.by Natalio A. Yaria on Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 12:47am.
Satan knows that he can’t win the final battle. But, it seems that the “evil one” is succeeding in winning some skirmishes. To do that, his emissaries, camouflaged in modern “humanitarian” relativism, have somehow succeeded in convincing many people to take his path.
How do these emissaries do that? Their success rests on a “gentle-seduction" strategy; which means to persuade somebody to do something by making it seem desirable or exciting. In other words, before they corrupt the soul, they first seduce the mind.
The emissaries first step is to convince us to throw away, to free ourselves from “old fashion” moral values as things of the past. Then we are encouraged to proceed with an “open mind” to replace them with the so-called “freedom to express” our most intimate feelings . For these emissaries lapses of morality are an acceptable part of the process since we must "experiment" to learn and perhaps make mistakes. After all, they tell us, "what's no right for others, it may be right for you - all is relative." Button line: in order to reach that much needed happiness, we must strive for self-fulfilling “individuality.”
Warning: This is a seductive evil message to stir up egocentrism – we become selfish, interested only in personal needs and wants; our outlook is limited and confined to ourselves and not caring about other people. Thus, when we lower our guard we are exposed to the trap. When we are hooked by their seduction, they will have control over us: we may become step-by-step, without knowing it at first, another of Satan’s emissaries.
.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
US Embassy to Vietnam sees progress in religious freedom despite anti-Catholic incidents
US
Hanoi, Vietnam, January 14 (CNA) .- A leaked U.S. State Department cable on religious freedom in Vietnam says the country has made progress and should not be re-designated as a "country of particular concern," despite significant incidents involving the beatings and arrests of Catholics.
The confidential memo from the U.S. embassy in Hanoi, dated Jan. 20, 2010, was published on Jan. 12 on the website of WikiLeaks, a media organization which has obtained more than 250,000 leaked U.S. State Department cables.
According to CNA's analysis of pre-released cable data, more than 600 of the cables concern Vietnam and religious freedom issues.
In recent years Vietnam's Catholics and its communist government have disputed the ownership of confiscated properties. The embassy cable noted the government's "poor handling" and "excessive use of violence" in situations such as the Dong Chiem Catholic parish incident.
On Jan. 6, 2010, the Vietnamese government demolished a crucifix on Dong Chiem church property. Parishioners who responded to the event with peaceful protest were beaten, arrested and suppressed. A Redemptorist brother was severely bludgeoned by police on Jan. 20 of that year for visiting the church.
Another issue was the eviction of nearly 400 Buddhist monks and nuns affiliated with French-based religious leader Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village Order.
Such situations were "troublesome" and indicative of a larger "crackdown" on human rights ahead of the January 2011 Communist Party Congress, the embassy cable said.
However, the embassy characterized the Dong Chiem incident and others as primarily "land disputes." Though more government transparency and a fair process for adjudicating claims are needed, these disputes do not meet the requirements of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act and the incidents should not divert attention from the "significant gains" in religious freedoms since the CPC designation was lifted in November 2006, the cable said.
"The widespread, systematic religious persecution that existed prior to Vietnam's designation in 2004 does not exist anymore," the author of the cable said.
The embassy recommended the U.S. State Department use "high-level engagement opportunities" to press the Vietnamese government for expanded religious freedom in their country.
Pre-2004, Vietnam's repression of certain religious groups was "systematic and widespread," the embassy's summary said. Thousands of Central Highland villagers and other ethnic minorities were restricted from practicing their religion and many were forced to renounce their faith.
On Catholic issues specifically, the Vietnamese government limited the numbers of new seminarians and the ordinations of new priests below the rate necessary to replace those who left, retired or died. Church requests to create new dioceses, appoint new bishops, or form a new seminary also "languished" without formal government approval.
After Vietnam was designated a country of particular concern, the U.S. embassy reports, the country's government enacted "sweeping changes" to religious freedom policy. Its new legal framework bans forced renunciation of religion and grants citizens the freedom of belief.
Government-conducted training programs tried to ensure compliance with the new laws and central government officials began responding to complaints from religious leaders about their treatment.
Following these measures, religious believers and the Vietnamese government both reported an increase in religious activity and observance in the North and Northwest Highlands. Nearly 1,000 places of worship were legalized in the regions, and the changes also allowed training for hundreds of new Protestant and Catholic clergy.
The U.S. government had listed 45 individuals imprisoned because of their religious beliefs, but all were released by September 2006.
Despite the land disputes, the U.S. cable says, the Catholic Church continues to report an improved ability to gather and to worship. Restrictions on the assignment of clergy have also eased, while the government has approved an additional Catholic seminary and no longer restricts the number of seminary students.
Despite continuing problems, like "isolated" harassment of Christians and some forced renunciations of faith, there are no indications that the Vietnamese government is "backsliding" on its commitment to register and recognize religious groups.
While the U.S. Embassy to Vietnam opposed the designation of Vietnam as a country of particular concern, Members of Congress such as Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) have called for the designation to be re-applied.
In a Dec. 15, 2010 hearing, he cited mounting tensions between the communist government and Catholic parishioners.
A May 2010 funeral procession in the Diocese of Da Nang tried to bury the body of an 82-year-old woman in Con Dau parish cemetery, which had been seized by the local government to build a tourist resort. Police broke up the procession, arrested 59 people and beat over 100 mourners.
Police deliberately beat two pregnant women so as to kill their unborn babies, charged Rep. Smith. In July a pallbearer at the funeral named Nam Nguyen was later kicked and bludgeoned to death by police.
A Dec. 8, 2010 police raid on the Redemptorists' Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Ho Chi Minh City interrupted scheduled liturgical celebrations and ongoing Christmas preparations. Local authorities took provincial superior Fr. Vincent Pham Trung Than in for questioning and the Redemptorists were accused of preaching anti-government sentiment, instigating disorder, inciting riots and violating social media codes.
"Congress, the president, and all those who espouse fundamental human rights ought to be outraged at Vietnam's turn for the worse," Rep. Smith added. "President Obama should re-designate Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern for its egregious violations of religious freedom."
WikiLeaks is slowly releasing many of the cables it has obtained, giving a partial view of the U.S. government's diplomatic relations and its officials' evaluations of other states.
Hanoi, Vietnam, January 14 (CNA) .- A leaked U.S. State Department cable on religious freedom in Vietnam says the country has made progress and should not be re-designated as a "country of particular concern," despite significant incidents involving the beatings and arrests of Catholics.
The confidential memo from the U.S. embassy in Hanoi, dated Jan. 20, 2010, was published on Jan. 12 on the website of WikiLeaks, a media organization which has obtained more than 250,000 leaked U.S. State Department cables.
According to CNA's analysis of pre-released cable data, more than 600 of the cables concern Vietnam and religious freedom issues.
In recent years Vietnam's Catholics and its communist government have disputed the ownership of confiscated properties. The embassy cable noted the government's "poor handling" and "excessive use of violence" in situations such as the Dong Chiem Catholic parish incident.
On Jan. 6, 2010, the Vietnamese government demolished a crucifix on Dong Chiem church property. Parishioners who responded to the event with peaceful protest were beaten, arrested and suppressed. A Redemptorist brother was severely bludgeoned by police on Jan. 20 of that year for visiting the church.
Another issue was the eviction of nearly 400 Buddhist monks and nuns affiliated with French-based religious leader Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village Order.
Such situations were "troublesome" and indicative of a larger "crackdown" on human rights ahead of the January 2011 Communist Party Congress, the embassy cable said.
However, the embassy characterized the Dong Chiem incident and others as primarily "land disputes." Though more government transparency and a fair process for adjudicating claims are needed, these disputes do not meet the requirements of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act and the incidents should not divert attention from the "significant gains" in religious freedoms since the CPC designation was lifted in November 2006, the cable said.
"The widespread, systematic religious persecution that existed prior to Vietnam's designation in 2004 does not exist anymore," the author of the cable said.
The embassy recommended the U.S. State Department use "high-level engagement opportunities" to press the Vietnamese government for expanded religious freedom in their country.
Pre-2004, Vietnam's repression of certain religious groups was "systematic and widespread," the embassy's summary said. Thousands of Central Highland villagers and other ethnic minorities were restricted from practicing their religion and many were forced to renounce their faith.
On Catholic issues specifically, the Vietnamese government limited the numbers of new seminarians and the ordinations of new priests below the rate necessary to replace those who left, retired or died. Church requests to create new dioceses, appoint new bishops, or form a new seminary also "languished" without formal government approval.
After Vietnam was designated a country of particular concern, the U.S. embassy reports, the country's government enacted "sweeping changes" to religious freedom policy. Its new legal framework bans forced renunciation of religion and grants citizens the freedom of belief.
Government-conducted training programs tried to ensure compliance with the new laws and central government officials began responding to complaints from religious leaders about their treatment.
Following these measures, religious believers and the Vietnamese government both reported an increase in religious activity and observance in the North and Northwest Highlands. Nearly 1,000 places of worship were legalized in the regions, and the changes also allowed training for hundreds of new Protestant and Catholic clergy.
The U.S. government had listed 45 individuals imprisoned because of their religious beliefs, but all were released by September 2006.
Despite the land disputes, the U.S. cable says, the Catholic Church continues to report an improved ability to gather and to worship. Restrictions on the assignment of clergy have also eased, while the government has approved an additional Catholic seminary and no longer restricts the number of seminary students.
Despite continuing problems, like "isolated" harassment of Christians and some forced renunciations of faith, there are no indications that the Vietnamese government is "backsliding" on its commitment to register and recognize religious groups.
While the U.S. Embassy to Vietnam opposed the designation of Vietnam as a country of particular concern, Members of Congress such as Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) have called for the designation to be re-applied.
In a Dec. 15, 2010 hearing, he cited mounting tensions between the communist government and Catholic parishioners.
A May 2010 funeral procession in the Diocese of Da Nang tried to bury the body of an 82-year-old woman in Con Dau parish cemetery, which had been seized by the local government to build a tourist resort. Police broke up the procession, arrested 59 people and beat over 100 mourners.
Police deliberately beat two pregnant women so as to kill their unborn babies, charged Rep. Smith. In July a pallbearer at the funeral named Nam Nguyen was later kicked and bludgeoned to death by police.
A Dec. 8, 2010 police raid on the Redemptorists' Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Ho Chi Minh City interrupted scheduled liturgical celebrations and ongoing Christmas preparations. Local authorities took provincial superior Fr. Vincent Pham Trung Than in for questioning and the Redemptorists were accused of preaching anti-government sentiment, instigating disorder, inciting riots and violating social media codes.
"Congress, the president, and all those who espouse fundamental human rights ought to be outraged at Vietnam's turn for the worse," Rep. Smith added. "President Obama should re-designate Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern for its egregious violations of religious freedom."
WikiLeaks is slowly releasing many of the cables it has obtained, giving a partial view of the U.S. government's diplomatic relations and its officials' evaluations of other states.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Vatican responds to Egypt recalling its ambassador over Pope's remarks
Vatican City, January 11 (CNA/EWTN News) .- The Holy See has no desire to escalate conflict or strain diplomatic relations, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said Jan. 11 in response to Egypt recalling its ambassador in protest of Pope Benedict's condemnation of the recent violence against Christians in the country.
Fr. Lombardi made his remarks after Egypt temporarily recalled Mrs. Lamia Aly Mekhemar Hamada, ambassador of Arab Republic of Egypt to the Holy See. The action by the Egyptian government took place after Pope Benedict implored ambassadors in a Jan. 9 address to protect Christian minorities.
The Pope's comments followed a bomb attack by Islamic militants on a Coptic Christian church in Alexandria, Egypt on New Year's Eve that killed 23 people.
Hossam Zaki, an Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman, condemned the Pope's Jan. 9 remarks, saying the pontiff committed "unacceptable interference" in the country's "internal affairs."
Zaki also noted that Egypt has asked Ambassador Hamada to return to Cairo for a consultation on the Pope's comments.
In response to the situation, Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi said on Jan. 11 that the Holy See has no interest in straining diplomatic relations with Egypt and that the ambassador was able to meet with Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States of the Holy See, before she left.
Fr. Lombardi said that during her meeting with Archbishop Mamberti, the ambassador was able to receive "relevant information" to report back to her foreign ministry on the recent interventions of Pope Benedict, especially on religious freedom and the protection of Christians in the Middle East. The ambassador was also able to express her government's concerns regarding the current "difficult" situation.
Fr. Lombardi said Archbishop Mamberti stressed to the ambassador that the Vatican experiences the grief the country feels following the recent attack in Alexandria and shares the Egyptian government's concern in avoiding "the escalation of conflict and tension for religious reasons."Archbishop Mamberti also underscored his appreciation for the efforts that the government "makes in that direction."
But tensions within Egypt continue to simmer, with Jan. 11 reports saying a Muslim policeman opened fire on passengers aboard a Cairo-bound train, killing one Christian man and wounding 5 others.
Coptic Bishop Marcos told AFP that witnesses relayed to him how the gunman roamed the train looking for Christians and shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' before opening fire.
The attack is the latest in a string of violence committed against Christians in the Middle East by Islamic militants, adding to the Egyptian Church bombing in Alexandria on Jan. 1 and an attack at Our Lady of Salvation Cathedral in Baghdad, Iraq, on Oct. 31 last year that killed over 50 people.
Fr. Lombardi made his remarks after Egypt temporarily recalled Mrs. Lamia Aly Mekhemar Hamada, ambassador of Arab Republic of Egypt to the Holy See. The action by the Egyptian government took place after Pope Benedict implored ambassadors in a Jan. 9 address to protect Christian minorities.
The Pope's comments followed a bomb attack by Islamic militants on a Coptic Christian church in Alexandria, Egypt on New Year's Eve that killed 23 people.
Hossam Zaki, an Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman, condemned the Pope's Jan. 9 remarks, saying the pontiff committed "unacceptable interference" in the country's "internal affairs."
Zaki also noted that Egypt has asked Ambassador Hamada to return to Cairo for a consultation on the Pope's comments.
In response to the situation, Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi said on Jan. 11 that the Holy See has no interest in straining diplomatic relations with Egypt and that the ambassador was able to meet with Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States of the Holy See, before she left.
Fr. Lombardi said that during her meeting with Archbishop Mamberti, the ambassador was able to receive "relevant information" to report back to her foreign ministry on the recent interventions of Pope Benedict, especially on religious freedom and the protection of Christians in the Middle East. The ambassador was also able to express her government's concerns regarding the current "difficult" situation.
Fr. Lombardi said Archbishop Mamberti stressed to the ambassador that the Vatican experiences the grief the country feels following the recent attack in Alexandria and shares the Egyptian government's concern in avoiding "the escalation of conflict and tension for religious reasons."Archbishop Mamberti also underscored his appreciation for the efforts that the government "makes in that direction."
But tensions within Egypt continue to simmer, with Jan. 11 reports saying a Muslim policeman opened fire on passengers aboard a Cairo-bound train, killing one Christian man and wounding 5 others.
Coptic Bishop Marcos told AFP that witnesses relayed to him how the gunman roamed the train looking for Christians and shouted 'Allahu Akbar!' before opening fire.
The attack is the latest in a string of violence committed against Christians in the Middle East by Islamic militants, adding to the Egyptian Church bombing in Alexandria on Jan. 1 and an attack at Our Lady of Salvation Cathedral in Baghdad, Iraq, on Oct. 31 last year that killed over 50 people.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Vatican - Pope rips anti-Christian tide in major foreign policy speech
By John L Allen Jr.
Created Jan 10, 2011 Published on National Catholic Reporter (http://ncronline.org)
ANALYSIS
Pope Benedict XVI today devoted his most closely watched annual foreign policy address to religious freedom, especially what many observers see as a rising global tide of anti-Christian hostility. He denounced assaults on Christians in Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan and China, as well as a growing “marginalization” of Christianity in secular Europe.
While this was hardly the first time a pope has lauded religious freedom, Benedict’s defense of beleaguered Christians was unusually focused – reflecting a growing conviction in the Vatican that anti-Christian persecution around the world, sometimes referred to as “Christianophobia,” is taking on epidemic proportions.
How much difference Benedict’s language will make on the ground remains to be seen, but it does clearly confirm that religious freedom, and especially the defense of embattled Christians, has become the Vatican’s supreme diplomatic priority.
“Acts of discrimination against Christians,” the pontiff complained, frequently “are considered less grave and less worthy of attention on the part of governments and public opinion.”
The remarks came in Benedict’s annual address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, considered the pope’s most important foreign policy speech of the year. The Holy See currently has diplomatic relations with 178 nations and the European Union, as well as special observer status at the United Nations.
In years past, popes have typically used the speech to diplomats as a sort of foreign policy panorama, surveying major global concerns such as economic justice, war and peace, the environment, and equity in diplomatic relations. This year, however, Benedict XVI was focused like a laser beam on religious freedom, and in particular with attacks on Christians.
Benedict began by citing the plight of Christians in Iraq, where two-thirds of what was once the Middle East’s second-largest Christian population has vanished since the first Gulf War in 1991, and Egypt.
“Need we repeat it?” the pope asked rhetorically. “Christians are original and authentic citizens” in the Middle East, Benedict said, quoting the concluding message from the recent Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, who should “enjoy all the rights of freedom of conscience, freedom of worship and freedom of education, teaching and the use of the mass media.”
Benedict pointedly added that it’s not enough to guarantee freedom of worship. Bishops in the region frequently say that while Islamic states generally allow Christians to celebrate religious rituals, they do not respect freedom of conscience – for instance, the right of a Muslim to convert to Christianity without legal fallout. Further, they say, Christians are often discriminated against in housing, employment, and civic life.
Benedict also said he hopes the church will be able to establish “suitable pastoral structures” on the Arabian Peninsula to serve immigrant Christian populations.
(At the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, participants said that fully half the Christians of the region today are not traditional Arab faithful, but “guest workers,” mostly migrants from Asia and Africa. Saudi Arabia now contains the second largest Catholic community in the Middle East, with what the Vatican estimates at 1.25 million believers, though the country does not permit public expression of any non-Islamic faith.)
While popes typically offer broad moral principles in their foreign policy addresses rather than specific legislative recommendations, Benedict bluntly demanded that the anti-blasphemy law in Pakistan, which the country's small Christianity minority says is used as a tool of intimidation and persecution.
Last July, two Christian brothers accused under the law of writing a blasphemous letter against Muhammad, the founder of Islam, were gunned down outside a Pakistani court. In 2005, another Christian accused of blasphemy was beaten to death in a prison hospital by a guard wielding a hammer.
In November, a Christian mother of four was sentenced to death under the law, a case that has sparked wide international protest. In early December, a pro-Taliban Pakistani cleric offered a reward of $5,800 to anyone who kills the woman in prison, angered by attempts of the local governor to save her life.
Benedict also noted that in other parts of the world, “philosophical and political systems call for strict control, if not a monopoly, of the state over society” – specifically mentioning China and Cuba, both places where the Catholic church has a troubled relationship with an officially Marxist government.
In the West, meanwhile, Benedict warned against what he described as a growing tendency to “marginalize” Christianity. In particular, he cited a case currently on appeal before the European Court of Human Rights which would require Italy to remove crucifixes from its public school classrooms.
The pope also insisted on upholding the “right to conscientious objection” on the part of Christian health care workers and legal professionals.
Benedict concluded by asserting that the “path leading to authentic and lasting peace” necessarily “passes through respect for the right to religious freedom in all its fullness.”
For those foreign ministries around the world (including, of course, the U.S. State Department) seeking to understand the diplomatic priorities of the Holy See in the New Year, Pope Benedict’s speech this morning seems to provide a clear one-word reply: “Christianophobia.”
Taking that concern seriously, it would seem, is the price of admission to collaboration with the Holy See on anything else.
[John L. Allen, Jr. is NCR senior correspondent.]
Created Jan 10, 2011 Published on National Catholic Reporter (http://ncronline.org)
ANALYSIS
Pope Benedict XVI today devoted his most closely watched annual foreign policy address to religious freedom, especially what many observers see as a rising global tide of anti-Christian hostility. He denounced assaults on Christians in Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan and China, as well as a growing “marginalization” of Christianity in secular Europe.
While this was hardly the first time a pope has lauded religious freedom, Benedict’s defense of beleaguered Christians was unusually focused – reflecting a growing conviction in the Vatican that anti-Christian persecution around the world, sometimes referred to as “Christianophobia,” is taking on epidemic proportions.
How much difference Benedict’s language will make on the ground remains to be seen, but it does clearly confirm that religious freedom, and especially the defense of embattled Christians, has become the Vatican’s supreme diplomatic priority.
“Acts of discrimination against Christians,” the pontiff complained, frequently “are considered less grave and less worthy of attention on the part of governments and public opinion.”
The remarks came in Benedict’s annual address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, considered the pope’s most important foreign policy speech of the year. The Holy See currently has diplomatic relations with 178 nations and the European Union, as well as special observer status at the United Nations.
In years past, popes have typically used the speech to diplomats as a sort of foreign policy panorama, surveying major global concerns such as economic justice, war and peace, the environment, and equity in diplomatic relations. This year, however, Benedict XVI was focused like a laser beam on religious freedom, and in particular with attacks on Christians.
Benedict began by citing the plight of Christians in Iraq, where two-thirds of what was once the Middle East’s second-largest Christian population has vanished since the first Gulf War in 1991, and Egypt.
“Need we repeat it?” the pope asked rhetorically. “Christians are original and authentic citizens” in the Middle East, Benedict said, quoting the concluding message from the recent Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, who should “enjoy all the rights of freedom of conscience, freedom of worship and freedom of education, teaching and the use of the mass media.”
Benedict pointedly added that it’s not enough to guarantee freedom of worship. Bishops in the region frequently say that while Islamic states generally allow Christians to celebrate religious rituals, they do not respect freedom of conscience – for instance, the right of a Muslim to convert to Christianity without legal fallout. Further, they say, Christians are often discriminated against in housing, employment, and civic life.
Benedict also said he hopes the church will be able to establish “suitable pastoral structures” on the Arabian Peninsula to serve immigrant Christian populations.
(At the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East, participants said that fully half the Christians of the region today are not traditional Arab faithful, but “guest workers,” mostly migrants from Asia and Africa. Saudi Arabia now contains the second largest Catholic community in the Middle East, with what the Vatican estimates at 1.25 million believers, though the country does not permit public expression of any non-Islamic faith.)
While popes typically offer broad moral principles in their foreign policy addresses rather than specific legislative recommendations, Benedict bluntly demanded that the anti-blasphemy law in Pakistan, which the country's small Christianity minority says is used as a tool of intimidation and persecution.
Last July, two Christian brothers accused under the law of writing a blasphemous letter against Muhammad, the founder of Islam, were gunned down outside a Pakistani court. In 2005, another Christian accused of blasphemy was beaten to death in a prison hospital by a guard wielding a hammer.
In November, a Christian mother of four was sentenced to death under the law, a case that has sparked wide international protest. In early December, a pro-Taliban Pakistani cleric offered a reward of $5,800 to anyone who kills the woman in prison, angered by attempts of the local governor to save her life.
Benedict also noted that in other parts of the world, “philosophical and political systems call for strict control, if not a monopoly, of the state over society” – specifically mentioning China and Cuba, both places where the Catholic church has a troubled relationship with an officially Marxist government.
In the West, meanwhile, Benedict warned against what he described as a growing tendency to “marginalize” Christianity. In particular, he cited a case currently on appeal before the European Court of Human Rights which would require Italy to remove crucifixes from its public school classrooms.
The pope also insisted on upholding the “right to conscientious objection” on the part of Christian health care workers and legal professionals.
Benedict concluded by asserting that the “path leading to authentic and lasting peace” necessarily “passes through respect for the right to religious freedom in all its fullness.”
For those foreign ministries around the world (including, of course, the U.S. State Department) seeking to understand the diplomatic priorities of the Holy See in the New Year, Pope Benedict’s speech this morning seems to provide a clear one-word reply: “Christianophobia.”
Taking that concern seriously, it would seem, is the price of admission to collaboration with the Holy See on anything else.
[John L. Allen, Jr. is NCR senior correspondent.]
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Over 2,000 college students spread Gospel in Chile
Santiago, Chile, Jan 5, 2011 / 04:06 pm (CNA).-
More than 2,000 young people from 55 universities in Chile are bringing Christ to Chileans in January.
The college students are participating in a national mission Jan. 3-13 with the theme, “United at your table, Lord, let us enliven the Church in Chile.”
The young Chileans attended a Jan. 3 Mass of commissioning celebrated by Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz, the outgoing Archbishop of Santiago, at the Marian Shrine of Maipu.
Each morning, the young people go door-to-door visiting families and sharing the Gospel, explain organizers of the mission. In the afternoon, the students participate in the “social mission” by visiting hospitals, prisons, orphanages and retirement homes.
The young people also participate in workshops for children, teens and adults in the “family mission.”
The national mission will also include processions, festivals and theatrical works, in which the entire community will participate.
The national mission first began in 2004 at the Pontifical Catholic University in Santiago. Each year it provides young people from across the country the opportunity to “spread the message of Christ” in the service of the Church.
More than 2,000 young people from 55 universities in Chile are bringing Christ to Chileans in January.
The college students are participating in a national mission Jan. 3-13 with the theme, “United at your table, Lord, let us enliven the Church in Chile.”
The young Chileans attended a Jan. 3 Mass of commissioning celebrated by Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz, the outgoing Archbishop of Santiago, at the Marian Shrine of Maipu.
Each morning, the young people go door-to-door visiting families and sharing the Gospel, explain organizers of the mission. In the afternoon, the students participate in the “social mission” by visiting hospitals, prisons, orphanages and retirement homes.
The young people also participate in workshops for children, teens and adults in the “family mission.”
The national mission will also include processions, festivals and theatrical works, in which the entire community will participate.
The national mission first began in 2004 at the Pontifical Catholic University in Santiago. Each year it provides young people from across the country the opportunity to “spread the message of Christ” in the service of the Church.
‘Chilling’ statistics show 41% of New York City babies aborted.
by Patrick B. Craine. Fri Jan 07 4:25 PM EST
NEW YORK, January 7, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new report has found that 41% of babies in the womb were aborted in New York City in 2009 – a finding that has spurred local pro-lifers to redouble their efforts to lower the city’s abortion rate.
On Thursday a press conference was organized by the Chiaroscuro Foundation, which supports alternatives to abortion, in response to the report. The Foundation has launched a new campaign and a website at NYC41percent.com, and have pledged $1 million for 2011 to cut the city’s abortion rate.
“Like it or not, the legality of abortion is a settled question in New York for the time being,” said Greg Pfundstein, executive director of the Chiaroscuro Foundation. “That doesn’t mean we have to accept the fact that in parts of the city nearly half of all pregnancies end in abortion.”
At that press conference the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s desire to welcome and support pregnant women.
“Any woman who is pregnant and in need can come to the Church and we will help you,” said Dolan, quoting a twenty-five year old statement from the late Cardinal John O’Connor.
Bishop Dimarzio of Brooklyn and Rabbi David Zwiebel also joined Dolan.
“So many have said abortion must be rare. 87,000 abortions in this city is not rare. It’s an abysmal failure,” Zwiebel said.
The report, recently released by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said that of 225,667 pregnancies in 2009, there were 87,273 abortions.
As is common throughout the country, there was a major racial disparity, with the majority of abortions being from African-American and Hispanic women. About 60% of African-American women’s unborn babies were aborted, 41.3% for Hispanic women, 22.7% for Asians, and 21.4% for Caucasians.
Archbishop Dolan, who serves as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the statistics “downright chilling” and said they make him “embarrassed” to be a member of this normally “cherished community.”
While New York is known for its hospitality and sensitivity to those in need, the prelate continued, “we are tragically letting down the tiniest, most fragile and vulnerable: the little baby in the womb.”
“We have to do more than shiver over these chilling statistics!” he declared. “I invite all to come together to make abortion rare, a goal even those who work to expand the abortion license tell us they share.”
“Mother Teresa remarked that the worst poverty was to take the life of a baby so we could live, as we want,” the prelate concluded. “New York does not deserve the gravestone, ‘Abortion capital of the world.’ Our boast is the Statue of Liberty, not the ‘Grim Reaper.’”
“Through our Catholic charities, our adoption services, our lobbying on behalf of pregnant women and mothers of infants, our support for life-giving alternatives to the decision all call tragic – abortion – in our education of youth for healthy, responsible, virtuous sexual behavior, our health care, — – we have done our best to keep that promise, … and these haunting statistics only prod us to keep at it,” he said.
NEW YORK, January 7, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new report has found that 41% of babies in the womb were aborted in New York City in 2009 – a finding that has spurred local pro-lifers to redouble their efforts to lower the city’s abortion rate.
On Thursday a press conference was organized by the Chiaroscuro Foundation, which supports alternatives to abortion, in response to the report. The Foundation has launched a new campaign and a website at NYC41percent.com, and have pledged $1 million for 2011 to cut the city’s abortion rate.
“Like it or not, the legality of abortion is a settled question in New York for the time being,” said Greg Pfundstein, executive director of the Chiaroscuro Foundation. “That doesn’t mean we have to accept the fact that in parts of the city nearly half of all pregnancies end in abortion.”
At that press conference the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s desire to welcome and support pregnant women.
“Any woman who is pregnant and in need can come to the Church and we will help you,” said Dolan, quoting a twenty-five year old statement from the late Cardinal John O’Connor.
Bishop Dimarzio of Brooklyn and Rabbi David Zwiebel also joined Dolan.
“So many have said abortion must be rare. 87,000 abortions in this city is not rare. It’s an abysmal failure,” Zwiebel said.
The report, recently released by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said that of 225,667 pregnancies in 2009, there were 87,273 abortions.
As is common throughout the country, there was a major racial disparity, with the majority of abortions being from African-American and Hispanic women. About 60% of African-American women’s unborn babies were aborted, 41.3% for Hispanic women, 22.7% for Asians, and 21.4% for Caucasians.
Archbishop Dolan, who serves as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the statistics “downright chilling” and said they make him “embarrassed” to be a member of this normally “cherished community.”
While New York is known for its hospitality and sensitivity to those in need, the prelate continued, “we are tragically letting down the tiniest, most fragile and vulnerable: the little baby in the womb.”
“We have to do more than shiver over these chilling statistics!” he declared. “I invite all to come together to make abortion rare, a goal even those who work to expand the abortion license tell us they share.”
“Mother Teresa remarked that the worst poverty was to take the life of a baby so we could live, as we want,” the prelate concluded. “New York does not deserve the gravestone, ‘Abortion capital of the world.’ Our boast is the Statue of Liberty, not the ‘Grim Reaper.’”
“Through our Catholic charities, our adoption services, our lobbying on behalf of pregnant women and mothers of infants, our support for life-giving alternatives to the decision all call tragic – abortion – in our education of youth for healthy, responsible, virtuous sexual behavior, our health care, — – we have done our best to keep that promise, … and these haunting statistics only prod us to keep at it,” he said.
Church Leaders Blast NYC Abortion Numbers
Updated: Friday, 07 Jan 2011, 2:54 PM EST
Published : Friday, 07 Jan 2011, 2:54 PM EST
By SUMATHI REDDY / The Wall Street Journal
WSJ.COM/NEWSCORE - Archbishop Timothy Dolan joined other religious leaders Thursday vowing to work to reduce the number of abortions in New York City, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
Leaders of various faiths denounced figures that showed that 41 percent of pregnancies in the city were terminated in 2009. They also criticized sex-education programs in the public school system that include distributing condoms.
"That 41 percent of New York babies are aborted, a percentage even higher in the Bronx and among our African-American babies in the womb, is downright chilling," said the archbishop, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in New York City. "I invite all to come together to make abortion rare," he added.
The numbers were released by the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a not-for-profit supporting alternatives to abortion.
The rate was based on figures from the city Department of Health, which reported a slightly lower abortion rate, 38.7 percent. Foundation officials did not include miscarriages in their total pregnancy number, resulting in the different rates.
The number of abortions in New York City has decreased over the past decade. But religious and civic leaders said the number is still too high.
In a statement, Mary Alice Carr, NARAL Pro-Choice New York's vice president for communications, said, "These men continue to meddle in women's lives and preach a gospel of shame and stigma," adding that pro-choice groups "will never stand quietly by and watch self-proclaimed moral authorities attempt to interfere in the reproductive lives of others."
SOUCE: WSJ.COM
Published : Friday, 07 Jan 2011, 2:54 PM EST
By SUMATHI REDDY / The Wall Street Journal
WSJ.COM/NEWSCORE - Archbishop Timothy Dolan joined other religious leaders Thursday vowing to work to reduce the number of abortions in New York City, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
Leaders of various faiths denounced figures that showed that 41 percent of pregnancies in the city were terminated in 2009. They also criticized sex-education programs in the public school system that include distributing condoms.
"That 41 percent of New York babies are aborted, a percentage even higher in the Bronx and among our African-American babies in the womb, is downright chilling," said the archbishop, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in New York City. "I invite all to come together to make abortion rare," he added.
The numbers were released by the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a not-for-profit supporting alternatives to abortion.
The rate was based on figures from the city Department of Health, which reported a slightly lower abortion rate, 38.7 percent. Foundation officials did not include miscarriages in their total pregnancy number, resulting in the different rates.
The number of abortions in New York City has decreased over the past decade. But religious and civic leaders said the number is still too high.
In a statement, Mary Alice Carr, NARAL Pro-Choice New York's vice president for communications, said, "These men continue to meddle in women's lives and preach a gospel of shame and stigma," adding that pro-choice groups "will never stand quietly by and watch self-proclaimed moral authorities attempt to interfere in the reproductive lives of others."
SOUCE: WSJ.COM
Saturday, January 8, 2011
US lodges strong protest with Vietnam after beating of American diplomat.
By Marianne Medlin, Staff Writer (CNN)
Washington D.C., Jan 8, 2011 / 08:01 am (CNA).- The U.S. State Department lodged a sharp protest with the Vietnamese government after a U.S. diplomat was beaten in the country for attempting to visit an ailing Catholic priest who is under house arrest.
The recent incident joins a string of human rights abuses involving Vietnamese police using violence against the country's inhabitants.
Radio Free Asia reported on Jan. 5 that the U.S. has lodged a "strong protest" with the Vietnamese government after local policemen attacked Christian Marchant – a political officer with the U.S. embassy in Hanoi – while he was trying to visit a Catholic priest.
Marchant, a practicing Mormon who lives in Hanoi, Vietnam with his wife and two children, was allegedly beaten outside a home for retired priests in Hue, where 63 year-old Father Nguyen Van Ly, a pro-democracy activist, is being held under house arrest. Father Ly was released from prison on medical parole last year. The diplomat had a pre-arranged meeting with Father Ly, who later told the RFA that he witnessed Marchant being wrestled to the ground, placed in a police vehicle and driven away. Police reportedly shut a car door numerous times on Marchant's legs.
“The United States Government, both here in Hanoi and in Washington, has lodged a strong, official protest with the Government of Vietnam,” said U.S. Ambassador Michael W. Michalak at a press conference concluding his three year term in the country on Jan. 6. “We are waiting for an official response from the Government of Vietnam.”
Mark Toner, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department, reported in a Jan. 6 briefing that although Marchant was “injured during that incident,” the diplomat was “up and walking around now.”
The U.S. State Department has summoned the Vietnamese ambassador in Washington to protest the incident, Toner said.
Officials from the Vietnamese embassy to the U.S. in Washington, D.C. did not respond to a request for comment from CNA.
Reports on human rights abuses in Vietnam – particularly against religious minorities such as Catholics – have caused an outcry among U.S. political leaders.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) recently condemned violence against Catholics by the Vietnamese government and appealed to President Obama for a resolution designating Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern.
Beatings, Church raids, arrests – and even deaths – are some of the violent incidents that have been inflicted on Catholics by authorities in Vietnam over increased conflict related to property rights. Throughout the last several decades, in provinces throughout the country, tensions have mounted between the Communist government and local parishioners as officials have repeatedly attempted to claim land where Catholic churches and facilities are situated.
Rep. Smith said in his remarks to Congress in Dec. 2010 that although Vietnam was listed as a Country of Particular Concern in 2004 and 2005 – with demonstrable progress for Catholics in the area during that time – the country has since been removed. He claimed that the Vietnamese government promising concrete actions as well as a major trade agreement with the U.S. led to Vietnam being taken off of the CPC list.
After this, he said, many “religious believers who expected a thaw and reform and openness were arrested or rearrested and sent to prison.”
He added that the Country of Particular Concern designation – and the penalties described by the International Religious Freedom Act – have in the past and “can be again a useful tool in performing reform in Vietnam.”
“Congress, the president, and all those who espouse fundamental human rights ought to be outraged at Vietnam's turn for the worse,” he added. “We should stand with the oppressed, not the oppressor.”
Washington D.C., Jan 8, 2011 / 08:01 am (CNA).- The U.S. State Department lodged a sharp protest with the Vietnamese government after a U.S. diplomat was beaten in the country for attempting to visit an ailing Catholic priest who is under house arrest.
The recent incident joins a string of human rights abuses involving Vietnamese police using violence against the country's inhabitants.
Radio Free Asia reported on Jan. 5 that the U.S. has lodged a "strong protest" with the Vietnamese government after local policemen attacked Christian Marchant – a political officer with the U.S. embassy in Hanoi – while he was trying to visit a Catholic priest.
Marchant, a practicing Mormon who lives in Hanoi, Vietnam with his wife and two children, was allegedly beaten outside a home for retired priests in Hue, where 63 year-old Father Nguyen Van Ly, a pro-democracy activist, is being held under house arrest. Father Ly was released from prison on medical parole last year. The diplomat had a pre-arranged meeting with Father Ly, who later told the RFA that he witnessed Marchant being wrestled to the ground, placed in a police vehicle and driven away. Police reportedly shut a car door numerous times on Marchant's legs.
“The United States Government, both here in Hanoi and in Washington, has lodged a strong, official protest with the Government of Vietnam,” said U.S. Ambassador Michael W. Michalak at a press conference concluding his three year term in the country on Jan. 6. “We are waiting for an official response from the Government of Vietnam.”
Mark Toner, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department, reported in a Jan. 6 briefing that although Marchant was “injured during that incident,” the diplomat was “up and walking around now.”
The U.S. State Department has summoned the Vietnamese ambassador in Washington to protest the incident, Toner said.
Officials from the Vietnamese embassy to the U.S. in Washington, D.C. did not respond to a request for comment from CNA.
Reports on human rights abuses in Vietnam – particularly against religious minorities such as Catholics – have caused an outcry among U.S. political leaders.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) recently condemned violence against Catholics by the Vietnamese government and appealed to President Obama for a resolution designating Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern.
Beatings, Church raids, arrests – and even deaths – are some of the violent incidents that have been inflicted on Catholics by authorities in Vietnam over increased conflict related to property rights. Throughout the last several decades, in provinces throughout the country, tensions have mounted between the Communist government and local parishioners as officials have repeatedly attempted to claim land where Catholic churches and facilities are situated.
Rep. Smith said in his remarks to Congress in Dec. 2010 that although Vietnam was listed as a Country of Particular Concern in 2004 and 2005 – with demonstrable progress for Catholics in the area during that time – the country has since been removed. He claimed that the Vietnamese government promising concrete actions as well as a major trade agreement with the U.S. led to Vietnam being taken off of the CPC list.
After this, he said, many “religious believers who expected a thaw and reform and openness were arrested or rearrested and sent to prison.”
He added that the Country of Particular Concern designation – and the penalties described by the International Religious Freedom Act – have in the past and “can be again a useful tool in performing reform in Vietnam.”
“Congress, the president, and all those who espouse fundamental human rights ought to be outraged at Vietnam's turn for the worse,” he added. “We should stand with the oppressed, not the oppressor.”
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Does homeschooling violate Vatican II?
The Divine Life Why We Were Created; a blog by Eric Sammons
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past decade, you are aware of the meteoric rise in homeschooling during that time. What was formally the reserve of a few fundamentalists and hippies has now gone mainstream. Just this week it was reported that over 2 million children are homeschooled, which constitutes approximately one in every 25 children currently in school today.
Catholics have not missed this bandwagon, as many Catholic families (including my own) have decided that homeschooling is the best way to educate their children. But what does the Church have to say in her magisterial documents about homeschooling? Is it allowed or prohibited? If no definitive word has been pronounced, is it encouraged or discouraged?
The first place to look to answer this question is Gravissimum Educationis (GE), Vatican II’s “Declaration on Christian Education.” In this document the Council Fathers address the importance of education and the need for every child to be educated. At first glance, it appears that homeschooling is clearly approved:
Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools (GE 6).
If parents have the “primary and inalienable right and duty to education their children” and they must “enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools,” then surely they should be able to educate their own children in the home, correct? However, another passage should be examined as well:
The Council also reminds Catholic parents of the duty of entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible and of supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children (GE 8 emphasis added).
In the context of GE and other contemporary Church documents related to education, it is clear the Council is thinking of traditional Catholic schools here; in other words, it is not thinking of a Catholic family homeschooling as a “Catholic school.” So what does this mean? Are homeschoolers violating Vatican II by not “entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible” and not “supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children”? Should all Catholics send their children to Catholic schools if they are available to them?
To answer this question we must first consider what the Church considers proper education. According to GE, a true education aims at the formation of the human person in the pursuit of his ultimate end and of the good of the societies of which, as man, he is a member, and in whose obligations, as an adult, he will share (GE 1).
But this is not the only objective of education. All the baptized also have the right to a Christian education, which does not merely strive for the maturing of a human person as just now described, but has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of Faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:23) (GE 2)
So parents, who have a “primary and inalienable right and duty to education their children,” must take into consideration both of these aspects when determining their choice of schools – they must both consider a child’s formation as a human person as well as his formation as a Christian. But this also means that Catholic schools need to fulfill these two aspects of a Christian education – if they do not, then they are not truly “Catholic schools,” thus making it impossible for parents in their area to send their child to an outside Catholic school, as GE hopes every parent will do.
But I think we can go a step further than just saying that homeschooling is an option when the local Catholic schools are failing in their mission to offer a Christian education. To do this, we must consider the context in which Vatican II occurred. At that time, there was, for all intents and purposes, no such thing as Catholic homeschoolers as we would define them today. Homeschooling as a movement didn’t really start until the 1970’s and it didn’t become “mainstream” until this century. So the Council Fathers had no way to consider homeschooling as even an option. It should be remembered that ecumenical councils are protected by the Holy Spirit from error, but they are not given the gift of precognition. Faced between the choice of public, government schools and Catholic schools, it is no surprise that they urged that Catholic parents send their children to Catholic schools “wherever and whenever it is possible.” That was the only possible way for a child to receive a true Christian education as the Council Fathers envisioned it.
However, since the time of Vatican II, it has become clear that Catholic homeschooling has become a viable type of “Catholic school”, offering a fully Christian education as defined by the Council Fathers. Thus, I would argue that homeschooling can be a legitimate response to Vatican II’s call that Catholics entrust their children to “Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible” – even if there are good Catholic schools in the area. In today’s world, this fulfills the Council’s wishes that children receive a Christian education and that parents enjoy “true liberty” when choosing a school for their children.
It should be clear that I am not saying that all Catholics should homeschool their children. Each family is different and every child unique – what works for one situation might not work for others. But I do believe that Catholics who choose to homeschool their children – even if there is a good Catholic school available – are not violating the intention of the Council Fathers behind their desire that parents entrust their children “to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible.”
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past decade, you are aware of the meteoric rise in homeschooling during that time. What was formally the reserve of a few fundamentalists and hippies has now gone mainstream. Just this week it was reported that over 2 million children are homeschooled, which constitutes approximately one in every 25 children currently in school today.
Catholics have not missed this bandwagon, as many Catholic families (including my own) have decided that homeschooling is the best way to educate their children. But what does the Church have to say in her magisterial documents about homeschooling? Is it allowed or prohibited? If no definitive word has been pronounced, is it encouraged or discouraged?
The first place to look to answer this question is Gravissimum Educationis (GE), Vatican II’s “Declaration on Christian Education.” In this document the Council Fathers address the importance of education and the need for every child to be educated. At first glance, it appears that homeschooling is clearly approved:
Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools (GE 6).
If parents have the “primary and inalienable right and duty to education their children” and they must “enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools,” then surely they should be able to educate their own children in the home, correct? However, another passage should be examined as well:
The Council also reminds Catholic parents of the duty of entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible and of supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children (GE 8 emphasis added).
In the context of GE and other contemporary Church documents related to education, it is clear the Council is thinking of traditional Catholic schools here; in other words, it is not thinking of a Catholic family homeschooling as a “Catholic school.” So what does this mean? Are homeschoolers violating Vatican II by not “entrusting their children to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible” and not “supporting these schools to the best of their ability and of cooperating with them for the education of their children”? Should all Catholics send their children to Catholic schools if they are available to them?
To answer this question we must first consider what the Church considers proper education. According to GE, a true education aims at the formation of the human person in the pursuit of his ultimate end and of the good of the societies of which, as man, he is a member, and in whose obligations, as an adult, he will share (GE 1).
But this is not the only objective of education. All the baptized also have the right to a Christian education, which does not merely strive for the maturing of a human person as just now described, but has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of Faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:23) (GE 2)
So parents, who have a “primary and inalienable right and duty to education their children,” must take into consideration both of these aspects when determining their choice of schools – they must both consider a child’s formation as a human person as well as his formation as a Christian. But this also means that Catholic schools need to fulfill these two aspects of a Christian education – if they do not, then they are not truly “Catholic schools,” thus making it impossible for parents in their area to send their child to an outside Catholic school, as GE hopes every parent will do.
But I think we can go a step further than just saying that homeschooling is an option when the local Catholic schools are failing in their mission to offer a Christian education. To do this, we must consider the context in which Vatican II occurred. At that time, there was, for all intents and purposes, no such thing as Catholic homeschoolers as we would define them today. Homeschooling as a movement didn’t really start until the 1970’s and it didn’t become “mainstream” until this century. So the Council Fathers had no way to consider homeschooling as even an option. It should be remembered that ecumenical councils are protected by the Holy Spirit from error, but they are not given the gift of precognition. Faced between the choice of public, government schools and Catholic schools, it is no surprise that they urged that Catholic parents send their children to Catholic schools “wherever and whenever it is possible.” That was the only possible way for a child to receive a true Christian education as the Council Fathers envisioned it.
However, since the time of Vatican II, it has become clear that Catholic homeschooling has become a viable type of “Catholic school”, offering a fully Christian education as defined by the Council Fathers. Thus, I would argue that homeschooling can be a legitimate response to Vatican II’s call that Catholics entrust their children to “Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible” – even if there are good Catholic schools in the area. In today’s world, this fulfills the Council’s wishes that children receive a Christian education and that parents enjoy “true liberty” when choosing a school for their children.
It should be clear that I am not saying that all Catholics should homeschool their children. Each family is different and every child unique – what works for one situation might not work for others. But I do believe that Catholics who choose to homeschool their children – even if there is a good Catholic school available – are not violating the intention of the Council Fathers behind their desire that parents entrust their children “to Catholic schools wherever and whenever it is possible.”
On abortion, same-sex ‘marriage’ the Church cannot compromise
by The Editors, Breakpoint.org. Wed Jan 05 6:16 PM EST
January 5, 2010 (Breakpoint.org) - July 27, 1945. London is still slowly recovering from six years of war with Germany. Hundreds of thousands of British soldiers are dead. British cities are in ruins. As newsreels expose fresh horrors from the Nazi death camps, the British people wonder, “Is there no end to German atrocities?”
Thus, it was not surprising that many Brits recoiled when they heard about a memorial service at London’s Holy Trinity Church—not for England’s war dead, but for a German. The service would be broadcast on the BBC. Many wondered: Could there be such a thing as a good German, worthy of such an honor?
The answer was emphatically yes. The service was for Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed by the Nazis three weeks before the war’s end. Bonhoeffer is often remembered for his resistance to Hitler, in fact taking part in the plot to kill him. But Bonhoeffer is also celebrated for his role in a significant event in the life of the Church—the drafting of the Barmen Declaration.
After Hitler rose to power, the Nazis tried to co-opt the German church, mixing Christian truth with Nazi doctrine. Some church leaders allowed themselves to be drawn into this deal with the devil. Others, like Karl Barth and Bonhoeffer, refused.
As my former colleague Eric Metaxas writes in his inspiring new book, Bonhoeffer, in May of 1934, “the leaders of the Pastors’ Emergency League held a synod in Barmen. It was there, on the Wupper River, that they wrote the famous Barmen Declaration, from which emerged what came to be known as the Confessing Church.”
The Declaration boldly declared independence from both the state and a co-opted church. It made clear that the signers and their churches were not seceding from the German church; instead, it was the co-opted German church that had broken away.
To Bonhoeffer, writes Metaxas, the Barmen Declaration “reclarified what it—the legitimate and actual German Church—actually believed and stood for.” It rejected the “false doctrine” that the Church could change according to “prevailing ideological and political positions.”
This rejection is an essential part of what it means to be the Church. Caesar, in all his guises, will urge us to compromise and tailor our message to meet his agenda. Our situation isn’t as dire as Bonheoffer’s, but government today is attempting to force the church to bow to the prevailing political winds—like, for example, so-called same-sex “marriage” and sanctity of life issues like abortion and end-of-life decisions.
Like Bonhoeffer and his colleagues, we must constantly remember where our ultimate allegiance lies. We must also be willing to practice the great virtue of civic courage.
We, the church, must declare where we stand. That’s why we, motivated by the Barmen example, wrote the Manhattan Declaration — and why a half a million believers have signed it. But making a declaration is one thing. Living up to what we declare, as Bonhoeffer did, is another.
And that will require courage in the coming years. A lot of it.
January 5, 2010 (Breakpoint.org) - July 27, 1945. London is still slowly recovering from six years of war with Germany. Hundreds of thousands of British soldiers are dead. British cities are in ruins. As newsreels expose fresh horrors from the Nazi death camps, the British people wonder, “Is there no end to German atrocities?”
Thus, it was not surprising that many Brits recoiled when they heard about a memorial service at London’s Holy Trinity Church—not for England’s war dead, but for a German. The service would be broadcast on the BBC. Many wondered: Could there be such a thing as a good German, worthy of such an honor?
The answer was emphatically yes. The service was for Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed by the Nazis three weeks before the war’s end. Bonhoeffer is often remembered for his resistance to Hitler, in fact taking part in the plot to kill him. But Bonhoeffer is also celebrated for his role in a significant event in the life of the Church—the drafting of the Barmen Declaration.
After Hitler rose to power, the Nazis tried to co-opt the German church, mixing Christian truth with Nazi doctrine. Some church leaders allowed themselves to be drawn into this deal with the devil. Others, like Karl Barth and Bonhoeffer, refused.
As my former colleague Eric Metaxas writes in his inspiring new book, Bonhoeffer, in May of 1934, “the leaders of the Pastors’ Emergency League held a synod in Barmen. It was there, on the Wupper River, that they wrote the famous Barmen Declaration, from which emerged what came to be known as the Confessing Church.”
The Declaration boldly declared independence from both the state and a co-opted church. It made clear that the signers and their churches were not seceding from the German church; instead, it was the co-opted German church that had broken away.
To Bonhoeffer, writes Metaxas, the Barmen Declaration “reclarified what it—the legitimate and actual German Church—actually believed and stood for.” It rejected the “false doctrine” that the Church could change according to “prevailing ideological and political positions.”
This rejection is an essential part of what it means to be the Church. Caesar, in all his guises, will urge us to compromise and tailor our message to meet his agenda. Our situation isn’t as dire as Bonheoffer’s, but government today is attempting to force the church to bow to the prevailing political winds—like, for example, so-called same-sex “marriage” and sanctity of life issues like abortion and end-of-life decisions.
Like Bonhoeffer and his colleagues, we must constantly remember where our ultimate allegiance lies. We must also be willing to practice the great virtue of civic courage.
We, the church, must declare where we stand. That’s why we, motivated by the Barmen example, wrote the Manhattan Declaration — and why a half a million believers have signed it. But making a declaration is one thing. Living up to what we declare, as Bonhoeffer did, is another.
And that will require courage in the coming years. A lot of it.
USA - Congress: ‘Most pro-life’ Congress sworn in today
by John Jalsevac
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
WASHINGTON, DC, January 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Today marked the swearing in of what some, including pro-life Representative Chris Smith, have labeled the “most pro-life” congress in living memory, and possibly even in history.
Ninety-four new House members were sworn in, as well as 13 new senators. Republicans now hold a 242-193 majority in the House, while Democrats hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate.
Besides the overall shift from Democrat to Republican majority in the House, one of the more dramatic changes is the replacement of Nancy Pelosi, a radical abortion supporter, with the staunch pro-life advocate Rep. John Boehner as Speaker of the House.
Boehner has a long pro-life history, enjoying a 0% pro-choice voting record from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) and a 100% pro-life voting record from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
Americans United for Life President and CEO Charmaine Yoest today welcomed the new Congress, saying in a statement: “I predict that we will see changes in President Obama’s pro-abortion health care plan and in other pro-life measures as a result of pro-life leadership taking their places in Washington, D.C. today.”
In his opening speech to the House Boehner promised that that the Republican majority would honor their “Pledge to America,” a document outlining the GOP’s agenda that included a section pledging to eliminate federal funding of abortion. The preamble of the “Pledge” states, “We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”
The new Speaker also invoked his Catholic faith to provide an image of the meaning of true service: “In the Catholic faith, we enter into a season of service by having ashes marked on our foreheads,” he said. “The ashes remind us that life in all its forms is fragile - our time on this Earth, fleeting. As the ashes are delivered, we hear those humbling words: ‘Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’
One of the top priorities for the new Republican House majority will be the repeal, or at least the amendment, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known to some as Obamacare.
And they’re not wasting any time.
On January 7, the House will vote on a resolution to move forward with repeal of the pro-abortion health care reform law. If the resolution passes, the House is expected to vote on the law’s repeal on Wednesday, January 12.
In coming days the House will also be considering the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” sponsored by Rep. Smith, which will create a government-wide statutory prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion.
They will also be considering the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), which would ensure that tax dollars are not sent to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood under Title X family planning funds.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said today that Pence’s bill “is becoming even more important now that Planned Parenthood has told all of its affiliates they are required to perform abortions or lose the organization’s support.”
Today the Susan B Anthony List announced that it is mobilizing its 280,000-member grassroots network to lobby the new Members of Congress to vote for the repeal of the health care law. SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said that “keeping abortion out of health care - as the antitheses to it - was the critical issue with enough votes to stop or pass healthcare.”
“We call on Congress to repeal this law that destroys life using our tax dollars,” she said.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
WASHINGTON, DC, January 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Today marked the swearing in of what some, including pro-life Representative Chris Smith, have labeled the “most pro-life” congress in living memory, and possibly even in history.
Ninety-four new House members were sworn in, as well as 13 new senators. Republicans now hold a 242-193 majority in the House, while Democrats hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate.
Besides the overall shift from Democrat to Republican majority in the House, one of the more dramatic changes is the replacement of Nancy Pelosi, a radical abortion supporter, with the staunch pro-life advocate Rep. John Boehner as Speaker of the House.
Boehner has a long pro-life history, enjoying a 0% pro-choice voting record from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) and a 100% pro-life voting record from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
Americans United for Life President and CEO Charmaine Yoest today welcomed the new Congress, saying in a statement: “I predict that we will see changes in President Obama’s pro-abortion health care plan and in other pro-life measures as a result of pro-life leadership taking their places in Washington, D.C. today.”
In his opening speech to the House Boehner promised that that the Republican majority would honor their “Pledge to America,” a document outlining the GOP’s agenda that included a section pledging to eliminate federal funding of abortion. The preamble of the “Pledge” states, “We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”
The new Speaker also invoked his Catholic faith to provide an image of the meaning of true service: “In the Catholic faith, we enter into a season of service by having ashes marked on our foreheads,” he said. “The ashes remind us that life in all its forms is fragile - our time on this Earth, fleeting. As the ashes are delivered, we hear those humbling words: ‘Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’
One of the top priorities for the new Republican House majority will be the repeal, or at least the amendment, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known to some as Obamacare.
And they’re not wasting any time.
On January 7, the House will vote on a resolution to move forward with repeal of the pro-abortion health care reform law. If the resolution passes, the House is expected to vote on the law’s repeal on Wednesday, January 12.
In coming days the House will also be considering the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” sponsored by Rep. Smith, which will create a government-wide statutory prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion.
They will also be considering the “Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), which would ensure that tax dollars are not sent to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood under Title X family planning funds.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said today that Pence’s bill “is becoming even more important now that Planned Parenthood has told all of its affiliates they are required to perform abortions or lose the organization’s support.”
Today the Susan B Anthony List announced that it is mobilizing its 280,000-member grassroots network to lobby the new Members of Congress to vote for the repeal of the health care law. SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said that “keeping abortion out of health care - as the antitheses to it - was the critical issue with enough votes to stop or pass healthcare.”
“We call on Congress to repeal this law that destroys life using our tax dollars,” she said.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
US - Education: Entire student body of Virginian college to attend March for Life
by John Jalsevac
Tue Jan 04 5:57 PM EST
FRONT ROYAL, VA, January 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – There are very few colleges in the United States that would even consider closing up shop on the day of the national March for Life, let alone provide transportation to their entire student body to attend the annual event in Washington D.C.
But Christendom College is doing more than considering it.
On January 24, the small Catholic liberal arts college, which is nestled in the midst of the picturesque Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia, on the very shore of the famous Shenandoah River, will charter busses enabling the entire student body to attend the March for Life.
“I think it’s great that Christendom recognizes the importance of the March by closing the entire campus,” says Sophomore Jessica Inzeo. “It ensures that every student has the opportunity to participate in this national event.”
Senior Margaret Antunes agrees.
“I don’t think any other school does this,” she says. “It is a great bonding experience for all the students as we gather under the Christendom banner in support of the pro-life message.”
Every year, Christendom cancels classes on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. In 2009, Christendom students led the March for Life, carrying the lead banner and flags.
The college has attended the March for Life as a community every year since the school was founded over 30 years ago.
Its students are also active in pro-life work year round, leading prayerful protests at a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Washington once a week, as well as taking part in sidewalk counseling and other pro-life activities.
Every semester the college’s “Shield of Roses” club organizes what they call a “Mega Shield,” where they encourage as much of the student body as possible to drive to the Washington Planned Parenthood facility for a morning of prayer and fasting to end abortion.
The most recent such event took place last November. Over 140 Christendom students participated, waking up at the crack of dawn and piling into vans to make the hour-long trip.
“I was really impressed to see so many of my fellow students get up early on a cold Saturday morning to pray in front of one of Washington’s abortion clinic,” said Senior John Killackey at the time. “It truly is a powerful witness to the culture of life on the front line of the battle against the culture of death.”
Tue Jan 04 5:57 PM EST
FRONT ROYAL, VA, January 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – There are very few colleges in the United States that would even consider closing up shop on the day of the national March for Life, let alone provide transportation to their entire student body to attend the annual event in Washington D.C.
But Christendom College is doing more than considering it.
On January 24, the small Catholic liberal arts college, which is nestled in the midst of the picturesque Blue Ridge Mountains in Virginia, on the very shore of the famous Shenandoah River, will charter busses enabling the entire student body to attend the March for Life.
“I think it’s great that Christendom recognizes the importance of the March by closing the entire campus,” says Sophomore Jessica Inzeo. “It ensures that every student has the opportunity to participate in this national event.”
Senior Margaret Antunes agrees.
“I don’t think any other school does this,” she says. “It is a great bonding experience for all the students as we gather under the Christendom banner in support of the pro-life message.”
Every year, Christendom cancels classes on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. In 2009, Christendom students led the March for Life, carrying the lead banner and flags.
The college has attended the March for Life as a community every year since the school was founded over 30 years ago.
Its students are also active in pro-life work year round, leading prayerful protests at a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Washington once a week, as well as taking part in sidewalk counseling and other pro-life activities.
Every semester the college’s “Shield of Roses” club organizes what they call a “Mega Shield,” where they encourage as much of the student body as possible to drive to the Washington Planned Parenthood facility for a morning of prayer and fasting to end abortion.
The most recent such event took place last November. Over 140 Christendom students participated, waking up at the crack of dawn and piling into vans to make the hour-long trip.
“I was really impressed to see so many of my fellow students get up early on a cold Saturday morning to pray in front of one of Washington’s abortion clinic,” said Senior John Killackey at the time. “It truly is a powerful witness to the culture of life on the front line of the battle against the culture of death.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)