skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Dissident theologian Hans Kueng urged bishops on Thursday to push for reforms in the Roman Catholic in defiance of Pope Benedict XVI.
Kueng, an 82-year-old former colleague and friend of the pontiff, said the church was now in its deepest crisis since the Protestant Reformation after recent revelations of sexual abuse by clergy caused an erosion of trust.
In an editorial published Thursday in daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung and other publications, Kueng said bishops should call for a new synod to discuss reforms."
Google/AP
It's interesting to note that while this article trumpets the call for a new synod by Kueng and plays up his association with Vatican II, it never once mentions this:
"Reverend Father Hans Küng (born March 19, 1928, in Sursee, Canton of Lucerne), is a Swiss Catholic priest, controversial theologian, and prolific author. Since 1995 he has been President of the Foundation for a Global Ethic (Stiftung Weltethos). Küng claims to remain "a Catholic priest in good standing",[1] but the Vatican has rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology. Though he had to leave the Catholic faculty, he remained at the University of Tübingen as a professor of Ecumenical Theology, serving as Emeritus Professor since 1996. In spite of not being allowed to teach Catholic theology, neither his bishop nor the Holy See has revoked his priestly faculties."
Wikipedia
Kueng is presented in this article and others as a voice of authority within the church when in reality he is on the margins of true Catholicism. He supports the call for women priests and he rejects the infallibility of the Pope. While apparently Kueng is not a heretic his teachings and beliefs put him well along the path.
"Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas."
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica (II-II:11:1)
"The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has issued guidelines for procedures in cases of sex abuse by priests, reiterating that local bishops have the first responsibility to protect young people and to monitor the behavior of their priests.
Under the guidelines posted to the Vatican website on Monday, the responsibility to investigate accusations of abuse by clerics is first that of the local diocese. If it is found that an allegation has “semblance of truth,” then the case, with all documentation, is to be referred to the CDF, whose remit sex abuse allegations have been since 2001.
The guidelines, that dealt only with canonical repercussions of sex abuse allegations, also repeated a point that has always been standard Vatican policy, saying, “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.”
The local bishop, however, is still responsible for putting into place measures to protect the community. The CDF notes, “Indeed, the local bishop always retains power to protect children by restricting the activities of any priest in his diocese.”
Life Site News
There is something in this article that I think is poorly understood by most people, Catholic or not, about the nature of the Church. It is not a "top down" organization.
Because of it's understanding of subsidiarity the Church functions from the bottom up. The Bishop is responsible for his diocese. Most of the time the parish Priest is responsible for dealing with the day to day problems of his parish. Only when something exceeds his authority our ability to resolve it does it move up the chain.
Subsidiarity and the proper structuring of power is found in the Bible in Matthew 18:15-17:
"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."
The groups that are working against the Church are, for the most part, based on the ideas of Modernism and Relativism. Most of these groups have more in common with Marx than Aquinas. Their idea of government revolves around a strong central power that issues edicts to its subjects. Because they view the world through this Satanic distortion of the truth they cannot understand the way the Church really functions. So they attack the Pope for the sins of the Bishops, the Priests and the people.
I suppose that as an American and a history geek this is easy for me to see. The United States, under our Constitution, is structured in many way just like the Church. If you view the dioceses of the Church as states you'll see what I mean. Each diocese is a mostly sovereign unit of power, designed to stand on it's own. Each diocese can make it's own rules and regulations under the leadership of the local Bishop as long as those rules don't violate the laws of God and His Church. This is where the Vatican comes in.
Just like our federal government the function of the Vatican is to act as buffer against abuse of the people by the diocese and the outside world. It makes sure that the diocese does not violate our rights as Catholics. It does this through establishing basic guidelines that all Catholics must follow and by issuing rulings, just like our Supreme Court, when problems arise that involve the whole Church.
It is also the international face of the Church. One of the primary reasons for the American Constitution was to create a federal body that would allow the individual states to come together as a group to deal with foreign powers and to make treaties that would bind them all. Because we all belong to the same group, with the same interests it is sensible that we have a central clearing house, if you will, to deal with problems that involve us all and are to big to be dealt with at a local level. The Vatican, as a city state, functions precisely this way in the U.N. and in other international functions. The individual dioceses could not do this even though they have a vested interest in many of these groups and the laws they attempt to pass.
Because of the way that the Church and the United States are ordered it is very difficult for the people at the top to exert a whole bunch of pressure on the people at the bottom, unless of course the people at the top assume power they were never meant to have. Obviously this is the case now in the U.S. and has been the case many times in the history of the Church. But, when everything is working as intended, the individual diocese or states are the real authorities in the lives of the people.
Because of this the people have real power and real responsibility. In the end, it is the people that are truly responsible for letting this sex abuse problem get out of hand. Somebody, somewhere knew what was happening and did little or nothing about it. Some parent was paid to hush up or threatened with eternal damnation if they said anything. Just like politicians, the Priests and Bishops that were involved in this used their power to cover their trails.
If a citizen knows that a politician is involved in an illegal action they should alert the authorities. Of course, since the authorities are the ones that are doing the illegal things the complaint may not go anywhere. Or, the citizen may be approached to see if a deal can be worked out. Maybe they refuse. The politician can threaten to bring the power of the state against them in the form of audits or licencing problems or whatever. Is this any different than what has happened in the dioceses with the sex scandals?
So the citizen decides to take the complaint higher, maybe to the federal level. Since the boys at the fed probably know the guys the complaint is being made against so they may not act or may try to cover for them. Maybe the citizen gets more threats or promises of a pay off.
This is exactly what has happened in the Church. Because it is our responsibility to protect our Church from "all enemies, foreign and domestic" we've let the smoke of Satan enter because we have allowed ourselves to be intimidated and in some cases to be bought off by the corrupt leaders that have done so much damage. And this all started at the parish level.
I think, based on things that I've been reading lately, that the Vatican is laying the groundwork for a major overhaul. It seems that in statements such as the one above the Vatican is making a case to begin to exercise the power it has to protect the people and the Church from the damage being done by a minority of Priests, Bishops and Religious groups that have refuse to follow the guidelines established by the Church. I think it is moving deliberately so that it can remove the problem without destroying the Church by working within the legal framework established over 2000 years of history.
Back to American history, again. The War Between the States started because the avenues of argument were shut off. Both sides had said all they had to say and war was forced upon the country by a President that saw no other viable option. Whether he was right or wrong is an argument for another day. I think that the Church finds itself in much the same position.
The Church, at least here in America, has split into two opposing camps. On the one side you have the Traditionalists and on the other the Modernists. I realize this is a simplification but I think it is accurate in its generality. Both sides have said all that needs to be said. The traditionalists follow Rome and the ancient teachings of the Church while the Modernists turn whichever way the wind blows, chasing one heresy after another. These two diametrically opposed systems of belief can never be reconciled. War is in the air.
I believe that Rome is well aware of this and is attempting to position itself in a way that might avoid the mistake made by Lincoln, forcing two opposing sides to live under one flag through a massively destructive war when peaceful separation is possible.
I think that in the near future the people of the Church in America, and probably the world, will be given a clear choice; whether to follow Rome or to leave. I think that the Vatican is paving the way for formal separation from those that refuse to follow her teachings. I think that the Church is well aware of the lessons of history and will try to do this peacefully because full blown war is not the answer. But, things cannot be left as they are.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." Abraham Lincoln June 1858
"And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25
The New York Times has provided the paper trail for the Father Stephen Kiesle laicization case on its website. It shows a stream of letters back and forth from Kiesle's diocese in Oakland, California and the Vatican. The letters come from priests, a chancellor and his bishop. They are trying to make the case for laicization of Father Kiesle, following the formula laid out in canon law for the process.
Canons 290-293 are the applicable codes. Canon 290; Section 3, is the most germane. Click on the link below for further reading about this section and how it is applied:
LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE
Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:
1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;
2° by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;
3° by a rescript of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.
Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which is granted solely by the Roman Pontiff.
Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state in accordance with the law, loses thereby the rights that are proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of order, without prejudice to can. 976. He is automatically deprived of all offices and roles and of any delegated power.
Can. 293 A cleric who has lost the clerical state cannot be enrolled as a cleric again save by rescript of the Apostolic See.
A discussion on this can be found in The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law written by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green and published by the Paulist Press.
I'm not a canon lawyer and have no expertise in this area but I'm trying to at least fill in a bit of information that the mainstream press seems incapable of doing themselves. The attorney that has brought forth the above mentioned "evidence" that was published by the Times is trying to confuse the subject. He is trying to make the case that somehow the Pope, when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, helped to protect a child abuser or, at the very least, did nothing to protect the Church and it youngest members from him. However, the communication between the CDF and those in California was only tangentially about child abuse; its real object was the laicization of Father Kiesle.
The local bishop had the responsibility concerning child abuse and removing Kiesle from active ministry or access to children. That was his responsibility and one that, according to the letter from Maurine Behrend dated May 11, 1988, he did not successfully uphold. Keeping Kiesle apart from the kids had nothing to do with laicization. In fact, laicization would have removed him from all Church authority and made it impossible for the Church to exercise the control that the abused, and their attorney Mr. Anderson, demand that the Church exercise.
Laicization has to be conducted under Canon Law. This is a function of the Church and thus the only controlling authority is the Church. One could make a comparison to secular law in that the only body qualified to pass judgement on the guilt or innocence of an American citizen regarding American law is an American court. To have an Italian court pass judgement on American law or to hold American law to the standard of Italian jurisprudence would be nonsensical and unjust.
Yet this is precisely what the Times and lawyer Anderson would have us do. They're trying to conflate American child abuse laws with Canon Law even though the two have nothing to do with each other in an attempt to convict the Pope and through him the entire Church of a crime they did not commit.
If there is any guilt in this case that falls under the authority of the American legal system it lies with the Bishop and Priests of the Diocese of Oakland. If the courts can prove that any member of the diocese knowingly helped Father Kiesle avoid arrest or trial for any illegal activities then as American citizens they can and should be brought before the court. I would have to say that since the letter from Ms. Behrend indicates that Father Kiesle had returned to duty, with a youth ministry no less, somebody, somewhere in the Diocese of Oakland made a huge mistake or was complicit in covering the abuse up and should be held accountable. Whether their mistake rises to a prosecutable level I have no idea. That's for the courts to decide and that's what they're for.
In the end the attempt to drag the Pope into this may succeed, at least in the eyes of the public. Attorney Anderson is trying to sue the Vatican to further line his pockets and I suspect that this misdirected accusation is part of an effort to poison the well against the Church. He is trying the Church in the court of public opinion to lay the groundwork for his hoped for upcoming lawsuit. Sadly, because of their own personal agenda of hate, the New York Times and a large segment of the American media are more than happy to help Anderson in any way they can.
For further reading and links about these vicious attacks and calumnious statements against Holy Mother Church hop on over to my buddy Ioannes' website here and here.
I'm thinking maybe the two of us should start the "Pissed Off Catholic Bloggers Association".
"In a statement issued late on Wednesday, the (New York) Times said its reports were "based on meticulous reporting and documents."
"Some of the particulars were confirmed by the Church, and so far no one has cast doubt on the facts we reported," said the Times in the statement issued by spokeswoman Diane McNulty.
"The allegations of abuse within the Catholic Church are a serious subject, as the Vatican has acknowledged on many occasions. Any role the current pope may have played in responding to those allegations over the years is a significant aspect of this story," the newspaper said."
New York Times
The New York Times has now resorted to lying about their lies. Why does anyone even bother with this trash any more?
I have posted below four examples of very serious doubt being cast upon the reporting and the facts at the Times. There are quite a few more. Maybe the Times should have said in their statement that "no one that agrees with us has cast doubt on the facts we reported". At least that would have been one "fact" we could ALL agree on.
I think that I'll stick with Pravda.
"My intent in writing this column is to accomplish the following:
To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;
To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;
...With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people. “ Also quoted is this: “Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.”
The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct."
Father Thomas Brundage
"...today’s Times presents both a lengthy article by Laurie Goodstein, a senior columnist, headlined “Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest,” and an accompanying editorial entitled “The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal,” in which the editors call the Goodstein article a disturbing report (emphasis in original) as a basis for their own charges against the Pope. Both the article and the editorial are deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness that Americans have every right and expectation to find in their major media reporting.
In her lead paragraph, Goodstein relies on what she describes as “newly unearthed files” to point out what the Vatican (i.e. then Cardinal Ratzinger and his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) did not do – “defrock Fr. Murphy.” Breaking news, apparently. Only after eight paragraphs of purple prose does Goodstein reveal that Fr. Murphy, who criminally abused as many as 200 deaf children while working at a school in the Milwaukee Archdiocese from 1950 to 1974, “not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims.”
But in paragraph 13, commenting on a statement of Fr. Lombardi (the Vatican spokesman) that Church law does not prohibit anyone from reporting cases of abuse to civil authorities, Goodstein writes, “He did not address why that had never happened in this case.” Did she forget, or did her editors not read, what she wrote in paragraph nine about Murphy getting “a pass from the police and prosecutors”? By her own account it seems clear that criminal authorities had been notified, most probably by the victims and their families."
Cardinal William J. Levada
"Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:
• The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.
• The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.
• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).
• A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting."
Father Raymond J. DeSouza
"Rembert Weakland is the emeritus archbishop of Milwaukee, notorious for having paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to satisfy the demands of his former male lover. Jeff Anderson is a Minnesota-based attorney who has made a substantial amount of money out of sex abuse “settlements,” and who is party to ongoing litigation intended to bring the resources of the Vatican within the reach of contingency-fee lawyers in the United States. Yet these two utterly implausible—and, in any serious journalistic sense, disqualified—sources were those the Times cited in a story claiming that, as cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, had prevented sanctions against Father Lawrence Murphy, a diabolical Milwaukee priest who, decades before, had abused some 200 deaf children in his pastoral care. This was simply not true, as the legal papers from the Murphy case the Times provided on its Web site demonstrated (see here for a demolition of the Times’ case based on the documentary evidence it made available). The facts, alas, seem to be of little interest to those whose primary concern is to nail down the narrative of global Catholic criminality, centered in the Vatican.
...So, of course, would elementary fairness from the global media. That seems unlikely to come from those reporters and editors at the New York Times who have abandoned any pretence of maintaining journalistic standards. But it ought not be beyond the capacity of other media outlets to understand that much of the Times’ recent reporting on the Church has been gravely distorted, and to treat it accordingly."
George Weigel
Below you'll find excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI's Letter to the Catholics of Ireland. Go and read the whole thing because it is worth the effort. You can also go here to read commentary on this topic from Ioannes at "Commentarius de Prognosticis".
I think that the Pope has done a good job of starting the process of a serious reaction to the scandal. His words are strong and his remedies worthy; from the spiritual standpoint. However, this is just a start. While I realize that the main concern of the Church is the soul, the people of the Church NEED to see some heads roll.
I sincerely hope and pray that the people involved in this scandal in Ireland and elsewhere seek a true conversion and find forgiveness for their sins. I just want them to go through this process of redemption without benefit of the Roman collar.
Please, Holy Father, remove anyone that has even a slight, tangential connection to this scandal from the priesthood. Cut the "cancer" from the body. The guilty can work towards forgiveness as a member of the laity.
This must be done for the sake of the souls of the many faithful that are being driven from the Church. In many ways, because theirs is a separation caused by the scandal and not because of involvement in it, the Church is more obligated to see to their needs than the needs of the guilty. The actions of our leaders have caused this separation and the Church needs to see it repaired.
"...You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes himself present in us and in our actions. Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life.
I urge you to examine your conscience, take responsibility for the sins you have committed, and humbly express your sorrow. Sincere repentance opens the door to God’s forgiveness and the grace of true amendment. By offering prayers and penances for those you have wronged, you should seek to atone personally for your actions. Christ’s redeeming sacrifice has the power to forgive even the gravest of sins, and to bring forth good from even the most terrible evil. At the same time, God’s justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing. Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God’s mercy.
... (To the Bishops) It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes and to guarantee that they do not happen again. Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence. Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise. They too have taken part in recent discussions here in Rome with a view to establishing a clear and consistent approach to these matters. It is imperative that the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland be continually revised and updated and that they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law.
Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal. The Irish people rightly expect you to be men of God, to be holy, to live simply, to pursue personal conversion daily. For them, in the words of Saint Augustine, you are a bishop; yet with them you are called to be a follower of Christ (cf. Sermon 340, 1). I therefore exhort you to renew your sense of accountability before God, to grow in solidarity with your people and to deepen your pastoral concern for all the members of your flock. In particular, I ask you to be attentive to the spiritual and moral lives of each one of your priests. Set them an example by your own lives, be close to them, listen to their concerns, offer them encouragement at this difficult time and stir up the flame of their love for Christ and their commitment to the service of their brothers and sisters.
...I now wish to propose to you some concrete initiatives to address the situation.
At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace.
Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.
I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32)"
The last few days the media has begun a feeding frenzy around the issue of the Pope and what he knew about the homosexual child abuse scandal in Germany. I pray that our Holy Father is innocent of all charges leveled against him in the court of public opinion. However, guilt or innocence may not matter to those that would see the Church destroyed. So let me put forth a couple of theories:
1) These stories are true, in which case we've got big troubles ahead for the Church. Even if the Pope is involved it still has no effect on the teaching authority of the Church or the guarantees of Christ to protect that authority. It doesn't matter though because most don't understand the structure and foundation of Church authority so something like this would drive millions away.
2) These stories are part of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by interests threatened by the Pope and the Church. This could very easily be an attempt to discredit a very conservative Pope before he is able to make changes that will bring the Church back from the edge of the abyss. There are many, many powerful people and groups inside and outside the Church that are threatened by some of the things the Pope has been doing. Satan cannot directly attack or affect the doctrine and dogma of the Church. He can, however, directly attack the leadership in all areas that are not protected, which is in everything except issues of faith and morals at a dogmatic or doctrinal level. For Satanic groups that believe they have the power to destroy the Church, this is the perfect storm.
If, as I have long suspected, the homosexual child abuse scandal is part of a larger effort to destroy the Church by outside forces, this accusation would be the culmination of their efforts. This is the way Communism/Progressivism works. It is deliberate and patient. Some of it's adherents may lack this virtue but those at the center put plans in place that take decades to come to fruition.
Watch how all of this plays out. This will be used to drive a wedge between the Church and her people. This may be the issue that finally causes a public split of the Church into two distinct camps; those that trust Jesus and his promises and those that fall for the siren song of Satan.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19
Pray for the Pope and the Church; and for the members of the body that will be torn away by this scandal.
The time of winnowing is at hand.
St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
Finally, a news story that doesn't try to spin the words of the Pope into some sort of backhanded endorsement of socialism. I find it interesting that the Pope uses the phrase "social responsibility" instead of the more fashionable and politically loaded phrase "social justice". Think of the difference. "Social justice" is used to avoid responsibility for ones own actions, generally calling for one group to have access to the wealth of another, usually through coercive measures. "Social responsibility" on the other hand calls for the individual to choose charity towards his fellow man through an act of free will. "Justice" requires draconian force on the part of the government while "responsibility" requires deliberate action on the part of individuals. One focuses on the "rights" of the worker while the other focuses on the needs of all.
Which system would you rather live under?
"On Saturday at the Apostolic Palace, Pope Benedict met in audience with a group from a local Italian municipal agency. Speaking with them, but also to the international community, Holy Father stressed the importance of "social responsibility" in the business environment “to promote the good of all.”
Meeting with directors and personnel of the Roman branch of ACEA, a company that specializes in providing energy and water services to Italy, the Holy Father expressed his hope that the development model that has brought the world to its present economic crisis would be rethought so that man with his “capacity to produce, innovate, think and build the future” is placed at the center.
It’s important, he continued, to increase consciousness for “the necessity of a broader ‘social responsibility’ in business, that strives to hold in just consideration the expectations and needs of workers, clients, producers and the entire community, and to pay special attention to the environment.”
“In this way,” added Pope Benedict, “the production of goods and services will not be tied exclusively to the search for economic profits, but also to the promotion of the good for all.”
The Holy Father praised ACEA for measures it has taken to protect and reduce the negative impact of their business activities on the environment. “But it is equally important to promote a human ecology that is intended to bring about work environments and interpersonal relations deserving of man.”
Pope Benedict XVI summed up his message by saying that “the protection of creation… implies also the protection of those sentiments of kindness, generosity, correctness and honesty that God has put in the heart of every human being, created in his ‘image and likeness.’”
He concluded by saying that it is through the example of Christ that we should act “to be able to grow in humanity and so realize a City with an always human face, in which each is considered a person, a spiritual being in relation with others.”
Catholic News Agency
"The economic crisis is causing the loss of many jobs and this calls for a huge sense of responsibility by everyone: entrepreneurs, workers, governing officials," the pope said after his weekly Angelus blessing.
"I think of some difficult situations in Italy, like, for example, Termini Imerese and Portovesme ... Do everything possible to protect and spur job growth, assuring dignified and adequate work to sustain families."
Reuters
I wish that I could find some other reporting on this comment besides that supplied by Reuters. Professional journalists are no better than us bloggers in this respect. They take a news feed and run with it seemingly without checking it for accuracy or trying to add any clarification. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.
What I would like to know is exactly what the Pope expects? Does he believe that someone, whether it is business or the public sector, should create and fund work that is meaningless? Because if someone is paying somebody else to produce a product for which there is no market then someone is promoting pointless depletion of capital. And, since most governments are, for all intents and purposes, living on credit cards, this action would promote debt slavery for future generations. And if corporations are being asked to do this isn't the Pope essentially calling for a transfer of wealth from owners and investors to workers? For no profitable reason? Why should the workers reap the benefits of this largess at the expense of the owners and investors? Don't the owners and investors have needs and rights, too?
So I would like to know if the Pope has something specific in mind that I don't understand or if this comment was a knee jerk reaction of a European Socialist just looking to the government for the solution. I would like some follow up to this story instead of being left to hang.
But, I'm not going to hold my breath. This sort of reporting lends itself to the interest of those on the left that would love to see the Church side with the socialists. And, since the Church won't do that, leaving the impression that it has will have to suffice.
"Pope Benedict XVI denounced the failure of world leaders to agree to a new climate change treaty in Copenhagen last month, saying Monday that world peace depends on safeguarding God's creation.
He issued the admonition in a speech to ambassadors accredited to the Vatican, an annual appointment during which the pontiff reflects on issues the Vatican wants to highlight to the diplomatic corps."
Yahoo
So, I just went to the Vatican website (
Vatican.va)
to read the Pope's statement in its entirety. In the words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!". There is so much more to this statement and the problems cited by the Pope than just the environment. Admittedly, his main focus is on the allocation of resources and the impact of environmental degradation, but the causes of this destruction and mis allocation are not as simple as "global warming" proponents would have us believe.
From the pope's address:
"How can we forget, for that matter, that the struggle for access to natural resources is one of the causes of a number of conflicts, not least in Africa, as well as a continuing threat elsewhere? For this reason too, I forcefully repeat that to cultivate peace, one must protect creation! Furthermore, there are still large areas, for example in Afghanistan or in some countries of Latin America, where agriculture is unfortunately still linked to the production of narcotics, and is a not insignificant source of employment and income. If we want peace, we need to preserve creation by rechanneling these activities; I once more urge the international community not to become resigned to the drug trade and the grave moral and social problems which it creates.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the protection of creation is indeed an important element of peace and justice! Among the many challenges which it presents, one of the most serious is increased military spending and the cost of maintaining and developing nuclear arsenals. Enormous resources are being consumed for these purposes, when they could be spent on the development of peoples, especially those who are poorest. For this reason I firmly hope that, during the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held this May in New York, concrete decisions will be made towards progressive disarmament, with a view to freeing our planet from nuclear arms. More generally, I deplore the fact that arms production and export helps to perpetuate conflicts and violence, as in Darfur, in Somalia or in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Together with the inability of the parties directly involved to step back from the spiral of violence and pain spawned by these conflicts, there is the apparent powerlessness of other countries and the international organizations to restore peace, to say nothing of the indifference, amounting practically to resignation, of public opinion worldwide. There is no need to insist on the extent to which such conflicts damage and degrade the environment. Finally, how can I fail to mention terrorism, which endangers countless innocent lives and generates widespread anxiety. On this solemn occasion, I would like to renew the appeal which I made during the Angelus prayer of 1 January last to all those belonging to armed groups, of whatever kind, to abandon the path of violence and to open their hearts to the joy of peace."
It seems that the pope is not the environmentalist nut, tree hugging green boy the mainstream media would like us to believe. His concerns about the environment transcend the typical Greenpeace talking points and Al Gore financial solicitations to expose the true evil that arises when man mistreats God's creation.
RIGHT ON, BENEDICT!!
I wonder if perhaps he has something like this in mind:
"If you read any economic, financial, or political analysis for 2010 that doesn’t mention the food shortage looming next year, throw it in the trash, as it is worthless. There is overwhelming, undeniable evidence that the world will run out of food next year. When this happens, the resulting triple digit food inflation will lead panicking central banks around the world to dump their foreign reserves to appreciate their currencies and lower the cost of food imports, causing the collapse of the dollar, the treasury market, derivative markets, and the global financial system. The US will experience economic disintegration."
Market Skeptics
Just a thought.
The Pope issued his message for the World Day of Peace and it centers on the environment. Now, I'll come right out and say it; it seems as though there are other, more pressing matters that the Pope could talk about. Lately it's been all about environmentalism. The coverage that I've seen in the mainstream press seems to paint this one world government, kumbayah left wing enviro-nut case picture when they refer to his comments. The news stories always seem to be rather shallow, with just enough information to make it seem as though the Pope is on the side of Al Gore.
What we don't see is this, from his speech today:
"Nor must we forget the very significant fact that many people experience peace and tranquillity, renewal and reinvigoration, when they come into close contact with the beauty and harmony of nature. There exists a certain reciprocity: as we care for creation, we realize that God, through creation, cares for us. On the other hand, a correct understanding of the relationship between man and the environment will not end by absolutizing nature or by considering it more important than the human person. If the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms. The Church, for her part, is concerned that the question be approached in a balanced way, with respect for the “grammar” which the Creator has inscribed in his handiwork by giving man the role of a steward and administrator with responsibility over creation, a role which man must certainly not abuse, but also one which he may not abdicate. In the same way, the opposite position, which would absolutize technology and human power, results in a grave assault not only on nature, but also on human dignity itself."
The Vatican
I think that this may be the key to the focus on environmentalism of late. The Pope sees in the environmental movement that its leaders have objectified man and reduced us in importance to less than the earth itself. He is trying to underscore the absolute necessity of environmental stewardship while recognizing the rightful place of man in relationship to it. We are commanded in Genesis 1:28: "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” As a people we have taken this injunction to use the earth to our benefit and bastardized it into the idea that we have no responsibility for the damage we do, as long as we benefit from it.
The Pope is trying to walk the middle road and help man to see that we have a responsibility to ourselves and those that come after us to be good stewards, not just exploiters. But, this stewardship can never become a means unto itself, placing the good of creation above the good of man. Creation was built to serve us, not the other way around. He wants us to understand that while we do have the right to private property that responsibility to protect the resource comes with the right to control it. We will not live forever and someone else will own it after we are gone. We are responsible to that future owner for the health of the common inheritance we all share.
The stories in the MSM seem to miss out on this subtle, nuanced teaching. The Popes words are being spun to suit a particular political ideology. He has to be aware of this so I'm not sure why more isn't being done to get the real message out. Of course, maybe he figures that he has a really bully pulpit and the truth is there for those that wish to look. I don't know.
I guess that I'm just frustrated. I know that the Pope is doing what he believes is important so, honestly, it probably is. I'm just tired of seeing the truth twisted and turned. Both sides of the environmental debate would do well to really absorb what the Pope has said. If we would truly work for the common good as Christianity teaches and God intends life would be so much easier. Instead, we'll continue to squabble for personal, political and financial power until the whole thing comes tumbling down. We are fools; from the fall to today we've learned nothing and nothing has changed. We are driven by pride and lust and they will be our undoing.
It is just a matter of time.
“The Pope denounces the ecological crisis but does not belong to the church of Al Gore," wrote Giuliano Ferrara, director of Italian daily Il Foglio, in his editorial column after reading Benedict XVI's message for the World Day of Peace. Ferrara described the papal message as being "of great culture" in its reminder that man must be valued above all other living things.
The Pontiff's message underscores the threats to the environment and the necessity of taking decisive action to find long-term, inter-generational solutions to the crises of today. It also provides parameters for the role of the Church and individual Christians in combating the environmental and economic crises, pointing to a renewal of values and morality without losing sight of the "distinctiveness and superior role" of human beings over nature.
"Benedict XVI," wrote Ferrara in his analysis, "in no way denies human abuse of nature,” but in affirming the ecological crisis, neither does he share "the environmentalist religion or environmentalism as a religion."
Catholic News Agency
The Pope doesn't subscribe to the religion of environmentalist earth worship. I never thought he did. And, his statements have been rather clear about his position on the current global environmental crisis. Great.
WHAT FREAKIN' CRISIS??!!!!!
This is the part that I can't get my hands around. He keeps referring to this so called "crisis". Last time I looked around the air seemed pretty clean, the water from my well tastes pretty good and there isn't a whole bunch of trash laying on the ground. There are more critters running around here in Missouri than we know what to do with. I mean, things look pretty peachy here.
The Pope writes about the inequality of wealth in relation to this "crisis", as if cleaning up the air will make the kids with the bloated bellies in Africa full. Sorry to break it to him but the environment isn't the problem. Leftist political ideology that destroys any incentive people may have to better themselves is the problem. Oppressive government controlling all aspects of life in the name of "social justice" is the problem. Focusing on a redistribution of wealth at the expense of creation of real, productive wealth is the problem.
America consumes an awful lot of resources to maintain our standard of living. We create some pollution but considering how much energy we consume we keep it pretty clean. It's a whole lot better than it used to be.
The reason for this is that the energy we consume creates wealth and the wealth allows us to innovate. We aren't consumed by the need to keep from starving so we have time to worry about other, less immediate problems; like the environment. If it wasn't for our wealth created with the use of energy we would have a bunch of kids with bloated bellies, too.
It seems like the people that promote the redistribution of wealth would be happier if we had a few more bloated kids around here. It seems like here in America, where admittedly some do much better than others, in some cases obscenely better, that this system of ours has raised almost all the ships. Even the leaky, poorly maintained ones do OK. It may not provide equality of outcome for all, but it has provided an acceptable quality of life for most.
Posts
