Assisted by priests, seminarians, and altar servers of the diocese of Raleigh, Bishop Burbidge conferred the Sacrament of Confirmation on over twenty confirmandi at Sacred Heart Cathedral on June 6, 2012.
Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, the Litany of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and Benediction followed the Confirmation ritual:
Photos by Valerie Pajerski
Read this article:
Bishop Burbidge Confirms in Extraordinary Form – June 6, 2012
While convicting a pro-life activist for entering a
and ministering to patients in the waiting room on Nov. 8, 2011, Justice S. F. Clements told
, a devout Catholic, that God is wrong about abortion.
According the National Post, the judge said:
“If you think you (Wagner) have some higher moral authority that allows you to break [the] rule of law, that allows you to go to that clinic, to allow you to disregard the rights of other people to use that clinic, to disrespect those people, then you are wrong, and your God is wrong, because no God would tolerate that.”
“She sure wouldn’t like it if somebody was standing on her doorstep everyday pushing her around. If I had the power to do that, that is what I would do. I would have somebody in her face every day, go and rattle her door. How would she like that?”
Wagner has a lengthy criminal record
for protesting abortion in Toronto and Vancouver. She told the judge this sentencing will not stop her from continuing to fight for the unborn. This prompted the judge to say:
“You are going to go to jail.”
I will admit that Wagner’s “disrespect” for the law may have pushed this judge over the edge, but why is it judges across the country find a way to put the hammer down on abortion protesters but never for sex-offenders or petty criminals?
Subscribe to:
Posts and comments to The Busy Catholic must be marked by Christian charity and respect for the truth. They should be on topic and presume the good will of other contributors.
Discussion should take place primarily from a faith perspective. We reserve the right to end discussion on any topic any time we feel the discussion is no longer productive.
See more here:
From the Vatican Information News Service.
http://visnews-en.blogspot.ca/2012/06/eucharistic-communion-and-contemplation.html
Vatican City, 8 June 2012 (VIS) – At 7 p.m. today, Solemnity of Corpus Christi, Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in the basilica of St. John Lateran, then led a Eucharistic procession along Via Merulana to the basilica of St. Mary Major.
During the liturgical celebration, the Pope pronounced a homily in which he focused on the sacredness of the Eucharist, and in particular on the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
“A unilateral interpretation of Vatican Council II has penalised this dimension”, the Holy Father explained, “effectively limiting the Eucharist to the moment of celebrating Mass. It is, of course, very important to recognise the importance of celebration, in which the Lord calls His people, bringing them together around the table of the Word and Bread of life, nourishing them and uniting them to Himself in the sacrificial offering. This interpretation of the liturgical gathering, in which the Lord works and achieves His mystery of communion, naturally retains all its validity, but a rightful balance must be restored. … By concentrating our relationship with the Eucharistic Christ only on Mass we run the risk that the rest of time and space is emptied of His presence. Thus our perception of Jesus’ constant, real and close presence among us and with us is diminished”.
“It is a mistake to establish a contrast between celebration and adoration, as if they were in competition with one another. The opposite is true. The cult of the Blessed Sacrament represents the spiritual ‘environment’ within which the community can celebrate the Eucharist correctly and truthfully. Only if preceded, accompanied and followed by this interior attitude of faith and adoration, can liturgical activity express its full meaning and value”, the Pope said.
He then went on to explain that, at the moment of adoration, we are all at the same level, “on our knees before the Sacrament of Love. The common and ministerial priesthood come together in the cult of the Eucharist. … By remaining together in silence before the Lord, present in His Sacrament, we have one of the most authentic experiences of being Church, one that is complementary to our celebration of the Eucharist. … Communion and contemplation cannot be separated, they go together”, and if contemplation is lacking “even sacramental communion can become a superficial gesture on our part”.
Turning then to consider the sacredness of the Eucharist, Benedict XVI noted that here too, in the recent past, there has been “some misunderstanding of the authentic message of Holy Scripture. The Christian novelty of worship has been influenced by a certain secularist mentality of the 1960s and 1970s. It is true, and it remains valid, that the centre of worship is no longer in the ancient rites and sacrifices, but in Christ Himself, His person, His life, His Paschal Mystery. Yet this fundamental novelty must not lead us to conclude that the sacred no longer exists”.
Christ “did not abolish the sacred but brought it to fulfilment, inaugurating a new worship which is entirely spiritual but which nonetheless, as long as our journey in time continues, still uses signs and rites. These will only fall into disuse at the end, in the celestial Jerusalem where there will be no temple”.
Moreover, the Holy Father went on, “the sacred has an educational function. Its disappearance inevitably impoverishes culture, and especially the formation of the new generations. … Our Father God … sent His Son into the world, not to abolish the sacred but to bring it to fulfilment. At the culmination of this mission, at the Last Supper, Jesus established the Sacrament of His Body and His Blood, the Memorial of His Paschal Sacrifice. By doing so he put Himself in the place of the ancient sacrifices, but He did so in the context of a rite, which he ordered the Apostles to perpetuate as a supreme sign of the true sacrifice, which is Him. With this faith, … day after day we celebrate the Eucharistic Mystery, and adore it as the centre of our lives and the heart of the world”.
Published by VISarchive 02 –
More here:
This Sunday we will be celebrating the SOLEMNITY OF THE MOST HOLY BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. Holy Mass will be offered at 9:00 am with a Eucharistic Procession after the Mass.
Come let us adore him.
See original:
THE SOLEMNITY OF THE MOST HOLY BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (CORPUS CHRISTI)
Blogging wasn’t so much sporadic as non-existent. There was a computer available for guests to use in the hotel… but it was out of action for some reason or other. My grasp of Italian didn’t allow me to investigate further. His Hermeneuticalness blogged (on the Vatileaks
and
; on getting
; on our visit to the
and on
) via his iPad, which made me very jealous. Blogging from one’s phone, even an Android, just isn’t quite good enough…
I took plenty of photos, some of which are truly stunning. I have to upload them first – data transfer while abroad was not a cost-effective option. I also have plenty of tales to tell. Having experienced transport delays on the way home, however, means that I’m pretty tired, and there is the LMS conference tomorrow morning, so I’m going to crawl under my very inviting duvet.
Watch this space…
Visit site:
BY Dr. Gerard M. Nadal
In March of this year an article calling for the normalization of infanticide for any reason was published and created something of a stir. In the fluid dynamics of this election year, the malignancy of the article was quickly overtaken by other events, and it is worthy of a revisit in some detail, especially in light of government-controlled healthcare and who has a vested interest in the new eugenics.
In analyzing this paper, one can only arrive at an apt analogy that runs afoul of Godwin’s Law, which states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
There is an exception to this rule, and that is when the contemporary circumstance under discussion moves beyond tenuous analogy and becomes recapitulation of history, echoing George Santayana’s admonition that those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat its mistakes. In March of this year, no less a respected journal than the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) published an article worthy of the rabid Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher’s screeds in his publication, Der Sturmer. We do well to recall how Streicher and the other Nazi leaders who went to the gallows with him deemed Jews, homosexuals, the mentally retarded, and those with autism (among others) as, “Life unworthy of life.”
Such analogy is quite apt in the case of the article in question.
The article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, by authors Alberto Giubilini (Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), and Frencesca Minerva (Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) is published in J Med Ethics (2012). doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411 and may be viewed and downloaded here.
In their abstract, the authors state:
“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
[emphasis added, G.N.]
What follows is a three-page argument for redefining infanticide, beginning with justifying it on the basis of killing those handicapped that might have slipped through the genetic submarine net, and then opening the redefined infanticide to any parent killing their newborn for any reason at all. It is a fascinating and profoundly disturbing read into the process of malevolent apologetics.
The article begins with the typical appeal to the most extreme, grotesque, and heart-wrenching cases in order to establish the authors as reasonable and garner sympathy for the mothers whom the authors are, a priori, giving permission for and absolving of premeditated murder. The first example offered is Treacher-Collins Syndrome. As the authors state:
“One example is the case of Treacher-Collins syndrome (TCS), a condition that affects 1 in every 10 000 births causing facial deformity and related physiological failures, in particular potentially life-threatening respiratory problems. Usually those affected by TCS are not mentally impaired and they are therefore fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails. Many parents would choose to have an abortion if they find out, through genetic prenatal testing, that their fetus is affected by TCS. However, genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. Considering that it is a very rare pathology, we can understand why women are not usually tested for this disorder.”
The authors then move on to Down Syndrome, citing that only 64% of European cases studied were diagnosed in utero, leaving 1,700 live births whose mothers might very well have aborted had they known. Incredibly, the authors go on to state:
“Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.”
[Emphasis added, G.N.]
Lest anyone doubt that the authors do not intend those with Down Syndrome, they immediately follow this thought with:
“It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.
“Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.
[Emphasis added, G.N.]
“Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
And there we have it, at this moment in time when the United States has its last chance to dismantle Obamacare with its rationing systems established by Donald Berwick, it is argued that the state has a compelling interest in not only screening and aborting those with genetic conditions who might lead perfectly happy lives if born, but there is a compelling reason for the state to intervene and commit infanticide for those who are born when it is the state paying the bills.
Then, to underscore their position, the authors state:
“Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”
[Emphasis added, G.N.]
In that last breathtaking sentence, the authors leave behind Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the “Death with Dignity’ movement, euthanasia, and even the vile excesses of the Dutch physician assisted suicide experience, propelling us into the scenario where those who may be perfectly healthy apart from even the mildest limitations imposed by a genetic condition may be murdered by their parents. In fact, the authors go even further when they state in their abstract:
“ what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
[emphasis added, G.N.]
Given the widespread practice of abortion on demand, no questions asked, this means that parents of newborns ought to have the right to commit infanticide for any reason at all. In the final analysis, then, abortion rights are simply being used as a moral and ethical pretext for the wholesale and indiscriminate murder of newborns.
Presumably fathers, who have no say in abortion because of a woman’s bodily autonomy, would now have a right to murder an unwanted baby in order to escape the ‘economic burden’ of child support. While such a move would balance out the current inequity in paternal rights, it is an equality born in the pit of hell.
We have moved beyond the musings of an isolated radical such as Prof. Peter Singer of Princeton University and have, with this article, the evidence that such thinking has found a comfortable niche in the medical mainstream, as the article passed peer review and the exacting standards of the editorial board at a mainstream medical ethics journal. In so doing, they have all outdone the wildest excesses of Julius Streicher.
By 1938, Julius Streicher was too much even for Hitler’s inner-circle, and was marginalized. What is incredible is that not even Streicher at his worst sank to the depths of such indiscriminate, blood-thirsty depravity in calling for infanticide as a function of nothing more than parental whim. Even Streicher had standards, such as they were. For Singer, Giubilini, and Minerva, hate-filled tirades are entirely necessary. For them, all that is necessary for infanticide is ice-cold indifference and detachment. Anti-semitic screeds and wild fulminations are so twentieth century.
People such as Singer, Giubilini, and Minerva have forfeit their membership in the ranks of civilized, moral, and ethical academics. Having argued against the two-patient model of medical care in obstetrics, which sees the fetus as a patient, they have now set their sights on the standards of pediatric medicine, which sees the newborn as an autonomous human being meriting all the rights of any other patient. Such a standard, if adopted, must necessarily be applied in every area of medicine where a patient of any age is dependant on others. When the comfort of the provider is the only standard for judging murder as a solution, how could it not?
In Part II, we’ll see the authors’ justifications for redefining infanticide in this paper which reads like a prosecutor’s exhibit from the Nuremberg trials, or to quote the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Defining deviancy down.”
Reprinted with permission from GerardNadal.com
View article:
After-birth abortion and the ethics community’s descent into madness (Part I)
The Beed district is seen by Indian authorities as one of the worst violators of India’s laws against sex-selective abortions.
MAHARASHTRA, INDIA, June 8, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Two doctors and numerous accomplices have been arrested in the Beed district of Maharashtra, India, on charges of doing sex-selective abortions on baby girls up to the ninth month of pregnancy, according to reports in the local and national media.
Dr. Shivaji Sanap, a private clinician, has been arrested for killing two unborn girls, whose bodies were found dumped in a dry riverbed last Saturday. One was estimated to be over eight months gestation, and the other over five months.
He has been charged with violating India’s Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) act, which prohibits determining the sex of a child before birth. He has also been charged with performing an abortion after-five months, which is prohibited in India.
In addition to Dr. Sanap, his father-in-law, who also works at the clinic, has been arrested, along with two women who are believed to be the mothers and are suspected of having dumped the bodies. A 17-year-old girl and her parents, also suspected of having procured an illegal abortion at the same facility, were also taken into custody, making a total of seven arrests in the case.
The Beed district is seen by Indian authorities as one of the worst violators of India’s laws against sex-selective abortions, a crime that has ended the lives of millions of unborn girls in India and has caused a massive and growing imbalance in the population’s sex ratio.
“Beed District is notorious for foeticide and female infanticide,” Dr Pascoal Carvalho of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Life, told the Catholic news service AsiaNews. “It also has one of the most skewed male-female ratios for children under six: 801 to 1,000.”
He added that the country’s 2011 census confirms that the problem extends throughout the country.
As a result of this process of “gendercide,” which Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls “a national shame,” some towns have a ratio as low as three males to every one female. Many men say they are unable to find a wife, and the imbalance has reportedly resulted in increased trafficking in women.
(Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
India getting serious about sex-selective abortion?
The arrests may indicate a new willingness on the part of Indian government officials to crack down on the lucrative sex-selective abortion industry, which until recently has operated with impunity in many parts of the country, despite the laws in place against it.
Two days ago, Beed area authorities followed up the arrest of Dr. Sanap and his accomplices with a raid of seven pharmacies accused of selling illegal abortion drugs, the Times of India reports. Authorities are also seeking a Beed-area physician couple, Sudam Munde and wife Saraswati Munde, which was booked in 2011 after female fetuses connected to the couple’s abortion practice were discovered, and a non-governmental organization accused their clinic of doing sex-determination tests for patients, according to the same publication.
The Times reports that activists are criticizing government officials for not doing more to stop the sale of illegal abortifacients, but that the country’s Food and Drug Administration says that it is understaffed and unable to keep up with the massive black market in such drugs.
Continue reading here:
Indian ‘gendercide’ continues: two doctors arrested for late-term abortions of baby girls
Critics of Section 13 have long argued that the clause created the precise equivalent of a ‘thought crime’ in Canadian law.
OTTAWA, June 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A bill to scrap the controversial Section 13 “hate crimes” provision of the Canadian human rights code passed third and final reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 153 to 136 late Wednesday.
Bill C-304, “An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act,” was introduced by Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth. It now goes to the Conservative-dominated Senate where it is expected to pass and be given royal assent.
Critics of Section 13 have long argued that the clause created the precise equivalent of a ‘thought crime’ in Canadian law. The provision defined a discriminatory practice as “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” if the person or persons affected are “identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
In 2008, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) hired constitutional law expert Professor Richard Moon to examine Section 13 of the act. In his report, Moon’s principle recommendation was that section 13 be repealed. However, the CHRC ignored the report and proposed its own solutions.
In 2009, a ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the case of Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) vs. Marc Lemire, found in favour of Lemire, and also stated that section 13 was unconstitutional in that it unreasonably limited the Charter right to freedom of expression.
Lemire, operator of the website FreedomSite.org, was the subject of a complaint brought by serial complainant and former CHRC employee Richard Warman in November 2003. Warman alleged that certain postings to Lemire’s website were likely to incite hatred or contempt against homosexuals and blacks, thus violating section 13.
Following the CHRT ruling, conservative pundit and human rights commission critic Mark Steyn said that the end of the hate speech legislation was near, calling the ruling a “landmark decision.”
“This is the beginning of the end for Section 13 and its provincial equivalents, and a major defeat for Canada’s thought police,” Steyn said. “It’s not just a personal triumph for Marc Lemire, but a critical victory in the campaign by Ezra Levant, Maclean’s, yours truly and others to rid the Canadian state of this hideous affront to justice.”
MacLean’s magazine had been dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2006 by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) for publishing an excerpt, headlined “The Future Belongs to Islam,” from Steyn’s bestselling book “America Alone” in which he predicts a coming clash between an increasingly aggressive Islamic minority in Europe and native Europeans.
The CIC complained to the Human Rights Commission of “exposing Canadian Muslims to hatred and Islamophobia.” A representative of the group claimed the complaint was intended to “protect Canadian multiculturalism and tolerance.”
The high-profile Steyn/Maclean’s case became a rallying point for the movement in Canada to reform or to abolish entirely the Canadian human rights commissions. Members of this movement, including Steyn, claimed that the commissions had become arbiters of politically correct thought in Canada and a serious threat to freedom of speech.
The case was eventually dismissed.
During the debate on Bill C-304 on Wednesday, Mr. Storseth said, “Mr. Speaker, tonight every member of the House has the opportunity to vote for freedom.
“For far too long every Canadian’s fundamental right to freedom of expression has been needlessly suppressed by an overzealous bureaucracy armed with section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a vague and highly subjective law operating under the cloak of ambiguity.
“While section 13 may have been implemented with well-meaning intentions, its implications reach much further, chilling free speech and stifling the growth and development of free expression in our society. It is time to take back our right to freedom of expression as the bedrock upon which all other freedoms are built and repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.”
Storseth added that “Hate speech is a serious crime,” but that it should handled by “real police officers,” with “real lawyers and judges presiding over these cases, not a quasi-judicial body in a backroom doing things in the dark, which nobody ever gets to see. That is not justice.”
Only one Opposition member, Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MP for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Scott Simms, voted in support of the bill.
Visit link:
Mark Steyn lauds June 6 vote scrapping Canadian “hate crimes” law
One source inside the Vatican told LifeSiteNews.com that although the CDF’s intervention was necessary to clarify Catholic teaching, it could turn Sr. Farley into a folk hero.
Sr. Margaret Farley, errant Catholic nun.
ROME, ITALY, June 8, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Once again, the various bodies of the “progressive” establishment in the U.S. Catholic Church have erupted in a frenzy of outraged condemnation at the Vatican office issuing a warning this week to an academic who wrote that homosexuality and masturbation are morally acceptable.
Sr. Margaret Farley, a former full professor of ethics at Yale University’s Divinity School, also happens to be a member of the Sisters of Mercy and an established leader in the Catholic Church’s own internal sexual revolution. Her 2006 book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, which asserts the moral acceptability of homosexuality, “gay marriage,” remarriage after divorce, and masturbation, has been the subject of an ongoing intervention by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 2010.
On June 4, the revolution’s flagship paper, the National Catholic Reporter, published a notification Sr. Farley received from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and has been furiously fanning the flames since then. The NCR coverage has been picked up by dozens of blogs and several mainstream news outlets, all echoing the theme of the big, bad, retrograde Vatican attacking innocent defenders of freedom of thought and our new era of sexual freedom.
“Among the many errors and ambiguities in this book are its positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage, and the problem of divorce and remarriage,” the CDF, which has been in discussion with Farley about the book since 2010, said in a four-page document. Farley’s position “contradicts,” “is opposed to,” and “does not conform to” authentic Catholic teaching.
While the Catholic Left thunders about the Vatican’s “war on women,” commentators in Rome have said that this is just another skirmish between the CDF and the elderly leadership of the liberal Catholic revolution in the U.S., who are growing increasingly furious that their rebellion has failed to triumph.
Foremost among the combatants in the civil war have been many members of women’s religious orders, nearly all overseen by the hard-Left feminist umbrella group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). One source told LifeSiteNews.com that the real problem is the long-standing “tolerance of liberals” by the Vatican, noting that the book had been published four years before it received any attention from the CDF.
The rebellion of the sisters, that started very publicly in the 1960s, has only lately been publicly acknowledged in Rome with the launching of the CDF’s doctrinal investigation of LCWR, a move that reportedly “stunned” LCWR, accustomed as it has become to decades of inaction from Rome. It has been noted that the furor over Sr. Farley is being manufactured by NCR at precisely the moment LCWR leadership produced their defiant response to the CDF’s decision last month to substantially reform the organization.
Among those fanning the flames is Charles Curran, the notorious priest who arguably launched the revolution in 1968. He wrote in NCR on Wednesday, “All have to recognize there is such a real crisis in the church today. But the crisis is not just a crisis in moral theology; it involves a crisis in the church as a whole and in our very understanding of the Catholic church.”
Indeed, it is impossible to deny that a near-state of civil war exists in the Catholic Church, starting with Curran’s own spectacular rebellion, followed by innumerable academics, priests and nuns, against the publication of the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae that reiterated the Church’s prohibition against artificial birth control. Nearly 20 years later, the CDF was forced to declare that Curran could no longer teach as a theologian at Catholic University of America, opposing as he did the Church on precisely the same topics: divorce, artificial contraception, masturbation, pre-marital intercourse, and homosexual acts.
Over the decades since Curran published his letter against Humanae Vitae, the secular media has worked closely with the left-liberal movement within the Church to undermine or even overturn Catholic teaching, mainly on matters of sexuality. Through the media, the goal has been largely obtained: that of establishing in the mainstream of the Catholic Church the concept of “loyal dissent,” the idea that it is possible to be a “good Catholic” while refusing to accept whichever teaching is felt to be undesirable. This notion has been broadly accepted throughout the Western world and has resulted in such phenomena as the “pro-choice Catholic” politician.
One source inside the Vatican told LifeSiteNews.com that although the CDF’s intervention was necessary to clarify Catholic teaching, in the current climate, such actions often have unintended negative consequences. “Of course, this is how Hans Kung made his name, and Charles Curran for that matter.”
“Both are mediocre theologians whose names would have been lost in dusty academic obscurity had the Vatican not unintentionally made them into folk heroes of the anti-Catholic Left. In fact, they should both be thanking the CDF for bolstering their careers.”
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
Indeed, this week, Sr. Farley’s book, previously of interest only to students and professors, shot into the stratosphere of the online booksellers’ world, reaching 138th on Amazon’s bestseller list, from 147,982, within hours of NCR breaking the story. Since then, the book eventually reached number 21.
And Sr. Farley herself is a far cry from the humble, anonymously habited teaching sisters whose nearly unpaid labor in parochial schools have become the stuff of American cultural legend. Although the Sisters of Mercy do not reveal the salaries of their high-ranking academic members, Yale News reported in 2006 that the salaries of full professors at Yale ranked sixth among all private U.S. universities, at an average of $151,200 in 2005.
Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, the head of the Rome office of Human Life International and a long-time observer of Vatican affairs, commented on the situation, saying that the same essential error being made by Sr. Farley, her defenders, and by extension the entire “liberal Catholic” movement, has dominated the Church since the 1960s. Not even the CDF, not even the pope, he said, makes up Catholic doctrine, but the Church merely keeps it as a “deposit” handed down, ultimately, Catholics believe, from Christ himself, to be passed on and shared with “everyone of good will”.
“That is what Christ established. The main function of the Vicar of Christ [the papacy] is to determine what is in accordance with the will of the Lord. A traditional title of the pope is ‘servant of the servants of god’. It’s a duty of service.”
If this is altered through adherence to the preferences of the secular world, he said, “that is not the institution established by Jesus Christ. It would be a human institution. The value of the Catholic Church is that we are an institution established by God in order to keep the integrity of the deposit given to us by God. We are not the owners of that deposit, but we are to give it to people of good will.”
In response to the accusations of suppression of freedom, Msgr. Barreiro said, “The Vatican has as part of its duties to establish what is and is not Catholic teaching. The Church is not forcing people to be Catholic, but it has a duty of service to ensure the orthodoxy and accuracy of its teachings,” and to correct misrepresentations of it.
“We dare to deny that opposition to this is acceptable within the Church,” he said, adding that “if they don’t accept it, it’s sad, but it is a function of the truth.”
In cases like that of Sr. Farley he said:
A person who calls herself a Catholic has to write and teach in accordance with the teaching of the Church. To do otherwise is to defy not only Catholic teaching, but logic.”
To clarify, if you are a member of a club, and you want to remain the member of that club, you have to follow the rules, if you don’t, you’re not being “suppressed” if the club asks you to leave. Similarly, If you pretend to play soccer, you have to follow the rules of soccer, otherwise you are not playing the same game. You invent your own game, and you play in accordance with the rules of the new game, that could be called soccer 2. But it’s no longer soccer; it’s a different game.
If…they want to follow their own rules, fine, but it’s not Catholicism; it’s a different religion. We don’t pretend to use force against different religions, but they have to be honest and not call themselves what they are not.
Msgr. Barreiro acknowledged that many Catholics involved in these battles over the years have become disheartened with the lack of action by Church authorities, but he said that this notification can be taken as a signal for renewed action.
“We now have to wait and see if the notification is implemented by the local ordinary [bishop],” he said. “If this woman continues and does not cease teaching and promoting these ideas, she might receive the same sanctions that Kung and Curran have received, and be barred from teaching or writing as a Catholic theologian. If she continues there might be an escalation of sanctions.”
The second benefit, he said, is as a “warning to local ordinaries that her book cannot be used.”
With the CDF’s notification, the book will in theory be barred from use in ecclesiastical institutions. Barreiro said that the next step is up to the informed laity: “The function that concerned laity might have is to be vigilant that this book is no longer used.”
“If it is used against this prohibition,” he said, “it is up to the knowledgeable laity to bring it to the attention of the local ordinary [bishop] and if that fails, to the CDF.”
He confirmed that this uproar is being orchestrated to generate smoke and light in response to the CDF’s actions against LCWR. “Clearly, her order is protecting her,” he said, “that it’s apparent from the CDF‘s document, and it’s also a known thing that her order is one of the dissenting orders that are part of the problem with religious in America.”
Link:
Same revolution, different day: US nun touts gay sex, liberal Catholics outraged at Vatican response
A report from the ground from Br. Joshua Caswell:
This Friday, June 8, at noon local time across the country, tens of thousands of Americans, in over 150 cities coast to coast, took to the streets in public protest against the HHS Mandate during the second nationwide Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally.
This time the flagship rally held at Chicago’s Federal Plaza took an interesting twist—suddenly transforming from a formal political rally to a Swing dance festival!
Media pundit and blogger, Jill Stanek danced unannounced on stage to a Jazz Band at the end of her speech. At the same time hundreds of youth converged on already crowded plaza wearing 1930’s style outfits, carrying huge clusters of yellow balloons and shooting yellow confetti into the crowd as cheers erupted.
The exuberant and festive Swing Dance theme was an attempt to “swing public opinion” announced organizers, “in less than a year we won’t have this kind of freedom.”
The date for the Stand Up Rally was chosen to highlight the HHS Mandate’s unconstitutional infringement of religious freedom, coming just weeks before the highly anticipated ruling on Obamacarefrom the U. S. Supreme Court, expected at the end of June.
“If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, we must ensure that religious freedom will be protected in subsequent health care legislation” explained Stand Up Rally national co-director Monica Miller. “But if Obamacare is not struck down, we’ll be sending the federal authorities a clear message that the faith based institutions and private businesses affected by the HHS Mandate simply will not comply with it.
Originally posted here:
This Canadian Catholic News story has some good news for pro-lifers. The longer the bill is delayed the more attention the issue will get.
Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth‘s controversial private member’s motion M-312 has been postponed until the fall session because his mother has been gravely ill.
M-312, which calls for the creation of a parliamentary committee to examine the criminal code’s definition of a human being in light of the latest scientific and medical evidence, was supposed to come to a vote June 6.
For full story see The B.C. Catholic website.
Subscribe to:
Posts and comments to The Busy Catholic must be marked by Christian charity and respect for the truth. They should be on topic and presume the good will of other contributors.
Discussion should take place primarily from a faith perspective. We reserve the right to end discussion on any topic any time we feel the discussion is no longer productive.
Link:
2012 Letter #19: Interview with Fellay
June 8, 2012 — Interview with Fellay
“An analysis of the situation rooted in reality.” –Father Alain Lorans, Editor of the website Documentation Information Catholiques Internationales (DICI), the communication agency of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, introducing the interview posted on the DICI site with Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, on the present situation with regard to the possible canonical recognition of the Society by Rome in the near future. (Note: this is the official site of the Society; it therefore reflects the official view of the society, and does not reflect the views of those in the Society who differ with that official view.)
“So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not.” –Bishop Fellay, in the same interview
“At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth. They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now.”—Ibid.
“In our Society, we distrust Rome because we have experienced too many disappointments; that is why some think that this could be a trap.”—Ibid.
==========================
Waiting for Benedict’s Decision — Perhaps in July?
Bishop Bernard Fellay
Pope Benedict is said to be weighing a decision in the near future on whether or not to canoncially recognize the Society of St. Pius X.
Many are regarding it as one of the key decisions of his pontificate.
Some even see in the recent turmoil in Rome, in the “Vatileaks” case and in the general uncertainty and confusion that case has generated, a possible attempt to influence, delay, or distract attention from, this important decision.
Because how this Pope decides this case will go a long way to “setting the parameters” in coming decades and pontificates for the Church’s continued reception and reinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council, and what role more traditional Catholic views and interpretations, like those of the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (d. 1991), will have in the Church in the decades to come.
In this situation of uncertainty and expectation, the head of the followers of Lefebvre, Bishop Bernard Fellay (photo, from DICI), has offered an interesting, wide-ranging analysis of what Pope Benedict may be considering, and of what it may mean.
Here are the two key questions and answers:
Are you concerned about the delay in the response from Rome, which could enable those who are against a canonical recognition to alienate some priests and faithful from the Society of Saint Pius X?
Bishop Fellay: Everything is in God’s hands. I place my trust in the Good Lord and in His Divine Providence; He knows how to manage everything, even delays, for the good of those who love Him.
Was the Pope’s decision adjourned, as some magazines have said? Did the Holy See tell you to expect a delay?
Bishop Fellay: No, I have had no information about any calendar whatsoever. There are even some who say that the Pope will deal with this matter at Castel Gandolfo in July.
Here is the complete text of the interview, preceded by the introduction of Father Lorans.
Father Lorans’ Introduction
The decision from Rome on a possible canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X is still pending. Despite this, commentaries on this not-yet-published decision will not be long in coming ! One can discuss it, interpret it or extrapolate it… Each one becomes a little Superior General. Fiction is appealing, but reality is more certain.
This is why DICI has chosen to allow Bishop Bernard Fellay to speak for himself as the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, so we may know how he might judge a canonical solution that might happen before a doctrinal solution; what his attitude might be in view of the obvious doctrinal problems that remain; what the relationship of the Society of St. Pius X with the diocesan bishops might be in the possibility of a personal prelature; and finally, what is his interior disposition as he awaits the decision from Rome.
His answers, inspired by supernatural prudence, give an analysis of the situation rooted in reality.
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay on relations with Rome
June 8, 2012
DICI: Are you concerned about the delay in the response from Rome, which could enable those who are against a canonical recognition to alienate some priests and faithful from the Society of Saint Pius X?
Bishop Fellay: Everything is in God’s hands. I place my trust in the Good Lord and in His Divine Providence; He knows how to manage everything, even delays, for the good of those who love Him.
DICI: Was the Pope’s decision adjourned, as some magazines have said? Did the Holy See tell you to expect a delay?
Bishop Fellay: No, I have had no information about any calendar whatsoever. There are even some who say that the pope will deal with this matter at Castel Gandolfo in July.
A canonical solution before a doctrinal solution?
DICI: Most of those who are opposed to the Society’s acceptance of a possible canonical recognition allege that the doctrinal discussions could have led to this acceptance only if they had concluded with a doctrinal solution, in other words, a “conversion” by Rome. Has your position on this point changed?
Bishop Fellay: It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II. What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution.
Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council. Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger. Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems. This new awareness can help us to understanding what is really happening: we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve. So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not.
We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the Pope is the one who wants to recognize us. You may ask: why this change? We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the Pope wants to recognize us! Why?
The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. These problems must be addressed. We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems. This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly; you have to read between the lines to understand.
The official authorities do not want to acknowledge the errors of the Council. They will never say so explicitly. Nevertheless, if you read between the lines, you can see that they hope to remedy some of these errors.
Here is an interesting example on the subject of the priesthood. You know that starting with the Council there was a new concept of the priesthood and that it demolished the role of the priest. Today we see very clearly that the Roman authorities are trying to rehabilitate the true concept of the priest.
We observed this already during the Year of the Priest that took place in 2010-2011. Now, the Feast of the Sacred Heart is becoming the day consecrated to the sanctification of priests. For this occasion, a letter was published and an examination of conscience for priests was composed.
One might think that they went to Ecône to find this examination of conscience, it is so much along the lines of pre-conciliar spirituality. This examination presents the traditional image of the priest, and also of his role in the Church. This role is what Archbishop Lefebvre affirms when he describes the Society’s mission: to restore the Church by restoring the priest. The letter says: “The Church and the world can be sanctified only through the sanctification of the priest.” It really places the priest at the center.
The examination of conscience begins with this question: “Is the first concern of the priest his own sanctification?” The second question: “Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”—and that is the expression that they use, not the Eucharist, the Synaxis, or I don’t know what else—“the center of the life of the priest?”
Then it recalls the ends of the Mass: the praise of God, prayer, reparation for sins…. It says it all. The priest must immolate himself—the word “immolate” is not used, but rather “give himself”, sacrifice himself to save souls. It does say that.
Then comes a reminder about the last things: “Does the priest think often about the last things? Does he think to ask for the grace of final perseverance? Does he remind his faithful to do so? Does he visit the dying so as to give them the last rites?”
You see how, in a clever way, this Roman document clearly recalls the traditional idea of the priest.
Of course, that does not do away with all the problems, and there are still serious difficulties in the Church: ecumenism, Assisi, religious liberty…, but the context is changing, and not just the context, but the situation itself….
I would distinguish between the external relations and the internal situation. The relations with the outside have not have changed, but as for what goes on within the Church, the Roman authorities are trying to change it little by little. Obviously, a major disaster still remains today, one must be aware of that, and we do not deny it, but one must also look at what is starting to happen. This examination of conscience for priests is a significant example.
What should be our attitude toward the doctrinal problems?
DICI: You acknowledge that some serious difficulties remain with ecumenism, religious liberty…. If a canonical recognition came about, what would be your attitude with regard to these difficulties? Would you not feel obliged to be somewhat reserved?
Bishop Fellay: Allow me to answer your question with three inquiries: Did the novelties that were introduced during the Council start a trend of growth in the Church and an increase of vocations and religious practice? Do we not observe, to the contrary, a form of “silent apostasy” in all the countries of Christendom? Can we be silent when faced with these problems?
If we want to make the treasure of Tradition fruitful for the good of souls, we must speak and act. We need this twofold freedom of speech and action. But I would mistrust a purely verbal denunciation of doctrinal errors—a denunciation that would be all the more polemical because it was only verbal.
With his characteristic realism, Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that the Roman and diocesan authorities would be more responsive to numbers and facts presented by the Society of Saint Pius X than to theological arguments. And so I would not hesitate to say that, if a canonical recognition were to come about, the doctrinal difficulties would still be emphasized by us, but together with a lesson taught by the facts themselves, tangible signs of the vitality of Tradition.
And for that to happen, as I already told you in 2006, concerning the stages in our dialogue with Rome, we must have “faith in the Traditional Mass, the Mass that demands in and of itself integrity of doctrine and of the sacraments, the assurance of all spiritual fruitfulness in the service of souls”.
DICI: The year 2012 is not 1988, the year of your episcopal consecration. In 2009 the excommunications were lifted, in 2007 it was officially acknowledged that the Tridentine Mass had “never been abrogated”, but now some members of the Society lament the fact that the Church has not yet converted. Is their a priori refusal of a canonical recognition due to forty years of an exceptional situation, resulting in a certain inability to understand submission to authority?
Bishop Fellay: What is happening these days clearly shows some of our weaknesses with regard to the dangers that are created by the situation in which we find ourselves. One of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the Church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the Church. Some claim that in order to work “safely” in the Church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work. But that is not the reality.
It is enough to look at the Church’s past: often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors in the Church. Now the reforming saints did not leave the Church in order to combat these errors. Our Lord taught us that there would always be weeds until the end of time. Not just the good crop, not only the wheat.
At the time of the Arians, the bishops labored in the midst of errors to convince those who were mistaken about the truth. They did not say that they wanted to be outside, as some say now. Of course, we must always be very careful about these expressions, “inside”, “outside”, because we are of the Church and we are Catholic. But can we for that reason refuse to convince those who are in the Church, on the pretext that they are full of errors? Look at what the saints did! If the Good Lord allows us to be in a new situation, in close combat in the service of the truth…. This is the reality that Church history presents to us. The Gospel compares Christians to yeast; and do we want the dough to rise without us being in the dough?
In this situation, which some currently depict as an impossible situation, we are being asked to come and work just as all the reforming saints of all times did. Certainly that does not do away with the danger. But if we have sufficient freedom to act, to live and to grow, this must be done. I really think that this must be done, on the condition that we have sufficient protection.
DICI: Do you think that there are members of the Society who, consciously or not, espouse sedevacantist ideas? Are you afraid of their influence?
Bishop Fellay: Some may indeed be influenced by such ideas; that is nothing new. I do not think that there are that many of them, but they can do harm, especially by spreading false rumors. But I really think that the main concern among us is rather the question of trust in the Roman authorities, with the fear that what might happen would be a trap.
Personally, I am convinced that that is not the case. In our Society we distrust Rome because we have experienced too many disappointments; that is why some think that this could be a trap. It is true that our enemies may plan to use this offer as a trap, but the pope, who really wants this canonical recognition, is not proposing it to us as a trap.
Finding out what the Roman proposal will allow de jure and de facto
DICI: Several times you have said that the Pope personally wants the canonical recognition of the Society. Do you have a recent personal assurance from the Pope himself that this is truly his intention?
Bishop Fellay: Yes, the Pope is the one who wants it, and I have said it repeatedly. I have enough precise information in my possession to declare that what I say is true, although I have not had any direct dealings with the Pope—rather, with his close collaborators.
DICI: The April 7 letter signed by the three other bishops of the Society was unfortunately circulated on the Internet; does the analysis that it presents correspond to the situation in the Church?
Bishop Fellay: I do not rule out the possibility of a development in their position. The first question for us who were consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre was the question of the survival of Tradition.
I think that if my confreres see and understand that de jure and de facto the Roman proposal contains a genuine opportunity for the Society to “restore all things in Christ”, despite all the troubles that continue to exist in the Church today, then they will be able to readjust their judgment—that is to say, with the canonical status in hand and the facts on the table.
Yes, I think so, I hope so. And we must pray for that intention.
DICI: Some people throughout the world, including members of the Society, have made use of passages from an interview that you granted to Catholic News Service; these passages seem to indicate that in your view Dignitatis humanae no longer poses a difficulty. Did the way in which this interview was edited change the meaning of what you wanted to say? What is your position on this subject in relation to what Archbishop Lefebvre taught?
Bishop Fellay: My position is that of the Society and of Archbishop Lefebvre. As usual, in such a delicate matter, we must make distinctions, and a good part of these distinctions disappeared in the televised interview that had been reduced to less than six minutes. But the written report that CNS made of my remarks recovers what I said that was not included in the broadcast version: “Although [Bishop Fellay] stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict’s interpretation [of religious liberty] as essentially in continuity with the Church’s Tradition—a position which many in the Society have vocally disputed—Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.”
In fact, I simply recalled that there is already a traditional solution to the problem posed by religious liberty, which is called tolerance. As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, “I would like to hope that that is the case” (which a faulty French translation transformed into: “I hope so.”)
This is quite along the lines of the distinctions made by Archbishop Lefebvre to read the Council in the light of Tradition: what agrees with Tradition, we accept; what is doubtful, we understand as Tradition has always taught it; what is opposed, we reject.
Relations of the Society of Saint Pius X with diocesan bishops
DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements. Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory. Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state, are you inclined to accept the eventuality that future works may be possible only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?
Bishop Fellay: There is a lot of confusion about this question, and it is caused mainly by a misunderstanding of the nature of a personal prelature, as well as by a misreading of the normal relation between the local ordinary and the prelature. Add to that the fact that the only example available today of a personal prelature is Opus Dei. However, and let us say this clearly, if a personal prelature were granted to us, our situation would not be the same.
In order to understand better what would happen, we must reflect that our status would be much more similar to that of a military ordinariate, because we would have ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful. Thus we would be like a sort of diocese, the jurisdiction of which extends to all its faithful regardless of their territorial situation.
All the chapels, churches, priories, schools, and works of the Society and of the affiliated religious Congregations would be recognized with a real autonomy for their ministry.
It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it.
Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? Very probably we will also have the contrary problem, in other words, we will not be able to respond to the requests that will come from the bishops who are friendly to us. I am thinking of one bishop who could ask us to take charge of the formation of future priests in his diocese.
In no way would our relations be like those of a religious congregation with a bishop; rather they would be those of one bishop with another bishop, just like with the Ukrainians and the Armenians in the diaspora.
And therefore if a difficulty is not resolved, it would go to Rome, and there would then be a Roman intervention to settle the problem.
Let it be said in passing that what was reported on the Internet concerning my remarks on this subject in Austria last month is entirely false.
DICI: If there is a canonical recognition, what would happen to the chapels affiliated with the Society and independent of the diocese? Would the bishops of the Society continue to administer Confirmation and provide the Holy Oils?
Bishop Fellay: If they work with us, there will be no problem: it will be exactly as it is now. If not, everything will depend on what these chapels mean by independence.
DICI: Will there be a difference in your relations with the Ecclesia Dei communities?
Bishop Fellay: The first difference will be that they will be obliged to stop treating us as schismatics. As for future development, it is clear that some will draw closer to us, since they already approve of us discreetly; some others, no. Time will tell how Tradition will develop in this new situation. We have great expectations for the traditional apostolate, just as some important personages in Rome do, and the Holy Father himself. We have great hopes that Tradition will develop with our arrival.
DICI: Again, if there is a canonical recognition, will you give some cardinals in the Curia or some bishops the opportunity to visit our chapels, to celebrate Mass, to administer Confirmation, perhaps even to ordain priests at your seminaries?
Bishop Fellay: The bishops who are in favor of Tradition and the conservative cardinals will come closer. One can foresee a whole development, without knowing the particular details. And certainly there will be difficulties, too, which is altogether normal. There is no doubt that people will come to visit us, but as for a more precise collaboration, such as the celebration of Mass or ordinations, that will depend on the circumstances. Just as we hope that Tradition will develop, we hope to see Tradition develop among the bishops and the cardinals. One day everything will be harmoniously traditional, but how much time that will take, only God knows.
DICI: While awaiting the Roman decision, what are your interior dispositions? What dispositions would you wish for the priests and the faithful who are devoted to Tradition?
Bishop Fellay: In 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre announced that he would consecrate four bishops, some encouraged him to do it and others tried to dissuade him from it. But our founder kept the peace, since he had nothing in view but the will of God and the good of the Church.
Today these are the same interior dispositions that we should have. Like its holy Patron, the Society of Saint Pius X has the desire to “restore all things in Christ”. Some say that now is not the time, while others on the contrary say that this is the opportune moment.
For my part, I know only one thing: it is always the moment to do God’s will, and He makes it known to us at an opportune time, provided that we are receptive to His inspirations. For this reason, I asked the priests to renew the consecration of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, on His feast day, June 15, and to prepare for it by a novena, during which the litanies of the Sacred Heart will be recited in all our houses. Everyone can join in asking for the grace to become docile instruments of the restoration of all things in Jesus Christ. (DICI no. 256 dated June 8, 2012)
Here is a link to the original interview: http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/
UK Prime Minister backs controversial ‘3-parent’ IVF technique
“It is an attempt to genetically modify the human species,” declared Countess Josephine Quintavalle, founder of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics.
United Kingdom, June 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) — British Prime Minister David Cameron is reportedly supporting a controversial new IVF procedure for genetically modifying children, according to the Daily Mail. The technique is intended to prevent incurable hereditary diseases, such as muscular dystrophy, but it will result in “hybrid” children who would possess genetic material from three or more biological “parents.”
The procedure involves removing the nucleus from a zygote with flawed mitochondria, and inserting it into a healthy, donated egg. The resulting embryo would possess genetic material from the mother and father, as well as the donor.
Mr. Cameron has reportedly encouraged Health Department officials in testing the procedure, but the ethical debate over the procedure remains fierce.
“It is an attempt to genetically modify the human species,” declared Countess Josephine Quintavalle, founder of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE). Quintavalle cautioned strongly against the procedure, stating that the abnormal embryo resulting from the procedure would be “passing on these changes to future generations, with who knows what awful consequences.”
CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!
When news of the technique first broke in 2010, it was swiftly condemned by pro-life groups concerned that it was one step further down the path of the “commodification” of children. They also observed that the research requires creating, and then killing numerous embryos.
“Scientists should stop killing and abusing human beings in experiments,” said Anthony Ozimic, the communications manager for the UK’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) at the time, adding that they should “pursue ethical alternatives which are much more likely to be successful in the long-term.”
The British government will hold a public consultation on whether to allow the procedure within the next few weeks. Genetic manipulation of embryos — except in research — has officially been banned by the 2008 Human Fertilization and Embryology Act. However, the Health Secretary is permitted to condone new techniques, if there is a strong case for it.
Mutation of the human DNA can cause around 50 untreatable diseases, affecting one in 5,000 births; advocates claim that using the technique could save 100 lives/year. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the Government’s fertility monitor, has declared the technique to be safe, although there shall still be more tests.
“We are as anxious as anybody to see cures for the many serious conditions related to mitochondrial defects,” stated Quintavalle, “but what is being proposed is not a cure either for the individual patient or the diseases themselves. It is an attempt to genetically modify the human species.”
Continue reading:
UK Prime Minister backs controversial ‘3-parent’ IVF technique
Genetic scanning for 3,500 more disorders raises fears of spike in abortions
Pro-lifers warn the ability to detect genetic defects will open the flood to abortion.
The senator’s daughter, Bella, was born with a genetic disorder.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, June 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A newly developed prenatal test that allows doctors to diagnose some 3,500 genetic defects previously undetectable before birth has raised concerns that thousands of disabled children could now be targeted for abortion.
Researchers at the University of Washington were able to sequence the entire genome of an unborn baby using fetal and maternal DNA extracted from the mother’s blood and paternal DNA from the father’s saliva.
According to a report on the project published this month in Science Translational Medicine, the reconstructed prenatal genome was 98 percent accurate when compared with post-natal results in two separate pregnancies.
Dr. Jay Shendure, associate professor of genome sciences at the University of Washington, told Science Daily that the research had made it possible to diagnose a previously unheard of range of genetic disorders.
“This work opens up the possibility that we will be able to scan the whole genome of the fetus for more than 3,000 single-gene disorders through a single, non-invasive test,” he said. According to the news service, epilepsy, schizophrenia, and some cases of autism and intellectual impairments can all be potentially detected using this method.
(Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
Current pre-natal testing for genetic disorders tests for only a limited number of more easily detectable genetic abnormalities, such as trisomy disorders that are caused by the presence of an additional chromosome.
Trisomy 21, or Down Syndrome, is one of the more common of these disorders, and has been at the center of the debate over pre-natal testing. Senator Rick Santorum, whose daughter, Bella, has Down Syndrome, was a vocal opponent of an ObamaCare provision funding prenatal testing for pregnant women. Santorum spoke out against the proposal during his bid for the Republican nomination, citing selective abortions as the reason for his opposition.
“Yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does in fact result more often than not in abortion. That is a fact,” Santorum told CBS News.
Multiple studies have found that there is a higher than 90 percent abortion rate in the U.S. for babies prenatally diagnosed with Down Syndrome. According to the International Down Syndrome Coalition for Life, about 50 percent of all Down Syndrome babies are believed to have lost their lives to abortion.
The organization reports that there was an 11 percent decrease in babies born with Down Syndrome between 1989 and 2006, when there should have been an estimated 42 percent increase.
Read this article:
Genetic scanning for 3,500 more disorders raises fears of spike in abortions
A new global elite is on the march
Continue reading here:
A new global elite is on the march
Msgr Steenson Meets with Cardinal Collins
Coat of Arms of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter
Msgr Steenson Meets with Cardinal Collins
It is not known if anything substantive came out of the Ordinary's discussions with Cardinal Collins pertaining to the future of the Ordinariate and Canada, and no attempt will be made to speculate on the purpose of such a meeting. However, it is a good sign that Msgr. Steenson made a connection with the administrator of the Sodality of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Ottawa.
Perhaps, more information, may be forthcoming in the days ahead.
Pictures and a report are available at Deborah Gyapong's Blog by linking here to the article: http://foolishnesstotheworld.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/msgr-steenson-visits-ottawa/
Posted by
franciscanusanglicanus
at
9:46 AM
Newer Post
Older Post
Home
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Continued:
Msgr Steenson Meets with Cardinal Collins
Agoriad Llaith
O’er sea and sky he spreads his girth.
Man is the lord of all on earth,
Save these two things, of little worth:
His past and future, death and birth.
O, men may walk and men may run
Up stairs that tower to the sun,
And yet know not, when all is done,
What makes the earth her course to run.
O, men may die and men may kill
And men may drink of death at will,
But where’s the man can claim the skill
To wake the corpse when once ’tis still?
O, men may live, and men may make
All manner of kingdoms for man’s sake,
But where’s the man his life would stake
One single, living flower to make?
How strange it is that man should be
Master of earth and sky and sea,
And still to life hold not the key,
Nor yet to his own destiny.
See more here:
Agoriad Llaith
Religious liberty advocates see ‘unprecedented threats’ in U.S.
Never before has the government argued that “churches and religiously affiliated organizations have no more protections under the First Amendment than a country club,” said Dr. Richard Land.
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, June 5, 2012, (Baptist Press.)—Are the current threats to religious liberty in the United States unprecedented?
Religious freedom advocates disagreed at a recent Washington, D.C., conference, but at least one asserted there is something new and different about the menace to a right protected in the First Amendment.
The debate came during a day-long event sponsored by a new program of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a Washington-based organization that seeks to apply Judeo-Christian values to policy issues. The American Religious Freedom Program, established last year by the EPPC, instituted the conference as part of its effort to help strengthen religious liberty.
In a panel discussion about “unprecedented threats” to religious liberty, Richard Land agreed with the session’s premise.
“When we hear the word ‘unprecedented,’ I can think of no other time in the history of the United States when the Justice Department of the United States would go before the Supreme Court of the United States and make an argument—as it did in the Tabor case—that there are no particular and special protections for religion in the First Amendment and that churches and religiously affiliated organizations have no more protections under the First Amendment than a country club,” said Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
The Obama administration lost that argument in a 9-0 opinion in January, when the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering with a church’s ministerial hiring practices. The decision came in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
(Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
The Tabor case represents one of three types of threats to religious freedom—threats that “are growing in number and intensity and severity,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Tabor is part of the threat to the freedom of religious groups to choose their leaders, she told conference participants. The other two threats, Smith said, are:
—The Obama administration’s mandate—with an inadequate religious exemption—that health insurance plans must cover contraceptives, including ones that can cause abortions, and sterilizations as preventive services.
—Violations of the conscience rights of religious individuals, including pharmacists who oppose dispensing abortion-inducing drugs, photographers who decline to photograph same-sex weddings and nurses who refuse to help with late-term abortions.
Nathan Diament and William Galston contended the current threats are not unprecedented. “[T]hat is not meant to comfort you,” Diament said.
Diament, executive director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, pointed to a 1990 Supreme Court ruling as evidence for his argument. The high court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith eradicated long-standing protections for religious free exercise that required government to have a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to abridge the right.
What about the federal government’s treatment of Mormons in the 19th century or attempts in the early 20th Century to ban parochial schools?, asked Galston, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Gerard Bradley, law professor at Notre Dame University, told the audience, “[T]he real question is: ‘In what way or ways is the threat today different and more serious than other threats?’”
There have been threats to religious liberty that have been as egregious, but “they’re old,” Bradley said. “Now we’re talking about something that’s happening 50 years into the institutionalization in American law and culture of a kind of religious pluralism. And we live in an era of much different ideas about religious freedom and the scope of the term religion. So it is uncharacteristic, unusual, anomalous, maybe not unprecedented, for this kind of thing to happen now.”
The contraceptive/abortion mandate and other initiatives by the Obama administration reflect two recent judgments on religious freedom, Bradley said:
—Dissent on an “emerging orthodoxy” about contraception, same-sex marriage and when life begins “is being increasingly identified” with religion. “[I]t’s not reasonable to oppose contraception, but people do oppose contraception but they would be religious people. So that’s one thing in motion, a kind of marginalization of a certain set of viewpoints….”
—“[A] body of people with certain moral views about controversial issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception are being told by outsiders, ‘That’s your religion, whether you know it or not or whether you like to admit it or not, and your religion, your doctrine, the tenets of your religion, they’re not reasonable. Now you hold them and in some limited, strange sense they might be true, but they’re beyond rational defense. … So religion and doctrine thereof is being squished into this space reserved for the beyond the rational.”
The contraceptive/abortion mandate “shows either a hostility to religious freedom or a complete ignorance of the First Amendment,” Land said. “It seems to me there are not any other alternatives.”
“I think I can make an argument that this extreme, secularist mind-set embodied in the [contraceptive/abortion] mandate violates not only the First Amendment’s free exercise clause but the establishment clause as well,” he told participants. “When the federal government asserts the right to universally mandate actions, trample religious convictions and then grant exemptions to those it so chooses, the government is behaving perilously like a secular theocracy granting ecclesiastical indulgences to a chosen few.
“Make no mistake about it,” Land said. “This is only incidentally about reproductive freedom. It’s about freedom of religious organizations to practice their faith.”
Baptist theologian Timothy George expressed concern at the May 24 conference that even Baptists, who have been known as champions of religious liberty, have experienced “a kind of amnesia about these roots of religious freedom.” He pointed to two developments in the last 100 years that he believes have resulted in this becoming an issue:
—“The reduction of Baptist identity to rugged individualism and the restriction of religious freedom to simply what’s good rather than the communitarian emphasis that was there certainly in the 17th Century when Baptists emphasized covenants, catechisms and confessions.”
—The issue of church-state separation “has become the subject of a great deal, I think, of misconstrual as to what it originally meant and what it might mean today. It has become, in fact, for many Baptists and others the severance of religion from public life. And now we are caught again in this misunderstanding of the most basic rudiments of our religious faith.”
George spoke on a panel of representatives from various religious traditions about working together to protect religious liberty for all. He urged the participants to maintain their “firmly held religious conviction” while defending religious freedom.
“[W]ithin our own religious conviction and tradition there is a common-core commitment that allows us to respect one another, to enter into dialogue with one another and to stand for one another when religious freedom is under assault. [It is] what I call an ecumenism of conviction, not an ecumenism of accommodation. That’s the way forward,” said George, dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama.
The EPPC’s American Religious Freedom Program plans to start caucuses for legislators in all 50 states to help protect religious freedom, said Brian Walsh, the program’s executive director.
“We’re willing to do whatever it takes, make sacrifices, in order to make sure that we continue to make religious freedom something that we can pass on to future generations,” Walsh told Baptist Press. “We’ve been given it; we can’t squander it.”
This article was originally written for Baptist Press and the The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is reprinted with permission.
See the original article here:
Religious liberty advocates see ‘unprecedented threats’ in U.S.
What did I miss ???
CC Archives
CC Random Posts
On the road
The Last Sunday/Ostatnia Niedziela
21 July St. Lawrence of Brindisi: “Forward!” he cried, showing them the crucifix, “Victory is ours.”
Vatican Insider mistake
Raise Your Hands
CC Pages
CC Tag Cloud
CC Posts by Date
or by
CC Current Posts
Share Article with Others