Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, who yesterday was part of the group presenting the new encyclical: 'Caritas in veritate,’ made this observation; “It was conceived by the Holy Father as a commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of Paul VI's 'Populorum Progressio'" although the theme of this new encyclical "is not the 'development of peoples', but 'integral human development'
For his part, Archbishop Crepaldi spoke of various new topics dealt with in this encyclical. "For the first time the two fundamental rights: to life and to religious freedom", he said, "are given explicit and extensive space in a social encyclical. ... They are", he went on, "organically linked to the question of development. ... In 'Caritas in veritate' the so-called 'anthropological question' becomes to all intents and purposes a 'social question'
I agree with our good friend Fr. Fessio, S.J. of Ignatius Institute who drew attention to section 51 of the document: "If there is lack of respect for the right to life and a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational system and laws do not help them to respect themselves" (51). There is no charity in truth if the truth of man’s value before and after birth is not understood and protected.
An inportant observation for me was when the encyclical drew attention to these words
In Paul V!’s Populorum Progressio:” The first is that the whole Church, in all her being and acting — when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works of charity — is engaged in promoting integral human development. . The second truth is that authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension[11]. Without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing-space.”
For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133]. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power.(31)
I am sure this work of our Holy Father will be discussed for years. It is full of wisdom and good news. Charity after all is Supreme and truth is the basis of right thinking without which we are doomed.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
How-to Guide for Men on Convincing Your Girlfriend to Have an Abortion
From the Catholic News Agency comes word of a surprisingly honest columnist advising men on how to convince their wives, girlfriends, victims, to kill their child:
CNA STAFF, Jul 8, 2009 / 07:17 am (CNA).- A men’s advice column advising men how to encourage their pregnant girlfriends to abort provides an unsettling glimpse into the realities of abortion. One pro-life leader characterized the column, which highlights some men’s personal desires to avoid the burdens of parenthood, as “a primer for coerced abortion.”
The advice column was authored by Isabella Snow, who is described as a Sex Education Correspondent. It was published on AskMen.com, a risqué site which claims seven million monthly visitors.
The column is bluntly utilitarian in style, focusing on pregnancy’s and abortion’s effects upon the relationship of a man and a woman. It ends each paragraph of advice with a summarizing tip labeled “prenatal prep.” The avoidance of children and fatherhood is a repeated theme.
Snow begins by noting that while male readers may hope a woman will “stick to the original plan and terminate the pregnancy,” some women may suddenly want to become mothers “despite previous agreements.”
She advises the male reader to try to make his girlfriend consider his wants and desires by approaching her “correctly” and taking care with his “presentation.”
Snow advises discussing a possible abortion on a sofa at home to provide intimacy and “reduced eye contact,” purportedly to make it easier for the woman to speak “openly.”
“You’ll also want to take care with your word choice; pregnant women tend to feel like they’re carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant,” Snow adds. “You can’t just talk about having an abortion the same way you’d talk about having a cavity filled.”
This is quite well known--when there were plans to loosen abortion restrictions in the United Kingdom, women were far more opposed than men to the idea. The CNA article also interviewed Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life, who:
"... advised sympathy be shown for the columnist, speculating that Snow has to be “post-abortive” herself.
“We don't know what has happened to Isabella in her private life to take out whatever she has on other women. We need to reach out to Isabella. Isabella is a person too.
"In a weird way she is alerting women and girls by documenting what has happened all the time to women and little girls especially from older men or people from clinics."
"The best part about this is that Isabella has documented it and now we can warn women and girls that this is a routine - no matter where you hear it from."
The thought that the author was post-abortive struck me too, before I'd even reached Ms. Foster's comments.
CNA STAFF, Jul 8, 2009 / 07:17 am (CNA).- A men’s advice column advising men how to encourage their pregnant girlfriends to abort provides an unsettling glimpse into the realities of abortion. One pro-life leader characterized the column, which highlights some men’s personal desires to avoid the burdens of parenthood, as “a primer for coerced abortion.”
The advice column was authored by Isabella Snow, who is described as a Sex Education Correspondent. It was published on AskMen.com, a risqué site which claims seven million monthly visitors.
The column is bluntly utilitarian in style, focusing on pregnancy’s and abortion’s effects upon the relationship of a man and a woman. It ends each paragraph of advice with a summarizing tip labeled “prenatal prep.” The avoidance of children and fatherhood is a repeated theme.
Snow begins by noting that while male readers may hope a woman will “stick to the original plan and terminate the pregnancy,” some women may suddenly want to become mothers “despite previous agreements.”
She advises the male reader to try to make his girlfriend consider his wants and desires by approaching her “correctly” and taking care with his “presentation.”
Snow advises discussing a possible abortion on a sofa at home to provide intimacy and “reduced eye contact,” purportedly to make it easier for the woman to speak “openly.”
“You’ll also want to take care with your word choice; pregnant women tend to feel like they’re carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant,” Snow adds. “You can’t just talk about having an abortion the same way you’d talk about having a cavity filled.”
This is quite well known--when there were plans to loosen abortion restrictions in the United Kingdom, women were far more opposed than men to the idea. The CNA article also interviewed Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life, who:
"... advised sympathy be shown for the columnist, speculating that Snow has to be “post-abortive” herself.
“We don't know what has happened to Isabella in her private life to take out whatever she has on other women. We need to reach out to Isabella. Isabella is a person too.
"In a weird way she is alerting women and girls by documenting what has happened all the time to women and little girls especially from older men or people from clinics."
"The best part about this is that Isabella has documented it and now we can warn women and girls that this is a routine - no matter where you hear it from."
The thought that the author was post-abortive struck me too, before I'd even reached Ms. Foster's comments.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
State Senator Tries to Undercut Prop. 8
Openly homosexual San Francisco state senator and Most Holy Redeemer favorite Mark Leno, (go here to see Senator Leno attending a "leather" function at Most Holy Redeemer's parish hall in 2007) is trying to undercut Proposition 8.
Leno is attempting what “Catholics for the Common Good” Chairman Bill May calls “a legislative slight of hand tactic” to force the state of California to recognize same-sex “marriages” taking place in other states.
Bill tells us:
“Because of a legislative slight of hand tactic called ‘gut and amend‘, we are called on once again to defend Prop 8 in the California Legislature. A hearing on SB 54, a bill to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday, July 9.
The bill is co-authored by Senator Marc Leno (D- San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California. According to May, SB 54 “…started as healthcare legislation, passed the Senate floor, moved to the Assembly where it passed the Health Committee. On its way to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, something changed – EVERYTHING CHANGED. All the original language was stripped out and an attack in Prop 8 was substituted -- after it had been reviewed by three legislative committees and passed the Senate as a completely different bill."
“The bill seeks to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states. If the out-of-state same-sex ‘marriages’ took place after the passage of Prop 8, all of the rights and privileges would still be recognized, except for the use of the word ‘marriage‘. This is a clear violation of Article I, section 7.5 of the California Constitution (Prop 8) that reads, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ The California Supreme Court has already upheld Prop 8.”
“The Court specifically stated that their ruling had no effect on same-sex “marriages” from other states or countries (page 135, note 46). If SB 54 passes, it will create a flimsy basis for new legal challenges that will waste more taxpayer money fighting the clearly expressed will of the voters on traditional marriage. This is particularly outrageous at a time when the state is forced to cut deeply into funding for vital human needs because of the current budget crisis.”
Senator Leno’s “Facebook” page describes the bill:
“Senator Leno’s Senate Bill 54, sponsored by Equality California, has been amended to clarify that same-sex couples who married outside of California before Proposition 8 went into effect on November 5, 2008 are recognized as married spouses. The bill also confirms that same-sex couples who married outside California after November 5, 2008, or plan to do so in the future, must receive the same rights, protections, benefits, obligations and responsibilities afforded to opposite-sex spouses, with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.’…
The Court’s decision states that California must recognize the marriages of couples who married in California before the passage of Prop 8 but does not specify how couples who married outside of the state should be recognized….”
The Leno bill is is co-authored by the members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus, including Senator Christine Kehoe and Assembly members Tom Ammiano and John A. Pérez.
SB 54 will be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday, July 9, before Friday's legislative deadline for bills to be reported out of policy committees. Catholics for the Common Good asks that Californians concerned about this maneuver contact the Judiciary Committee Members RIGHT AWAY and ask them to stop trying to overturn the will of the voters. Judiciary Committee members are:
Mike Feuer (D-AD42), Chairman
Phone: (916) 319-2042
Fax: (916) 319-2142
Van Tran (R-AD68), Vice-Chairman
Phone: (916) 319-2068
Fax: (916) 319-2168
Julia Brownley (D- AD41)
Phone: (916) 319-2041
Fax: (916) 319-2141
Noreen Evans (D- AD7)
Phone: (916) 319-2007
Fax: (916) 319-2107
Dave Jones (D- AD9)
Phone: (916) 319-2009
Fax: 916 319 2109
Steve Knight (R-AD36)
Phone: (916) 319-2036
Fax: (916) 319-2136
Paul Krekorian (D-AD43)
Phone: (916) 319-2043
Fax: (916) 319-2143
Ted Lieu (D-AD53)
Phone: (916) 319-2053
Fax: (916) 319-2153
Bill Monning (D-AD27)
Phone: (916) 319-2027
Fax: (916) 319-2127
Jim Nielsen (R-AD2)
Phone: (916) 319-2002
Fax: (916) 319-2102
Leno is attempting what “Catholics for the Common Good” Chairman Bill May calls “a legislative slight of hand tactic” to force the state of California to recognize same-sex “marriages” taking place in other states.
Bill tells us:
“Because of a legislative slight of hand tactic called ‘gut and amend‘, we are called on once again to defend Prop 8 in the California Legislature. A hearing on SB 54, a bill to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday, July 9.
The bill is co-authored by Senator Marc Leno (D- San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California. According to May, SB 54 “…started as healthcare legislation, passed the Senate floor, moved to the Assembly where it passed the Health Committee. On its way to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, something changed – EVERYTHING CHANGED. All the original language was stripped out and an attack in Prop 8 was substituted -- after it had been reviewed by three legislative committees and passed the Senate as a completely different bill."
“The bill seeks to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states. If the out-of-state same-sex ‘marriages’ took place after the passage of Prop 8, all of the rights and privileges would still be recognized, except for the use of the word ‘marriage‘. This is a clear violation of Article I, section 7.5 of the California Constitution (Prop 8) that reads, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ The California Supreme Court has already upheld Prop 8.”
“The Court specifically stated that their ruling had no effect on same-sex “marriages” from other states or countries (page 135, note 46). If SB 54 passes, it will create a flimsy basis for new legal challenges that will waste more taxpayer money fighting the clearly expressed will of the voters on traditional marriage. This is particularly outrageous at a time when the state is forced to cut deeply into funding for vital human needs because of the current budget crisis.”
Senator Leno’s “Facebook” page describes the bill:
“Senator Leno’s Senate Bill 54, sponsored by Equality California, has been amended to clarify that same-sex couples who married outside of California before Proposition 8 went into effect on November 5, 2008 are recognized as married spouses. The bill also confirms that same-sex couples who married outside California after November 5, 2008, or plan to do so in the future, must receive the same rights, protections, benefits, obligations and responsibilities afforded to opposite-sex spouses, with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.’…
The Court’s decision states that California must recognize the marriages of couples who married in California before the passage of Prop 8 but does not specify how couples who married outside of the state should be recognized….”
The Leno bill is is co-authored by the members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus, including Senator Christine Kehoe and Assembly members Tom Ammiano and John A. Pérez.
SB 54 will be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday, July 9, before Friday's legislative deadline for bills to be reported out of policy committees. Catholics for the Common Good asks that Californians concerned about this maneuver contact the Judiciary Committee Members RIGHT AWAY and ask them to stop trying to overturn the will of the voters. Judiciary Committee members are:
Mike Feuer (D-AD42), Chairman
Phone: (916) 319-2042
Fax: (916) 319-2142
Van Tran (R-AD68), Vice-Chairman
Phone: (916) 319-2068
Fax: (916) 319-2168
Julia Brownley (D- AD41)
Phone: (916) 319-2041
Fax: (916) 319-2141
Noreen Evans (D- AD7)
Phone: (916) 319-2007
Fax: (916) 319-2107
Dave Jones (D- AD9)
Phone: (916) 319-2009
Fax: 916 319 2109
Steve Knight (R-AD36)
Phone: (916) 319-2036
Fax: (916) 319-2136
Paul Krekorian (D-AD43)
Phone: (916) 319-2043
Fax: (916) 319-2143
Ted Lieu (D-AD53)
Phone: (916) 319-2053
Fax: (916) 319-2153
Bill Monning (D-AD27)
Phone: (916) 319-2027
Fax: (916) 319-2127
Jim Nielsen (R-AD2)
Phone: (916) 319-2002
Fax: (916) 319-2102
If Obama Can't Find "Common Ground" Here, He Won't Find it Anywhere
Jack Smith follows up on the NIH (that is, President Barack Obama's) new stem cell guidelines.
Here is today's satement from the USCCB:
"CARDINAL RIGALI CRITICIZES FINAL NIH GUIDELINES FOR DESTRUCTIVE STEM CELL RESEARCH
WASHINGTON—Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, reacted today to final guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research issued yesterday by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The text of his statement follows:
“In April I criticized the NIH’s draft guidelines for destructive embryonic stem cell research, saying that under these guidelines ‘federal tax dollars will be used to encourage destruction of living embryonic human beings for stem cell research – including human beings who otherwise would have survived and been born.’
“The final guidelines issued yesterday are even broader. Parents who are asked to consider having their embryonic children destroyed for research will not even have to be informed about all their other options – only about the options that happen to be available at their particular fertility clinic. Moreover, under the final guidelines, stem cell lines that existed previously or that are produced in foreign countries may be made eligible for federally funded research even if they were obtained in ways that violate one or more of the NIH's own informed consent requirements.
“The comments of tens of thousands of Americans opposing the destruction of innocent human life for stem cell research were simply ignored in this process. Even comments filed by the Catholic bishops’ conference and others against specific abuses in the draft guidelines were not addressed. For example, federally funded researchers will be allowed to insert human embryonic stem cells into the embryos of animal species other than primates; federal grants will be available even to researchers who themselves destroyed human embryos to obtain the stem cells for their research. Existing federal law against funding research in which human embryos are harmed or destroyed is not given due respect here.
“This debate now shifts to Congress, where some members have said even this policy does not go far enough in treating some human beings as objects to be created, manipulated and destroyed for others’ use. I hope Americans concerned about this issue will write to their elected representatives, urging them not to codify or further expand this unethical policy.”
For more information about the USCCB’s “Oppose Destructive Stem Cell Research” campaign, visit www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign. Cardinal Rigali’s April 21 statement on the draft guidelines is at www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-087.shtml. The USCCB’s official comment letter of May 22 is at www.usccb.org/prolife/NIHcomments.pdf. "
Embryonic stem cells don't work, kill the unborn, cause tumors when they are used, and are unnecessary, given the successes of adult-stem cells. Obama, and his supporters claim he wants "common ground." Here was a perfect opportunity: he could have embraced the pro-life side, and, at the same time follow the leading contemporary scientists. He chose not to, despite the overwhelming success of adult stem-cells. If he will not find "common ground" here, he will not find it anywhere. He is, as Mark Steyn said, an abortion absolutist. There is no common ground.
Here is today's satement from the USCCB:
"CARDINAL RIGALI CRITICIZES FINAL NIH GUIDELINES FOR DESTRUCTIVE STEM CELL RESEARCH
WASHINGTON—Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, reacted today to final guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research issued yesterday by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The text of his statement follows:
“In April I criticized the NIH’s draft guidelines for destructive embryonic stem cell research, saying that under these guidelines ‘federal tax dollars will be used to encourage destruction of living embryonic human beings for stem cell research – including human beings who otherwise would have survived and been born.’
“The final guidelines issued yesterday are even broader. Parents who are asked to consider having their embryonic children destroyed for research will not even have to be informed about all their other options – only about the options that happen to be available at their particular fertility clinic. Moreover, under the final guidelines, stem cell lines that existed previously or that are produced in foreign countries may be made eligible for federally funded research even if they were obtained in ways that violate one or more of the NIH's own informed consent requirements.
“The comments of tens of thousands of Americans opposing the destruction of innocent human life for stem cell research were simply ignored in this process. Even comments filed by the Catholic bishops’ conference and others against specific abuses in the draft guidelines were not addressed. For example, federally funded researchers will be allowed to insert human embryonic stem cells into the embryos of animal species other than primates; federal grants will be available even to researchers who themselves destroyed human embryos to obtain the stem cells for their research. Existing federal law against funding research in which human embryos are harmed or destroyed is not given due respect here.
“This debate now shifts to Congress, where some members have said even this policy does not go far enough in treating some human beings as objects to be created, manipulated and destroyed for others’ use. I hope Americans concerned about this issue will write to their elected representatives, urging them not to codify or further expand this unethical policy.”
For more information about the USCCB’s “Oppose Destructive Stem Cell Research” campaign, visit www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign. Cardinal Rigali’s April 21 statement on the draft guidelines is at www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-087.shtml. The USCCB’s official comment letter of May 22 is at www.usccb.org/prolife/NIHcomments.pdf. "
Embryonic stem cells don't work, kill the unborn, cause tumors when they are used, and are unnecessary, given the successes of adult-stem cells. Obama, and his supporters claim he wants "common ground." Here was a perfect opportunity: he could have embraced the pro-life side, and, at the same time follow the leading contemporary scientists. He chose not to, despite the overwhelming success of adult stem-cells. If he will not find "common ground" here, he will not find it anywhere. He is, as Mark Steyn said, an abortion absolutist. There is no common ground.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Dennis Prager, NY Times on Honduras
Mr. Prager asks:
"When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?"
He also says:
"Even if you know little or nothing about the crisis in Honduras, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Cuba's Castro brothers, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States are all lined up against Honduras."
We note that as of today, there actually has been one person killed in demonstrations. That may have happened after Mr. Prager wrote his column. He also note that he fails to include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton along with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Fidel and Raul Castro as those who are lined up against Honduras.
Even the New York Times seems to be getting the picture. They printed a guest column by Roger Marin Neda, a columnist at the Honduran daily El Heraldo. Emphasis added:
"He (Zelaya) began his four-year term in January 2006, and by mid-2008, the idea of a second term was already in the air, even though it is forbidden by the Constitution. Since its independence from Spain in 1821, Honduras has had 16 constitutions, as these documents were vulnerable to leaders’ desire to extend their stay in office. The current constitution, which came into effect in 1982 after many years of military rule, was written to forever protect the country against presidents’ overstaying their welcome.
But over the years, the lust for power has proved too strong. The first president under the 1982 Constitution, Roberto Suazo Córdova, sought to eliminate the constitutional prohibition. Most of his successors have also tried, one way or another, to stay in the presidential palace longer than they were constitutionally allowed.
But only Mr. Zelaya had the guts to go all the way to plan a referendum, laying the groundwork for an assembly to remake the Constitution to allow him to serve one more term. His larger goal seemed to be a change from our democratic system into a kind of 21st-century socialism. In other words, he wanted to create a Hugo Chávez-type of government."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"When did a military coup ever take place that was ordered by that country's supreme court, that was supported by the political party of the president who was overthrown, in which not one person was injured, let alone killed, and which replaced the ousted president with the president of the country's congress, a member of the same party as the ousted president?"
He also says:
"Even if you know little or nothing about the crisis in Honduras, nearly all you need to know in order to ascertain which side is morally right is this: Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, Cuba's Castro brothers, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States are all lined up against Honduras."
We note that as of today, there actually has been one person killed in demonstrations. That may have happened after Mr. Prager wrote his column. He also note that he fails to include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton along with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Fidel and Raul Castro as those who are lined up against Honduras.
Even the New York Times seems to be getting the picture. They printed a guest column by Roger Marin Neda, a columnist at the Honduran daily El Heraldo. Emphasis added:
"He (Zelaya) began his four-year term in January 2006, and by mid-2008, the idea of a second term was already in the air, even though it is forbidden by the Constitution. Since its independence from Spain in 1821, Honduras has had 16 constitutions, as these documents were vulnerable to leaders’ desire to extend their stay in office. The current constitution, which came into effect in 1982 after many years of military rule, was written to forever protect the country against presidents’ overstaying their welcome.
But over the years, the lust for power has proved too strong. The first president under the 1982 Constitution, Roberto Suazo Córdova, sought to eliminate the constitutional prohibition. Most of his successors have also tried, one way or another, to stay in the presidential palace longer than they were constitutionally allowed.
But only Mr. Zelaya had the guts to go all the way to plan a referendum, laying the groundwork for an assembly to remake the Constitution to allow him to serve one more term. His larger goal seemed to be a change from our democratic system into a kind of 21st-century socialism. In other words, he wanted to create a Hugo Chávez-type of government."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
More "Common Ground" From the Obama Administration
As Jack Smith wrote: "'Common Ground' keeps bustin' out everywhere."
From the webpage of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
"Following President Obama’s March 9 executive order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed guidelines for federally funded embryonic stem cell research. The guidelines would – for the first time – use taxpayer funds to encourage the killing of embryonic human beings for their stem cells.
This marks a new chapter in divorcing biomedical research from its necessary ethical foundation, respect for human life at all stages."
The bishops then provided a link from their page to the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA). The NHCLA page allowed visitors to send a message to the National Institute of Health expressing their oppositon (or, for that matter, support) of the new NIH guidelines.
Well, today's Catholic News Service reports:
"Although 30,000 of the approximately 49,000 comments on the National Institutes of Health's draft guidelines on human embryonic stem-cell research opposed any federal funding of such research, those responses were "deemed not responsive to the question put forth," according to the acting director of NIH.
"We did not ask them whether to fund such funding, but how it should be funded," said Dr. Raynard S. Kington in a telephone briefing with the media July 6.
But Richard M. Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said it was "disingenuous (for Kington) to say that comments criticizing the guidelines overall were to be ignored."
h/t The Catholic Key
From the webpage of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
"Following President Obama’s March 9 executive order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed guidelines for federally funded embryonic stem cell research. The guidelines would – for the first time – use taxpayer funds to encourage the killing of embryonic human beings for their stem cells.
This marks a new chapter in divorcing biomedical research from its necessary ethical foundation, respect for human life at all stages."
The bishops then provided a link from their page to the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA). The NHCLA page allowed visitors to send a message to the National Institute of Health expressing their oppositon (or, for that matter, support) of the new NIH guidelines.
Well, today's Catholic News Service reports:
"Although 30,000 of the approximately 49,000 comments on the National Institutes of Health's draft guidelines on human embryonic stem-cell research opposed any federal funding of such research, those responses were "deemed not responsive to the question put forth," according to the acting director of NIH.
"We did not ask them whether to fund such funding, but how it should be funded," said Dr. Raynard S. Kington in a telephone briefing with the media July 6.
But Richard M. Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said it was "disingenuous (for Kington) to say that comments criticizing the guidelines overall were to be ignored."
h/t The Catholic Key
Sunday, July 5, 2009
More on Honduras: Salesian Cardinal asks Zelaya NOT to Return
On Friday we posted a blog entry "Honduras and the Rule of Law" which contained excerpts of an essay by Honduran lawyer, former Presidential advisor, and former Honduran Minister of Culture Hugo Sanchez.: "A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense. Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law."
Senor Sanchez very lucidly described the circumstances leading to the removal of power of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. I ask that you read the blog post, and even more that you read his original essay.
Now Salesian Cardinal Rodrigues has addressed the issue. We post the article here in full:
"TEGUCIGALPA, July 4 (Xinhua) -- The Honduran cardinal and main leader of the Honduran Catholic church, Oscar Andres Rodriguez, Saturday urged ousted President Manuel Zelaya not to come back to Honduras.
In a televised speech, Rodriguez warned that the return of Zelaya could lead to a blood bath.
"I know you love and respect life, at this moment only a Honduran citizen has died, please meditate your decision, because later it could be too late," he said.
He also urged the Organization of American States (OAS) to investigate all the "illegal deeds" that happened during the rule of Zelaya.
"Our people ask themselves why (OAS) has not condemned the war threats made against us by other countries," said the religious leader, referring to recent statements of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"We have the right to choose our own destiny without external pressure of any kind and look for solutions that promote common welfare, we reject military threats or blocks of any kind that will only make the poorest people suffer," he said.
The cardinal also called on the new government to promote national reconciliation and let aside revenge, pursuit, violence and corruption.
Rodriguez Friday had a meeting with OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza who was in the country on a mediation mission."
His Eminence is not alone among the clergy in Hinduras. Today, Catholic Online has an essay by Tom Esposito, member of the Missioners of Christ serving in Honduras. Excerpts:
"There are many critical details in the sequence of events in Honduras that are important to know, and for that I would direct you to the web-log of our lead missionary in Honduras, Carol Restaine (http://missionersofchrist.blogspot.com/). Carol has lived in Honduras for eight years now, and has a good sense of the plight of the Honduran people. But for the sake of this article, a brief summary is as follows:
President Manuel Zelaya, nearing the end of his four-year term, sought to hold a public referendum which would, among other things, seek to change the Honduran Constitution to eliminate term-limits for the Presidency. As only the Congress has authority to call such a referendum, Zelaya was informed both by the Honduran Congress as well as the Supreme Court that this act would be illegal. Nonetheless, Zelaya ordered the head of the military, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez to enact the public vote. Gen. Velásquez refused, restating that it was deemed illegal, so Zelaya summarily fired him. The Honduran Supreme Court determined that Zelaya’s firing of Velásquez was illegal and ordered him reinstated, which Zelaya refused. Then Zelaya proceeded to the military base with his supporters to confiscate the voting boxes and materials.
The Congress and Supreme Court entered an emergency session on June 27 to determine their response to Zelaya’s illegal acts, as well as his clear intent to go through with the vote. They determined that, for the protection of both democracy and the Constitution, it was necessary to arrest Zelaya. Acting on orders from the Supreme Court and in conjunction with the Attorney General, Zelaya was arrested by a military contingent, and then allegedly given the choice to stay in Honduras and be prosecuted, or accept exile to Costa Rica. It is reported that he chose exile, though Zelaya denies these claims. Zelaya was voted out of office the same day, and the next in line of succession (via the Constitution), Roberto Michelleti, was sworn in as interim President.
This was not a military coup as the general media seems insistent on reporting. While acknowledging the sequence and even manner in which the events were carried out have provided “wiggle-room” for ideologues to incite the international community, this is clearly a diversion from this critical truth; the new interim government is both Constitutional and has overwhelming popular support of the Honduran people. Our people on the ground, who are anything but political, affirm this fact."
Those who are worried about an army coup are fighting the last war. The danger to democracy in Central and South (and maybe North!) America is no longer from military coups. but from an elected leader who then uses the machinary of the state to gobble up the other societal institutions. What we have in Honduras is one man who claimed a right to defy the Constitution.. He was opposed by the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Army, and now the Church. That's not a coup made, it's a coup prevented.
h/t Catholic Caveman.
Senor Sanchez very lucidly described the circumstances leading to the removal of power of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. I ask that you read the blog post, and even more that you read his original essay.
Now Salesian Cardinal Rodrigues has addressed the issue. We post the article here in full:
"TEGUCIGALPA, July 4 (Xinhua) -- The Honduran cardinal and main leader of the Honduran Catholic church, Oscar Andres Rodriguez, Saturday urged ousted President Manuel Zelaya not to come back to Honduras.
In a televised speech, Rodriguez warned that the return of Zelaya could lead to a blood bath.
"I know you love and respect life, at this moment only a Honduran citizen has died, please meditate your decision, because later it could be too late," he said.
He also urged the Organization of American States (OAS) to investigate all the "illegal deeds" that happened during the rule of Zelaya.
"Our people ask themselves why (OAS) has not condemned the war threats made against us by other countries," said the religious leader, referring to recent statements of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"We have the right to choose our own destiny without external pressure of any kind and look for solutions that promote common welfare, we reject military threats or blocks of any kind that will only make the poorest people suffer," he said.
The cardinal also called on the new government to promote national reconciliation and let aside revenge, pursuit, violence and corruption.
Rodriguez Friday had a meeting with OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza who was in the country on a mediation mission."
His Eminence is not alone among the clergy in Hinduras. Today, Catholic Online has an essay by Tom Esposito, member of the Missioners of Christ serving in Honduras. Excerpts:
"There are many critical details in the sequence of events in Honduras that are important to know, and for that I would direct you to the web-log of our lead missionary in Honduras, Carol Restaine (http://missionersofchrist.blogspot.com/). Carol has lived in Honduras for eight years now, and has a good sense of the plight of the Honduran people. But for the sake of this article, a brief summary is as follows:
President Manuel Zelaya, nearing the end of his four-year term, sought to hold a public referendum which would, among other things, seek to change the Honduran Constitution to eliminate term-limits for the Presidency. As only the Congress has authority to call such a referendum, Zelaya was informed both by the Honduran Congress as well as the Supreme Court that this act would be illegal. Nonetheless, Zelaya ordered the head of the military, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez to enact the public vote. Gen. Velásquez refused, restating that it was deemed illegal, so Zelaya summarily fired him. The Honduran Supreme Court determined that Zelaya’s firing of Velásquez was illegal and ordered him reinstated, which Zelaya refused. Then Zelaya proceeded to the military base with his supporters to confiscate the voting boxes and materials.
The Congress and Supreme Court entered an emergency session on June 27 to determine their response to Zelaya’s illegal acts, as well as his clear intent to go through with the vote. They determined that, for the protection of both democracy and the Constitution, it was necessary to arrest Zelaya. Acting on orders from the Supreme Court and in conjunction with the Attorney General, Zelaya was arrested by a military contingent, and then allegedly given the choice to stay in Honduras and be prosecuted, or accept exile to Costa Rica. It is reported that he chose exile, though Zelaya denies these claims. Zelaya was voted out of office the same day, and the next in line of succession (via the Constitution), Roberto Michelleti, was sworn in as interim President.
This was not a military coup as the general media seems insistent on reporting. While acknowledging the sequence and even manner in which the events were carried out have provided “wiggle-room” for ideologues to incite the international community, this is clearly a diversion from this critical truth; the new interim government is both Constitutional and has overwhelming popular support of the Honduran people. Our people on the ground, who are anything but political, affirm this fact."
Those who are worried about an army coup are fighting the last war. The danger to democracy in Central and South (and maybe North!) America is no longer from military coups. but from an elected leader who then uses the machinary of the state to gobble up the other societal institutions. What we have in Honduras is one man who claimed a right to defy the Constitution.. He was opposed by the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Army, and now the Church. That's not a coup made, it's a coup prevented.
h/t Catholic Caveman.
More on Father Farrow, Renegade Priest
The 2009 DignityUSA Convention in San Francisco is proving to be one teaching moment after another.
On Tuesday, the California Catholic Daily ran the article "Renegade Catholic Advises Priests on How to Fight the Church." We blogged about it here. It contained this quote from Fr. Farrow's blog:
“Borrow the full amount against your Knights of Columbus life insurance policy immediately. Take the check and invest the funds with an LGBT friendly fund. Do not pay back the loan.”
Lo and behold, following the story, Fr. Farrow's blog posting was then changed to omit the sentence "Do not pay the loan back." (A sharp eyed person over at the Catholic Answers forum posted a link to the original, cached posting). Presumably, Fr. Farrow felt this left him open to liability, and removed the sentence for legal reasons. That is quite instructive. I thought that sentence was the least objectionable of Fr. Farrow's recomendations. After all, the Knights are big enough to take care of themselves. Far worse, to my way of thinking, were his recommendations regarding the manipulation of the parish bulletin and parish facilities. Those recommendations, that pastors abuse their authority in the pursuit of personal political goals, are unconscionable for a priest.
But it shows where Fr. Farrow's priorities lie. I believe the Diocese of Fresno is fortunate to have him gone.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
On Tuesday, the California Catholic Daily ran the article "Renegade Catholic Advises Priests on How to Fight the Church." We blogged about it here. It contained this quote from Fr. Farrow's blog:
“Borrow the full amount against your Knights of Columbus life insurance policy immediately. Take the check and invest the funds with an LGBT friendly fund. Do not pay back the loan.”
Lo and behold, following the story, Fr. Farrow's blog posting was then changed to omit the sentence "Do not pay the loan back." (A sharp eyed person over at the Catholic Answers forum posted a link to the original, cached posting). Presumably, Fr. Farrow felt this left him open to liability, and removed the sentence for legal reasons. That is quite instructive. I thought that sentence was the least objectionable of Fr. Farrow's recomendations. After all, the Knights are big enough to take care of themselves. Far worse, to my way of thinking, were his recommendations regarding the manipulation of the parish bulletin and parish facilities. Those recommendations, that pastors abuse their authority in the pursuit of personal political goals, are unconscionable for a priest.
But it shows where Fr. Farrow's priorities lie. I believe the Diocese of Fresno is fortunate to have him gone.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Friday, July 3, 2009
"Leather Spirituality" and Catholicism
Quite a little convention they've got going on down on Cyril Magnin place. That's where the Parc 55 hotel is, the site for this year's DignityUSA convention in San Francisco. We've already reported on it here and here.
From today's Cailfornia Catholic Daily (emphasis added):
"Dignity USA Catholics to Explore Leather Spirituality
The Defenders to Sponsor Liturgy
The 2009 DignityUSA Convention, being held in San Francisco from July 2-5 will include a workshop on July 4 called “Leather Spirituality as an Ingredient of Christian Life.” The convention will also feature a July 3 liturgy sponsored by a group known as “The Defenders” and a Leather Caucus on July 5.
The Defenders are an integral part of DignityUSA. According to the Dignity website:
“The Defenders has been affiliated with DignityUSA from the beginning and maintains close ties to this very day. Each Defenders club is associated with a local Dignity Chapter … The Defenders is a club for individuals who value and wish to celebrate both their leather "lifestyle" and their Christian spirituality…The Defenders believe that the leather experience can, when integrated and spiritually informed, actually produce a richer spirituality for us, and for the Church.”
Dignity’s website mentions but does not define what is meant by the ”leather lifestyle”: Wikipedia gives this definition: “The leather subculture denotes practices and styles of dress organized around sexual activities and hedonistic eroticism (‘kink.’)”
The website of the San Francisco chapter of the Defenders is more specific:
“Defenders/SF is a Leather/Levi club, chartered by Dignity, the national gay Catholic organization. Defenders take a stand for the sacredness of our leather sexuality and explores practical ways of integrating sexuality and spirituality."
"The Defenders/SF website also has a page called “Leather and Spirituality” where the meaning of Leather Spirituality becomes even more explicit: “What we notice about our sexual experience as leather people is that much of what turns us on sexually has to do with such things as power exchange (dominance/submission)”
This is so outrageous that one is tempted to either joke about it or not take it seriously. That would be a big mistake. The "leather subculture" is a quite serious contingent of the homosexual culture. The homosexual culture defines itself by the kind of sex they like to engage in. Well, that's all the leather subculture does, too. As we wrote back in 2007 in our review of Fr. Godfrey's book "Gays and Grays: the Story of the Gay Community at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church":
"And if the type of genital pleasure one enjoys is the community-forming experience of a people, it would be unheard-of for the spiritual institutions of that community not to be informed by this same experience.
Fr. Godfrey says as much: 'I believe in other words, that the gospel must always be inculturated into every culture, and this must include gay culture.' p138.
'Is it less appropriate for gays to imagine Jesus as gay than for African Christians to picture him as black, Asian Christians as Asian?' p134."
Simply take Fr. Godfrey's question one step further: "Is it less appropriate for a leatherman to imagine Jesus as a leatherman than for African Christians to picture him as black, Asian Christians as Asian?" Fr. Godfrey would have to answer his own question either yes or no. If he answers "no", he would be saying it is OK to imagine Jesus engaging in s/m practices. But if he answers "yes" he is letting himself in for a hornets nest: What if the s/m practices are an expression (as the Defenders claim) of their spirituality? What if the two persons engaging in the s/m practices love each other and are consenting? Why is Fr. Godfrey privileging non s/m gay practices over s/m gay practices? The questions could easily be multiplied.
I remind readers for the 50th time that Fr. Godfrey is the Executive Director of Campus Ministry at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco. Thus, he is charged with the spiritual welfare of thousands of college students.
Back to the California Catholic Daily article:
"From 2002- 2008, as members of the Inter-Club Fund, a group of "leather" organizations, the Defenders had been nearly annual visitors at the parish hall of San Francisco’s Most Holy Redeemer Church."
We've reported more than once on the hosting of leather (read s/m) groups at Most Holy Redeemer's Ellard Hall. Most Holy Redeemer bills itself as "Your parish church in the Castro." That is, it is the manifestation of the Catholic Church to the people of the parish area. I simply do not see how this can continue.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
From today's Cailfornia Catholic Daily (emphasis added):
"Dignity USA Catholics to Explore Leather Spirituality
The Defenders to Sponsor Liturgy
The 2009 DignityUSA Convention, being held in San Francisco from July 2-5 will include a workshop on July 4 called “Leather Spirituality as an Ingredient of Christian Life.” The convention will also feature a July 3 liturgy sponsored by a group known as “The Defenders” and a Leather Caucus on July 5.
The Defenders are an integral part of DignityUSA. According to the Dignity website:
“The Defenders has been affiliated with DignityUSA from the beginning and maintains close ties to this very day. Each Defenders club is associated with a local Dignity Chapter … The Defenders is a club for individuals who value and wish to celebrate both their leather "lifestyle" and their Christian spirituality…The Defenders believe that the leather experience can, when integrated and spiritually informed, actually produce a richer spirituality for us, and for the Church.”
Dignity’s website mentions but does not define what is meant by the ”leather lifestyle”: Wikipedia gives this definition: “The leather subculture denotes practices and styles of dress organized around sexual activities and hedonistic eroticism (‘kink.’)”
The website of the San Francisco chapter of the Defenders is more specific:
“Defenders/SF is a Leather/Levi club, chartered by Dignity, the national gay Catholic organization. Defenders take a stand for the sacredness of our leather sexuality and explores practical ways of integrating sexuality and spirituality."
"The Defenders/SF website also has a page called “Leather and Spirituality” where the meaning of Leather Spirituality becomes even more explicit: “What we notice about our sexual experience as leather people is that much of what turns us on sexually has to do with such things as power exchange (dominance/submission)”
This is so outrageous that one is tempted to either joke about it or not take it seriously. That would be a big mistake. The "leather subculture" is a quite serious contingent of the homosexual culture. The homosexual culture defines itself by the kind of sex they like to engage in. Well, that's all the leather subculture does, too. As we wrote back in 2007 in our review of Fr. Godfrey's book "Gays and Grays: the Story of the Gay Community at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church":
"And if the type of genital pleasure one enjoys is the community-forming experience of a people, it would be unheard-of for the spiritual institutions of that community not to be informed by this same experience.
Fr. Godfrey says as much: 'I believe in other words, that the gospel must always be inculturated into every culture, and this must include gay culture.' p138.
'Is it less appropriate for gays to imagine Jesus as gay than for African Christians to picture him as black, Asian Christians as Asian?' p134."
Simply take Fr. Godfrey's question one step further: "Is it less appropriate for a leatherman to imagine Jesus as a leatherman than for African Christians to picture him as black, Asian Christians as Asian?" Fr. Godfrey would have to answer his own question either yes or no. If he answers "no", he would be saying it is OK to imagine Jesus engaging in s/m practices. But if he answers "yes" he is letting himself in for a hornets nest: What if the s/m practices are an expression (as the Defenders claim) of their spirituality? What if the two persons engaging in the s/m practices love each other and are consenting? Why is Fr. Godfrey privileging non s/m gay practices over s/m gay practices? The questions could easily be multiplied.
I remind readers for the 50th time that Fr. Godfrey is the Executive Director of Campus Ministry at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco. Thus, he is charged with the spiritual welfare of thousands of college students.
Back to the California Catholic Daily article:
"From 2002- 2008, as members of the Inter-Club Fund, a group of "leather" organizations, the Defenders had been nearly annual visitors at the parish hall of San Francisco’s Most Holy Redeemer Church."
We've reported more than once on the hosting of leather (read s/m) groups at Most Holy Redeemer's Ellard Hall. Most Holy Redeemer bills itself as "Your parish church in the Castro." That is, it is the manifestation of the Catholic Church to the people of the parish area. I simply do not see how this can continue.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Honduras and the Rule of Law
What has happened recently in Honduras, and the Obama administration's response to the events is, I believe, very important. President Obama, joining forces with Hugo Sanchez and Raul Castro is condemning the actions by the Honduran Supreme Court, military, and congress in removing ex-President Mel Zelaya from office.
Following are excerpts from an article in today's Christian Science Monitor by Octavio Sánchez. Senor Sánchez is a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras. Senor Sanchez gives a very clear description of why the removal of Zelaya was urgent and necessary.
A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.
Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.
By Octavio Sánchez
"Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.
That is nonsense.
In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.
.....
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis in original], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.
Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law."
The Honduran Supreme Court, military, and Congress saw Zelaya following the example of Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, and, for that matter Adolf Hitler: after attaining power via the democratic process, use the institutions of government to stay in power indefinitely.
Senor Sánchez is right to be proud of his compatriots. Their actions would be approved by our own Founding Fathers.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Following are excerpts from an article in today's Christian Science Monitor by Octavio Sánchez. Senor Sánchez is a lawyer, is a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras. Senor Sanchez gives a very clear description of why the removal of Zelaya was urgent and necessary.
A 'coup' in Honduras? Nonsense.
Don't believe the myth. The arrest of President Zelaya represents the triumph of the rule of law.
By Octavio Sánchez
"Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.
That is nonsense.
In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.
.....
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis in original], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.
Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law."
The Honduran Supreme Court, military, and Congress saw Zelaya following the example of Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, and, for that matter Adolf Hitler: after attaining power via the democratic process, use the institutions of government to stay in power indefinitely.
Senor Sánchez is right to be proud of his compatriots. Their actions would be approved by our own Founding Fathers.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Pope: It is a Childish Faith to Oppose the Church Teaching on Life and Family
Excerpts from The Holy Father's closing homily for the year of St. Paul. From LifeSiteNews, h/t American Papist.
By John-Henry Westen
ROME, June 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Closing the Year of St. Paul yesterday evening, Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the writings of the famed convert to Christianity. With reference to Paul's letter to the Ephesians (4:14), the Pope explained what Paul meant by his statement that Christians should not remain "children at the mercy of the waves, transported here and there by every wind of doctrine."
"Paul wants the Christian faith have a 'responsible', an 'adult faith," said the Holy Father. "The word 'adult faith' has in recent decades become a popular slogan. It is often used to refer to the attitude of those who no longer adhere to the Church and her pastors, but choose for themselves what they want to believe and not believe - a kind of do-it-yourself faith."
Benedict XVI continued: "Speaking against the Magisterium of the Church is presented as courageous. In reality, however, it does not take courage for this, since you can always be sure of audience applause."
"Rather it takes courage to adhere to the faith of the Church, even if it contradicts the 'scheme' of the contemporary world," said the Pope. "It is this non-conformism of the faith that Paul calls an 'adult faith.'"
The Holy Father gave two examples of an 'adult faith'. First, "to commit to the inviolability of human life from the very beginning, thus radically opposing the principle of violence, in defense of the most defenseless humans." And second, "to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for life as a law of the Creator, restored again by Christ."
For Paul, said Benedict XVI, "following the prevailing winds and currents of the day is childish."
By John-Henry Westen
ROME, June 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Closing the Year of St. Paul yesterday evening, Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the writings of the famed convert to Christianity. With reference to Paul's letter to the Ephesians (4:14), the Pope explained what Paul meant by his statement that Christians should not remain "children at the mercy of the waves, transported here and there by every wind of doctrine."
"Paul wants the Christian faith have a 'responsible', an 'adult faith," said the Holy Father. "The word 'adult faith' has in recent decades become a popular slogan. It is often used to refer to the attitude of those who no longer adhere to the Church and her pastors, but choose for themselves what they want to believe and not believe - a kind of do-it-yourself faith."
Benedict XVI continued: "Speaking against the Magisterium of the Church is presented as courageous. In reality, however, it does not take courage for this, since you can always be sure of audience applause."
"Rather it takes courage to adhere to the faith of the Church, even if it contradicts the 'scheme' of the contemporary world," said the Pope. "It is this non-conformism of the faith that Paul calls an 'adult faith.'"
The Holy Father gave two examples of an 'adult faith'. First, "to commit to the inviolability of human life from the very beginning, thus radically opposing the principle of violence, in defense of the most defenseless humans." And second, "to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for life as a law of the Creator, restored again by Christ."
For Paul, said Benedict XVI, "following the prevailing winds and currents of the day is childish."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
