Folks, check this interview with Imam Anjem Choudary on CNN:
Pretty much admits that Muslims in public may tell us one thing but among themselves they may say another.
The Imam speaks for himself. I do have a message for Mr. Choudary:
Lan Astaslem. I will not submit. I will not surrender. I will not capitulate. I will not pay the jizyah, ever.
And yes, there’s no God but God, but Muhammad is not his prophet.
Hopefully we’ll get to hear CAIR protest against this blatant distortion of Islam. (Make yourself comfortable for the wait).
Folks, what follows is a transcript of an interview of Cardinal-Designate, Archbishop Raymond Burke, formerly of St. Louis and know the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Church’s highes tribunal. The interview took place on October 20, 2010 in Rome and was conducted by Thomas J. McKenna, president of Catholic Action for Faith and Family. You may watch the full 25-minute interview here. (También en español | Em Português)
Good afternoon! My name is Thomas McKenna, and I’m the founder and president of Catholic Action for Faith and Family, a Catholic lay-inspired organization that aims to uphold and promote the values of our Catholic faith.
I’m here today in Rome with His Excellency, Archbishop Raymond Burke, who just hours ago [learned that he would be] elevated to the College of Cardinals by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. I have invited Archbishop Burke today to discuss with me a pastoral letter that he wrote while serving as Archbishop of St. Louis, a pastoral letter that addressed the Catholic voters and their obligations.
Your Excellency, I am very pleased to be with you today and I am very honored, especially on a day that’s so special to you, that the Holy Father has elevated you to the College of Cardinals. Your Excellency, it’s an honor to be with you here today and I wanted to be the first to congratulate you on the honor that you received from the Holy Father.
AB – Thank you very much, Thomas.
TM – One of the questions that I would like to ask you is, just to start with, why did Your Excellency as Archbishop of that time, during the [2004] election, why did you conceive the idea to write this pastoral letter on Catholics and their voting?
AB – I had discovered over the years that many people simply were confused about their moral obligation in voting. Many Catholics have the idea that while they might hold in their personal lives certain moral truths, that when it came to voting it was all right simply to bracket those truths and to vote according to other criteria. And so I wanted to make sure that the faithful would realize that they had a very serious moral obligation in voting to vote for those candidates who would uphold the truth of the moral law, which of course also serves the greatest good of everyone in society.
So that was my principal reason in writing the pastoral letter – to set forth again for the faithful in the Archdiocese of St. Louis and others beyond who would read the pastoral letter, those fundamental moral principles which should guide us in voting.
This is of particular significance in a democratic republic like our own, because we really cooperate in the laws and policies of our nation through those whom we elect to office. And so we cannot say that, for instance, in our society the fact that there is widespread practice of procured abortion or there is a growing permission of “marriages,” so-called marriages between persons of the same sex, we can no longer say, “Why, I don’t have anything to do with that.” Well, we do, because we elect those people to office who permit such things in our society. So that was my principal reason in writing the letter.
TM – That is very important. Very important for our time. Clarity. That is something that is very lacking today, it seems, is clarity.
AB - We cannot do anything good if we’re not telling the truth. There is a kind of strange idea that developed where people think that somehow, by not being clear and truthful, that we can somehow still do what is right and good – and that simply doesn’t work.
TM – Your Excellency, what would you say to those who would say that a bishop writing a pastoral letter about voting is interfering and breaking the so-called covenant we have of separation of Church and State in our country?
AB – Well, the sole notion of separation of Church and State as to be properly understood in our nation, was on the Establishment Clause, [which] is the real name of that part of our Constitution or the Amendments to our Constitution. And what it means is we don’t have a State religion in the United States, for instance. It is not a country in which the Catholic Faith or any other faith is given any particular status.
At the same time, the Founders of our country were very interested in promoting religious life among the people, because they understood that religion would inspire in the people those highest motives so that they would be good citizens and also promote the good of the whole country.
And so, as a bishop it’s my obligation, in fact, to urge the faithful to carry out their civic duty in accord with their Catholic Faith. At the same time, I cannot and I did not, in that pastoral letter, engage actually in politics, in the sense of taking a position to favor one candidate over another. No, simply what I did was to give to the voters those principles which they would need so that they could decide for whom they wanted to vote. I never told anyone to vote for this candidate or that candidate, but simply gave them the principles which they would need to vote in a morally good way for whichever candidate was running for office.
TM – Right. Your Excellency, one of I think [the] gravest issues that we see today, and I know that many politicians and people, others, don’t want to hear about it, is the issue of procured abortion in our country. To date, the figures are conservatively, maybe are at least 50 million officially, babies have been killed in their mothers’ wombs. And a lot of people find different ways around that. What would you say, just as a base line here, is it ever licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, a candidate who either in a platform or who has voted, has shown himself to support that. Is it ever valid?
AB – No. You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion. You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone.
TM – It’s not only in our country, in the United States, that the issue of abortion is raging. Right now, currently, in Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world, where abortion is still illegal, there is a big debate going on, because one of the candidates who is representing a party there is pro-abortion, is on record as being pro-abortion, and the Catholic bishops of the country have come out with statements there, some of them together making strong statements. I would just like to say, if you could say, you who have been in the United States here and wrote this pastoral in 2004, if you could say a word to the bishops there, what would you say to them in [the] face of this, because it is a very crucial time in their country, for they do not have abortion yet and the issue of this election could be decisive?
AB – I would certainly encourage them, and first of all commend them for exercising their office as teachers of the Faith in a most critical area. How could a bishop sleep at night who wouldn’t teach his faithful, warn his faithful about such a grave evil as abortion threatening to be visited upon them, upon their nation? So these bishops are much to be commended, and what they are doing is simply an exercise of their office as teachers of the Faith and of morals. And as I say, this is the most fundamental and critical area, the protection of innocent and defenseless human life. And so I promise that I will pray for these bishops and for their continued courage in announcing the Faith.
Sadly, in the society in which we live, it is oftentimes difficult for bishops to carry out their office because they are accused of being partisan or other accusations are made against them. But what a bishop should simply do is say to himself, “What does the Catholic Faith teach about this matter and how can I best announce it to the people, to alert them so that they do what in their consciences they are obliged to do?”
TM – What would you say as a teacher, as a father of the Church, say to a Catholic who says, “I think this socially, or for other reasons, even if the Church says this, I want to vote the other way?”
AB – I would simply say to them: Do you follow the Golden Rule that was taught to us by Our Lord Himself in the Gospels? In other words, do you “do unto others as you would want them to do unto you?” Do you consider it really fair to advance some interest you have, which may be a good interest, whether it is the environment or whatever it might be, at the cost of denying to other members of society, and especially those who depend upon us completely for life itself, to deny them the right to life? And I think that if most people would reflect in this way, simply in terms of the Golden Rule, that they would understand that it can never be right.
No matter what good I’m trying to achieve by voting for a candidate who favors that good, but at the same time favors the intrinsic evil, the grave evil of abortion, they can never justify that, voting for that candidate. And so I would just urge people to consider those smallest brothers and sisters of ours, those fellow members of God’s family whom our society teaches us to disregard or even not to think of as fellow human beings, but who really and truly are fellow human beings, and to do what’s right for them, even as we would want when we were such small little beings in our mothers’ wombs in the embryonic stage of development or along the way before our birth, as we would want voters to vote to protect our lives and to safeguard our lives.
TM – A war is raging in the United States, as you well know, over the issue of so-called same-sex “marriage.” One of the greatest obstacles, you might say, or questions for Catholics, [is] that many of them feel that this is discrimination—that is something that is being presented—and that we are a nation of fairness, and by not allowing people of the same sex to be married and to live equal to those that are one man and one woman, that somehow they are being discriminated against. That has affected many Catholics, especially in my experience with them. What would the Church’s response be [to the idea] that this should be allowed, because it is only an act of discrimination like we had back in the early days of our country where black people were discriminated against, which is something we saw, unjust, but how does that compare with what we see today?
AB – Where there is unjust discrimination – for instance, where you say that a fellow human being, because of the color of his skin, is not a part of the same race as someone, say, who is a Caucasian, that is a kind of discrimination which is unjust and immoral. But there is a discrimination which is perfectly just and good, and that is the discrimination between what is right and what is wrong. Between what is according to our human nature and what is contrary to our human nature. So the Catholic Church, in teaching that sexual acts between persons of the same sex are intrinsically evil, are against nature itself, is simply announcing the truth, helping people to discriminate right from wrong in terms of their own activities.
What does this mean in the concrete case of someone whom we encounter, who, for whatever reason, is attracted to act in this way, is attracted sexually to persons of the same sex, and is even attracted to sexual activity with a person of the same sex? We must be absolutely compassionate. We have no right to deny the human dignity of that individual who suffers from this attraction, which is against nature. But our compassion for the person should first and foremost lead us to be honest with him or her, and to try to help him or her to come to know that this attraction is not right, and to deal with it in a way in which we are all capable of dealing with it, as moral beings, to correct in themselves this attraction, and to strive more and more to redirect their affections, and so forth, in a way which respects God’s Law.
So it’s not at all an unfair discrimination to say, well, “no.” [For] persons who are attracted in this way, we can’t do them any good by making up a new idea of marriage contrary to the way in which God has created us, so that now a marriage between a man and a woman is no different than a “marriage” between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. This, when we stop to think about it, is simply right reasoning. Our Lord illuminates us also in this regard through reason, but then we find the teachings of the Church in Holy Scriptures and in Tradition, the further illuminations, so that we understand why same-sex activity is always and everywhere wrong.
TM: Your Excellency, in the pastoral letter that you wrote, there was a very important point that you spoke about: public figures who vote pro-abortion, or contrary to the Church’s teachings on other issues, and continue to go to Communion, or continue to go to church and present themselves as Catholic. This gives scandal. Could you say something about what exactly is this scandal, and how serious is it?
AB: It’s very serious. I can tell you that. Because many people, Catholics as well as non-Catholics, have begun to believe that the Catholic Church’s teaching on the evil of abortion must not be very firm, or maybe even that it is about to be changed in some way. I can give you an example. In 2004 I was visiting with a very highly placed official in Washington who is not Catholic, but is a very devout Christian, a very sincere Christian. He asked me – we were having a lengthy visit alone – and he asked me at a certain point, “Do you think that when this Holy Father” – referring to the Venerable Pope John Paul II – “dies, that the next Holy Father may change the teaching on abortion?”
I was really shocked. I said to him, “What would make you ask that question? The Church can’t change its teaching on abortion. It’s part of the natural moral law. The Church has only held more and more to announce it, and be faithful to it.” He said, “Well, I couldn’t help but think that there must be something about it that’s not very firm, because I bet I could give you the name of 70 or 80 Catholics here on Capitol Hill who regularly vote for abortion legislation.”
So what is scandal? Scandal is either doing something, or omitting to do something, that leads other people into confusion or error about the moral good. Here’s the perfect example: Catholics who betray their Catholic Faith in political life, as legislators or judges or whatever it may be, leading other people to believe that abortion must not be the great evil that it is, or that abortion is, in fact, a good thing in some circumstances.
Today it’s rendered more important than ever to consider the reality of scandal because there is a tendency – if you say to someone today, “I’m scandalized by that” – the tendency today is to say, “The problem is with you. This is a good person, and he is doing what he thinks is right” and so forth, without respect for what is true and what isn’t true – “and it’s you who are the cause of our difficulty by criticizing him.”
This isn’t true at all. When we express the scandal that it has caused to us, then we call the person who has caused the scandal to a reform, and, one hopes, to a reparation of the evil done. It’s not a question of accusing others falsely. It’s not a question of introducing disunity or discord within the community. It’s really a question of seeking those foundations where there is real unity. In other words, unity in the promotion of the common good. So this idea of scandal must really be recaptured because it’s at work. Whether people recognize it or not. Many people have been led astray with regard to human life, and now we see it particularly with regard to same-sex unions.
TM: A public official who has given scandal in this way and who is Catholic, when he finally comes to the understanding of that, what type of reparation or amendment of life would qualify as making up for the evil that was done by the scandal in today’s world?
AB: First of all, there has to be a genuine reform of heart. That’s done through the Sacrament of Penance, through the satisfaction, or the penance which is assigned in the Sacrament. But then one has to recognize that because I am a public figure, because, as a public figure I have promoted something that is very evil, I have also publicly to renounce the error which I was operating in and into which I was leading other people.
So, to me, the only adequate thing is for that public figure to say, “I was wrong, and now I understand the truth about human life. And I deeply regret what I’ve done.” For instance, in the medical field, someone like the figure of Bernard Nathanson, who was a great promoter of procured abortion, and then made reparation, recognized his error, and then began to write books and give talks, to try to make reparation for the many, many lives in which he was the instrument of their murder.
I remember, too, hearing a physician speak when I was bishop of LaCrosse. He had been doing abortions for 14 years. Finally, he came to understand the evil of abortion. How did it happen? He and his wife had a little daughter who was five years old. One day she ran out to play with her friend across the street. She didn’t look both ways and she was struck by a car. Sadly, she died.
He said that it didn’t strike him at the moment of her death. Of course, they were terribly grieved. They had her funeral and eventually he went back to his practice. He said that when he went back into the operating studio to perform the abortion, a light went on. He finally understood: “Here I’ve been grieving over the death of my little daughter…” At that, he stopped performing abortions. He was dedicating his life – this was some years ago; I’m sure he continues – going around talking to various groups of people, especially young people, about the evil of abortion and trying to make reparation in that way. He was stating very openly his error and his profound sorrow for all the human lives that he had taken.
TM: That’s a very moving story, Your Excellency. To me, that shows how God will give sufficient grace for a conversion.
AB: He does. It’s remarkable. You say to yourself: “How can someone ever be forgiven for committing abortion?” God does forgive us. His mercy is immeasurable, but that mercy then leads us to make that reparation which we, humanly, need to do in order to repair the evil done and to draw people to the good.
TM: I want to thank you for your time and for sharing your insight and inspirations into the importance of Catholics voting and how that can affect our civil life as well as our spiritual life. I would like to ask [whether] you have any closing words you would like to say to our fellow Americans?
AB: First, I want to thank you for all the work that your organization is doing in order to promote the common good in our nation. Second, [I want to] to invite all those who are listening to us to invoke in a particular way the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe. She has been given to us as the Mother of America. She is our Mother. She is the Mother of Our Lord Jesus, but also [in a] very particular way, our Mother. She appeared on our continent in 1531 and showed Herself to be the Protectress of all human life.
Let us pray in a very special way, through her intercession, uniting out hearts to her Immaculate Heart, praying for an end to the evils of abortion and all the attacks on the family, especially the promotions of “same-sex unions.” Let us be confident that Our Lord will hear our prayer. Through our feeble efforts, and through our prayers, we will win for our brothers and sisters that gift of God’s love and mercy.
TM: Thank you very much. Once again, congratulations on your elevation to Cardinal.
AB: Thank you. God bless you!
Copyright 2010 Catholic Action for Faith and Family. Reprinted with Permission.
Little is known of these two Apostles, whose names are always linked in the Gospel accounts, St. Simon was surnamed the Zealot for his rigid adherence to the Jewish law and to the Canaanite law. He was one of the original followers of Christ. Western tradition is that he preached in Egypt and then went to Persia with St. Jude, where both suffered martyrdom. Eastern tradition says Simon died peacefully at Edessa.
St. Jude, known as Thaddaeus, was a brother of St. James the Less, and a relative of Our Saviour. St. Jude was one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus.
Ancient writers tell us that he preached the Gospel in Judea, Samaria, Idumaea, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Lybia. According to Eusebius, he returned to Jerusalem in the year 62, and assisted at the election of his brother, St. Simeon, as Bishop of Jerusalem.
He is an author of an epistle (letter) to the Churches of the East, particularly the Jewish converts, directed against the heresies of the Simonians, Nicolaites, and Gnostics. This Apostle is said to have suffered martyrdom along with St. Simon in Armenia, which was then subject to Persia.
St Jude is invoked in desperate situations because his New Testament letter stresses that the faithful should persevere in the environment of harsh, difficult circumstances, just as their forefathers had done before them. Therefore, he is the patron saint of desperate cases. (The epithet is also commonly rendered as “patron saint of lost causes”.) However, there is another reckoning to this epithet. Many Christians have unfortunately reckoned him as Judas Iscariot and thus avoided veneration. Therefore he was also called the “Forgotten Saint”. Because veneration was avoided, only people in the most desperate circumstances would call upon him, and Jude, desiring to help, was willing to pray for even the most desperate or lost case. Therefore, goes the logic, Jude became the patron saint of lost causes.
Collect of the Day:
O God, by your will the blessed Apostles have led us to acknowledge your name.
By the intercession of Saint Simon and Saint Jude,
grant that your Church may constantly grow
as more and more nations come to believe in you.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.
Amen.
Reflection:
A commentary on the gospel of John by St Cyril of Alexandria
As the Father sent me, so I am sending you
Our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed certain men to be guides and teachers of the world and stewards of his divine mysteries. Now he bids them to shine out like lamps and to cast out their light not only over the land of the Jews but over every country under the sun and over people scattered in all directions and settled in distant lands. That man has spoken truly who said: No one takes honour upon himself, except the one who is called by God, for it was our Lord Jesus Christ who called his own disciples before all others to a most glorious apostolate. These holy men became the pillar and mainstay of the truth, and Jesus said that he was sending them just as the Father had sent him.
By these words he is making clear the dignity of the apostolate and the incomparable glory of the power given to them, but he is also, it would seem, giving them a hint about the methods they are to adopt in their apostolic mission. For if Christ thought it necessary to send out his intimate disciples in this fashion, just as the Father had sent him, then surely it was necessary that they whose mission was to be patterned on that of Jesus should see exactly why the Father had sent the Son. And so Christ interpreted the character of his mission to us in a variety of ways. Once he said: I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance. And then at another time he said: I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. For God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
Accordingly, in affirming that they are sent by him just as he was sent by the Father, Christ sums up in a few words the approach they themselves should take to their ministry. From what he said they would gather that it was their vocation to call sinners to repentance, to heal those who were sick whether in body or spirit, to seek in all their dealings never to do their own will but the will of him who sent them, and as far as possible to save the world by their teaching.
Surely it is in all these respects that we find his holy disciples striving to excel. To ascertain this is no great labour, a single reading of the Acts of the Apostles or of Saint Paul’s writings is enough.
A Prayer to St. Jude
Most holy apostle, St. Jude, faithful servant and friend of Jesus, the name of the traitor who delivered thy beloved Master into the hands of His enemies hath caused thee to be forgotten by many, but the Church honors and invokes thee universally as the patron of hopeless cases, of things despaired of. Pray for me, who am so miserable. Make use, I implore thee, of that particular privilege accorded to thee, to bring visible and speedy help where help is almost despaired of. Come to my assistance in this great need that I may receive the consolation and succor of Heaven in all my necessities, tribulations, and sufferings, particularly — (Mention your request) and that I may praise God with thee and all the elect throughout eternity. I promise, O blessed Jude, to be ever mindful of this great favor, and I will never cease to honor thee as my special and powerful patron, and to do all in my power to encourage devotion to thee. Amen.
Pressure is on to change the Roman Catholic Church in America, but it's not coming from the usual liberal suspects. A new breed of theological conservatives has taken to blogs and YouTube to say the church isn't Catholic enough.Please, read the whole thing here.
Enraged by dissent that they believe has gone unchecked for decades, and unafraid to say so in the starkest language, these activists are naming names and unsettling the church...
John Allen, Vatican analyst for the National Catholic Reporter, has dubbed this trend "Taliban Catholicism." But he says it's not a strictly conservative phenomenon - liberals can fit the mindset, too, Allen says. Some left-leaning Catholics are outraged by any exercise of church authority.
Yet on the Internet and in the church, conservatives are having the bigger impact...
Commentary. I've never heard of the Bryan Hehir Exposed or of the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry or The Tenth Crusade blogs, nor do I understand why the Associated Press reporter (Rachel Zoll) considered these blogs as representative of Catholic blogdom. It's not sour grapes at not being included in her blacklist, mind you. I support our bishops; I don't carry on sustained information campaigns against people, often contenting myself to point out once or twice someone's mistake before moving on to the next thing, so I understand why I didn't make Ms. Zoll's grade. Of course, I do know of my better-known colleague, Thomas Peters of American Papist, definitely one of the principal Catholic bloggers in the USA, but Ms. Zolli doesn't mix him with the others to her credit.Many times during the course of this ongoing publication, situations arise in which I feel strongly the need to speak out regarding the good of the local and universal Church. In order to allay any possible confusion regarding my personal standing to make my wishes known to our Pastors concerning the good of the Church, I wish to state that my right to do so rests on Canon 212, ss3, of the 1983 Code of Canon Law:Fellow Catholics who think that the Second Vatican Council invented a new way of being Catholic, that it in fact invented a new Church and that entire portions of our Deposit of Faith (what I often call "Holy Tradition") are either disposable or susceptible to radical reinterpretation may want to deny me my canonical right of petition, but then again, they mostly care about importing postmodern political antivalues into the Church. Their often dismissive attitude to dogma, authority, and law in the Church impedes them from acting within the Church; what they have left is agitation, propaganda, pressure, and disobedience. It's not our fault they are inarticulate.[Christ's faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.As a Catholic blogger, I base my right to speak out on this canon, and hereby pledge to follow its accompanying responsibility to always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals. I will not surrender this right. I hereby pledge to prudently and responsibly exercise this right with the lights the Holy Spirit sees fit to grant me.
Folks, today’s the true Christian Sabbath, the Day of the Lord, the Dominicus Diae. Enjoy by attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and, if you are able, by participating of our risen Paschal Lamb. Then, enjoy the rest of the day with family and friends. God bless us all!
Folks, this according to CNA:
Manhattan, Kans., Oct 22, 2010 / 06:04 am (CNA).- Social scientist Walter Schumm doesn't think his forthcoming paper ought to be provoking outraged responses he has already received.
For years, researchers have admitted the possibility that he says he has now confirmed -- that children raised by homosexual parents are more apt to become homosexual themselves.
Nevertheless, Schumm's article, which will be published in the November edition of the Journal of Biosocial Science, has triggered a firestorm since it began circulating online this summer. Irate advocates for the “normalization” of homosexuality accused him of ideological bias and shoddy research.
But Schumm, a professor of family studies at Kansas State University, said he rigorously tried to disprove his own theory. Ultimately, he reached a conclusion that mainstream sociologists, and even a prominent gay activist, have described as common sense.
In new research and an analysis of more than two dozen earlier studies, Schumm found that 27 percent of lesbian parents' children identified themselves as homosexual, and 19 percent of the children of gay men; by contrast, 5 to 10 percent of the children of heterosexual parents self-identify as homosexual.
Furthermore, Schumm observed gay parents' children increasingly identifying as homosexual as they emerged from adolescence. His analysis of families with older children showed that one-third of gay fathers' families, and 58 percent of families of lesbian mothers, included at least one gay or lesbian child.
“Most scholars actually agree with the concept that gay people ought to be more likely to have gay children,” he told CNA in an Oct. 19 interview. “Even people on the liberal side of things actually pretty much agree with the idea that there are going to be social influences.”
He noted that prominent gay activist Jim Burroway has criticized proponents of the “parental influence” theory but has also said that such findings would not be surprising. In a column published on a gay and lesbian website in 2006, Burroway noted that virtually every theory about the origin of homosexuality would likely predict a higher incidence in children of gay parents.
Schumm wanted to test that prediction, and to improve on previous research he said was too limited and not sufficiently rigorous. He analyzed data obtained from 26 studies of gay parents and their children. He noted that many of the studies' authors had dismissed the idea of a parental influence on children’s homosexuality.
Those researchers, Schumm believes, chose to ignore or downplay the significance of their own findings. Even when attempting to disprove his hypothesis -- for instance, by classifying the significant number of respondents who showed no clearly defined sexual preference as “heterosexual” in the analysis, or assuming that up to a third of those identified as homosexuals could have been erroneously categorized-- Schumm consistently confirmed the hypothesis among 218 families.
His paper makes no assertions as to the exact origin of homosexual behavior. But the professor has indicated some of the “pathways” through which he believes homosexual parents may influence children. These include parents' attitudes toward adolescent sexual experimentation, and ideas about men and relationships that Schumm said tended to prevail in some lesbian households.
Commentary. Though this study proves little about the origin of same-sex attraction, those who advocate a “genetic” origin of homosexuality are bound to hate it. in fact, they already do, judging by the hate mail Dr. Schumm already has had. The science seems to point to a large “nurture” component in the development of same-sex attraction. The study also demonstrates what human experience has shown in the last 50,000 years or so: that children look up to their parents for example and more often than not pattern themselves after their parents, whoever they might be.
In the more sensible past, physicians, psychiatrists and academia would have said that same-sex parenting represented a clear abuse and obstacle to the children’s healthy emotional and psycho-sexual development. Today, after the grinder of postmodernism and deconstructivism has taken its tall, they would say, “So what? There’s nothing wrong with that!” People in the homosexualist movement understand exactly where the wind is blowing from and they are making exactly that kind of argument, even if making it undermines the more precious, “homosexuality as genetics” argument.
We surely live in interesting times, times in which intellectual dishonesty and shoddy thought are the ruling standards.
Folks, as you know through numerous news streams, National Public Radio (NPR) CEO Vivian Schiller fired journalist and news analyst Juan Williams, a 10-year veteran of the network, for personal remarks he made in Fox about people dressed in identifiable Muslim garb traveling in commercial airlines. This is what he said, according to NPR’s own reporting:O'Reilly has been looking for support for his own remarks on a recent episode of ABC's The View in which he directly blamed Muslims for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set in the middle of his appearance. Williams responded: "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."This is my stance: an opinion, however poorly constructed – and arguably, Mr. Williams could’ve stated his opinion somewhat better – absent any overt intention to maliciously injure anyone and stated by a respected, authoritative, as is the case here, should be respected and let stand. Mr. Williams said is a fear that, for good or bad, many Americans share.
Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for "extremists," saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
Before Williams was fired, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said a news organization would not tolerate such commentary from a journalist about other racial, ethnic or religious minority groups. Early this month, CNN fired anchor Rick Sanchez for comments that included questioning whether Jews should be considered a minority.Though the Mainstream Media (MSM) has long anointed CAIR as the principal advocate of American Muslims, CAIR has a checkered past, a past constantly ignored by the MSM moguls who many times have jumped to do CAIR’s bidding:
"NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats," CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said.
· Was it ethical from NPR to accept Mr. Soros’ seed money, considering Mr. Soros’ rather one-dimensional support to far-left causes?The Solution to this Mess
· Can NPR officers guarantee, or have safeguards in place to maintain their vaunted journalistic independence from any influence coming from Mr. Soros?
· Where is this canon of ethics published for public inspection and debate?
· Is it appropriate for a private corporation partially financed by taxpayers to censor and fire one of its employees while accepting donations from a man intent on influencing the public debate in favor of his pet causes?
· Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.
· We are committed to giving them high-quality, original and at times challenging output. Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation.
· Equally, we must give our audiences content made to the highest editorial and ethical standards. Their trust depends on it.
· We must therefore balance our presumption of freedom of expression with our responsibilities, for example to respect privacy, to be fair, to avoid unjustifiable offence and to provide appropriate protection for our audiences from harm.
It would behoove NPR, after dismissing its current CEO, to formulate similar guidelinesand guidance and rebuild itself as a truly, trusted voice in American reporting.
Catholic Social Teaching and the News Media414. Information is among the principal instruments of democratic participation. Participation without an understanding of the situation of the political community, the facts and the proposed solutions to problems is unthinkable. It is necessary to guarantee a real pluralism in this delicate area of social life, ensuring that there are many forms and instruments of information and communications. It is likewise necessary to facilitate conditions of equality in the possession and use of these instruments by means of appropriate laws. Among the obstacles that hinder the full exercise of the right to objectivity in information,[847] special attention must be given to the phenomenon of the news media being controlled by just a few people or groups. This has dangerous effects for the entire democratic system when this phenomenon is accompanied by ever closer ties between governmental activity and the financial and information establishments.
415. The media must be used to build up and sustain the human community in its different sectors: economic, political, cultural, educational and religious.[848] “The information provided by the media is at the service of the common good. Society has a right to information based on truth, freedom, justice and solidarity”.[849]
The essential question is whether the current information system is contributing to the betterment of the human person; that is, does it make people more spiritually mature, more aware of the dignity of their humanity, more responsible or more open to others, in particular to the neediest and the weakest. A further aspect of great importance is the requisite that new technologies respect legitimate cultural differences.
416. In the world of the media the intrinsic difficulties of communications are often exacerbated by ideology, the desire for profit and political control, rivalry and conflicts between groups, and other social evils. Moral values and principles apply also to the media. “The ethical dimension relates not just to the content of communication (the message) and the process of communication (how the communicating is done) but to fundamental structural and systemic issues, often involving large questions of policy bearing upon the distribution of sophisticated technology and product (who shall be information rich and who shall be information poor?)”.[850]
In all three areas — the message, the process and structural issues — one fundamental moral principle always applies: the human person and the human community are the end and measure of the use of the media. A second principle is complementary to the first: the good of human beings cannot be attained independently of the common good of the community to which they belong.[851] It is necessary that citizens participate in the decision-making process concerning media policies. This participation, which is to be public, has to be genuinely representative and not skewed in favour of special interest groups when the media are a money-making venture.[852]
Learn this lesson well
Though many, from the current President of the United States down to NPR’s
management like to point out Fox News’ particular viewpoints on events, Fox News is a known quantity. As bias, influence, and one-sided information hides behind claims of truly sober, balanced reporting, it becomes more difficult to ascertain and uncover and that’s when it is the most dangerous. NPR’s firing of Juan Williams revealed, for one moment, the powers and the intentions of those bent upon influencing our information disguised as truthful news reporting. That's why I give singular importance to Mr. Williams' unjustified firing and the urgent necessity for NPR to reorganize and purify itself, and start over.
The show highlighted many interesting points. My question is if Pope John Paul II consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, why is Russia still spreading her errors throughout the world? Did they miss the opportunity for salvation, or are the people who grasp the grace sent to them in spite of the actions of their gov. leaders still part of this blessing? Russia is arming most of the Middle East and communist countries in South America, and is jeopardizing world peace. Thanks.This is my personal opinion:
Father John Hardon | Source: EWTN
INTRODUCTION
I. APOSTOLIC TIMES TO EARLY MIDDLE AGES
II. BERENGARIUS TO ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI
III. MIDDLE AGES TO THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Before the Council of Trent
The Council of Trent
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF EUCHARISTIC ADORATION
Forty-Hours Devotion
Perpetual Adoration
Visits to the Blessed Sacrament
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament
Eucharistic Congresses
V. WHY DEVELOPMENT OF EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE
Basic Premises of Doctrinal Development
Experienced Benefits of Eucharistic Adoration
VI. THE CHURCH'S MAGISTERIUM
Pope Pius XII
Pope John XXIII
Pope Paul VI
Pope John Paul II
VII. GRACE THROUGH THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
These words may sound harsh to some, but I think they should be heard:
Source: Intratext Catechism of the Catholic Church
Atheism
2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58
2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60
2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62
2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God...."64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65
What is the Spirit of the marriage covenant? Giving of oneself and belonging.
Giving of oneself
The marriage covenant is a surrender of oneself, a gift of oneself. First of all, it is not an asking but a giving of oneself. This is the primary meaning of the marriage covenant: I give myself – as a husband, as a wife – and as a response I receive the gift of my spouse. In relation to the Virgin Mary it is childlike surrender, in married life it is a nuptial surrender.
This nuptial surrender is a radical overcoming of egotism. To love is to live centered on “YOU” and not on “ME (I)”. If one says: “I love you,” it may mean two different things. If there is true love, it means: “I love you and I want to make you happy.” The contrary means: “I love you so that you can make me happy.”
Authentic love is not renouncing one’s own happiness, but discovering that my greatest happiness is living to make the “other one” happy. It is God’s happiness: God is happy because He is always giving Himself to the other Persons of the Trinity and to us.
Man is called to find happiness similar to God’s happiness and that is the happiness of giving oneself, surrendering to others. To love is to always be there for “YOU” and only for “YOU”.
Belonging to another (consecrating onself)
In the marriage covenant, we are asked for a total surrender, not a partial surrender. It is the surrendering of the whole person now and forever.
This spirit should encourage our marriage: a total and permanent surrender, and this creates in us an awareness of belonging and of consecration.
Our life is consecrated to someone and from that moment on there can be no loneliness. That awareness of consecration- that I do not belong to myself, but that I belong to another person - that is what our marriage covenant asks of us: I belong to my spouse now and forever.
We do not only journey together, share our entire life, are responsible for one another, but also that there is a mutual right. The other has a right to my love, my support, my time….. he/she has the right for me to strive to help him/her reach his/her personal realization, his/her happiness, his/her sanctity.
That awareness of consecration which is given to us in the marriage Covenant should be as strong as that of a priest or a religious who has consecrated himself/herself to God. Just as a priest or a consecrated person uses an external insignia – a habit, a cross – which is a reminder of that characteristic of belonging to someone, in the same way, spouses have that insignia.
This is the meaning of our wedding ring, our nuptial wedding band, our “covenant.” It is not an ornament, rather it is a symbol of belonging, or consecration.
The person who wears a wedding ring makes known his/her status of commitment, of being a covenant partner not only to a spouse, but also before other people. How important symbols are and what a great meaning this ring has! It reminds us of the love, presence, and fidelity of the spouse in every circumstance.
That which is renewed is lived anew. Therefore, the importance of renewing often our nuptial covenant of love! There are couples who renew their nuptial covenant of love monthly.
Questions for reflection
1. Do I seek to make the “other one” happy?
2. Am I aware that I am consecrated to my spouse?
3. Do I always wear my wedding ring?
Author: Roger E. Temple | Source: Warrior’s Science
This prayer is dedicated to all the Sheepdogs who make our world a safer place to live. To all of the law enforcement / rescue / military personnel and armed citizens: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
The Knights of Olde were Men of Honor
Who used their Might For Right!
Today they’re known as Sheepdogs
Those who carry on the fight.
I am a tired old Sheepdog,
The guardian of my flock.
I keep the predators at bay
And stand watch around the clock.
Please stop the Sheep from pulling my teeth.
I’ll need them for the fight,
When the hungry Wolves come calling
Some dark and deadly night.
I pray I never need my gun
But someday if I do,
May my cause be just!
My draw be quick!
And my aim be ever true!
Heaven holds a special place
For those who do the deed,
Protectors of the innocent
In their hour of need.
May the Sheep someday be grateful.
There’s a debt they cannot pay,
To the Sheepdogs who lay it on the line
Each and every day.
I am proud to be a Sheepdog.
I’ve done my very best.
I’ll stand my watch until my Maker
Calls me home to rest.
But when I meet Saint Peter,
There’s just one request I make:
“Please let me spend Eternity
Standing guard at Heaven’s Gate.”
The results of the 2010 Lay Orthodox Survey on Attitudes Toward Orthodox-Catholic Reunion
“Sympathetic skepticism” and unwavering faithfulness to Orthodox Tradition aptly describe the attitudes, some positive, some negative that the 2010 Orthodox Lay People Survey recorded from Orthodox respondents when faced with the prospect of reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. Although most respondents were remarkably open to exploring reconciliation and even for receiving a Council’s decision authorizing and enabling reunion, Orthodox respondents envisioned reunion only along strictly Orthodox theological lines, leaving little room for dogmatic diversity and with a significantly redefined notion of Roman Papal Primacy if one is to be retained at all. Despite exhaustive mutual consultation and general councils, reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches may not take place at the grassroots, where lay Orthodox Christians reject membership within the reconciled Churches, making reconciliation a mere canonical formality without practical consequences and real liturgical communion between the Churches.
The 2010 Orthodox Lay People Survey arose solely out of my personal curiosity and initiative. The web-based survey consisted of 18 questions (14 diagnostic and 4 quality control questions) targeted adult (18 years and older) Orthodox lay men and women open to respondents from all countries and jurisdictions for two weeks. At closing time, the survey had collected input from 105 respondents from all Orthodox jurisdictions and worldwide geographical regions. However, 90 percent of the respondents were located in North America (including Mexico and the Caribbean). Male respondents outnumbered female 7 to 1, (88 to 12 percent) while 74 respondents reported being older than 45 years of age.
Orthodox Respondents are Generally Open to the Idea of Catholic-Orthodox Reunion.
• 63 percent of respondents favored reestablishing full communion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
• 66 percent ascribed some or great importance to Orthodox-Catholic reunion.
• 76 percent would support a decision by a Pan-Orthodox Council to explore reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.
• 57 percent would support a decision by a Pan-Orthodox Council approving reunion with the Roman Catholic Church.
• 60 percent would support a decision by a joint “Grand Council” of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches approving and enabling communion.
Orthodox Respondents are More Likely to Accept Reunion Along Orthodox Lines.
• 52 percent of respondents would accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome if his primacy is defined strictly according to Orthodox tenets; 26 percent would accept the Roman Primacy after a mutually satisfactory definition is reached by Catholic and Orthodox in a Reunion Council.
• 44 percent declared themselves unlikely to support a common dogmatic declaration that is not in agreement with Orthodox Tradition; 40 percent would accept only those Catholic dogmas that are fully compatible with Orthodoxy; 16 percent would be likely to accept a common dogmatic declaration promulgated by a Reunion Council; and 27 percent would accept dogmatic diversity in the reunited Church as long as Roman Catholic dogmas are not binding in the East.
Sizeable minorities oppose any reunion prior to any discussions, or one that does not result in total Catholic theological capitulation to Orthodox Tradition.
• 39 percent of all Orthodox respondents did not favor reunion with the Catholic Church.
• 34 percent saw as unimportant the restoration of communion between the Churches.
• 24 percent would not support the decision of a Pan-Orthodox Council authorizing an exploration of Catholic-Orthodox reunion.
• 43 percent would not support the decision of a Pan-Orthodox Council approving reunion.
• 40 percent would not support the determination of a joint “Grand Council” of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches approving and enabling full communion.
• 26 percent would not accept the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, however defined, under any circumstance.
Differences in current liturgical usage, language, not a determinant factor
• 49 percent of all Orthodox respondents favored the retention of the ordinary form of the Latin Liturgy as long as it is brought in line with Orthodox Tradition; 12 percent saw nothing wrong with the present ordinary form of the Roman Mass.
• 26 percent stated that only the extraordinary form, in other words, the “Traditional Latin Mass” should be the accepted liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church after reunion.
• 13 percent would ditch the entire Latin Rite and would force the Roman Catholic Church to use a standard Byzantine Liturgy in Latin instead.
In the end, Orthodox respondents remained skeptical or suspicious of Orthodox-Catholic reunion
• 57 percent of all respondents believe that Orthodox-Catholic reunion is not in the best interest of the Orthodox Churches, despite the fact that 63 percent of the respondents favored unqualified reunion at the beginning of the survey.
Despite existing good will and openness to the notion of reunion, and within the strict limitations and exceptions that will be discussed below, Catholics and Orthodox leaders should be prepared to see a loss of between 30 to 40 percent of committed, knowledgeable Orthodox lay people if reunion were to occur today. The numbers of dissenter could double in numbers if reunion does not occur strictly in accordance to Orthodox Tradition.
Orthodox and Catholics leaders must also be aware that conciliar consultation whether intramurally between the Orthodox Churches or between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, will not result necessarily in the healing of the schism. Orthodox Christians are conditioned by their Tradition to not accept conciliar decisions without question, nor do they conceive of such councils as binding and ecumenical without general reception of their teaching by the whole Church, and that takes time. A tradition of dissent from and even of condemning conciliar agreements that depart from Eastern Orthodoxy has been common currency in the Orthodox Churches for centuries. Many will invoke this tradition to support their rejection of any reunion council despite a substantive agreement on all significant issues. In other words, reunion is far from certain, even if all consultation mechanisms are exhausted, unless lay Orthodox Christians are convinced that reunion would be in the best interest of their Churches, and more importantly, that such a union does not do violence to their faith.
This survey is not scientifically descriptive of the opinion of all Orthodox lay people worldwide. Limiting the information collection solely to a web-based document distorted the pool of potential respondents to middle-aged to mature males located in North America. Other factors, such as Internet access and conversant knowledge about Orthodox and Catholic issues may have reduced the potential pool of respondents even further. Accessibility due to the survey being in English may have been another major limiting factor in decreasing the number of potential respondents.
The margin of error of this survey is approximately ±10 percent, whether the survey is taken to represent opinions in North America – specifically within the United States – or the world, although the margin of error is more meaningful in the United States for a population of approximately 1.4 million Orthodox faithful than for 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. This is due to both the size of the sample, the geographical distribution of the respondents across the world, and lack of significant representations from Orthodox lay faithful located outside North America.
Nevertheless, the opinions of 105 educated Orthodox, North American respondents are very valuable, since these are representative of a portion of Orthodox believers in one of the most influential regions of the world for Orthodoxy. For it is here in North America where most inter-church interaction takes place and where the most practical aspects of reunion would become visible. Moreover, 105 educated Orthodox lay men and women, many of whom may be converts to Orthodoxy from the Catholic Church of from Protestantism, may exert considerable influence over other Orthodox Christians and may sway them in favor or against reunion with the Catholic Church.
Engaging lay Orthodox Christians, men and women, educated or not, is critical to the success of Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation and reunion. Lay Orthodox Christians, particularly those who are educated on their faith and on the issues, will not accept passively the decisions of any reunion Church Council, however exalted, that approves and enables reunion between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. Since these lay Orthodox Christians are also influential among family, friends, and perhaps even in their congregations, it is imperative that they be engaged in any process of reconciliation or reunion. Otherwise, reconciliation between the Churches will become a mere formality without further transcendence and without the Orthodox Christifideles laici seeing themselves as Eucharistic brethren with their Latin counterparts.
A redefinition of the nature and scope of the Roman Primacy is a principal concern for lay Orthodox Christians. If anything, the way that the Roman Catholic Church sees the powers and prerogatives of the Pope represent a grave stumbling block toward reunion. The recent document published by the members of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation openly acknowledges that,
It seems to be no exaggeration, in fact, to say that the root obstacle preventing the Orthodox and Catholic Churches from growing steadily towards sacramental and practical unity has been, and continues to be, the role that the bishop of Rome plays in the worldwide Catholic communion. While for Catholics, maintaining communion in faith and sacraments with the bishop of Rome is considered a necessary criterion for being considered Church in the full sense, for Orthodox, as well as for Protestants, it is precisely the pope’s historic claims to authority in teaching and Church life that are most at variance with the image of the Church presented to us in the New Testament and in early Christian writings.
This survey confirms their insight. It is also my prayerful hope that this survey also contributes to a solution that would realize the Lord’s words in his priestly prayer: ut unum sint, that we may all be one.
- Download a PDF version of this survey results that includes bar graphs and charts from here.
- Join parallel discussions on the following boards:
Folks, the online survey of Orthodox Christian lay men and women to measure attitudes toward Orthodox and Catholic reunion, which has been ongoing for two weeks is now closed. I received 105 contributions. I’m now looking over the data to see what it says. Thank you to all who contributed.
DEAR THEO: I am 8 years old.This was my answer:
Some of my little friends say there is no Christopher Columbus.
Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
Please tell me the truth; is there a Christopher Columbus?
VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET.
HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY!VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the political correctness virus of a jaded, foolish age. They do not believe except [what] they deconstruct. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Christopher Columbus. He exists as certainly as honor and courage and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Christopher Columbus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no heroism to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in The New York Times. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Christopher Columbus! You might as well not believe in God! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all Columbus' Day Parades to catch Christopher Columbus, but even if they did not see Americans - native or otherwise - marching proudly, what would that prove? Nobody sees Christopher Columbus, but that is no sign that there is no Christopher Columbus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see God watching over you at all times? Of course not, but that's no proof that they He is not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, heroism, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Christopher Columbus! Thank God! He lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of men, women, and children in this America of ours, from the Bering Sea to Cape Horn.
“I swear…by the virtue of the Virgin Mary…that the spilling of any blood is sinful before God”
Obviously, all of us need to hear this more often.
Commentary. The documents make for intriguing reading. But will they be received by the Orthodox? Well...stay tuned, because we may have an idea soon.WASHINGTON (October 7, 2010)—Representatives of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have issued two new documents outlining immediate steps they can take to overcome their thousand-year separation. The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation finalized these agreed statements when it met at Georgetown University in Washington, September 30 to October 2. The Consultation is co-chaired by Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond of New Orleans and Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh.
The first statement, “Steps Towards a Reunited Church: A Sketch of an Orthodox-Catholic Vision for the Future,” is an unprecedented effort to begin to visualize the shape of a reunited Catholic and Orthodox Church that would result from the reestablishment of full communion. The text acknowledges that the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church is a central point of disagreement and outlines the history of this divergence between East and West. It goes on to summarize the many elements of the Christian faith and ecclesial life that the two churches share, and emphasizes the urgency of overcoming our divisions.
“Clearly, this cannot be achieved without new, better harmonized structures of leadership on both sides: new conceptions of both synodality and primacy in the universal Church, new approaches to the way primacy and authority are exercised in both our communions,” the document says.
The agreed statement lists some of the features that would characterize a fully reunited Church and then focuses on the role the papacy would play within it. This role would need to be carefully defined, “both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today.” The document then suggests several aspects of the Pope’s ministry in a reunited Church that could be both faithful to Catholic teaching and acceptable to the Orthodox. The document also lists several “preparatory steps” that could be taken even now as a prelude to the future unity of the churches, such as shared prayer and social ministry, and enumerates several questions and problems that remain outstanding.
The text concludes that “The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians … is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, which will reveal us as his disciples before the world.”
The complete text of this statement is available here: www.usccb.org/seia/steps-towards-reunited-church.shtml
The second statement, “Celebrating Easter/Pascha Together,” is a re-affirmation of the Consultation’s 1998 document, “A Common Response to the Aleppo Statement on the Date of Easter/Pascha.” In this new text, the members emphasize the importance of a united witness to the Resurrection of Christ, which lies at the very center of the Christian faith, and the scandal caused by the inability to celebrate this feast day consistently on the same date.
The Consultation joins many other expressions of support for a recent proposal that would re-calculate the date of Easter for all Christians based strictly on the teaching of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which determined that Easter be celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. Determining the Equinox from the Jerusalem meridian and using the most accurate scientific instruments and astronomical data available would require a change for both traditions, but would also represent greater faithfulness to the teaching of Nicaea.
“For the mission of the Church,” the document states, “a common celebration would support the unity we already share and help to build it further in the future.”
The full text is available at: www.usccb.org/seia/easter.shtml
Posts
All Comments
