Medjugorje

Medjugorje in Bosnia-Hercegovina (former Yugoslavia), the site of reported apparitions by the Blessed Virgin Mary for almost 30 years, is not an approved apparition site like Lourdes, Guadalupe, Loretto or Fatima, but it has been the source of thousands of vocations and conversions.

However, the site is not without scandal, which sadly gets magnified by those who then falsely report on the scandal (truthful reported is always appreciated).

The latest scandal involves the long awaited laicization of former priest Tomislav Vlašić for adultery and leading the faithful astray. Vlašić arrived in Medjugorje after the apparitions had started, and was never quite "at the center" of the apparitions, as was Father Jozo Zovko. He also pressured the seers to say the Virgin "approved" of his ministry. They never did, and "one of the seers signed a statement complaining about his attempts to manipulate the situation."

Simon Caldwell of the London Daily Mail falsely reported hat "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, issued a ban on pilgrimages to the site but this has been widely ignored." This was repeated by Catholic Exchange. This is not true, "it is well known that the Vatican twice has stated through its press office that unofficial pilgrimages are accepted, and that it is even advisable for priests to accompany visitors while the Church tries to discern the matter."

In 1996 Vatican Press Office spokesman, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, sought to clarify the status of pilgrimages to Medjugorje by stating:

"You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want ... When one reads what Archbishop Bertone wrote, one could get the impression that from now on everything is forbidden, no possibility" for Catholics to travel to Medjugorje. But, in fact, "nothing has changed, nothing new has been said ... The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje ... This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession ... I was worried that what Archbishop Bertone said could be interpreted in too restricted a way. Has the church or the Vatican said no (to Catholics visiting Medjugorje)? NO. ... The difference, in the terms of canon law, is that an official pilgrimage, organized by the diocese with the bishop, is a way of giving a juridical sanction to the facts; you are saying this is true."

As EWTN has added: "While this statement does not address the prudence of going to Medjugorje as a place of alleged apparition, which rests on its credibility according to the norms of reason, it does lay to rest the question of whether it is disobedient in the mind of the Church to do so."

Religion and the Art of Persuading Legislators

Daniel Avila
 
Remarks given to an audience of young persons attending the "Day on the Hill" event sponsored by MassFuture, held in the Great Hall of the Massachusetts Capitol, in Boston MA on July 14, 2009.
 
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
 
Among all of the constitutions in operation today around the world, the Massachusetts Constitution is the oldest, older than even our national Constitution and predating every other current constitution of any other country. It was drafted by John Adams and adopted over two centuries ago in 1780. The degree to which government and God are intertwined in this document's original form is remarkable.
 
The State Constitution's initial three paragraphs, called the preamble, give a summary. The first paragraph states that good government provides the means for a people to enjoy "their natural rights and the blessings of life." The second paragraph explains that a constitution should ensure that the people are governed "by certain laws for the common good." The third paragraph acknowledges "the goodness of the great Legislator of the Universe" and asks for "His direction" in creating and operating a new form of government in Massachusetts.
 
So right at the very beginning of our State Constitution, just after the purpose of government is summarized, God is acknowledged, thanked, and sent a prayer for more help.
 
The next several provisions in our State Constitution, called the Declaration of Rights, spell out the rights of the citizens and the duties of their government. Article I affirms that all people have "certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights," including "the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties."
 
Then John Adams refers again to God and government.
 
In Article II of the Declaration of Rights, Adams asserts that it is everyone's duty "to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe," and, that it is thus the government's duty to protect religious liberty. Article III emphasizes that the preservation of civil society requires good morals, and observes that "the knowledge and belief of the being of God, His providential government of the world, and of a future state of rewards and punishment, [are] the only true foundation of morality."
 
This wonderful profession of faith remains in our State Constitution but sadly has become forgotten.
 
Over the two hundred and twenty nine years since these words were written, ratified and put to work, much has changed in the relation between God and government in the Commonwealth. For example, as a result of bad constitutional alterations and court misinterpretations, nowadays not one dollar of your parents' tax bill can be used to support religious schools, while millions of tax dollars are used to pay for abortion.
 
You are being trained today in the fine art of citizen action in the public policy arena, learning to be maestros of persuasion and creative agents of the common good. You are young, and you are faithful. In the face of a very skeptical political culture, where religion and morality are often viewed as diseases, how do you respond in a way that is effective? Let me offer three suggestions. 
 
First, don’t apologize for having faith.  It is not an illness.  Faith helps you see the deeper realities, one of which is that, based on the belief that we are all one people under God, we are convinced that we are all brothers and sisters, no matter our party, our home address or our conception date.  This religious ability to see beyond the clouds helps people of faith to grasp the kinds of reality that build strong societies.
 
So faith tells us that every human being is loved by God and thus deserves our respect.  No society can survive without this capacity of religion to transcend divisions, an ability that is based on the God-given conviction that somewhere underneath all the appearances of another person’s differences, there is a child of God equal in dignity.
 
The word religion comes from a Latin term that means “binding back together again.”  Thus religion offers the best resources for strengthening the community.  Don’t take on the guilt that really belongs to those who misuse religion as an excuse to disrupt the community through violence and injury.
 
So be proud in your faith, not out of some warped sense of superiority, but out of humble gratitude for all with which God has blessed you.
 
Second, be ready to suffer in a way that does not inflict suffering on your part. That is, practice patience when you come into the halls of government in a way that heals, and that brings people closer together. This doesn't mean to hide your differences with people who disagree, Truth requires honesty. One cannot come to know the truth if those who already know it don't share it.
 
Nor does this mean that you have to put aside the tools that are available to influence public policy. Grassroots pressure is not a bad thing. But it must be applied in a way that shows you respect officeholders, at the same time you rightly expect them to live up to their oath of office and their special calling as public servants.
 
Thus you have to be ready to explain to officeholders the position you have staked out on an issue, such as abortion or same-sex marriage, but you must do so in a calm way that makes the listener aware of your respect for his or her freedom. That is, speak the truth in love. For in the end, God has reserved rooms in everyone's heart for truth, and truth only will stay in the heart if it is invited in, and not forced in.
 
Sometimes this attitude of not forcing the truth to enter into the heart of another will mean suffering on your part because the person you are trying to persuade will not play by the same rules.
 
Third, know that God's truths, because they are true, can be transmitted in many different languages beyond the biblical. For instance, we can tell others that killing is wrong because God gave us a commandment not to kill. But the same truth can be communicated in other ways that do not require the listener to agree that the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore must be obeyed.
 
I'm not saying here that you should be ashamed of biblical teaching or that you should never cite the Bible out of fear. Just realize that all too often some people in the public policy arena think that they know the Bible better than you do, or that others may care little about what the Bible says. The Holy Spirit will guide you in choosing the language that your audience will most appreciate.
 
So truth has the capacity to be appreciated even if expressed in secular terms.
 
To take advantage of this facility of truth requires an attitude on your part of inquisitiveness. Be really nosy about what makes other people think the way they do. Ask questions, do research, and become familiar with the kinds of reasoning and the types of reasons that move other people to take the positions they do. 
 
To be an effective advocate, you must prepare yourself to know even more completely than your opponents the position that your opponents take on an issue. Only then will you be able to discern the best way to respond.
 
To sum up so far, three attitudes that will help you when you attempt to influence public policy are, first, be proud but humble about your faith, second, be patient, and third, get really good at translating truths into language that your listeners can understand and appreciate in order to communicate more effectively and persuasively.
 
Now let me finish with two arguments you will often hear in the State House.
 
First, many argue that as lawmakers they cannot adopt particular moral positions because not all of their constituents agree with those positions. "I have to represent all of my constituents," a legislator will say. The reality is, public policy is not crafted in the absence of conflict. Policymakers have to choose all the time between competing views. They rarely if ever deal with legislation that all of their constituents support. So don't let them get away with the excuse about a lack of consensus on abortion or same-sex marriage, for example, as if these issues are any different.
 
Second, in a variation of the first argument, legislators will often assert that their official stance on issues cannot be influenced by their personal religious or moral beliefs. This too is a dodge that is not based in reality. Do some research of your legislator's other positions. I am confident that this investigation will reveal that he or she has strong moral beliefs about another issue that influence his or her official position on that issue.
 
No public official can live a totally and consistently divided political life devoid of all personal belief. You are going to find the inevitable inconsistency between his or her approach to other issues and the "personally opposed" approach on your issue, and when you do, point out the inconsistency. And be patient, persuasively persistent to be sure, but always patient.
 
In the end, religion, morality and the law can and must coexist. That was the conviction of John Adams and those who ratified the Massachusetts Constitution. Yours will be the task to bring that understanding back to politics.
 
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
 
Daniel Avila, Esq.
Associate Director of Policy & Research
Massachusetts Catholic Conference
West End Place, Suite 5
150 Staniford Street
Boston, MA 02114-2511

Deal Hudson on BXVI encyclical

Money quote as Deal takes down the "Progressives" misreading.

Nothing could go more against the grain of the progressive agenda than the encyclical's assertion, "Duties set a limit on rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do not become license."

CleanHotels.com

If you are looking for a hotel where pornography is NOT available, try the web site CleanHotels.com

From their web site:
CleanHotels.com is a network of lodging facilities that - based on some of the best research available - do not offer in-room, "adult" (pornographic) pay-per-view movies.

Our primary purpose is to provide a service through which friends like you can book a room for your vacation, business trip or meeting with the expectation, first, that you and your family or associates will not be exposed to pornographic movies and, secondly, that you will be supporting a facility that cares enough about the wellbeing of its customers not to make harmful pornographic movies available.

subsidiarity

If you want to begin to understand the Pope's new encyclical Caritas In Veritate, then you have to understand subsidiarity.

The Wikipedia entry for Subsidiarity says it "is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority" and adds that "Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism".

The principle of subsidiarity can be traced back to the 1891 encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, which some have described as a means to a third way between laissez-faire Capitalism and Communism.

Caritas In Veritate says that "Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility."

"In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice."

Tradition

"More than one man has noted that the most tradition-minded centuries did the least talking about Tradition. Rather, they lived it. They were soaked through with it. It was through the eyes of Tradition that they read the Scriptures themselves. Then, men were not in the habit of questioning themselves about Tradition, for them it was the present rather than the past and less an object of study than the very form of their thinking...without very much conscious reflection on what they were doing.

...[But a need for reflection] "happens when the whole inheritance of Tradition, hitherto held without question, becomes, in one way or another, disputed territory. Doubts arise as to its value, and insidious comparisons are made between its original form and that which it has at the time; every element in it is put to the test... The thing seems to have become a burden rather than a source of vitality, and thus to constitute an obstruction of the very life which it is supposed to feed and transmit. And that is the situation in which it becomes imperative to reflect upon what one previously lived unthinkingly.

..."However, the doctrine of Tradition has been kept alive and consolidated, even if in a way decidedly different from the old one, and often, as it were, back-to-front.* And thanks to this reflexive renaissance, it has come victoriously through a crisis which did seem, humanly speaking, bound to destroy it.
- Henri de Lubac, The Splendor of the Church p.15

*ever since the denials of Protestantism Tradition has received - and rightly - an explicit emphasis which it was not accorded by early theology. This last for the most part talks in terms of Scripture exclusively (though there are, certainly, texts on Tradition as well). But the Scripture it discusses is always Scripture read within the Church, as interpreted by the Fathers, and as understood by Tradition; cf Edmund Ortigues, SM, 'La Tradition de l'Evangile dans Leglise', Foi
et Vie, July 1951

Who cares what Chris Matthews says?

I don't normally quote Chris Matthews, those who know me know I protested his honorary degree at Holy Cross a few years back because of his Pro-Choice stance, however Deal Hudson included a telling quote from the Obama softball pitcher (setup man Matthews follows starter Keith Olberman, Letterman closer):

"He goes over to see the pope and says they're going to reduce the number of abortions, and then that same week he pushes to subsidize abortion? You can't do that!"

French Choir and Orchestra

Saturday, July 25 at 7:30 pm
Cathedral of St. Paul
High Street - Worcester MA
Entrance: Free

French youth musicians from the Choeur d'Enfants et Jeune Choeur d'Ile de France (Children and Youth Choirs of France) and the Jeune Orchestre Symphonique Maurice-Ravel (Maurice Ravel Youth Symphony Orchestra) come together from France for this exceptional program to perform the Mass of St. Cecile by Gounod and excerpts from the Saint-Saens Symphony with Organ. Organist will be Ian Watson from the Cathedral.

Conductor Francis Bardot, an oratorio tenor soloist, performed in over 2,000 concerts across France, and made some 20 recordings with RCA and Deutsche Grammophon. His youth choirs have made over 20 highly praised recordings and receiving two "Orphee d'Or" awards from the French Academie du Disque Lyrique.

Please plan to attend this remarkable event at the Cathedral! There is nothing more soothing than hearing a 120 piece orchestra and pristine voices in lush acoustics. You may remember this group from two years ago for their remarkable performance of the Gounod Requiem at St. George's.

Gays in the Military

Historical Perspective:

In general court-martial orders dated March 14, 1778, [General George] Washington, through his designs, addressed the disposition of a homosexual soldier "tried for attempting to commit sodomy": "[We] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return."

- George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp. 83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.

from Matt Barber


This should refute the revisionists in Congress such as
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) insisted, “We’ve had gays in the American military from the first unit that was ever formed.” Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) echoed this astonishing claim, saying that “gays have served in every conflict, every war” this country has fought.

In fact, Shays was even more specific, noting a patriotic event in his district at which they read the names of “everyone who lost his life in the French and Indian War–some of whom were gay.”

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) declared that allowing homosexuals to serve would be an expression of the high value Americans place on the principle of equal opportunity. He even claimed the father of our country, George Washington, as an ally who believed that “the way to the top should be open to everyone.” In context, that referred to the respect Washington had for enlisted men in relation to officers–but Sestak apparently would have us believe that Washington felt the same way about equal opportunity for homosexuals. by Peter Sprigg