My good news: as of Easter Vigil, I’m now Catholic :-)
Also, my dentist fixed my broken tooth even better than it was when I was born…pretty exciting to me.
Comment by EllaBy now, everyone knows that the Supreme Court of Iowa has imposed same sex “marriage” on the heartland of America, a mere 10 years after the people of that state had expressly voted against it. What very few people know is exactly how unfair this fight really was. Not only was the line-up within the courtroom imbalanced, but the trial court refused to hear relevant evidence. When the case made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court, they didn’t behave much better.
This case, known as Varnum v. Brien, began with a half dozen same sex couples applying for marriage licenses in Polk County, Iowa. The county clerk, acting in accordance with the law, refused. Mind you, the State of Iowa did not go bothering unassuming people who were minding their own business. This was a staged case. These couples went to the clerk’s office, intending to be refused. They sued Timothy Brien, Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar, an ordinary county employee.
The plaintiffs, that is, the people who complained, were not exactly average citizens, battling the big mean State of Iowa all by themselves. They had the backing of homosexual rights establishment organizations. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund took in $20 million in 2007. Lambda Legal is non-profit devoted solely to bringing legal challenges like these.
By contrast, Polk County, Iowa, has a budget of $15 million for the entire court system.* One of the attorneys of record for Lambda Legal has degrees from Yale and Columbia. Iowa’s law was defended not by the state’s Attorney General, nor even by the County Attorney, but by two Assistant County Attorneys.
The case wasn’t a fair fight: it was more like David and Goliath without the benefit of Divine intervention.
Most citizens do not realize that this mismatch of legal resources is typical for advocacy cases. So, advocacy organizations on the side of natural, man-woman marriage came into the case as Friends of the Court, trying to help defend the law of the State of Iowa. Most notably, a group of scholars presented briefs and affidavits on various aspects of the social significance of marriage. But the trial court refused to admit five out of the eight expert witnesses presented to them.
These experts covered a wide range of issues including the ethics of artificial reproductive technologies, the rights of children to be raised by their parents, the procreative purpose of marriage, the history and meaning of marriage, and the significance of gender differences in parenting. The Trial Court refused to hear the testimony of Dr. Alan Carlson, author of five books on the history of marriage, Ms. Margaret Sommerville, Founder Director of the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, and Dr. Stephen Rhodes, political science professor at the University of Virginia. This is the very sort of evidence that courts in other states, such as New York, have found persuasive.
After refusing to hear their testimony, the court had the nerve to declare a whole list of facts were “undisputed.” Instead of listening to both sides and deciding impartially, the court lifted the “facts” directly from the brief of the same sex marriage advocates.
When this case went to the Supreme Court of Iowa, several Friends of the Court pleaded with them to reopen the admissibility of the evidence, to hear it, and to consider it. The Supreme Court said, “The error committed by the trial court in failing to do so is of no consequence” since they were going to review it themselves.
But their review didn’t amount to much. The parenting issue, surely one of the most significant issues under discussion, the court relegated to a footnote.
“The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else,” says the court, but the court offers no citations to any evidence in support of this remarkable claim. If we took that statement out of the context of the same-sex “marriage” debate, and applied it generally throughout society, we would create enormous problems. But put that point to one side for now. Just realize that the Supreme Court of Iowa did not do the public the courtesy of citing a single source in support of this claim.
The debate over marriage hinges in large part on what people think is the subject: advocates of genderless marriage believe it is about fairness and equality. Advocates of conjugal marriage believe it is about the role of marriage. By dismissing testimony so obviously germane to the functions of marriage in society, the Iowa Courts pre-judged the case, and tacitly declared equality to be the only issue.
The homosexual lobby continually hectors the rest of us about “fairness,” and “equality.” But when they get the power, they ignore the most basic rules of fair play. Whether you agree with same sex marriage or not, you can’t possibly support these tactics.
Jennifer Roback Morse is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, an educational project of the National Organization for Marriage.
Note:
* I arrived at this figure by going to Service Area 1, detailed expenditures, on page 7 of this document. The total expenditure for Public Safety and Legal Services is approximately $58 million. Deduct $1 million for Emergency Services, and another $42 million for law enforcement. The total remaining, for all the other legal functions, including by not limited to, the courts, is $15 million.
One of the nation's largest charities is leading an ambitious brainstorming session in St. Paul on fighting poverty.
On Monday, Catholic Charities USA convenes and engages civic leaders, elected officials, philanthropists, service providers, and the public in a conversation that seeks to identify how to cut poverty by 50 percent by the year 2020.
The charity's "Centennial Leadership Summit: Working to Reduce Poverty in America" will be held at the College of St. Catherine.
The St. Paul gathering is the first in a series of summits across the country that will culminate with a national meeting in Washington, D.C., in September 2010. Catholic Charities USA celebrates its centennial in 2010.
Among the participants Monday will be the Rev. Larry Snyder, president, Catholic Charities USA and member of the President's Council of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
"In a country as prosperous as ours, it is simply unacceptable that 37.3 million people, including 13.3 million children, continue to live in poverty," Snyder said. "Catholic Charities agencies are taking their knowledge of the causes, scope and ramifications of poverty to seek a sustained national commitment that will ensure economic prosperity for all Americans."
Also in attendance will be St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and the Rev. John Estrem, CEO, Catholic Charities of St. Paul-Minneapolis.
Accompanying the summit will be a special photo exhibition called "U.S. Poverty in the 21st Century," featuring the work of top American photographers. The exhibit examines the daily struggles of those living in poverty in the United States.
View the full summit schedule at: www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1519.
Catholic Charities USA is made up of more than 1,700 local Catholic Charities agencies and institutions nationwide -- serving nearly 8 million people a year regardless of religious, social, or economic backgrounds. Star Tribune
Among all Catholic respondents, 36 percent said they were very optimistic and 37 percent said they were somewhat optimistic about the Church’s future. Eighteen percent were somewhat pessimistic, with only five percent being very pessimistic. On April 26 in St. Peter’s Square, Pope Benedict XVI will canonize a Portuguese national hero who toward the end of his life became a Carmelite monk and served the poor, Nuno de Santa Maria Àlvares Pereira, O. Carm. (1360-1431), the Condestável (“Constable,” meaning General) known in Portugal as “the Father of the Nation.” In the April issue ofInside the Vatican, the Portuguese woman whose blind eye was healed after praying to Blessed Nuno, speaks for the first time on her tragic accident and the moment of her healing. (This and other interviews have been given to the journal because of the writer's friendship with her family.)
Almost a century ago, Pope Benedict XV beatified Nuno (January 23, 1918), and proposed him as a model for the Catholic soldiers then engaged in combat during World War 1. So one Pope Benedict, the 15th, beatified Nuno, and a second, Benedict XVI, will canonize him.
Nuno is considered the founder of the Bragança Royal Family Dynasty of Portugal which ruled from 1640 until 1910. (Nuno’s daughter, Beatriz, married Alfonso, son of John I, whom he helped bring to power, starting the Aviz Dynasty.) The majority of Catholic royal families in Europe and Brazil claim lineage from him, including the recently beatified Charles of Austria, the last Hapsburg Emperor. Queen Isabella of Spain was one of Nuno’s granddaughters.
Nuno even had descendants in the British royal family: Isabella’s daughter (his great-granddaughter) was Catherine of Aragon, the first wife of Henry VIII, and her daughter (his great-great-granddaughter) was Queen Mary Tudor. Catherine of Aragon had many miscarriages, a still-born daughter and three short-lived sons before giving birth to Mary. King Henry VIII, desirous of a male hair, sought permission from Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) to annul his marriage to Catherine, but Clement refused, leading Henry to divorce her and break with Rome, beginning the Anglican Church.
Another descendant was Catherine of Bragança, wife of King Charles II (all his children were illegitimate to mistresses) who conversely became a Catholic on his deathbed in 1685.
Blessed Nuno is most highly regarded in his country for masterminding the Battle of Aljubarrota in 1385. There, Portugal, in concert with England, stopped an invasion by Castile. Both allied nations were then in obedience to Pope Urban VI in Rome, whilst Castile and France followed the Antipope of Avignon, Clement VII (1378-1394).
Nuno fought and won many other battles between 1383 and 1411, and, after peace was established with Castile, Nuno participated in the expedition in 1415 to Ceuta in North Africa, an action that was considered the first European missionary effort.
Equine monuments to him are scattered throughout Portugal and in many former Portuguese overseas colonies. Long before the introduction of the Euro, his effigy was on Portugal’s currency.
He was made the 3rd Count of Ourém in 1383, and his main feudal castle was in Ourém, the county where Fátima is located. He believed prayer, penance and commitment to the poor and needy, to be the true calling of nobility and, following the death of his wife, Nuno entered a Carmelite monastery he had established, taking the religious name Friar Nuno of Saint Mary.
He was renowned for his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and is considered the Founder of the Secular Order because the secular Confraternity of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, better known as the Confraternity of the Holy Constable, which he founded in Lisbon to support his work with the poor with contributions from its noble members, eventually evolved into the present Carmelite Third Order. This original Confraternity was re-established last year on November 6 (Nuno’s Feast Day) and hopes to be an active branch of the Secular Order providing funds for work with the poor and homeless of Lisbon in remembrance of Dom Nuno.
When fighting the Castilians, he was renowned for his fairness to his enemies, and three times crossed the border to feed the peoples in the neighboring kingdom during famines, and to provide for the widows and orphans of the war.
Pope Pius XII was on the verge of canonizing him by decree in 1940, but was dissuaded by Salazar (the leader of Portugal at the time). Blessed Nuno’s cause then remained at a stalemate.
The rediscovery of his original grave site in 1996 in Lisbon by archaeologists proved that he had received a burial suitable for the last great knight of medieval Christendom.
John Haffert, co-founder of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima, regarded Nuno as the peacemaker who went to war and the precursor of Fátima, and Haffert promoted devotion to Nuno right up until Haffert's death in 2001.
In the USA, the Blessed Nuno Society (www.blessednuno.org) founded in Ourém Castle by Timothy Heinan and Blue Army Protector Bishop Constantino Luna, OFM, was later headquartered in the Diocese of Duluth, Minnesota (USA) as a Private Association of the Faithful, continuing to promote devotion to Nuno and, by engaging in works of charity on behalf of orphans and the homeless, being faithful to his example. The association administers orphanage projects in Portugal, Mexico and the Carib bean.
The miracle of canonization took place in the Jubilee Year 2000, when a devotee of Blessed Nuno and volunteer at Ourém Castle, Guilhermina de Jesus, was blinded in her left eye as a result of boiling oil splashing on it, when she was frying some fish and chips.
After all medical treatment proved unsuccessful, Guilhermina and her family prayed several novenas to Blessed Nuno, and her sight returned in that blinded eye inexplicably. (She tells the dramatic story of her healing in a world exclusive interview in the current issue of Inside the Vatican.)
On July 3, 2008, alongside a decree of heroic virtue, the Holy Father approved this healing as a miracle obtained through Blessed Nuno’s intercession.
This will be the first canonization of a Portuguese saint since that of St John de Brito, SJ, Jesuit missionary and martyr, in 1947. As a member of the Carmelites of the Ancient Observance, it will be the first canonization in this branch of the family since that of St Mary Magdalen de’ Pazzi in 1669.
The significance of two Popes named Benedict elevating Nuno to the last two stages of sainthood cannot be overstated. St Benedict of Nursia, the founder of Christian monasticism, from time immemorial has been considered the Father of Christian Europe, and so often Pope Benedict has lamented the continent departing from its Christian roots. The canonization of Nuno is a call to the whole of Europe (not just Portugal) to rediscover its soul, by imitating a man whose Catholic faith shone in both his public and private life.
Nuno’s feast day is obligatory among Carmelites of the Ancient Observance on November 6 (now to be extended to the Universal Church) and optional among the Discalced Carmelites on April 1, who have also a Portuguese cause impending, that of Fatima seer, Sister Lucia dos Santos, whose family had a great devotion to the Condestável.
Having been a Prior of the Hospitaller Order of Saint John (Order of Malta) and Commander of the Minor Religious Military Orders under the observance of the Cistercians of Alcobaça’s rule, such as Saint Benedict of Aviz and Saint Michael of the Wing, Dom Nuno will also be venerated as a Saint or Protector of these Orders.
His official name will be Saint Friar Dom Nuno de Santa Maria Àlvares Pereira, O.Carm, but for the Portuguese he will always be fondly regarded as the Holy Constable or Beato Nuno. Spero Forum (from "Inside the Vatican")
Sixteen million girls are missing in China. And now we know what happened to them: They were aborted because they weren't boys.
A study published last week in the British Medical Journal, based on a survey of nearly 5 million Chinese children and teenagers, bares the gruesome numbers. Worldwide, the number of boys born per 100 girls ranges from 103 to 107. (The numbers later equalize due to higher male mortality.) Among Chinese children born from 1985 to 1989, the number of boys per 100 girls was 108, close to normal. But among those born from 2000 to 2004, the number rose to 124. The authors conclude that as of 2005, "males under the age of 20 exceeded females by more than 32 million."
Why so many more boys than girls? The authors point to two factors. First,
[T]he steady rise in sex ratios across the birth cohorts since 1986 mirrors the increasing availability of ultrasonography over that period. The first ultrasound machines were used in the early 1980s; they reached county hospitals by the late 1980s and then rural townships by the mid-1990s. Since then, ultrasonography has been very cheap and available even to the rural poor.
Second, the boy-girl ratio escalates radically among children who were born second or third in their respective families. The authors report:
The sex ratio at birth for first order births was slightly high in cities and towns but was within normal limits in rural areas. However, the ratio rose very steeply for second and higher order births in cities 138 (132 to 144), towns 137 (131 to 143), and rural areas 146 (143 to 149), although the numbers of second order births in cities were low. These rises were consistent across all provinces, except Tibet, with very high figures for second births in Anhui (190, 176 to 205) and Jiangsu (192, 174 to 212). For third births, the sex ratio rose to over 200 in four provinces …
Two hundred boys for every 100 girls. The number is mind-boggling.
Why would the boy-girl ratio rise so precipitously with birth order? Is there something in the Chinese water supply that makes women increasingly likely to bear sons as their families grow? Of course not. But there is something in Chinese law: the "one-child" policy, which limits family size but allows exceptions, with variations from province to province, for couples who have only daughters. Essentially, the exceptions give you a second or, in some cases, a third chance to have a son. That's why, as couples approach the family size limit or the exception allotment, the boy-girl ratio goes up. You get the ultrasound, and if the fetus is a girl, you abort it and try again for a son.
It's a terrible convergence of ancient prejudice with modern totalitarianism. Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you're carrying.
But maybe the story doesn't end there. Maybe the reach and the cold rationality of modern totalitarian government can be turned against the old prejudice. Although the overall male-female ratio rose to 124 in the cohort of Chinese kids born from 2000 to 2004, the authors point out that "the ratio then declined to 119 (119 to 120) for the 2005 cohort, perhaps indicating the beginning of a reduction in sex ratios for the future."
What could account for this decline? The authors explain:
The government is very aware of the problem and has openly expressed concerns about the consequences of large numbers of excess men for societal stability and security. As early as 2000 the government launched a range of policies to specifically counter the sex imbalance, the "care for girls" campaign. This includes changes in laws in areas such as inheritance by females, as well as an educational campaign to promote gender equality. These measures have had some success, with reports of lower sex ratios at birth in targeted localities.
In other words, the quota on children, translated through sexism into a quota on girls, has created a political problem for the government. And this, in turn, has forced the government to confront sexism economically and culturally. This policy change is being driven not by moral enlightenment but by practical necessity. The old problem was too many children. The new problem is too few girls. Without enough girls, the boys become unruly. So the government, following the same collective logic that inspired the one-child policy, has become the world's biggest promoter of sexual equality.
Part of me wishes this turnaround were being driven by a better motive. But perhaps we should be especially relieved that pure self-interest is behind it. If the devaluation of women, and the expression of that devaluation through sex-selective abortion, becomes a broadly understood threat to regimes worldwide, women won't need to persuade men to value and treat girls more fairly. The population numbers will do the talking. SLATE
Cardinal William Levada, formerly Archbishop of San Francisco, now head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now, Benedict XVI) has ordered an investigation of U.S. female relgious orders, concentrating on their adherence to and promotion of their faith. The visit will concentrate it's activities of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LWCR) the more liberal of the two female religious organizations.
The other organization is the Conference of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR).
"An article published yesterday by the National Catholic Reporter details the reasons why Rome ordered the visitation.
The article notes that some of the activities of the LCWR, which is the largest U.S. women’s religious leadership group, were called into question by the Vatican several years ago because the LCWR appeared to be promoting dissent regarding the ordination of women, the unique salvific role of Christ, and homosexuality."
Second Women’s Visitation
Posted by Tom McFeely
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:04 PM
The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has ordered a visitation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).
Late last year, a broader visitation of U.S. women’s religious institutes was ordered by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.
The new visitation will focus on doctrinal issues.
An article published yesterday by the National Catholic Reporter details the reasons why Rome ordered the visitation.
The article notes that some of the activities of the LCWR, which is the largest U.S. women’s religious leadership group, were called into question by the Vatican several years ago because the LCWR appeared to be promoting dissent regarding the ordination of women, the unique salvific role of Christ, and homosexuality.
According to the Reporter — which often reports sympathetically about dissent in those areas — American Cardinal William Levada, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, informed the LCWR of the doctrinal visitation in a Feb. 20 letter.
Cardinal Levada’s letter pointed out that the LCWR had been invited in 2001 to respond to the Vatican’s concerns about the three areas where the LCWR appeared to be promoting perspectives that dissent from Church teachings.
“Given both the tenor and the doctrinal content of various addresses given at the annual assemblies of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the intervening years, this Dicastery can only conclude that the problems which had motivated its request in 2001 continue to be present,” Cardinal Levada wrote in his letter, according to the Reporter.
As a consequence the Vatican has concluded “a doctrinal assessment” of the “activities and initiatives of the LCWR would be helpful,” Cardinal Levada stated.
The visitation will be conducted by Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, who is a member of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine.
Asked by the National Catholic Reporter to comment about the investigation of its activities, the LCWR provided this statement:
“The Leadership Conference of Women Religious received on March 10 a letter dated February 20, 2009 from Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The letter announces CDF’s decision to conduct a doctrinal assessment of LCWR’s activities and initiatives.
“At this time, LCWR knows neither the process nor timeline for completion of this assessment. As more information is made available to LCWR, the conference will take the appropriate steps to prepare for its participation in the assessment. LCWR faces this process with confidence, believing that the conference has remained faithful to its mission of service to leaders of congregations of women religious as they seek to further the mission of Christ in today’s world.”
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, “Why Gay Marriage Matters”, Michael Judge, a Iowa freelance journalist and a contributing editor of The Far Eastern Economic Review, celebrates the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to overturn state law in order to make same-sex marriage legal. He confesses that it does not occur to him as to how anyone could oppose this enlightened decision – even if those opposing it include the majority of the people of Iowa, who supported the law against such “marriages” in the first place. “Why,” he asks, would anyone now wish to sponsor an amendment to the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
Well, let’s see. Judge quotes the Court’s complaint against “the disadvantages and fears [homosexuals] face each day due to the inability to obtain a civil marriage in Iowa.” The court then enumerates the legal disadvantages, which are all real – no sharing in health insurance, pension benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.
| Active homosexual relationships are based upon the act of sodomy. The plaintiffs ask for, and the Iowa Supreme Court wishes to bestow public affirmation, meaning moral approval, of this act as a foundation for marriage. |
The point, however, is not that there are disadvantages. The question is whether the disadvantages are based on a distinction made only by convention (and therefore changeable as a matter of custom) or by one that exists in nature (and therefore normative and morally imperative). The exact same disadvantages exist for mistresses, unmarried heterosexual lovers, polygamists, and those in man-boy relationships.
If hardship is the criterion, should not all these be enfolded into the new definition of civil marriage? After all, they too, as the Court said of homosexual couples, are “a historically disfavored class of persons [excluded] from a supremely important civil institution.” Are they not also “kind-hearted people,” like Mr. Judge’s homosexual brother on whose behalf he writes?
Absent from the article or the court’s decision is any explanation of why marriage is so important as a civil institution, and why those other than monogamous men and women have normally been excluded from it. Before expanding upon the traditional definition of marriage, or rather destroying it, one should at least understand why it has existed for so long in the first place.
Aristotle begins The Politics, not with a single individual, but with a description of a man and a woman together in the family, without which the rest of society cannot exist. The family is the irreducible core. In turn, a healthy family is posited upon the proper and exclusive sexual relationship between a husband and wife. In other words, sexual relations are morally ordered to the family and reach their pinnacle in it. Heterosexual sex in the family is normative as a matter of nature or what is known as natural law. All other sexual relationships can only ape it, and aspire to it (which explains the homosexual desire to mimic it).
The family alone is capable of providing the necessary stability for the profound relationship which heterosexual union both symbolizes and cements, and for the welfare of the children who may issue from it. Society can be said to exist only to the extent to which those spousal relations remain intact. That is the “constitutionally sufficient justification” for marriage between a man and a woman that the Iowa Supreme Court, in an attack of aphasia, could not recall. The Court also seems to have forgotten that the legal disadvantages against homosexual and other partnerships were put there exactly for the purpose of shaping behavior in a certain way to the general benefit of society and for discouraging behavior that undermines it.
Aside from the pecuniary penalties mentioned earlier, the Court opined that “perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage.”
Here is the real nub of the matter. Active homosexual relationships are based upon the act of sodomy. The plaintiffs ask for, and the Court wishes to bestow, public affirmation, meaning moral approval, of this act as a foundation for marriage. This is what public affirmation means, because law is inescapably based upon morality. Both the Court and the plaintiffs claim that this change in the definition of marriage will make things better, which is a notion that has to be measured against an understanding of what the good is. Those who consider sodomy an intrinsically disordered and morally corrupt act will now be un-affirmed and forced by law to acknowledge the opposite. This is, after all, a change in the public order, and that is what such changes mean.
This makes the Court’s statement that “the sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past” particularly disingenuous. How could they have the same meaning when the Court has just changed the definition of what is morally acceptable as marriage? Is this deceit or ignorance on the Court’s part?
Lastly, the Court trotted out “equal protection of the law” as its excuse for the ruling. Equality before the law does not mean that everyone gets to be “affirmed” in whatever they may choose to do. That is why laws have penalties. It means that the law applies equally to everyone, despite their personal desires. The Court has actually acted against this principle by saying that there should be a special category of marriage for those disposed to the act of sodomy, who, for whatever reason or indisposition, refuse to comply with the laws for marriage passed by the Iowa legislature. The Court should at least have the presence of mind to acknowledge what it is actually doing, and be ready to explain to any other “historically disfavored class of persons” why the Court should not, by judicial fiat, also create a special kind of marriage for them.
My use of Aristotle may provoke the response that some of the ancient Greeks wrote paeans to homosexual love. This is certainly true. However, it did not occur to any of them to propose homosexual relationships as the basis for marriage in their societies. In fact, no civilization ever has. Perhaps Mr. Judge and the Iowa Supreme Court should ponder on the reasons why. Mercator.net
According to news reports circulated today [April 14], Gore’s trendy investment fund is climbing aboard the bandwagon for ethical stem-cell research.
The former vice president is a partner with the venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, which has just made a $20-million investment in research involving “induced pluripotent” stem cells, known as iPS.
The iPS research uses adult cells that have been harvested and “reprogrammed” to have the same “pluripotent” capacity to develop into all tissues as those harvested from human embryos that are killed for their stem cells.
Since no human lives are destroyed with the iPS research, the moral problems that exist with killing embryos to obtain stem cells for research do not arise.
“I just think it’s a very important breakthrough that is filled with promise and hope,” Gore said, USA Today reported. “I think this is one of those good news stories that comes along every once in a while.” National Catholic Register Blog
I was surprised and saddened when I learned about the invitation extended to President Obama to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement exercises and to receive an honorary degree. Your statements in defense of the award andinvitation have only deepened my dismay.
We know by science and reason that human life begins at the moment of conception. That includes your life, President Obama’s life, my life and every human being’s life. Faith enhances reason and science by revealing to us that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God and has inherent dignity and value.
The teaching of the Catholic Church on the dignity of human life from the moment of conception to natural death is fundamental to our Catholic identity. I know you are a man of integrity and believe in the Church’s witness. I also know as a priest and a president of a Catholic University, you are well acquainted with Ex Corde Ecclesiae and the 2004 statement of the Bishops of the United States on “Catholics in Political Life.” Even though President Obama is not Catholic, he clearly rejects the truth about human dignity through his constant support of a so called “right to abortion.” He also tolerates the inexcusable act of letting aborted children die who are born alive. He promotes an intrinsic evil which must always be resisted by a just and civil society.
Inviting President Obama to award him a degree and to speak at a Catholic University implicitly extends legitimacy to his views on these issues in the minds of the average onlooker. Your actions and that of the Board of Trustees of Notre Dame do real harm to the mission of Catholic education in this country and further splinters Catholic witness in the public square. Your actions provide a forum for an advocate of abortion, in a university which is committed to teaching the truths known to reason and science, and most of all to our faith in Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church. This places commitment to these truths on an equal plane with a commitment to an intrinsic evil which destroys innocent human life. Your judgment in this matter is seriously flawed, with damaging consequences, for “…you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mt 16:23).
I know that many wonderful Catholic students, faculty and administrators at Notre Dame support the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and His Church. Unfortunately, your action and that of your Board diminishes the reputation of Notre Dame and makes one wonder what its mission truly is. I pray that you will see the gravity of Notre Dame’s error in this matter and most especially how it undermines the Gospel of Life, who is Christ Himself.
Sincerely yours in Christ,IZTAPALAPA, Mexico — It was midafternoon on Good Friday, and Diego Villagrán Villalobos, dressed as Jesus, was struggling in the heat to drag a heavy wooden cross up the hill where he would soon be crucified. The streets and the hillside were lined with people observing his progress, some of whom, as a demonstration of their own faith, followed him barefoot, wearing crowns of thorns or shouldering crosses themselves.
In Aztec times, Iztapalapa was the site of a pyramid and temple where rites of penance and renewal were performed in the spring. Today, though, this working-class community on the outskirts of Mexico City is known for a weeklong Passion Play that has become one of the largest and most fervent in the world, attracting more than two million people annually.
“I’ve been doing this for 56 years, and back when I started, we had an audience of maybe 50 people, all of them from the neighborhood, for what was then a short and simple presentation,” said Anatolio Ávila Domínguez, 70, president of the committee that organizes the play. “Now everything is super changed, but we feel honored to have so many people visit us.”
Unlike many other Passion Plays staged in Latin America during Holy Week, the presentation here dates not to Spanish colonial times, but to 1843, when a deadly cholera epidemic that had devastated the local population came to an end. In gratitude, residents wrote and staged their own account of the Passion of Christ, beginning a tradition that withstood even the anti-clerical zeal of the Mexican Revolution and its aftermath.
The play has a cast of thousands, including those playing the Roman Praetorian Guard, but many of the 50 or so main parts tend to remain within local families, almost as heirlooms, a tendency that has generated some discontent as more people want to participate. Miguel Guerra, who is 55 and plays the high priest Caiaphas, said that he was the fifth generation of his family to be in the pageant and that he regarded it as his duty to uphold the “values inculcated in us by our parents and grandparents.”
The requirements of those who wish to play Jesus or Mary are especially strict. To assure a proper state of purity, tradition demands that neither be allowed to date, drink, smoke, or go to parties once they get the role. In recent years, two new restrictions have been added: no tattoos or piercings. Candidates must also show that they have sufficient economic means to pay for the resplendent costumes they wear.
Nevertheless, competition for the roles is intense, and those chosen approach their task with great seriousness. When Mr. Villagrán, an 18-year-old high school student, was chosen in January to play Jesus, he immediately embarked on an accelerated fitness program to prepare himself because he felt that “it was God and not the committee that picked me.”
He was already an athlete — he plays American football — which is one of the reasons he was chosen for a role that is so demanding. Whoever plays Jesus must be able to bear a ritual whipping in the square, then carry a cross weighing more than 200 pounds three miles, the remaining Stations of the Cross, and up a steep hill, where he has to endure a brief but real crucifixion in which he is bound to the cross for about 20 minutes.
“I run three and a half miles every day, I go to the gym,” rising at 5 a.m. daily, Mr. Villagrán said in an interview last week. “And spiritually, I’ve prepared myself as I have throughout my life. I go to Mass on Sunday, go to confession with regularity and have gone on retreats. I can see myself on the cross.”
The role of Judas demands a different kind of sacrifice. It is not just that he is the villain and, in the version presented here, ends up hanging himself out of remorse at having betrayed Jesus. There is also the reaction of one’s own neighbors to consider, especially when they get carried away and start pelting Judas with rotten fruit and other objects.
“The people who come to see the presentation shout ‘traitor’ at you,” explained Alfonso Reyes Jímenez, a taxi driver who has played Judas in recent years. “So far, I haven’t been the victim of physical aggression, but you’re always anxious and uneasy because people are really transformed.”
This year, the role went to Jaime Domínguez Cabello, 39, who operates a parking lot with his brothers. In the past, Mr. Domínguez has been an apostle, but he said he did not mind being the bad guy.
“There’s no Jesus without Judas,” he said. “Judas did his betrayal as part of carrying out a mission, and I have my mission, which is to play Judas. I do it out of faith in Him, out of devotion to Him, and to enable this presentation to be preserved.”
As Mr. Domínguez’s comments indicate, Iztapalapa’s Holy Week pageant is first and foremost a religious celebration. But in recent times it has also become a badge of cultural identity for, as an announcer put it on Thursday night just before the staging of the Last Supper at the main square, “a people which, in the face of the rapid advance of modernization, battles to preserve its customs and traditions.”
That does not mean, however, that contemporary influences are absent: for the past 20 years, the pageant has been broadcast by satellite all over the Spanish-speaking world, which has helped increase its popularity. In addition, some cast members now use lapel microphones and giant video screens are employed to show the play to onlookers who cannot get close enough to the action.
The Roman Catholic Church’s attitude toward the play has fluctuated over the years. In the past, there were complaints that the script, which draws not only on the Bible but also on Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” deviated too much from sacred texts. King Herod, for example, has a harem that performs a sensual belly dance.
But even though it is the local community, largely of indigenous descent, rather than the Church that controls the event, the hierarchy has come to view the pageant as an effective tool for anchoring Mexican Catholics in their religion in the face of a growing Protestant challenge. “Though at one point I contemplated changing religions,” said Javier Villalobos, treasurer of the organizing committee, “this has strengthened my faith.” New York Times
St. Stephen's in Minneapolis, an older inner city parish dating back 100 years or more, has become a parish of processions, too. Twelve months ago, 200 or so English speaking parishioners formally marched out of the church on Clinton Avenue near the Institute of Arts to a new home of their own choosing. Most of them were baptized as infants as Catholics and had been members of St. Stephen's for many years. Many of them grew up in the 1950s or earlier and learned about community organizing during the early years of the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement. They brought that with them to St. Stephen's and created one of the finest social justice ministries to be found anywhere.
But that wasn't enough for them.
They needed to organize their own church, too, and saw no need for priests and bishops. So when the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis decided that they had gone too far, they were told that they could no longer substitute poetry for bible readings, lay ministers for Gospel readers, women for co-consecrators, or lay people for the leaders of the parish in place of the pastor, they objected.
And so they left. They found a building a few blocks away where assumedly they perform their own contemporary liturgies. Recently, they lost that space and found space in a protestant church where no doubt they feel even more comfortable.
Over the most recent years, like many inner city parishes, St. Stephen's had lost many of its native born American parishioners to the suburbs, to secularism, or to sloth. They weren't coming to Mass any longer. At the same time, thousands of Mexicans and other Hispanics have been coming to Minnesota and the Twin Cities, seeking a new life. Hundreds of them were content to remain as St. Esteban's parishioners (the first martyr) and remain as the core of the parish community after the schismatic protesters left last year.
There remains also a small fragment of the former English speaking community in St. Stephen's that is growing under its new pastor, Father Joseph Williams and his Deacon, Luis Rubi, both fluent in Spanish. Regular Masses are celebrated on Sundays separately, 9:00 for the Hispanic community and 11:00 (starting Easter Sunday) for the English speaking community. But major holidays are celebrated bi-lingually with special liturgical aids provided so that all might know what is being prayed.
I, the classic "church shopper", normally found in different parishes each weekend, left the parish where I had been nominally registered and contributed via checking account deposit, have joined St. Stephen's in the hope that I can be a small part of the rejuvenation of this bi-lingual parish. This is my first Holy Week experience and I would like to report on it.
There is no need to describe the interior improvements to the church building since Father Joseph took over. Just say that it is obviously a Catholic church again. Oh, you want evidence? Well, the tabernacle is back.
Palm Sunday was the first of the bi-lingual celebrations in which I participated. It was not appreciably different from most Catholic parishes except that we did process around the building with our palms.
The Holy Thursday service ended with a procession around the inside of the church with all ending up behind the altar in an empty space decorated as the Garden of Gesthemane. There, all knelt and prayed for a time. When the service was declared to be over, virtually all stayed for a least a half hour in silent prayer before leaving for their homes.
There were two Good Friday services. The 3:00 service ended with a Way of the Cross procession somewhat like that described in the NYT article above where a half dozen young Mexican parishioners costumed themselves as participants in the original Passion, and we processed throughout the neighborhood, with "Jesus" being symbolically flayed by actors portraying Roman soldiers. Bi-lingual lectors read the meditations for each of the fourteen stations.
We even passed close by that other spiritual temple, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, and ended at a neighborhood playground, where the actor portraying Jesus, just like was done in the Iztapalapa, Mexico procession, was tied to a crucifix and hung there for 15 minutes or so. He was then taken down and placed in the arms of his Holy Mother, played by a young parishioner and then placed on a folding table, enshrouded and carried two blocks back to St. Esteban's where he was placed on the floor in front of the altar. A time of silence and adoration ensued.
The evening service on Good Friday featured the procession for the Adoration of the Cross, and a Holy Communion Service. No Masses are permitted on Good Friday.
Unfortunately, I didn't attend the Holy Saturday service, but I fully expect that another procession was involved.
There are good things happening at St. Stephen's/Esteban's parish in South Minneapolis. Interestingly, the sisters of the local Missionaries of Charity convent (Mother Therese's order), chose to celebrate Holy Thursday with the parishioner's of St. Steven's/Estaban's. If you are looking for a home, you might want to give US a try.
Marchers lined up for blocks along Ford Parkway, drawn in part by a brief appearance by Archbishop John Nienstedt. [Brian Gibson of Pro-Life Action Ministries, the organizers of the event, estimated that the appearance by the archbishop was a major reason why the total day's attendance for the seven hour long demonstrationi was estimated to be over 2,000.]
Abortion opponent Megan Noll, of South St. Paul, said she was pleased to see the head of the St. Paul-based archdiocese join the demonstration. It was the first appearance by an archbishop at the event in recent memory.
"I think it makes a huge difference, I think this is probably the biggest crowd I have ever seen here," Noll said. "It's just good to have a good leader who's willing to support life and to see the people rise to the occasion and support him in that."
One of the organizers of the annual demonstration also credited the election of Democrat Barack Obama for part of the enthusiasm outside the Highland Park clinic today. Obama said earlier this month that, although he wants to reduce the occurrence of abortion, he supports legalized abortion.
Brian Gibson is the executive director of Pro Life Action Ministries in St. Paul.
"When there's been a change of power, and an administration like we have now, which is very pro abortion, pro life people want to come out and show support, so I think that's part of it, too," Gibson said.
But Planned Parenthood officials said they think opposition to legalized abortion is waning. During the height of today's demonstration, the number of Planned Parenthood supporters in front of the St. Paul clinic rivaled the size of past Good Friday protests by abortion rights opponents.
Some Planned Parenthood supporters said they were there partly in response to an incident in January, when an abortion proponent rammed his SUV into the clinic's front door. It is the only Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota that provides abortions, and the organization has since installed barriers on its entryway to stop other vehicles.
Sarah Stoesz is CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and said she was grateful for the show of support outside the clinic.
"I don't believe that there's a rising tide of cultural conservatism in the country," Stoesz said. "I think that tide is retreating now, and I think what you see in the large number of people that have come out to support planned parenthood and women's reproductive health is exactly that. A lot of support for what we do."
St. Paul police said today's demonstration and counter demonstration were peaceful. Minnesota Public Radio
.A trail of 50 worshipers followed two men carrying an austere, wooden cross across the grounds of the College of St. Scholastica on Friday.
Members of Duluth’s Catholic Communion and Liberation group organized the Way of the Cross re-enactment to observe Good Friday. The procession went from St. Scholastica to the University of Minnesota Duluth — where more participants were expected to join the group — then on to the Cathedral of our Lady of the Rosary, with stops to pray at the 14 Stations of the Cross along the way.
The stations commemorate key events from the day of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.
“The Passion of the Christ is more meaningful if you actually participate in the walk,” said Mary Starkman, who was cantor of the event. “If you act something out, you kind of put yourself there. It really makes you think, ‘What did Christ go through?’ ”
This was the sixth time the group has performed the Way of the Cross, a nearly three-hour walk. Other branches of the organization in cities such as San Francisco, New York and Boston had their own walks, said Sharon Mollerus, who helped organize the one in Duluth. [You can see pictures of the Duluth walk and more details in Sharon's blog, "Clairity Daily."]
To her, Good Friday means preparation for Easter.
“Since I was a kid, it was always a really important day to remember,” she said. “Easter is not just bunny rabbits and chocolate eggs. It’s a time when we recall what Christ did.”
Duluthian Kris Cook was participating in the procession for the fourth year. She said it helps her think about what happened in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago and what it means today.
“Something happens for me when I go on these walks,” she said. “It stays with me. It’s another level of my faith.” Duluth News Tribune
Father Guy Selvester (Shouts in the Piazza) has an excellent explanation of the Mass of the Oils (a.k.a. the Chrism Mass) every diocese has during Holy Week where the Bishop blesses the olive oil for the sacraments. While originally on Maundy (Holy) Thursday, due to the distance some pastors have to drive to the See city (like my own in Harrisburg or my native diocese, Erie, where some parishes are located 2 to 4 hours from the Cathedral), church law allows for the transfer of the Mass to another day so the the priests can be available for Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday in their own respective parishes. Hence, my diocese (and many others) had the Chrism Mass on Monday of Holy Week.
We began with an afternoon of recollection and an opportunity for the priests to go to confession (and not just hear confessions as we do all during Lent). Then we go to the Cathedral for the Mass and the priests and deacons of the diocese show our solidarity with the local diocesan bishop.
Every parish MUST destroy the old oils from last year and get new oils from the Chrism Mass. The connection between the Bishop and his priests, especially his pastors, is obvious in that each parish priest gets his own oils from the common vat blessed by the bishop for the entire diocese. We priests also RENEW our commitment to the Bishop and Diocese at this Mass.
Bishop: Are you ready to renew your own dedication to Christ as priests of the new covenant?
Priests: I am
Are you resolved to unite yourselves more closely to Christ and try to become more like him?
I am
Are you resolved to be faithful ministers of the mysteries of God?
I am
Are you resolved to imitate Jesus Christ, the head and shepherd of the Church?
I am
On the evening of Maundy Thursday, the new oils are ceremoniously brought into the parish church at the Offertory (Preparation of the Gifts):
LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST
Reception of the Oils
The celebrant, facing the people, gives an instruction concerning the blessing and use of holy oils in these, or similar, words.
Priest:
On Tuesday, united with the priests and faithful of the Diocese, the Bishop consecrated the Holy Chrism and blessed the oils for use in the Anointing of the Sick and in preparation of catechumens for Baptism. Tonight we receive these holy oils for use in the celebration of the Church’s sacraments during the coming year.
Deacon:
Behold the Oil of the Sick, blessed by our Bishop, and sent to us for the anointing of all who suffer illness.
People:
Blessed be God forever!
Deacon:
Behold the Oil of Catechumens, blessed by our Bishop, and sent to us for the anointing of our catechumens in preparation for their baptism at the Easter Vigil and throughout the coming year.
People:
Blessed be God forever!
Deacon:
Behold the Sacred Chrism, oil mixed with sweet perfume and consecrated by our Bishop, and sent to us for the anointing of the baptized who are to be sealed with the Holy Spirit.
People:
Blessed be God forever!
The oils are then placed into the ambry or on a table. The Mass continues with the preparation of the gifts at the altar.
The Mass of Chrism comes once a year to your cathedral. If you've never attended it, you're missing one of the most solemn and significant liturgies of our church. During the Mass, your bishop will bless the oil of catechumens, the oil of the sick, and the oil of chrism. We use the first for adult catechumens and infants, the second for anointing the sick, and the sacred oil of chrism for baptism, confirmation, the ordination of priests and bishops, and the consecration of altars. All three are basically an olive oil; chrism spices the air with the scent of a perfume, traditionally balsam. For pastoral reasons, another vegetable oil and perfume may be used.
Since the bishop is the only one in the diocese who may consecrate chrism, this Mass highlights his ministry and our union with him. He will not baptize and confirm everyone in the parishes of the diocese, but he will be symbolically present in the chrism which the priests and deacons will use. In recent years, this Mass has also celebrated the institution of the priesthood by Christ. It invites the priests to renew their commitment of service and to receive the prayers and support of the people. The Mass of Chrism gathers the faithful of the diocese at their mother church with their shepherd and his closest collaborators in ministry to prepare for celebrations of Christ in all our churches throughout the year.
A central statement in traditional Christian creeds is that Jesus was crucified "under Pontius Pilate." But the majority of Christians have only the vaguest sense what the phrase represents, and most non-Christians probably can't imagine why it's such an integral part of Christian faith. "Crucified under Pontius Pilate" provides the Jesus story with its most obvious link to larger human history. Pilate was a historical figure, the Roman procurator of Judea; he was referred to in other sources of the time and even mentioned in an inscription found at the site of ancient Caesarea in Israel. Linking Jesus' death with Pilate represents the insistence that Jesus was a real person, not merely a figure of myth or legend. More than this, the phrase also communicates concisely some pretty important specifics of that historical event.
For one thing, the statement asserts that Jesus didn't simply die; he was killed. This was a young man's death in pain and public humiliation, not a peaceful end to a long life. Also, this wasn't a mob action. Jesus is said to have been executed, not lynched, and by the duly appointed governmental authority of Roman Judea. There was a hearing of some sort, and the official responsible for civil order and Roman peace and justice condemned Jesus. This means that Pilate found something so serious as to warrant the death penalty.
But this was also a particular kind of death penalty. The Romans had an assortment of means by which to carry out a judicial execution; some, such as beheading, were quicker and less painful than crucifixion. Death by crucifixion was reserved for particular crimes and particular classes. Those with proper Roman citizenship were supposed to be immune from crucifixion, although they might be executed by other means. Crucifixion was commonly regarded as not only frighteningly painful but also the most shameful of deaths. Essentially, it was reserved for those who were perceived as raising their hands against Roman rule or those who in some other way seemed to challenge the social order—for example, slaves who attacked their masters, and insurrectionists, such as the many Jews crucified by Roman Gen. Vespasian in the Jewish rebellion of 66-72.
Indeed, one criterion that ought to be applied more rigorously in modern scholarly proposals about the "historical Jesus" is what we might call the condition of "crucifiability": You ought to produce a picture of Jesus that accounts for him being crucified. Urging people to be kind to one another, or advocating a more flexible interpretation of Jewish law, or even condemning the Temple and its leadership—none of these crimes is likely to have led to crucifixion. For example, first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells of a man who prophesied against the Temple. Instead of condemning him, the governor decided that he was harmless, although somewhat deranged and annoying to the Temple priests. So, after being flogged, he was released.
The royal-messiah claim would also help explain why Jesus was executed but his followers were not. This wasn't a cell of plotters. Jesus himself was the issue. Furthermore, Pilate took some serious flak for being a bit too violent in his response to Jews and Samaritans who simply demonstrated vigorously against his policies. Pilate probably decided that publicly executing Jesus would snuff out the messianic enthusiasm of his followers without racking up more Jewish bodies than necessary.
Of course, the Gospels also implicate Jewish religious authorities—specifically, the priestly leaders who managed the Jerusalem Temple under franchise from the Roman government. Many scholars, including E.P. Sanders in Jesus and Judaism, conclude that the Temple leaders were likely involved in Jesus coming to the attention of Pilate. After all, the high priest and his retinue held their posts by demonstrating continuing loyalty to Rome. If they judged that Jesus represented some threat to Roman rule, they were obliged to denounce him. Also, it is not so difficult to grant a certain likelihood to the Gospels' claim that the Temple authorities were at least partly motivated by a resentment of Jesus' criticism of their administration of the Temple, as may be reflected in the account of Jesus overturning the tables of the money-changers who operated in the premises under license from the high priest. But Jewish leaders didn't crucify Jesus. "Crucified under Pontius Pilate" points to where that responsibility lies, with the Roman administration.
It's rather clear what St. Paul meant by saying that "the preaching of the cross is foolishness" to most people of his day. As Martin Hengel showed in Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, Roman-era writers deemed crucifixion the worst imaginable fate, a punishment of unspeakable shamefulness. Celsus, a Roman critic of Christianity, ridiculed Christians for treating as divine someone who had been crucified. A second-century anti-Christian graffito from Rome, well-known among historians who study the time period, depicts a crudely drawn crucified man with a donkey's head; under it stands a human figure, and beneath this is a derisive scrawl: "Alexamenos worships his god."
There was, in short, little to be gained in proclaiming a crucified saviour in that setting in which crucifixion was a grisly reality. Some early Christians tried to avoid reference to Jesus' crucifixion, while others preferred one or another alternate scenario. In one version, in a Christian apocryphal text, the soldiers confuse a bystander with Jesus, crucifying him instead, while Jesus is pictured as laughing at their folly. This idea is likely also reflected later in the Muslim tradition that a person from the crowd was mistakenly crucified as Jesus escaped. Many devout Muslims believe that Jesus was a true prophet, so it is simply inconceivable that God would have allowed him to die such a shameful death. Clearly, at least some early Christians felt the same way.
In fact, Jesus' crucifixion posed a whole clutch of potential problems for early Christians. It meant that at the origin and heart of their faith was a state execution and that their revered savior had been tried and found guilty by the representative of Roman imperial authority. This likely made a good many people wonder if the Christians weren't some seriously subversive movement. It was, at least, not the sort of group that readily appealed to those who cared about their social standing.
Jesus' crucifixion represented a collision between Jesus and Roman governmental authority, an obvious liability to early Christian efforts to promote their faith. Yet, remarkably, they somehow succeeded. Centuries of subsequent Christian tradition have made the image of the crucified Jesus so familiar that the offensiveness of the event that it portrays has been almost completely lost.
