Angelqueen.org

A Bishop �lacks any enthusiasm for the Latin Mass�(!)

Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:34 am (GMT -5)

Click Logo To Link Original

The Irish Times - Saturday, November 14, 2009, Page
Do not replace church as oppressor, bishop tells media
PATSY McGARRY Religious Affairs Correspondent

A BISHOP warned the media yesterday not to become �oppressive�, as the Catholic Church had once been.

Addressing a meeting of journalists in Dublin, the Bishop of Killaloe Most Rev Willie Walsh also said the Ryan report did not do �full justice� to religious congregations, many of whose members were now �very broken and very sad�.

In his wide-ranging address, the bishop said he �lacks any enthusiasm for the Latin Mass� and was �saddened� that he could not feel free to take part in Communion at Church of Ireland services because of the rules in his own church. This was despite the fact that �in Ennis it was never suggested that Church of Ireland people are not welcome to receive in our church.�

He said he always had difficulties when told by the church that certain subjects were not for discussion. He was unhappy generally about exclusion by the church, citing the issues of second unions and homosexuality as examples.

Bishop Walsh, who this year celebrates his 50th anniversary as a priest and is 15 years a bishop, was speaking to the Association of European Journalists.

Referring to the sex abuse scandals, he said Ireland�s Catholic bishops �owe a debt of gratitude, though we may not feel it, to journalists for investigating and exposing this dreadful aspect of church life�.

In the past many would say the church was an oppressive influence, �and there was something oppressive about it,� he said. Now there was no doubt �the power of the church, politics, banks, developers� had been knocked. �There is a vacuum there,� he said. �I do think the media is the big power in the land and the big challenge for media today is not to use that power to oppress.�

Referring to the Ryan report, he said it would be �a second injustice [in addition to the abuse of children] if the religious alone were singled out to carry all the blame. All adults share some responsibility (for what went on then), but they didn�t want to know.�

He had been speaking recently to the leadership team of the Mercy congregation�s southern province, �women who have given their lives in the service of the church�, and who were �very broken, very sad�. They felt �let down by us, the bishops�.
_________________
IN CORDIBUS JESU ET MARI�

SECRETMAN

New Parish for TLM in Oklahoma

Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:58 am (GMT -5)
Source: The Oklahoman. November 14, 2009 Page 54

_________________
IN CORDIBUS JESU ET MARI�

SECRETMAN

Bishop Richard Williamson to go on trial in Germany

Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:15 am (GMT -5)

British bishop Richard Williamson to go on trial in Germany for Holocaust denial

By Allan Hall

Last updated at 6:19 PM on 10th November 2009

Daily Mail (UK)

British Holocaust-denying bishop Richard Williamson faces trial in Germany for an outspoken TV interview in which he denied that the wartime extermination of the Jews took place. The ultra-conservative Catholic cleric was hit with a fine of nearly �12,000 today by a court for his comments made to a Swedish television interviewer - but he refused to pay it.

Because Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany - and because he gave the interview while on German soil - he was prosecuted in Regensburg, near to the birthplace of Pope Benedict XVI, where he gave the interview.

Under the German legal system, he was served with an �order of punishment� informing him of the penalty.

Such orders are intended to cut down on bureaucracy and costs if both sides agree with the fine, which also would mean a criminal conviction.
But Williamson did not agree. He is to appeal, paving the way for a full hearing which could prove highly embarrassing for the church once more - even though Williamson can absent himself from proceedings to be represented just by his lawyer.

A trial judge will demand to know why he believes that six million Jews were not murdered by the Nazis and on what facts he bases his views on.
In the controversial interview, Williamson alleged that Nazi gas chambers had never existed and 'only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews' had been killed by the Nazis.

He went on to claim that historical evidence was 'hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler... I believe there were no gas chambers.'

He added: 'I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in the Nazi concentration camps but none of them in gas chambers.'
Williamson is the first person to appear in court for denying the holocaust since military historian David Irving sued Dr Deborah Lipstadt for libel in 2000.
Dr Lipstadt wrote Denying The Holocaust: The Growing Assault On Truth And Memory in 1993, which discussed a number of Holocaust deniers including Irving.
She won her case, with Judge Charles Gray finding Irving had 'significantly misconstrued the historical evidence in order to achieve his ideological presentation of history'.
Judge Gray also found that Irving was an 'active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism'.

The Pope, as well as Jewish leaders around the world, was horrified by Williamson's comments, which go against the verdict of mainstream historians. Williamson�s timing in making the offending statement could not have been worse. They were made in January, shortly after the pontiff welcomed him back into the Church after his excommunication because of his right-wing views.

Williamson was consecrated a bishop by the pope's Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), an ultraconservative splinter group. The Vatican did not rescind his re-entry into the Church, saying it had not known about his controversial views on the Holocaust.
Williamson said through his lawyer that he was assured his offending remarks would not be broadcast in Germany but only in Sweden, where there is no law against Holocaust denial.

Prosecutors had received a letter from the Swedish television producers in which they denied offering any assurance to Williamson that the interview, conducted in English, would be broadcast in Sweden only.

Williamson's German lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, said his client had been told to pay �100 a day for 120 days, and he was likely to appeal.

'If he does, there will be a proper trial in Regensburg, which Williamson will not be forced to attend,' he said.

But statements from him via his lawyer will be expected to be given in evidence. Williamson was resident at a seminary in Argentina when the Holocaust row broke and he was ordered out of the country by the government in Buenos Aires in February.

When he arrived back in the UK he stoked further controversy when it was learned he contacted arch-Holocaust denier David Irving for advice on how to 'present' his views. Irving, who served time in Austria for his Holocaust denials, said: 'He is obviously a very intelligent man who did not realise the danger of talking to the press. He is not a Holocaust denier. Like me, he does not buy the whole package.'

Advice: Williamson contacted Holocaust denier and military historian David Irvine, who served time in Austria for his beliefs, for tips on how to 'present' his views
_________________
Cessent iurgia maligna, cessent lites.

A first reaction to today's publication of Anglicanorum Coet

Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:05 pm (GMT -5)

Click Logo To Link Original

A first reaction to today's publication of Anglicanorum Coetibus
Nov 9, 2009

The Holy See has today published the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, which will provide for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. The text of the Apostolic Constitution, and its Complementary Norms, can be read here.

The Chairman of Forward in Faith, Bishop John Broadhurst, has issued the following interim statement to those clergy who look to him, as Bishop of Fulham, for episcopal care at the present time and he is happy to share it with the membership of Forward in Faith worldwide.

I had thought the original notice from Rome was extremely generous. Today all the accompanying papers have been published and they are extremely impressive. I have been horrified that the Church of England while trying to accommodate us has consistently said we cannot have the jurisdiction and independent life that most of us feel we need to continue on our Christian pilgrimage.

What Rome has done is offer exactly what the Church of England has refused. Indeed it has offered the requests of Consecrated Women? with the completion of its ecumenical hopes. We all need now to ask the question 'is this what we want?' For some of us I suspect our bluff is called! This is both an exciting and dangerous time for Christianity in this country. Those who take up this offer will need to enter into negotiation with the Church of England about access to parish churches and many other matters. This situation must not be used to damage the Church of England but I do believe we have a valid claim on our own heritage in history.

The doctrinal standard demanded by Rome is the New Catechism which most of us use anyway. We would be allowed to use Anglican or Roman rites and our ordinaries would have jurisdiction. We will all need to meet and talk. I would hope that this could take place in collaboration with the PEVs and other Catholic bishops. It is not my style to give a expansive analysis of a document that I have only received today nor will I answer the question 'What are you going to do?' That is something we need to work out together.

Every Blessing,

+John Fulham
_________________
IN CORDIBUS JESU ET MARI�

SECRETMAN

"Do we live in a theocracy?": Pro-Abort Reaction t

Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:51 pm (GMT -5)
"Do we live in a theocracy?": Pro-Abortion Reaction to Stupak Amendment is Fierce

By James Tillman

WASHINGTON, DC, November 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Abortion supporters are furious over the House's passage of the health care reform bill HR 3962 with the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment, which would continue to ban the funding of most abortions by the government.

Planned Parenthood said that the bill with the pro-life amendment "would leave women worse off after health care reform than they are today" and promised further effort so that women "do not become second-class citizens in a newly reformed health care system in the United States."

The amendment passed late on Saturday, November 7th, with 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats supporting the amendment and 194 Democrats voting against it. The amendment prohibits the funding of abortion by the new federal government insurance program - the "public option" - and also prohibits the use of new federal subsidies to purchase an insurance program that covers abortion.

Such prohibitions, which align with long-standing federal policy against funding abortions, have made pro-abortionists livid.

Nancy Keenan, of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that they would hold accountable those lawmakers who voted for the amendment, including 64 Democrats, as folding "to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement."

She continued: "In short, the fight is not over. That's why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate."

Keenan's language has been echoed by other pro-abortion activists; Frances Kissling averred that the answer to the Stupak-Pitts amendment was to "overturn Hyde now."

The famous Hyde amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion through its inclusion in the annual appropriations bill.

She continued to say that the worst disaster for the pro-abortion movement since 1973 was the enactment of "the Hyde Amendment and [the pro-abortion movement's] lack of a total, uncompromising commitment to overturning it. If nothing else happens as a result of this defeat, complete and total dedication to overturning Hyde must be the centerpiece, indeed the single objective of our movement."

Such militant language was mirrored by legislators who saw the Stupak-Pitts amendment simply as a tactical retreat designed to get the bill through the House, and who suggested that the amendment would have a short lifespan. "I feel certain it will come out of the bill before it comes back from committee," pro-abortion California Democrat Lynn Woolsey told The Hill. "I will insist that it come out."

Despite such declarations of war, however, perhaps the most noticeable element of pro-abortion commentary was anger at the U.S. bishops for backing the amendment.

According to one columnist, "one thing is clear: The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) apparently is running the US government, aided by a cadre of 'faith-based advocacy groups,' the House Democratic leadership, the White House and members of the Senate."

"Do we live in a theocracy?" she asked.

She continued: "I want to know ... why are the Bishops running the country? And have you had enough yet of Democrats that you elect selling you down the river? Are you angry enough?

"What are we going to do about it?"

In a similar vein, Jon O'Brien of "Catholics for Choice" warned how medical care in the U.S. would turn into a nightmare if the bishops got their way. "Just imagine for a moment what healthcare will look like when the bishops are finished," he said. "There will be nothing that doesn't meet the myriad litmus tests prescribed by a small group of men who don't represent American Catholics, let alone the America populace."

However, despite the anger of pro-abortion groups at the passage of the pro-life amendment, many pro-life groups are suggesting that the bill is still far from being solidly pro-life.

"Unfortunately, H.R. 3962 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "The Speaker's bill still allows rationing of health care for seniors, raises health costs for families, mandates that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, encourages counseling for assisted suicide in some states, does not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seeks to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives."

Pro-life leaders are warning that the battle over healthcare is still far from over and that ensuring that the Stupak-Pitts amendment stays in the bill is just one of the many upcoming key fights over the legislation.

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110903.html

NOSTRA AETATE - 44 Years Later

Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:18 pm (GMT -5)
NOSTRA AETATE - 44 Years Later
HOUSTON HOLOCAUST MUSEUM
The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston
October 28, 2009

http://www.archgh.org/newsevents-RSS-110409-NostraAetate.htm

"I can truly say there are no plans or desire to seek Jewish conversion."

Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza
Archbishop Emeritus
Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston

One of the treasured moments in my life was to be present in St. Peter�s Basilica 44 years ago today, when the Second Vatican Council promulgated Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on Relations of the Church to non-Christian religions. It was a special moment in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, because it reversed centuries of Christian presuppositions and teaching about Jews. It is truly a revolutionary document because it began a reform of Christian-Jewish relations, which 44 years later is still in the beginning of a dialogue of collaboration for the betterment of our world based on mutual respect and friendship. The past 44 years have seen sincere efforts of interfaith dialogue delving into the inspiring transformation of our relationship, the continuing fruit of Nostra Aetate. It has not been without some tensions and misunderstandings, but it has always been sincere and mutually respectful.

Why is Nostra Aetate, (In Our Age), a revolutionary document and why does it promise a future full of hope? One only has to recall the prevailing attitude among Christians before 1965.

As early as the 3rd century, the theologian Origen said that the great calamities which for a long time had befallen the Jews because of the most impious crime of all when they conspired against the Savior of mankind. Therefore that city where Jesus suffered these indignities had to be utterly destroyed. The Jewish nation had to be overthrown and God�s invitation to blessedness transferred to others. Origen was one of many who through the centuries held the collective blaming of �the Jews� for the death of Jesus.

As recently as 1938, Pope Pius XI commissioned the preparation of an encyclical letter that was intended to condemn racism in the wake of Hitler�s policies in Germany. While rebuking the denying to Jewish people elementary rights and privileges of citizens, the draft claimed the Jewish nation bore a collective responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus and were doomed �to perpetually wander over the face of the earth.� This proposed letter was never published because of the death of the Pope, and it is not known if he was aware of the works of the draft or approved them, but it indicates a common �teaching of contempt� that perdured in Christian teaching and writing.

As a child, I remember being taught that Jesus died because of my sins. I was far more responsible for his death that the Jews of his time. Nonetheless, the charge deicide was also in our consciousness.

Such was the Christian theological mindset before Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. Two months after his election, Pope John announced a great council would be called for the �aggiornameto,� updating of the Church. The next year he greeted a delegation of American Jews with the biblical words, �I am Joseph your brother,� of greater importance he directed Cardinal Bea, to prepare a draft declaration for the coming council on the relations between the Church and the Jewish people. In view of the long sad and tragic �teaching of contempt,� this was truly an inspiration from God.

What led Pope John to such a miraculous decision? When he was the papal ambassador to Turkey and Greece, he met Jewish refugees fleeing Poland in September 1940 and helped them reach Palestine, then a British colony. He wrote in his diary, �Poor children of Israel. Daily I hear their groans around me. They are relatives and fellow countrymen of Jesus. May the Divine Savior come to their aid.�

When the German ambassador to Turkey suggested to him that he ask Pope Pius XII to support Germany�s invasion of the Soviet Union, Roncalli responded, �And shall I tell him about the thousand of Jews who died in Germany and Poland at the hands of your countryman?�

Obviously, when he became Pope, John XXIII was waiting for the moment to change the Church�s relations with Jews. However, bringing Nostra Aetate to birth was a long and difficult labor. There was opposition to it both inside and outside the Council. Some bishops were reluctant to change longstanding teachings; other bishops feared for Christians in Arab countries; Middle Eastern countries campaigned against any attempt to absolve �the Jews� for the crime of deicide. At one point, Pope Paul VI intervened to overcome any attempt to scuttle the document. Finally, on October 28, 1965, the declaration passed: 2221 bishops voted for and 88 against. Considering all the difficulties it faced and the long tragic �teaching of contempt,� Nostra Aetate was a triumph of righteousness and grace over maliciousness and sin.

Nostra Aetate repudiated the change of deicide declaring that �Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed.� It deplored �all hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism directed to the Jews at any time or from any source.� It also stressed that in religious education, �all must take care lest in catechizing or preaching the word of God, they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth of the Gospel message or the spirit of Christ.� Later documents referred to this hermeneutical principle of Nostra Aetate to avoid absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could provoke or reinforce unfavorable attitudes towards the Jewish people. All are reminded that, according to the New Testament, the Jews remain �beloved� of God, since the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (Rom 11, 28-29)

Nostra Aetate implicitly acknowledged that Israel remains in a covenant with God, and later Pope John Paul II made it explicit that Jews are �the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God.� While Nostra Aetate did not mention Christian anti-Semitism or the Holocaust, Pope John Paul was explicit in saying that the horrors of the Shoah must lead Christians to repentance: �For Christians, the heavy burden of guilt for the murder of Jewish people in the Shoah must be an enduring call to repentance.�

Sometimes beneath the surface of interfaith dialogue, there is the fear that it will lead to a �watering down� of faith in order to achieve harmony, and the result is a form of syncretism which is unfaithful to authentic Judaism or authentic Christianity. True, interfaith dialogue must be based on fidelity to the different faith traditions, which will avoid any assimilation or melting the different traditions. True, faithful dialogue will lead to a greater understanding of each other�s faith beliefs and respectful acknowledgment of the differences.

Interfaith dialogue and cooperation has led to important collaboration on common societal problems such as homelessness, reform of the criminal justice, immigration reform and accessible health care for all. In the process of these joint efforts, we have come to a better understanding of our own traditions and to better insights into each other�s beliefs and manner of governance.

Nostra Aetate called for Catholics and Jews to collaborate in �biblical and theological inquiry and friendly discussions.� The past 44 years of dialogue and joint activities that Nostra Aetate envisioned has shown that our two communities can come together with different interest, concerns and misconceptions of the past to address common needs and challenges in today�s society. Fortunately, the past 44 years have demonstrated that interfaith dialogue actually leads participants to a deeper understanding of their own tradition and as a result of being asked new questions or viewing their own tradition from the other�s perspective, the participants are not the same Christians or Jews before experiencing dialogue, but they understand themselves to be more committed and discerning Christian or Jews. Sometimes the dialogue does not result so happily. Disagreements surfaced about the document on Covenant and Mission issued in August 2002 by a joint effort of Jewish and Catholic scholars. This document was issued by a Committee of our Bishops� Conference but it was not an official statement of our Conference, nor was it submitted to the usual process for an official document.

After its publication, some Catholic theologians thought there was a significant ambiguity in the document, namely about the Church�s mission and evangelization with regard to Jewish people. While the Church recognizes the special relationship God had with Israel prior to Jesus Christ, and that Judaism is a religion which springs from divine revelation, she also knows that the Christian Church draws sustenance from the root of a well-cultivated olive tree on which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. For Catholics, Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, fulfills both in history and at the end of time, the special relationship that God has established with Israel. In Catholic belief, Jesus Christ, in Himself, fulfills God�s revelation begun with Abraham, and proclaiming this good news is at the heart of the Church�s mission. The document in question did not make this proclamation a core element of the Church�s mission and implies that Catholics should not do anything which might lead Jews to conversion. This reasoning could lead some to conclude that Jews have an obligation not to become Christian and that the Church has an obligation not to baptize Jews.

Some Jewish scholars have expressed serious disappointment with the official clarification of the document, Covenant and Mission. As I understand it, they fear there is some effort to consider Nostra Aetate only a pastoral statement without doctrinal authority. Or that it was only a contextual product of European Christians guilt over the Shoah and not truly relevant. There is also the fear that there will be a proselytization to convert Jews despite the official Church statements which repudiates any effort to seek Jewish converts. I can truly say there are no plans or desire to seek Jewish conversion. The Church has always kept a distance from such organizations as Jews for Jesus. Nonetheless, in respecting human freedom, the Church will accept Jews who on their own volitions and with a conscientious decision before God, ask to be received into the Church.

Nonetheless, I understand how this issue is still a bone of theological contention with some Jews.

Since Nostra Aetate, there is a new reality in Christian-Jewish relations. One powerful sign of the reality occurred during Pope John Paul�s visit in 2000 to Holy Land when he placed his prayer in the Western Wall asking God�s forgiveness for the sins of Christians against Jews down the ages. Using the metaphor of a garden, Rabbi David Rosen said Christian-Jewish relations for the 44 years following Nostra Aetate, is like a garden surrounded by high walls. This garden of history was an ugly place overrun with branches and weeds and lurking with danger. In the last 44 years, the garden was wonderfully transformed into an attractive garden. It is not yet the Garden of Eden and there are still rocky terrains, but generally, it is a good garden. Many Israelites walking outside the garden are unaware of the transformation that has taken place. They think it might still be dangerous and unpleasant. The papal visit to Israel opened the garden gates and revealed to many who had not known or believed in the new reality, a pleasant garden of Christian-Jewish relations in which the head of the Catholic Church was in fact a sincere friend of the Jewish people who sought its welfare and mutual respect.

Christian-Jewish relations must continue with all good will, frankness, friendship and mutual respect, because as Pope John Paul said: �Christians and Jews, as children of Abraham are called to be a blessing to the world. In order to be such, we must be first of all a blessing to one another.�

Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza
Archbishop Emeritus
Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston
_________________
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI

Bishops's backing may get health bill to 218

Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:47 am (GMT -5)
Bishops's backing may get health bill to 218

By PATRICK O'CONNOR
11/7/09
POLITICO
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29262.html

House leaders have won the backing of the nation�s Catholic bishops for a last-minute abortion compromise, a critical boost that could give the health reform bill enough momentum � and enough votes � for passage as early as Saturday.

As they awaited President Barack Obama's visit before noon, House Democrats held out hopes they could rally the 218 votes to pass a sweeping $1.2 trillion health reform bill, even if it took until late Saturday night.

But they clearly weren't there yet. During the day's first round of votes to corral support for the bill, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made a rare appearance in the Speaker's Lobby, just off the House floor, to look for colleagues. He told a group of reporters, "I'm always gun-shy...At this moment, I'm counting."

Abortion flared up as a last-minute obstacle to passage, as anti-abortion members pressed for � and won � a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions.

That prompted the letter of support for the compromise from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation," the bishops wrote in a letter to individual members. "Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion."

It�s another bitter pill for liberal Democrats but party leaders are gambling that the amendment will be just the breakthrough they need to secure a majority. And in fact, most Democratic advocates of abortion rights appear likely to swallow hard and vote for a health care overhaul anyway.

�I don't believe any of us believe we can hold up what we've been fighting for ... and that's health care," said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

Asked whether her allies in the pro-choice movement would support the bill with the Stupak language, Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a one-word answer: "Yes."

At least 23 Democrats have come out against the bill, giving Pelosi a buffer of 17 votes to work with. But there could easily be another 20 Democrats in the "lean no" category, not to mention the broad universe of undecided lawmakers. So Pelosi and her team essentially need every undecided vote and four or five "lean no�s." That's a difficult dynamic for any party at any time, but the election results and unemployment rates that just eclipsed 10 percent don't help.

So Democrats are bringing in their closer � Obama � at 11:30 a.m. Saturday to try to push the undecideds into the yes column. House leaders are hoping few rank-and-file House members have the conviction to say "no" to their party�s president.

And Obama�s morning visit makes it likely that the vote will come today because Democratic leaders wouldn�t bring in the president, unless they were ready to vote and felt confident they could win passage. It would be an embarrassment to the president if House members defied him after such a personal appeal.

House leaders decided on about six hours of debate, meaning a vote could come as early as 6 p.m.. But a variety of other votes are expected to be scheduled � so the House whips can do their nose-counting � and that could push a vote into well into the night.

Pelosi and other House leaders appeared confident of a Saturday vote � but had some nervous moments on Friday as a steady stream of members declared themselves firm �no�s.� Among the 23 �nos,� all but three are from members who represent districts won by John McCain. Of the three no votes from districts that Barack Obama carried, two of them are from districts that Obama narrowly carried with 52 percent - -and both were Republican-held districts that just flipped to Dems in 2008.

Then there is Artur Davis of Alabama, who is from a 74 percent Obama district. But he is running statewide for governor in a McCain state.

But if the House passes health reform Saturday night, it will be the deal on abortion language that will have been the final impetus. Leaders reluctantly made the decision after working for days to broker a truce that would garner a blessing from the Conference of Catholic Bishops. But the church, according to members and aides, wouldn't accept a compromise crafted by Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth that would have established a body to make sure private insurance companies don't use federal funds to pay for abortions.

In the end, the Rules Committee decided to give Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak a floor vote on his amendment to prohibit private insurers from using federal funds to pay for abortion or allowing companies that participate in the exchange from offering coverage through those plans. Given the strength of the anti-abortion vote in the House, the amendment should pass when it comes to the floor and will therefore become part of the broader bill.

Liberals fought hard to prevent Stupak from adding this language, and members of the Rules Committee expressed an obvious unease with the move during debate late Friday night.

Victory over same-sex marriage comes at high price

Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:10 am (GMT -5)
Victory over same-sex marriage comes at high price
Catholics divided by hard fought campaign
After a campaign that saw significant Catholic activism on both sides of the issue, Maine voters rejected , 53 percent to 47 percent, a law that would have allowed same-sex marriages. But in Washington state, a referendum to uphold a law granting same-sex domestic partners the same rights as married spouses was narrowly approved, 51 percent to 49 percent.

By Chuck Colbert
National Catholic Reporter
November 7m 2009

PORTLAND, MAINE � After a campaign that saw significant Catholic activism on both sides of the issue, Maine voters rejected a law that would have allowed same-sex marriages.

Fifty-three percent of voters said yes to overturning a law passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor in May.

But in Washington state, it appeared that a referendum to uphold a law granting same-sex domestic partners the same rights as married spouses would be narrowly approved, 51 percent to 49 percent. The referendum had been opposed by Washington's Catholic bishops.

About 700 Maine Catholics signed either a newspaper ad or a declaration of support for same-sex marriage being circulated by the Portland-based Catholics for Marriage Equality.

Fifteen percent of Maine's population is Catholic, and Portland's Bishop Richard J. Malone was a visible and vocal leader in the campaign to repeal the law. The diocese gave as much as $550,000 to the effort. The Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, gave another $50,000 to the cause.

Malone starred in a video played in Catholic churches ahead of Election Day, and the archdiocese supplied seven weeks of bulletin inserts urging Catholics to overturn the law.

In a statement released the day after the vote, Malone thanked the people of Maine "for protecting and reaffirming their support for marriage as it has been understood for millennia by civilizations and religions around the world. �

"These past few months have served as a teaching opportunity to explain to parishioners and the wider community about how and why the church views and values marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

In a statement a day earlier, Malone chastised "a group of self-described Catholics who have chosen to dissent publicly from established Catholic doctrine on the nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

Malone was writing about 140 people whose names appeared in a newspaper ad titled "Statement of Conscience by Maine Catholics Regarding Marriage Equality." Malone wrote, "A Catholic whose conscience has been properly formed by scripture and the teachings of the Catholic church cannot support same sex marriage."

But hundreds of Catholics disagreed with the bishop.

"It is a sad day, as the leaders of the Catholic church in Maine relish, in delight, that they have succeeded in keeping the homosexual families of Maine outside of the walls of society where they must beg to maintain their very existence, much like the lepers and blind in the Bible were kept outside the city walls in days of old," said Jack Dougherty of Eliot, Maine, a member of Catholics for Marriage Equality.

Portland attorney George Burns, who helped draft the Catholic statement on equality, said "The bishop won at a great price -- whether he cares about that price or not. He has divided his flock."

One Catholic, Pamella Starbird Beliveau of Lewiston, Maine, was removed as a lector and eucharistic minister after her pastor read an opinion piece she wrote for the local newspaper approving of same-sex marriage.

She told a rally outside the Portland cathedral Nov. 1, "I am sad but not surprised by what happened. � The Catholic church has every right to determine who can and cannot serve as ministers in the church. I respect that. We must keep our eyes focused on the issue and that is equality for our gay and lesbian citizens."

The Catholics supporting the legislation had tried to focus on the issue of civil equality. While the church's view of sacramental marriage � with its sacred rites � is one thing, civil marriage, which is a basic human and civil right, is quite another. These groups were well aware of these nuances in their advocacy for pro marriage-equality.

Their newspaper ad said in part: "We are Catholics who are concerned that the current political campaign to repeal Maine's civil marriage equality law is at odds with fundamental principles of truth and charity, and with vital American traditions of separation of church and state.

"We believe that the church has a right and often the responsibility to speak out on moral and social issues, to present its views, to seek to educate its member and others. But we also believe that the church should continue to recognize that Catholics are free, indeed obligated to follow their own informed consciences on such issues."

They were upset by statements from Malone like: "It is the doctrine of the Catholic church -- not my personal opinion � that all Catholics are obligated to oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage."

The bishop's zeal in defeating marriage equality is "profoundly" misdirected, Burns said. The marriage law "is a civil matter."

Jesse Connolly, who managed the campaign against the referendum, tried to put an optimistic spin on the election results. "Hundreds of thousands of Maine voters stood for equality, but in the end, it wasn't enough."

"We're in this for the long haul," he said. "For next week, and next month, and next year-- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for."

Voters have rejected same-sex marriage in each of the 31 states where it has been on the ballot. Only five states currently allow same-sex marriages to be performed: Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.

The coalition that opposed the Maine same-sex law saw the vote as a continuation of a nationwide campaign.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, a chief organizer for the winning side, Stand for Marriage Maine (www.standformarriage.org [2]), quoted in the Portland Press Herald.

As in California's Proposition 8 campaign, which overturned same-sex marriage by amending the state's Constitution to ban gay marriage, the Schubert Flint public relations firm provided messaging fire power for TV and radio ads that hammered home a traditional marriage and family theme.

Stand for Marriage also played up fears that if the law were upheld, same-sex marriage and homosexuality would be taught in Maine's public schools, even though a month ago, the state's attorney general Jane Mills said that charge was unfounded.

"I have scoured Maine laws relating to the education of its children for any reference to marriage in the public school curricula," she wrote in a legal opinion. "I have found none."

Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., chairman of the U.S. bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, praised the Maine vote in a statement released Nov. 4.

"Marriage is an institution which precedes all others, whether political or religious. It deserves the state's reinforcement and protection," Kurtz said. "The nature of marriage is written in the truth of who we are as human persons, as man and woman," he added. "One can say it is written not merely on our hearts, but in our very bodies."

Kurtz said, "Protecting marriage affirms the permanent and exclusive love between a husband and a wife as a wonderful and incomparable good in itself which also is of great social and practical consequence. ... Sadly, the attempts to redefine marriage today ignore or reject the unique identity and gifts of man and woman. Such a dismissal only fosters confusion about what it means to be human."

In the District of Columbia, the Catholic church and other backers of traditional marriage have lobbied the city's lawmakers and rallied to urge that citizens be able to vote on a same-sex marriage bill that is now being considered by the City Council and expected to be put to a final vote by members by the end of the year.

The district's charter forbids popular votes on laws that could be seen as restricting one's rights. All district laws that are passed are subject to review by Congress.

A frequent contributor to NCR, Chuck Colbert freelance journalist from Cambridge, Mass.

Source URL: http://ncronline.org/news/politics/victory-over-same-sex-marriage-comes-high-price

Quincy-area Catholics mark one-year anniversary of experimen

Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:21 pm (GMT -5)

Click Logo To Link Original

Quincy-area Catholics mark one-year anniversary of experiment in Latin with Tridentine Mass at St. Rose
Published: 11/6/2009 | Updated: 11/6/2009

By STEVE EIGHINGER
Herald-Whig Staff Writer

The Rev. Arnaud Devillers stands before the altar at St. Rose Church in Quincy. Devillers had led the reintroduction of the Tridentine Mass at St. Rose, a chaplaincy granted permission to establish a Latin Mass community last year. Sunday will mark the one-year anniversary since the Latin Mass was reintroduced in Quincy.

The Rev. Arnaud Devillers believes there are probably still some Catholics in Quincy who are unfamiliar with what is going on at St. Rose of Lima Church since it reopened last November.

St. Rose, which was closed for two years as a part of local Catholic downsizing, is where the traditional Latin Mass has been celebrated since its reopening. Sunday will mark the one-year anniversary of the return of the Tridentine Mass to the city.

"This is not something outside of the church," Devillers said. "Everyone is welcome. No special permission is needed. We work closely with all of the other (local Catholic) pastors."

Devillers said a congregation of about 200 gathers at either 8 a.m. or 11 a.m. on Sundays and about 40 at 12:10 p.m. each weekday at 12:10 p.m. for the Latin Mass. He estimates about 80 percent are from Quincy-area parishes and the rest mostly from Northeast Missouri, with a handful of regulars from Jacksonville and sometimes St. Louis.

Right now, St. Rose is not considered a "parish," but rather a "chaplaincy," Devillers said.

"Most of those who come here also attend Mass in their own parish," Devillers said. "It's kind of a dual membership."

The return of the Latin Mass followed an 18-month process by a local group to re-establish the traditional Mass as an option for parishioners.

"It's like I remember when I was growing up," said Paul Wellman, 74, of Quincy. "It has brought back a lot of memories. It has been wonderful, and I have been surprised at how many young people have come."

Devillers came to Quincy from Rome to specifically serve the St. Rose chaplaincy. He also assists at Blessed Sacrament Parish in Springfield. Devillers, a native of France, has also served in Germany (twice) and Switzerland, plus U.S. stops in New York City, Dallas and Scranton, Pa.

Devillers comes from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter in Elmhurst, Pa., established in 1988 by Pope John Paul II to form its members in service to the church through the preservation and administration of ancient Latin liturgical traditions.

Devillers has enjoyed his first year in Quincy, feeling it is a "perfect place" for him.

"I don't like big cities, but I'm not I'm not a country boy, either," Devillers said. "Quincy is just the right size."

Then-Bishop George J. Lucas of the Diocese of Springfield decreed the establishment of the Latin Mass community in Quincy in July 2008 on an experimental basis.

The Latin Mass is a formal worship service that is making a comeback after more than 40 years after a September 2007 decree by Pope Benedict XVI that relaxed restrictions on celebrating Latin Mass. The pope cited "a new and renewed" interest in the ancient Latin liturgy.

The Mass is spoken or sung entirely in Latin by priests who face the altar instead of the congregation -- a departure for most of today's Catholics. There are no guitars, handshaking or breaks in the Mass.

"Only the reading and preaching are not in Latin," Devillers said.

Portions of the Latin Mass date to the sixth century, but it was standardized at the Council of Trent in 1570, which is where the name Tridentine emerged. It was largely supplanted by the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, which modernized the Mass liturgy and translated it into modern languages.

"The Latin Mass provides a different type of worship," Devillers said. "It allows parishioners to experience the Latin heritage of the church. It is not meant to replace anything."

The modern Mass, or Novus Ordo, can be said in Latin, but it is a radically different service from the Tridentine Mass. Until September 2007, priests who wanted to celebrate it needed special permission from their bishop.
_________________
IN CORDIBUS JESU ET MARI�

SECRETMAN

Crucifix becomes illegal in Europe

Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:20 pm (GMT -5)

Human rights ruling against classroom crucifixes angers Italy

Guardian
John Hooper
3rd November 2009
Link to original

There was uproar in Italy today over a ruling by the European court of human rights that the crucifixes that hang in most Italian classrooms are a violation of religious and educational freedoms.

The seven judges, whose decision could prompt a Europe-wide review of the use of religious symbols on public premises, said state schools had to "observe confessional neutrality".

Except on the far left, the ruling met with condemnation among Italian politicians, several of whom expressed astonishment. Silvio Berlusconi's education minister, Maria Stella Gelmini, said: "No one, not even some ideologically motivated European court, will succeed in rubbing out our identity."

The Vatican asked for time to evaluate the reasons behind the decision. But a spokesman for Italy's bishops condemned it as "partisan and ideological".

The ruling marked the end of an eight-year battle by a Finnish-born mother, Soile Lautsi. She took her cause to court after failing to get crucifixes removed from the school at which her two children were being taught at a town in north-east Italy.

Lautsi appealed to Strasbourg three years ago when her case was thrown out by Italy's constitutional court.

Although more than 7% of Italy's population is now of immigrant origin, multiculturalism has made few inroads and most Italians argue passionately, as did their government's advocate in Strasbourg, that the crucifix is a symbol of national identity.

The court disagreed. "The presence of the crucifix could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign, and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion," it ruled, ordering the Italian state to pay Lautsi �5,000 (�4,476) in damages.

One government minister, Roberto Calderoli, of the Northern League, said: "The European court has trodden on our rights, our culture, our history, our traditions and our values."

Claudio Scajola, a member of Berlusconi's Freedom People, said: "The crucifix is a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace. Preventing it from being displayed is an act of violence against the deep-seated feelings of the Italian people and all persons of goodwill."

The mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, said he was flabbergasted. And the new, ex-communist leader of Italy's biggest opposition group, the Democratic party, Pierluigi Bersani, protested: "An ancient tradition like the crucifix cannot be offensive to anyone."

Another leading member of the opposition, Massimo Donadi of the Italy of Principles party, said it was one of those symbols "that represent the history and the very culture of our country".

On the Facebook website, 23,000 people signed up to two pages opposed to the court's decision within hours of the news breaking.

The government's lawyer said he would seek leave to appeal to the Strasbourg court's 17-member grand chamber. If his petition is rejected, or if an appeal is subsequently thrown out, Italy would be obliged to comply. Refusal to do so � an option being canvassed by at least one government minister � would result in the issue being referred to the Council of Europe.

Classroom crucifixes were made compulsory by two laws in the 1920s when Italy was a fascist state. They have been applied less rigorously since 1984, when Catholicism ceased to be the state religion.