For more information see http://cenacleosb.org/
See also http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0328/1224314008240.html
Sunday, May 20, 2012
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
For more information see http://cenacleosb.org/
See also http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0328/1224314008240.html
Saturday, May 12, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
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.
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
.
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.”
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.”
Monday, May 7, 2012
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
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.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Irish Bill proposes full legal status for humanist weddings
From http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0501/1224315408779.html
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)