Abortion & Sexism destroys a generation in China

Chinese Bias for Baby Boys Creates a Gap of 32 Million

Article Tools Sponsored By
By SHARON LaFRANIERE
Published: April 10, 2009

BEIJING — A bias in favor of male offspring has left China with 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls, creating “an imminent generation of excess men,” a study released Friday said.

For the next 20 years, China will have increasingly more men than women of reproductive age, according to the paper, which was published online by the British Medical Journal. “Nothing can be done now to prevent this,” the researchers said.

Chinese government planners have long known that the urge of couples to have sons was skewing the gender balance of the population. But the study, by two Chinese university professors and a London researcher, provides some of the first hard data on the extent of the disparity and the factors contributing to it.

In 2005 , they found, births of boys in China exceeded births of girls by more than 1.1 million. There were 120 boys born for every 100 girls.

This disparity seems to surpass that of any other country, they said — a finding, they wrote, that was perhaps unsurprising in light of China’s one-child policy.

They attributed the imbalance almost entirely to couples’ decisions to abort female fetuses.

The trend toward more male than female children intensified steadily after 1986, they said, as ultrasound tests and abortion became more available. “Sex-selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males,” the paper said.

Read the rest.

Vatican responds to Belgium's facism...

From CNA:

Vatican City, Apr 3, 2009 / 01:42 pm (CNA).- In response to Belgium’s diplomatic protest against Pope Benedict’s comments that condoms could potentially "increase the problem" of AIDS being spread in Africa, Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See newsroom questioned whether the lawmakers had considered the Popes words and scientific research, or whether they received their information "through the non-objective, imbalanced filter of the echoes in the western media."

According to Reuters, the Belgium House of Deputies called the Pope’s comments "unacceptable" and instructed their government to "react strongly against any state or organization that in the future brings into doubt the benefit of using condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus." [Satan, is that you?]

The measure approved with a strong majority, 95-18, and asks the government to "condemn the Pope’s unacceptable position statement and to lodge a formal protest at the Holy See." Premier Herman Van Rompuy said he will support the motion saying, "it is not the Pope’s job to shed doubts on public health policies which are unanimously supported and save lives ever day."

Father Lombardi, expressed "amazement" at the resolution, reported the Italian news service, SIR.

He questioned how a democratic country could limit the "freedom of the Holy Father and the Catholic Church to express their own positions" which are "clearly relevant to the view of the human person."

As Belgium reacted to the Pope’s comments, Lombardi pointed to "the great tradition" of the Catholic Church in "education and health-care, especially in the poorer countries" that needs no "evidence or comments."

Lombardi also questioned whether Belgium lawmakers had considered the "Pope’s arguments" and scientific research, or whether they received their information "through the non-objective, imbalanced filter of the echoes in the western media."

Reckoning Day? An Abortionist's family dies...

This is certainly a heart wrenching tragedy, but it is also thought provoking too.

Family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, Owner of the Nation's Largest Privately Owned Abortion Chain, Dies in Montana Plane Crash
Contact: Gingi Edmonds, www.gingiedmonds. com, 559-772-7911
MEDIA ADVISORY, Mar. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Some of you may have seen the major news story of the private plane that crashed into a Montana cemetery, killing 7 children and 7 adults.

But what the news sources fail to mention is that the Catholic Holy Cross Cemetery owned by Resurrection Cemetery Association in Butte - contains a memorial for local residents to pray the rosary, at the 'Tomb of the Unborn'. This memorial, located a short distance west of the church, was erected as a dedication to all babies who have died because of abortion.

What else is the mainstream news not telling you? The family who died in the crash near the location of the abortion victim's memorial, is the family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, owner of the largest for-profit abortion chain in the nation.

Family Planning Associates was purchased four years ago by Irving Moore "Bud" Feldkamp III, owner of Allcare and Hospitality Dental Associates and CEO of Glen Helen Raceway Park in San Bernardino. The 17 California Family Planning clinics perform more abortions in the state than any other abortion provider - Planned Parenthood included - and they perform abortions through the first five months of pregnancy.

Although Feldkamp is not an abortionist, he reaps profits of blood money from the tens of thousands of babies that are killed through abortions performed every year at the clinics he owns. His business in the abortion industry was what enabled him to afford the private plane that was carrying his family to their week-long vacation at The Yellowstone Club, a millionaires- only ski resort.

The plane went down on Sunday, killing two of Feldkamp's daughters, two sons-in-law and five grandchildren along with the pilot and four family friends.. The plane, a single-engine turboprop flown by Bud Summerfield of Highland, crashed into the Catholic cemetery and burst into flames, only 500 ft. from its landing destination. All aboard were killed.

The cause of the crash is a mystery. The pilot, who was a former military flier who logged over 2,000 miles, gave no indication to air traffic controllers that the aircraft was experiencing difficulty when he asked to divert to an airport in Butte. Witnesses report that the plane suddenly nosedived toward the ground with no apparent signs of a struggle. There was neither a cockpit voice recorder nor a flight data recorder onboard, and no radar clues into the planes final moments because the Butte airport is not equipped with a radar facility. Some speculate that the crash was due to ice on the wings, but this particular plane model has been tested for icy weather and experts have stated that ice being the cause is unlikely.

In my time working for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, I helped organize and conduct a weekly campaign where youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp's mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs and raising community awareness regarding Feldkamp's dealings in child murder for profit. Every Thursday afternoon we called upon Bud and his wife Pam to repent, seek God's blessing and separate themselves from the practice of child killing.

We warned him, for his children's sake, to wash his hands of the innocent blood he assisted in spilling because, as Scripture warns, if "you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you". (Ezekiel 35:6)

A news source states that Bud Feldkamp visited the site of the crash with his wife and their two surviving children on Monday. As they stood near the twisted and charred debris talking with investigators, light snow fell on the tarps that covered the remains of their children.

I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, but I think of the time spent outside of Feldkamp's - Pam Feldkamp laughing at the fetal development signs, Bud Feldkamp trying not to make eye contact as he got into his car with a small child in tow - and I think of the haunting words, 'Think of your children.' I wonder if those words were haunting Feldkamp as well as he stood in the snow among the remains of loved ones, just feet from the 'Tomb of the Unborn'?

I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.

"I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then." (Deut. 30:19)
Gingi Edmonds is a freelance pro-life activist, writer and photographer based out of Hanford, California. Gingi writes a bi-monthly ProLife Opinion Column and is available for pro-life presentations and speaking engagements. Visit www.gingiedmonds. com for more information.

Cardinal: Criticisms of Pope Have Gone Too Far

Archbishop of Genoa Laments Recent Accusations

ROME, MARCH 24, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Attacks directed toward Benedict XVI have gone too far, and Catholics won't go along with it, says the president of Italy's episcopal conference.

Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the archbishop of Genoa, said this Monday at the inaugural session of the conference's permanent episcopal council, under way in Rome.

Referring to the recent controversies regarding the lifting of the excommunication of four bishops of the St. Pius X Society, and comments the Pontiff made about condoms on his trip to Africa, the cardinal said "the harshest criticisms to our beloved Pope -- from Italy and above all from abroad -- have gone beyond good sense."

Not wanting to dedicate too much time on the "clumsy accusations," Cardinal Bagnasco directed his comments toward the letter Benedict XVI sent earlier this month to the bishops of the world, in which he explained the reasons for lifting the excommunication of the four Lefebvrite prelates, who had been unlawfully ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The letter "immediately attracted wide consensus," the cardinal noted. He described it as an appeal to the whole Church for genuine reconciliation.

Nevertheless, the cardinal expressed a "severe judgment" regarding the "postures and words that led to a situation which should never have come about, fueling systematic alarmist interpretations and conduct that is mistrustful toward the hierarchy."

Distraction

Regarding Benedict XVI's trip to Cameroon and Angola last week, Cardinal Bagnasco noted that "from the beginning, [it] was diverted from Westerners' attention by a controversy -- on condoms -- which, frankly, was unwarranted."

"It is no accident that Africa's own media showed no interest in the subject, were it not for the damaging insistence of international agencies, and for the statements of some European political leaders and supranational organizations," affirmed the cardinal.

The archbishop of Genoa lamented that the media, governments and international institutions did not "limit themselves to dissent freely, but reached an ostracism that goes beyond secular canons themselves. In any case, derision and vulgarity will never be part of civilized language, and fatally fall on those who practice it."

Furthermore, the cardinal said the Holy Father's comments on the issue have been confirmed by those who work in the fields of health and education in Africa.

Africa needs to focus more on promoting greater access to education and medical care, as well as the "effective promotion of women," Cardinal Bagnasco continued.

He appealed to governments "to keep their commitments," to go beyond "demagogy and the neo-colonial logic of control."

The cardinal also noted that bishops and the faithful will not accept that the Pope is laughed at or insulted, as "the best tradition of our Catholicism is to be with the Pope always and unconditionally."

The perils of modern media on the youth

This story is just sad. What a tragedy. But one wonders... what did her parents initially teacher her (if anything) that she'd send a nude photo to a boyfriend??? Did they even try to restrict cell phone usage and MySpace???? All that stuff is garbage and is really the heart of the matter.

Family wants tougher laws
By Cindy Kranz

Jessica Logan's nude cell-phone photo - meant for her boyfriend's eyes only - was sent to hundreds of teenagers last year in at least seven Greater Cincinnati high schools.

The 18-year-old Sycamore High School senior was then bombarded with taunts: slut, porn queen, whore.

On July 3, Jessie hanged herself in her bedroom.

She was Albert and Cynthia Logan's only child.

"My only baby that I will never be able to touch again," Cynthia Logan said through tears. "I will never have grandchildren. I will never be able to hand down my heirlooms. I'm just devastated by these parents that allow their children to do and say anything they want."

Now, Jessie's parents are attempting to launch a national campaign seeking laws to address "sexting" - the practice of forwarding and posting sexually explicit cell-phone photos online. The Logans also want to warn teens of the harassment, humiliation and bullying that can occur when that photo gets forwarded.

Cynthia Logan and Parry Aftab, an attorney and one of the leading authorities on Internet security and cyberbullying, plan to attach Jessie's name to a national campaign to educate teens about the dangers of sexting.

Aftab, based in New York, is the catalyst for a network of volunteers working to stop cyberbullying. She operates two Web sites: wiredsafety.org, the world's largest and oldest cyber safety organization, and stopcyberbullying.org.

"Schools need to understand our kids are targeting each other and how technology is being used as a weapon," Aftab said. "None of them (the schools) know what to do. Many of them ... think it's not their problem. They want to close their eyes and put fingers in their ears, saying it's a home issue."

Compassionate and carefree
Jessie's friends and family described her as an artistic, bubbly, compassionate carefree spirit who had many friends in several schools. She was also a "tiger," who would relentlessly stand up for someone.

"But she couldn't stand up for herself," Albert Logan said.

"I think when you're constantly knocked down, you lose your self-esteem," his wife added.

Jessie was not alone in sending nude cell-phone photos. Her friends point to the increasing pressure on teenage girls to send nude photos to their boyfriends.

A national study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy revealed that 1 in 5 teen girls or 22 percent say they have electronically sent or posted nude or semi-nude images online of themselves.

Some area school resource officers and principals estimate that at least half of the students have an inappropriate photo on their cell phone.

After the cell-phone photo was disseminated, Jessie's outgoing personality turned inward.

The Logans blame a circle of five friends from three other high schools for forwarding the photo.

According to Cynthia Logan, Jessie took the photo and sent it to the boy she had been dating for one to two months. He, in turn, forwarded it to four girls, she said. Efforts to reach the former boyfriend were unsuccessful.

Lauren Taylor, a friend since childhood and a Sycamore senior last year, discovered the photo had been forwarded when two girls in her class showed it off. She broke the news to Jessie.

"Her head just dropped, and she started crying," Lauren said. "And then, we went straight up to the counselor's office. And after that, she did not want to go back out in the hallway.

"She just totally changed. She wasn't as outgoing and kind of kept to herself, where she would normally be like jumping around. Instead her head was just down, and she would always be crying," Lauren said. "I remember her constantly calling my phone crying."

When the taunting started at school, Jessie skipped classes, sometimes slipping out a door to sleep in her car in the parking lot. When truancy notices showed up, her mother started dropping her off at school, but Jessie hid crying in the school bathroom.

"I watched her get kicked out of maybe three or four parties over the summer just for having 'a reputation,' " said Steven Arnett, a friend of hers who graduated last year from Moeller High School.

After seeing what Jessie went through, he said, "There's no reason to send pictures like that, no matter what a guy asks for. I don't think that's an acceptable thing to do."

She couldn't even escape when she went home, her close friends said.

"I'd be with her and she'd get numbers that weren't even in her contacts, random numbers that she didn't know, texting her, 'You're a whore, you're a slut,' " Lauren said.

"Or, she'd get on MySpace and get messages from people calling her those names, or Facebook would be the same way. It was constant. She'd go home thinking, 'Oh I'm going to get away from this,' but she never could get away from it."

The Logans said Sycamore High School and the school resource officer didn't do enough to help Jessie. Sycamore sent truancy notices, Cynthia Logan said, but no calls or letters about what was happening to her daughter in school and no notices to other parents about explicit cell-phone photos. And no charges were filed by the resource officer, she said.

Sycamore Superintendent Adrienne James said she couldn't discuss specifics of Jessie's situation. The perils of technology was a topic at a parent information night, she said.

"It is a form of bullying, and that is something we cannot tolerate. The difficulty is stopping it. ... That's why we stress with our kids that the moment you push 'send,' the damage is done."

Educators and parents must be involved, James said, in talking to teens about making good choices, positive self-imaging and avoiding risky behaviors.

Montgomery Officer Paul Payne, the school resource officer, said he confronted some of the girls who forwarded Jessie's photo, even though they attend another school. He asked them to delete the photo from their phones.

"Could she have pressed charges? No, because she's 18," Payne said, adding that there were some areas that could have been explored. "The investigation stopped at her wish, because she basically didn't want this to go any further. ... You respect the wishes of an 18-year-old. In the eyes of the law, she can make her own decision."

Payne said he supports the Logans' efforts to change laws. "Let's face it. The law hasn't caught up to what the original law was designed for."

Jessie expressed regrets about taking and sending the photo, her mother said. She wanted to warn other kids. At Payne's suggestion, she did an anonymous television interview.

"My little girl wanted to get the message out to other children not to make the same mistake she did," Albert Logan said.

Despite missing so much school, Jessie graduated. She began making plans for a new job and college at the University of Cincinnati, where she would major in graphic design.

Then, a 16-year-old Sycamore student hanged himself last June 27. Cynthia Logan put her arms around her daughter, who was sobbing when she heard. Against her parents' wishes, Jessie went to his visitation and funeral, because a friend needed a ride.

'She snapped all of a sudden'
After the boy's funeral, Jessie went to Lauren's house and ranted about why the boy had committed suicide.

"She just kept crying," Lauren said. "Basically, what she kept saying was, 'How could he do this to his family? How could he put his family through so much pain, and his friends? ... I never thought that she would go and do the same thing."

Later that day, Jessie's mother suggested that she just stay home and chill out.

Jessie complained that she was 18 and planned to go out.

Jessie took a shower before getting ready. Her dad was home. Cynthia Logan was on the phone with her brother, walking in the hallway, when Jessie came out of the bathroom and went into her bedroom.

"That is the last time I saw my daughter alive," Cynthia Logan said, her voice lowering to a whisper.

Her mother discovered Jessie hanging in her bedroom.

"There sat her phone. Her straightener was hot. She was ready to go out. I don't know what happened," she said, choking back tears. "It was impulsive, like she snapped all of a sudden. You have all this weight, and it was just one more thing."

The Logans may never have closure. She did not leave a note.

Jessie placed five phone calls before she died.

The Logans wonder if something that was said in a cell-phone conversation set her off during the last moments of her life.

Albert and Cynthia Logan have gone public with Jessie's story, hoping to change vague state laws that don't hold anyone accountable for sexting. They also want to warn kids about what can happen when nude cell-phone photos are shared.

"We want a bill passed," Cynthia Logan said.

"It's a national epidemic. Nobody is doing anything - no schools, no police officers, no adults, no attorneys, no one."

Obama commencement... at Notre Dame?!

George Weigel kicks off the diatribe against America's Catholic University
for this absurd decision. Others include: James Schall, Ralph McInerney, RR Reno, Fr. George Ruttler et al.

Weigel and McInerney are quite good, they are included below... View the rest here.

A Moral Exemplar?
Should the University of Notre Dame honor our most anti-life president?

An NRO Symposium

The University of Notre Dame has announced that Pres. Barack Obama will be the principal speaker and will receive an honorary doctor of laws degree at the university’s commencement on Sunday, May 17. The invitation comes after the president has taken several official actions that directly oppose the Catholic Church’s most sacred teachings. National Review Online asked some of our experts on education and Catholicism for their comments.


GEORGE WEIGEL
Notre Dame’s decision to make President Obama its 2009 commencement speaker is a very bad thing. It’s bad for Notre Dame, bad for Catholic moral witness in America, and bad for the bishops who are trying to mount a defense against the Obama administration’s assault on the conscience rights of Catholic health-care professionals.

The invitation to deliver a commencement address, especially when coupled with the award of an honorary degree, is not a neutral act. It’s an act by which a Catholic institution of higher learning says, “This is a life worth emulating according to our understanding of the true, the good, and the beautiful.” It is frankly beyond my imagining how Notre Dame can say that of a president who has put the United States back into the business of funding abortion abroad; a president who made a mockery of the very idea of moral argument in his speech announcing federal funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research; a president whose administration and its congressional allies are snatching tuition vouchers out of the hands of desperately poor Washington, D.C., children who just as desperately want to attend Catholic schools.

As to Lenin’s question, “What, then, is to be done?,” one does not risk a charge of cynicism by suggesting that the most effective advocates for Notre Dame’s recovering its senses will be alumni and other donors capable of withdrawing or withholding contributions in the range of seven, eight, or nine figures. That is the sad state to which things have descended under the Golden Dome: moral argument seems to be unavailing with the leaders of an institution dedicated to developing the arts of moral reason.

RALPH McINERNY
Bernie Madoff has declined an honorary doctorate in economics from the University of Notre Dame, but all is not lost. Barack Hussein Obama, enabler in chief of abortion, has agreed to speak at the 2009 commencement and to receive an honorary doctorate of law. That abortion and its advocacy violate a primary precept of natural law reinforced by the Catholic Church’s explicit doctrine is a mere bagatelle. Wackos of all kinds will kick up a fuss, of course, but their protest will go unnoticed in South Bend. The pell-mell pursuit of warm and fuzzy Catholicism will continue. How better to defend the faith than to celebrate a man who advocates polishing off babies even after they are born? The newly created Herod Award will be added to the university’s recognition of the chief magistrate. Administrators are hugging themselves with delight at this massive publicity coup. The national championship in football has eluded Notre Dame for many years, but when the president dribbles onto the stage at the great event, the hall will erupt in ecstatic applause; the president, Father Jenkins, will wring his hand; and a final nail will be driven into the coffin of a once-great Catholic university. No one will note nor long remember what Barack Obama says on the occasion. Who listens to commencement addresses? But the Lady atop the golden dome, recalling the flight into Egypt, will exhibit one of her many titles: She who weeps.

Benedict's letter to bishops on the SSPX bungle...

This is a letter from a humble shepherd.

Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.

An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council -- steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which -- as in the days of Pope John Paul II -- has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment -- excommunication -- with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers -- even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty -- do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" -- the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope -- to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 -- this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life. [hahahahaha!]

I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) -- in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith -- ecumenism -- is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light -- this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity -- this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.

So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents -- to the extent possible -- in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things -- arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them -- in this case the Pope -- he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. [Boom.]

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide -- even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

(Jesuit) Catholic universities - a total disgrace

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The SSPX fiasco continues to boil....

... unreasonably, of course.

The crazy reaction of some secular leaders, as well as the blatant, unfaithful and pusillanimous statements of bishops within the Church has made this one big tempest in a teapot.

So much for moving toward mercy and forgiveness, the chief tenants of the Catholic faith. So much for understanding and contextualizing truth. So much for level headed dialogue within and without the Church.

Well, finally there is a very clear article about what is going on here, and who really is to blame for this 'scandal'. A NY rabbi speaks on behalf of the pope, and quite well, in fact.

Jewish Reaction to Pope Disproportionate

[Father Z. comments]

The official Jewish response to Pope Benedict XVI recent decision to reach out to the St. Pious [sic] X Society and to revoke the excommunication (though not yet determining the status) of four bishops says a great deal about the psycho-social state of American Jewish leadership or at least the leadership that claims to speak for American Jews. [nicely phrased]

The admittedly unnerving if not hurtful Holocaust denying views of one of those bishops, British born Richard Williamson, an obscure, irrelevant, cranky old man, offered on Swedish television, evoked the wrath of no less than the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the B’nai B’rith International, the International Jewish Commission on Interreligious Consultations and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. "The decision undermines the strong relationship between Catholics and Jews", they protested. "We are stunned that the Vatican has ignored our concerns", they proclaimed.

This will have "serious implications for Catholic-Jewish relations" and there will be a "political cost for the Vatican" they threatened. And from Israel, the Chief Rabbinate in Israel, one of the most corrupt religious establishments in Western democracies, [wow] entered the fray calling into doubt the Pope’s impending visit to Israel. All this hubbub and anxious lashing out about an internal Church matter regarding the sort of crabby, crotchety, trivial, unknown sort of jerk – the ratty uncle who embarrasses you every time he is in public—who we all recognize exists in our communities. [Okay… so that’s a "no" vote for Williamson, I think.]

As an eighth generation rabbi and someone who lost much family in the Holocaust, it could just be me, but this official Jewish response seems outrageously over the top. [!] Do millions of American Jews sufficiently care that the Pope revoked the excommunication of this unheard of bishop such that major Jewish organizations should devote so much energy and attention to this and turn it into a cause célèbre worthy of front page attention? And is this the way we speak to each other after decades of successful interfaith work on improving our relationship? [Unless those who are going over the top really don’t want good relations….?]

How is it that the view of some cranky bishop who has no power evokes calls of a crisis in Catholic – Jewish relations despite the revolutionary changes in Church teachings regarding Jews since Vatican II? Where is the "proportionality", [Isn’t that tern usually used in responses to acts of terror, etc?] where is the giving the benefit of the doubt – a central religious and spiritual imperative – in response to something that is admittedly upsetting but in the scheme of things is less than trivial especially given this Pope’s historic visit to Auschwitz in which he unambiguously recognized the evil perpetrated upon Jews in the Holocaust and in his way "repented" for any contribution distorted Church teachings made to create the ground for such evil to erupt.

Something is off-kilter here. Is it possible that the leadership of Jewish defense agencies, people with the best of motivation who have historically done critical work in fighting anti-Semitism, have become so possessed by their roles as monitors of anti-Semitism, so haunted by unresolved fears, guilt, and even shame regarding the Holocaust, and perhaps so unconsciously driven by how these issues literally keep their institutions afloat, that they have become incapable of distinguishing between a bishop’s ridiculous, loopy, discredited views about the Holocaust and a Church from the Pope down which has clearly and repeatedly recognized the evil done to Jews in the Holocaust and called for that evil to never be forgotten. [!]

Perhaps, this called for a little understanding of what it must be like to actually run a 1.2 billion person spiritual community (one with which I disagree on many issues) and to be trying to create some sense of unity from right to left, from extreme liberalism to extreme traditionalism – sort of like the liberal Barack Obama inviting Rick Warren, despite his hurtful [?] views on homosexuality, to give the invocation at the inauguration. How about cutting a Pope, who we know along with the previous Pope is probably amongst the most historically sensitive Popes to the issues of anti-Semitism, Holocaust, and the relationship to Judaism and Jews, a little slack given how he is trying to heal his own community. And is it possible that the Pope’s desire/hope/need to reintegrate the Church (he has also reached out to Liberal theologian Hans Kung) may be of more importance both to the Church and actually to religion on this planet [!] than whether we Jews are upset about the lifting of excommunication of one irrelevant bishop. [well said]

Would we Jews like to be judged by the crankiest, most outlandish, hurtful, and stupid thing any rabbi in the world said about Catholics or Christians? We Jews are no longer organized to excommunicate and a rabbi can’t be defrocked the way the Church does with its clergy but surely there are individual rabbi’s who say things so abhorrent about the "other" that though we still call the person rabbi we would not want to be taken to task for doing so.

And isn’t it possible that bringing Richard Williamson back inside the Church may actually influence him to see how wrong he is on this issue given how clear the Church is regarding the Holocaust and its commitment to Catholic Jewish relations? After all the Pope himself said, "I hope my gesture is followed by the hoped for commitment on their part to take the further steps necessary to realize full communion with the Church, thus witnessing true fidelity, and true recognition of the magisterium and the authority of the pope and of the Second Vatican Council." There is no way to read this other than to conclude that to be fully reinstated in the Catholic Church, all those who have passed the first test must now clear the big hurdle: either accept what the Catholic Church teaches or remain on the sidelines. And what the Church teaches, among other things, is the necessity of respecting Jews.

Moreover, shouldn’t the Jewish defense agency leadership, which to its credit is probably the most effective at its work of any ethnic and religious group in this country, try to understand the inner categories of the other, [good] especially after decades of inter-faith and inter-group work? In this case, that there is a difference between heresy – an accusation from which the Pope is trying to heal part of his community- and stupidity. And what is the cost of not seeing the difference between heresy and stupidity? [Very well put!]

Finally, when the Pope as well as key Vatican officials said within a day that Williamson’s views are "absolutely indefensible" and that in the Pope’s own words, the Church feels "full and indispensable solidarity with Jews against any Holocaust denial" where was a little humility in response? Wouldn’t it have been interesting, yet alone ethically compelling, for those who initially lashed out to have acknowledged that perhaps they did overreact and that they do know that the Church and specifically this Pope are very sensitive to these issues. But that we ask the Pope and church hierarchy to please understand that, whether fully justified or not, we are still very very raw and very vulnerable regarding the Holocaust and so we are sorry if we did over react and we are deeply grateful for the Pope’s unambiguous reiteration of that which we do know is his view and is contemporary Catholic teachings.

No longer excommunicated, but still foolish - Bishop Williamson

Here's the video of those moronic remarks... keep it to yourself, buddy.

Obama's first helping hand to abortionists...

Vatican criticizes Obama on abortion issue

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Vatican officials said Saturday they were disappointed by President Barack Obama’s decision to end a ban on federal funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on them.

Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who heads the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, urged Obama to listen to all voices in America without "the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death."

Fisichella said in an interview published Saturday in Corriere della Sera that "if this is one of President Obama’s first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we’re heading quickly toward disappointment."

Obama signed an executive order that ended the ban on Friday, reversing the policy of the Bush administration.

"This deals a harsh blow not only to us Catholics but to all the people across the world who fight against the slaughter of innocents that is carried out with the abortion," another top official with the Academy for Life, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, told the ANSA news agency.

"Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst," he was quoted as saying Saturday.

Officials at the academy could not be reached Saturday.

Hilarious write up by an Orthodox fellow on bad Episcopal (illegit Catholic) liturgy

Here's his blog.

12 January 2009
the rite of ?ian burial, which is what the handout may better have said, even though it was only a memorial service with ashes.
This weekend past we went to a memorial service for my grandfather at an Episcopal Church in that suburb I so try to avoid.

My grandfather was not a religious man, and did not wish to have a memorial of any sort, but several of my father's relatives had other intentions, and thus we had to suffer a visit to an ECUSA parish. My parents intervened to prevent a funeral mass, as many from my extended family would refuse communion at an ECUSA church (not just the Orthodox, also the continuing Anglicans and the non-denominational Evangelicals).

My grandfather's cremated remains in a tasteful box atop the altar table seemed a perfect fit to the aesthetic of the newish $11,000,000 church, and the parody of actual sacrament that it exuded.

The procession consisted of the priest and a woman in Anglican acolyte garb. The woman held a processional cross, and when she got up to the altar she veered to the right, and then placed the cross behind some speakers, so that it could not be seen.

After the service, my father told me that his brother, who attends this parish, told him that the local ECUSA bishop did not allow the parish to place any crosses in a noticeable location, even within the sanctuary, so as not to offend persons who are offended at the sight of a cross. The sanctuary was one of those late modern architectural monstrosities, with a wall of mostly glass behind the altar, thus I suppose a person outside with binoculars could notice the small processional cross were it placed directly behind the altar. My father spoke of my uncle's phrase with regard to the bishop's command, "we did not have a choice." My father, ever the existentialist, gave me that smile of his and repeated with tongue in cheek, "of course, they did not have a choice." Their choice of a respectable 11 million dollar facility and communion with a bishop who is ashamed of the Cross may seem to them to serve them well in this life.
In the "nave" there were two images, one a Western, early medieval looking icon of the Theotokos which was quite beautiful, and one of St. George, hand written in Byzantine style, framed in gorgeous wood. Between listening to blather from up front and my middler's fussing, I was thinking of ways I might release St. George from his captivity. That these folks think a cross is offensive, but do not think icons of the Theotokos and St. George are offensive reveals a fetishism and delusion that astounds. Other than the two icons, the church was as minimalist as modern day contracepted sex. I did notice one wooden cross, high above, on top of a rafter out of any obvious sight line. I only noticed it when I turned my head in such a position so as to essentially look straight up, and even then it was placed in such an out of the way position, and clearly made to blend into the rafter lines, that a Christian might feel quite awkward about it. Why even bother.
All of the women who participated in the service, which was everyone who participated in the service save the priest and one male reader among the 4 readers, were between 45 and 65 and given to display an androgynous disposition. Short hair (and not feminine short), speech in a manner neither masculine nor feminine, tasteful in a bureaucratic sort of way, and so forth. I was reminded of Neuhaus' law (Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed) and thought that where men at the altar are optional, men at the altar will sooner or later be proscribed. The priest was a man, who had the polished ecclesiocrat motif down pat, and seemed quite comfortable surrounded by women, perhaps in keeping with an apology for his maleness. It seemed to be a place perfectly suited for women who hated women and also for the occasional male who wants to get in on that action under the pretense of hating maleness.
The priest gave a homily. Following the Scripture readings, he spoke of hope in things unseen, and referred to my grandfather's spirit remaining with us in our memories of him and the various sorts of testimonies which remain of his good works. His speech was full of Christian nomenclature, but its precise use was purposefully vague to the point he made clear that he was one of those that I, and I suppose you, dear reader, have had the unfortunate occasion to have conversation with in the past - that antichrist cleric who would tell you that if a belief in the resurrection of the dead is helpful to you, then you should believe it, but who also says that faith is broader than mere assent to this or that doctrine, even the doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. For these folks, if faith is the result of nothing more than a particular pattern of neurons shooting off in the brain, that suits them just fine. As far as I am concerned, if that is the case, pass me the jug until I'm quit and toss my ashes to the wind.
I once heard an old Evangelical (an A.W. Tozer sort of clergyman) pastor give an Easter sermon in which he noted that many claiming to be Christians today have a faith in faith instead of a faith in Christ - these believe in spirituality, and in religious etiquette, and psycho-spiritual thematic helps of all sorts, they do not believe in the God-Man Jesus Christ, or in the Holy Trinity. Well, faith in ethereal self-helping überaffirming faith is what we heard, and this priest of the temple of respectability even had the gall to speak a whitewashed version of my grandfather's life, a man the priest had never met. The truth was far more complicated and painful. My grandfather had a bit of money, which can get you a respectable ECUSA service, I suppose, with all the right words. Watching and listening to all this I might have shed a tear were I a man with a heart of flesh, not so much for my grandfather, but for my father, who was the one man there who could fully appreciate the farce and the true indignity of it all.
All mortal things are vanity and exist not after death. Riches endure not, neither doth glory accompany on the way: for when death cometh, all these things vanish utterly.
- from the Damascene's Idiomela, tone 3.

Mexico is burning?

I saw this in a recent article...

EL PASO - Mexico is one of two countries that "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse," according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.
The command's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. "In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.[...]

Read the rest here.

On Valkyrie - the plot to kill Hitler

The movie was actually pretty good, and Cruise even looks like Claus von Stauffeneberg.

Col. Claus von Stauffeneberg, the hero of Valkyrie, though you would never know it from the movie, was a devout Catholic.

Valkyrie is an important movie which is being trashed by reviewers who don't care for Tom Cruise.

YOU should see it anyway.

Background:

Interview with Giovanni Sala, a historian of Civiltà Cattolica
Those “criminals” who wished to put an end to the war

The failed attempt on Hitler in 1944 was described by US newspapers as a criminal act carried out by traitors. Churchill also dismissed it as a power struggle between rival generals. Giovanni Sala, a historian of Civiltà Cattolica, explains how this was possible. Interview

by David Malacaria


The inspection by Hitler and Mussolini at the headquarters of the Fuhrer after the attempt of 20 July 1944

A gang of criminals makes an attempt on the life of the Führer. Fortunately uninjured, the German chief of State succeeds in thwarting the criminal coup d’état organized by the miserable gang of criminals who had attempted to assassinate him. The traitors to the country, promptly arrested, will be executed. Thus the news stories of the period recounted yet another attempt to eliminate Adolf Hitler, on the 20 July 1944. An attempt which was indeed intended to be a prelude to a coup d’état which would probably have ended the Second World War a year ahead of time. Up to here the story of one of the many tragic events that center on the ruthless Nazi leader. Which perhaps would not merit more attention than other tragic events which happened in those years. Were it not that it was not Nazi propaganda that dismissed the attempted coup d’état of 20 July in this manner, but authoritative American newspapers. This is one of the revelations contained in two articles, which appeared recently in Civiltà Cattolica, under the signature of Father Giovanni Sale, the authoritative Jesuit historian who has written for the review for years.

You explain that the attempt of 1944 was perhaps one of the most serious efforts to put an end to the Nazi dictatorship.

GIOVANNI SALE: Effectively that’s how it was. Not that there weren’t other attempts to eliminate the Führer who, indeed, survived about sixty attempts, among them the one, almost successful, of 1938, in a beer house in Munich. Attempts that were all nullified, not only by the precautions taken by the Führer (who changed appointments and schedules at the last minute), but also by a series of truly incredible fortuitous circumstances .... as if an evil spirit watched over him .... But, that apart, it is beyond doubt that the attempt made in 1944 had the marks of a real and proper coup d’état, planned with care and with the participation of a large number of people.

So this attempt reveals the existence of a resistance to the Nazi regime inside Germany?

SALE: To speak of resistance is perhaps excessive. In Germany single opponents of the regime certainly weren’t lacking, there were also some organized groups, one thinks of the young Catholics of the “White Rose” who paid dearly for their heroic leafleting at the university .... But these were phenomena of little importance for the regime. In the case at issue I believe that one can speak more of a true and real resistance, of a clear refusal of the ideas and doings of the regime. A refusal which was amalgamating essentially in two spheres, civil and military.

In your articles you allude on several occasions to attempts by exponents of this resistance to contact the allies ....

SALE: A sort of clandestine diplomacy was organized. One of the heads of the civil resistance, Karl Friedrich Goerdeler, established contact with the allies in March 1938. But he was received with coldness. In London, the first adviser to the Foreign Minister, Robert Vansittart, actually accused him of treason .... The same holds true for Lieutenant Colonel Ulrich von Schwerin, sent to London before the invasion of Poland to try to convince the English that the invasion would be thwarted if the English gave Hitler to understand that they were ready to defend the Slavic nation. “Only the danger of a war on two fronts can restrain Hitler”, was the message brought by the colonel. But his message, also on this occasion, was not taken into consideration. Years later, from 1942 on, it was emissaries of the cultural circle of Kreisau, also through men of the church, who tried to explain to the allies that there was an opposition that hated the Nazis and that the allies should immediately reject any too hasty identification between Nazism and the German people. But this distinction was not accepted by the allies. Then, when in January of 1943, the inter-allied Conference of Casablanca demanded the total and unconditional surrender not only of the dictator but also of the German nation, the distinction was not even in discussion anymore. This stance left the pockets of resistance without any recourse.

Was Pius XII aware of these attempts to contact the allies?

SALE: He was personally involved in at least one when, between 1939 and 1940, the lawyer Josif Muller, sent by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of counter espionage and the soul of the military resistance, requested him to intercede with the English ambassador accredited to the Vatican to have a message sent to London asking that peace terms be negotiated with a new German government after the overthrow of Hitler. The Pope consented to put the German opposition and the English government in contact. But this attempt also failed. The allies feared that there were traps involved, but they were also blinded by the imperial nationalism of the time which viewed these figures as traitors to their own country. And certainly that identification between Nazis and the German people, which was indeed disastrous, weighed on these events.

You were saying before about the civil opposition ....

SALE: This formed around the Kreisau circle, which one could also describe as a cultural circle to which leading figures from various backgrounds in German civil society belonged. The main core was formed of aristocrats, of Catholic trade unionists and exponents of the dissolved Zentrum, a party of Christian inspiration, by representatives of the Lutheran church and by intellectuals and trade unionists of the left. Priests and religious also belonged to it. But, apart from the effective members, different personalities, among them the Bishop of Berlin, Konrad von Preysing, as well as other prominent German Catholics, had contacts the circle.

What did they do?

SALE: Obviously they didn’t have much freedom of movement ....they met for private conferences, where the future of Germany was debated and planned, a future without Hitler, obviously .... The founder of this circle was Count Helmuth James von Moltke, a figure of high moral and spiritual standing. As other aristocratic adherents of the circle, he saw in the overthrow of the regime not only the sole possibility of salvation for Germany, the redemption of the nation from Nazi degradation, but also, at a personal level, a way of saving his soul. A possibility of seriously striking a blow at the heart of the regime was given by the converging of the Kreisau circle and the military opposition. The conspirators were joined by Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, who belonged to the select group of collaborators of the Führer. It was the first time that a plot had the advantage of such a close contact. The planning, done within the circle, speeded up when von Stauffenberg, for reasons connected with his work, learnedof an order which decreed “the ‘special treatment’ of Auschwitz for 40 or 42 thousand Hungarian Jews”.

Were the ecclesiastical hierarchies aware of this attempt at a coup d’état ?

SALE: From Moltke’s diaries we know that “authoritative bishops were close to the resistance”. We know that in January 1943 von Moltke, in Munich to meet Fathers Augustinus Rosch, Lothar Konig and Alfred Delp (Jesuits belonging to the Kreisau circle, the last of whom was killed after the failed attempt) and the lawyer Muller, the man who was the contact with the Vatican, spoke of the plan with Cardinal Michael Faulhaber who tacitly agreed. We don’t know whether von Preysing also knew about it, but it is very probable, given that they frequented each other a great deal.

How was the plan carried out?

SALE: On 20 July of 1944 von Stauffenberg succeeded in bringing a case containing two explosive charges into “the wolf’s den” in Rastenburg, where Hitler was to meet with his officers. But, once inside, perhaps because of a hitch, Stauffenberg only succeeded in priming one of the two charges. The case was then placed near Hitler, but next to a column which deadened the explosive force. In short, yet again, a series of fortunate circumstances preserved the life of Hitler who escaped unscathed from the attempt. At the same time operations to implement the coup d’état were set in motion. But Hitler’s orders preceded those of the conspirators, and his loyal followers soon succeeded in foiling it. The same night, the leaders of the conspiracy, meeting in the Oberkommando of the Wehrmacht in Berlin, were arrested. In the speech which Hitler made to the nation on the evening of the failed attempt, he explained that a small group of ambitious officers had tried to eliminate him, but that “providence” had prevented it.


Father Alfred Delp, one of the Jesuit fathers belonging to the Kreisau cultural circle and killed after the failed attempt on the Führer

Were they killed?

SALE: All the stages of the trial and of the sentencing to death were filmed, by the express will of Hitler who, among other things, wanted them killed “like pigs”. They were executed, suspended from butcher’s hooks, and the films were sent to the dictator who watched and re-watched them with his officials.

What was the international reaction?

SALE: In the outside world the interpretation which Hitler himself gave of the conspiracy was widely accepted. Recounting the events, the New York Times said that the attempt “made one think more of the atmosphere of a miserable criminal world” than what one would expect from “a normal body of officers of a civilized state”, and they were scandalized by the fact that for a year these officers had plotted “against the commander in chief of the armed forces”, resorting, among other things, to “a bomb, a weapon typical of the underworld”. Another important US newspaper, the Herald Tribune, commented: “In general it will not displease Americans that the bomb spared Hitler and that now he is personally freed of his generals. On the other hand Americans have nothing in common with aristocrats, and especially not with those who resort to stabbing”. Winston Churchill, in a message sent to the House of Commons on 2 August 1944, commented on the episode as “a struggle for power between the generals of the Third Reich”.

Did the allies at the time already know of the final solution against the Jews ....

SALE: Yes, for more than a year .... But here I think we are faced with another blunder dictated by exasperated nationalism and by miscalculation of the event ....

What was the extent of the repression following the attempt of 20 July?

SALE: The Gestapo soon discovered that it was not just a handful of conspirators. Thousands of people were arrested, many of whom were killed. Among these there were many Catholics. The Archbishop of Freiburg, Monsignor Konrad Grober, in a note sent in those days to the apostolic nuncio in Berlin, writes about fifty arrests in his city alone, specifying that there were “personalities known both to the Holy Father and to you” ....

Read the rest here.

A bizarre story in so many ways...

This really is strange:

Broward County School Board using text messages to report dangers
Like Crime Stoppers, the messages you send will not be able to be traced

By Akilah Johnson | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
January 14, 2009

Broward County Click here for restaurant inspection reports schools are keeping up with technology by offering students a way to send anonymous tips about danger on campus: text messaging.

Superintendent James Notter said that when he went to Dillard High School after a student was fatally shot there Nov. 12, he realized today's students are just as likely to send a text message as make a phone call.

And tipsters: Don't worry about text-message shorthand. Student government leaders and more youthful school officials will help translate the texts into traditional — and understandable — English.

"Any parent or adult who does read their children's text messages, it is a different language," Notter said. "Our students' generation has created their own language."

Read the rest.

Latin deemed 'elitist' & 'discriminatory' in England!

"TE ODIO = I HATE YOU"

This is the latest from England...

Councils ban 'elitist' and 'discriminatory' Latin phrases
They are phrases that are repeated ad nauseam and are taken as bona fide English, but councils have now overturned the status quo by banning staff from using Latin terms, which they claim are elitist and discriminatory.

By Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 12:35AM GMT 02 Nov 2008

Local authorities have ordered employees to stop using the words and phrases on documents and when communicating with members of the public and to rely on wordier alternatives instead.

The ban has infuriated classical scholars who say it is diluting the world's richest language and is the "linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing".

Bournemouth Council, which has the Latin motto Pulchritudo et Salubritas, meaning beauty and health, has listed 19 terms it no longer considers acceptable for use.

This includes bona fide, eg (exempli gratia), prima facie, ad lib or ad libitum, etc or et cetera, ie or id est, inter alia, NB or nota bene, per, per se, pro rata, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, vice versa and even via.

Its list of more verbose alternatives, includes "for this special purpose", in place of ad hoc and "existing condition" or "state of things", instead of status quo.

In instructions to staff, the council said: "Not everyone knows Latin. Many readers do not have English as their first language so using Latin can be particularly difficult."

The details of banned words have emerged in documents obtained from councils by the Sunday Telegraph under The Freedom of Information Act.

Of other local authorities to prohibit the use of Latin, Salisbury Council has asked staff to avoid the phrases ad hoc, ergo and QED (quod erat demonstrandum), while Fife Council has also banned ad hoc as well as ex officio.

Professor Mary Beard, a professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge said: "This is absolute bonkers and the linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing. English is and always has been a language full of foreign words. It has never been an ethnically pure language."

Dr Peter Jones, co-founder of the charity Friends of Classics said "This sort of thing sends out the message that language is about nothing more than the communication of very basic information in the manner of a railway timetable.

"But it is about much more than that. The great strength of English is that it has a massive infusion of Latin. We have a very rich lexicon with almost two sets of words for everything.

"To try and wipe out the richness does a great disservice to the language. It demeans it. I am all for immigrants raising their sights not lowering them. Plain English and Latin phrasing are not diametrically opposed concepts."

Henry Mount the author of the bestselling book Amo, Amos, Amat and All That, a lighthearted guide to the language, said: "Latin words and phrases can often sum up thoughts and ideas more often that the alternatives which are put forward. They are tremendously useful, quicker and nicer sounding.

"They are also English words. You will find etc or et cetera in an English dictionary complete with its explanation."

However, the Plain English Campaign has congratulated the councils for introducing the bans.

Marie Clair, its spokesman, said: "If you look at the diversity of all our communities you have got people for whom English is a second language. They might mistake eg for egg and little things like that can confuse people.

"At the same time it is important to remember that the national literacy level is about 12 years old and the vast majority of people hardly ever use these terms.

"It is far better to use words people understand. Often people in power are using the words because they want to feel self important. It is not right that voters should suffer because of some official's ego."

Several councils, including Aberdeenshire, and Blackburn and Darwen, have also prohibited the use of the French phrase in lieu, while many local authorities have drawn up lists of English words, which cannot be used as they are considered politically incorrect.

Amber Valley Council, in Derbyshire, has told staff it is no longer acceptable to use language "that portrays once sex as subordinate to the other".

Staff have been instructed to say "synthetic" rather than "man made", "lay person" instead of "lay man", "people in general" in place of "man in the street", "one person show" rather than "one man show" and "ancestors" instead of "forefathers".

Broadland Council, in Norfolk, has banned "housewife" and replaced it with "homemaker" and asked staff to refer to "staffing" rather than "manning" levels.

Several councils including Blyth Valley and Weymouth have banned the phrase disabled toilet and disabled parking because they imply that the facilities themselves are disabled. They have renamed them accessible.

There are some hilarious ironies in what the spokesman for "the Plain English Campaign"
said: "It is not right that voters should suffer because of some official's ego."
I would also interject that if one confuses eg for "egg," he doesn't deserve breakfast!

Has America Lost Its Way? A bishop reflects...

From Zenit.org.

Bishop Aquila on Returning to Nation's Foundations

FARGO, North Dakota, OCT. 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is an excerpt of the homily given Sunday by Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo at the Cathedral of St. Mary.
* * *

Today, Catholic politicians and individual voters on both sides of the aisle have lost the sense of this fundamental principle that underlies every just and enduring society. Most especially, they have lost the sense of the inalienable right to life for the unborn child. Even without considering God in the equation, human life, for every human being, begins at the moment of conception. That is when human life begins. That is when your life began. And that is when Rep. Pelosi’s life began. That is when Sen. Biden’s life began. That is when Sen. Obama’s life began and Sen. McCain’s life began.

Sadly, the dignity of human life from the moment of conception is lost today. The truth nonetheless exists. Our forefathers recognized it but present day politicians and voters do not.

Furthermore, we have lost too this fundamental principle in what it means to pursue happiness. We see the attempted pursuit of happiness without God and the collapse of this pursuit in Wall Street and the economics of today. Greed has guided the hearts of men and women, in which a 40 million dollar bonus is not enough in one year. When you take God out of the equation and life is lived as if he did not exist, the only thing left to pursue is materialism, because there is no life after death, there is no judgment. And so greed guides the hearts of men and women when we lose that basic essential understanding of the presence of God.

We see that abandonment of God’s presence, too, in the area of human sexuality. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. Women are treated as sexual toys and objects. People proclaim a “good” in same sex unions, living promiscuously, and moving from one intimate relationship to the next.

Once we lose God in the pursuit of happiness, and once we lose the sense of the dignity of the human person and the God in whose image and likeness we are truly created, then we lose all sense of any moral compass or any moral standard. Without God, can there be any morality at all? Or is it set by the thinking of the day that can change from generation to generation, rooted in no truths that are valid for every person in every generation?

We as a nation stand at a crossroads. There is a fork in the road between the culture of life and the culture of death. The culture of death made great inroads with activist judges in the 1973 court that created a so-called right to abortion. They, like the pharisees and the Herodians, hid behind lies, they hid behind deceit, they hid behind a lack of reason and the majority said, “It is okay to destroy human life in all nine months of pregnancy.”

Judges, politicians and voters who went so far as to state that human life may be destroyed at the beginning are now attacking human life at its end by support for assisted suicide. The next step will be to deny healthcare for the elderly and handicapped because they are no more of any use to society. Once the right to life is no longer understood as a gift from God, but attributed to people by the state, the road to further atrocities against human life is a spiral downward quite rapidly.

What many Catholic politicians and citizens have done by their actions and votes today is to sell their souls, because what they have done is to say, “We will be created in the image and likeness, not of God, but of a Democratic platform, of a Republican platform -- that’s whose image and likeness we will embrace.” There is neither reason nor logic in their statements, but anything to gain power and this compromise leads only to blindness and darkness.

My sisters and brothers, you and I are not created in the image and likeness of Obama or McCain or a political party. We are created in the image and likeness of God. We must, as our forefathers did, place the God-given inalienable rights first, beginning with the right to life from the moment of conception until natural death. As bad as the economy is, as bad as the war is, the destruction of innocent human life, especially in the womb, is a greater evil, and correction of this grave evil must take place. Each of us has a role in making this correction in our duties as citizens. To say that “the battle is lost” is to condone an intrinsic evil that will only lead to further evils.

A hundred years from now, this election will just be a moment in history. A hundred years from now all of us, or certainly most of us, will be dead. But I assure you, a hundred years from now, if we continue as a society on the course that we are on, embracing a culture of death, our society will no longer exist, because tyranny will have its way, as will atheism.

When there is no recognition of the primacy of God and human beings decide what is good and what is evil, anything can be justified. All we have to do is look at history and the atheism of China, the atheism of Russia, the atheism of Cambodia, and the atheism of Nazi Germany. Countries that embrace atheism reveal the truth -- that is, if we do not embrace, as our forefathers did, the laws of nature and nature’s God, we will eventually collapse as a society.

Pontiff Offers Monetary Support to Georgia

Pretty interesting that the Orthodox in Georgia are relying on aid from Catholics... [Where are the Russian Orthodox???]

Bishop Says Orthodox Edified by Pope's Concern

By Chiara Santomiero

TBILISI, Georgia, AUG. 22, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI directed $120,000 to Caritas Georgia to help the humanitarian relief effort in the wake of the tiny nation's conflict with neighboring Russia.

The money and an accompanying note were sent to Bishop Giuseppe Pasotto, apostolic administrator of Caucaso. The Pope's message expressed his hope that the contribution would give weight to the appeals he made during the Angelus addresses of Aug. 10 and 17.

Bishop Pasotta said that the Holy Father's mention of Georgia twice during the Angelus addresses have impressed the citizens of the nation.

"In a country of primarily Orthodox religion, [the fact that] the head of the Catholic Church should be concerned in such a determined way about the ongoing conflict, and that he keeps the Georgian people in his heart and prays for them, has caused a great impression," the prelate affirmed.

He added that the situation of the refugees -- which he numbered between 80,000 and 90,000 -- is dire, but that it was "lovely" to see families reaching out to those who "arrived suddenly, and who didn't even have a mattress to lie on."

Even after the ceasefire, Bishop Pasotta continued, "there still is tension. [People] cannot understand why, despite the agreements, everything is blocked and no one can go wherever he wishes."

Russia withdrew what may have been the last of its troops just today, exactly two weeks after they had arrived on their neighbor's soil in retaliation for a Georgian attack in the separatist territory of South Ossetia.

Meanwhile, Caritas has been assisting the humanitarian relief effort since almost the very beginning of the conflict Aug 7.

"Both the Georgian government and the Orthodox patriarchate have requested aid from the Catholic Church and we are doing everything possible, with a great spirit of collaboration," Bishop Pasotta affirmed.

Christian leaders, and Jewish and Muslim communities, have joined in an appeal for more humanitarian relief.

"There have been beautiful moments of encounter," the bishop said. "In situations such as this, it is important to feel united beyond differences of faith."

Nevertheless, the prelate hoped that aid would be ongoing.

"Now there is no lack of international aid, but the precarious situation threatens to last a long time. It is already said that the schools won't open because they are all occupied by refugees," he added. "It will be necessary to rebuild the houses and to see that everyone receives aid and that no one in need is forgotten. After seven or eight months, will Georgia be remembered?"

Not a word from the Russian church on the unprovoked Georgia invasion...

But this just in: bomber to be named after St. Nicholas... "TIS OUTRAGE!"

I wonder if it will be called St. Nicholas of the holy, blown-up Georgians. Hmmmmmm. Shameless.

I know we Catholics have our faults, but as I read this from the Russian Orthodox official website, my skin crawls:
"27/07/2008, Patriarch Alexy: Unity of Russian Orthodoxy cannot impede full-fledged life of sovereign state"

That's why you need a universal bishop, aka: pope. No nation goes unchallenged in this modern, war-obsessed world.

Alas, more on Rowan and the tragedy that is the C of E...

Bishop Gene Robinson and his 'husband'... He said in an interview that he "always wanted to be a June bride".

In private correspondence, seen by the Daily Telegraph, Dr Rowan Williams, refutes the Anglican Communion's traditional teaching that homosexuality is sinful.

Furthermore, he expresses his hope that the Church will change its position to be more accepting of gay partnerships.

His comments – made in a letter written shortly before he became Archbishop of Canterbury – will infuriate the conservatives who boycotted the recent Lambeth Conference in protest at the presence of liberals who elected Anglicanism's first openly gay bishop.

Leading evangelicals have claimed that he is in an "untenable position".

"The Bible does not address the matter of appropriate behaviour for those who are, for whatever reason, homosexual by instinct or nature," Dr Williams writes.

"By the end of the 80s I had definitely come to the conclusion that scripture was not dealing with the predicament of persons whom we should recognise as homosexual by nature.

"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had the about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness."

Although Dr Williams was known to have liberal views on the issue of homosexuality when he was appointed as archbishop in 2002, since moving to Canterbury he has tried to hold a traditional line for the sake of unity in the Church.

However, he makes clear in the letter that he believes that the Church could relax its strict teaching with time.

"The Church has shifted its stance on several matters – notably the rightness of lending money at interest and the moral admissibility of contraception so I am bound to ask if this is another such issue," he says.

"If I am really seriously wrong on this, I can only pray to be shown the truth."

Dr Williams is critical of those who have politicised the issue, "treating it as the sole or primary marker of Christian orthodoxy".

This will be perceived as an attack at conservative Anglican leaders who have since claimed that the Church is split following the consecration of Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire.

Conservative Anglican leaders said that the disclosure of the letter revealed the true mind of Dr Williams and significantly weakens his position as he battles to save the Church from schism.

Read the rest of this truly tragic and never-ending tale....