Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Catholic Church’

Rabbi David Rosen Speaks on Pius XII and the Holocaust

After hearing this video on Catholic-Jewish relations I looked up Pius XII. I never bought the meme that Pope Pius XII was silent and didn’t do much to save the Jews during the Holocaust.  That is revisionist history. Could he have done more? Maybe. Could each of us do more in certain areas of our lives? Yes.  Fr. William Saunders answers Did Pope Pius XII Remain Silent? in this article:

To begin to understand Pius XII’s actions during the World War II, we must remember the world in which he lived. Hitler had assumed control of Germany in 1933. In July of that same year, he began not only persecuting Jews but also Christians. He infiltrated the German Evangelical Federation (the Lutheran Church), removing leaders who were opposed to his agenda. Many of these ministers died in concentration camps or prisons, like the famous Deitrich Bonhoffer.

The persecution was even more intense for the Catholic Church. Gestapo agents attended Mass and listened to every homily preached, prepared to arrest any priest attacking or criticizing the regime. Chanceries were searched for any “incriminating” documents. Communication with Rome was limited. Nazi propaganda represented the Church as unpatriotic and hoarding wealth with clerics portrayed as idle and avaricious. By 1940, all Catholic schools had been closed, and religious instruction confined to the Church itself or at home. Meanwhile, anti-Christian teaching was imparted in the public schools.

Please note that the first concentration camp was established in 1933 at Dachau, outside of Munich; this camp was not .so much an “extermination camp” as one for the political prisoners, including priests. At Dachau alone, 2,700 priests were imprisoned (of which 1,000 died), and were subject to the most awful tortures, including the medical experiments of Dr. Rascher.

Such persecution was not confined to Germany. The Church in Poland also suffered severely. During the first four months of occupation following the September 1939 invasion, 700 priests were shot and 3,000 were sent to concentration camps (of which 2,600 died). By the end of the war, 3 million Polish Catholics had been killed in concentration camps. How many other Catholics–priests, religious, and laityin other countries died for the faith during the Nazi era?  CONTINUED 

I was really surprised how well Fr. Saunders outlined what Pope Pius XII did to save the Jews.  I am really impressed with how much Pope Pius XII did to save the Jewish people during the Holocaust.

Read Full Post »

Popelove2

 

 

Popelove

 

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI  is in our thoughts and prayers as he enters a new phase, a new journey in his life. Sending many blessings his way.

Read Full Post »

H/T Breitbart 

Secretary of Defense Panetta said: “The real story was that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to Bin Laden, there were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

After much introspection and because of a discussion on the topic of torture I have come around full circle to my original position on enhanced interrogation techniques. Our government may have overused these techniques but I think that these enhanced interrogation techniques are a necessity.  It may be necessary to use some of these techniques more frequently than others but I believe they are all needed to one degree or another in order to obtain and/or verify information from the terrorists. In addition I don’t see these techniques as constituting torture. Plus, there is no consensus or clear-cut definition of torture.

I know that the president takes an oath to defend and protect citizens from harm and in the discussion on a blog some of the commenters acknowledged this but, then they went onto to say that the president could authorize the use of what they call “torture”, the enhanced interrogation techniques, in order to save lives but then they continued the discussion by emphasizing that the president should have to accept the consequences.  They suggested court-martial. It’s not possible to court-martial a president. It’s too late to impeach Bush, since that’s probably the president that they were referring to. I disagree with this vehemently. Either the president has the obligation to protect the American people or he doesn’t.  Since he takes a pledge the president does have an obligation to protect us and he should have every reasonable type of interrogation technique available for his authorization so that those who carry out the interrogations – those responsible for getting information to stop attacks –  are able to have the best possible ways to stop future terrorist attacks.

Then I read a superb article by Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D. where he explains the Church’s history on torture and Biblical references to torture which pertains to the torture debate today and the enhanced interrogation techniques used by our government.

The nasty subject of torture, not normally a headline-grabbing topic in the twentieth century, has recently been catapulted to a much higher level of prominence in public debate throughout the world in the heightened atmosphere of tension following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

What are we Catholics to think about this subject? While recent magisterial statements (none of them definitive and infallible) have reprobated torture, Catholic theologians and apologists still face a challenge. The overall testimony of our authorities — Scripture, Tradition and the magisterium — over three millennia is by no means very clear, or even obviously consistent, in regard to the morality of intentional infliction of pain.

Even deciding what exactly we mean by torture is not easy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes it as “physical or moral violence” (CCC 2297); the definition given by the 1984 United Nations Convention on Torture is “the intentional infliction of severe pain.” The words violence and severe are themselves somewhat vague. Who draws the line — and where? — as to which specific practices are harsh enough to correspond to those words? What has become clear in the contemporary debate is that while many shudder-evoking practices (which needn’t be spelled out here) are recognized by everyone as meriting the name torture, there is no consensus about whether other less extreme interrogation techniques really count as torture: for instance, sleep deprivation, being kept under harsh temperatures or in uncomfortable positions, or “waterboarding” (which causes a brief, panic-inducing sensation of being about to drown but no pain or injury). Since no Catholic magisterial intervention so far offers any real guidance for resolving this controversy, the only methods we can be sure are included under “torture,” when that word appears in Church documents, are those in the former group. CONTINUED 

Like I said in one of my comments where the discussion on torture took place, abortion much more clearly falls under the definitive description of torture than any of the interrogation techniques mentioned above. Abortion is an apt example of “physical and moral violence” taking place. So therefore IMO besides abortion being murder it also falls under the Church’s definition of torture.  But these same people who are so outspoken on what they perceive to be torture are totally okay with abortion being legal. This is so sad especially because abortion involves the killing of an innocent human being who hasn’t done any harm to anyone while the other involves a person who is more dangerous than the average criminal, is threatening violence against innocents and is withholding information that is vital to stopping a terrorist attack. Some people are so backwards with their thinking and have a screwed up sense of morality.

Read Full Post »

la-me-0123-lopez-mahony-20130123-001

Since 2011 Archbishop Gomez has been sifting through documents related to the sexual abuse cover up in the L.A. Archdiocese and these documents have brought to light Cardinal Mahony’s efforts to hide the abuse.  Archbishop Gomez has relieved Cardinal Mahony of his duties. He was already retired so I’m not sure what other punishments can be administered beyond his being denied the authority to do confirmations since Cardinal Mahony is retired.  The L.A. Times has reactions from parishioners here.  Steve Lopez is correct. Mahony’s actions to hide the perpetrators who committed sexual abuse is deplorable and evil.  Here is a bit more of the scoop on this from Father Z: 

The Archbishop of Los Angeles, Most Rev. José H. Gomez, has said “Effective immediately, I have informed Cardinal Mahony that he will no longer have any administrative or public duties.”  See the pdf of the letter HERE.

What this means is that His Eminence cannot be any sort of representative for the sitting Archbishop or for the Archdiocese.  Canon law itself gives Cardinal some faculties.  According to can. 357§2, “in those matters which pertain to their own person, cardinals living outside of Rome and outside their own diocese are exempt from the power of governance of the bishop of the diocese in which they are residing.”  So, there is little that Archbp. Gomez can do, except cancel every public event in which Card. Mahony was going to play a principle part, such as confirmations.

 

Mahony made sure that he kept the truth hidden for years so it is good and just that Archbishop Gomez has gotten to the bottom of things and is taking the appropriate action.

Read Full Post »

Here is a piece called Acting On Faith by Cardinal Donald Wuerl:

The Catholic Church is no stranger to criticism from those who disagree with its teachings, but the petition posted recently on the White House Web site to label the church a “hate group” is beyond the pale, even in an age when an aggressive secularism seeks to marginalize the influence of religious belief.

The church has long been criticized as “too dogmatic.” Demands are constantly made that it change its 2,000-year-old teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, morality and other matters related to the truth about human beings. But even if others do not agree, the church understands that what it proclaims is revealed truth — the Word of God. The church’s teachings are timeless. They cannot be changed, even though adherence may be upsetting to some. That the church is built on a rock with fixed beliefs is a positive feature, both because it can withstand the shifting winds of public opinion and because of the cherished content of our faith itself, which fosters love among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Although these precepts may be misunderstood by many today, the fundamental vocation of the Catholic Church is to provide the witness of love and truth to the world, including offering the voice of an informed conscience. Catholics are taught to respect the fundamental, inherent dignity of every person, each made in the image of God, and to work to establish a just society. The church teaches that it is our obligation to manifest love of neighbor, to provide charitable service to others, and to promote truth, genuine freedom and authentic humanism. We work for the poor, the oppressed and the suffering, because that is what our faith teaches we must do. There is thus a positive side to being dogmatic: The teachings and works of the church advance the common good throughout civil society. Just as our dogma is constant, so is the work it commands. CONTINUED 

Read Full Post »

I recently became aware of a situation in the Church’s past where a Pope used a type of coercion to make sure a young child would be raised Catholic.  The circumstances ultimately led to the dissolution of the Papal States.  The whole scenario is bizarre.  A maid working for a Jewish family supposedly secretly had the child baptized because he was ill and close to death.  When the child recovered, the maid reported the baptism.  There was a law in effect that a Catholic child could not be raised by non-Catholics.    The Pope was so concerned for the child’s eternal soul that he chose to do a deplorable temporal act, what others believed to be a criminal act (what I would consider to be criminal), because the Pope believed that the young child’s soul would be in danger if after having been baptized he wasn’t raised to be a Catholic Christian.  Let’s just say I was totally shocked when I read about this event and to find out it was true was scandalous and even more appalling to me.

It is because of this type of coercive behavior that I believe that the installation of Dignitatis Humanae during Vatican II was not only a good thing but a necessity for the Catholic Church.

Here is the first paragraph of Dignitatis Humanae:

1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,(1) and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.

This text emphasizes freedom, a responsible freedom that the human spirit must choose without coercion.

 

Read Full Post »

What do you think of the list? Do you think the laity who took part in the poll hit the nail on the head? Can you think of any other causes for the crisis in the Church?

Read Full Post »

Catholic Charities must follow the Magisterium in totality.  We have seen the secularization in our society creep into certain Catholic charities and thus conflict with Church teachings, such as abortion and contraception.  Pope Benedict XVI has released an apostolic letter  which outlines the duty for Catholic charities to follow Church teachings while spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Pope Benedict also called on the bishops to improve their supervision of Catholic charities, to ensure that Catholic  organizations work is consistent with Church teachings.

Pope Benedict observed that it is the duty of the diocesan bishops and parish priests to safeguard that, in charitable service, the faithful “are not led into error or misunderstanding.”

According to Father Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International, there has been a dramatic increase in charitable services to the poor becoming integrated with practices that are inconsistent with Church teaching.
“Emergency shelter somehow requires legalized abortion, food comes with condoms and incredible pressure to reduce birth rates, economic assistance requires adoption of a radical sexual and political agenda,” said Boquet. “More and more the message to the poor and suffering from the secular development industry is ‘we’ll help you, but you need to stop having children now and leave your traditions behind.’”

“The Church’s charitable activity at all levels must avoid the risk of becoming just another form of organized social assistance,” the pope wrote. He instructed that bishops and priests “are to prevent publicity being given through parish or diocesan structures to initiatives which, while presenting themselves as charitable, proposes choices or methods at odds with the Church’s teaching.” In addition, the pope wrote that church leaders must see to it that “the norms of the Church’s universal and particular law are respected, as well as the intentions of the faithful who made donations or bequests for these specific purposes.”

The pope explicitly identified the organization, Caritas Internationalis, the umbrella group that represents hundreds of Catholic charitable groups around the world. The U.S. members of Caritas are Catholic Charities U.S.A. and Catholic Relief Services.

In 2009, LifeSiteNews uncovered evidence that groups promoting legalized abortion and artificial contraceptives were being funded through grants from the Canadian Catholic Organisation for Development and Peace. Since that time, the Vatican has been forced to intervene directly on at least two occasions in Caritas activities.
Stephen Mosher, president of Population Research Institute, said that the pope’s directive “is a welcome corrective to the corrosive secularization of many Catholic agencies around the world, including Catholic Relief Services in the U.S. African and Latin American bishops have been complaining for years about so-called ‘Catholic charities’ that are, in fact, neither authentically Catholic nor truly charitable.”

Cardinal Robert Sarah, head of the Pontifical Council that oversees the Church’s charities, had earlier warned of a “silent apostasy” within Catholic charities when he informed Caritas:
Today, dear friends, the tragedy of modern mankind is not lacking clothing and housing. The most tragic hunger and the most terrible anguish is not lack of food. It’s much more about the absence of God and the lack of true love, the love that was revealed to us on the Cross.

Read Full Post »

Did you watch VP debate last night? I did.  What did you think of it? I thought it was a pretty good debate, pretty fiery at that.  Towards the end of the debate Martha Raddatz, the moderator, asked Joe Biden and Paul Ryan this:

This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. 

Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country … please talk personally about this, if you could.

Paul Ryan answered:

I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. 

Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science. 

You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.” Now I believe that life begins at conception. 

That’s why – those are the reasons why I’m pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. 

Our Church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties. And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme.

 

Joe Biden answered: 

My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who – who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. 

With regard to – with regard to abortion, I accept my Church’s position on abortion as a – what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception in the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. 

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the – the congressman. I – I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that – women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that. 

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. 

That is a fact. Now with regard to the way in which the – we differ, my friend says that he – well I guess he accepts Governor Romney’s position now, because in the past he has argued that there was – there’s rape and forcible rape. He’s argued that in the case of rape or incest, it was still – it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.

 

Paul Ryan’s answer was beautiful and a great testament to both his Catholic Faith and his pro-life views.  Since there are problems with Joe Biden’s answer I am going to focus on his.

While Biden claims to follow the Church’s de fide doctrinal position on abortion he really doesn’t because if he did he would assent to the Church teaching which states that all life is precious and abortion is murder.  A law is unjust that doesn’t protect human life at all stages. Biden wouldn’t say that he doesn’t want to impose his personal beliefs on others if he truly had any respect for all human life, especially the most vulnerable.

From the Catechism: “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”56

Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.”61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

 

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

 

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 ”by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”82

2275 ”One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”83

“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”84

“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

What Biden calls a personal choice for women is not simply a personal preference like choosing between the type of shampoo, soap, hair style, or the make of vehicle one likes.  We are talking about a human being which exists or is alive from the moment of conception.  Biden doesn’t want to impose his beliefs so women don’t murder these innocent babies.  It is sick and sad that murder equals “women’s rights” and “equality” in pro-aborts minds.

 

Kristi Burton Brown from Live Action News made a great point.

Biden also contradicted his own admission that life begins at conception by stating that he does “not believe that we have a right to tell other people that – women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor.” However, if he believes that life – presumably a new life – begins at conception, we are not just talking about a woman controlling her own body. We are talking about ending the life of a new, unique human being. Biden seems to personally realize this truth, but refused to publicly acknowledge it.

 

At 8 weeks….

 

 

 

Baby Samuel…

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 497 other followers