Tuesday, June 30, 2009
What's the big deal you say? They couldn't actually confirm anything until recently when they cut through thick marble to take some fragment for carbon dating and discovered also in his tomb a blue fabric (like the kind you see on Hebrew prayer shawls perhaps?) and royal purple cloth with red fragments of incense (used by priests perhaps?) This image above is the earliest known image of him apparently.
If you were shipwrecked three times, floated out to sea for a night and a day, were stoned to near death and left for dead, flogged, and imprisoned repeatedly,and travelled from Jerusalem to Rome, everywhere inbetween and back (without frequent flier miles or a Eurorail pass), you might find yourself looking rather gaunt and in need of a shave too. Today and yesterday we remember these martyrs. He likely met his demise when the mad nut-job Nero torched half of Rome and all the Christians he could find in his path.
Paul didn't ask for Martyrdom, it was just the price he was forced to pay. Christ didn't ask anyone to sign up for psychological suicide bombing anywhere or anyone- he died so you would have life and have it abundantly. Living at half-mast or half living isn't the sort of living death martyrdom that Jesus ever asked for. He died so that you would truly live-to the full in all abundance.
Is it a miscarriage- NO, it's a Heartbeat!
Monday, June 29, 2009
In Washington, DC one of the greatest Italian language schools on the East Coast (Embassy approved and all) is at the Casa Italiana on 3rd and F near Judiciary Square metro just behind the Building Museum adjacent to Holy Rosary Church. This past Sunday there was an old fashioned block party called Fiesta Italiana (I am told they do it every year) with pizza served on the sidewalk, canolis, gelato, bocci ball played in the parking lot, italian ceramics made by the artists who study italian ceramics in the basement there and hundreds of folks lining up to buy whatever they were selling in those huge banquet style trays on the side.
I happened inside Holy Rosary church to admire the art and statuary and sat for a prayer. I
prayed something like I wish someone I knew came inside the church so we could hang out at the fiesta together. Just then (literally seconds later) the doors burst even wider open and loud singing surrounded a large banner of the Blessed Mother as three priests processed inside followed by masses of people who had been processing underneath the banner and within minutes the Blessed Sacrament was Exposed on the Altar and everyone was singing in latin.
That still quiet voice then said "You Know Me and I'm here now" as I stared at the exposed Sacrament.
Yes, but do you play bocci ball? Then I shut myself up.
- Matthew 15:1-3
Friday, June 26, 2009
don't justify your cruelties
that betray your aspirations
in rank hypocrisies.
What God is this who makes
examples in brutality
of those who raise their fists
to deceptions and oppressions.
What God is this who calls
you to murder your brother like Cain
slaying Abel to put bread on your table
and bury the able-bodied
in mass protesting graves of slaves
to your lies that finally rise.
What God is this?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Never scammed you, never ran you for a foil or fool
never set you up or led you down the primrose path
just tried to make you laugh.
Never gave you reason to cut your nose to spite my face
or fall from this blessed Grace. Only wanted to linger longer and languish
in our Secret Sacred Space.
Here is some fruit:-) Spencer Speidel came to earth weighing a little over 8 pounds this week. Huge Congrats to Spencer Seidel for safely landing on earth, and to comfortably resting Mom Liz and Husband Dave. BEAUTIFUL!
2 days new breathing in the open air-sweet dreams
Monday, June 22, 2009
With a congregation full of high powered lawyers, diplomats and a few Senators it is not surprising that Holy Trinity in Georgetown takes its social justice ministry seriously. It's Pastor is even a former Philadelphia Lawyer. this too good to not repeat bit appeared in the bulletin this Sunday attributed to an anonymous homeless person:
I WAS HUNGRY
I was hungry and you formed a discussion group to discuss my hunger,
I was imprisoned and you quietly crept off to your chapel to pray for my release,
I was naked and in your mind you debated the morality of my appearance,
I was sick and you knelt and thanked God for your health
I was homeless and you spoke to me of the spiritual shelter of the Love of God,
I was lonely and you left me alone to pray for me
You seem so Holy, so close to God. I am still very hungry, very lonely and cold.
If you know anyone looking to do Justice and Love Mercy in Washington who has a Masters in Social Work or similar experience, tell them to fill out an application for the Pastoral Assistant (http://www.holytrinitydc.org/)
Friday, June 19, 2009
Martyrdom is getting far too popular. The Ayatollah Khomeni in today's Friday prayer address at Tehran University amazingly broadcast on C-Span via Iranian TV showed fist- wagging tens of thousands of seatead men (all men) agreeing with him that they would die for the Revolution (that happened in the late 1970s) while they chanted death to the UK and America. Martyrs for what exactly? A faux chimeric Democracy challenged by arrested dissidents as if they had not discovered the E-Coup by electronic ballot count shenanigans experienced by Westerners and practically invented by intelligence agencies? And this pulled wooliness by the incumbent is now the West's fault why?
If ever it were doubted that Iran wants to be perceived as an "existential threat" to Israel, and anyone who supports the "Zionist State" it was dispelled by today's Friday prayers which just so happen to ironically coincide with the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on the Catholic Calendar.
Iran does indeed intend to convey that it desires to be an existential threat. This appears to be not just some sort of over-inflated Cheneyism or "slam dunk" hypothetical neo-con invention.
Get the coverage and play it carefully. Get it translated by five people verbatim. Then you tell me whether the Ayatollah did or did not invoke the existence of their nuclear program as something he perceived would be used as something to contend with (rather than something with which to turn on lights at the soccer stadium.) Seriously- not trying to excuse the snarly mad dog Cheney dark side of fear mongering, but just trying to get real. Did I hear him correctly and was it translated correctly?
This made me wonder- what ideological package does your martyr complex accomplish exactly? It is nice to believe that there is something greater than yourself worth dying for, just make sure it is the right thing- and not someones invention or ideological idiosyncrasy. And don't insult the creator by tagging your In His Image existence to anything not made of God- like rules that he never made.
ED YOUNG MINISTRIES
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Worth Printing in Full- and a Trip to Ars. (Nothing Here Inconsistent With A Married Priesthood Option Either)
Proclaiming a Year for Priests
on the 150th Anniversary of the Dies Natalis
of the Curé of Ars
Dear Brother Priests,
On the forthcoming Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Friday 19 June 2009 – a day traditionally devoted to prayer for the sanctification of the clergy –, I have decided to inaugurate a “Year for Priests” in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the “dies natalis” of John Mary Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests worldwide. This Year, meant to deepen the commitment of all priests to interior renewal for the sake of a more forceful and incisive witness to the Gospel in today’s world, will conclude on the same Solemnity in 2010. The priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus”, the saintly Curé of Ars would often say. This touching expression makes us reflect, first of all, with heartfelt gratitude on the immense gift which priests represent, not only for the Church, but also for humanity itself. I think of all those priests who quietly present Christ’s words and actions each day to the faithful and to the whole world, striving to be one with the Lord in their thoughts and their will, their sentiments and their style of life. How can I not pay tribute to their apostolic labours, their tireless and hidden service, their universal charity? And how can I not praise the courageous fidelity of so many priests who, even amid difficulties and incomprehension, remain faithful to their vocation as “friends of Christ”, whom he has called by name, chosen and sent? [editorial comment; Nothing inconsistent with a Friend of Christ also being a Friend of his wife. Less Love is Less God. Small Love is a Small God]
I still treasure the memory of the first parish priest at whose side I exercised my ministry as a young priest: he left me an example of unreserved devotion to his pastoral duties, even to meeting death in the act of bringing viaticum to a gravely ill person. I also recall the countless confreres whom I have met and continue to meet, not least in my pastoral visits to different countries: men generously dedicated to the daily exercise of their priestly ministry. Yet the expression of Saint John Mary also makes us think of Christ’s pierced Heart and the crown of thorns which surrounds it. I am also led to think, therefore, of the countless situations of suffering endured by many priests, either because they themselves share in the manifold human experience of pain or because they encounter misunderstanding from the very persons to whom they minister. How can we not also think of all those priests who are offended in their dignity, obstructed in their mission and persecuted, even at times to offering the supreme testimony of their own blood?
There are also, sad to say, situations which can never be sufficiently deplored where the Church herself suffers as a consequence of infidelity on the part of some of her ministers. [Editorial note: depends on how you define 'fidelity'- Fidelity to Christ is compatible with multiple loves-profound difference between a Cardinal Law and a Father Cutie-nuff said] Then it is the world which finds grounds for scandal and rejection. What is most helpful to the Church in such cases is not only a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers, but also a joyful and renewed realization of the greatness of God’s gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors, religious afire with love for God and for souls, and insightful, patient spiritual guides. Here the teaching and example of Saint John Mary Vianney can serve as a significant point of reference for us all. The Curé of Ars was quite humble, yet as a priest he was conscious of being an immense gift to his people: “A good shepherd, a pastor after God’s heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy”. He spoke of the priesthood as if incapable of fathoming the grandeur of the gift and task entrusted to a human creature: “O, how great is the priest! … If he realized what he is, he would die… God obeys him: he utters a few words and the Lord descends from heaven at his voice, to be contained within a small host…”. Explaining to his parishioners the importance of the sacraments, he would say: “Without the Sacrament of Holy Orders, we would not have the Lord.
[editorial confusion; So the Apostles didn't have the Lord- they had no 'priest'; Paul had no "priest' and is the Lord only as big as a bread box?]
Who put him there in that tabernacle? The priest. Who welcomed your soul at the beginning of your life? The priest. [editorial confusion; actually my parents and the doctor/nurses-didn't even meet a priest until I was a teenager-I met a few ministers though] Who feeds your soul and gives it strength for its journey? [Jesus, or was that a rhetorical question?] ]The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, bathing it one last time in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest, always the priest. And if this soul should happen to die [as a result of sin], who will raise it up, who will restore its calm and peace? Again, the priest… After God, the priest is everything! … Only in heaven will he fully realize what he is”. These words, welling up from the priestly heart of the holy pastor, might sound excessive. Yet they reveal the high esteem in which he held the sacrament of the priesthood. He seemed overwhelmed by a boundless sense of responsibility: “Were we to fully realize what a priest is on earth, we would die: not of fright, but of love… Without the priest, the passion and death of our Lord would be of no avail. It is the priest who continues the work of redemption on earth… What use would be a house filled with gold, were there no one to open its door? The priest holds the key to the treasures of heaven [More confusion; I thought Jesus did] : it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods … Leave a parish for twenty years without a priest, and they will end by worshiping the beasts there … [or make a few ministers out of the women taking care of everyone or find the nearest Rabbi] The priest is not a priest for himself, he is a priest for you”.
He arrived in Ars, a village of 230 souls, warned by his Bishop beforehand that there he would find religious practice in a sorry state: “There is little love of God in that parish; you will be the one to put it there”. As a result, he was deeply aware that he needed to go there to embody Christ’s presence and to bear witness to his saving mercy: “[Lord,] grant me the conversion of my parish; I am willing to suffer whatever you wish, for my entire life!”: with this prayer he entered upon his mission. The Curé devoted himself completely to his parish’s conversion, setting before all else the Christian education of the people in his care. Dear brother priests, let us ask the Lord Jesus for the grace to learn for ourselves something of the pastoral plan of Saint John Mary Vianney! The first thing we need to learn is the complete identification of the man with his ministry. In Jesus, person and mission tend to coincide: all Christ’s saving activity was, and is, an expression of his “filial consciousness” which from all eternity stands before the Father in an attitude of loving submission to his will. In a humble yet genuine way, every priest must aim for a similar identification. Certainly this is not to forget that the efficacy of the ministry is independent of the holiness of the minister; but neither can we overlook the extraordinary fruitfulness of the encounter between the ministry’s objective holiness and the subjective holiness of the minister. The Curé of Ars immediately set about this patient and humble task of harmonizing his life as a minister with the holiness of the ministry he had received, by deciding to “live”, physically, in his parish church: As his first biographer tells us: “Upon his arrival, he chose the church as his home. He entered the church before dawn and did not leave it until after the evening Angelus. There he was to be sought whenever needed”.
The pious excess of his devout biographer should not blind us to the fact that the Curé also knew how to “live” actively within the entire territory of his parish: he regularly visited the sick and families, organized popular missions and patronal feasts, collected and managed funds for his charitable and missionary works, embellished and furnished his parish church, cared for the orphans and teachers of the “Providence” (an institute he founded); provided for the education of children; founded confraternities and enlisted lay persons to work at his side.
His example naturally leads me to point out that there are sectors of cooperation which need to be opened ever more fully to the lay faithful. Priests and laity together make up the one priestly people and in virtue of their ministry priests live in the midst of the lay faithful, “that they may lead everyone to the unity of charity, ‘loving one another with mutual affection; and outdoing one another in sharing honour’” (Rom 12:10). Here we ought to recall the Second Vatican Council’s hearty encouragement to priests “to be sincere in their appreciation and promotion of the dignity of the laity and of the special role they have to play in the Church’s mission. … They should be willing to listen to lay people, give brotherly consideration to their wishes, and acknowledge their experience and competence in the different fields of human activity. In this way they will be able together with them to discern the signs of the times”.
Saint John Mary Vianney taught his parishioners primarily by the witness of his life. It was from his example that they learned to pray, halting frequently before the tabernacle for a visit to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. “One need not say much to pray well” – the Curé explained to them – “We know that Jesus is there in the tabernacle: let us open our hearts to him, let us rejoice in his sacred presence. That is the best prayer”. And he would urge them: “Come to communion, my brothers and sisters, come to Jesus. Come to live from him in order to live with him… “Of course you are not worthy of him, but you need him!”. This way of educating the faithful to the Eucharistic presence and to communion proved most effective when they saw him celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Those present said that “it was not possible to find a finer example of worship… He gazed upon the Host with immense love”. “All good works, taken together, do not equal the sacrifice of the Mass” – he would say – “since they are human works, while the Holy Mass is the work of God”. He was convinced that the fervour of a priest’s life depended entirely upon the Mass: “The reason why a priest is lax is that he does not pay attention to the Mass! My God, how we ought to pity a priest who celebrates as if he were engaged in something routine!”. He was accustomed, when celebrating, also to offer his own life in sacrifice: “What a good thing it is for a priest each morning to offer himself to God in sacrifice!”.
This deep personal identification with the Sacrifice of the Cross led him – by a sole inward movement – from the altar to the confessional. Priests ought never to be resigned to empty confessionals or the apparent indifference of the faithful to this sacrament. In France, at the time of the Curé of Ars, confession was no more easy or frequent than in our own day, since the upheaval caused by the revolution had long inhibited the practice of religion. Yet he sought in every way, by his preaching and his powers of persuasion, to help his parishioners to rediscover the meaning and beauty of the sacrament of Penance, presenting it as an inherent demand of the Eucharistic presence. He thus created a “virtuous” circle. By spending long hours in church before the tabernacle, he inspired the faithful to imitate him by coming to visit Jesus with the knowledge that their parish priest would be there, ready to listen and offer forgiveness. Later, the growing numbers of penitents from all over France would keep him in the confessional for up to sixteen hours a day. It was said that Ars had become “a great hospital of souls”. His first biographer relates that “the grace he obtained [for the conversion of sinners] was so powerful that it would pursue them, not leaving them a moment of peace!”. The saintly Curé reflected something of the same idea when he said: “It is not the sinner who returns to God to beg his forgiveness, but God himself who runs after the sinner and makes him return to him”. “This good Saviour is so filled with love that he seeks us everywhere”.
We priests should feel that the following words, which he put on the lips of Christ, are meant for each of us personally: “I will charge my ministers to proclaim to sinners that I am ever ready to welcome them, that my mercy is infinite”. From Saint John Mary Vianney we can learn to put our unfailing trust in the sacrament of Penance, to set it once more at the centre of our pastoral concerns, and to take up the “dialogue of salvation” which it entails. The Curé of Ars dealt with different penitents in different ways. Those who came to his confessional drawn by a deep and humble longing for God’s forgiveness found in him the encouragement to plunge into the “flood of divine mercy” which sweeps everything away by its vehemence. If someone was troubled by the thought of his own frailty and inconstancy, and fearful of sinning again, the Curé would unveil the mystery of God’s love in these beautiful and touching words: “The good Lord knows everything. Even before you confess, he already knows that you will sin again, yet he still forgives you. How great is the love of our God: he even forces himself to forget the future, so that he can grant us his forgiveness!”. But to those who made a lukewarm and rather indifferent confession of sin, he clearly demonstrated by his own tears of pain how “abominable” this attitude was: “I weep because you don’t weep”, he would say. “If only the Lord were not so good! But he is so good! One would have to be a brute to treat so good a Father this way!”. He awakened repentance in the hearts of the lukewarm by forcing them to see God’s own pain at their sins reflected in the face of the priest who was their confessor. To those who, on the other hand, came to him already desirous of and suited to a deeper spiritual life, he flung open the abyss of God’s love, explaining the untold beauty of living in union with him and dwelling in his presence: “Everything in God’s sight, everything with God, everything to please God… How beautiful it is!”. And he taught them to pray: “My God, grant me the grace to love you as much as I possibly can”.
In his time the Curé of Ars was able to transform the hearts and the lives of so many people because he enabled them to experience the Lord’s merciful love. [Except the totally healthy heterosexual conjugal married kind?] Our own time urgently needs a similar proclamation and witness to the truth of Love: Deus caritas est (1 Jn: 4:8). Thanks to the word and the sacraments of Jesus, John Mary Vianney built up his flock, although he often trembled from a conviction of his personal inadequacy, and desired more than once to withdraw from the responsibilities of the parish ministry out of a sense of his unworthiness. Nonetheless, with exemplary obedience he never abandoned his post, consumed as he was by apostolic zeal for the salvation of souls. He sought to remain completely faithful to his own vocation and mission through the practice of an austere asceticism: “The great misfortune for us parish priests – he lamented – is that our souls grow tepid”; meaning by this that a pastor can grow dangerously inured to the state of sin or of indifference in which so many of his flock are living. He himself kept a tight rein on his body, with vigils and fasts, lest it rebel against his priestly soul. Nor did he avoid self-mortification for the good of the souls in his care and as a help to expiating the many sins he heard in confession. To a priestly confrere he explained: “I will tell you my recipe: I give sinners a small penance and the rest I do in their place”. Aside from the actual penances which the Curé of Ars practiced, the core of his teaching remains valid for each of us: souls have been won at the price of Jesus’ own blood, and a priest cannot devote himself to their salvation if he refuses to share personally in the “precious cost” of redemption.
In today’s world, as in the troubled times of the Curé of Ars, the lives and activity of priests need to be distinguished by a forceful witness to the Gospel. As Pope Paul VI rightly noted, “modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses”. Lest we experience existential emptiness and the effectiveness of our ministry be compromised, we need to ask ourselves ever anew: “Are we truly pervaded by the word of God? Is that word truly the nourishment we live by, even more than bread and the things of this world? Do we really know that word? Do we love it? Are we deeply engaged with this word to the point that it really leaves a mark on our lives and shapes our thinking?”. Just as Jesus called the Twelve to be with him (cf. Mk 3:14), and only later sent them forth to preach, so too in our days priests are called to assimilate that “new style of life” which was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus and taken up by the Apostles.
It was complete commitment to this “new style of life” which marked the priestly ministry of the Curé of Ars. Pope John XXIII, in his Encyclical Letter Sacerdotii nostri primordia, published in 1959 on the first centenary of the death of Saint John Mary Vianney, presented his asceticism with special reference to the “three evangelical counsels” which the Pope considered necessary also for priests: “even though priests are not bound to embrace these evangelical counsels by virtue of the clerical state, these counsels nonetheless offer them, as they do all the faithful, the surest road to the desired goal of Christian perfection”. The Curé of Ars lived the “evangelical counsels” in a way suited to his priestly state. His poverty was not the poverty of a religious or a monk, but that proper to a priest: while managing much money (since well-to-do pilgrims naturally took an interest in his charitable works), he realized that everything had been donated to his church, his poor, his orphans, the girls of his “Providence”, his families of modest means. Consequently, he “was rich in giving to others and very poor for himself”. As he would explain: “My secret is simple: give everything away; hold nothing back”. When he lacked money, he would say aimiably to the poor who knocked at his door: “Today I’m poor just like you, I’m one of you”. At the end of his life, he could say with absolute tranquillity: “I no longer have anything. The good Lord can call me whenever he wants!”. His chastity, too, was that demanded of a priest for his ministry. It could be said that it was a chastity suited to one who must daily touch the Eucharist, who contemplates it blissfully and with that same bliss offers it to his flock. It was said of him that “he radiated chastity”; the faithful would see this when he turned and gazed at the tabernacle with loving eyes”. Finally, Saint John Mary Vianney’s obedience found full embodiment in his conscientious fidelity to the daily demands of his ministry. We know how he was tormented by the thought of his inadequacy for parish ministry and by a desire to flee “in order to bewail his poor life, in solitude”. Only obedience and a thirst for souls convinced him to remain at his post. As he explained to himself and his flock: “There are no two good ways of serving God. There is only one: serve him as he desires to be served”. He considered this the golden rule for a life of obedience: “Do only what can be offered to the good Lord”.
In this context of a spirituality nourished by the practice of the evangelical counsels, I would like to invite all priests, during this Year dedicated to them, to welcome the new springtime which the Spirit is now bringing about in the Church, not least through the ecclesial movements and the new communities. “In his gifts the Spirit is multifaceted… He breathes where he wills. He does so unexpectedly, in unexpected places, and in ways previously unheard of… but he also shows us that he works with a view to the one body and in the unity of the one body”. In this regard, the statement of the Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis continues to be timely: “While testing the spirits to discover if they be of God, priests must discover with faith, recognize with joy and foster diligently the many and varied charismatic gifts of the laity, whether these be of a humble or more exalted kind”. These gifts, which awaken in many people the desire for a deeper spiritual life, can benefit not only the lay faithful but the clergy as well. The communion between ordained and charismatic ministries can provide “a helpful impulse to a renewed commitment by the Church in proclaiming and bearing witness to the Gospel of hope and charity in every corner of the world”. I would also like to add, echoing the Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis of Pope John Paul II, that the ordained ministry has a radical “communitarian form” and can be exercised only in the communion of priests with their Bishop. This communion between priests and their Bishop, grounded in the sacrament of Holy Orders and made manifest in Eucharistic concelebration, needs to be translated into various concrete expressions of an effective and affective priestly fraternity. Only thus will priests be able to live fully the gift of celibacy and build thriving Christian communities in which the miracles which accompanied the first preaching of the Gospel can be repeated.
The Pauline Year now coming to its close invites us also to look to the Apostle of the Gentiles, who represents a splendid example of a priest entirely devoted to his ministry. “The love of Christ urges us on” – he wrote – “because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died” (2 Cor 5:14). And he adds: “He died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them” (2 Cor 5:15). Could a finer programme could be proposed to any priest resolved to advance along the path of Christian perfection?
Dear brother priests, the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the death of Saint John Mary Vianney (1859) follows upon the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the apparitions of Lourdes (1858). In 1959 Blessed Pope John XXIII noted that “shortly before the Curé of Ars completed his long and admirable life, the Immaculate Virgin appeared in another part of France to an innocent and humble girl, and entrusted to her a message of prayer and penance which continues, even a century later, to yield immense spiritual fruits. The life of this holy priest whose centenary we are commemorating in a real way anticipated the great supernatural truths taught to the seer of Massabielle. He was greatly devoted to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin; in 1836 he had dedicated his parish church to Our Lady Conceived without Sin and he greeted the dogmatic definition of this truth in 1854 with deep faith and great joy.” The Curé would always remind his faithful that “after giving us all he could, Jesus Christ wishes in addition to bequeath us his most precious possession, his Blessed Mother”.
To the Most Holy Virgin I entrust this Year for Priests. I ask her to awaken in the heart of every priest a generous and renewed commitment to the ideal of complete self-oblation to Christ and the Church which inspired the thoughts and actions of the saintly Curé of Ars. It was his fervent prayer life and his impassioned love of Christ Crucified that enabled John Mary Vianney to grow daily in his total self-oblation to God and the Church. May his example lead all priests to offer that witness of unity with their Bishop, with one another and with the lay faithful, which today, as ever, is so necessary. Despite all the evil present in our world, the words which Christ spoke to his Apostles in the Upper Room continue to inspire us: “In the world you have tribulation; but take courage, I have overcome the world” (Jn 16:33). Our faith in the Divine Master gives us the strength to look to the future with confidence. Dear priests, Christ is counting on you. In the footsteps of the Curé of Ars, let yourselves be enthralled by him. In this way you too will be, for the world in our time, heralds of hope, reconciliation and peace!
With my blessing.
From the Vatican, 16 June 2009.
It is totally appalling when anti-abortion advocates create straw women to burn down. Read the Cases or shutta you moutha. Go Look this up- or email me and I will email you the full text. Here is a Findlaw Summary. Trust me- they already thought about it....here is a bit of history
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
The Supreme Court's decision upheld Congress's ban and held that it did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion, "under precedents we here assume to be controlling," such as the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This case distinguished but did not reverse Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the Court dealt with related issues.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law by President Bush on November 5, 2003. It was found unconstitutional in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, the Southern District of New York, and the District of Nebraska.
The federal government appealed the district court rulings, first bringing Carhart v. GonzalesU.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The panel unanimously affirmed the ruling of the Nebraska court on July 8, 2005. Finding that the government offered no "new evidence which would serve to distinguish this record from the record reviewed by the Supreme Court in Stenberg," they held that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the health of the woman. before a three-judge panel of the
Attorney General Gonzales petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit decision on September 25, 2005. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit also found the law unconstitutional, as did the Second Circuit (with a dissent), issuing their opinions on January 31, 2006. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carhart case on February 21, 2006, and agreed to hear the companion Planned Parenthood case on June 19, 2006.
 Oral arguments
Oral arguments in this case (as well as its companion case) occurred on November 8, 2006. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, presented arguments for the United States, and Priscilla Smith presented arguments for Dr. Carhart et al. Solicitor General Clement also presented arguments for the United States in the companion case of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. Eve Gartner presented arguments for Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court has made available audio of the oral arguments, in both Carhart and Planned Parenthood.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court that the respondents had failed to show that Congress lacked authority to ban this abortion procedure. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with the Court's judgment, joining Kennedy's opinion.
The Court left the door open for as-applied challenges, citing its recent precedent in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England. According to Washington Post reporter Benjamin Wittes, "The Court majority, following the path it sketched out last year in the New Hampshire case, decided to let the law stand as a facial matter and let the parties fight later about what, if any, applications need to be blocked."
The Court said that the lower courts had repudiated a central premise of Casey — that the state has an interest in preserving fetal life — and the Court held that the ban was narrowly tailored to address this interest. Relying deferentially on Congress's findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman, Kennedy wrote that a health exception was therefore unnecessary. And, where medical testimony disputed Congress's findings, Congress is still entitled to regulate in an area where the medical community has not reached a "consensus."
The majority opinion held that "ethical and moral concerns", including an interest in fetal life, represented "substantial" state interests which (assuming they do not impose an "undue" burden) could be a basis for legislation at all times during pregnancy, not just after viability. Thus, the Court clarified that the pre-viability/post-viability distinction was not implicated in Carhart.
In addition, the Court distinguished the Stenberg case, which previously struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law. The Court held that the state statute at issue in Stenberg was more ambiguous than the later federal statute at issue in Carhart.
The majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart did not discuss the constitutional rationale of the Court's prior abortion cases (i.e. "due process"). However, the majority opinion disagreed with the Eighth Circuit that the federal statute conflicted with "the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment [which] is textually identical to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia, saving for another day the issue of whether Congress had sufficient power under the Commerce Clause to enact this ban. The Commerce Clause was also mentioned in the opinion of the Court, and was the only clause of the Constitution mentioned explicitly by the opinions in this case.
The concurrence also stated that Justices Thomas and Scalia joined the Court's opinion "because it accurately applies current jurisprudence." And, the concurrence reiterated their view that that current abortion jurisprudence "has no basis in the Constitution." Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, pointed out that "no less an anti-abortion proponent than Justice Scalia joined by Justice Thomas, in his separate opinion, chided the majority for not coming out and explicitly saying that they had overturned not Roe vs. Wade, but the prior partial-birth abortion ban case."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer, contending that the ruling was an "alarming" one that ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent. Justice Ginsburg's dissent was the only opinion in this case that mentioned the word "privacy". Justice Ginsburg, referring in particular to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, sought to ground the Court's abortion jurisprudence based on concepts of personal autonomy and equal citizenship rather than the Court's previous privacy approach: "Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." She also took issue with the majority opinion that no health exception was necessary, writing that "the absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant—women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk."
Justice Kennedy's opinion in Carhart did not touch upon the question of whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were valid. Dissenting Justice Ginsburg characterized this aspect of the Court's opinion as follows: "Casey's principles, confirming the continuing vitality of ‘the essential holding of Roe,’ are merely ‘assume[d]’ for the moment ... rather than ‘retained’ or ‘reaffirmed.’"
 See also
STENBERG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, et al. v. CARHART
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
No. 99-830. Argued April 25, 2000--Decided June 28, 2000
The Constitution offers basic protection to a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833. Before fetal viability, a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, id., at 870 (joint opinion), and a state law is unconstitutional if it imposes on the woman's decision an "undue burden," i.e., if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the woman's path, id., at 877. Post viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where "necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the [mother's] life or health." E.g., id., at 879. The Nebraska law at issue prohibits any "partial birth abortion" unless that procedure is necessary to save the mother's life. It defines "partial birth abortion" as a procedure in which the doctor "partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the . . . child," and defines the latter phrase to mean "intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the [abortionist] knows will kill the ... child and does kill the ... child." Violation of the law is a felony, and it provides for the automatic revocation of a convicted doctor's state license to practice medicine. Respondent Carhart, a Nebraska physician who performs abortions in a clinical setting, brought this suit seeking a declaration that the statute violates the Federal Constitution. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Nebraska's statute criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortion[s]" violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe. Pp. 3-27.
(a) Because the statute seeks to ban one abortion method, the Court discusses several different abortion procedures, as described in the evidence below and the medical literature. During a pregnancy's second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), the most common abortion procedure is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum surgical instruments, and (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus. When such dismemberment is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal. The risks of mortality and complication that accompany D&E are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest mid-second-trimester procedures). A variation of D&E, known as "intact D&E," is used after 16 weeks. It involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," i.e., in one pass rather than several passes. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on whether the fetus presents head first or feet first. The feet-first method is known as "dilation and extraction" (D&X). D&X is ordinarily associated with the term "partial birth abortion." The District Court concluded that clear and convincing evidence established that Carhart's D&X procedure is superior to, and safer than, the D&E and other abortion procedures used during the relevant gestational period in the 10 to 20 cases a year that present to Carhart. Moreover, materials presented at trial emphasize the potential benefits of the D&X procedure in certain cases. Pp. 3-10.
(b) The Nebraska statute lacks the requisite exception "for the preservation of the ... health of the mother." Casey, supra, at 879 (joint opinion). The State may promote but not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the methods of abortion. Pp. 11-19.
(i) The Court rejects Nebraska's contention that there is no need for a health exception here because safe alternatives remain available and a ban on partial-birth abortion/D&X would create no risk to women's health. The parties strongly contested this factual question in the District Court; and the findings and evidence support Dr. Carhart. Pp. 13-14.
(ii) Nebraska and its supporting amici respond with eight arguments as to why the District Court's findings are irrelevant, wrong, or applicable only in a tiny number of instances. Pp. 14-15.
(iii) The eight arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that Nebraska's law needs no health exception. For one thing, certain of the arguments are beside the point. The D&X procedure's relative rarity (argument (1)) is not highly relevant. The State cannot prohibit a person from obtaining treatment simply by pointing out that most people do not need it. And the fact that only a "handful" of doctors use the procedure (argument (2)) may reflect the comparative rarity of late second term abortions, the procedure's recent development, the controversy surrounding it, or, as Nebraska suggests, the procedure's lack of utility. For another thing, the record responds to Nebraska's (and amici's) medically based arguments. As to argument (3), the District Court agreed that alternatives, such as D&E and induced labor are "safe," but found that the D&X method was safer in the circumstances used by Carhart. As to argument (4)--that testimony showed that the statutory ban would not increase a woman's risk of several rare abortion complications--the District Court simply relied on different expert testimony than the State. Argument (5)--the assertion of amici Association of American Physicians and Surgeons et al. that elements of the D&X procedure may create special risks--is disputed by Carhart's amici, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which claims that the suggested alternative procedures involve similar or greater risks of cervical and uterine injury. Nebraska's argument (6) is right--there are no general medical studies documenting the comparative safety of the various abortion procedures. Nor does the Court deny the import of the American Medical Association's (AMA) recommendation (argument (7)) that intact D&X not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. However, the Court cannot read ACOG's qualification that it could not identify a circumstance where D&X was the "only" life- or health-preserving option as if, according to Nebraska's argument (8), it denied the potential health-related need for D&X. ACOG has also asserted that D&X can be the most appropriate abortion procedure and presents a variety of potential safety advantages. Pp. 15-18.
(iv) The upshot is a District Court finding that D&X obviates health risks in certain circumstances, a highly plausible record-based explanation of why that might be so, a division of medical opinion over whether D&X is generally safer, and an absence of controlled medical studies that would help answer these medical questions. Given these circumstances, the Court believes the law requires a health exception. For one thing, the word "necessary" in Casey's phrase "necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the ... health of the mother," 505 U. S., at 879, cannot refer to absolute proof or require unanimity of medical opinion. Doctors often differ in their estimation of comparative health risks and appropriate treatment. And Casey's words "appropriate medical judgment" must embody the judicial need to tolerate responsible differences of medical opinion. For another thing, the division of medical opinion signals uncertainty. If those who believe that D&X is a safer abortion method in certain circumstances turn out to be right, the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk. If they are wrong, the exception will simply turn out to have been unnecessary. Pp. 18-19.
(c) The Nebraska statute imposes an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to choose an abortion. See Casey, supra, at 874 (joint opinion). Pp. 20-27.
(i) Nebraska does not deny that the statute imposes an "undue burden" if it applies to the more commonly used D&E procedure as well as to D&E This Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that the D&E procedure falls within the statutory prohibition of intentionally delivering into the vagina a living fetus, or "a substantial portion thereof," for the purpose of performing a procedure that the perpetrator knows will kill the fetus. Because the evidence makes clear that D&E will often involve a physician pulling an arm, leg, or other "substantial portion" of a still living fetus into the vagina prior to the fetus' death, the statutory terms do not to distinguish between D&E and D&X. The statute's language does not track the medical differences between D&E and D&X, but covers both. Using the law's statutory terms, it is impossible to distinguish between D&E (where a foot or arm is drawn through the cervix) and D&X (where the body up to the head is drawn through the cervix). Both procedures can involve the introduction of a "substantial portion" of a still living fetus, through the cervix, into the vagina--the very feature of an abortion that leads to characterizing such a procedure as involving "partial birth." Pp. 20-21.
(ii) The Court rejects the Nebraska Attorney General's arguments that the state law does differentiate between the two procedures--i.e., that the words "substantial portion" mean "the child up to the head," such that the law is inapplicable where the physician introduces into the birth canal anything less than the entire fetal body--and that the Court must defer to his views. The Court's case law makes clear that the Attorney General's narrowing interpretation cannot be given controlling weight. For one thing, this Court normally follows lower federal-court interpretations of state law, e.g., McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U. S. 781, 786, and rarely reviews such an interpretation that is agreed upon by the two lower federal courts. Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 484 U. S. 383, 395. Here, the two lower courts both rejected the Attorney General's narrowing interpretation. For another, the Court's precedent warns against accepting as "authoritative" an Attorney General's interpretation of state law where, as here, that interpretation does not bind the state courts or local law enforcement. In Nebraska, elected county attorneys have independent authority to initiate criminal prosecutions. Some present prosecutors (and future Attorneys General) might use the law at issue to pursue physicians who use D&E procedures. Nor can it be said that the lower courts used the wrong legal standard in assessing the Attorney General's interpretation. The Eighth Circuit recognized its duty to give the law a construction that would avoid constitutional doubt, but nonetheless concluded that the Attorney General's interpretation would twist the law's words, giving them a meaning they cannot reasonably bear. The Eighth Circuit is far from alone in rejecting such a narrowing interpretation, since 11 of the 12 federal courts that have interpreted on the merits the model statutory language on which the Nebraska law is based have found the language potentially applicable to abortion procedures other than D&X. Regardless, were the Court to grant the Attorney General's views "substantial weight," it would still have to reject his interpretation, for it conflicts with the statutory language. The statutory words, "substantial portion," indicate that the statute does not include the Attorney General's restriction--"the child up to the head." The Nebraska Legislature's debates hurt the Attorney General's argument more than they help it, indicating that as small a portion of the fetus as a foot would constitute a "substantial portion." Even assuming that the distinction the Attorney General seeks to draw between the overall abortion procedure itself and the separate procedure used to kill an unborn child would help him make the D&E/D&X distinction he seeks, there is no language in the statute that supports it. Although adopting his interpretation might avoid the constitutional problem discussed above, the Court lacks power do so where, as here, the narrowing construction is not reasonable and readily apparent. E.g., Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 330. Finally, the Court has never held that a federal litigant must await a state-court construction or the development of an established practice before bringing the federal suit. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U. S. 750, 770, n. 11. But any authoritative state-court construction is lacking here. The Attorney General neither sought a narrowing interpretation from the Nebraska Supreme Court nor asked the federal courts to certify the interpretive question. Cf. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43. Even were the Court inclined to certify the question now, it could not do so because certification is appropriate only where the statute is "fairly susceptible" to a narrowing construction, see Houston v. Hill, 482 U. S. 451, 468-471, as is not the case here. Moreover, the Nebraska Supreme Court grants certification only if the certified question is determinative of the cause, see id., at 471, as it would not be here. In sum, because all those who perform abortion procedures using the D&E method must fear prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment, the Nebraska law imposes an undue burden upon a woman's right to make an abortion decision. Pp. 21-27.
192 F. 3d 1142, affirmed.
Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. O'Connor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., filed dissenting opinions. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined.
DON STENBERG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
[June 28, 2000]
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
Looking for a way to have your voice heard on Health Care Reform, which includes Access to Quality, Affordable Health Care for ALL in America?
Join Network and other faith based voices in expressing your desire for CHANGE!
See you there,
Ann and John
On June 24, join our call for healthcare for all!
Dear NETWORK friends,
Join NETWORK staff and thousands of interfaith activists in Washington, D.C. on June 24 for an Interfaith Service of Witness and Prayer to express the strong support of people of faith for healthcare reform. More than 40 national faith organizations--including NETWORK--have come together to plan the largest faith-inspired mobilization to ever happen around healthcare reform.
You'll enjoy a pre-service health fair, musical entertainment and the opportunity to gather and pray with thousands of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu friends who share your conviction that our healthcare system must include everyone. And you'll have the chance to be inspired by NETWORK Executive Director, Sister Simone Campbell, SSS, who will be a keynote speaker at the event!
When: Wednesday, June 24, 4 -7 PM: A health fair will begin at 4:00 PM, followed by the service from 5:00 - 7:00 PM (late arrivals welcome)
Where: Freedom Plaza (13th Street and Pennsylvania Ave. NW, near the Metro Center metro stop)
Why: Show your passionate support for a compassionate healthcare future!
Who: Keynote speakers:
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Director, The Healing of the Nations Foundation
Social Justice Lobby
Visit us at the NETWORK table and hear from Sister Simone Campbell, SSS.
Attendees are encouraged to bring signs and banners of support. For more details, or to RSVP, visit the event website http://www.webelievetogether.com/
With the protests on the streets in Iran and a lot of hot rhetoric here at home, I wanted to send a message about how careful we need to be in the messages we're sending back around the world - so I penned this OpEd for this morning's New York Times - especially to flag the dangers of some of what we're hearing from the neocons who dug us a very deep hole in the first place in American foreign policy. Later today I'll be on Hardball with Chris Matthews and the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer to talk about this some more if you'd like to tune in. -- JK
With Iran, Think Before You Speak
By John Kerry
June 18, 2009
The grass-roots protests that have engulfed Iran since its presidential election last week have grabbed America's attention and captured headlines -- unfortunately, so has the clamor from neoconservatives urging President Obama to denounce the voting as a sham and insert ourselves directly in Iran's unrest.
No less a figure than Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in 2008, has denounced President Obama's response as "tepid." He has also claimed that "if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail."
Mr. McCain's rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran's peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.
There's just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran's hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for "interventionist" statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.
We can't escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran's election must be about Iran -- not America. And if the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one.
To understand this, we need only listen to the demonstrators. Their signs, slogans and Twitter postings say nothing about getting help from Washington -- instead they are adapting the language of their own revolution. When Iranians shout "Allahu Akbar" from rooftops, they are repackaging the signature gesture of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Mir Hussein Moussavi, the leading reformist presidential candidate, has advocated a more conciliatory approach to America. But his political legitimacy comes from his revolutionary credentials for helping overthrow an American-backed shah -- a history that today helps protect protesters against accusations of being an American "fifth column."
Iran's internal change is happening on two levels: on the streets, but also within the clerical establishment. Ultimately, no matter who wins the election, our fundamental security challenge will be the same -- preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That will take patient effort, and premature engagement in Iran's domestic politics may well make negotiations more difficult.
What comes next in Iran is unclear. What is clear is that the tough talk that Senator McCain advocates got us nowhere for the last eight years. Our saber-rattling only empowered hard-liners and put reformers on the defensive. An Iranian president who advocated a "dialogue among civilizations" and societal reforms was replaced by one who denied the Holocaust and routinely called for the destruction of Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran's influence in the Middle East expanded and it made considerable progress on its nuclear program.
The last thing we should do is give Mr. Ahmadinejad an opportunity to evoke the 1953 American-sponsored coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and returned Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. Doing so would only allow him to cast himself as a modern-day Mossadegh, standing up for principle against a Western puppet.
Words are important. President Obama has made that clear in devising a new approach to Iran and the wider Muslim world. In offering negotiation and conciliation, he has put the region's extremists on the defensive.
We have seen the results of this new vision already. His outreach may have helped to make a difference in the election last week in Lebanon, where a pro-Western coalition surprised many by winning a resounding victory.
We're seeing signs that it's having an impact in Iran as well. Returning to harsh criticism now would only erase this progress, empower hard-liners in Iran who want to see negotiations fail and undercut those who have risen up in support of a better relationship.
Watch more AOL News videos on AOL Video
Father Cutie married his girlfriend. Of course they were already in a sense married a few years ago in terms of commitments of the heart with the authority of a Roman Catholic Priest-himself, but they made it official with a Florida State license and a visit to a Justice of the Peace whose spiritual authority over a Priest to marry is what exactly?
A Roman Catholic Priest and now an Episcopalian Priest in training "Chose Life"- literally-really and truly. No hypocricy there. No 'do what I say not what I do.' He gave honor and dignity to his woman whom he didn't hide in the pews or dally with on the sly. He came clean.
He honored God by honoring real love. He walked the talk. He is now free to bring real live babies into the world, not just baptize other people's children. And this, is a holy, right, good and honorable thing- favored by 70% of all Americans who want the Roman Catholic Church to have a marriage option. So if you want to "ban" this heresy, you will lock out 70% of the church who will look for the "real presence" where two or more are gathered in his name in the Anglican community.
It is not the or any "HOLY SPIRIT" to crush, grind and spit out the heart of a woman. There is nothing Jesus in that. the BLESSED MOTHER is just shaking her head in disbelief.
The Real Scandal is that there is no room for a priest and woman in love and legally married to serve in his well trained profession in the Holy Catholic Church when by all accounts he was a very beloved effective Priest.
The free speech doctrine does not permit one to yell "Fire" in a crowded Theatre precisely because it is clearly forseeable that this can cause a stampede and injury.
If injury is forseeable as a natural probable consequence, the Free speech is not constitutionally protected.
Monday, June 15, 2009
CITE DU VATICAN, 14 JUI 2009 (VIS). Avant la prière mariale avec les fidèles réunis Place-St.Pierre, le Pape a parlé de la solennité du Corpus Domini célébrée aujourd'hui dans divers pays et "où le Saint Sacrement est porté solennellement en procession. Au centre de cette fête -a-t-il dit- "se trouve le pain, fruit de la terre et du ciel. Ainsi, le pain eucharistique est le signe visible de celui par qui, au ciel et sur la terre, Dieu et homme sont devenus une seule chose". La solennité du Corps du Christ est intimement liée à Pâques et à Pentecôte: la mort et la résurrection de Jésus et l'effusion de l'Esprit Saint la présupposent. Elle est, en outre, directement liée à la fête de la Trinité célébrée dimanche dernier. C'est seulement parce que Dieu lui-même est relation, que nous pouvons avoir un rapport avec lui. C'est seulement parce qu'il est amour, que l'on peut aimer et être aimé. Ainsi, le Corpus Domini est une manifestation de Dieu, une preuve que Dieu est amour. Cette fête nous parle de l'amour divin d'une façon unique et particulière, de ce qu'il est et de ce qu'il fait".
Benoît XVI a ensuite souligné que "l'amour transforme toute chose, et l'on comprend donc qu'au centre de cette fête du Corpus Domini, se trouve le mystère de la transsubstantiation, signe de Jésus-Charité qui transforme le monde. En le regardant et en l'adorant, nous disons: oui, l'amour existe, et puisqu'il existe les choses peuvent s'améliorer et nous pouvons espérer. Et l'espérance qui provient de l'amour du Christ nous donne la force de vivre et d'affronter les difficultés. C'est pour cela que nous chantons en portant en procession le Saint Sacrement. Nous chantons et louons Dieu qui s'est révélé dans le signe du pain rompu. Nous avons tous besoin de ce pain parce que le chemin vers la liberté, la justice et la paix est long et fatigant".
Le Pape a invité les fidèles à imaginer "avec combien de foi et d'amour la Vierge Marie aura reçu et adoré dans son cœur l'Eucharistie! Chaque fois, c'était, pour elle, comme recevoir le mystère entier de son Fils Jésus, de sa conception jusqu'à sa résurrection". En rappelant que Jean-Paul II l'appelait Mère eucharistique, Benoît XVI a encouragé à apprendre de Marie "à sans cesse renouveler notre communion avec le Corps du Christ pour nous aimer les uns les autres comme lui nous a aimé".
CORPUS CHRISTI: EVIDENCE THAT GOD IS LOVE
VATICAN CITY, 14 JUN 2009 (VIS) - At midday today, before praying the Angelus with thousands of pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square, the Pope dedicated some remarks to the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, which is being celebrated today in various countries and "in which the Sacrament of the Lord's Body is borne in solemn procession".
At the heart of this feast, the Pope explained, "is the sign of the bread, fruit of the earth and the heavens. Hence the Eucharistic bread is the visible sign of He in Whom heavens and earth, God and man, were joined and made one".
"The Solemnity of Corpus Christi is intimately associated with Easter and with Pentecost: its premise is the death and resurrection of Jesus and the effusion of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore it is directly linked to the Feast of the Blessed Trinity, which was celebrated last Sunday. Only because God Himself is a 'God of relation' is it possible to have a relationship with Him; and only because He is love can He love and be loved. Thus Corpus Christi is an expression of God, it is evidence that God is love. In a unique way this feast speaks to us of divine love, of what it is and what it does".
"Love transforms all things", said Benedict XVI, "and hence we can understand why, at the heart of today's Feast of Corpus Christi, lies the mystery of transubstantiation, the sign of Jesus-Charity that transforms the world. By looking at Him and adoring Him, we are saying: yes, love exists, and because it exists things can change for the better and we may hope.
"It is the hope that arises from the love of Christ that gives us the strength to live and to face up to difficulties", the Holy Father added. "That is why we sing as we carry the Blessed Sacrament in procession; we sing and we praise God Who revealed Himself by hiding Himself in the sign of the broken bread. We all need this Bread because the journey towards freedom, justice and peace is long and tiring".
He then called upon the faithful to imagine "with how much faith and love the Virgin must have received and adored the Blessed Eucharist in her heart. For her, each time was like reliving the entire mystery of her Son Jesus, from conception to resurrection". Then, after recalling how John Paul II had described Mary as "Eucharistic woman", Pope Benedict concluded by encouraging people to learn from her "to renew our communion with the Body of Christ, in order to love one another as He loved us".
ANG/CORPUS CHRISTI/... VIS 090615