30 April 2009
Current updated list:
1. Bishop John D’Arcy, Fort Wayne-South Bend
2. Cardinal Francis George, Chicago
3. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Galveston-Houston
4. Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Milwaukee (--> NYC)
5. Archbishop John Nienstedt, St. Paul-Minneapolis
6. Archbishop Eusebius Beltran, Oklahoma City
7. Bishop Edward Slattery, Tulsa
8. Archbishop John Myers, Newark
9. Archbishop Alfred Hughs, New Orleans
10. Bishop Joseph Martino, Scranton
11. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty, Scranton
12. Bishop Thomas Doran, Rockford, Ill.
13. Bishop Thomas Olmsted, Phoenix
14. Bishop Gregory Aymond, Austin
15. Bishop Robert Lynch, St. Petersburg
16. Bishop R. Walker Nickless, Sioux City
17. Bishop Kevin Rhoades, Harrisburg, Pa.
18. Bishop William E. Lori, Bridgeport, CT
19. Bishop Robert Morlino, Madison WI
20. Bishop George Murry, S.J., Youngstown, OH
21. Bishop William Higi, Lafayette, IN
22. Bishop Anthony Taylor of Little Rock, AR
23. Archbishop Jose Gomez, San Antonio, TX
24. and Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantu
25. Bishiop Jerome Listecki, La Crosse, WI
26. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, Baltimore MD
27. Bishop Alex Sample, Marquette MI
28. Archbishop Daniel Buechlein, Indianapolis
29. Bishop Robert Baker, Birmingham AL
30. Bishop Samuel Aquila, Fargo ND
31. Bishop Gerald Barbarito, Palm Beach FL
32. Bishop Fabian Brukeswitz, Lincoln NE
33. Bishop Richard Stika, Knoxville TN
34. Bishop Robert Finn, Kansas City
35. Bishop Joseph Latino, Jackson MS
36. Bishop Leonard Blair, Toledo OH
37. Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, Evansville IN
38. Bishop George Lucas, Springfield IL
39. Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, Cincinnati OH
40. Bishop Thomas Wenski, Orlando FL
41. Bishop Robert Vasa, Baker OR
42. Bishop Paul Coakley, Salina KS
43. Bishop John Le Voir, New Ulm MN
44. Bishop Victor Galeone, St. Augustine FL
45. Bishop David Zubik, Pittsburgh PA
46. Bishop Paul Loverde, Arlington VA
47. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Kansas City, KS
48. Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte, NC
49. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, NY
50. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, CO
51. Bishop Glen Provost of Lake Charles LA
52. Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden, NJ
53. Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, PA
54. Bishop John McCormack of Manchester, NH
55. Archbishop Doland Wuerl of Washington, DC (somewhat)
56. Bishop Bernard Harrington of Winona, MN
57. Bishop Michael Warfel of Great Falls-Billings, MT
58. Bishop Michael Jackels of Wichita, KS
59. Bishop James Johnson of Springfield - Cape Girardeau, MO
60. Bishop Edward Cullen of Allentown, PA (diocesan newspaper)
61. (Aux.) Bishop Roger Gries of Cleveland, OH (highschool address)
62. Bishop Robert Hermann, apostolic administrator of St. Louis, MO
63. Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay, WI
64. Bishop Remundo Pena of Brownsville, TX
65. Bishop George Thomas of Helena, MT
66. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, MA at Boston College Law School
It would be nice to see a complete united front on this. Pray for our Bishops.
Most have links. My favorite so far is Bishop Fabian Brukeswits of Lincoln, Nebraska. The Bishop has a way with words!
UPDATE: The Papist has a cool interactive Map of Dioceses that have made a statement. SEE: HERE
According to his numbers 1 out of 3 Dioceses are critical of the Notre Dame Invite. So far there has not been one bishop who has spoken publically in favor of the invite.
29 April 2009
BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN
That’s a headline we haven’t seen yet, dear readers, but probably will in the next couple of years. And, make no mistake about it – that’s exactly what the headline will say as the story makes its way around the state and across the nation.
The march toward gay marriage across our nation is relentless, and liberal New England is leading the way. The supporters of gay marriage in Rhode Island are well-organized and well-funded. They’re fiercely determined to impose their politically correct agenda on all the citizens of the state – human history, culture and moral principles not-withstanding. Anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot.
And what’s the typical response of Catholics in Rhode Island? “As long as it doesn’t affect me, I really don’t care what other people do,” you say. “We shouldn’t judge other people,” you demur. “The Church is losing its influence. I don’t think there’s anything we can do,” you rationalize.
Well, my friends, gay marriage will affect you and you should be concerned. And there’s a lot we can do. But first, let’s review the principal reasons why we’re opposed to gay marriage.
First is our firm belief – based on the natural law, the Bible and consistent religious tradition – that homosexual activity is unnatural and gravely immoral. It’s offensive to Almighty God. It can never be condoned, under any circumstances. Gay marriage, or civil unions, would mean that our state is in the business of ratifying, approving such immoral activity. And as I’ve written previously: “The state shouldn’t be placed in that position, and as a citizen of the state I don’t want that imposed on me and my conscience. Neither should you.”
Second is the fact that gay marriage seeks to radically redefine the most fundamental institution of the human race, the building block of every society and culture. From the beginning, marriage has been defined as the stable union of man and woman, designed by God to continue the human race through the procreation of children. Homosexual relationships are not marriage – never have been, never will be.
The gay culture continues to seep into our popular culture, cleverly claiming credibility. Did you see that President Obama issued special invitations to gay families to participate in this year’s Easter Egg Hunt at the White House? Just another not-too-subtle attempt to ignore the objective immorality of the situation and present gay couples as normal and happy as every other couple.
The third way in which gay marriage will affect you is its impact on religious freedom, including that of the Catholic Church.
A recent headline in the Washington Post demonstrates the problem: “Faith groups losing gay rights fights.” It goes on to give some examples of how the gay agenda is imposing itself on religious beliefs: a Christian photographer in New Mexico was fined because she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony; Christian doctors in California were obliged to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient; A Christian student group was punished because it denied membership to anyone involved in sex outside of marriage.
We’re familiar with other examples of the gay agenda infringing on religious freedom. In Massachusetts, the Catholic Church was required to place children for adoption with gay couples; and in some countries, clergy preaching the Christian doctrine about homosexual practices have been accused of hate crimes.
Proponents of gay marriage say that the Church won’t be forced to witness such marriages. Don’t believe it. And other related problems will inevitably arise. Will the Church be required to admit gay couples as sponsors for baptisms; to rent its facilities for gay wedding receptions; to hire employees despite their immoral gay lifestyles; to grant family benefits to gay couples? For simply maintaining its teachings in these and many other possible scenarios, the Church will be accused of bigotry and unlawful discrimination. The threat to our religious freedom is real, and imminent.
The fact that Rhode Island has successfully avoided the gay marriage phenomenon is a credit to our Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. They – along with a number of other legislative leaders – have been consistent and courageous in deflecting the onslaught of gay activists and in upholding the traditional definition of marriage. We hope and pray they’ll continue to do so.
“The Church is losing its influence,” you say, “and there’s nothing we can do.” “Bull feathers,” I reply. I don’t know if we have 600,000 Catholics in the state or 500,000 or 400,000. But if even ten percent of our Catholic population got actively involved in this issue – even five percent – we could have an enormous impact and help Rhode Island maintain its moral sanity.
Lots of things you can do about this issue. First, you can be aware of the legislation as it’s introduced in the General Assembly. You can contact your state senator and representative and insist that they oppose gay marriage and defend marriage and family values. You can exert your influence with letters to the editor and calls to talk shows. You can join and support organizations like NOM-RI that’s leading the charge on this issue. And you can pray fervently that God will help us in this critical struggle on behalf of morality and common sense.
The Church teaches us that it’s the responsibility of the laity to get involved in public life, to transform the secular order into the Kingdom of God. Therefore, if someday a headline reads, “Rhode Island, Most Catholic State, Welcomes Gay Marriage,” people across the nation will ask, “How did that happen?” And it’ll be our fault, fellow Catholics – not necessarily because we approved of gay marriage – but simply because our abysmal apathy allowed it to happen.
The bishops who have so far expressed disapproval of Notre Dame's invitation to Obama (in alphabetical order) are:
1. Bishop John D'Arcy - Fort Wayne-South Bend, IN
2. Bishop Samuel Aquila - Fargo, ND
3. Bishop Gregory Aymond - Austin, TX
4. Bishop Gerald Barbarito - Palm Beach, FL
5. Bishop Leonard Blair - Toledo, OH
6. Archbishop Daniel Buechlein - Indianapolis, IN
7. Bishop Robert Baker - Birmingham, AL
8. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz - Lincoln, NE
9. Archbishop Eusebius Beltran - Oklahoma City, OK
10. Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantú - San Antonio, TX
11. Bishop Paul Coakley - Salina, KS
12. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - Houston, TX
13. Archbishop Timothy Dolan - New York, NY
14. Bishop Thomas Doran - Rockford, IL
15. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty - Scranton, PA
16. Bishop Robert Finn - Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO
17. Bishop Victor Galeone - St. Augustine, FL
18. Cardinal Francis George - Chicago, IL; President, USCCB
19. Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger - Evansville, IN
20. Archbishop José Gomez - San Antonio, TX
21. Bishop William Higi - Lafayette, IN
22. Archbishop Alfred Hughs - New Orleans, LA
23. Bishop Joseph Latino - Jackson, MS
24. Bishop John LeVoir - New Ulm, MN
25. Bishop Jerome Listecki - La Crosse, WI
26. Bishop William E. Lori - Bridgeport, CT
27. Bishop Paul Loverde - Arlington, VA
28. Bishop George Lucas - Springfield, IL
29. Bishop Robert Lynch - St. Petersburg, FL
30. Bishop Joseph Martino - Scranton, PA
31. Bishop Charles Morlino - Madison, WI
32. Bishop George Murry - Youngstown, OH
33. Archbishop John J. Myers - Newark, NJ
34. Archbishop Joseph Naumann - Kansas City, KS
35. Bishop R. Walker Nickless - Sioux City, IA
36. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN
37. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - Baltimore, MD
38. Bishop Thomas Olmsted - Phoenix, AZ
39. Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk - Cincinnati, OH
40. Bishop Kevin Rhoades - Harrisburg, PA
41. Bishop Alexander Sample - Marquette, MI
42. Bishop Edward J. Slattery - Tulsa, OK
43. Bishop Richard Stika - Knoxville, TN
44. Bishop Anthony Taylor - Little Rock, AR
45. Bishop Robert Vasa - Baker, OR
46. Bishop Thomas Wenski - Orlando, FL
47. Archbishop Donald Wuerl - Washington, D.C.
48. Bishop David Zubick - Pittsburgh, PA
For a list of contact information regarding the Notre Dame scandal, go to: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032706.html
If there are any Bishops missing shoot me an email and I would be happy to add them to the list. Hey - and while your at it - check to see if your Bishop is on the list. If he is not maybe send him a note and ask him why?
Written by Elizabeth Lev:
I read with some perplexity this PoliticsDaily.com blog post on Professor Glendon's decision to refuse the Laetare award, as it seemed to present a very superficial reading of the situation.
The Laetare Medal is the highest honor conferred on Catholics in the United States. For a Catholic, it has greater prestige than a Nobel Prize for a scientist or an Academy Award for an actor, as the award is given for career-long achievement, for "staying the course" in the words of St. Paul. It doesn't just showcase a single discovery or film role.
To renounce it, therefore, is not the lightest of matters. Professor Glendon has spent a month thinking, consulting, and given her deep faith, praying about this decision. (This, for those of you who don't know, means asking God to help one put aside one's own personal concerns and act in the way that will produce the greatest good). (Kaitlynn) Riely's dismissive "thanks, no thanks" rendering of her decision, while pithy, is reductive.
Professor Glendon was to have been honored for not only for her scholarship, but for her second career, her pro-bono work -- ranging from the civil rights movement of the 1960s to the great civil rights issues of the present day -- namely, the defense of human life from conception to natural death. Her concerns range from the aging and dying population to the unborn to the well-being and dignity of every life, regardless of race, religion, or economic status. Her outstanding work in this field has earned her the respect of the most brilliant minds of the international community, regardless of whether they agree with her position. So again, to see her merely as "strongly anti-abortion" instead of as a tireless defender of the dignity of life, is to reveal not only a lack of understanding of the subject's work, but also the writer's real interest in this question.
Furthermore, during his first 100 days in office, President Obama has worked tirelessly to undermine Professor Glendon's lifetime of work; he is funding abortion out of the bailout package and planning to suppress the protection of conscience for health care workers.
Your notion that her "training in diplomacy" might somehow ease this situation does not take into account that she has a five-minute acceptance speech and he will have a lengthy commencement speech. There is no "engaging" here. Diplomacy generally teaches that if you have a rapier and your opponent has a missile launcher, try not to engage.
That Professor Glendon "did not like that Notre Dame was claiming her speech would serve to balance the event" is again facile and simplistic. What is there to like in being the deflector screen for inviting a profoundly divisive figure to give the commencement speech? What is likeable about a Catholic University named for the most important woman in Christianity exploiting a woman who has already dedicated her life to protecting the Church's teaching by turning her into a warm-up act for a grotesque twist on a reality show?
Finally, after 50 Catholic bishops condemned the university for its direct defiance in honoring a man in open conflict with the Church's teaching, it is right that Professor Glendon let her silence speak louder than her five-minute allotment of words would have.
Readers might be wondering how I know all this. Well, for one I am her daughter, but more to the point, I read her letter with the careful consideration it deserves.
Elizabeth Lev is an art historian and writer based in Rome, where all of her three children were born. She teaches at Duquesne University’s campus there and is the author of a forthcoming biography of Caterina Riario Sforza, an unsung heroine of the Italian Renaissance. Her 10-part EWTN-TV series on the Vatican Museums – move over, Sister Wendy – would have been eclatante even if she hadn’t done the whole thing in heels.
28 April 2009
Mary Ann Glendon has decided not to receive Notre Dame's Laetare Medal.
Here is her letter to Father Jenkins the President of Notre Dame:
April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. President University of Notre Dame
Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame's Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame's most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops' express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that "talking points" issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
1) "President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal."
2) "We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about."
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops' guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame's example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
The American Papist has got the "I support Mary Ann Glendon and her Noble refusal" going. Go there if you are interested.
April 27, 2009
In an April 21 question-and-answer session at the 2009 Louisiana Priests Convention, Cardinal Francis George said President Barack Obama is on the “wrong side of history” on life issues. "I think on the life issue he's on the wrong side of history," Cardinal George said. "I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he's paying them."
Commenting on his March 18 meeting with the president, he said the two discussed the president’s decision to revoke the Mexico City Policy. "He said we weren't exporting abortion," Cardinal George recounted. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.' So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."
Cardinal George continued, “John Paul II says you cannot simply live comfortably with an immoral legal system, any more than you could live comfortably with slavery, and therefore you have to work to change the law. It's a society-dividing issue, and on this issue, we're with Abraham Lincoln and he's with Stephen Douglas, and he doesn't like to hear that, but that's where he is."
Cardinal George added, “For 80 years we were a slave republic, and it took a terrible war to end that. And now for 40 years we're in an abortion regime, and I'm not sure how that's going to end.”
The rhetoric is becoming increasingly more intense. The Church is becoming even more vocal. The world hates this. More than ever I am convinced that the move forward for the Civil Right to the protection of all life (womb to tomb) must come from a united front from the Church... I.E. the Bishops. However, our own house is riddled with an extreme lack of faith, and in many places unorthodoxy prevails....in the meantime children keep dying.
There is something we can do now. We can pray. We can storm heaven with our prayers and sacrifices. Nothing is to big for our generous God to handle. Along with our Faith, and Charity - there is always hope. We must see ourselves as part of a larger plan that God is allowing to unfold...he desires us to serve Him, and help Him accomplish His ends. God still works in history, and he still calls a people to be co-workers with Him.
Begin now. Decide to pray a daily rosary, to attend Mass more during the week or maybe make the traditional first Saturdays in devotion to our Lady. Daily sacrifices can be made in self-offering for the graces the world needs for conversion...do those. Drive out all fear in giving yourself to the truth....be a humble beacon of light.
24 April 2009
Rome, Italy, Apr 24, 2009 / 11:37 am (CNA).- The Italian media published statements Thursday by the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Martino, who said Pope Benedict XVI would publish his third encyclical—this time on social issues—on June 29.
“I believe June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, will be the definitive date” for the publication of the document, the cardinal said during a congress on globalization at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. According to Vatican sources, the encyclical’s title could be “Caritas in veritatis.” It will focus on social changes that have occurred in the world since Paul VI’s encyclical “Populorum Progressio” and since the advent of globalization.
Benedict XVI’s first two encyclicals were “Deus caritas est,” published in 2006, and “Spe salvi,” published in 2007.
23 April 2009
22 April 2009
Bishop D'Arcy of South Bend proclaims that a terrible breach has taken place between Notre Dame and the Church
Statement to the faithful
April 21, 2009
My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an honorary degree of law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement “Catholics in Political Life” (USCCB) did not apply in this matter. Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response. In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.
Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct. I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.
Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.
1. The meaning of the sentence in the USCCB document relative to Catholic institutions is clear. It places the responsibility on those institutions, and indeed, on the Catholic community itself.
“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” — “Catholics in Political Life,” USCCB.
2. When there is a doubt concerning the meaning of a document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where does one find the authentic interpretation? A fundamental, canonical and theological principal states that it is found in the local bishop, who is the teacher and lawgiver in his diocese. — Canon 330, 375 §§ 1 & 2; 380; 381 § 1; 391 § 1; 392, & 394 §1.
3. I informed Father Jenkins that if there was any genuine questions or doubt about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the conference’s document, any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s church had the responsibility to inform Father Jenkins of the fundamental principle that the diocesan bishop alone bears the responsibility to provide an authoritative interpretation.
4. I reminded Father Jenkins that he indicated that he consulted presidents of other Catholic universities, and at least indirectly, consulted other bishops, since he asked those presidents to share with him those judgments of their own bishops. However, he chose not to consult his own bishop who, as I made clear, is the teacher and lawgiver in his own diocese. I reminded Father Jenkins that I was not informed of the invitation until after it was accepted by the president. I mentioned again that it is at the heart of the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility to teach as revealed in sacred Scripture and the tradition. (“Lumen Gentium,” 20; and “Christus Dominus,” 2.) I reminded him that it is also central to the university’s relationship to the church. (“Ex corde ecclesiae,” 27 & 28; Gen. Norm., Art. 5, §§ 1-3.)
5. Another key point. In his letter to Bishop Olmsted and in the widespread publicity, which has taken place as the points in the letter have been made public, Father Jenkins declared the invitation to President Obama does not “suggest support” for his actions, because he has expressed and continues to express disagreement with him on issues surrounding protection of life. I wrote that the outpouring of hundreds of thousands who are shocked by the invitation clearly demonstrates, that this invitation has, in fact, scandalized many Catholics and other people of goodwill. In my office alone, there have been over 3,300 messages of shock, dismay and outrage, and they are still coming in. It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.
In the publicity surrounding the points Father Jenkins has made, he also says he is “following the document of the bishops” by “laying a basis for engagement with the president on this issue.” I indicated that I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama.
6. As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the president here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this. We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.
In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.
I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter. The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.
That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue. I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.
Sincerely yours in our Lord,
John M. D’Arcy
Courtesy of LifeSite News
"Christ did not die for the sins of the people": Head of German Catholic Bishops' Conference on TV
By Hilary White
FREIBURG, Germany April 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to the chairman of the Catholic bishops' conference of Germany, the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin and open the gates of heaven. The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ's death in a recent interview with a German television station.
Zollitsch said that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."
Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."
The interviewer asked, "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"
Monsignor Zollitsch responded, "No."
Archbishop Robert Zollitsch was appointed to the See of Freiburg im Breisgau in 2003 under Pope John Paul II. He is he sitting Chairman of the German Episcopal Conference, to which he was elected in 2008 and is regarded as a "liberal" in the German episcopate.
In February 2008 he said that priestly celibacy should be voluntary and that it is not "theologically necessary." Zollitsch has also said he accepts homosexual civil unions by states, but is against same-sex "marriage."
He told Meinhard Schmidt-Degenhard, the program's host, that God gave "his own son in solidarity with us unto this last death agony to show: 'So much are you worth to me, I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation'."
"He has become involved with me out of solidarity - from free will."
Christ, he said, had "taken up what I have been blamed for, including the evil that I have caused, and also to take it back into the world of God and hence to show me the way out of sin, guilt and from death to life."
However, Article 613 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the definitive work issued by the Church explaining the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic religion, describes the death of Christ as "both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through 'the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world', the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the 'blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'."
The Catechism continues, "This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience."
Concerns should be expressed to the following competent Pontifical Offices:
Congregation for Bishops
Giovanni Battista Re, Cardinal Prefect
Palazzo della Congregazioni, 00193 Roma,
Piazza Pio XII, 10
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
William Joseph Levada, Cardinal Prefect
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11,
00193 Roma, Italy
Phone: 06.69.88.33.57; 06.69.88.34.13
18 April 2009
16 April 2009
Picures from our trip to Pass Christian are comeing in. I will post in the next day or so on the trip.
Stay tuned....and Never forget! Pray for the people of Mississippi.
The attacks upon the Roman Catholic Church in the last two weeks following the Pope's comments about the dangers of condom use in Africa in the attempt to prevent AIDS have been an extraordinary lesson in applied ignorance and the survival of prejudice. Talk-radio hosts who have long callously and naively blamed Africans for all of Africa's sufferings suddenly become champions of the continent. Doctors and academics who have shown no previous concern for the plight of Africa are instantly transformed into experts and partisans. It is enough to make one weep. The weeping, however, should be for Africa rather than a bunch of anti-Catholic hypocrites.
Some context first. AIDS had smashed its way through Africa for almost two generations before many people in Europe or North America had even heard of it. It was killing poor black people many miles away and nobody matters less to the wealthy whites than poor blacks many miles away. It was only when the disease was brought into the male homosexual community of the United States that the likes of Elizabeth Taylor became so emotional on television and numerous actors, politicians and public figures made AIDS one of the most fashionable causes in modern times.
Indeed, AIDS is a fascinating case-study in itself in that, while politicized statistics and agenda-driven activists try to tell us otherwise, AIDS in the West is still largely a concern for gay men and intravenous drug-users. Remember the dramatic announcement from Canadian health officials that the AIDS rate had doubled in the main-stream community in one particular area? It had. From one person to two. But it is the suffering itself rather than the nature of the sufferer that should motivate us. Problem is, this philosophy was not applied when it was Africans rather than Californians in need.
That, at least, was the attitude of the Western elites -- the very people now condemning the Roman Catholic Church. Yet it was the Church that was in Africa caring for people with AIDS when Hollywood and the Western media were more concerned with puppies and kittens. Even today, almost half of all Africans with AIDS are nursed by people working for the Roman Catholic Church. A Church, by the way, that has also called for all African debt to be forgiven and for a radical redistribution of wealth from north to south.
None of this is mentioned when Pope Benedict is attacked for his condemnation of the condom fetish. If we read the man's statements, however, what we see is a sophisticated deconstruction of Western double-standards and a thoughtful critique of the failed attempt to control AIDS.
First, it's not working. In countries where condoms are state-distributed, free and ubiquitous AIDS has not been controlled and is often spreading. Second, even where AIDS is less of an issue, such as in North America, the increased availability and use of condoms has coincided with an annual increase in STDs and so-called unwanted pregnancies. Third, one failure of a condom to work -- and the failure rate is significant if not overwhelming --is not a mere mistake but a death sentence. Fourth, condoms enable promiscuity rather than encourage abstinence. And sexual activity is about more than mere intercourse; a cut finger or a small body wound can allow infection to occur.
Fifth, how dare we treat black people as if they were children. They are capable of self-control and all over Africa, most successfully but not exclusively in Uganda, there are elaborate, empathetic and extraordinarily successful abstinence programs that emphasize humanity rather than lust -- a philosophy that runs directly contrary to the sexual gratification cult so favoured by some of the people in the West now so apoplectic at Pope Benedict's comments.
Of course, there is more to this anti-papal neurosis than television comedians making jokes about celibate clergy and commentators assuming that they know far more about reality than a priest who has worked in an African city slum for forty years. Conventional wisdom has it that Africa has a population problem and that Africans can become "more civilized" if they have fewer children. It's an organized and sometimes quite sinister campaign. Africa is, if anything, underpopulated and the problems of the continent have far more to do with Western greed, colonization, resources exploitation and arms sales than with family size. The Church has spoken out on these issues for decades and was, for example, one of the leading voices at the United Nations that persuaded the multinational pharmaceutical companies to make their anti-AIDS drugs generic and thus affordable in the Third World.
Paradox and lack of understanding rules the day. We applaud an obscenely wealthy American actress when she takes a black baby from Africa, but forget that the Hollywood values she epitomizes encourage loveless sex and treating one another as sexual objects rather than distinct individuals -- the precise phenomenon that encourages the spread of AIDS. More than this, the solution to children living in poverty in Africa is not to remove the children but to remove the poverty. But there is never a camera crew around for that sort of thing.
It appears these days to be open season on Pope Benedict XVI. In that he leads an organization that is supposed to be a mirror held up to the world to reflect society's failures and absurdities, the man must be doing a great deal right.
Well said. I applaud the National Post.
13 April 2009
When I get all my pictures in I will post some about the trip and explain some of the things we did.
In the mean time - I hope you have a happy Easter.
Our Holy Father is fearless, in my estimation he is a Saint - Benedict the Great continues to defend the faith! There are those today who profess to be Christians but deny the historical reality of the Resurrection of our Lord. It's silly - I know, but these people exist and many of them are very persuasive in their arguments and lead people astray.
Our Holy Father has given us some wonderful homilies and messages during the Sacred Triduum and Easter. As Catholics we would be wise to listen to him. Here is a news overview of the Pope's Urbi Et Orbi Easter Message:
02 April 2009
I will be taking a group of 23 students to Pass Christian, Mississippi to help build and reconstruct during their Spring Break. Our mission happens to fall during Holy Week.
Readers please pray for an outpouring of grace for these students.
I won't be posting for the next week because I will be working hard and spending time with my students.
However, if you come by news or something you think should be posted email me the information.
Have a grace-filled - and blessed Holy Week.
01 April 2009
In a column published in "The Catholic Globe," the Catholic newspaper of Sioux City, Bishop Nickless said that, "This is truly a sad day for the famous university dedicated to our Blessed Mother.
1) Bishop John D'Arcy - Fort Wayne-South Bend
7) Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - Houston