’t think we should ever fear the truth. And I tend to like challenging questions.”

However, he said some reporters and editors have been “uniquely frustrating” because “too often they really don’t know their subject; or they dislike the influence of religion; or they have unresolved authority issues; or they resent Catholic teachings on sex; or they’d rather be covering the White House, but this is the only beat they could get.”

“I don’t expect journalists who track the Church to agree with everything she teaches. But I do think reporters should have a working knowledge of her traditions and teachings,” he commented, advocating that editors have a “basic Catholic vocabulary” to understand Catholic topics and motivations.

As an example of journalistic neglect, he said that in twenty years as a bishop, no reporter had asked him why he so often refers to the Church as “she” and “her” instead of “it.”

“I find that extremely odd, because those pronouns go straight to the heart of Catholic theology, life and identity.”

Saying that the news media “serve a vital role in American life,” he asserted that democracy depends on “the free flow of truthful and comprehensive information between the government and the governed. Public debate has little meaning when people don’t have accurate, unbiased information.”

Archbishop Chaput also declared that journalism is “a vocation, not just a job,” equal to law or medicine in dignity because of the profession’s importance to society.

“Journalists have a duty to serve the truth and the common good, not just the crowd, not just the shareholders they work for, and not just their own personal convictions,” he said.

Good reporting has “social and moral gravity,” the archbishop observed. “And thankfully, many journalists are experts in their fields. But that expertise doesn’t seem to extend to religion coverage.”

Archbishop Chaput singled out by name several journalists, praising the work of Vatican expert John Allen and Associated Press writer Eric Gorski for their “outstanding work.” He also mentioned Terry Mattingly and his colleagues at GetReligion.org before praising Vatican expert Sandro Magister and Alejandro Bermudez for offering “excellent and well informed international reporting on religious affairs.”

Yet in the opinion of many Catholics, the archbishop explained, these good journalists seem to be the exceptions.

“No serious media organization would assign a reporter to cover Wall Street if that reporter lacked a background in economics, fiscal and monetary policy, and these days, at least some expertise in Keynesian theory. But reporters who don’t know their subject and haven’t done their homework seem common in the world of religion reporting,” he commented.

Turning to the themes of his 2008 book Render Unto Caesar, Archbishop Chaput reiterated that Catholics “serve Caesar best when we serve God first” by living their faith at home, at work, in public life and in the voting booth.

In his interactions with reporters about his book, the archbishop found that many hadn’t “really read it,” many lacked “even a basic understanding of Catholic identity” necessary for a “useful disagreement” and many weren’t interested in “learning what they didn’t know.”

“At the same time, some did unfortunately know what they planned to write before they walked into my office for the interview,” he commented, explaining that a bishop’s approach to politics differs from the media’s.

“Where the media see a Catholic politician, Catholic bishops see a soul. For a bishop, the question of Catholics in American public life is only secondarily about electoral politics. Really it’s a question of eschatology,” he said, explaining “eschatology” as the “last things” of heaven and hell, salvation and judgment, and the eternal consequences of present actions.

“Sometimes in reading the news, I get the impression that access to Holy Communion in the Church is like having bar privileges at the Elks’ Club,” Archbishop Chaput commented.

He explained that honest believers have never wanted to and have never been allowed to approach the Eucharist in “a state of grave sin or scandal,” as doing so commits “a kind of blasphemy against God” does violence against personal integrity and the faith of others.

Warning against the imposition of the language of “civil rights” upon Catholic practice, he said that no one has a “right” to the Eucharist and “the vanity or hurt feelings of an individual Catholic governor or senator or even a vice president do not take priority over the faith of the believing community.”

Noting that the media have no obligation to believe Catholic teaching, he said they are “certainly” obliged to “understand, respect and accurately recount” how the Church understands herself and how and why she teaches.

“Most of you came here today because you already do try to take the Catholic Church and religious issues seriously, and you do try to write with depth, integrity and a sense of context,” he stated. “I thank you for that.”

“Now please tell your friends in the newsroom to do the same,” he concluded, warning that the marginalization of religion leads politics to take its place “with the same vestments, but less conscience.”

“We need the Church to remind us of the witness of history: that human beings remain fallible; that civil power unconstrained by a reverence for God -- or at least a healthy respect for the possibility of God -- sooner or later attacks the humanity it claims to serve; and that we're all of us subject to the same excuse-making and self-delusion in our personal lives, in our public actions -- and even in the corridors of national leadership.”


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

I look to Archbishop Chaput now as the reliable orthodox intellectual of the Church in the United States, as Cardinal Ruini is in the College of Cardinals (now that JosephRatzinger is Pope).

TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 20 marzo 2009 03:26
SAY A PRAYER FOR
GIANNI GIANSANTI,
PAPAL PHOTOGRAPHER




In this picture made available by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Italian photojournalist Gianni Giansanti shakes hands with Pope John Paul II aboard the Papal plane at the end of the Apostolic trip to Lourdes, France, Aug. 2004.

Giansanti died after a long illness in Rome, Wednesday March 18, 2009. He was 52. Giansanti's career began as a freelancer in 1977 and in 1978 at 22, his picture of the body of former Italian Premier Aldo Moro, who was found dead in a car after being kidnapped by terrorists of the Red Brigades, gained him world wide fame.



In 1998 he won the first prize of the WoRLd Press Photo for a reportage on a day in the life of Pope John Paul II and in 1993 he was awarded the Picture of the Year prize by the University of Missouri for a reportage on the famine in Somalia.

His professional work includes over 25 years of Vatican coverage, social and environmental reportages in Africa and in the world of different sports like car racing and soccer.

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


In 2006 he came out with a beautiful coffee table book of photographs entitled BENEDICT XVI: THE DAWN OF A PAPACY (below left), with text written by Jeff Israely of Time (before the latter 'turned coat'), and Gloria on her forum posts some well-known photographs of CArdinal Ratzinger that I didn't know till now were Giansanti's.






Thank you, Gianni, and God rest your soul!



TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 22 marzo 2009 04:47
In his blog today, Bishop Williamson gives us an idea of what he has been doing - or not doing - and his state of mind. He seems to be accepting his 'rest cure' gracefully, but does not give us any idea of what he will do about his Holocaust negationism - like how much time it will take him to 're-study the evidence'!

Whatver you may think of him, he has a gift for expressing himself literately and with a great sense of irony. And unless he's a consummate hyprocrite - which I don't think he is or he would never have expressed himself that publicly about the Holocaust - he appears to be ever conscious that he is a priest. Which is more than one can say for many priests one knows through their uncharitable media rants.






Don't cry....
Eleison Comments LXXXIX

Saturday, March 21, 2009


"Don't cry for me, Argentina", nor readers of "Eleison Comments" in any other part of the world, because you may have thought that the last two months have been difficult for the Eleison Commentator, but actually his condition is, as usual, rather better than he deserves. "Use each man according to his deserts", says Hamlet, "and who should 'scape whipping ?"

When the media onslaught broke out some two months ago with the Pope for its main target, I was myself well protected inside the Seminary of La Reja. Journalists prowled round and around, but they did not get through.

I only regret having had to leave La Reja and Argentina in circumstances that left me no chance of correctly taking leave of many Latin American colleagues and friends.

Let priests, seminarians and layfolk all accept here the expression of my real gratitude for the five and a half happy years that I spent in their midst. Let everyone praying for me also accept my sincere gratitude. I will celebrate from tomorrow a novena of Masses for all your intentions.

For neither did the Society of St Pius X let me down when I landed in England. The District Superior in England had contacted the right friend of ours in London for there to be a little police escort sufficient to see me straight through the pack of "gentlemen of the Press" lying in wait for me, and ever since then I have been waited on hand and foot in the Society's house in London. No work. No responsibilities. Who could complain?

Moreover the rest-cure looks like it is being prolonged. In a recent interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel, the Society's Superior General is quoted to have said amongst other things, perhaps under pressure coming through the media - who missed their next onslaught on the Pope traveling to Africa, because he objected to artificial means of birth control? - "If Bishop Williamson is silent, if he stays out of sight, that would really be better for everyone... I hope that he drops out of public life for a long while... He has hurt the Society and damaged our reputation. We are definitely distancing ourselves from him... "

Therefore the future is in God's hands. I wish I could say that I object to being reduced to silence, but if the alternative is being reduced to saying only those things that the "gentlemen of the Press" do not object to, then I think I prefer the silence.

As far back as 1985, the year of publication for Iota Unum, Romano Amerio's famous analysis of Vatican II changes, the Italian Professor was anticipating that a time might come when there would be only silence left... Kyrie eleison.

London, England
Posted by Bishop Richard Williamson at 10:54 AM


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


Last week, he blogged about Beethoven's Coriolanus Overture, and the week before that was an interesting little grab-bag of comments on cotnemporary crises. What he says about the crisis in the Church bears thinking about.




benefan
00lunedì 23 marzo 2009 19:24

Glendon to receive Notre Dame's 2009 Laetare Medal at commencement

By Catholic News Service
March 23, 2009

NOTRE DAME, Ind. (CNS) -- Mary Ann Glendon, a professor at Harvard Law School who recently stepped down as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will receive the University of Notre Dame's Laetare Medal at commencement ceremonies May 17.

Established in 1883, the Laetare Medal is described as the oldest and most prestigious honor given to American Catholics. It is awarded annually to a Catholic "whose genius has ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of the church and enriched the heritage of humanity."

Announcing the award recipient March 22, Holy Cross Father John I. Jenkins said Glendon "has impressively served our church and our country," as both a "public intellectual" and a diplomat.

"She is an articulate and compelling expositor of Catholic social teaching who exemplifies our university's most cherished values and deserves its highest praise," Father Jenkins added in a statement.

During the commencement ceremony at which Glendon will receive the award, U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak and receive an honorary doctor of laws degree.

The March 20 announcement of his participation, however, drew immediate protest from some Catholics who said the president's support for keeping abortion legal and expanding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research should make him ineligible for Notre Dame honors.

Previous recipients of the Laetare Medal include U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Catholic Worker co-founder Dorothy Day, Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin of Chicago, labor activist Msgr. George G. Higgins and, in 2008, actor Martin Sheen.

Glendon, an expert in the fields of human rights, comparative law, constitutional law and legal theory, recently returned to Harvard Law School after stepping down as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See in January.

She is on a six-month research leave from her post as Learned Hand professor of law at Harvard to complete work on a book, "The Forum and the Tower," about simultaneous practitioners of philosophy and politics.

"I've long been fascinated by how persons like Plato, Cicero, Tocqueville, Burke, Weber and others dealt with the push and pull between those two worlds," Glendon said recently. "Now, after having spent some time in the forum myself, I'm looking forward to getting back to the ivory tower and finishing the project."

Before joining the faculty at Harvard, Glendon taught from 1968 to 1986 at Boston College. She also has been a visiting professor at her alma mater, the University of Chicago, and at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.

At the Vatican, Glendon has served since 1994 in the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Appointed as president of the academy by Pope John Paul II in 2004, she resigned that post when she became an ambassador but continues as a member.

She also headed the 22-member Vatican delegation to the United Nations' conference on women in Beijing in 1995.

From 2002 to 2005, she served as a member of the U.S. President's Council on Bioethics.

In response to the announcement that Obama will address Notre Dame's graduates and receive an honorary degree, a petition drive initiated by the Cardinal Newman Society called it "an outrage and a scandal" for the university to honor Obama and asked Father Jenkins to "halt this travesty immediately."

"This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor," the petition says.

At 11 a.m. EDT March 23, the Web site www.notredamescandal.com reported having received more than 18,888 signatures on the petition. The university's communications office said it had no comment.

Obama would be the ninth U.S. president to receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame and the sixth to be a commencement speaker. In 2001, President George W. Bush addressed the graduating class about the importance of faith-based organizations.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 25 marzo 2009 00:25
Bishop of South Bend won't attend
Notre Dame commencement
to protest Obama as guest speaker






Bishop Bishop John D'Arcy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese won't be attending the May 17 commencement at Notre Dame that will feature a speech by President Barack Obama who will also receive an honorary degree.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, March 24, D'Arcy said his decision to not attend is not meant to disrespect the President and is not an attack on anyone. D'Arcy stated his decision "is in defense of the truth about human life."








Concerning President Barack Obama
speaking at Notre Dame graduation,
receiving honorary law degree

by Bishop John D'Arcy
March 24, 2009

On Friday, March 21, Father John Jenkins, CSC, phoned to inform me that President Obama had accepted his invitation to speak to the graduating class at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree.

We spoke shortly before the announcement was made public at the White House press briefing. It was the first time that I had been informed that Notre Dame had issued this invitation.

President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation.

I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency.

But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.


I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004.

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.

They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.

I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother.

Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.



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

I have no words to express my contempt - yes! CONTEMPT - for the officials of Notre Dame because this is not, of course, the first time that they have done something offensive to the teaching of the Church, and therefore, offensive to the Church itself.

Father Jenkins's statement earlier today that the invitation to Obama does not mean endorsement of his anti-life convctions in any way is clearly laughable in an age when perception is more important than reality.

Since when in common human behavior do you reward someone whose basic principles so clearly violate the teaching of the faith that Jenkins's institution is supposed to stand for?

He adds that it would be a step to open dialog on the issue. He must be out of his mind if he thinks that giving Obama an honorary degree will change his thinking one iota!

The obvious fact is that Notre Dame is licking his ass - what for, I do not know. Prestige as Bishop D'Arcy says? Or funding from the federal government? (Maybe ND has an embryonic stemcell program)!

If Jenkins believes honoring a man with very extreme unshakeable ideas about abortion on demand under any circumstances, including late gestation and so-called 'partial births' [a travesty of the word 'birth', in any cae], brings his university 'prestige' - and I don't care if he is President of the United States - then we must all pray for his soul.

We must all pray for his soul nonetheless - and Obama's. And all the lives sacrificed at the altar of convictions such as Obama's.



benefan
00mercoledì 25 marzo 2009 02:08

Bravo for the Bishop! Except for its name, Notre Dame is about as Catholic as the University of California at Berkley. The article below probably should go on the Culture and Politics thread but it ties in with the article above so....


Notre Dame self-destructs over Obama

What a fire could not do in 1879, Rev. John Jenkins of Notre Dame will do by inviting President Obama to speak at the Catholic institution. By celebrating a champion of abortion on demand, Rev. Jenkins surrenders the institution's moral foundations.

By James Thunder
Commonweal
Tuesday, March 24, 2009

On Friday, March 20, it was announced that President Obama had accepted an invitation by the president of the University of Notre Dame, Father John Jenkins, to give the commencement address on May 19 and receive an honorary degree. What fire could not do, Father Jenkins and his Academic Council may succeed in doing -- destroying a major Catholic institution.

In April 1879, the Main Building of the University was destroyed by fire. It was "the Main Building" because it housed classrooms, student sleeping quarters, kitchen, library, offices. The man who had left France and founded Notre Dame 37 years earlier, in 1842, Father Edward Sorin, was 65 and saw his life's work destroyed. Nonetheless, with fiery determination, he exclaimed: "If it were all gone, I should not give up. Tomorrow, we will build again, and build it bigger."

That summer, with help from Chicagoans who had suffered their own fire eight years before, 300 laborers, using mud from the campus lake, made bricks and rebuilt it. It was sufficiently complete for the return of students in September. It is this building that TV viewers see during Notre Dame home football games. How did Father Jenkins calculate the benefits and the burdens of Notre Dame giving Obama a platform on campus at commencement?

As Notre Dame's own press release indicates, this would not be the first time that a sitting president would have visited Notre Dame. Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Younger all spoke at commencement. And FDR, Kennedy and Ford each came to campus for honors. So, if Obama came and gave one of his first commencement addresses at Notre Dame, it would add to Notre Dame's secular glory only in an incremental sense.

Maybe Father Jenkins wants to honor Obama as the first African-American to become president. Undoubtedly this fact will be prominent in the biography the school will recite just prior to conferring the honorary doctorate upon him. (Frankly, there is no other achievement in his biography.) But this would be looking at the color of his skin over his policies. Consider these policies and the burdens of Notre Dame honoring Obama.

We must assume that Father Jenkins knows how hostile Obama, as state legislator, as U.S. senator, and now as president, has been to innocent human life and to the Catholic Church which tries to protect it. And Father Jenkins must have thought about the fact that inviting Obama would offend large numbers of students, the graduating seniors, alumni/ae, benefactors, and all pro-lifers through the country and the world. Moreover, it would constitute an attack on the pastoral authority of the local bishop, the American bishops as a group, and the Pope who have prohibited Catholic institutions from granting platforms to pro-abortion speakers -- even if their talks would not be about abortion and other human life issues.

Even those in favor of abortion and euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research view these points as core for the Catholic Church and would see honors bestowed by Notre Dame on Obama as Notre Dame's surrender and suicide. So, any rational person occupying the position of president of Notre Dame who weighed the benefits and the burdens would not invite Obama. It would be self-destructive.

It was just last month that Speaker Nancy Pelosi who, no doubt, sees herself as the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church in America, visited Pope Benedict, but Pope Benedict was politically aware and refused to give her a photo opportunity. Father Jenkins thinks he is smarter than the Pope and will purposefully smile with Obama for the cameras.

Obama's visit to Notre Dame will be a one-way street -- in favor of Obama. Father Jenkins will not be taking Obama to Notre Dame's woodshed, to speak truth to power. No, Obama will be doing all the talking. Obama will co-opt a major Catholic institution. Above the Main Building that TV viewers see during Notre Dame home football games is a Golden Dome. Atop it is a statue of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. (Notre Dame is "Our Lady" in French.)

At the end of every game, the football players face the students and all of them sing the school's alma mater whose title and first line is "Notre Dame our Mother." Another line is "Glory's mantle cloaks thee; golden is thy fame." Father Jenkins will allow Obama to take Mary's mantle and wear it on his shoulders for all the world to see. The day Father Jenkins' presidency is over (soon one hopes), the new president, the loyal faculty and alumni/ae, and friends throughout the world will repeat Father Sorin's words, "Tomorrow, we will build again, and build it [better]."

James Thunder is attorney in practice in Washington DC and an alumnus of the University of Notre Dame.



TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 25 marzo 2009 13:57
'No Communion' order to follow
Sebelius to Washington

By Dan Gilgoff, Columnist
'God & Country'

March 24, 2009


The Washington Times reports that Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Kathleen Sebelius, who has reportedly obeyed her bishop's order to forego Communion in Kansas because of her support of abortion rights, will face similar instructions from the Catholic Church upon arriving in Washington:

Already admonished against receiving Communion because of stands she has taken on abortion as governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius now faces even closer scrutiny from the church since she was nominated to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services earlier this month.

What began as a local matter between Mrs. Sebelius and Archbishop Joseph Naumann, the archbishop of Kansas City, Kan., has taken on larger dimensions with the prospect that Mrs. Sebelius could reside in Washington.

Earlier this month, Archbishop Raymond F. Burke — formerly the archbishop of St. Louis but now prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest court — declared that Mrs. Sebelius should not approach the altar for Communion in the United States.

"After pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin," he told CatholicAction.org, a conservative Web site.

Archbishop Naumann, meanwhile, has been in contact with Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of the Washington Diocese to inform him of the Kansas City prelate's discussions with Mrs. Sebelius.

A spokesman for Archbishop Wuerl said Church officials in Washington would act in accordance with the admonition from Kansas City. A Church official in Washington said the admonition does not prohibit priests from serving Mrs. Sebelius if she does present herself, but declined to speculate on what would happen in that event.

I doubt Sebelius would present herself for Communion against the orders of her church - not exactly the kind of publicity she wants —but I wonder if there's precedent for problems with bishops following Catholic officials to the Washington Diocese.

I wonder even more about how the ongoing ordeal is affecting Sebelius personally and if it has affected her faith.

Given what the New Republic has written about her reluctance to "speak Catholic," though, I doubt we'll get a glimpse into her soul anytime soon:

Sebelius attended a Catholic women's college, but she has not made her Catholicism a central part of her political biography. She has stated that her religious beliefs are private, a position that liberal Catholics have been taking ever since JFK.

When she gave the Democratic response to the last State of the Union in January, she did not mention her own faith or the nation's, and she didn't describe any of the challenges facing the nation as moral challenges.

This reticence to apply her faith to her political life has a downside: It has severely limited her ability to articulate a moral rationale for her commitment to other issues such as universal health care, which the Catholic Church considers a moral obligation that society owes its members.




TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 27 marzo 2009 15:33
HILLARY CLINTON VISITS
GUADALUPE SHRINE IN MEXICO





Wednesday morning, on the second and last day of her official visit to Mexico to discuss the worsening influence of drug cartels and the grave threat they now pose to the stability of the Mexican government, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid a half-hour visit to teh Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. She was received by Fr. Diego Monroy, rector of the Basilica.

[More details - later. I picked this up from a Mexican newspaper, so the story needs translation.]


3/28/09
CNA has translated the story, so here it is.



Hillary Clinton leaves flowers for the Virgin
and asks 'Who painted it?' (Juan Diego's cloak)




Mexico City, Mexico, Mar 27, 2009 (CNA).- During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.

Mrs. Clinton was received on Thursday at 8:15 a.m. by the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy.

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

Clinton then told Msgr. Monroy that she had previously visited the old Basilica in 1979, when the new one was still under construction.

After placing a bouquet of white flowers by the image, Mrs. Clinton went to the quemador –the open air area at the Basilica where the faithful light candles- and lit a green candle.

Leaving the basilica half an hour later, Mrs. Clinton told some of the Mexicans gathered outside to greet her, “you have a marvelous virgin!”

This evening Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to receive the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America -- the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization's founder, a noted eugenicist. The award will be presented at a gala event in Houston, Texas.

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

Well, she was a tourist at Guadalupe, and respectful - and she prayed - even if surprisingly uninformed about the story of Guadalupe! I bet she does not even realize the obvious contradiction of her Wednesday morning and Thursday evening experiences.








TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 27 marzo 2009 16:18
BISHOP OLMSTED OF PHOENIX
WRITES NOTRE DAME PRESIDENT





The bishop of Phoenix, Arizona, Mons. Tomhas Olmsted, has once again stood up unequivocally for orthodox Catholic teaching, and implicitly, the need for priests, especially - like the president of Notre Dame - to be consistent with the faith.





TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 27 marzo 2009 17:06
German nun to lead
Mother Teresa's Sisters of Charity






Sister Mary Prema (center,back) and other newly elected members of
Missionaries of Chairty council
. (UCAN Photo)




KOLKATA, MAR. 26, 2009 (UCAN) - The Missionaries of Charity, the congregation founded by Blessed Teresa of Kolkata, elected Sister Mary Prema as its new superior general.

The German-born nun replaces Sister Nirmala Joshi, who was re-elected for a third time on March 13. Sister Nirmala has led the congregation since 1997, after taking over from its founder.

"It is now officially announced that Sister M. Prema is the new superior general," Sister Christie, the congregation's spokesperson, told UCA News late on March 24. The Missionaries of Charity (MC) sisters usually use only one name.

The election took place a day before the congregation's general chapter was scheduled to conclude. It began on Feb. 1.

Sources close to the congregation said the nuns had to have a second election as Sister Nirmala had requested to be relieved from such duties, citing ill health and a desire to live a contemplative life in the congregation.

Her appointment for a third term would have required papal approval since the congregation's constitution allows for only two six-year terms for this position.

Before the chapter began, Church circles in Kolkata had mentioned Sister Prema as one of the possible candidates to succeed Sister Nirmala.

A hundred and sixty-three electors, who are currently attending the chapter at a secluded location about 30 kilometers away from Kolkata, also elected Sister Joseph as the assistant superior general and first councilor. Other councilors are Sisters Joanna, Adriana and Joseph Maria.

The electors comprise 74 Indians, while the rest are from other countries.



PREMA: Her name means 'love'
By Nirmala Carvalho



KOLKATA, MAR. 27, 2009 (Asianews) - In Sanskrit “Prema means love,” love that is pure and holy, a name that befits the new superior general of the Missionaries of Charity, Brother Paul told AsiaNews.

The 41-year-old British Brother is a member of the male branch of the Missionaries of Charity, the religious congregation founded by Mother Teresa.

Sister Prema met the Blessed for the first time in 1980, in Berlin, after reading Something Beautiful for God, a book by BBC journalist Malcolm Muggeridge who wrote about his meeting with Mother Teresa in 1969 when he was making a documentary on the nun from Kolkata that would make her known worldwide.

“I know Sister Prema. She is a visionary, a deeply spiritual person with an implicit trust in God. She has a clear understanding of her mission, with the charism of the Missionaries of Charity implanted in her heart, to serve Jesus by serving the poorest of the poor,” said Brother Paul who has been posted for the past seven years in the Shanti Bhavan, or House of Peace, in Kolkata.

The general chapter of the Missionaries of Charity held in Dum Dum picked the German-born nun to replace Indian-born Sister Nirmala Joshi as the head of the congregation to reflect its international reach, which now includes some 4,500 nuns in 133 countries.

Mgr Lucas Sircar, archbishop of Kolkata, said that Sister Prema was elected on the first round of voting, getting more than two thirds of the votes cast by 163 delegates.

For Brother Paul the new superior general’s country of origin does not represent any change since “God looks not at nationalities, but at hearts.”

Sister Prema’s task now is “to guide the Missionaries of Charity towards the holiness of our Blessed Mother Teresa.”


TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 29 marzo 2009 08:18
China prepares for post-Dalai Lama era
By Mark O'Neill

March 20, 2009


More alarming than South "Africa's refusal to grant an entry visa to the Dalai Lama is that China's role in the refusal is merely a small side show to what they are doing in Tibet.




Snow-covered flowers in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa,
former residence of the Dalai Lamas of Tibet. Right, the Karmapa Lama and the Dalai Lama.



March 2009 will go down as the month in which Tibet entered the countdown for the era after the Dalai Lama.

A month supposed to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 'peaceful liberation' of Tibet ended with the region in a virtual state of martial law, with heavily armed troops patrolling the streets and the Dalai Lama denouncing Chinese rule of his homeland as 'hell on earth'.

For his part, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi warned foreign countries not to allow the Dalai Lama to visit.

"They should not let him use their territory to engage in secessionist activities," he told a news conference on March 7.

The growing hostility between the two sides made several points clear. One is that there will be no meaningful negotiations between Beijing and the Dalai Lama and no change in the status of Tibet.

The second is that, despite widespread public support in the West, the exiled Tibetan government will receive no significant help from a major power.

In March, more than 100,000 people, including film stars and several Nobel Peace Prize winners, signed an open letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao, calling for an improvement to the human rights of Tibetans, and Tibetan exiles held demonstrations in capitals around the world.

But the reality is that no major government will come to their aid. As the financial crisis worsens, so the economic strength and diplomatic clout of China strengthens. More than ever, the major powers need its capital, investment and access to its market.

Safe in this knowledge, Beijing can treat Tibet as an internal matter. Its policy is, while ruling with an iron fist, to raise living standards to win the hearts and minds of Tibetans.

According to official figures published this month, the region's economy has grown at an annual average of at least 12 per cent a year over the past seven years, with a GDP in 2007 of 34.2 billion yuan in 2007.

The annual income of urban Tibetans in 2005 was 9,000 yuan, up from 400 in 1979, while those of rural Tibetans rose to 1,200 yuan from 150 over the same period.

It said that, over the past five years, the government had invested 8.22 billion yuan in education in Tibet and provided free medical care to the farmers and shepherds, who account for 80 per cent of the population. The average life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in the 1950s to 67 now.

Since 1980, the government says it spent more than 700 million yuan on 1,400 monasteries and cultural relics. It said the number of ethnic Tibetans in Tibet doubled from 1.21 million in 1964 to 2.41 million in 2000.

With the impasse in negotiations, each side is preparing for the post-Dalai Lama era. Beijing intends to pick his successor in accordance with traditional rites -- a young boy in the territories in China occupied by Tibetans. It will then control both the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, the second highest leader in Tibetan Buddhism.

Faced with this, the Dalai Lama said last year that he may appoint a successor himself or have one chosen democratically by the senior Tibetan monks. His most likely choice is to split his political and religious duties: he will remain as a religious leader and give someone else his political functions.

This has become more likely with the deterioration in his health. Last year, he had surgery to remove gallstones removed in a New Delhi hospital, six weeks after spending six days in a Bombay hospital for abdominal pain. He is 73.

The front-runner to succeed him in his political role is Karmapa Lama, 24, the head of Kagyu sect, who ranks third in Tibetan Buddhism. Born in a mountainous area of eastern Tibet, he was recognized as the leader of the Kagyu sect at the age of seven after a joint search by the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama and enthroned on September 27, 1992.

In late December 1999, at the age of 14, he fled Tibet for India, where he lives in Dharamsala and has devoted himself to study and preaching and spoken little about politics. The Dalai Lama holds him in high esteem.

For years, the Indian government banned the Karmapa from going abroad and does not allow him to visit his sect's headquarters in exile in Sikkim.

In 2008, he made his first trip to the United States, visiting New York and San Francisco, the first step toward a larger international profile.

He speaks Chinese and Tibetan and some English and is a strict vegetarian, and a keen follower of Chinese culture, including religious texts and calligraphy.

In an interview in March, the Karmapa told the BBC's Chinese service that the talks were going nowhere because Beijing did not want to communicate.

"We must wait until China is more open and more democratic and then the DL's 'Middle Way' will have an opportunity. I hope to solve the Tibetan problem in a quick and peaceful way and play a role in this."

He said that his decision to flee was his own and was because he found he had no freedom in his own temple or anywhere in Tibet.

"I wanted to go to India to study from teachers but my application to leave China was repeatedly denied. I feared that, when I was 18, I would be appointed a vice chairman of the NPC or CPPCC and forced to criticize the Dalai Lama. Every Tibetan wants to return home one day. I am very hopeful of that day."

While Beijing was enraged at his escape to India, it considers him a better interlocutor than the Dalai Lama. He is a man who grew up under Chinese rule and understands intimately the Chinese position. He does not have the historical responsibility of the Dalai Lama, who led his people into exile in 1959. On his slender shoulders may rest the future of his homeland.



South Africa says Dalai Lama not welcome
until after 2010 Soocer World Cup

by DONNA BRYSON




The Dalai Lama with Nelson Mandela in Cape Town in 1994.


JOHANNESBURG, March 24 (AP) — Organizers shelved a peace conference meant to show how sports can bring people and nations together because South Africa's government - fearing trouble with China - won't allow the Dalai Lama to attend.

South Africa's soccer officials and a grandson of Nelson Mandela, who were putting Friday's conference together, announced Tuesday it was postponed indefinitely because the Dalai Lama had been barred.

The conference had been in doubt since South Africa's government said a day earlier the Dalai Lama was not welcome, prompting condemnation and a boycott by retired Cape Town Archbishop Desmond Tutu and others.

Queen Rania of Jordan, the entire Nobel Peace Committee, other laureates and Hollywood actress Charlize Theron, a native of South Africa, had been among those confirmed to attend.

Friday's conference was intended to highlight ways soccer can promote peace, and all Nobel peace laureates had been invited, along with world statesmen and celebrities. Irvin Khoza, who is chairman of the South African committee organizing the 2010 World Cup, also heads the professional soccer league that was arranging and funding the conference.

Organizers said they hoped to hold the event when the Dalai Lama could attend, and that they hoped that would be before the World Cup. South Africa's tournament will be the first in Africa.

Asked by reporters whether the Tibetan Nobel Peace laureate would be issued a visa before the sporting event, Thabo Masebe, spokesman for President Kgalema Motlanthe, said: "No, we won't."

He said he did not want a visit to be a distraction at a time when South Africa was hoping to showcase its transformation from pariah apartheid state to international, multiracial role model.

"You can't remove Tibet from the Dalai Lama", Masebe said. "That becomes the issue and South Africa is no longer the issue."

Tibet's government-in-exile said South Africa was acting under pressure from China, but South Africa's government denied it. South Africa is China's largest African trading partner.

Masebe had said a day earlier South Africa would not allow the Dalai Lama to visit for the peace conference, citing South Africa's ties to China and generating sharp criticism of South Africa.

Fellow Nobel peace laureate Tutu as well as members of the Nobel Committee pulled out of the conference in response.

Mandla Mandela, Nelson Mandela's grandson and a member of the conference organizing committee, told reporters Tuesday he wanted the Dalai Lama there when the conference is held. Barring a leader of the Dalai Lama's stature, the younger Mandela said, "is really worrying and saddening. Where are we headed in the future?"

"I don't think as a sovereign country we need to succumb to international pressures," he added, referring to criticism that South Africa acted to placate China.

Government spokesman Masebe has insisted, though, that South Africa did not act under pressure. Masebe also has said the Dalai Lama has been welcome in the past and would be allowed back one day.

Thupten Samphel, official spokesman of the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharmsala, India, said it was clear to him that "South Africa is acting under pressure" from China.

Sonam Tenzing, the government-in-exile's representative in South Africa, said this was the first time any government had barred the Dalai Lama. Whatever had changed in Pretoria since the Dalai Lama's last visit, in 2004, "I'm sure the relationship between the people of South Africa and the people of Tibet hasn't changed.

"The people of Tibet draw inspiration from the people of South Africa. The people of Tibet look up to the people of South Africa who gained freedom in 1994," Tenzing said.

Beijing, an ally when South Africa's now-governing African National Congress was a liberation movement, has had diplomatic ties with Pretoria for a decade and an economic relationship based on trade and aid.

China has been building ties across Africa in recent years. Its total exports to Africa last year rose 36.3 percent from 2007 to $50.8 billion, while imports of African goods rose 54 percent to $56 billion, according to customs data reported by Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency, in February.

Critics say China's investment in and aid to Africa is meant only to secure access to the continent's natural resources.

China also is accused of being willing to do business with dictators to get what it wants. African governments, though, laud China for giving aid without the strings Westerners often attach, and are counting on China standing by them amid the global economic meltdown.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang portrayed South Africa's stance on the Dalai Lama as in line with China's contention that Tibetan Buddhism's top cleric was pursuing independence for his homeland.

The Dalai Lama fled into exile in India amid an abortive uprising against Chinese rule in 1959, nine years after communist troops occupied the region.

"The Dalai Lama is not simply a religious figure but a political exile long engaged in separatist activity under the pretext of religion," Qin told reporters at a regularly scheduled news conference.

China is "resolutely opposed" to any country providing the Dalai Lama with a forum, Qin said.

China has ratcheted up condemnation on the Dalai Lama to coincide with this month's 50th anniversary of the 1959 rebellion.

China claims Tibet has been part of its territory for centuries, although many Tibetans say they were functionally independent for much of that time and accuse Beijing of eroding their traditional Buddhist culture.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00venerdì 3 aprile 2009 13:54
Pope Benedict XVI appoints
Archbishop Vincent Nichols
as new Archbishop of Westminster





His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has today appointed the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, who has been Archbishop of Birmingham since March 2000, as the next Archbishop of Westminster.

Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the resignation of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor as Archbishop of Westminster. The Cardinal will now become the Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Westminster until Archbishop Nichols is installed at Westminster Cathedral on Thursday, 21 May 2009. Until then, Archbishop Nichols will remain in Birmingham.

Archbishop Nichols will succeed Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who has been Archbishop of Westminster since March 2000, becoming the 11th Archbishop of Westminster since the Restoration of the Hierarchy in 1850, when the diocesan structure was re-established.


Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor (left) and Archbishop Nichols at joint news conference today in London.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor said:

“I would like to welcome Archbishop Vincent back to the diocese, 17 years after he was ordained as an auxiliary Bishop in Westminster Cathedral by Cardinal Basil Hume. He has many friends and colleagues among the Bishops, priests, religious and lay people of the diocese.

“It will be a profound joy for me to celebrate Holy Week, Easter, and especially the Chrism Mass with the priests of the diocese next week, content in the knowledge the diocese is soon to be in the care of a hugely experienced and compassionate pastor.

“Archbishop Vincent and I have shared much over many years and have been privileged to be members of a most united and harmonious Bishops’ Conference: sharing with all the Bishops in a steadfast loyalty to the Holy Father and a deeply held desire to promote the common good.

“I have been blessed greatly in my ministry here and now above all I pray for God’s blessings on Vincent Nichols, the next Archbishop of Westminster.”

Archbishop Vincent Nichols said:

“As the Cardinal so graciously says, it is for me something of a return. I spent 16 very happy years here in Westminster, eight of them as General Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference and eight of them as an Auxiliary Bishop to Cardinal Hume in North London. I learnt a great deal from him, not least about the demands of the office of the Archbishop of Westminster and I am daunted by the task that lies ahead.

“It’s sad departing from the Diocese of Birmingham which I have learnt to appreciate, cherish and love. I will miss the priests and the people of Birmingham very much indeed.

“I would like to thank Cardinal Cormac, who has been an outstanding Archbishop of Westminster. He knows what it’s like to live through really hard times and he has come through them with great dignity and strength. He has been an outstanding public leader of the Catholic community in this country today and I know I speak for many when I express our steadfast admiration and thanks to him for all that he has done.

“I feel a real need to acknowledge my openness to and dependence on God above all else. But in this I am not unique. Everyone who seeks to follow the ways of God learns to depend on the truth, love and compassion of God more than on their own strength. I know that as I prepare to take on this new office in the Church many people will pray to the Lord that I will be strengthened for this task – and that is what I definitely need.

“We often hear of the challenges facing our country in finding cohesion in the face of great diversity. Our churches are places where people are from a wide variety of different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. They come together, work together and contribute together to the wider good of our society. The Church in this country has a great deal to offer and I hope to do my best to contribute to that project in this new role.”

The Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales will be meeting in Leeds from 27 April to 30 April 2009. At that meeting Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and Archbishop Patrick Kelly will step down as President and Vice-President of the Bishops’ Conference. The Bishops will elect a President and Vice-President of the Conference as well as chairs of the Conference’s six departments.

As Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor remains an active member of the College of Cardinals and retains the right to vote in a conclave until he reached the age of 80. He also remains eligible to be a member of Congregations, Councils and Commissions in the Roman Curia until he is 80.

In common with other Episcopal Sees throughout the world where the incumbent has usually been nominated by the Pope to join the College of Cardinals, it would not be expected that the Archbishop of Westminster be appointed as a Cardinal until after Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor has become 80.

TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 4 aprile 2009 15:31
Ten things you should know
about Archbishop Vincent Nichols,
England's new Catholic leader


April 4, 2009


1. He is the right man for the job.

2. He is a tribal Catholic, though not in a bad sense. The identity of generations of working-class Irish and Liverpool Catholics is written into his DNA. He is open to encounters with other faiths (too open, sometimes) but doesn't take kindly to insults to the Church. He blew his top when the BBC tried to air Popetown - and stopped it happening.

3. He is markedly more intelligent than many of his fellow bishops. This is especially obvious in interviews. Unlike Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, he can think on his feet.

4. He used to occupy a space right at the centre of the Magic Circle. As a young man he was the protege of Derek Worlock, who encouraged him to become a bureaucratic liberal. Then he came under the influence of Cardinal Hume. "It went to his head a bit, and for a time he seemed preoccupied by his career," says an old friend.

5. He no longer identifies with the Magic Circle. After being made Archbishop of Birmingham, +Vincent came to see that the bureaucratic Bishops' Conference that he helped set up was often impeding, rather than furthering, the national mission of the Church.

6. He has a firm belief in the traditional Catholic family. He said yesterday that one of his priorities was to persuade more families to pray together. This is one indication that the Archbishop has come to identify more strongly with the Catholic culture of his childhood.

7. He is determined to safeguard Catholic education - but he has yet to distance himself fully from the political correctness of the Catholic Education Service. His heart is in the right place, however.

8. He has devoted a lot of time to nurturing good relations with non-Christian faiths. This may explain his lamentable failure to condemn the use of a Catholic chapel at Newman University College to celebrate Mohammed's birthday.

9. He has no natural affinity with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, but his passionate advocacy of the cause of John Henry Newman has brought him close to the traditionalist Birmingham Oratory. He is now beginning to discover for himself the riches of pre-Vatican II worship.

10. He is loyal to, and has deep admiration for, the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.




Most Rev Vincent Nichols:
New Catholic leader

by Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

April 4, 2009


The next spiritual leader of the 4.2 million Roman Catholics in England and Wales said yesterday that he was not afraid to make himself unpopular for the sake of God or the Gospel.

The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, 63, is expected to be installed next month, becoming the 11th Archbishop of Westminster since the restoration of the hierarchy in 1850.

Articulate, photogenic and considered to be adept at handling the media, he acted as a commentator for the BBC’s television coverage of the death of Pope John Paul II and the installation of Benedict XVI.

He is expected to be the highest-profile Catholic archbishop so far, as he continues his broadcasting and writing work while speaking out on issues such as education, health, immigration, gay adoption and the need for a renewed sense of morality in financial markets.

Archbishop Nichols, who typically speaks from a conservative Catholic but politically left-wing standpoint on such issues, is expected to champion faith schools in particular.

He will oppose the growing secularisation of society and challenge Government policy when he believes that it is going against Catholic principles.

He will also have difficulty uniting a flock divided by conflicting factions, from liberals who want to abandon traditional teachings to conservatives who want a weekly Latin Mass and the reversal of the Second Vatican Council’s innovations.

Speaking yesterday to The Times, he said he believed that faith schools had a crucial role in modern society. “It’s my conviction that community cohesion will never be achieved on a strident secular basis, because religious belief is too important to too many people to be marginalised,” he said.

Admitting that he was not afraid of becoming unpopular, he added: “There’s no other way I could live my life.”

One of the few criticisms levelled against him has been that he might be ambitious, but he has always insisted that his ambition is for God and not for himself. He denied that he was disappointed when he did not get the Westminster job in 2000. “I was too young, I didn’t expect that then, and it was just speculation,” he said.

His ascent to the most senior archi-episcopate in England and Wales marks a change in tone for English Catholicism. The restoration of the hierarchy in 1850 marked the beginning of the end of the worst anti-Catholic discrimination. Even now, heirs to the throne cannot marry a Catholic without forfeiting their right to succeed.

Apart from occasionally calling for the reconversion of England, bishops and archbishops have been careful to keep a low profile for fear of reawakening anti-Catholic prejudices.

Only last week, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who is now the “apostolic administrator” of Westminster until Archbishop Nichols is installed, said that he was in no hurry to see the Act of Settlement of 1701 repealed.

Archbishop Nichols, representing a younger generation of priests, has no such fears. “Sometimes voices that are opposed to religious faith are raised more stridently in London,” he said.

“Certainly in Birmingham, for example, public authorities, the city council, the education authorities, work very well and very sympathetically with the faith communities.”

He said he was not sure that was the case in London. “I wait to find out whether the resistance that is in parts of our culture really is as strong as it would appear from the outside in London.”

He said that he was looking forward to a Church that is growing as a result of immigration, but which had become divided in many areas between indigenous and incoming communities, especially from Poland. “Sometimes we speak a different language, but the language that changes last is the language of prayer,” he said.

He said that he intends to demonstrate how criticism of faith schools is unfounded. Faith schools achieved good results, responded to parents’ wishes and helped the Government to fulfil its duties, he said.

“So there’s a strong commitment in Government to the importance of Catholic schools. What we’ve got to do is build on that and demonstrate more and more how some of the criticisms are unfounded and how education inspired by religious faith is a huge contribution to a community cohesion and building the kind of society that we want together.”

He also said that the global financial crisis had arisen from issues to do with trust, virtue and risk-taking. “The common good means the good of the whole of society and we have to get those virtues, those values back into everything we do if we’re going to build a coherent enterprise.”

Archbishop Nichols said that his great passion outside work is football. The Liverpool-born Archbishop said that he was looking forward to attending next Wednesday’s match at Anfield, when Liverpool play Chelsea.



Archbishop Vincent Nichols:
Liverpool boy to head
the Catholic church in England and Wales

by Alexandra Topping
guardian.co.uk
Friday 3 April 2009


The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, the new archbishop of Westminster, was born in Crosby, Liverpool, the son of two teachers. A keen football fan and life-long Liverpool supporter, as a child he wanted to be a lorry driver, but in his teenage years felt the calling to become a priest on the terraces of the Kop.

"I'd go to watch Liverpool and stand on the Kop at Anfield, and say to God: 'Why don't you just leave me alone? Why can't I just be one of a crowd?'," he said in an interview in 2007.

Since that life-altering decision, the 63-year-old has become a robust defender of traditional Catholic values and has made his name fighting for Catholic schools, adoption agencies and the presentation of the Catholic Church in the media.

Archbishop Nichols was ordained in 1969, after studying at the English College in Rome, Manchester University and Loyola University, Chicago.

His first parish was in Wigan, where he was also a chaplain to a sixth-form college and school. He then worked in Toxteth, Liverpool, before being made director of the Upholland Northern Institute adult education centre in 1980.

The archbishop's projection towards the upper echelons of the Catholic church received a boost when he left the Archdiocese of Liverpool four years later, to take up the influential role of general secretary of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales in London, working closely with the then archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Basil Hume.

In 1992, he became the youngest bishop in Britain, when he joined the Westminster archdiocese as auxiliary bishop, with special pastoral responsibility for north London before becoming Archbishop of Birmingham in 2000.

He played a key role in the production of the Common Good document in 1996, in which the Catholic bishops condemned the rhetoric of greed in a move interpreted as endorsing New Labour.

In recent years, Archbishop Nichols – once viewed as a liberal – has been a strident public voice, unafraid of defending the traditional values of the Catholic Church.

His fierce criticism of the BBC for what he called "biased and hostile" programming contributed to the cancellation of Popetown, a series which caricatured the Pope on BBC3.

Before new sexual orientation laws, guaranteeing equality in goods and services for the gay community were introduced in April 2007, Archbishop Nichols said the legislation contradicted the faith's "moral values".

Speaking at a Mass at St Chad's Cathedral in Birmingham, he said: "It is simply unacceptable to suggest that the resources of the faith communities ... can work in co-operation with public authorities only if the faith communities accept not simply a legal framework, but also the moral standards at present being touted by government."

He failed in his attempts to get the Catholic adoption agencies exempted from sexual orientation regulations, which forced them to consider gay couples as parents.

However, he did achieve a major coup when, as chairman of the Catholic Education Service, he forced the then education secretary, Alan Johnson, to retract plans to impose a non-Catholic quota for Catholic schools.

A canny – and photogenic – media operator, the archbishop was selected to commentate on the televised funeral of Pope John Paul II in 2005. Peter Jennings, his press secretary, who has known Nichols since 1980, described him as a prayerful man.

"He is very thoughtful. Some people have described him as calculating. I would just say that he thinks very, very carefully about what he wants to do and the ramifications of a decision that he takes," he said. "He is fiercely loyal to his friends and he is hard working and diligent. He has an open door to his priests and is extremely good with people."





Until all the articles in the past two days pointing out that Archbishop Nichols is not a particular advocate of the traditional Mass, I had presumed he was, when I had the unusual and most wondrous experience of watching a traditional Solemn High Mass - yet! - celebrated by him at the rites for the Nov. 1, 2008, transfer of Cardinal Newman's remains to a chapel of tne Birmingham Oratory, which I commented on in NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH:
freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=354498&p=111
with the following videocap of Archbishop Nichols, courtesy of New Liturgical Movement:



TERESA BENEDETTA
00lunedì 6 aprile 2009 18:44
FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER CONVERTS -
CITES POPE'S INFLUENCE



Thnaks to Father Z and a helpful reader of his for encapsulating this:



Congressional Quarterly has posted a transcript of “Fox News Sunday,” including this exchange between Chris Wallace and Newt Gingrich about the former House speaker’s conversion to Catholicism:

WALLACE: Mr. Gingrich, you have been a Baptist most of your life, and last Sunday you converted to Catholicism. Why, sir?

GINGRICH: I’m not talking about this much publicly, but let me just say that I found over the course of the last decade, attending the basilica, meeting with Monsignor Rossi, reading the literature, that there was a peace in my soul and a sense of well being in the Catholic Church, and I found the mass of conversion last Sunday one of the most powerful moments of my life.

WALLACE: You have — it’s no secret — been married and divorced twice. Will you be able to participate fully in communion and all the other rites of the Catholic Church?

GINGRICH: Yes, we have done everything within the law of the church, following all of the rules of the church over the last 10 years. And it’s been a process. It’s been a very long process and something which was deeply affected, in part, by Pope Benedict XVI’s visit and the opportunity I had to sit in.

as you know, my wife, Calista, sings at the basilica every Sunday, and I was allowed as a spouse to be there as part of the vespers program when the pope came. It’s been a long process.

WALLACE: And if I might ask, just briefly, what is it about the Pope’s visit that led to this?

GINGRICH: I really believe, first of all, seeing the joy in his eyes, listening to his message, and I really believe that his basic statement, Christ our hope, is right.


And I think much of what’s wrong with our country and with the western world is a function of looking inside ourselves, not just looking at money or looking at our wallets.



TERESA BENEDETTA
00mercoledì 8 aprile 2009 04:31



Obama names 'gay rights' Pope-basher
to his 'faith-based' initiatives agency

By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

Monday, April 06, 2009

I hope this particularly news gets to the attention, at least, of the editors of L'Osservatore Romano who persist in seeing Barack Obama through rose-colored glasses and practically ignore everything he has done to flout natural law [which also happens to be Catholic teaching]. I think this action of his is his most asinine as well as spiteful so far, in the all-out war he has declared on mainstream American culture (not to mention the free-market economy!) - and completely heedless of the propriety of anyone in a 'faith-based' agency being so nasty about the Pope and who is generally anti-religion, to begin with!

TOUCHE PAS A NOTRE PAPE!!!!!

This should properly be in the CULTURE&POLITICS section, if only because the 'notables' involved here are quite ignoble, but I did not want to taint my post on Timothy Verdon's analysis of Leonardo's Last Supper by locating it next to crap like this, which unfortunately, must be made known.



WASHINGTON, DC (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama has named to the federal government’s faith-based initiative a gay-rights activist who, last month, described Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops as “discredited leaders” because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Harry Knox, who is a newly appointed member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group.

In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008.

Knox told CNSNews.com that he “absolutely” stands by his criticism of the Pope.

"The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use," Knox said on Monday, Apr. 6. "We are eager to help him do that. Until he is willing to do that and able, he's doing a great deal more harm than good -- not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people's lives.”

On Mar. 19, Knox told the San Francisco-based gay newspaper The Bay Area Reporter, “The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case [Proposition 8], they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.”

The newspaper further reported: “Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus ‘followed discredited leaders,’ including bishops and Pope Benedict XVI. ‘A pope who literally today said condoms don't help in control of AIDS.’”

According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Web site, the religion and faith program run by Knox has created “a weekly preaching resource that provides scriptural commentary to ministers and lay people interested in an ecumenical gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender perspective on the Bible."

The site further states that the program has set a goal of doing “faith-based transgender education in 40 diverse congressional districts across the country. Clergy participating in the program will take their congregants to Capitol Hill on May 4 and 5 as part of the ‘2009 Clergy Call for Justice and Equality,’” an event sponsored by the HRC.

In a statement posted Monday on the HRC Web site, Knox said he was humbled by his appointment to Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

“I hope this council will draw upon the richness of our unique perspectives to advise the president on policies that will improve the lives of all the people we have been called to serve,” Knox said.

“The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is eager to help the Administration achieve its goals around economic recovery and fighting poverty; fatherhood and healthy families; inter-religious dialogue; care for the environment; and global poverty, health and development. And, of course, we will support the President in living up to his promise that government has no place in funding bigotry against any group of people.”

The appointment of Knox advisory board makes a mockery of the faith-based program, said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League.

This is exactly the kind of bastardization of common sense that the Obama people are putting forth,” Donohue told CNSNews.com. “Quite frankly, I would prefer to see the entire faith-based initiative closed down. They’re going to use this as political capital in the Obama administration to say, ‘We reach out to people of faith.’ The whole thing is a sham.”

“I’d rather people simply be honest and say we don’t believe in faith-based initiatives as they were initially intended by the previous administration, and what we’re going to do is thoroughly politicize them with these gay activists,” said Donohue.

Reports surfaced last week that both Knox and former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy – the latter an opponent of same-sex marriage -- were asked to join the president’s council. However, in the release Monday afternoon, Dungy’s name was not included.

As of Apr. 6, it was reported that all 25 members of the council had been appointed.

“Because of the screamers in the gay community that said we can’t have a man like Tony Dungy, they’ve decided to reach out and get someone like Harry Knox,” Donohue told CNSNews.com. “Whether Dungy dropped out himself or they dropped him, there was a dust up. That much we know. And this is the way the Obama people work.”

Conservatives have already expressed concern that Obama’s faith-based advisory council is heavy with liberal activists, such as the Rev. Jim Wallis, the Rev. Otis Moss Jr. and Rabbi David N. Saperstein, among other left-leaning clergy on the council who have advocated for more social spending, less restrictive immigration policies and more environmental regulations.

Some council members have been avid supporters of abortion rights, gay marriage, and keeping a strict separation of church and state.

“It is expanded to go beyond faith-based organizations, which is a complete 180 of its original intent,” Tom McClusky, vice president of Family Research Council’s FRC-Alert, told CNSNews.com. “The numbers on the council are – as expected – much more heavily leaning liberals who are not as concerned about the right to practice one’s own faith when accepting federal dollars.”

Obama first announced the establishment of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships in early February, as a continuation of a similar office started under his predecessor President George W. Bush.

The difference is that under Bush, the office targeted religious non-profits, while Obama has changed the focus to target community groups, religious and secular.

This is reflected in the membership that also includes leaders of secular non-profit charitable organizations, such as Judith Vredenburgh of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America; Fred Davie, the president of Public/Private Ventures, a secular non-profit intermediary; and Arturo Chavez, president and CEO of the Mexican American Cultural Center. The White House council has 25 members. Each will have a one-year term.


Religious Left

The Rev. Otis Moss Jr., recently retired senior pastor at the Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in Cleveland, once said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas “is like seeing your brother set your house on fire with laughter while your parents and brothers and sisters are in the house,” as the Cleveland Plain-Dealer reported in 1995. Moss added that Thomas and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) were “enemies in the struggle for liberation.”

Moss is the father of Rev. Otis Moss III of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the controversial church of which Obama was formerly a member. Obama left Trinity during the 2008 Democratic primary to distance himself from anti-American comments made by the church’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Of America’s earliest settlement, Moss Jr. said, “When we think of Jamestown, we must think of the triple holocaust that came out of Jamestown,” referring to the “African holocaust, the Native American holocaust, that African-American holocaust.” And, in reference to the war on terror, he said in October 2004, “You have heard that it was said ‘God bless America.’ But I say unto you, pray for all of the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Huesseins,” the Weekly Standard reported.

Meanwhile, the Rev. Jim Wallis, called the “leader of the Religious Left” by The New York Times, has been advising Democrats on how to better connect with Christian voters.

In 1979, he was quoted in the publication Mission Tracks saying, “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.” The quote has been referenced in several other published reports since then.

Many years later, in a February 2007 Time magazine commentary, Wallis said, “The monologue of the religious right is over and a new dialogue has begun.”

In 2005, Wallis told Mother Jones magazine, “The right is comfortable with the language of religion, values, God talk -- so much so that they sometimes claim to own the territory, or own God. But then, they narrow everything down to one or two issues: abortion or gay marriage. I am an evangelical Christian, and I can’t ignore thousands of verses in the Bible on another subject, which is poverty. I say at every stop, ‘Fighting poverty’s a moral value too.’”

Wallis, founder of the liberal Christian group Sojourners, was among 115 religious activists reportedly arrested in December 2005 by U.S. Capitol Police while protesting the House Republican budget plan.

Another council member who has been an active voice in politics is Rabbi David N. Saperstein.

Saperstein denounced the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007for upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions. “When medical decisions are taken out of the hands of women and their doctors, an injustice has been done. Women are capable of making sound medical and moral decisions without government interference.”

He also criticized the United States in December for not joining the United Nations declaration affirming human rights for people based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“Despite national shortcomings in the achievement of full equality for the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender] community, it is shameful that the United States chose not to be a part of the first U.N. General Assembly declaration condemning state- sanctioned human rights abuses against LGBT people,” Saperstein said. “Declarations of this type have been approved by the European Union and the Organization of American States, but the United States remains painfully absent from the international movement for equality and respect for all people.”

Commenting on a House vote in 2006 defeating a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, Saperstein said, “The Federal Marriage Amendment would tarnish this rich tradition of progress, enshrine discrimination in our nation’s most sacred document and undermine the principle of equal protection for all citizens under the law.”

This February, he repeated previous calls for “comprehensive” immigration reform, which would include a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. He quoted Leviticus in a February press release, saying, “The strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the native among you and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

“The time has come to put aside the policies and practices that do not work,” Saperstein said in February. “Among these failed policies are workplace raids that do not address the problems with our immigration system, create due process concerns, leave families separated and traumatized.”

Other statements by Saperstein endorsed increased spending on health care; backed a law extending the statute of limitations to sue employers for pay discrimination; stressed the need for global warming legislation; and made demands for an investigation of the treatment of U.S. detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Balance on the Council

To be sure, Dungy is not the only conservative on the council. It also includes Frank S. Page, president emeritus of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, pastor of a mega-church in Longwood, Fla.

Hunter backed George W. Bush for president in 2000 and 2004 and Mike Huckabee for president in the 2008 Republican primary. Hunter was tapped in 2006 to be the president of the Christian Coalition of America, but declined in a public falling out when the organization did not want to include his environmental, anti-poverty, anti-war policies in the group’s platform.

Two members of the council are experts on the separation of church and state: Melissa Rogers, director of the Wake Forest School of Divinity, and Rabbi David N. Saperstein, director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Rogers was among 22 other ministers, academics, and activists that formed a coalition with evangelical Christians and liberal activists called, “Come Let Us Reason Together,” of which Hunter is also a member.

The group agrees on principles of trying to reduce the number of abortions, while supporting laws that would make it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals except for faith-based employers. The group also agreed that treatment of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay was “immoral, unwise and un-American.”

“People are tired of the brain-dead debates and of nastiness,” Rogers told the Christian Science Monitor after the formation of the group. “It’s time for us to find our voice.”

In a commentary for Religion News Service, Rogers was dismissive of concerns that the courts were hostile toward religious expression.

“It has become fashionable to say that the court is demonstrating hostility toward faith when it prevents the government from promoting faith for us. But those who make this argument are either ignorant of or willfully blind to the rationales expressed in Supreme Court precedent in this area,” Rogers said.

“The court traditionally has refused to promote or to interfere with religion not because it is anti-religious, but because it wants to leave people free to make choices in matters of faith and to ensure that religious people and organizations may worship as they see fit, rather than the government sees fit,” Rogers continued.

Many conservative Christians are taking a “wait and see” approach to the faith-based organization, said Wendy Wright, president of the conservative Concerned Women of America. But she is concerned that many of the members seem to have a political bent toward sending federal dollars to groups such as Planned Parenthood.

“Several members of the council reflect views like this,” Wright told CNSNews.com. “They are affiliated with leftist groups that are hardcore pro-abortion.”

She also said that the larger concern is that the new White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships is geared toward both religious and secular groups.

“The reason the faith-based office began was to ensure a special place for faith-based groups to participate in the public square,” Wright said. “Secular groups already get millions and billions in federal money. The faith-based office was to give voice and recognition to the good works faith-based groups are doing.”


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


[No one has quite said it in the American MSM - which mystifies me - but the fact is that Obama is scraping the bottom of the barrel for his nominees to his cabinet and other imnportant positions (every other nominee appears to be a tax cheat, or a flaming socialist, or a oke like the secretary of homeland security who calls 9/11 'a manmade disaster' instead of the act of war that it was (even if the terrorists did not represent a state but the most relentlessly nihilist state of mind on the planet today).

Name one genuine fresh talent Obama has harnessed - they are all tired retreads from previous Democratic administrations. All that supposed idealims he harnessed during the campaign - and all he can come up with are the same old party hacks and the vanguards of far-left causes, Xerox copies of the young Obama without his exotic biography and quote unquote charisma.

And today, speaking to about a hundred Turkish students, he flaunted his Muslim roots and said - to my shock, "America is not a Christian nation, ti is not a Jewish nation, it is a nation of citizens", which must rank among the dumbest statements ever said - unscripted - by any American President, who besides, has done nothing in the past eight days but pander shamelessly to what he believes Europeans want to hear, namely an American President bashing America himself.

And what has it gotten him so far? France says it will take one prisoner from Guantanamo, no European country is sending any more combat troops to help the US in Afghanistan, and Sarkozy raps his knuckels for speaking out of turn by saying he thinks Turkey should be part of the European Union.

And, of course, most important for him, headlines and photos that show he is highly popular in Europe.

I have been trying to find something positive I can praise about him - but I find all his major domestic policies so far distressing and disastrous, and what is all the madness in avoiding the use of the words 'terrorist' or 'war on terror' calling this instead "overseas contingency operations"?

To top it all, the White House reporters are noting that it is now Holy Week and the American President, who professes to be Christian, has nto yet chosen a 'home church' in Washington, and in fact, has not gone to church since two days before his inauguration. [I very much suspect that his Christianity is msotly for show, just like his supposed oratory is really declamation, that relises on his baritone voice and his tricks of rhetorical emphasis to trick the gullible into thinking he is saying soemthing brilliant.]

And, by the way, the President who never speaks without teleprompters (he travelled with 12 to Europe) says 'Ah...' more often than the supposedly verbally-challenged George Bush ever did, when he Obama has to give unscripted answers at news conferences, although He recovers his glibness when he is addressing 'town hall' gatherings (presumably less sophisticated than journalists), or that small group of Turkish students!

So the only positive thing I can say about Barack Obama at the moment is that he made America show the world that it is no longer simplistically racist (black vs white) and of course, that he was the man who broke the color barrier in the American Presidency.


benefan
00giovedì 9 aprile 2009 00:44

Today's critics:


Blair questions Papal gay policy

BBC News
April 8, 2009

Tony Blair has questioned the Pope's attitude towards homosexuality, arguing that religious leaders must start "rethinking" the issue.

Some older Catholics had "entrenched attitudes", while most congregations were more "liberal-minded", he added.

Mr Blair, who converted to Catholicism after resigning as UK prime minister in 2007, told the gay magazine Attitude that views had to keep "evolving".

But he added that Pope Benedict XVI also stood for "many fantastic things".

Last December the Pope angered gay and lesbian groups by arguing that blurring distinctions between males and females could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.

In a letter to bishops in 1986, when he was a cardinal, he wrote: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

'Discipline'

Asked about this comment, Mr Blair told Attitude that "there is a huge generational difference here.

"And there's probably that same fear amongst religious leaders that if you concede ground on an issue like this, because attitudes and thinking evolve over time, where does that end?

“ His career is interesting in that he's attacked in certain quarters for being gay, and yet, at the same time, I don't believe that has altered in any shape or form people's opinion of him ”

"You'd start having to rethink many, many things. Now, my view is that rethinking is good, so let's carry on rethinking.

"Actually, we need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.

"So some of these things can then result in a very broad area of issues being up for discussion. That's when I understand why religious leaders are very reluctant."

Mr Blair, who has set up his own faith foundation, was then asked: "Can you foresee a situation where in your lifetime or mine, we would have a pro-gay Pope, for example?"

"I don't know, is the honest answer. I don't know. Look, there are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you'd be surprised at how liberal-minded people were."

'Compassion'

Asked if he meant that the average Catholic congregation speaks for the Catholic Church more than the Pope does, Mr Blair replied: "Well, I'm not going to say that! On many issues, I think the leaders of the Church and the Church will be in complete agreement.

"But I think on some of these issues, if you went and asked the congregation, I think you'd find that their faith is not to be found in those types of entrenched attitudes.

"If you asked 'what makes you religious?' and 'what does your faith mean to you?' they would immediately go into compassion, solidarity, relieving suffering.

"I would be really surprised if they went to 'actually, it's to do with believing homosexuality is wrong' or 'it's to do with believing this part of the ritual or doctrine should be done in this particular way'."

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage, teaching that, while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are.

'Prejudice weak'

During his interview, Mr Blair said homophobia in society had receded since the early 1990s and that his government's introduction of civil partnerships had given people a "sense of liberation from prejudice".

He added that Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, one of his closest advisers during his time in British politics, had suffered from anti-gay prejudice "in some quarters".

But Mr Blair also said: "His [Mandelson's] career is interesting in both senses in that he's attacked in certain quarters for being gay, and yet, at the same time, also, I don't believe that has altered in any shape or form people's opinion of him.

"What those comments indicate is that the prejudice is still there, but what they also indicate is that its force is very weak, really. Because people like him or don't like him, but it's not based on his sexuality."

Mr Blair, who was prime minister from 1997 to 2007, usually refused to discuss his religious views while in office.

He converted to Catholicism, a faith he shares with his wife Cherie, in December 2007.

The BBC has contacted the Catholic Church in England and Wales but it has not so far been able to comment on Mr Blair's remarks.


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

Kung: Catholicism heading back to Middle Ages

Euronews
April 7, 2009

A small town in southern Germany was the scene of a meeting of minds between two members of the Catholic church in the 1960s. Theologian Hans Küng invited his colleague Josef Ratzinger to Tübingen to teach at the university’s Catholic faculty.

Shocked by the student revolt of 1968 Ratzinger became increasingly conservative.
He also became Pope Benedict XVI 4 decades later.

His boss at the time, Hans Küng, went on to be described as the “super-star of European theology” becoming an arch-critic of church hierarchy, calling for an end to celibacy, and the acceptance of contraception.

Küng and Ratzinger both took part in the second Vatican council, the biggest shake-up of the Catholic church of the 20th century, marking an overture to the modern world, and dialogue with other religions and convictions. But what does Küng think of the controversy stirred up recently by his former employee?

euronews :
Benedict the 16th welcoming back into the Catholic fold the integrists of the Saint Pius the 10th fraternity triggered a storm of indignation in the Catholic world. Can someone who doubts the Holocaust happened be a member of the Catholic church?

Hans Küng, Theologian:
I don’t think a holocaust denier can stay in the catholic church, no. The murder of six million human beings, Jews, is the biggest crime in the history of humanity. During the Second Vatican council I was already suggesting that the Nazi’s antisemitism had its roots in the antisemitism that could be found in all the Christian religions, including the Protestant church. Luther was anything but a friend of the Jews. So the Christian churches and all Christians share a great historical guilt towards the Jewish people.
However, in the interests of justice I should add that the principle of tolerance should also be applied by Jews. Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish state, has to prove it can be tolerant towards the Arabs, and must accept that the Palestinians should be allowed to build their own state at last.

euronews:
Bishops retire at 75, and Cardinals at 80. The Pope is 82. Should he retire, if that is possible?

Hans Küng:
I wouldn’t advise him to. It’s more a question of an entirely dysfunctional hierarchical system. The Pope doesn’t even have a cabinet or government to advise him. The Pope decides and does everything himself, on his own. That’s no way to govern in the 21st century. Every decision that needs to be taken within the church depends on the Pope, unfortunately. We’re stuck in an absolutist system comparable to the court of Louis the 14th.

euronews:
Is the damage to Jewish-Catholic relations irreparable?

Küng:
Irreparable, no. But we have to recognise the damage is durable. I’m in close contact with a Rabbi in Berlin who tells me, ‘We can’t repair the damage overnight’. People no longer trust the Pope. And it’s the same state of affairs for Muslims. I have noticed that many of the highest-profile leaders in the Muslim community, from the Mosque or the general community, are starting to be wary, saying ‘We can’t trust him anymore to establish dialogue as a religious mediator’.

euronews:
You are one of the architects of the second Vatican Council, and took part in it yourself. Do you think there is a risk today that the Church is going backwards, heading towards the middle ages, and that the Vatican II reforms are being called into question?

Küng:
Yes, absolutely. The Catholic church is once again taking a course towards reaction, anti-modernism, and the middle ages.

euronews:
Why do you think Vatican II is still important today, and what must be saved from it?

Küng:
Before Vatican II the Catholic church had, basically, stopped the clock in the Roman Catholicism of the Middle Ages. We fought against reform. We organised reaction, and the Catholic church was at war with the modern world. In this context, Vatican II was very important. It was a real combat to firmly establish religious freedom, and freedom of conscience. It was very exciting, and at the time Josef Ratzinger and I shared the same ideas and thoughts. The consequences of Vatican II were immense and historic. For the first time a dialogue was opened with the Jewish faith. Before, our relationship had been poisonous. A similar process was engaged with Muslims, and with all the world’s great religions. Modern science was also reviewed and seen in a favourable light, as was modern culture, democracy, and human rights. Quite a lot of things, as you can see.
If we cancelled all that, the church would change into a fortified citadel, and trigger the exodus of all those who do not want a return to the past.

euronews:
The Pope has just visited Africa. If we look at the headlines it generated in the international press, notably in France and Germany, they were very critical about his statements on AIDS and contraception. What are the conclusions you draw from his Africa trip?

Küng:
The Pope is without any doubt a figure who embodies hope in the fight against corrupt dictators and regimes, and this is why I am saddened. The Pope didn’t seize the opportunity to tell people reasonable family planning and sensible contraception is justified.

euronews:
How should the relationship between Christianity and Islam be managed?

Küng:
Right from the start Benedict got off on the wrong foot. In his speech in Regensburg he accused Islam of being a religion of violence. He has since corrected this, he’s accepted an invitiation to visit Turkey, he’s expressed a positive view on a joint draft on a Christian-Muslim document. These are all steps in the right direction.

euronews:
Since the second Vatican council, the Catholic church has accepted, to put it simply, a separation between church and state. That’s not always the case in Islam. Does that pose a problem?

Küng:
The Catholic church didn’t accept the idea of human rights and tolerance, in a positive way, right up to the era of Pope John the 23rd and the second Vatican council. The Catholic church needed an enormous amount of time to get there. So we need to understand that Muslims too need plenty of time. But today, there are positive signs regarding the separation of church and state – in Turkey for example. It’s vital that Islam finds a new model to redefine the relationship between religion on the one hand, and the state on the other.


benefan
00martedì 14 aprile 2009 01:24

Let's see. How can I put this kindly? How about, what a jerk!


I fathered child when still Catholic bishop, president confesses

By Pedro Servin
The Scotsman
Published Date: 14 April 2009

PARAGUAY'S president, Fernando Lugo, admitted yesterday he is the father of a child conceived while he was still a Roman Catholic bishop.

Mr Lugo surprised journalists by acknowledging that he had an intimate relationship with Viviana Carrillo, the child's mother, just five days after lawyers for Ms Carrillo announced they were filing a paternity suit against him.

"Here and now, before my people and my conscience, I declare with absolute honesty and a sense of duty and transparency in relation to the controversy provoked by the paternity suit, that there was a relationship with Viviana Carrillo," he said. "I assume all responsibilities… and recognise the paternity of the child," Mr Lugo said, promising to protect the boy's privacy.

The president said he would not comment further, but would instead focus on his presidency.

Ms Carrillo's lawyer, Claudio Kostinchok, said he was pleased at the announcement.

"By recognising that he is the father of the child, he proves us right," Mr Kostinchok said. "We didn't invent anything."

Mr Lugo, 57, resigned in 2004 as bishop of San Pedro, capital of San Pedro province, the poorest region in the country. Ms Carrillo is from the province.

In December 2006, he said he was renouncing the status of bishop to run for president. But it was not until 31 July last year that Pope Benedict XVI gave him permission to resign, relieving him of his chastity vows.

The Vatican had insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign that Mr Lugo would always be a bishop under Church law.

Mr Kostinchok says the boy was born on 4 May, 2007, and was named after Mr Lugo's grandfather, Guillermo Armindo.

Ms Carrillo is now 26, but her intimate relationship with Mr Lugo reportedly began when she was just 16.

benefan
00martedì 14 aprile 2009 06:36

Daring rescue of ship's captain leaves Vermont parish overjoyed

By Chaz Muth
Catholic News Service
April 13, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- When news of the bold liberation of U.S. Capt. Richard Phillips from the grip of pirates off the coast of Somalia filtered through his Vermont Catholic parish April 12, members of his church community felt like their Easter prayers had been answered.

"We're so happy that it turned out the way that it did," said Donna Schaeffler, secretary of St. Thomas Church in Underhill Center, Vt., the parish where Phillips, 53, and his wife, Andrea, regularly attend Mass.

"There is so much media here and we're trying to give the Phillipses their privacy, but we've been praying at Mass for his safe release," Schaeffler told Catholic News Service April 13 in a telephone interview.

"Our pastor (Father Charles R. Danielson) also asked everyone to pray for the Phillipses during the Easter morning Mass. We were just so happy to hear the news of his rescue later in the day," she said.

Phillips allowed himself to be taken hostage by four pirates who tried to seize the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama April 7 in the Indian Ocean, in order to keep the crew of the 17-ton ship safe.

He was detained by his armed captors on one of the ship's lifeboats for five days. U.S. naval forces surrounded the small boat, and Navy snipers fired three shots to kill a trio of Somali pirates and free the American sea captain, a Navy commander told The Associated Press April 13.

The fourth pirate, who had been aboard the USS Bainbridge for negotiations about the captain's release, surrendered and could face life in a U.S. prison, the AP reported.

President Barack Obama, who told the AP he was pleased with the rescue, said Phillips' courage was "a model for all Americans."

The White House had authorized the Navy to take action to resolve the five-day standoff.

Father Danielson told CNS he prayed with Phillips' wife privately at the couple's Underhill Center home the day before the dramatic rescue, and spoke to "excited and overjoyed" family members April 12 after he learned the captain was safe.

The U.S. sea captain told news reporters shortly after his rescue that he was not a hero, and praised the Navy SEALs for their efforts in securing his freedom.

Bishop Salvatore R. Matano of Burlington, Vt. -- who spoke with a member of the Phillips family April 11 and plans to have a face-to-face meeting with them after they are reunited with the captain -- said this ordeal has reminded Catholics all over Vermont how much they need the peace that Easter brings.

"I'm sure the Phillips family understands that wonderful peace since their horrible ordeal is over," Bishop Matano said. "They realize the peace of Easter and we hope that continues."

The event that unfolded for the family and citizens of Vermont has helped locals focus on tragedies all over the world and reminded them to pray for the safe return of members of the military serving in war-torn regions around the planet, he told CNS April 13.

"It's been a real eye-opener, I'll tell you that," Father Danielson told CNS in a telephone interview. "An event like this really humanizes the news. It really brings home that the faces of people in the news belong to real human beings. It's someone in your parish, in your community, and we're hoping and praying for the best."

The ordeal has also shown the priest, who has been pastor of St. Thomas since last July, that he has a faith community of people who really care about one another, pray for each other and band together in difficult times.

"This is a small community and everyone here has been concerned," Schaeffler told CNS. "Our office has been flooded with phone messages and e-mails from people who have expressed their well-wishes to Capt. Phillips and his family. When things settle down, I'll make sure they get these messages."

TERESA BENEDETTA
00sabato 18 aprile 2009 11:27
AND SPENGLER IS....


Aprl 18, 2009


An appropriate surprise revelation these days, as the AsiaTimes columnist reveals who he is and what he owes Joseph Ratzinger... and you would never guess what job he has taken on! This is certainly one Jew solidly behind Benedict XVI like Rabbi Neusner...


During the too-brief run of the Asia Times print edition in the 1990s, the newspaper asked me to write a humor column, and I chose the name "Spengler" as a joke - a columnist for an Asian daily using the name of the author of The Decline of the West.

Barely a dozen "Spengler" items appeared before the print edition went down in the 1997 Asian financial crisis. A malicious thought crossed my mind in 1999, though, as the Internet euphoria engulfed world markets: was it really possible for a medium whose premise was the rise of a homogeneous global youth culture to drive world economic growth?

Youth culture, I argued, was an oxymoron, for culture itself was a bridge across generations, a means of cheating mortality. The old and angry cultures of the world, fighting for room to breath against the onset of globalization, would not go quietly into the homogenizer. Many of them would fight to survive, but fight in vain, for the tide of modernity could not be rolled back.

As in the great extinction of the tribes in late antiquity, individuals might save themselves from the incurable necrosis of their own ethnicity through adoption into the eternal people, that is, Israel.

The great German-Jewish theologian and student of the existential angst of dying nations, Franz Rosenzweig, had commanded undivided attention during the 1990s, and I had a pair of essays about him for the Jewish-Christian Relations website. Rosenzweig's theology, it occurred to me, had broader applications.

The end of the old ethnicities, I believed, would dominate the cultural and strategic agenda of the next several decades. Great countries were failing of their will to live, and it was easy to imagine a world in which Japanese, German, Italian and Russian would turn into dying languages only a century hence. Modernity taxed the Muslim world even more severely, although the results sometimes were less obvious.

The 300 or so essays that I have published in this space since 1999 all proceeded from the theme formulated by Rosenzweig: the mortality of nations and its causes, Western secularism, Asian anomie, and unadaptable Islam.

Why raise these issues under a pseudonym? There is a simple answer, and a less simple one. To inform a culture that it is going to die does not necessarily win friends, and what I needed to say would be hurtful to many readers. I needed to tell the Europeans that their post-national, secular dystopia was a death-trap whence no-one would get out alive.

I needed to tell the Muslims that nothing would alleviate the unbearable sense of humiliation and loss that globalization inflicted on a civilization that once had pretensions to world dominance. I needed to tell Asians that materialism leads only to despair. And I needed to tell the Americans that their smugness would be their undoing.

In this world of accelerated mortality, in which the prospect of national extinction hung visibly over most of the peoples of the world, Jew-hatred was stripped of its mask, and revealed as the jealousy of the merely undead toward living Israel.

And it was not hard to show that the remnants of the tribal world lurking under the cover of Islam were not living, but only undead, incapable of withstanding the onslaught of modernity, throwing a tantrum against their inevitable end.

I have been an equal-opportunity offender, with no natural constituency. My academic training, strewn over two doctoral programs, was in music theory and German, as well as economics. I have have published a number of peer-reviewed papers on philosophy, music and mathematics in the Renaissance.

But I came to believe that there are things even more important than the high art of the West and its most characteristic endeavor, classical music, the passion and consolation of my youth. Western classical music expresses goal-oriented motion, a teleology, as it were - but where did humankind learn of teleology? I no longer quite belonged with my friends and colleagues, the artists.

G K Chesterton said that if you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything, and I was living proof of that as a young man, wandering in the fever-swamps of left-wing politics.

I found my way thanks to the first Ronald Reagan administration. The righting of America after it nearly capsized during the dark years of Jimmy Carter was a defining experience for me. I owe much to several mentors, starting with Dr Norman A. Bailey, special assistant to President Reagan and director of plans at the National Security Council from 1981-1984.

My political education began in his lair at the old Executive Office Building in 1981, when he explained to me that the US would destroy the Soviet Empire by the end of the 1980s. I thought him a dangerous lunatic, and immediately signed on.

I worked for Bailey's consulting firm after he left government, simultaneously pursuing a doctorate (never quite finished) in music theory. I owe most of all to the music theorists in the school of Heinrich Schenker with whom I studied in the doctoral program at City University.

Another mentor was Professor Robert Mundell, the creator of supply-side economics, among his other contributions. As an economist for the supply-side consulting firm Polyconomics in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I had dozens of conversations with Mundell, who won the Nobel Prize in 1999. I can't claim to be a Mundell student, but he graciously allowed me to acknowledge his help in a 1994 article I published in Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.

What I gleaned from Mundell allowed me to begin a successful career on Wall Street at an age when most of its denizens already are over the hill.

By the late 1990s, I no longer believed that solving problems of economic stability and growth was sufficient to resolve problems that manifested themselves in economic form.

Working in the inside of the financial world, ultimately as a member of the executive committee for fixed income of America's largest bank, I saw how easy it was to prejudice the efficiency of markets and to introduce distortions that eventually would have awful consequences.

I no longer quite belonged with my old friends the economists. I had left economics for music, and left music for finance, eventually working in senior research positions at Bear Stearns, Credit Suisse and Bank of America.

At Bank of America, I created from scratch a highly rated fixed income research department between 2002 to 2005, with 120 professionals and mid-nine-figure compensation budget. By 2005, it was no longer clear how the financial industry would play a helpful role in fostering prosperity, and philosophical differences prompted me to take my leave.

Exile among the fleshpots of Wall Street had its benefits, but I had other ambitions. My commitment to Judaism came relatively late in life, in my mid-thirties, but was all the more passionate for its tardiness.

The things I had been raised to love were disappearing from the world, or changing beyond recognition. The language of Goethe and Heine would die out, along with the languages of Dante and Pushkin.

Europe's high culture and its capacity to train universal minds had deteriorated beyond repair; one of the last truly universal European minds belongs to the octogenarian Pope Benedict XVI.

In 1996, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had said in an interview published as Die Salz der Erde, "Perhaps we have to abandon the idea of the popular Church. Possibly, we stand before a new epoch of Church history with quite different conditions, in which Christianity will stand under the sign of the mustard seed, in small and apparently insignificant groups, which nonetheless oppose evil intensively and bring the Good into the world."

The best mind in the Catholic Church squarely considered the possibility that Christianity itself might shrink into seeming insignificance.


Renewal could not come from music, nor literature, nor the social sciences. The wells of culture had run dry, because they derived from faith to begin with. I was raised in the Enlightenment pseudo-religion of art and beauty. Initially I looked at faith instrumentally, as a means of regenerating the high culture of the West. Art doesn't exist for art's sake.

The high culture of the West had its own Achilles' heel. Even its greatest cultivators often suffered from the sin of pride, and worshiped their own powers rather than the source of their powers. Painfully and slowly, I began to learn the classic Jewish sources.

My guide back to Judaism was the great German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig, and my first essay on these subjects was published by the Jewish-Christian Relations website in 1999 under the title, "Has Franz Rosenzweig's Time Come?"

The intersection point in the Venn diagram of my background had shrunk to the point of vanishing. As a returning religious Jew, I had less and less to discuss with the secular Zionists who shared my passion and partisanship for Israel, but could not see a divine dimension in Jewish nationhood.

So-called cultural Judaism repelled me; most of what passes for Jewish culture comes down to the mud that stuck to our boots as we fled one country after another.
The Hebrew Bible and its commentaries over the centuries are the core of Jewish culture, with a handful of odd adjuncts, such as the novels of S Y Agnon or the last, devotional poems of Heine.

Both as classical musician and as a Germanist, I had better insight than most Jews into the lofty character of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI. His writings on the spiritual riches of Western classical music were an inspiration to me almost thirty years ago, when it seemed possible that this most sublime of Western arts would die out for lack of interest.

Ratzinger was kind enough to review and comment on the draft of one of my articles on music theory in the 1980s. There is a connection between Ratzinger's insider's grasp of music and his Fingerspitzengefuhl for Jewish theology - something I tried to express in an essay entitled "The Pope, the Musicians and the Jews."

I was in, but not of, the world of rabbinical Judaism, of classical music, of cultural history, of conservative economics, of practical finance, of cultural history - I belonged everywhere and nowhere.

I could address each of these spheres only ironically and aphoristically, in a voice that only could be anonymous - for anonymity allowed me to be in but not of all of them.

As First Things editor Joseph Bottum observed to me, "Spengler's" voice freed my style. Why not openly identify myself? Because my readers then would have jammed my thinking into the Procrustean bed of their prejudice.

In 2000, there was nothing to do but to cast my thoughts upon the waters. When the first of these essays appeared I had no expectation that they might interest a wide public. To my astonishment, they were read, and read extensively.

Then came 9/11, and my tale of the existential angst of nations was borne up by the Zeitgeist. The Spengler forum at Asia Times Online grew to nearly five thousand registered members. The essays often reached a million readers a month.

As I wrote pseudonymously for Asia Times Online, new friends announced themselves - journalists, academics, clergy, and people of faith from many walks of life, not least the indefatigable group of good friends that manages the Spengler Forum.

The editors of First Things asked me for an essay on Franz Rosenzweig and Islam, which I published in 2007, and later a piece entitled "Zionism for Christians", which appeared in 2008 under the pseudonym "David Shushon". That was a milestone for me.

I had subscribed to the journal not long after its inception in 1990, the year I finished my PhD coursework in music. To write for First Things was an unanticipated honor. I came to know the magazine's editor Joseph Bottum, as well as such regular contributors as George Weigel, Russell Hittinger and R R Reno.

On January 8, 2009, the magazine's founder Richard John Neuhaus died. A few weeks later Jody Bottum asked me to join the staff of First Things as an editor and writer. It seems only heartbeats ago that I was in dark seas, looking up at this beacon; now it is my turn to help keep the lighthouse.

As for Asia Times Online - this scrappy, virtual expat bar - I was there at the founding, and will contribute to it as long it continues to upload, if somewhat less frequently than before.

"Spengler" is channeled by David P Goldman, associate editor of First Things (www.firstthings.com).



Goldman's debut article in First Things:


benefan
00domenica 19 aprile 2009 01:48

Hah! So that's who Spengler is!

I have read his comments with great respect and admiration, especially when he has written about Papa with so much insight and appreciation. I have often wondered who he is, even thinking at times that he might be someone inside the Vatican. I am really delighted to see that he will be fulfilling such an important role in First Things. I have been worried that since the recent death of Fr. Neuhaus, First Things might soon pass away too but I think "Spengler" will have the wisdom, energy, and passion to keep it alive and significant in the culture wars these days.
[SM=g27811]





TERESA BENEDETTA
00domenica 19 aprile 2009 21:56


Here's yet another famous writer who discovered the thinking of Cardinal Ratzinger early enough.


Piers Paul Read is perhaps best known for his non-fiction account of the 1972 airline disaster involving Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, a plane carrying 45 passengers that crashed in the Andes. His book, Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors, became a world-wide bestseller and, in 1993, was made into a film starring Ethan Hawke.

Mr. Read is also an accomplished novelist and playwright, as well as a journalist, biographer, and social commentator.

His recent works include the novels Knights of the Cross and Alice in Exile, and the non-fiction titles The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar; Alec Guinness: The Authorised Biography; and Hell and Other Destinations.

Piers Paul Read's newest novel, The Death of a Pope, has already garnered acclaim from fellow novelists Ron Hansen and Ralph McInerny. A thriller that intertwines real events with fiction, The Death of a Pope touches on many themes that are hot-button issues in the Catholic Church and the world today.


The Death of a Pope
Author: Piers Paul Read
Length: 280 pages
Available May 1

The Death of a Pope is a powerful new novel by the acclaimed British writer Piers Paul Read.

Juan Uriarte, a handsome and outspoken Spanish ex-priest, seems to be the model of nonviolence and compassion for the poor and downtrodden. So why is he on trial, accused of terrorist activities?

His worldwide Catholic charitable outreach program is suspected of being a front for radicals. The trial is covered by Kate Ramsay, a young British reporter, who sets out to undercover the truth about Uriarte and his work. She travels with him to Africa to see his work first hand but soon finds herself attracted to him.

Meanwhile an international conspiracy is growing, one that reaches into the Vatican itself. When the death of Pope John Paul II brings the conclave that will elect Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, a terrorist plot involving blackmail, subterfuge, and mass murder begins to fall into place... a plot that could spell disaster for the Catholic Church and the world.

Piers Paul Read’s powerful tale combines vivid characters, high drama, love, betrayal, faith, and redemption in a story of intrigue, of church espionage, and an attempt to destroy the longest continuous government in the world — the Papacy. The Death of a Pope races toward an unexpected and unforgettable conclusion.

"In The Death of a Pope, the versatile Piers Paul Read, who has distinguished himself in many genres, returns to what can be called the ecclesiastical thriller. If the mystery looks to the past to explain a crime already committed, the thriller aims to prevent something from happening. When that something is a terrorist act, planned for the Vatican, drama is assured, and Read, writing in the present tense but in multiple viewpoint, takes us from character to character, from city to city, from continent to continent, with everything converging on the Vatican during the conclave following the death of John Paul II. To say more would rob the reader of his pleasure. The Death of a Pope is a great Read – in every sense of the term.\".
— Ralph McInerny

"The Death of a Pope is a faith-driven theological thriller, narrated by a storyteller of the first order whose unassailable orthodoxy is as refreshing as it is rare among the bedraggled ranks of contemporary novelists.
—Joseph Pearce, author, The Quest for Shakespeare

"Piers Paul Read has managed to combune sheer storytelling power with great learning and insight about the inner workings of the Church to fashion an entertainment of the highest order. If John LeCarre took on Vatican politics, his book of suspense might aspire to be much like this one".
—Ron Hansen, author. Exiles

"If you love the Catholic Church, you will probably love this book whether or not you love a good story. If you love a good story, you will probably love this book whether or not you love the Catholic Church. But if you love both the Church and a good story, you will certainly love this book.
— Peter Kreeft, author, Because God is Real



Piers Paul Read is a best-selling novelist, writer and playright with numeous popular books including Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors, Ablaze: The Story of Chernobyl, Alec Guinness: The Authorised Biography, The Templars, Monk Dawson, A Patriot in Berlin and Alice in Exile.

Read is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and a member of the Council of the Society of Authors. He has also written a number of television plays, and several of his novels have been filmed for cinema and television. He lives in London.


What inspired you to write The Death of a Pope?

As I grew older I like to think I grew wiser and came to see how 'social' Catholicism, however superficially appealing in the face of the suffering caused by poverty and injustice, in fact falsifies the teaching of the Gospels.

When I was young I was a zealous exponent of Liberation Theology. As I grew older I like to think I grew wiser and came to see how 'social' Catholicism, however superficially appealing in the face of the suffering caused by poverty and injustice, in fact falsifies the teaching of the Gospels.

This is particularly true when it condones or even advocates the use of violence: as Pope Benedict XVI puts it in his encyclical Spe Salvi, "Jesus was not Spartacus, he was not engaged in a fight for political liberation".

Yet this was precisely the message preached from the pulpits in Catholic parishes and taught in Catholic schools in the last decades of 20th century. The two visions of what charity demands of a Christian confront one another on the issue of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. It is this confrontation that gave me the idea for my novel.


You've written quite a bit in both fiction and non-fiction. The Death of a Pope, though fiction, is interwoven with real events, situations, and ideological tensions. Do you see a clear line between what you create and the real world you're drawing from?

I have always taken the view that a work of non-fiction should be just that, whereas anything is allowed in a novel. In Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors, for example, there are snatches of dialogue which may not use the precise words used by the characters but they are not invented: the exchanges come from my interviews with the survivors.

As a novelist, I am a realist and use actual events and institutions to add verisimilitude to the story. There is a danger of tipping the novel into a kind of fictionalised journalism, but that is avoided if the story itself comes from the imagination and the fictional characters have distinct personalities and convincing motives for what they do.


The Death of a Pope begins with a series of quotes, including one from Polly Toynbee from the UK paper The Guardian, claiming that "The Pope kills millions through his reckless spreading of AIDS." Is this an attitude that is widespread in journalism today?

The Pope that Polly Toynbee had in mind was Pope John Paul II but she would level the same charge, after his air-born press conference on the way to Africa in March, 2009, at Pope Benedict XVI.

Toynbee is an atheist and militant secularist, and she sees in Catholic misgivings about the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS a stick with which to beat the Church. Her views are widely shared in the secular media, even if they are not so pungently expressed.

Liberal Catholics, too, such as the late Hugo Young — a highly influential columnist — sometimes adopted this secularist outlook: he talked of the record of Pope John Paul II as "an offence against elementary tenets of liberal decency".


In a way, The Death of a Pope is quite critical of the more radical form in which Liberation Theology can manifest itself. Is this based on your own experience with radicalism when reporting from El Salvador?

My misgivings about Liberation Theology and the influence of its exponents in Catholic aid agencies (CAFOD, say, or the Catholic Institute for International Relations) in the 1980s and the support it received in the columns of Catholic periodicals, in particular The Tablet, was confirmed by a journalistic assignment in El Salvador in 1990.

The Cross had been replaced in the teaching of the Liberationists priests by the AK-47 assault rifle, and those Catholics who dissented from their point of view risked their lives.

"It isn't easy to speak out," I was told by a Salesian missionary. "When I tell my bishop in Italy what is happening, he doesn't believe me. The great untold story is the persecution of the traditional Church."


Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, warned the college of cardinals shortly after the death of Pope John Paul II that "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires." Does this message play a role in the plot of The Death of a Pope?

Interwoven with the political-theological thriller that drives the narrative of my novel there is a triangular love story which reflects some of the moral confusion felt by the young in post-Christian Britain.

My heroine, Kate, and the intelligence analyst, Kotovski, are both looking for human love but also a cause in which they will transcend their own ego and desires.


Some of the characters in The Death of a Pope might be described as motivated by a concern for eternal things, while other characters act out of a sincere concern for finite and earthly problems. Do you see this as a conflict that can be resolved?

A tragic aspect of the life of one of the characters in the novel, a Catholic priest, is his inability to convince his niece Kate that true fulfilment can only be found in knowing God through faith in Christ.

In some ways he is himself a "failed priest"; and the other characters who are supposedly motivated by a concern for eternal things are seen to be compromised by worldly considerations. The novelist suggests paradoxes and ambiguities. Only God sees into our souls.


In your correct prediction, in The Spectator, of who would be the current Pope, you said that "[Ratzinger] is patently holy, highly intelligent and sees clearly what is at stake. Indeed, for those who blame the decline of Catholic practice in the developed world precisely on the propensity of many European bishops to hide their heads in the sand, a Pope who confronts it may be just what is required." How would you evaluate Pope Benedict's papacy so far?

From the mid-1980s, when I first became aware of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger with the publication of The Ratzinger Report, I have admired him for his patent holiness, his intelligence, his lucidity, his coherence, his charm and the quiet courage with which he insists upon unpopular truths.

How would I evaluate his papacy?

His very elevation to the Papacy has routed the "spirit of Vatican II" advocates of an alternative magisterium.

His encyclicals Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi, the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, and his book Jesus of Nazareth, are all superb.

His courage and lucidity were clearly apparent in his Regensburg address.

I share entirely his insistence that beauty and mystery should return to the celebration of the Eucharist.


It was this that gripped my imagination as a child — Benediction as well as the Mass — and I am sure that it is the banality of much of the post-Conciliar liturgy that has made it difficult for a younger generation to perceive the momentous nature of what takes place at Mass.


You've known and been friends with many Catholic (and non-Catholic) writers and artists over the years, from Graham Greene to Sir Alec Guinness. Have any contemporaries influenced your own approach to the art of literature?

Graham Green was generous in his appreciation of my novel Monk Dawson, and also of Alive, and I have enjoyed and admired many of his novels. They have not influenced me as much as might be supposed. The urge to write came after reading French and Russian nineteenth-century novels — in particular, Dostoyevsky.


Do you think that today's artists are still connected with the urge to depict truth and beauty in art? And, as an aside, is it possible to depict beauty and truth without a sense of the eternal?

One of the most potent arguments against the secularist's belief in blanket progress is to look at the early Italian paintings in one of our national galleries, or to walk into a mediaeval cathedral.

Compare the cathedral with an office-block or a shopping mall, or the depictions of the Virgin and Child with contemporary 'conceptual' works of art, and it becomes clear that art has indeed suffered from a loss of the sense of the eternal.

But it would be unwise to suggest that only sacred art is good art, or that there cannot be genius in the profane. I have been charged by strict Catholics with offending the modesty of the reader in passages in some of my novels, and defend myself with Cardinal Newman's axiom that "one cannot have a sinless literature of sinful man".

It is also true, as the French Catholic writer Julian Green wrote, that "no novel worthy of the name exists without a complicity between the author and his creatures, and more than complicity — a complete identification. I think that is why," he adds, "no one has ever heard of a saint writing a novel."


What is the duty of the Catholic writer, in your opinion?

Writing is a vocation and, as in any other calling, a writer should develop his talents for the greater glory of God. Novels should be neither homilies nor apologetics: the author's faith, and the grace he has received, will become apparent in his work even if it does not have Catholic characters or a Catholic theme.

The question of "the complicity between the author and his characters" can sometimes pose a dilemma: a novelist might show more empathy for, say, Potiphar's wife, or the elders who spied on Susanna, than the devout might think proper.

But it is important for the Catholic writer to demonstrate that he is fully human; that he does not flee from evil but confronts it and disarms it in his imagination with the help of that holy wisdom that comes from faith in Christ.


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


P.S. I have found Read's March 2005 article 'The man who should be Pope' and am posting it in the thread THE EXPEREINCE OF APRIL 19, 2005.... I am grateful gems like this keep turning up four years later, and I am sure someone who has the luxury of time can keep finding something more.... Meanwhile, we catch what we can when we can...


benefan
00lunedì 20 aprile 2009 04:58

Thanks for the info about Piers Paul Read, Teresa.

I've never read any of his books before but I think my daughter read the one about the survivors in the Andes. My sister just ordered The Death of a Pope. She says that when she gets it, she will read it extra fast and bring me her copy when she visits in May for my daughter's wedding. I'm looking forward to both events.


TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 23 aprile 2009 17:28
BISHOP D'ARCY SHOOTS DOWN
FR. JENKINS'S 'DEFENSE'








April 21, 2009

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an honorary degree of law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement “Catholics in Political Life” (USCCB) did not apply in this matter.

Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response. In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.

Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct.

I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

1. The meaning of the sentence in the USCCB document relative to Catholic institutions is clear. It places the responsibility on those institutions, and indeed, on the Catholic community itself.

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” — “Catholics in Political Life,” USCCB.

2. When there is a doubt concerning the meaning of a document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where does one find the authentic interpretation? A fundamental, canonical and theological principal states that it is found in the local bishop, who is the teacher and lawgiver in his diocese. — Canon 330, 375 §§ 1 & 2; 380; 381 § 1; 391 § 1; 392, & 394 §1.

3. I informed Father Jenkins that if there was any genuine questions or doubt about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the conference’s document, any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s church had the responsibility to inform Father Jenkins of the fundamental principle that the diocesan bishop alone bears the responsibility to provide an authoritative interpretation.

4. I reminded Father Jenkins that he indicated that he consulted presidents of other Catholic universities, and at least indirectly, consulted other bishops, since he asked those presidents to share with him those judgments of their own bishops.

However, he chose not to consult his own bishop who, as I made clear, is the teacher and lawgiver in his own diocese.

I reminded Father Jenkins that I was not informed of the invitation until after it was accepted by the president. I mentioned again that it is at the heart of the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility to teach as revealed in sacred Scripture and the tradition. (“Lumen Gentium,” 20; and “Christus Dominus,” 2.) I reminded him that it is also central to the university’s relationship to the church. (“Ex corde ecclesiae,” 27 & 28; Gen. Norm., Art. 5, §§ 1-3.)

5. Another key point. In his letter to Bishop Olmsted and in the widespread publicity, which has taken place as the points in the letter have been made public, Father Jenkins declared the invitation to President Obama does not “suggest support” for his actions, because he has expressed and continues to express disagreement with him on issues surrounding protection of life.

I wrote that the outpouring of hundreds of thousands who are shocked by the invitation clearly demonstrates, that this invitation has, in fact, scandalized many Catholics and other people of goodwill. In my office alone, there have been over 3,300 messages of shock, dismay and outrage, and they are still coming in.

It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.

In the publicity surrounding the points Father Jenkins has made, he also says he is “following the document of the bishops” by “laying a basis for engagement with the president on this issue.” I indicated that I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama.

6. As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the president here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this.

We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.

In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country.
The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter.

The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake.


Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.

That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue.

I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Most Reverend
John M. D’Arcy



PRAISE THE LORD, AND THREE CHEERS, FOR BISHOP D'ARCY -
AND FOR ALL THE OTHER BISHOPS WHO HAVE SPOKEN OUT
AGAINST FR. JENKINS'S MISGUIDED DECISION TO GIVE OBAMA
AN HONORARY DEGREE FROM NOTRE DAME!!!!


Perhaps the most outrageous of all the outrageous statements Fr. Jenkins has made in his 'defense' is that the USCCB stricture against Catholic institutions honoring anyone who upholds practices contrary to Catholic teaching does not apply in this case because the stricture was against honoring dissenting Catholics only, not for dissenting non-Catholics!

That is an even more pathetic, shameful and nonsensical attempt at defending an untenable position than Bill Clinton saying "It depends what the meaning of 'is' is" - and proves beyond any doubt Fr. Jenkins's extreme bad faith in this whole business. Surely, English is his mother tongue? Even to someone like me who learned English as a foreign language, there is absolutely nothing unclear in the USCCB statement.

Besides, it flies in the face of common sense to think that the USCCB would prohibit honoring dissident Catholics but not non-Catholics who espouse the same qustionable ideas!

And that he obviously ignored his own local bishop in making his decision cannot be due to procedural ignorance.

It's bad enough that he made a wrong decision about granting the honorary degree without having to set such a blatant and embarassing example for his own student body and faculty, to begin with, that two wrongs do not make anything right.


TERESA BENEDETTA
00giovedì 23 aprile 2009 17:57
IS THIS NOT HERESY????
Head of German bishops' conference
says 'Christ did not die for our sins'

By Hilary White



As outrageous as Fr. Jenkins's actions have been, the following story - assuming the concerned bishop is properly quoted in English (as he made his statements in German) - is probably the most egregious case of negation by a Catholic bishop of a fundamental Christian article of faith that I have eveer read since I started following such statements four years ago.

And this is a bishop who was among the very first to castigate Bishop Williamson for his negation of the Holocaust! He thinks Williamson is not worthy to be in the Church because he denies a secular fact, but he, Zollitsch, can deny the Redemption and still consider himself a Catholic priest, not to mention a bishop? What is he celebrating then when he says Mass? Is it all to him empty ritual and social occasion as many Catholics seem to consider the Mass?




FREIBURG, Germany April 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to the chairman of the Catholic bishops' conference of Germany, the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin and open the gates of heaven.

The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ's death in a recent interview with a German television station.

Zollitsch said that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."

Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."


The interviewer asked, "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

Monsignor Zollitsch responded, "No."

Archbishop Robert Zollitsch was appointed to the See of Freiburg im Breisgau in 2003 under Pope John Paul II. He is he sitting Chairman of the German Episcopal Conference, to which he was elected in 2008 and is regarded as a "liberal" in the German episcopate.

In February 2008 he said that priestly celibacy should be voluntary and that it is not "theologically necessary." Zollitsch has also said he accepts homosexual civil unions by states, but is against same-sex "marriage."

He told Meinhard Schmidt-Degenhard, the program's host, that God gave "his own son in solidarity with us unto this last death agony to show: 'So much are you worth to me, I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation'."

"He has become involved with me out of solidarity - from free will."

Christ, he said, had "taken up what I have been blamed for, including the evil that I have caused, and also to take it back into the world of God and hence to show me the way out of sin, guilt and from death to life."

However, Article 613 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the definitive work issued by the Church explaining the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic religion, describes the death of Christ as "both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through 'the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world', the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the 'blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'."

The Catechism continues, "This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience."

To express concerns:

Congregation for Bishops
Giovanni Battista Re, Cardinal Prefect
Palazzo della Congregazioni, 00193 Roma,
Piazza Pio XII, 10
Phone: 06.69.88.42.17
Fax: 06.69.88.53.03

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
William Joseph Levada, Cardinal Prefect
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11,
00193 Roma, Italy
Phone: 06.69.88.33.57; 06.69.88.34.13
Fax: 06.69.88.34.09




I will try to look for a German report on what Zoellitsch actually said, but LifeSite News is generally very reliable on what it reports. If one of our German members finds something before I do, please provide me with the link - and a translation, maybe????



P.S. I have now seen a report on it in kreuznet entitled, in translation, 'The core belief of the Christian religion denied' - and Zoellitsch said all this on Holy Saturday! I only came across the LifeSite item because I was doing my weekly check into that site!


Here is my translation:

Denying the core of the Christian religion
Translated from


For the chairman of the German Bishops' conference who has fallen away from Catholic belief, the Crucifixion of Christ is just another pscyhological support for (man's) suffering.

On Holy Saturday, the Archbishop of Freiburg Mons. Robert Zoellitsch denied that Christ had died in atonement for man's sins. Archbishop Zoellitsch spoke in an interview with Meinhard Smith-Degenhard for the program 'Horizente' of the German TV channel Hessischer Rundfunk (Hesse Broadcasting).

Christ, he said. "did not die for men's sins, as if God had given a sacrificial offering, a scapegoat."

Rather, the Savior has simply 'shown solidarity' to the death with the sorrows of mankind.

Christ showed that even suffering and pain are taken on by God, Zoellitsch says, and that is "the large perspective, this powerful solidarity" which went so far that he "suffered 'with' me."

Schmidt-Dagenhard pursued it: "You would no longer say that God had given his only-begotten Son because we men were so sinful? Woould you no longer say that?"

Archbishop Zoellitsch confirmed his apostasy ['Abfall' = 'falling off', 'apostasy'] from Catholic belief by answering with a clear: NO.

God, he said, "has given his own Son unto his last agony in solidarity with us in order to show, 'This is how much you mean to me, that I am totally with you in every situation."

Finally, the Archbishop said that his own sins were to blame that Christ "has abandoned so much for me... He did this out of solidarity - of his own free will".

Christ, he said, "has taken upon him what I am guilty for, even the bad things I have caused, so that he could take these back to the world of God, and and thus show me the way out of sin, guilt and death towards life."


I must confess I don't know about Zoellitsch's academic background, whether he is a theologian or what aspect of Church sciences he specializes in.

But I do not understand how anyone who expresses what he does in the last paragraph above cannot simply state his belief in the time-honored formulation of the Church, as it is so clearly stated in the current Catechism and in the past 200 years of Tradition! He's either nitpicking or hedging his bets.

Either way, it's another form of arrogance - this desire to stand out, for whatever reason - on top of the bigger arrogance that is that of the 'We are Church' and 'spirit of Vat-II' types: "I - and I alone - am the one who decides what Catholic belief/practice is and should be".



Questa è la versione 'lo-fi' del Forum Per visualizzare la versione completa clicca qui
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 07:29.
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com