Given below is the text of a communique issued early this afternoon by the Holy See Press Office.

“The television program, ‘Gli intoccabili,’ transmitted yesterday evening by Italy’s ‘La7′ television network, included unfounded claims and false information about the Institute for the Works of Religion and(IOR) and the Vatican Financial Information Authority.

“On this subject, and with reference to the declaration issued by the Holy See Press Office yesterday 8 February, the following points must be made:

“(1) The affirmation that the IOR is a bank is incorrect. The IOR is a foundation in both civil and canon law, regulated by its own statutes. It does not hold reserves or grant loans as a bank does. Even less so is it an ‘offshore bank,’ and the aforementioned television program used that term not to illustrate the true nature and function of the IOR but to create an impression of illegality. The IOR lies within a sovereign jurisdiction and operates on the basis of a framework of norms and rules which include the Vatican’s anti-money laundering legislation: Law No. 127, adopted precisely in order to conform to international standards.

“(2) The insinuation that Vatican norms do not allow for investigations or criminal procedures regarding the period prior to the coming into force of Law No. 127 on 1 April 2011, is untrue.

“The discussion during the aforesaid program referred to words contained in a ‘private memo.’ That document has no official value and merely reflects the opinions of the individual who wrote it. Moreover, it does not state that investigations or criminal procedures regarding the period prior to 1 April 2011 are impossible, or suggest that the IOR is unwilling to collaborate in investigations or criminal procedures on events prior to 1 April 2011. As regards cooperation between the IOR and the AIF, the IOR has cooperated in providing information on transactions that took place before that date.

“Therefore, the claims made during the program are untrue. According to Vatican anti-money laundering norms, the Vatican judicial authorities have the power to investigate suspect transactions that took place during the period prior to 1 April 2011, also in the framework of international cooperation with judges in other States, including Italy.

“(3) Relations between the IOR and non-Italian banks have always been active and, contrary to the claims made, activity with Italian banks has been reduced only to a limited extent. The IOR, like Italian financial institutions, uses the services of foreign banks (Italian and non-Italian) when they are more efficient or cost less. Moreover, all movements in cash are certified with customs documents. As standard practice, all movements of money are regularly traced and archived.

“(4) As regards the norm regulating the movement of money in cash, it must be made clear that the IOR monitors, and has monitored, step transactions for a total of euro 15,000 in ten consecutive days. Furthermore, article 28 paragraph 1(b) of the new text of Law No. 127, modified by Decree of the President of the Governorate on 26 January 2012, states that the parties subject to that Law (including the IOR) must honour ‘their obligation of adequate monitoring . . . when they carry out occasional transactions the value of which is equal to or more than euro 15,000, irrespective of whether they are carried out in a single transaction or with a number of interconnected transactions.’

“(5) The affirmation made by the magistrate, Luca Tescaroli, according to which the Vatican failed to respond to rogatory letters concerning the case of the Banco Ambrosiano and Roberto Calvi, is untrue. On this subject, it must be made clear that there is no record of the rogatory letter of 2002 having reached the Vatican. Nor, following a preliminary search in the archives, is there any record of the international rogatory letter presented by the Tribunal of Rome in 2002 ever having reached the Italian embassy to the Holy See. The other two rogatory letters received a regular reply, addressed to the Italian embassy to the Holy See. As yesterday’s declaration said, the Holy See and the Vatican authorities have duly cooperated with magistrates and other Italian authorities, and this is evident from documentation in the possession of officials both of the Holy See and of the Republic of Italy.

“The facts described above show that the presentation given in the aforementioned programme was biased and does not contribute to forming an objective picture of events.”

“Faced with difficult and painful situations, when God seems to not hear us, we must not be afraid to give him all of the weight we carry in our heart, we should not be afraid to cry out to him about our suffering,” he said.

Speaking at his weekly general audience Feb. 8, Pope Benedict continued his catechesis on prayer by highlighting Christ’s prayer from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Jesus’ cry to the Father from the cross was not immediately understood by those nearby, the pope explained. Some thought he was calling Elijah, asking him to prolong his life, but Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, which affirms God’s presence amid his people, the pope said.

“Jesus is praying this psalm with the awareness of the Father’s presence,” he continued. “Many ask how this omnipotent God could not intervene to spare his own Son?” Because Jesus’ cry is not one for help, he said, but rather a prayer for his people and all peoples.

Pope Benedict said that while most people focus on Christ’s passion from noon to 3 p.m., St. Mark writes that Christ’s time on the cross began three hours earlier, at 9 a.m., when he was nailed to the cross.

Pope Benedict drew a distinction between the first three hours and the second three. Christ’s first three hours on the cross, he said, were marked by the delusion of those present: passersby deriding him, and even those crucified with him insulting him. The second three hours that Christ spent on the cross were instead characterized by silence and darkness, he continued.

“The darkness enveloped people and things, but even in these moments of darkness God is present,” the pope said. In the Bible darkness, he said, “is a sign of the presence and action of evil” but it can also serve to express a mysterious divine action.” And it would be out of this darkness, he said, that “Christ would emerge to bring life through his act of love.”

At the end of the audience, in his address to pilgrims present in Paul VI hall, Pope Benedict mentioned the recent wave of extreme cold that has been gripping Europe for the past few weeks, causing some 40 deaths in Italy alone and leaving hundreds of thousands without power. He encouraged the faithful to pray for the victims and to show solidarity “to those suffering from these tragic events.”

Read General Audience Text

Officials of World Youth Day 2013 unveiled the winning logo for the event at a ceremony attended by more than 100 Brazilian bishops, government officials and local organizers.

Gustavo Huguenin, 25, creator of the winning logo, is a Brazilian from the interior of Rio de Janeiro state. The contest was opened to anyone, and the logo was chosen by a Vatican council from more than 200 entries from around the world.

The logo shows Rio’s most famous symbols — Christ the Redeemer statue, Sugarloaf Mountain, the Brazilian coastline — and the World Youth Day pilgrim’s cross inside a heart symbolizing the heart of the disciple. The green, yellow and blue of the heart are the colors of the Brazilian flag.

Huguenin said he got the idea after reading a passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew. He said participation in the contest was an act of faith.

To celebrate the occasion Feb. 7, the Christ the Redeemer statue was lit in different colors, representing the 150 countries that will participate in World Youth Day.

Organizers confirmed that World Youth Day will be held July 23-28, 2013, with Pope Benedict XVI and youths from all over the world.

Last year’s World Youth Day in Madrid was attended by more than1 million people.

Senior Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judges Stephen R. Reinhardt and N. Randy Smith of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco listen to oral arguments during a hearing on California's Proposition 8 Dec. 6. CNS photo/Eric Risberg, pool via Reuters

The archbishops of Los Angeles and New York criticized a federal appellate court decision Feb. 7 that ruled unconstitutional California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 voter-approved initiative that forbade same-sex marriage in the state.

“The government has no competence and no authority to ‘redefine’ marriage or ‘expand’ its definition to include other kinds of relationships,” said Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles in a Feb. 7 statement. “To do that is to say that marriage no longer exists. And this would have grave consequences for children and for the common good of our society.”

“Our government has a vital interest in promoting marriage for two reasons,” Archbishop Gomez said. “First, because marriage is the foundation of society. Second, because government has a duty to promote the well-being of children, who have the right to be born and raised in a family with both their mother and their father.”

He added, “This debate over marriage is not about equality or about the needs of individuals. It is much bigger than that. It is about the nature of the human person and the nature of society.”

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan of New York called the 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “a grave injustice, ignoring the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman” in a Feb. 7 statement.

“The Constitution of the United States most assuredly does not forbid the protection of the perennial meaning of marriage, one of the cornerstones of society,” said Cardinal-designate Dolan, who is president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “The people of California deserve better. Our nation deserves better. Marriage deserves better.”

The majority opinion said Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees citizens due process and equal protection under the law. It said the state, which had given homosexual couples the right to marry, could not revoke that right.

ProtectMarriage, which put the initiative on the ballot and fought in court to uphold it, can appeal the decision, either to the full 9th Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the appeals panel said no same-sex marriages can be performed.

“Our society does not operate in an amoral or valueless vacuum,” said Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of Oakland, Calif., chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

“To flourish, it must be infused with moral direction that is grounded in the truth. Of course, the true meaning of marriage, like the gift of human life, is ultimately not subject to a vote or court ruling,” Bishop Cordileone added in a Feb. 7 statement.

“But in California, as in every other state where marriage has been put to a vote, the people justly upheld the truth of marriage. How tragic for California, for the nation, and especially for children, that this correctly informed judgment has now been set aside.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision is “the latest action in an ongoing attempt to redefine marriage,” said Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington.

“What cannot be changed is the truth: Marriage is the sacred institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and with the children born of their union. It is not the mere public recognition of a committed relationship for the sole benefit of two adults,” Cardinal Wuerl said in a Feb. 7 statement. “While today’s action is disappointing, it will not be the final word on this issue.”

“The proponents of same-sex marriage do an outstanding job of creating the illusion of momentum and support for their cause,” said Derek McCoy, executive director of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, in a Feb. 8 statement.

“However, in reality they are steadily losing support among Americans. Every single time the issue of same-sex marriage has come to a vote by the people, it has failed. In 31 states, Americans have rejected attempts to redefine the one institution that is fundamental to the continued existence of every society.”

Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote, although backers of same-sex marriage in California are gathering signatures for a new ballot measure that would explicitly overturn Proposition 8.

Auxiliary Bishop Gerald E. Wilkerson of Los Angeles, president of the California Catholic Conference, expressed disappointment in the ruling but also confidence that it would be reversed.

“We are disappointed by the ruling today by a panel of the 9th Circuit that would invalidate the action taken by the people of California affirming that marriage unites a woman and a man and any children from their union,” he said in a Feb. 7 statement. “However, given the issues involved and the nature of the legal process, it’s always been clear that this case would very likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Marriage between one man and one woman has been — and always will be — the most basic building block of the family and of our society,” Bishop Wilkerson added.

“In the end, through sound legal reasoning, we believe the court will see this as well and uphold the will of the voters as expressed in Proposition 8. We continue to pray for that positive outcome.”

Supporters of the court’s decision included Suzanne Bennett Johnson, president of the American Psychological Association.

“Research shows that marriage provides important health and wellness benefits and that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways including the fact that they are just as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children,” she said in a Feb. 7 statement. “There is no scientific basis for denying marriage equality to same-sex couples.”

The 154,000-member association said it has been a strong advocate for full equal rights for gays for 35 years, based on social science research on sexual orientation.

The decision “affirms basic American values and helps tear down a discriminatory barrier to marriage that benefits no one while making it harder for people to take care of their loved ones,” said a Feb. 7 statement by Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Mary, which advocates legalized same-sex marriage.

The court, he added, “rightly held that a state simply may not take a group of people and shove them outside the law, least of all when it comes to something as important as the commitment and security of marriage.”

“We know how important marriage is to our neighborhoods, our cities, and our nation,” said a joint Feb. 7 statement from Mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, Jerry Sanders of San Diego and Annise Parker of Houston, co-chairs of Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, which claims 130 mayors in its membership.

“When committed couples are able to pledge their love to one another and share in the responsibilities and protections of marriage, our communities flourish and our cities are more competitive,” they said.

The prayer of Jesus at the moment of His death, as narrated by St. Mark and St. Matthew was the theme of Benedict XVI’s catechesis during his general audience, held this morning in the Paul VI Hall.

“In the structure of the narrative,” the Pope said, “Jesus’ cry rises at the end of three hours of darkness, which had descended upon the earth from midday to three o’clock in the afternoon. Those three hours of darkness were, in their turn, the continuation of an earlier period which also lasted three hours and began with the crucifixion. . . . In biblical tradition darkness has an ambivalent meaning: it is a sign of the presence and action of evil, but also of the mysterious presence and action of God Who is capable of vanquishing all darkness. . . . In the scene of Jesus’ crucifixion darkness envelops the earth, the darkness of death in which the Son of God immerses Himself, in order bring life with His act of love.”

“Insulted by various categories of people, surrounded by a darkness covering everything, at the very moment in which He is facing death Jesus’ cry shows that, along with His burden of suffering and death apparently accompanied by abandonment and the absence of God, He is entirely certain of the closeness of the Father, Who approves this supreme act of love and of total giving of Self, although we do not hear His voice from on high as we did in earlier moments.”

Yet, the Holy Father asked, “what is the meaning of Jesus’ prayer? The cry addressed to the Father: ‘my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” He explained that “the words Jesus addresses to the Father are the beginning of Psalm 22, in which the Psalmist expresses the tension between, on the one hand, being left alone and, on the other, the certain knowledge of God’s presence amongst His people. . . . The Psalmist speaks of a ‘cry’ to express all the suffering of his prayer before the apparently absent God. At moments of anguish prayer becomes a cry.

“This also happens in our own relationship with the Lord,” the Pope added. “In the face of difficult and painful situations, when it seems that God does not hear, we must not be afraid to entrust Him with the burden we are carrying in our hearts, we must not be afraid to cry out to Him in our suffering.”

“Jesus prays at the moment of ultimate rejection by man, at the moment of abandonment. However, He is aware that God the Father is present even at the instant in which He is experiencing the human drama of death. Yet nonetheless, a question arises in our hearts: how is it possible that such a powerful God does not intervene to save His Son from this terrible trial?”

The Holy Father explained that “it is important to understand that the prayer of Jesus is not the cry of a person who meets death with desperation, nor that of a person who knows he has been abandoned. At that moment Jesus appropriates Psalm 22, the Psalm of the suffering people of Israel, at that moment He takes upon Himself not only the suffering of His people, but also that of all men and women oppressed by evil. . . . And He takes all this to the heart of God in the certainty that His cry will be heard in the resurrection. . . . His is a suffering in communion with us and for us, it derives from love and carries within itself redemption and the victory of love.

“The people at the foot of Jesus’ cross were unable to understand, they thought His cry was a supplication to Elijah. . . . We likewise find ourselves, ever and anew, facing the ‘today’ of suffering, the silence of God — many times we say as much in our prayers — but we also find ourselves facing the ‘today’ of the Resurrection, of the response of God Who took our sufferings upon Himself, to carry them with us and give us the certain hope that they will be overcome.”

“In our prayers,” the Holy Father concluded, “let us bring God our daily crosses, in the certainty that He is present and listens to us. The cry of Jesus reminds us that in prayer we must cross the barrier of ‘self’ and our own problems, and open ourselves to the needs and sufferings of others. May the prayer of the dying Jesus on the cross teach us to pray with love for so many brothers and sisters who feel the burden of daily life, who are experiencing moments of difficulty, who suffer and hear no words of comfort, that they may feel the love of God Who never abandons us.

POPE CALLS FOR SOLIDARITY TOWARDS VICTIMS OF BAD WEATHER

Following his catechises during this morning’s general audience, Benedict XVI launched an appeal for solidarity with victims of the current period of extremely cold weather. “Over recent weeks,” he said, “a wave of freezing weather has affected a number of regions in Europe causing great disruption and widespread damage. I wish to express my closeness to the people suffering such extreme meteorological conditions, and ask for prayers for the victims and their families. At the same time, I encourage people to show solidarity that, those affected by these tragic events may receive generous assistance.”

COOPERATION WITH THE AUTHORITIES IS VITAL IN THE STRUGGLE TO COMBAT SEXUAL ABUSE

Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, delivered a lecture before the international symposium “Towards Healing and Renewal” being held in Rome’s Gregorian University from 6 to 9 February. The event brings together bishops and religious superiors from all over the world and aims to relaunch the Church’s commitment to protecting minors and vulnerable people from abuse.

Speaking English, Cardinal Levada affirmed that for Church leaders the question under examination “is both delicate and urgent.” It is “important not to lose sight of the gravity of these crimes” as we seek “to form the priests of today and tomorrow to be aware of this scourge and to eliminate it from the priesthood.”

Cardinal Levada recalled how Blessed John Paul II’s Motu Proprio “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela” clarified and updated the list of canonical crimes, explicitly including the sexual abuse of minors by clerics as one of the most serious crimes, or “graviora delicta.” Benedict XVI, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “was instrumental in implementing these new norms” and supported “approving the Essential Norms for the United States.” In 2010 Pope Benedict also approved and ordered the promulgation of stricter revised norms.

“In an effort to aid the Church universal to adopt appropriate measures . . . the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a circular letter to assist episcopal conferences in developing guidelines for dealing with cases of sexual abuse of minors perpetrated by clerics.” That letter, dated 2011, calls for standards to evaluate the suitability of clergy and other persons who minister in Church institutions and agencies; and for education programmes to be set up for families and Church communities to ensure the protection of children and young people.

“For many if not most victims a first need is to be heard, to know that the Church listens to their stories of abuse, that the Church understands the gravity of what they have suffered, that she wants to accompany them on the often long path of healing, and that she has taken or is willing to take effective steps to ensure that other children will be protected from such abuse,” Cardinal Levada said. In this context he also noted the example set by the Holy Father in meeting with abuse victims during his apostolic trips.

The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated the fact that bishops and religious superiors must “exercise even greater scrutiny in accepting candidates for the priesthood and religious life, as well as providing formation programmes that provide the necessary foundational human formation, including appropriate formation in human sexuality.”

“Certainly no less important than any of the other elements, the cooperation of the Church with civil authorities in these cases recognises the fundamental truth that the sexual abuse of minors is not only a crime in canon law, but is also a crime that violates criminal laws in most civil jurisdictions. . . . The Church has an obligation to cooperate with the requirements of civil law regarding the reporting of such crimes to the appropriate authorities.”

At the end of his address, Cardinal Levada expressed the hope that the symposium would be “a source of expertise and hope for those who seek to eliminate the scourge of sexual abuse of minors from society at large.”

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio spoke with Secretary of the Army John McHugh about the chief of chaplains’ response to the archbishop’s Jan. 26 letter and the two “agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the archbishop’s letter,” according to a statement released by the military archdiocese to Catholic News Service Feb. 6.

The two also agreed to McHugh’s suggestion that one line, which read “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” be removed from the letter because of “the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience,” the statement added.

The letter was redistributed at Masses the weekend of Feb. 4-5.

“The issue was quickly resolved and the archdiocese considers this matter closed,” John Schlageter, general counsel for the archdiocese, said in an email to CNS Feb. 7.

Col. James Hutton, media relations chief for the Army, confirmed in a statement late Feb. 7 that the chief of chaplains, Father Donald Rutherford, a major general, had asked Catholic chaplains that they not read the letter but that they distribute it to parishioners after Masses the weekend of Jan. 28-29.

Father Rutherford made the request because he was concerned that one line in the letter “could be misinterpreted as a call to civil disobedience within our nation’s military ranks,” Hutton’s statement said.

“At no time did the chief of chaplains offer any judgment, statement or opinion as to the appropriateness of the letter’s opposition to a specific federal policy, only his concern that a single line might run counter to proper military order and discipline,” Hutton said. “Any suggestion that he or the Army were attempting to censor the clergy is not supported by the facts.”

Following his conversation with Archbishop Broglio, McHugh met Jan. 30 with senior advisers, including Father Rutherford, Hutton’s statement continued. The group “determined that the letter’s content was a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the archbishop and the Catholic Church and its dissemination by military priests as part of a religious service was not a matter for Army review,” it said.

Archbishop Broglio’s letter had been issued as part of a nationwide campaign by U.S. bishops protesting the Department of Health and Human Services requirement that all health plans — even those covering employees of Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable institutions — cover contraceptives, including some that can cause abortions, and sterilization free of charge.

The archbishop said he and the archdiocese “stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his constitutionally protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.”

The military archdiocese said there was no objection to the letter from the other branches of military service.

Contributing to this story were Dennis Sadowski and Nancy Frazier O’Brien.

This is an image from the video game "Batman: Arkham Asylum." CNS photo/Rocksteady

Even after 70 years, the image of Batman — a lone figure prowling the night to protect the innocent — has lost none of its potency. By adopting a code of honor and turning the trappings of evil against those who would do evil, Bruce Wayne transformed his personal torments into an almost chivalric quest to save others.

What most impressed generations of children (and adults) is that he did it all without any “superpowers” beyond his own intelligence, wealth, and physical prowess.

Comic book figures have a fairly mediocre track record when it comes to video and computer games, and Batman was no exception. In 2009, however, a relatively unknown studio called Rocksteady unleashed “Batman: Arkham Asylum,” and the superhero genre finally had a game that could stand on its own merits.

Combining superb storytelling and visual flair with a wild mix of gameplay styles — stealth, detection, exploration, puzzle-solving, and hand-to-hand combat — “Arkham Asylum” became one of the breakout hits of the year.

“Arkham Asylum” took place on a single island, allowing the designers to create a tightly crafted, carefully structured masterpiece. Any follow-up would have to follow the mandatory sequel formula: bigger, better, more.

But more and bigger, as we know, isn’t always better. Taking Batman from the confined location of the asylum and placing him in a sprawling open city game is a risky proposition.

Would the focus of the gameplay become diffused, and the tension of the madhouse setting lost, once the Bat was free to spread his wings over a sizable portion of Gotham City? Could the strange mix of gameplay elements survive a significant increase in length and a more open style of play?

The answer is an (almost) unqualified “yes.” The “almost” has to do with the one thing “Batman: Arkham City” (Warner Interactive) can’t duplicate, and that’s tightness. There wasn’t an ounce of flab on the original. Everything pointed to a singular end, and nothing was wasted. “Arkham City,” on the other hand, is big, sprawling, and jammed with content. That’s not a bad thing, but it does dilute some of the suspense of the original.

The game begins with a remarkably implausible setup, reminiscent of the 1981 film “Escape From New York.” A big chunk of Gotham has been walled off and turned into a maximum-security prison for supervillains and assorted criminals, as well as the occasional innocent or political prisoner. Catwoman is there as well … just because.

The rest of Gotham has fallen under the control of Arkham Asylum’s former warden, Quincy Sharp, who has placed Arkham City under the control of supervillain Hugo Strange (who knows that Batman is Bruce Wayne!) and his army of mercenaries.

Strange arranges for Wayne to be arrested and committed to Arkham City for no discernible reason, thus allowing the World’s Greatest Detective free range inside the supervillain’s fortress city on the eve of Strange’s unveiling of a cryptic evil plan called “Protocol 10.”

None of this is even the tiniest bit credible, even at a comic book level. But once you muscle past the premise, you really do get a terrific setting for a game. The city is a warren of buildings, underground levels, alleys, and major sites like the museum or the police station.

Batman soars through this concrete jungle like Spiderman, using a combination of grappling hooks and the gliding properties of his cape.

A number of plots and villains present themselves almost immediately, which slackens the tension of the central story line involving Hugo Strange, but does provide plenty of quests for Batman to follow. The result is a huge game with lots of places to explore, secrets to find, mysteries to solve, crimes to stop, people to save, supervillains to thwart, bosses to fight, and cats to rescue from trees.

Batman, it seems, can’t go a block without someone either trying to kill him or needing his help.

All of the other gameplay features are brought forward from the original. The hand-to-hand combat, based on timed moves and the use of gadgets, is as brilliant as ever. And the batsuit, skill, and gear upgrades come at a measured pace.

Boss battles — seriously frustrating in the original — are a little better this time around, though they still have a puzzle-like quality that may irritate some. With 400-plus Riddler secrets and puzzles to find, and plenty of regenerating foes, there’s also a lot of room for ongoing gameplay after the major quests are finished.

From a moral perspective, there is both good and bad. The criminals range from minor thugs to raving psychopaths, and all of them are perfectly willing to kill. Batman, of course, never kills, but merely knocks his foes unconscious.

The atmosphere is grim and dark — there is no sunlight in the environment — and corresponds to the gritty tone of the current movie franchise. This is not a game for young children, particularly considering the bone-crunching nature of the dustups, the unrelenting nastiness of the villains, and the occasional use of innuendo and foul terms.

McDonald reviews video games for Catholic News Service.

Advocates of same-sex marriage cheer during a rally outside the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco Feb. 7 moments before hearing the court's decision on Proposition 8. CNS photo/Beck Diefenbach, Reuters

By a 2-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the California ban on same-sex marriage, saying that it violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens due process and equal protection under the law.

The majority opinion, issued Feb. 7, said that the state, which had given homosexual couples the right to marry, could not revoke that right.

The National Organization of Marriage Education Fund, in a statement issued by its director, Brian S. Brown, accused the judges of “finding a ‘right’ to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!”

“This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court,” said Brown, who asked for contributions to help fund a possible Supreme Court challenge to the lower court’s ruling.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages had been performed in California before 52 percent of the state’s voters in 2008 approved Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in the state.

ProtectMarriage, which put Proposition 8 on the ballot and fought in court to uphold it, can appeal the decision, either to the full 9th Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the appeals panel said no same-sex marriages can be performed.

The appellate court majority said it did not answer the question of “whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry,” calling it “an important and highly controversial question.”

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently,” said the majority decision, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” it added.

All Proposition 8 did, the court said, was to strip same-sex couples of “the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education.”

The 9th Circuit issued its opinion in an appeal filed by supporters of traditional marriage after now-retired U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the voter-approved initiative was unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The group challenged Walker’s standing in the case, because the judge, who is gay, did not disclose his sexual orientation or reveal that he had a longtime romantic partner until after he had retired from the court. The 9th Circuit panel said it found no evidence Walker was biased.

The three-judge panel’s decision is on hold at least until the deadline passes for ProtectMarriage to file an appeal, meaning no same-sex marriages would be conducted in California in the near future.

Currently, seven states and the District of Columbia permitted same-sex marriage. Among the states considering a same-sex marriage bill is Washington, which falls within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. The governor, Christine Gregoire, a Catholic, has said she will push for its passage in the state legislature.

The passage of Proposition 8 inserted language into the state constitution that marriage was between one man and one woman, overriding the California Supreme Court, which struck down a pair of laws in the summer of 2008 that had restricted marriage to one man and one woman.

A Pew Forum analysis on attitudes toward same-sex marriage by religion released Feb. 7 said Catholics supported same-sex marriage 52 percent to 37 percent, with 11 percent undecided as of an October 2011 survey. That is up from a 46 percent favorable opinion (42 percent unfavorable) in a survey conducted in August and September 2010.

Hispanic Catholics are split, 42 percent to 42 percent, on same-sex marriage, while white Catholics approve of same-sex marriage by a margin of 57 percent to 35 percent.

Overall, same-sex marriage was favored by Americans 46 percent to 44 percent in the 2011 poll; in the 2010 survey, it was opposed 48 percent to 42 percent. The only religious groups remaining opposed to same-sex marriage in the latest survey were white evangelicals, 74 percent to 19 percent, and black Protestants, 62 to 30. Protestants overall remain opposed to gay marriage, 58 to 34.

This morning in the Holy See Press Office, a press conference was held to present the Holy Father’s 2012 Lenten Message. Participating in the conference were Cardinal Robert Sarah, president of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”; Msgr. Giampietro Dal Toso and Msgr. Segundo Tejado Munoz, respectively secretary and under secretary of the same council.

“We know that the Lenten Message contributes to maintaining the faithful’s sense of concern for others, communion, compassion and fraternal sharing of the sufferings of those in need,” said Cardinal Sarah. “However, over and above this important issue, there is another aspect of Christian life which this year’s text highlights: fraternal correction.”

“Charity teaches us that we are responsible not only for the material well being of others, but also for their moral and spiritual good. . . . We cannot overlook the fact that a certain ideology which exalts the rights of the individual can have the consequence of creating isolation and solitude. . . . When the call to communion is denied in the name of individualism it is our humanity that suffers, deceived by the impossible mirage of a happiness obtainable alone. Therefore we can help one another by discovering our reciprocal responsibility the one for the other.”

“The Church’s activity in the modern world must also be seen in the light of fraternal correction in truth and charity,” the cardinal went on. “Sometimes it is thought that the Church’s concerns, her tenacious resistance to certain fashionable ideas, are moved by thirst or nostalgia for power This is not the case. The Church is moved by a sincere concern for mankind and for the world. Her activities are not moved by a desire to condemn or recriminate, but by a justice and mercy which must also have the courage to call things by their name. Only in this way can we expose the roots of evil, which continue to intrigue the mind of modern man. This task of the Church is called prophetic mission.”

In the Old Testament, Cardinal Sarah explained, “a prophet was a man called and sent by God to announce His will to the people. . . . Clearly the call for greater social justice is part of mission of the Church,” which “cannot remain silent in the face of the fact that too many people die because they lack basic necessities while others grow rich exploiting their fellows. Yet the prophetic dimension of our words and deeds cannot be limited to these external phenomena without going to the moral roots of these injustices. Corruption, accumulation of riches, violence, unduly living at the expense of the commonwealth without contributing are all tumors that consume a society from within. Nor can we remain silent . . . about the fact that the roots of the current financial crisis lie in greed, unrestrained and unscrupulous thirst for money without considering those who have less and who must bear the consequences of the mistaken choices of others. Such attachment to money is a sin, and the Church is prophetic in her condemnation of that sin, which harms both individuals and society.”

“Yet the Holy Father . . . identifies an even more profound dimension. The Church is a prophet in this world to denounce the absence of God. . . . Our secularized society lives and organizes itself without reference to God because it is affected by a poverty more tragic even than material want; a poverty represented by the rejection and complete exclusion of God from social and economic life, by the revolt against divine and natural laws. . . . The primary responsibility of the Church is to remind each generation that this spiritual dimension is vital. The prophet of today must tell the world that God exists, that without this Father who stirs us to solidarity and sharing life dies and fraternity dissolves into empty utopia, that man has a supernatural vocation, that we have a conscience in which the voice of God speaks and to which we must one day respond.”

“Today’s message,” the cardinal concluded, “aims to awaken people’s consciences with respect to the rights and duties of our fellows, but also with respect to our duties towards the ‘rights’ of God. All this comes about in the context of Christian communion ruled by the principle of reciprocity and fraternal correction, with a view to the temporal good of mankind and his eschatological salvation.”

POPE’S LENTEN MESSAGE: CHARITY AS A MEANS TO SALVATION

Made public today was the 2012 Lenten Message of the Holy Father Benedict XVI, the title of which is taken from the Letter to the Hebrews: “Let us be concerned for each other, to stir a response in love and good works.” Extracts from the English-language version of the document are given below:

“The Lenten season offers us once again an opportunity to reflect upon the very heart of Christian life: charity. This is a favorable time to renew our journey of faith, both as individuals and as a community, with the help of the word of God and the Sacraments.”

“This year I would like to propose a few thoughts in the light of a brief biblical passage drawn from the Letter to the Hebrews: ‘Let us be concerned for each other, to stir a response in love and good works.’”

(1) Let us be concerned for each other: responsibility towards our brothers and sisters.

“This first aspect is an invitation to be ‘concerned’. . . . The verb which introduces our exhortation tells us to look at others, first of all at Jesus, to be concerned for one another, and not to remain isolated and indifferent to the fate of our brothers and sisters. All too often, however, our attitude is just the opposite: an indifference and disinterest born of selfishness and masked as a respect for ‘privacy’. . . . Even today God asks us to be ‘guardians’ of our brothers and sisters, to establish relationships based on mutual consideration and attentiveness to the well-being, the integral well-being of others. The great commandment of love for one another demands that we acknowledge our responsibility towards those who, like ourselves, are creatures and children of God. Being brothers and sisters in humanity and, in many cases, also in the faith, should help us to recognize in others a true alter ego, infinitely loved by the Lord. If we cultivate this way of seeing others as our brothers and sisters, solidarity, justice, mercy and compassion will naturally well up in our hearts.”

“Concern for others entails desiring what is good for them from every point of view: physical, moral and spiritual. Contemporary culture seems to have lost the sense of good and evil, yet there is a real need to reaffirm that good does exist and will prevail, because God is ‘generous and acts generously.’ The good is whatever gives, protects and promotes life, brotherhood and communion. Responsibility towards others thus means desiring and working for the good of others, in the hope that they too will become receptive to goodness and its demands. Concern for others means being aware of their needs. Sacred Scripture warns us of the danger that our hearts can become hardened by a sort of ‘spiritual anaesthesia’ which numbs us to the suffering of others. The Evangelist Luke relates two of Jesus’ parables by way of example”: the parable of the Good Samaritan and the parable of Dives and Lazarus. Both “show examples of the opposite of ‘being concerned’, of looking upon others with love and compassion. What hinders this humane and loving gaze towards our brothers and sisters? Often it is the possession of material riches and a sense of sufficiency, but it can also be the tendency to put our own interests and problems above all else. We should never be incapable of ‘showing mercy’ towards those who suffer. Our hearts should never be so wrapped up in our affairs and problems that they fail to hear the cry of the poor. . . . Reaching out to others and opening our hearts to their needs can become an opportunity for salvation and blessedness.

“‘Being concerned for each other’ also entails being concerned for their spiritual well-being. Here I would like to mention an aspect of the Christian life, which I believe has been quite forgotten: fraternal correction in view of eternal salvation. Today, in general, we are very sensitive to the idea of charity and caring about the physical and material well-being of others, but almost completely silent about our spiritual responsibility towards our brothers and sisters. This was not the case in the early Church. . . . Christ Himself commands us to admonish a brother who is committing a sin. . . . The Church’s tradition has included ‘admonishing sinners’ among the spiritual works of mercy. It is important to recover this dimension of Christian charity. We must not remain silent before evil. I am thinking of all those Christians who, out of human regard or purely personal convenience, adapt to the prevailing mentality, rather than warning their brothers and sisters against ways of thinking and acting that are contrary to the truth and that do not follow the path of goodness. Christian admonishment, for its part, is never motivated by a spirit of accusation or recrimination. It is always moved by love and mercy, and springs from genuine concern for the good of the other. . . . In a world pervaded by individualism, it is essential to rediscover the importance of fraternal correction, so that together we may journey towards holiness. . . . It is a great service, then, to help others and allow them to help us, so that we can be open to the whole truth about ourselves, improve our lives and walk more uprightly in the Lord’s ways.”

(2) Being concerned for each other: the gift of reciprocity.

“This ‘custody’ of others is in contrast to a mentality that, by reducing life exclusively to its earthly dimension, fails to see it in an eschatological perspective and accepts any moral choice in the name of personal freedom. A society like ours can become blind to physical sufferings and to the spiritual and moral demands of life. This must not be the case in the Christian community!”

“The Lord’s disciples, united with Him through the Eucharist, live in a fellowship that binds them one to another as members of a single body. This means that the other is part of me, and that his or her life, his or her salvation, concern my own life and salvation. Here we touch upon a profound aspect of communion: our existence is related to that of others, for better or for worse. Both our sins and our acts of love have a social dimension. This reciprocity is seen in the Church, the mystical body of Christ: the community constantly does penance and asks for the forgiveness of the sins of its members, but also unfailingly rejoices in the examples of virtue and charity present in her midst. . . . Christians can also express their membership in the one body which is the Church through concrete concern for the poorest of the poor. Concern for one another likewise means acknowledging the good that the Lord is doing in others.”

(3) To stir a response in love and good works: walking together in holiness.

“These words of the Letter to the Hebrews urge us to reflect on the universal call to holiness. . . . The time granted us in this life is precious for discerning and performing good works in the love of God. In this way the Church herself continuously grows towards the full maturity of Christ. Our exhortation to encourage one another to attain the fullness of love and good works is situated in this dynamic prospect of growth.

“Sadly, there is always the temptation to become lukewarm, to quench the Spirit, to refuse to invest the talents we have received, for our own good and for the good of others. All of us have received spiritual or material riches meant to be used for the fulfillment of God’s plan, for the good of the Church and for our personal salvation. The spiritual masters remind us that in the life of faith those who do not advance inevitably regress.”

“In a world which demands of Christians a renewed witness of love and fidelity to the Lord, may all of us feel the urgent need to anticipate one another in charity, service and good works. This appeal is particularly pressing in this holy season of preparation for Easter.”

PROMOTING A CHURCH CULTURE OF SUPPORT FOR ABUSE VICTIMS

An international symposium entitled “Towards Healing and Renewal” began yesterday evening in Rome’s Gregorian University. The event, which will run until 9 February and brings together bishops and religious superiors from all over the world, aims to relaunch the Church’s commitment to protecting minors and vulnerable people from child abuse. During the opening session a message was read out, sent in the Holy Father’s name by Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. to Fr. Francois-Xavier Dumortier S.J., rector of the Gregorian.

In his English-language message, Cardinal Bertone notes that, “as His Holiness has often observed, healing for victims must be of paramount concern in the Christian community, and it must go hand in hand with a profound renewal of the Church at every level. . . . The Holy Father therefore supports and encourages every effort to respond with evangelical charity to the challenge of providing children and vulnerable adults with an ecclesial environment conducive to their human and spiritual growth. He urges the participants in the symposium to continue drawing on a wide range of expertise in order to promote throughout the Church a vigorous culture of effective safeguarding and victim support.”

The Pope also prays to the Lord that the symposium may help the Church “to respond in a truly Christ-like manner to the tragedy of child abuse.”

(CNS photo / Nancy Phelan Wiechec)

1. The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them “religious employers” worthy of conscience protection, because they do not “serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets.” HHS denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of society — a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.

2. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.

3. The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the “contraceptive mandate,” HHS’s mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization. And, by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the HHS mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion, such as “Ella,” a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.

4. Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the mandate. Catholics who have long supported this Administration and its health care policies have publicly criticized HHS’s decision, including columnists E.J. Dionne, Mark Shields and Michael Sean Winters; college presidents Father John Jenkins and Arturo Chavez; and Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States.

5. Many other religious and secular people and groups have spoken out strongly against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, even if they disagree with the Church on the underlying moral question. For example, Protestant Christian, Orthodox Christian, and Orthodox Jewish groups — none of which oppose contraception — have issued statements against the decision. The Washington Post, USA Today, N.Y. Daily News, Detroit News and other secular outlets, columnists and bloggers have editorialized against it.

6. The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own. That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon). Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.

This commentary first appeared as a post on the USCCB Media Blog.