National Cathedral Hosts Islamic Prayers; Lone Protester Interrupts Service

Church & Ministries - The Washington National Cathedral hosted it first Muslim prayer service Friday afternoon in an effort to promote interfaith prayer and improved global relations between Muslims and Christians.

UPDATE: 3:31 p.m. The Muslim prayer service held at the Washington National Cathedral was briefly disrupted by a protester, according to a local NBC report.

"Jesus Christ died on that cross over there!" a woman said loudly, immediately after announcements at the beginning of the service were made. "He is the reason why we are to worship only him. Jesus Christ is our lord and savior!"

According to the NBC report, she continued, "We have built, and allowed you here in mosques across this country. Why can't you worship in your mosque, and leave our chuches alone?"

The protester was then escorted out of the cathedral, News4's Kristin Wright reported. She was removed without incident, but she continued her protest once she was taken to an adjoining space.

The Catholic church set in Washington, D.C. altered its visitor tour schedule in order to host traditional Islamic Friday prayers called Jumu'ah. The service was led by South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool, and held in the Cathedral's north transept, an area considered "almost mosque-like" because of its arches and limited iconography.

Although this is not the first time the Cathedral has welcomed Muslims to join in on its interfaith services and events, it is the first time it has invited Muslims to lead their own prayers within its walls.

Rev. Canon Gina Gilland Campbell was scheduled to offer a welcome to start off the service.

According to the National Cathedral website,Campbell wanted to hold the historic service because she believes that "powerful things come out of praying together."

The site further explains "Leaders believe offering Muslim prayers at the Christian cathedral shows more than hospitality. It demonstrates an appreciation of one another's prayer traditions and is a powerful symbolic gesture toward a deeper relationship between the two Abrahamic traditions."

Not everyone supports the Cathedral's gesture. American Family Association Director of Issue Analysis Bryan Fischer said the Muslim prayer service violates the Ten Commandments.

"The first one of the Ten Commandments is what, you—talking the nation of Israel, true for individuals but this was the Ten Commandments for a nation – you shall have no other Gods before me. Allah is another God," He explained on his Focal Point podcast.

This is not the first time the National Cathedral has invited controversy with its services. In June the Cathedral invited openly transgendered Episcopal priest Rev. Cameron Partridge to preach from its pulpit in honor of LGBT pride month. Openly gay Episcopal Bishop Rev. Gene Robinson presided over the Sunday service. The Cathedral also hosts gay marriage ceremonies.

Planners hope Friday's service will inspire Muslims around the world to be hospitable to Christians.

The service was scheduled to be livestreamed onto the Cathedral's website so it is accessible to everyone.

Catch Me When I Fall

'Tis the Season ...

The Truth About Some "Anti-Social" People

The Crucial Difference in Animal Welfare and Rights

CFACT - During a speech at the Animal Rights 2001 Convention, Bruce Friedrich said, “If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows.” Blowing things up? That’s pretty strong language for the Vegan Campaign Coordinator of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, otherwise known as PETA. Many Americans believe PETA is a mainstream animal welfare group promoting humane treatment of animals and providing local animal shelters for stray or abused cats and dogs. But the facts reveal otherwise.

Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights

Like most animal rights groups, PETA is not an animal welfare organization. Animal welfare groups seek to ensure the humane treatment of animals like a local humane animal shelter. Rather, as pointed out by Animalscam.com, animal rights groups seek equal rights for animals with humans to prevent people from using or owning animals in any way. Animal welfare organizations have been around for centuries. Animal rights groups emerged in the 1980s with the rise of PETA.

Animal rights groups defend their position by claiming many other animals are psychological beings just like humans, with an experiential welfare of their own. Therefore, humans and animals are the same and equal, and we have no right to use animals for food, clothing or medical research.

PETA believes that animals deserve the most basic rights. These include consideration of their own best interests regardless of their usefulness to humans. Like humans, they are capable of suffering and have interests of their own. Therefore, animals are not ours to use–for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, or for any other reason. “Our goal,” PETA President Ingrid Newkirk told the Animal Rights 2002 Convention, “is total animal liberation.”

Those that raise animals disagree. Pets are normally loved by their owners and well cared for. Farm animals are raised in an “environment that reduces stress and recognizes the science-based behavioral, physiological and physiological needs of each species,” notes animalagalliance.org. “Regardless of species,” notes animalagalliance.org, “an animal held in an environment that creates undue stress will not thrive,” reducing productivity for the farmer. The same is true for biomedical work. Good research demands good treatment of test subjects.

Animalrights.net has identified over one hundred animal rights groups. Besides PETA, one of the largest is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HSUS was established in 1954 by splintering from the conservative American Humane Association, a true and highly respected animal welfare organization. HSUS became an animal rights organization in the 1980s after seeing the financial success of PETA.

Many people accuse HSUS of deliberately playing off its name. Activistcash.com reports that HSUS’s fund raising campaigns leads donors to believe HSUS is a pet loving organization, working on behalf of dogs, puppies, cats, kittens. Like nearly all animal rights organizations, HSUS does very little to help improve animal welfare in any community. Although HSUS could afford to operate humane animal shelters in every state, it operates none. Rather, it is in the forefront of the effort to legally redefine pets as “companions” and their owners as “guardians.”

Like many other animal rights groups, HSUS pours huge sums of money into referendum and legislative campaigns to stop any use of animals. “Along with other heavy hitters like the Fund for Animals and Farm Sanctuary,” notes activistcash.com, “HSUS scored a big victory in Florida in 2002 when a ballot initiative passed that gave constitutional rights to pregnant pigs.”

Among other things, the new rights for Florida pigs banned farmers from using “gestation crates.” The crates are necessary to humanely keep sows healthy during pregnancy and to prevent them from accidentally rolling over and crushing their newborn piglets. The new law did nothing to improve the welfare of pigs, but did make pig farming economically unsustainable. The Fund for Animals and Farm Sanctuary accomplished exactly what they wanted. Today there are virtually no pig farms in Florida.

HSUS, PETA and other animal rights groups increasingly achieve their goals of “total animal liberation” by employing an “any means necessary” philosophy. A growing number take the law into their own hands, crossing the line from peaceful protest to violent crime. For instance, PETA’s Friedrich emphasized the use of violence in his speech at the 2001 Animal Rights Conference, “I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow! Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.”

The Dark World of Violence and Terrorism

Two of the most violent animal rights groups are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).  Both are groups considered by the FBI as terrorist organizations whose purpose is to bring about social and political change using force and violence.

ALF is described by the FBI as a loosely organized movement committed to ending their perceived abuse and exploitation of animals. Established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, the American branch of ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals do not “join” ALF by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging in “direct action” against companies or individuals who utilize animals for research or economic gain. The FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, James F. Jarboe, testified to the House Resources Subcommittee on February 12, 2002, “direct action generally occurs in the form of criminal activity to cause economic loss or to destroy the victims’ company operations.”

Despite the destructive aspects of ALF’s operations, its operational philosophy usually discourages acts that harm any animal, human and nonhuman. Yet, ALF activists have engaged in a steadily growing campaign of violent activity against fur companies, mink farms, restaurants, and animal research laboratories. In his February 2002 congressional testimony, Jarboe said, “ALF has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States.” He continued, “Estimates of damage and destruction in the United States claimed by ALF during the past ten years [are] more than 45 million dollars.”

Both ALF/ELF declare solidarity between the two groups and have crossover leadership and membership. The FBI’s Executive Assistant Director of Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence, Dale L. Watson, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 6, 2002 that during 1996 to 2001 ALF/ELF together committed approximately 600 criminal acts in the United States resulting in damages in excess of 42 million dollars.

According to Watson, arson is the tool of choice for ALF/ELF. ALF/ELF activists consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms, often constructed using instructions found on ALF/ELF websites. ELF, for instance, claimed responsibility for the arson fires set at a Vail, Colorado, ski resort in October 1998 that destroyed eight separate structures and caused $12 million dollars in damages. In a communique issued after the fires, ELF claimed that the fires were in retaliation for the resort’s alleged destruction of the last remaining lynx habitat in Colorado.

In another example, a jury convicted ALF activist Rodney Coronado of arson in the multi-million dollar 1992 torching of a Michigan State University animal research lab. During the trial in came out that days before Coronado committed this terrorist crime, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk requested he FedEx her any documents he stole prior to torching the facility. The FBI intercepted the FedEx package and found the stolen documents and a video of a masked Coronado committing the crime.

Particularly disturbing is a donation by PETA of $45,200 to Coronado’s “support committee” and a “loan” of $25,000 to his father. The father never repaid the loan, leading many to speculate Coronado was working for PETA.

Coronado received a sentence of 57 months in federal prison in 1995. Following his release, Coronado openly confessed to at least six other arsons for which the statute of limitations had passed. While speaking to over 100 college radicals at the American University in January 2003, Coronado demonstrated the “correct” way to build a firebomb out of household materials. A few days later, ALF activists tried to burn down a McDonald’s restaurant in Chico, California, using a firebomb that matched Coronado’s recipe.

Coronado got his start with the Sea Sheppard Conservancy Society. Sea Sheppard protects fish and animals of the sea by ramming and sinking fishing ships, firing machine guns and throwing acid on their decks. The Capital Research Center’s Organization Trends February 2004 issue reports Sea Sheppard’s fleet of boats, called “Neptune’s Navy,” has sunk at least ten ships and rammed countless others around the world. According to activistcash.com, Coronado assisted in sinking two of these ships in Iceland in 1986.

Paul Watson, one of the original co-founders of Greenpeace, formed Sea Sheppard after Greenpeace threw him out in 1977 for his violent actions. He told the 2002 Animal Rights Convention, “There’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win.” Like most terrorists, he also justifies his violence by shifting blame to others. “We should never feel like we’re going too far in breaking the law,” continued Watson, “because whatever laws you break to liberate animals or to protect the environment are very insignificant compared to the laws that are broken by that parliament of whores in Washington. They are the biggest lawbreakers, the biggest destroyers, the biggest mass-murderers on this planet right now.”

Watson’s goal is to ultimately force the shut down of the global fishery industry. He has a “seething hatred of the people whose livelihood he threatens,” notes activistcash.com. However, this goal does not prevent him from eating fish, or even hamburgers for that matter. In this Watson differs from most animal rights extremists, who are usually avid vegetarians that demand everyone else follow their lead.

Economic and Social Violence

Not all violence by animal rights advocates against people and corporations is physical. While ELF burned down a resort to protect the lynx in the fall of 2001, the Washington Times broke the story on December 17, 2001, of a lynx fraud by seven federal and state wildlife biologists. The biologists planted fur of a rare and threatened Canadian lynx on rubbing posts in the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot National Forests in the state of Washington. DNA testing of the samples matched that of a lynx living inside an animal preserve and an escaped pet lynx being held by one of the biologists until its owner retrieved it.

Had the fraud gone undetected environmentalists and animal rights advocates would have used the evidence to invoke the Endangered Species Act, closing roads to vehicles and banning off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, skis and snowshoes, livestock grazing and tree thinning. Such closures historically have decimated the local rural economy. Nonetheless, the guilty biologists claimed they were merely “testing” the reliability of lynx survey methodology and received no discipline.

In their single-purpose zeal to protect all animals from man in every way, animal rights organizations can do tremendous economic and social damage, often to people and causes they otherwise claim to support. In one of hundreds of examples, the anti-fur campaign that started in the 1970s traumatized Inuit native Canadians who depended on the fur trade for a living.

The tragedy started with a feel-good, well-coordinated and funded campaign against the fur trade by numerous environmental and animal rights groups supported by Hollywood celebrities. Public outrage resulting from pictures showing the clubbing of seals led politicians to ban Canadian seal products in the United States in 1972 and the European Economic Community in 1983. Finding more humane methods of harvesting the seals was never an option. Activists demanded and got a complete ban.

The bans destroyed the seal-furring industry, deeply embittering the native Inuits. They claim the “feel-good” environmentalists, animal rights activists and Hollywood celebrities have no understanding of what’s involved with wildlife, or have any consideration about what effect their actions have on the rest of the world.

While many animal rights supporters are unaware of this unintended consequence, ignorance is not an excuse for the leaders of the animal rights groups. Stephen Kakfwi, the Premier of the Northwest Territories, told the January 30, 2003 New York Times, “I’m still bitter about what was done to us. We pleaded with Greenpeace and the others. We told them that we will have to turn to oil and gas and mining for jobs” in order to survive. The animal rights groups apparently didn’t care even though they claim to be against oil and gas exploration and development as well. They continue their relentless anti-fur campaign today.

Animal Welfare, Not Animal Rights

No one doubts that many animal-oriented industries needed to be more humane in their treatment of animals. Yet, throughout recent history, human beings adopted more and more humane standards of animal “welfare” for their pets, livestock, and laboratory animals. It makes sense. Farmers know that cared-for livestock animals produce more and better products. Medical researchers know that their scientific work is meaningless without healthy lab animals.

Animal welfare and user groups are optimistic. Research and better technology will allow improvements in animal welfare in the future. However, in an attempt to turn ordinary Americans against the responsible stewardship of animals, animal rights activists use shrill rhetoric, headline-grabbing stunts, and violent crimes to prevent humans from using or owning any animal. This could have terrible consequences for our way of life.

The people who are doing the most to promote animal welfare today are the very ones that the animal rights movement wants to put out of business. So watchdogs of this issue like those at Animalscam.com are correct in recommending that if you want to support the humane treatment of animals, support your local animal shelter, your local humane society (not the animal-rights-oriented Humane Society of the United States), or your local zoological park. Because animal welfare groups deserve your help. Animal rights extremists do not.

- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2004/05/07/crucial-difference-in-animal-welfare-and-rights/#sthash.VwaxQ5Ch.yYVdsx0Z.dpuf

Riding A Wave of Hope With Ricochet

Thought For The Day: Negativity

What My Mother Taught Me About Mindless Prayer

I was all alone, and the pain was coming back. “Oh gosh. Oh dear God.” Quickly it escalated to an electric pitch. Sudden and unexpected these words gasped out: “Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you, save souls.” More like a scream this time: “JESUS MARY JOSEPH! I love you, save souls!” The pain abated almost as quickly as it came.  And as my mind cleared, I thought, “Wow, that prayer really helped.”

Labor with my second child had been underway for 12 hours already, and I was in the transition stage–meaning, it was almost as bad as it was going to get. My husband was bringing our two-year-old son to a friend’s house so that we could go to the hospital unencumbered; hence for a time I had to handle the pain solo. After we got checked in, my husband continued to pray Hail Marys with me and for me, when I could no longer speak during contractions. To our surprise, our Catholic nurse joined us with every prayer. Despite the agony induced fog I was in, I could still realize what a gift it was to be surrounded by prayer. These prayers were far, far more efficacious in handling the pain than any of the breathing exercises or pain management techniques we used during the birth of our first child.

After our little Lucy made her debut (90 minutes after arriving at the hospital), my mind kept going back to the power of prayer. Certainly, the Blessed Mother was present with us, assisting me in my time of need. But the most surprising moment in the whole experience was when the holy names of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph practically erupted out of me. There was no thought involved; at that time, thought was hardly possible. All my lofty plans to “offer it up for so-and-so” had gone out with a definite puff of “I’ve had enough! Surely I’ve offered up enough? Who could possibly expect me to offer up more? I AM DONE.” Pain and fear were the only things on my mind, until those holy names illumined my thoughts and gave both relief, and a purpose for the pain. Reflecting on the efficacy of prayer, I realized—not for the first time—the debt of gratitude I owe to both my parents. In this particular case, my Mom plays the leading role.

My Mom and Dad gave me a treasure, THE treasure: the Faith; and within that treasure are so many riches, including prayer with its several types. When my siblings and I were kids, I remember so many times when Mom taught us aspirations—”Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you, save souls,” among others, and also ideas regarding when to use them. We’d be driving through a neighborhood, and somebody would say “Hey Mom, there’s a statue of Mary in that person’s yard!” and Mom would say some variation of “you can use that as a reminder to say a quick prayer, maybe ‘Mary my hope!’” Or, upon hearing someone take the Lord’s name in vain, Mom would tell us, “Just say to yourself ‘Blessed be the name of Jesus.’” And once, when our car hit black ice, I remember Mom shouting “Oh God, HELP US!” We laughed about that one afterwards, for the sheer drama of it; but really, it was a profound moment. When in need, Mom knows Who to call on first. And the car didn’t crash.

Prayer in general is a treasure of the Church. That is an article all to itself. Aspirations, or ejaculatory prayers, have a more specific place and purpose. St. Paul tell us in 1 Thessalonians 5:17-18: “Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.” To pray without ceasing requires not a constant flow of formulaic prayers, but rather a spirit of prayer. While liturgical prayer (the Mass and liturgy of the hours, for example) and community prayers (such as the Rosary, and the Way of the Cross, among others) are both more exalted and more central to one’s life of Faith, personal prayer, including aspirations, is that which helps one to form a spirit of prayer, and ultimately to participate better in both liturgy and communal prayer. For it is not possible always to be in Mass, or to say the Rosary from morning until night while still performing the duties required to live a healthy human life. To have a spirit of prayer is to keep in mind God’s presence throughout the day, and to lift up one’s thoughts to him when possible. Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments from 2002 to 2008, put it this way:

But the injunction (to pray always) becomes possible if we understand it to mean to have a spirit of prayer throughout the day, to strive to remain united with God without trying at every moment to have an express conscious awareness of his presence. It is possible to offer the major actions of the day to God by some brief ejaculatory prayer.

In other words, ejaculatory prayer is effective in raising our minds to God when there is no time to say anything more formal. In some way it truly makes him present to us. In addition, the habit of remembering God’s presence essentially brings about an ease of action so that, when the frailties of humanity make it impossible to consciously direct our thoughts or actions to him, we do it all the same, unconsciously. In some sense, it’s as if constant repetition creates a worn path by which he can present himself to one’s mind when one’s mind cannot seek him.

The Holy Name of Jesus provides the archetype of the mightiness of an aspiration. His name has power. Recall this passage from Philippians 2:8-11: “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names:  That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:  And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.” There was nothing new under the sun; sinful day following sinful day, vanities following upon vanities, until the Incarnation. And the Incarnate Word allowed himself to be named, named so that we might know him and call upon him. It is not that the letters or the composition of the name have intrinsic value; but rather he whom the name recalls gives significance to it. God himself took flesh, and was born a human like to us in every way, except for sin. And like every other human being he was named. The name of Jesus would be of little import apart from the Word who became flesh and died so that mankind might have eternal life.

In The Wonders of The Holy Name, Fr. Paul O’Sullivan writes, “He was called ‘Jesus,’ so that when we say ‘Jesus,’ we offer to the Eternal Father the infinite love, the infinite merits of Jesus Christ; in a word, we offer Him His own Divine Son Himself; we offer Him the great Mystery of the Incarnation.” The good Bard may indeed have written, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Oh dear, dear, Shakespeare, elsewhere I hasten to sing your praises. But in this I heartily disagree. There is at least one Name like unto none in beauty, power, and goodness. Souls are saved, suffering redeemed, demons struck with terror all through this one name.

Thank you Mom, for teaching me to invoke it.

By Elizabeth Anderson

Elizabeth Anderson is a 2009 graduate of Christendom College. After graduation she worked for several years for Population Research Institute, resigning to become a stay-at-home mother. She currently resides in Michigan, with her husband, Matthew, and their two small children.

Source: Crisis Magazine

Editor’s note: The image above titled “The Virgin in Prayer” was painted by Sassoferrato between 1640 and 1650.

Works of Mercy

What Money Can Not Buy

Thought For The Day: True Christian

The Removal Of A Great Cardinal

The Removal of a Great Cardinal - his head on a plate,

by Roberto de Mattei

Corrispondenza Romana - November 12, 2014

PICTURE: CARDINALS RAYMOND BURKE AND JÓZSEF MINDSZENTY

The Pope inasmuch as he is supreme pastor of the universal Church, has full right to remove a bishop or cardinal from his office, even a distinguished one. A well-known case was the one of Cardinal Louis Billot (1846-1931). He was one of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century, who replaced his cardinal’s hat into the hands of Pius XI, with whom he had had differences regarding Action Francaise, and ended his days, as a simple Jesuit, at the house of his order in Galloro.  [He resigned in 1927, the only cleric to have done so in the twentieth century]

Another striking case is Cardinal Josef Mindszenty, who was removed by Paul VI from his office as Archbishop of Esztergom and Primate of Hungary, as a result of his opposition to the Vatican ostpolitk.

Many bishops moreover, in recent years, have been dismissed as a result of their involvement with financial or moral scandals. However, while nobody can deny the right of the Sovereign Pontiff to dismiss any prelate, for reasons he retains the most opportune,

NOBODY CAN TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT THE FAITHFUL HAVE, as rational creatures, even before being “the baptized”, TO QUESTION THE REASONS FOR THESE DISMISSALS, PARTICULARLY IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLICITLY STATED.

This explains the disorientation of many Catholics when faced with the news formally communicated by the Vatican Press on the 8th of November, about the transferring of Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke from his office of Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, to the position of Patron of the Order of Malta.

In fact, when the move concerns a Cardinal (as it is in this case) who is still relatively young (66 years old), and comes to pass from a position of maximum importance to another purely honorary, without even respect for the rather questionable principle promoveatur ut amoveatur (promoted to be removed), WE FIND OURSELVES EVIDENTLY FACED WITH A PUBLIC PUNISHMENT... 

Yet, in this case it is legitimate to ask ourselves the nature of the accusations made against this prelate. Cardinal Burke, in effect, carried out his role in a commendable way as Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and is esteemed by everyone as an eminent canon lawyer and a man of deep interior life; he was recently defined by Benedict XVI as a “great cardinal”.

WHAT IS HE GUILTY OF?

Vatican observers of the most diverse tendencies answered this question with clarity. Cardinal Burke has been considered guilty of being “too conservative” and in disagreement with Pope Francis.

After the wretched report by Cardinal Kasper at the Consistory of the 20th February 2014,

the American Cardinal promoted the publication of a book wherein five respected cardinals and other scholars voiced their respectful reservations on the new Vatican line open to the hypothesis of allowing communion for the divorced and remarried along with the recognition of de facto unions. The concerns of these cardinals were confirmed by the Synod in October, when the most perilous theses, along orthodox lines, were even gathered into the synthesis of the works that preceded the final report.

PICTURE: SALOME WITH THE HEAD OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

The only plausible reason is that the Pope has offered the head of Cardinal Burke on a plate to Cardinal Kasper and, through him, to Cardinal Karl Lehmann, the ex-President of the German Episcopal Conference. Everyone knows, actually, at least in Germany, that the one who is still pulling the strings of dissent against Rome is precisely Lehmann, an old disciple of Karl Rahner. Father Ralph Wiltgen, in his book The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber, highlighted Rahner’s role in the Second Vatican Council from the moment the Episcopal Conferences carried out a determining role.

The Episcopal Conferences were dominated in fact by their theological experts and since among them the most powerful were the Germans, the role of their principal theologian, the Jesuit, Karl Rahner, was decisive. Father Wiltgen sums it up efficaciously, describing the power of the progressive lobby united in what he calls the “European Alliance”. “Since the position of the German Bishops was adopted by the European Alliance and again, given that the position of the Alliance was generally accepted by the Council, it was enough for one theologian alone to convince the German language Bishops of his personal ideas so that the Council would make them its own. This theologian existed: Father Karl Rahner of the Society of Jesus.”

Fifty years after Vatican II, Rahner’s shadow is hovering once again over the Catholic Church, making his voice heard in the pro-homosexual positions of some of his followers, younger than Lehmann and Kasper, like Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx and Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte.

Pope Francis has made statements against the two tendencies of progressivism and traditionalism, without however clarifying what these two labels encompassed. Yet, if by words he distances himself from the two poles which confront each other in the Church today, by facts all tolerance is reserved for “progressivism”, while the axe falls upon what he defines as “traditionalism”.

The removal of Cardinal Burke has an exemplary significance comparable to the ongoing destruction of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Many observers have attached the project of the Institute’s dissolution to Cardinal Bras de Aviz, but today it is clear to everyone that Pope Francis fully shares that decision. It is not about the matter of the Traditional Mass, which neither Cardinal Burke nor the Franciscans of the Immaculate celebrate regularly, but it is about their position of nonconformity to the dominant ecclesiastic politics of today.

Then again the Pope entertained at length the representatives of the so-called “Popular Movements” of ultra-Marxist orientation, which gathered in Rome from 27th to 29th of October, plus he nominated consultant to the Pontifical Institute for Culture, an openly heterodox priest, a certain Father d’Ors.

We wonder what the consequences of these politics will be, keeping in mind two principles:

• the philosophical one of the heterogeneous of the ends, for which certain actions produce effects contrary to the intentions, and 
• the theological principle of the action of Providence in history, through which, according to the words of St. Paul omnia cooperantur in bonum. (Rom 8.28). All things in the designs of God work for the good.

The cases of Cardinal Burke and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, like the one of the Society of Saint Pius X (although on a different level) are only signs of a widespread malaise which makes the Church look like a ship adrift. Yet even if the Society of St. Pius X were closed down, the Franciscans of the Immaculate dissolved or “re-educated” and Cardinal Burke reduced to silence, the crisis in the Church would not cease to be grave.

The Lord promised that the Barque of Peter will never sink not due to the skill of the helmsman, but because of the Divine assistance to the Church, which, can be said,lives amidst the tempests, without ever allowing Herself to be submerged by the waves.

(Matt. 8, 23-27; Mark 4, 35-41; Luke 8, 22-25)

Faithful Catholics are not discouraged: they close ranks, direct their eyes to the perennial and immutable Magisterium of the Church, which coincides with Tradition; they look for strength in the Sacraments, continue to pray and act, in the conviction that in the history of the Church, as in the life of men, the Lord intervenes only when everything appears lost. What is asked of us is not resigned inaction, but a confident struggle in the assurance of victory.

[Translation: Constributor Francesca Romana]

LINKS:

1. The Removal of a Great Cardinal - his head on a plate

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-removal-of-great-cardinal-by.html

2. CARDINALS RAYMOND BURKE AND JÓZSEF MINDSZENTY

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=552571708177612&set=a.172130029555117.25937.100002743625049&type=1&theater 

3. ON A SILVER PLATE: SALOME WITH THE HEAD OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=552574218177361&set=a.172130029555117.25937.100002743625049&type=1&theater

Thought For The Day: Calvary and the Mass

“There are certain things in life which are too beautiful to be forgotten, such as the love of a mother. Hence we treasure her picture. The love of soldiers who sacrificed themselves for their country is likewise too beautiful to be forgotten, hence we revere their memory on Memorial Day. 

But the greatest blessing which ever came to this earth was the visitation of the Son of God in the form and habit of man. His life, above all lives, is too beautiful to be forgotten, hence we treasure the divinity of His Words in Sacred Scripture, and the charity of His Deeds in our daily actions. 

Unfortunately this is all some souls remember, namely His Words and His Deeds; important as these are, they are not the greatest characteristic of the Divine Saviour. 

The most sublime act in the history of Christ was His Death.” 

-Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Calvary and the Mass)

Kenyan Bishops Accuse WHO and UNICEF of Implementing a "Population Control" Program

Some potentially disturbing news out of Kenya: A statement signed by the 27 bishops of the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops alleges that the World Health Organization and UNICEF are injecting Kenyan women with a tetanus vaccine that has been laced with a hormone that causes miscarriages and renders some women sterile.

The bishops make it clear in their statement that they are not opposed to vaccines, but are instead troubled that there are several inconsistencies with this vaccination program (such as batch numbers and administration protocol), and that testing results have shown the presence of Beta-HCG hormone, which is not normally present in tetanus vaccines.

Dear Kenyans, due to the direction the debate on the ongoing Tetanus Vaccine campaign in Kenya is taking, We, the Catholic Bishops, in fulfilling our prophetic role, wish to restate our position as follows:

1. The Catholic Church is NOT opposed to regular vaccines administered in Kenya, both in our own Church health facilities and in public health institutions.
2. However, during the second phase of the Tetanus vaccination campaign in March 2014, that is sponsored by WHO/UNICEF, the Catholic Church questioned the secrecy of the exercise. We raised questions on whether the tetanus vaccine was linked to a population control program that has been reported in some countries, where a similar vaccine was laced with Beta- HCG hormone which causes infertility and multiple miscarriages in women.
3. On March 26, 2014 and October 13, 2014, we met the Cabinet Secretary in-charge of health and the Director of Medical Services among others and raised our concerns about the Vaccine and agreed to jointly test the vaccine. However the ministry did not cooperate and the joint tests were not done
4. The Catholic Church struggled and acquired several vials of the vaccine, which we sent to Four unrelated Government and private laboratories in Kenya and abroad.
5. We want to announce here, that all the tests showed that the vaccine used in Kenya in March and October 2014 was indeed laced with the Beta-HCG hormone.
6. On 13th of October 2014, the Catholic Church gave copies of the results to the cabinet secretary and the Director of Medical Services. The same was emailed to the Director of Medical Services on October 17, 2014.
Based on the above grounds, We, the Catholic Bishops in Kenya, wish to State the following:
1. That we are shocked at the level of dishonesty and casual manner in which such a serious issue is being handled by the Government.
2. That a report presented to the Parliamentary Committee on Health November 4, 2014 by the Ministry of Health, claiming that the Government had tested the Vaccine and found it clean of Beta- HCG hormone, is false and a deliberate attempt to distort the truth and mislead 42 million Kenyans.
3. That we are dismayed by attempts to intimidate and blackmail medical professionals who have corroborated information about the vaccine, with threats of disciplinary action. We commend and support all professionals who have stood by the truth.
4. That we shall not waver in calling upon all Kenyans to avoid the tetanus vaccination campaign laced with Beta-HCG, because we are convinced that it is indeed a disguised population control programme.

The earlier programs mentioned in the statement happened in Mexico in 1993 and in the Philippines in 1994. There, women were given a five-part tetanus vaccination that was laced with Beta-HCG.

Dr. Wahome Ngare, a gynecologist, released the following statement to MaterCare International:

When challenged in South America in the early 1990’s about the tetanus vaccine used in their campaign being laced with HCG, WHO brushed off the claims as unfounded and asked for proof. When proof was provided by the Catholic based bodies in those countries, WHO claimed that the other components of the vaccine production process may have caused false positive results. When pushed further, they accepted that a few vaccines may have been contaminated with HCG during the production process. However, HCG is not a component nor is it used in the production of any vaccine let alone tetanus! It was only after antibodies against HCG were demonstrated in the women who were immunized with the laced tetanus vaccine that the matter was sealed. The immunized women have suffered multiple [spontaneous] abortions and some have remained sterile. Do we have to wait until this point before action is taken?

Regardless of what is happening, there is a definite need for increased transparency about these programs to ease public fears and to ensure that people are protected from diseases. There are, however, significant questions regarding this vaccine program. For example, WHO's own website says that two or three doses of the tetanus vaccine are sufficient to prevent the disease--not five.

This is a serious allegation by the Kenyan bishops, and this is incredibly troubling if it is found to be true. The WHO and UNICEF should not be meddling with a woman's fertility under the guise of a health program.

WHO and UNICEF need to respond to these allegations before the public's trust in all medical programs erodes entirely. I'm incredibly pro-vaccine, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around all of this. Let's hope that some answers are given to the people of Kenya, pronto.

Source: Townhall
See also related articles: Patheos.com, Myeclinik, Matercare.org - Catholic Doctors Speak, Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops

When Benedict XVI Breaks His Silence and Corrects His Successor

Pope Benedict XVI in Great Britain 2010

(Rome)   Since the end of February 2013  Benedict XVI who is in the unprecedented situation of an emeritus pope, has engaged more and more often in recent times in taking up his feather to send public messages. These messages appear as corrections to mistakes, without mentioning the originator by name. The corrections relate to the dialogue with atheists, criticism of Cardinal Kasper and praise for his opponent Cardinal Burke, publicly expressed joy over the traditional rite over which Pope Francis has kept silent till now, in clear criticism of his successor. Benedict XVI. sent four messages   in the month of October alone. A brief synopsis.

Greetings to the Proscribed "Ecumenism of Return"

The most recent example is a greeting message on the fifth anniversary of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, with the establishment of Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans who have returned in full unity to the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI.'s message came to the Ordinary of the oldest of these Personal Ordinariates, that for England and Wales Our Lady of Walsingham. With this the emeritus pope sent four messages in the month of October alone.

Benedict XVI. has broken his silence more frequently of late.  For example, to say that in the Church that each renunciation of the truth is "fatal" for the promulgation of the Christian faith. Strong, clear words in a rich dialectical angle  appropriate to these times that more or less engage in nice talk and allow everything. The emeritus pope is especially saying that the program so proclaimed by his successor Pope Francis in Gaudium Evangelii, namely, that it does not convey the joy of the Gospel. 

Francis' Praise for Benedict: "Discrete" - But  his predecessor is not so silent 

"He is discreet, modest, does not want to interfere," said Pope Francis recently about his predecessor, Benedict XVI. The occasion was the blessing of a bust, which has been dedicated to the German Pope. "I can feel it, as if I had a grandfather in the house, because of his wisdom. It does me good to hear him. And he encourages me very much," said the reigning Pope with perhaps a not wholly accurate comparison, especially since Francis will be 78 years old in a few weeks  and so belongs to the same "grandfather generation" as Benedict XVI..

Occasionally, this much is known,   Benedict XVI.  is in the role of a  "cloistered monk" as he himself says, advises, comments and contacts the reigning Pope with his view of things. Not much is known about it,  but it is all done with the utmost discretion. But it was announced that Benedict XVI. sent his Argentine successor a four-page commentary on the controversial interview in the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica  which appeared on 19 September 2013.

The content of the comment is not known. However, one can imagine the polite and respectful tone of the dense criticism. The words can not have been missed   for  lack of clarity. What is between the two popes, brings us ever to absurdity, are exchanged subject to a strict confidentiality.

Francis - Benedict: Different "Dialogue" with Atheists

Sometimes Benedict XVI breaks. his monastic seclusion and is visible. From his message to the Coetus Internationalis Summorum Pontificum on the occasion of the Third International pilgrimage to Rome of Tradition, he explains that he does so  only at the request and invitation of the reigning Pope. The most recent example was his participation on 19 October at the beatification of Pope Paul VI. There has been no word  if  Benedict was moved by these performances.

He breaks silence  but occasionally in written form, has his say and does so with the clarity of language and thought that is usual for him. It never involves mere polite words or meaningless collections of words, as the written messages of some ecclesiastical dignitaries seem to be.

The first of these public written statements of Benedict took place last fall coinciding with the "dialogue" of Pope Francis with the atheists Eugenio Scalfari, Benedict XVI replied to another atheist, Piergiorgio Odifreddi (see . Benedict XVI Responds to Atheists Piergiorgio Odifreddi: "Your Religion Mathematics Remains Empty" ). While Francis' interview with Scalfari is controversial in form and content, and as it later turned out,  Scalfari had formulated their responses with the pope's approval,  Benedict significantly answered atheism. Scalfari could triumphantly concur at the end of the conversation that because the Church supposedly renounced Her mission to convert others to Christ and lifted the subjective conscience to the highest standard, while Benedict XVI. showed his "interlocutor"  Odifreddi that the "religion of mathematics remains empty" and defended the Catholic Church and the priesthood against the "sport" of the irreligious, who furthermore, try to put the clerical state generally under the shadow of child abuse and homosexuality.

Note to Overcome the Crisis in the Church Ignored Magisterium

 Benedict XVI. also broke his silence last March in connection with a book about Pope John Paul II. The former Prefect of the CDF  prefect  particularly emphasized the encyclical Veritatis Splendor from the year 1993 on moral issues and the declaration Dominus Iesus in 2000 "on the unicity and universality of redemption by Jesus Christ and the Church"  and recommended not only their thorough study, but to learn the content. Benedict XVI. then named   key documents of the recent Papal Magisterium, pointing to the two most ignored and disregarded **documents** within the Church. Benedict's note thereby designates a barometer for the state of the Church and provides instruments, that can provide the remedy.

So Benedict is not confined to prayer  and sacrifice. He responds not only to atheists, but also offered advice to the Church. 

In October,  the same four messages followed, three short but dense  messages and a longer message.

Message to Strengthen Tradition: Traditional Rite not "Fashion"

The first bears the date of October 10 and was sent to the above mentioned Coetus Internationalis Summorum Pontificum, which organized the pilgrimage of tradition to Rome founded in 2012, with the aim to show the solidarity of traditional Catholics with the Pope and celebrate the traditional Rite in St. Peter's Basilica at the  most visible church in Christendom at the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles, Peter and the tombs of the popes. High-ranking cardinals participated. This year  Cardinal Raymond Burke participated who has become, in the course of the Synod of Bishops on the Family, a spokesman for the defense of the marriage sacrament and the Catholic teaching on marriage. In addition, Cardinal Burke Cardinals George Pell [Who was ill] and Walter Brandmüller were present, who are also among the cardinals who publicly opposed the "New Mercy" of Cardinal Walter Kasper obviously supported by Pope Francis.

Pope Benedict XVI. stressed the importance of the traditional rite in his message. A more meaningful gesture so, especially since Pope Francis has so far not publicly expressed anything contradictory or unofficially, but in the majority, however, has sent negative signals. Quite different from his predecessor: "I am very happy that the usus antiquus now lives in full peace in the Church, even among the young, with support and the celebration by great cardinals."  A single sentence with a huge message. Benedict XVI.'s observers  especially noticed the choice of words. The emeritus pope has   no longer speaks using his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum definition  where the Old Rite is called the  "extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite, but speaks of "usus antiquus". He so used that definition, not as it is represented tradition and enhanced the traditional rite so well with Motu proprio, rather, he actually raised it to its rightful position. Benedict XVI. is too wise a man not to weigh the importance of words exactly.

This includes the statement that he is "happy" about the fact that the youth are finding the traditional Rite. A clear response to his successor, without mentioning this of course, who commented at the ad limina visit of the Czech Bishops in February, not being able to understand how young people love and appreciate the old Rite could and  in this context of spoke of mere "fashion", therefore,  which should not "do not pay so much attention." During his stay in Brazil for World Youth Day, the Pope referred to traditional  Catholics as Pelagian ideologues. What the Church leader said exactly, remains unclear. The two statements, taken together, seem to have recognized a "ideological" reservation against the traditional Rite by the Pope. 

Praise for Cardinal Burke and the Opponents of Cardinal Kasper

Another important statement can be found in Benedict's short message, that when he was "happy" estimates that the "usus antiquus" is supported and celebrated by "great cardinals". Words that can be construed as a fairly unambiguous partisanship against Cardinal Kasper and the "opening arguments". Above all, it is an expression of the highest appreciation for Cardinal Burke, one of those church leaders, whom Pope Francis will not only deny any role in the Roman Curia, but also the leadership of a diocese.

While Pope Francis would dearly love to shoot the American Cardinal  to the moon,  but is not too sloppily inaccurate that at least he would like to  banish him to a lonely monastery on a remote island,  Benedict XVI.  honored him as a "great" cardinal (see Malta exiles? Final Papal Purge of Cardinal Burke? ).

"Any Waivering from the Truth is Fatal" for the Mission, Faith and Church

The second message was sent by Benedict XVI. at the Pontifical Urban University in Rome, which named the ballroom after the emeritus pope. The ceremony for the naming took place on 21 October, but Benedict XVI. did not take part in it. He gave the reason in the greeting message of 19 October. In his place,  he sent Curia Archbishop Georg Gänswein, his personal secretary to offer  greetings.

Amazingly, the University did not publish the message on its website. Neither did the Osservatore Romano , which only made a brief note of the event. Thus it was held under lock and the text was finally made ​​public only on 23 October, with the approval of Benedict and thanks to the Vaticanist Armin Schwibach.

The Pontifical University, the University Mission of the Catholic Church par excellence, since it is under the Roman Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, which is also known as Propaganda Fide.

Here Benedict XVI expressed the central message, that any waiver from the truth of the Christian mission, faith and  Church is "fatal". The German Pope spoke of the doubt, which threatens the principle of the mission ad gentes  today. The emeritus pope contradicts the convenient thesis,  that one could replace  mission through a "dialogue of equals" between religions and this convenience to abandon mission and conversion, justified by the "common commitment to peace". To put it crudely: Most important is that the people do not beat their heads against the wall, everything else is secondary.

With such an attitude, however, the Church would move away from what the first Christians did, is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. Benedict XVI. disagreed especially with the equality of religions,  which are just different expressions for something, that God had, ultimately for people ,is not really detectable in any case and that the religions simply represent just attempts of detecting and thus are only variations of the same reality. "This renunciation of the truth seems realistic and useful for the peace among the religions of the world. And yet it is fatal to the faith.  Because the faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, if everything is reduced to ultimately interchangeable icons that are able only to point distantly to a point of  access for the inaccessible mystery of godliness. "

Once again Dominus Iesus and again Cardinal Walter Kasper

Also in this opinion swings unspoken declaration of Dominus Iesus which provoked fierce criticism outside but also within the Church in the Holy Year 2000, because it stood in the way of  the attitude of capitulation, as it was called by the late legal philosopher Mario Palmaro, in parts of the Church and it was perceived by these accordingly as annoying and cumbersome, who want to embrace all religions and ideologies, because they want to throw away their own job and no longer believe in the final analysis of their own faith. This form of the apostasy in the Church is not a new phenomenon, but occurs today more than ever, without being previously addressed within the Church.

Among the fiercest critics of Dominus Iesus  were included Cardinal Edward Cassidy, then chairman of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and his successor in that office, Cardinal Walter Kasper, who again is unastonishingly part of the circle again.  Even more amazing and worrying is that Cardinal Kasper under Pope Francis became the papal house theologian, relied on by the reigning Pope and aligns himself to his theology that he ebulliently praised as "theology on his knees"  last February 21 in the cardinal consistory ,

Clear Order of Mission Against "Waivering From Mission"

Above all, Benedict XVI replied. in concise and clear language to the confusing designs of Pope Francis with a no to proselytism and a mission without conversion (see No to conversions, Yes to Mission - the Pope Contradicts Himself? as If "dialogue process" is confused with "missionary going out" ) , Statements, which he made, inter alia, in the dubious first interview of atheist Scalfari. As mentioned, the answers come from  Scalfari's pen, but he sent them to the Pope before going to press and received the imprimatur from  his secretary. Answers that were never denied by the Holy See, and can hardly be doubted in their authenticity of content, especially since the Pope has repeated them in other contexts.

In the end, Benedict XVI. makes the title of the Apostolic Exhortation by Pope Francis, Gospel gaudium, his own, albeit in a somewhat modified form of content. Whoever has received the "joy" of faith, could not do otherwise, as they pass through life. The Emeritus grasped this "going out", which is so important to the reigning pope,  in its slightly different context, namely that it is without  an actual or apparent renunciation of the truth, which could be "fatal  ".

Benedict affirms "Non-Negotiable Values" Against Incomprehension of His Successor

The third message even bears the date of August 4, but was released on 23 October. It is a letter Benedict sent to the the Vatican Foundation Joseph Ratzinger -Benedikt XVI. ,attending a meeting organized by them in Medellin in Colombia, called "Respect for Life, a Way for Peace".

In this letter, Benedict XVI underlined the "unconditional respect of the created in the image of God and thus equipped with an absolute dignity of human life". For this reason, said Benedict, "the theme of peace and the issue of respect for a human life of faith in God the Creator are bound to be the true guarantee of our dignity."

Benedict XVI.  affirmed without any ifs and buts, a renewed commitment to the non-negotiable values, which his successor Francis has "never understood" in his own words and about which he has remained silent for long months of his pontificate and does it in the public at large effectively to this very day (see A Non-Negotiable Pope - Francis Smashed Another Key Element of Benedict XVI. ).

Personal Ordinariate Serves an Important Task

The fourth message, also dated 10 October, but only now published, was written by  Benedict XVI. in German. Seat of the ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is the "Bavarian chapel" in London, which then reminds us of the former Duchy's  diplomatic representation of the Kingdom of Bavaria in England. A symbolic connection between the Ordinariate and the Bavarian Pope.

Benedict XVI. writes that the Personal Ordinariates serve an "important job in the whole of the Church of God".

source: Eponymous Flower