Authority of the First Popes

From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/authority-of-the-first-popes

The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy
The Trail of Blood
Some time ago an acquaintance from my days as a fundamentalist sent me an email. Kevin had become a Baptist pastor and was disappointed that I had been “deceived by the Catholic Church”. He wanted to know my reasons for becoming Catholic.
I get such emails from time to time, and rather than get involved in arguments about purgatory or candles or Mary worship or indulgences, I usually cut straight to the point and try to engage my correspondent with the question of authority in the Church.
Kevin told me that to follow the Pope was an ancient error, and when I asked where he got his authority he promised to send me a book called The Trail of Blood. This book, written by a Baptist pastor called J.M.Carroll explains that Baptists are not really Protestants because they never broke away from the Catholic Church. Instead they are part of an ancient line of “true and faithful Biblical Christians” dating right back through the Waldensians and Henricians to the Cathars, the Novatians, Montanists and eventually John the Baptist.” This view is called Baptist Successionism or Landmarkism and it is also taught by John T Christian in his book, The History of the Baptists.
Baptist Successionism is a theory more theological than historical. For the proponents, the fact that there is no historical proof for their theory simply shows how good the Catholic Church was at persecution and cover up. Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at sometime who kept the flame of the true faith alive.  The authors of this fake history skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics.
Most educated Evangelicals would snicker at such bogus scholarship and many more are totally ignorant of the works of J.M.Carroll and the arcane historical theories of Baptist Successionism. Nevertheless, the basic assumptions of Baptist Successionism  provide the foundation for most current independent Baptist explanations of early Church history, and these assumptions are the foundation for the typical independent Baptist  understanding of the Church. The assumptions about the early church are these: 1) Jesus Christ never intended such a thing as a monarchical papacy 2) The church of the New Testament age was de-centralized 2) the early church was essentially local and congregational in government. 3) The church became hierarchical after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century and 4) the papacy was invented by Pope Leo the Great who reigned from 440 – 460.
Just the Facts
The basic assumptions the typical Evangelical has about the papacy are part of the wallpaper in the Evangelical world. Being brought up in an independent Bible Church, I was taught that our little fellowship of Christians meeting to study the Bible, pray and sing gospel songs was like the ‘early Christians’ meeting in their house churches. I had a mental picture of ‘Catholic Pope’ which I had pieced together from a whole range of biased sources. When I heard the word ‘pope’ I pictured a corpulent Italian with the juicy name “Borgia” who drank a lot of wine, was supposed to be celibate, but who not only had mistresses, but sons who he called ‘nephews’. This ‘pope’  had big banquets in one of his many palaces, was very rich, rode out to war when he felt like it and liked to tell Michelangelo how to paint. That this ‘pope’ was a later invention of the corrupt Catholic Church was simply part of the whole colorful story.
But of course, the idea that the florid Renaissance pope is typical of all popes is not a Catholic invention, but a Protestant one. Protestantism has been compelled to rewrite all history according to it’s own necessities. As French historian Augustin Thierry has written, “To live, Protestantism found itself forced to build up a history of its own.”
The five basic assumptions of non-Catholic Christians can be corrected by looking at the history of the early church. Did Jesus envision and plan a monarchical papacy? Was the early church de-centralized? Was the early church essentially local and congregational? Did the early church only become hierarchical after the emperor was converted? Did Leo the Great invent the papacy in the fifth century? To examine this we’ll have to put on one side the preconceptions and mental images of Borgia popes and get down to ‘just the facts ma’am.’
Did Jesus Plan a Monarchical Papacy?
Jesus certainly did not plan for the inflated and corrupt popes of the popular imagination. He intended to found a church, but the church was not democratic in structure. It was established with clear individual leadership. In Matthew 16.18-19 Jesus says to Simon Peter, “You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.” So, Jesus established his church not on a congregational model, but on the model of personal leadership.
Was this a monarchical papacy? In a way it was. In Matthew 16 Jesus goes on to say to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22.22, where the prophet recognizes Eliakim as the steward of the royal House of David. The steward was the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. The keys of the kingdom were the sign of his personal authority delegated by the king himself.
Jesus never intended a monarchical papacy in the corrupt sense of the Pope being an absolute worldly monarch, but the church leadership Jesus intended was ‘monarchical’ in the sense that it was based on his authority as King of Kings. The reference to Isaiah 22 shows that the structure of Jesus’  kingdom was modeled on King David’s dynastic court. In Luke 1.32-33 Jesus’ birth is announced in royal terms. He will inherit the throne of his father David. He will rule over the house of Jacob and his kingdom shall never end. Like Eliakim, to whom Jesus refers, Peter is to be the appointed authority in this court, and as such his role is that of steward and ruler in the absence of the High King, the scion of the House of David. That Peter assumes this pre-eminent role of leadership in the early church is attested to throughout the New Testament from his first place in the list of the apostles, to his dynamic preaching on the day of Pentecost, his decision making at the Council of Jerusalem and the deference shown to him by St Paul and the other apostles.
Did Jesus plan the monarchical papacy? He did not plan for the sometimes corrupt, venal and worldly papacy that it has sometimes become down through history, but Jesus did plan for one man to be his royal delegate on earth. He did plan for one man to lead the others (Lk.22.32) He did plan for one man to take up the spiritual and temporal leadership of his church. This is shown not only through the famous passage from Matthew 16, but also in the final chapter of John’s gospel where Jesus the Good Shepherd hands his pastoral role over to Peter.
Was the early church de-centralized?
Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.
The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)
The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.
After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focussed on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”
Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.
The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s, “I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”
Was the Early Church Local and Congregational?
We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.
In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.” Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”
This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”
Did the Church only become hierarchical after Constantine?
Independent Evangelicals imagine that the church only became hierarchical after it was ‘infected’ by the emperor Constantine’s conversion in 315. At that time, they argue, the monarchical model came across from the court of the emperor and the church moved from being independent, local and congregational to being a centralized, hierarchical arm of the Roman Empire.
Again, this theory has no relation to reality. As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus’ identity as the Great scion of David the King with Peter as his steward. The steward, like the king he served, was to be the servant and shepherd of all, but he was also meant to rule as through the charism of individual leadership. This form of governance was hierarchical from the beginning for it is grounded in Jesus’ own concept of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom is hierarchical through and through, and the church, as Christ’s kingdom is hierarchical from its foundations. Furthermore, the leadership of the Jewish church (on which the Christian church was modeled) was hierarchical with it’s orders of rabbis, priests and elders.
Obedience to the bishop as the head of the church was crucial. So Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns individualistic congregationalism in terms that are clearly hierarchical: “All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated….it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop.”
The hierarchical nature of the church is confirmed and sealed through the apostolic succession. Church leaders are appointed by the successors of the apostles, and there is a clear chain of command which validates a church and it’s ministry. So Ireneaeus writes, “It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the Apostles..the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics…all have fallen away from the truth.”
Throughout the New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers the church is portrayed as centralized, hierarchical and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Unity is guaranteed by allegiance to the clear hierarchical  chain of command: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the Apostles. The Apostles appointed their successors. The Bishops are in charge. So Clement of Rome writes, “The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ. in both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God.”
Was Leo the Great the First Pope?
The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question who was the first ‘pope’ as such.
The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.
However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.
The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.
The Early Church Today
From the Reformation onward, Protestant Christians have fallen into the trap of Restorationism. This is the idea that the existing church has become corrupt and departed from the true gospel and that a new church that is faithful to the New Testament can be created. These sincere Christians then attempt to ‘restore’ the church by creating a new church. The problem is, each new group of restorationists invariably create a church of their own liking determined by their contemporary cultural assumptions. They then imagine that the early church was like the one they have invented.
All of the historical documents show that, in essence, the closest thing we have today to the early church is actually the Catholic Church. In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been. Her leadership is unapologetically monarchical and hierarchical. Her teaching authority is centralized and universal, and the pope is what he has always been, the universal pastor of Christ’s Church, the steward of Christ’s kingdom and the Rock on which Christ builds his Church.

The Spirit and the Bride: Mary's Role at Pentecost

From http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/05/spirit-and-bride-marys-role-at.html

 

While the Holy Apostles were generally ignorant of the Holy Ghost, the Immaculate Mary knew Him intimately. Mary had already experienced the descent of the Holy Ghost at her Immaculate Conception since at that moment she was not merely preserved from all sin, but also filled with grace and the Holy Spirit. She was perfectly possessed by the Holy Ghost from the first moment of her existence. This is why Saint Francis of Assisi and other great saints have called Mary "Spouse of the Holy Spirit." The analogy of matrimony is the strongest and best way to signify a union of two persons in their mission. Although not carnally married, the Holy Spirit and Mary are united perfectly in their mission. She never sins. She only desires the will of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, the Holy Ghost overshadowed her in a powerful way at the virginal conception of Christ our Lord. Her whole life, then, was a communication with the Holy Ghost and she profoundly understood the mystery of the Holy Trinity - far better than the Council Fathers of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. She is the greatest theologian.

In the nine days between the Ascension and Pentecost (this was the first novena), Mary was praying that the Apostles might come to know Him whom she already knew. While the Apostles prayed and waited without knowledge, Mary prayed with knowledge of the Paraclete.

On Pentecost morning, there were 120 people including the 12 Apostles. This was the new Israel. Mary was the burning bush - burning but never consumed - through whom the Holy Trinity was revealed to the people of God. Although she remained silent, as she did at the cross, she earnestly prayed that her Divine Spouse would visit these 120 faithful who were the first fruits of the Catholic Church.

This was the birthday of the Catholic Church, which is the mystical Body of Christ. As the Holy Ghost overshadowed the Blessed Virgin at the Annunciation and conceived Christ the Head in the womb of Mary, so now the Holy Ghost mystically conceives the Body of Christ. The Litany of Loretto refers to Our Lady as the "Mother of the Church" and this is precisely why. The Holy Spirit inspired Saint Luke to include these details for our benefit. There is a textual parallel between the the union of Mary and the Holy Ghost at the Incarnation of Christ and Mary and the Holy Ghost at the Birth of the Church on Pentecost.

Could God the Son have become incarnate without Mary? Yes. 

Could God the Son have performed His first miracle at Cana without Mary? Yes.

Could God the Son have died on the cross for sins without Mary standing below in her desolation? Yes.

Could God the Son have sent the Holy Ghost on Pentecost without the present of Mary? Yes.

Yet God chose to accomplish these great redemptive mysteries with Mary. It was His free choice. He did not have to do things this way, but He did.

If God desires to include her, who are we to exclude her? 

The Father thinks of her first when He considers creation. She is the most perfect creature. The Son loves her perfectly as His mother. The Holy Spirit chose her as His Spouse - to be united to His mission on earth. What a mystery! How then can we not love this tender mother? Her union with God unites her to the tender mercies of God. She cares for us and thinks for us at every moment. 

Rejoice Queen of Heaven! O God, who gave joy to the world through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; grant, we beseech Thee, that through His Mother, the Virgin Mary, we may obtain the joys of everlasting life. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

On the Feast of Pentecost, Pope Benedict announces October 7 ceremony to declare St. John of Ávila and St. Hildegard of Bingen Doctors of the Church

See http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Papa:-Pentecost,-feast-of-unity-in-a-divided-world-that-thinks-it-does-not-need-God-24860.html

Archbishop Martin refuses to publicly back embattled Cardinal Brady

From http://www.independent.ie/national-news/martin-refuses-to-publicly-back-embattled-cardinal-3118538.html

DUBLIN Archbishop Diarmuid Martin yesterday declined to publicly back embattled All-Ireland primate Cardinal Sean Brady.
Dr Brady has kept a relatively low profile since new allegations emerged of the handling of child abuse concerns raised about notorious paedophile cleric Fr Brendan Smyth.
With just weeks to go to the 50th Eucharistic Congress, Archbishop Martin said the international event was about more than just one person.
"Cardinal Brady has said that he is staying and that he has lots of support from people; I've never commented and I don't know any thing of those details," he said.
Asked if he supported Cardinal Brady, Dr Martin replied: "I've made no comments on other bishops."
Earlier this month, Dr Martin said it would not be "appropriate" to comment on the Cardinal's position.
The beleaguered leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland has faced calls to consider his position after the broadcasting of a BBC documentary focusing on Smyth.
It revealed how, in the mid-1970s, the then Fr Brady and two other priests had been given crucial information by 14-year-old abuse victim Brendan Boland concerning Smyth, but church authorities did not pass it on to parents of other victims of Smyth.
Archbishop Martin has called for an independent international inquiry into the crimes of Smyth to be carried out.
Dr Brady, who has publicly apologised to Mr Boland, had claimed he received a lot of support from within the church to stay on in his role.
Dr Martin was speaking at the publication of the annual child protection update of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
It revealed 356 allegations or suspicions have been made against 10 unnamed "serial abusers" over the past six decades.
Five have been criminally convicted and two are dead.
Allegations
Other details include:
? Allegations of child sexual abuse were reported against four priests of the archdiocese in the last year.
? A suspicion was raised against one.
? 98 priests have had allegations levelled against them in the last 70 years. 1,350 priests have served in that period.
? 199 civil actions have been taken against 46 priests of the diocese -- 135 have been concluded and 64 are ongoing
? The cost to the archdiocese for settling claims so far stands at €15.2m -- €10.3m for settlements and €4.9m for the legal costs.
? 10 priests or former priests have been convicted in the courts.
The figures from the report also showed more than a third of the allegations against the 98 priests are alleged to have happened in the 1980s.
Andrew Fagan, director of services with the Child Safeguarding and Protection Service in Dublin, said there were ongoing efforts to maintain high standards in child safety.
"In Dublin, child safeguarding operates to a high standard and Dublin parishes are now safer places for children," he said.
"While the majority of allegations of abuse reported to us now, relate to sexual abuse which may have occurred many years ago, it is still crucial to be vigilant and to work to ensure standards are maintained," he added.

- Colm Kelpie

Irish Independent

The Pope's butler arrested following Vatileaks investigation

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9290768/The-Popes-butler-arrested-following-Vatileaks-investigation.html

By Nick Pisa in Rome 25 May 2012

The butler, identified as Paolo Gabriele, 40, was held by gendarmes after a special commission of three top senior cardinals had been appointed by the Pope to identify the source of the leaks which have caused severe embarrassment.

Mr Gabriele, who has been at the Pope’s side for six years, is one of the German born pontiff’s closest members of his inner circle which totals just four lay people and four nuns and he is always at his side.

It is believed that Mr Gabriele, who is known by the nickname Paoletto (little Paul) was held as he arrived for work at the Papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace behind St Peter’s and on Friday he was being held in custody – the first time in years the Vatican jail had been used.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said a man had been detained with “documents in his possession” adding that he was not supposed to have them and he went on to describe him as “a lay person and not a member of the clergy”.

The arrest comes a month after Pope Benedict appointed a special commission to investigate the series of damning and embarrassing leaks of sensitive Catholic Church documents from the Vatican as it still tries to recover from the priest sex abuse scandal.

Dozens of documents including private letters to the Pope have found themselves into the hands of the Italian media in what has been dubbed Vatileaks, a play on the WikiLeaks website.
The documents show how contracts were awarded to favoured companies and individuals and also highlight allegations of internal power struggles with the Vatican’s bank known as the Institute for Religious Works.
By coincidence on Thursday the head of the bank, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, who is already under investigation for money laundering resigned after a vote of no confidence and initially there were rumours that he was the person responsible for the leak of documents.
The scandal began in January with the publication of leaked letters from the former deputy governor of the Vatican City Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, in which he pleaded not to be transferred after he had exposed what he said was corruption over the awarding of contracts.
Archbishop Vigano was deputy governor from 2009 until las year when he was moved to Washington DC to be papal nuncio in the United States. He had written to the Pope protesting the fact adding that it would bring an end to his efforts to “clean up” the Vatican.
Earlier this year there was even a report leaked which claimed a plot to assassinate Pope Benedict had been uncovered although this was dismissed as “absurd” by Father Lombardi who threatened to take legal action against the TV station that screened the documents.
The Pope was said to be “shocked and saddened” at the constant leaks and it led to him appointing the three cardinal commission and who worked with the Vatican gendarmes which lead to the arrest.
Sources said that sensitive Vatican documents had been recovered from father of three Gabriele’s home inside the Vatican, but some have questioned if Mr Gabriele was perhaps being made a scapegoat.
Paolo Rodari, an expert on Vatican affairs, said: “I know Gabriele. He is a nice guy but I don’t think he would be behind this. I think he may have been imprudent and taken the odd document home but he is not the main person.”
“If you ask me he has been made a scapegoat just to satisfy the media. The documents found at his house were from the Pope’s personal correspondence but a lot of the leaked documents have come from the Secretary of State’s office and he would not have had access to those.”

Gay Marriage—Nothing New Under the Sun

See http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx

SPECULATIONS ON ANTI-CHRIST STRETCH FROM 'PROPHECIES' OF ST. MALACHY TO MARIAN SECRETS

See http://www.spiritdaily.com/petrusromanus.htm

British Government Spends $1 Million Weekly on Repeat Abortions

LifeNews May 14, 2012:

New figures from the United Kingdom show the British government spends one million pounds every week in taxpayer funding for abortions for women who have having at least their second or more abortion.
The National Health Service is spending around £1million a week and critics are saying this proves women are using abortion as a method of birth control. As the London Daily Mail newspaper reports, some women are getting taxpayer funding for as many as seven, eight or nine abortions in their lifetime.

In one London borough, half of all abortions are requested by women who have already aborted at least one foetus.
In 2010, the latest year for which figures are available, some 189,000 abortions took place. Of these, more than 64,000 terminations were on women who had already aborted a foetus in the past. More than 50,000 of them were single or living with a partner; while around 9,500 were married – with the marital status unknown for the rest.
Across all age groups, a total of 85 women had an abortion despite having had seven previous terminations.
The statistics showed that repeat abortions were most prevalent in London. Of the 23 primary care trust areas with the highest proportion of repeat abortions, 21 were in London. Croydon had the highest ratio with half of all terminations being carried out on women who had previously had at least one abortion.
Almost 100 of the women who came back for at least their second termination were under the age of 20. Of the 950 repeat abortions, 787 were for unmarried women, of whom 545 were under the age of 30.

Paul Tully, the General Secretary for SPUC, the British pro-life group, lamented the new numbers.
“The figures indicate wide differences around the country for repeat abortions, but regional and local variations also suggest that in many areas abortion is being used unlawfully to try to cut the birth-rate among minority and low-income groups more likely to claim benefits,” he said.
“Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, issued a directive in February instructing abortion providers and NHS medical directors to comply fully with the medical conditions required for abortions in the Abortion Act 1967,” Tully continued. “We suspect that Professor Davies’ letter is being totally ignored by both NHS trusts and private abortion clinics. Our belief is that the Sexual Health Team at the Department of Health is continuing to tell doctors and hospitals to provide abortion on demand, and that they are telling abortion providers that there is no political appetite to take action against them for breaking the law.”
“There is no evidence of any change in policy by the major private abortion clinics which have lucrative contracts to do NHS abortions. They are doing no fewer illegal abortions than hitherto. The legal grounds for abortion are not fulfilled in 99% of cases,” he said.

Vatican denounces leaks of papal correspondence, documents as ‘criminal,’ promises justice

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/vatican-denounces-leaks-of-papal-correspondence-documents-as-criminal-promises-justice/2012/05/19/gIQAxU3IbU_print.html

Silverstream Priory ☩ Benedictine Adorers of the Eucharistic Face of Jesus

A new monastic order which have taken over the vacant Visitation convent in Stamullen Co. Meath

For more information see http://cenacleosb.org/

See also  http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0328/1224314008240.html

Under-fire cardinal suffers snub from his own priests

See http://www.independent.ie/national-news/underfire-cardinal-suffers-snub-from-his-own-priests-3111528.html

Lefebvrians: The internal battle

From http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebviranos-vaticano-vatican-15021/

Andrea Torniellivatican city
A website has reported on the letters exchanged a month ago between bishops Tissier de Mallerays, Alfonso de Gallareta, Richard Williamson and the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay. The letter which the three bishops sent Fellay on 7 April contains a final appeal asking the superior not to sign the doctrinal preamble or accept the agreement proposed by the Holy See. As readers will recall, the agreement aims to assign the Lefebvrians a personal prelature.
The three bishops wrote against Fellay: “Doctrinal discussions have proven that it is impossible for an agreement to be reached with Rome at the moment” because “after the Second Vatican Council the Church’s official authorities  separated themselves from the Catholic truth and now they seem determined, as before, to remain faithful to conciliar doctrine and practice.” Tissier, de Gallareta and Williamson recall that during a conference a few months before dying, Mgr. Lefebvre said the problem is not with single errors on individual conciliar documents, but the complete perversion of the spirit, of an entirely new philosophy based on subjectivism.”
The three bishops also pointed out that “the Pope’s current thinking is steeped in subjectivism. It is full of the subjective fantasy of man instead of God’s objective reality. The entire Catholic religion has been subdued by the modern world.
How can we believe - they asked themselves - that a practical agreement will resolve this problem?” “They accept us in the name of a relativist and dialectical pluralism; - the three prelates continued - Rome can tolerate the Fraternity continuing to teach Catholic doctrine but they refuse to condemn conciliar doctrine.”   In their letter, the three bishops also referred to an expression used by Lefebvre, claiming that “it is dangerous to put oneself in the hands of conciliar bishops and modernist Rome.” They concluded with a warning to Fellay: “You are leading the Fraternity to a point of no return, a deep division,” claiming that the agreement would end up destroying it.
Ten days later Fellay responded with an equally long and articulate letter. The answer he gave was very interesting and significant in understanding what is about to happen to the Society of St. Pius X now that an agreement with the Holy See is just around the corner. The Fraternity’s superior recalled that “today’s Church still has Jesus as its head. You give the impression of being so scandalised that you can no longer accept this is still true.” Fellay’s question to the three bishops who, like him, were consecrated illegitimately by Lefebvre in 1988, was: “Do you still see Benedict XVI as the legitimate Pope? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through him? If the Pope expresses a legitimate wish that is relevant to us, that is good and does not order us to do anything that is contrary to God’s commandments, do we have the right to return this wish back to its sender? Do you not believe as our guide the Lord will give us the means to continue our work?”
“The Pope has let us know that legitimising our position for the good of the Church is a concern that lies at the very heart of his pontificate,” the Fraternity’s superior wrote. Benedict XVI “was well aware of the fact that it would have been easier for him and for us to leave things as they were.”
“Your conception of the Church – Fellay went on to say – is too human and fatalistic; you see the dangers, the scheming and the difficulties but you no longer see the help offered by grace and the Holy Spirit.” The Fraternity’s leader invited his three fellow bishops not to transform “some of the mistakes of the Second Vatican Council into super heresies, turning them into absolute evil, in the same way the liberals have dogmatised a pastoral council. The “nevers” that have already been pronounced are already dramatic enough and we should not blow them out of proportion.”    
Finally, Fellay invited Tissier de Mallerais, de Gallareta and Williamson to admit that the proposal put forward by the personal prelature is very different from the agreement proposals received by Lefebvre in 1988: “to pretend that nothing has changed would be a mistake.” He asked them to take into account that problems in the Church, including serious ones cannot be resolved from one day to the next, but slowly and gradually.



What is the significance of these letters and, above all, can they interfere in the process that is currently under way? It would seem not. Instead, they illustrate the well known fact that profoundly different positions exist within the Society of St. Pius X. The decision has been made but it will take another day or so before the cardinals’ and the Pope’s final decisions are announced. Everything, however, points to the likelihood of an agreement being announced by the end of May. Only then will it become clear as to whether and in what way other bishops will comply.

Irony: Obama admin requires visitors at White House to register unborn babies as separate guests

WASHINGTON, May 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Despite being arguably the most pro-abortion administration in history, the Obama White House paradoxically requires unborn babies to be registered as separate guests when pregnant women visit the building, according to an official communiqué cited by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
NRLC cited a newsletter from Ellie Shafer, Director of the White House Visitor’s Office, which confirmed that, “crazy as it may sound,” a “baby that has not yet been born” must be included in the overall count of guests in a White House tour.
Shafer wrote that “the baby’s security information should be entered” into the White House system, including whether it is a boy or a girl, and which should be updated “once the baby is born.”
President Obama is famously protective of abortion rights: as an Illinois senator, Obama voted against language to protect children from being killed outside the womb following a botched abortion, citing a possibility that abortion rights would be curtailed.
“It is ironic that President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House - yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth,” said Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life legislative director.
“Notably, the newsletter provides no guidance on what the staff should do if an unborn baby is first registered for security purposes, but then aborted.”
Johnson pointed out that a House subcommittee plans to hold a hearing on the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) on May 17, which would generally prohibit abortion later than the sixth month in the District.
“If the President wants to provide for the security of the unborn child immediately outside of the White House gates, as well as inside, he should endorse this bill,” said Johnson.

Controversies prompt call for resignation at Vatican's pro-life academy

Vatican City, May 8, 2012(CNA).

Members of the Pontifical Academy for Life want its top officials to resign over a series of recent controversial decisions, including a conference described as the “worst day” in its history.
“I am not alone with my feeling of profound shock over the (Febuary 2012) public conference and some of the official PAV communications,” wrote Professor Josef Seifert, a member of the academy, in a May 4 letter to its president Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula.
The professor told the academy president that he “can understand those members – most of whom never before criticized the Pontifical Academy for Life and are very soft-spoken – who told me that the only choice that remains for the Directory Board … is to resign.”
In the wake of February's conference and subsequent events, Seifert expressed his “enormous concern” over the prospect of the academy “losing its full and pure commitment to the truth and its enthusiastic service to the unreduced magnificent Church teaching on human life in its whole splendor.”
Billed as a conference on ethical treatments for infertility, the pontifical academy's Feb. 24 assembly drew criticism from some participants who said it provided a platform for opponents of Church teaching. In Friday's letter, Seifert called it “the worst day in our history” at the Academy for Life.
In March, the academy canceled a planned conference on adult stem cells, which was due to feature speakers who also support embryonic research. Conference organizers went on to distance the academy from “some pro-life activists,” while giving varying explanations for the cancellation.
Natural family planning expert Mercedes Wilson, an academy member who presented at the February 2012 conference, joined Prof. Seifert in criticizing that event and the academy's recent direction.
Many academy members, she told CNA, “were shocked to hear that several of the invited presenters did not represent the teachings of the Catholic Church” at that gathering.
Wilson said she was one of “only two presenters who offered the audience natural solutions to the problems of infertility,” along with Pope Paul VI Institute founder Dr. Thomas Hilgers.
“As His Holiness Benedict XVI read his message to the participants of the assembly, it was obvious that he was not aware that the president and its governing council had invited presenters who are in complete disaccord with the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church,” Wilson recounted.
“There were presentations on in vitro fertilization, and other medical procedures that are forbidden by the teachings of the Church. This became a public scandal in an academy that was formed specifically to defend life and protect the teachings of Holy Mother Church.”
Wilson said the incident was also an insult to the Pope, “who assumed that the leaders of the Pontifical Academy for Life would be teaching and guarding the moral and spiritual interests of the Church.”
She told CNA that several academy members “approached the leadership of the Academy and expressed their shock and dismay” over the February conference. Non-member attendees were also “greatly disturbed that such speeches were being given within the Vatican walls.”
It was at this same gathering that the academy announced its April 2012 meeting on adult stem cells. Although that conference was later canceled, some members saw the entire incident – including the reasons given for the cancellation – as a betrayal of the pontifical academy's mission.
One letter, sent to a scheduled speaker by the academy's chancellor and officer for studies, stated that the conference was canceled for economic reasons – and not because of the “lobbying activity” of  “some pro-life activists” who “do not enjoy any credit” from the pontifical academy.
But a separate letter, signed only by the chancellor, said the meeting's indefinite postponement was due in part to the “threats coming from some persons” using “false and tendentious information” to raise “doubts or even fears” about the conference.
Organizers of the canceled April 2012 conference defended the choice of embryonic research supporters as speakers, saying they were also experts in adult stem cells and would not use the conference to promote views contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
But critics within the academy cited its founding statues, which allow work with “non-Catholic and non-Christian medical experts, so long as they recognize the essential moral foundation of science and medicine in the dignity of man and the inviolability of human life from conception to natural death.”
In his letter to Bishop Carrasco, Prof. Seifert stated his reasons for considering Feb. 24 as the lowest point in the pro-life academy's history.
He corroborated Wilson's account of the discussions about infertility that took place, saying they disregarded ethical norms of the natural law in favor of a supposedly “neutral” viewpoint. Five out of the seven papers delivered, he said, “stood in flat contradiction to Church teaching on morals.”
“The contraceptive pill was praised if taken for a while and introduced as a healthy means for restricting periods of fertility,” Seifert recalled. In vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and related technologies “were presented as morally acceptable and as major achievements.”
These presentations, he said, were “propaganda for everything the Church condemns in this field,” and they had “no legitimate place in our academy.”
Seifert also accused the academy of dismissing pro-life objections to the canceled stem cell conference  as “useless controversies,” and responding with “cynical mockery” to those who raised concerns about the infertility conference.
“Instead of offering refunds to participants who had been gravely misled and wasted their money to attend a Planned Parenthood-like meeting under the auspices of the Pontifical Academy for Life, these unhappy participants were brutally told, if they did not like what they heard, not to return next year.”
This same attitude, he said, was evident in the tone of the letters that announced the cancellation of the April 2012 stem cell conference.
These factors, Seifert told Bishop Carrasco, made it understandable that some members of the academy should look for signs of repentance – including not only apologies, but possibly resignations as well.
The professor's remarks may soon spark a larger conversation about the academy's direction. In a post-script to the letter, he told Bishop Carrasco he was encouraging “all my fellow members in the academy to let you know to which extent they agree with the contents of this letter.”

South Korea seizes capsules containing powdered flesh of dead babies

See http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/south-korea-seizes-capsules-containing-powdered-flesh-dead-190306280.html

Saint Basil’s Keys to Spiritual Growth

From http://heartsonfire33.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/saint-basils-keys-to-spiritual-growth-a-12-step-plan-for-everyone/

Keys to Spiritual Growth by Saint Basil the Great
01. Recognize the presence of God
I hereby command you: Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go. — Joshua 1:9

02. Accept the will of God
We can only learn to know ourselves and do what we can: namely,
surrender our will and fulfill God’s will in us. – Saint Teresa of Avila
I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.
– Psalm 40:08

03. Accept spiritual direction
The virtuous soul that is alone and without a master (a spiritual director) Is like a burning coal; it will grow colder rather than hotter.
— St. John of the Cross
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning [within us] while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?”
– Luke 24:31-32

04. Persevere
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. — Hebrews 12:1-2a

05. Acknowledge faults
If we acknowledge our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.  I John 1:9

06. Live simply
Live simply that others might simply live.  – Elizabeth Ann Seton
I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.  I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
– Saint Paul: Philippians 4:12-13

07. Be honest about yourself
Why do you notice the splinter in your another’s eye,
but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your another,
‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’
while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first;
then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your another’s eye.
– Jesus (Matthew 7:3-5)

08. Be willing to learn from others
I think he thought that the object of opening the mind
is simply opening the mind.
Whereas I am incurably convinced that
the object of opening the mind,
as of opening the mouth,
is to shut it again on something solid.
– G.K. Chesterton
Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
and the one who understands obtain guidance,
– Proverbs 1:5 (ESV)

09. Listen to people
Two are better than one: They get a good wage for their toil.
If the one falls, the other will help the fallen one.
But woe to the solitary person! If that one should fall, there is no other to help.
– Quoheleth (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10)

10. Speak kindly to others
Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless.
–Blessed Teresa of Calcutta
No foul language should come out of your mouths,
but only such as is good for needed edification,
that it may impart grace to those who hear.
– Ephesians 4:29

11.  Accept others the way they are
Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be,
since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be.
– Thomas à Kempis, Imitation of Christ

12. Be Centered and Serene
God grant me the serenity to
accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can; and
wisdom to know the difference.
– Reinhold Niebuhr

Vatican Plans to Reduce the Number of Annulments by Increasing Restrictions

NCR  May 1, 2012:

A Rome conference in late April hinted that the Vatican may be moving towards a more restrictive posture on annulments, the procedure in church law for declaring a marriage null and void, which some critics refer to as “Catholic divorce.”
If so, the fallout could have special significance for the United States, home to just 6 percent of the world’s Catholic population but accounting for roughly two-thirds of the 60,000 annulments issued by church courts each year.
The April 26-27 Rome conference focused on canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law, which allows a marriage to be declared null if one of the parties lacked the ability to consent because of “causes of a psychic nature.” Of the 15 to 20 possible grounds for an annulment in church law, more are granted on the basis of canon 1095 than all others combined, roughly two-thirds of the total.
As a result, some wags have dubbed canon 1095 the “loose canon.”
Over the centuries, church courts typically interpreted the capacity to consent fairly narrowly – as long as someone was of age, not coerced and not clearly insane, they were presumed to be capable. Yet as divorce has become more common, there’s often a powerful pastoral drive to find grounds for an annulment, given that a Catholic whose marriage breaks up can’t get remarried in the church without one, and if they remarry under civil law, they’re excluded from the sacraments.
Some critics argue that the pastoral desire to help people in difficulty has led to an overly elastic interpretation of canon 1095.
Sheila Rauch Kennedy, who successfully fought to overturn an annulment granted to her husband, then-U.S. Congressman Joseph Kennedy, in 1997, has written that church courts in America have adopted such an expansive reading of canon 1095 that it can now cover “almost anything ... from personality traits such as self-centeredness, moodiness or being eager to please, to unproven ‘disorders’.”
If the conference sponsored by Rome’s Opus Dei-run University of the Holy Cross is any indication, that loose canon may be about to become a little tighter.
Polish Bishop Antoni Stankiewicz, dean of the Roman Rota, the Vatican court that handles most marriage cases, told the conference that interpretation of canon 1095 must avoid an “anthropological pessimism” that would hold that “it’s almost impossible to get married, in view of the current cultural situation.”
“We must reaffirm the innate human capacity to marry,” Stankiewicz told the group.
The session during which Stankiewicz spoke was presided over by American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who heads the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s equivalent of the Supreme Court.
Stankiewicz argued that Christian doctrine insists upon a “natural disposition to marriage” because the “gift of Christ is not exhausted in the celebration of the wedding. It extends to all of married life, supporting the spiritual growth of the spouses in the necessary virtues, duties and commitments of marriage.”
His conclusion was that church courts should not be quick to presume an inability to give consent.
Stankiewicz warned against a “personalistic current” in legal theory, which would suggest there are “grades” in someone’s capacity to consent. In reality, he suggested, capacity in the legal sense either exists or it doesn’t. (For the same reason, Stankiewicz said he had opposed adding the word “grave” to the Code of Canon Law in regard to the concept of defect, saying, “It’s always a problem when you introduce adjectives into the law.”)
Citing Pope John Paul II, Stankiewicz said there’s a distinction between the “minimal capacity” required by church law and the “full realization of human potential in terms of the intellect and the will.”
Stankiewicz said expert witnesses in annulment procedures will often declare someone “incapable” of consent in that “more expansive” sense, when, he argued, that’s not the legal standard. He described that trend as filling up “the minimum standard with the maximum content.”
“We can’t equate incapacity with a lack of moral virtue,” he said. “Otherwise we would be saying that only saints can have valid marriages.”
Fr. Juan Ignacio Bañares, an Opus Dei priest who teaches canon law at the University of Navarra in Spain, argued that in order to establish the sort of “grave defect of judgment” called for in canon 1095, it’s not enough merely to show that someone’s commitment to marriage was lukewarm.
The sort of “grave defect” that truly undercuts a capacity to consent, Bañares argued, “must regard the person as a whole,” and therefore should produce effects “in other areas of life.” In that sense, Bañares questioned the notion of a defect specific to marriage.
That’s a point Stankiewicz seemed to echo, asking: “How can you be incapable of marriage, yet perfectly capable of doing everything else?”
At one stage, Stankiewicz took a question from the floor about whether it might be better simply to take canon 1095 off the books, or at least its third point about defects “of a psychic nature.”
“I’ve heard important people who would be in favor of suppressing it,” Stankiewicz said. Yet he argued that “suppression wouldn’t resolve the problems,” and that what’s needed instead if “more precision on the meaning of ‘capacity’.”
While the tenor of those presentations would seem to point to tightening the standards for annulment, observers expressed a note of caution.
Pope John Paul II, both in 1987 and 1988, and Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, issued similar calls for a stricter interpretation of church law in their annual addresses to the Roman Curia, and so far most observers believe those injunctions have not significantly changed the practice of church courts.
To be sure, the number of annulments being granted each year in the United States is in decline. From peak of almost 64,000 in 1991, the number fell to 35,000 in 2007. Yet observers say that drop-ff isn’t so much because courts in America became stricter, but rather because fewer Catholics are applying for an annulment.

Irish Bill proposes full legal status for humanist weddings

From http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0501/1224315408779.html

DEAGLÁN de BRÉADÚN, Political Correspondent

THE GOVERNMENT is expected to agree today to back legislation giving humanists the same status as organised religions and civil registrars in conducting marriage ceremonies.
Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton is due to ask her ministerial colleagues to support the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill at this morning’s Cabinet meeting.
The legislation was introduced in the Seanad as a Private Members’ Bill by Trinity College Senator Ivana Bacik and is due to pass final stages in the Upper House tomorrow.
The Bill proposes to amend the Civil Registration Act 2004, which regulates the registration of civil marriages.
The 2004 Act stipulates that, apart from Health Service Executive registrars, only a member of a “religious body” may celebrate legal marriages.
This is defined as “an organised group of people, members of which meet regularly for common religious worship”.
This includes organisations such as the Pagan Federation Ireland and the Spiritualist Union of Ireland, which have obtained registration under the Act.
But the definition excludes members of the Humanist Association of Ireland, who currently conduct humanist wedding ceremonies even though these are not legally recognised.
The Bill proposes to extend the right to conduct civil marriages to nonreligious groups such as the HAI. A group of this nature must be a “philosophical and nonconfessional body”, have been performing marriage ceremonies for at least five years, and at least 20 couples must have participated in the ceremony.
Once the Bill has passed through the Seanad tomorrow, it will proceed to the Dáil, where it is expected to be introduced by Ms Burton.
Brian Whiteside of the HAI said that, in the past, it had been “left out in the cold” but persisted in its efforts to obtain the right to solemnise marriages and have “parity of esteem” with religious bodies.
There had been “no real progress” until the change of government last year, when Ms Bacik agreed to take up their cause.
“As the law stands presently a couple cannot have a legally binding, nonreligious marriage ceremony on a Saturday, as the State registrars work only Monday to Friday,” he added.
The proportion of couples choosing a non-religious, civil wedding ceremony in Ireland has increased from 6 per cent in 1996 to more than 23 per cent in 2006, according to the Central Statistics Office.
Humanism is defined as “an ethical philosophy of life, based on a concern for humanity, which combines reason with compassion”.
The HAI has nine accredited celebrants who conducted 153 marriage ceremonies last year.

Egypt’s Islamists are repealing women's rights

FrontPage Mag reported on April 27, 2012:

Egypt’s Islamists  have outraged the civilized world by proposing several pieces of legislation that begin the process of rolling back the meager gains made by women in that country over the last decade.
The first proposed law would lower the legal age a girl can marry to 14. The second proposal, inspired by a fatwa from a Moroccan cleric, would grant husbands permission to have sex with their wives within 6 hours of their death.
Another Islamist-sponsored piece of legislation would repeal the right of women to seek a divorce from an abusive husband without obstruction from her spouse. Still another proposal would mandate the barbaric practice of female circumcision.
The series of proposals, as well as others under consideration that would severely restrict opportunities for women and girls in education and employment, aim to roll back the modest progress on women’s rights that advocates won during the Mubarak era. The laws threaten to reduce women to the status of chattel where they will be literally owned by their husbands who will be able to control all aspects of their personal lives.
The proposals come as the Obama administration appears to have accepted the rule of Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia, and other “Arab Spring” countries while exposing their naive belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is “moderate” and “secular” in its nature.
And the proposals make a mockery of promises by the Muslim Brotherhood that they would seek to implement Sharia law slowly. In a few weeks, women in Egypt may see their status return to those of their ancestors in the Middle Ages.
The Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) is being pushed by the more radical Salfis (al-Nour) to quicken the implementation of Sharia law. The presidential election is partly responsible for this, as the al-Nour candidate, Hazem Abu Ismail, was declared ineligible to run by the country’s election commission and the FJP’s second candidate (their first candidate was also disqualified), party chief Mohammed Morsi, has had to tack to the right in order to gain the support of the Salifis. Thus, Morsi declared that a council of Muslim scholars will “advise” parliament on all proposed legislation and added ”The Qur’an is our constitution, and sharia is our guide!” This push to satisfy the Salifis led to an important endorsement from the Jurisprudence Commission for Rights and Reform, a panel of clerics mostly from the ultraconservative Salafis and new Islamist parties. It is likely to gain him another endorsement soon from a hard-line organization of extremist clerics as well.
With gradual “reform” of women’s rights out the window, the proposed legislation has angered the small group of advocates who fought for the secularization of Egyptian society in the last decade. Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) President Dr Mervat al-Talawi, wrote a letter to the Speaker of the Assembly, warning that the proposed changes were “marginalizing and undermining the status of women” and “would negatively affect the country’s human development.”
It wasn’t just women’s groups who are outraged at the proposals. The idea that a man can have sex with his dead wife made one popular TV anchor nearly speechless. Jaber al-Qarmouty of ON TV told his audience:

This is very serious. Could the panel that will draft the Egyptian constitution possibly discuss such issues? Did Abdul Samea see by his own eyes the text of the message sent by Talawi to Katatni? This is unbelievable. It is a catastrophe to give the husband such a right! Has the Islamic trend reached that far? Is there really a draft law in this regard? Are there people thinking in this manner?

Dubbed the “Farewell Intercourse” law, the concept originated with a Moroccan cleric, Zamzami Abdelbari, who issued a fatwa last year that said necrophilia was “halal” or, religiously acceptable. He took as evidence a Koranic verse that says husbands will go to paradise with their wives. The fatwa also gave wives permission to have sex with their dead husbands, but as the Moroccan news service report said at the time, the imam “failed to explain how a woman can manage to perform sex with the corps (sic) of her dead husband.” The cleric is no stranger to controversy, having also said two years ago that it was permissible for a pregnant woman to drink alcohol.
The Farewell Intercourse law is getting all the attention, but it is the other planks in the Islamist platform that will do the most damage to Egyptian women. In anticipation of changes coming down the road, many universities are already segregating men and women in the classroom and outside activities. Threats from Islamists have caused some pop concerts on campus to be canceled. And the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that at some middle and high schools, students start the day by “shouting religious chants.” Clearly, a new wind is blowing through Egypt — and Islamist wind — and society is already making its peace with the new regime.
All of this makes the Obama administration’s outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood incomprehensible. Recall that two weeks ago, members of the FJP — some of whom will be voting on the sex after death and other anti-women legislation — visited the White House. At the time, White House press secretary Jay Carney said:

Because of the fact that Egypt’s political landscape has changed, the actors have become more diverse and our engagement reflects that. The point is that we will judge Egypt’s political actors by how they act — not by their religious affiliation.

As if to underscore the surreal nature of the administration’s policy, National Journal’s Michael Hirsch relates a startling conversation he had with a “high level official” of the State Department:

“The war on terror is over,” one senior State Department official who works on Mideast issues told me. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

“Legitimate Islamism” is a made-up concept with no connection to the real world. The question isn’t can we live with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties. The question is how can we, as a western democracy dedicated to equal rights and equality of opportunity, legitimize a movement whose utter barbarity is out in the open for all to see. Lowering the legal age for marriage to 14 is Medieval. Mandating female circumcision is beyond belief in a 21st century society. Forcing a wife to stay with an abusive husband by denying her the right to a divorce is beyond cruel.
The dictator Mubarak was a cruel and oppressive tyrant. But under his rule, Egypt was gradually being brought into the modern world. Women had just begun to organize to fight for rights that many Arab countries deny exist. It was a long way from perfect, but the promise of a better life for women and girls was on the horizon.
Now, those hopes will be dashed and women will return to their status as property. Will American women’s rights group criticize this president for his naive and shortsighted policies? Will they stand in solidarity with their sisters in Egypt whose lives are to be ruined by fanatics? Will they seek a boycott of Egypt, or agitate against aid to Cairo, or call on the UN to sanction the Islamists for their nauseating policies?
Don’t hold your breath.