| Tuesday 6th October 2009 12:48am 1 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
By The Associated Press
10.05.2009 1:41pm
EDT
(Vatican City) A prominent African cardinal said Monday there was
no reason why the next pope couldn’t be black, particularly
following the election of President Barack Obama.
Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson of Ghana is playing an
important role in guiding a three-week meeting at the Vatican on
the challenges of the Catholic Church in Africa.
At a news conference Monday, Turkson was asked whether he thought
the time was right for a black pope, especially in light of
Obama’s election.
“Why not?” Turkson replied. He argued that every man who agrees
to be ordained a priest has to be willing to be a pope, and is
given training along the way as bishop and cardinal. “All of that
is part of the package.”
He also noted that former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was
from Ghana.
“He had problems, but he still did it,” Turkson said. “And now it
is Obama of the United States. And if by divine providence –
because the church belongs to God – if God would wish to see a
black man also as pope, thanks be to God!”
Speculation about the possibility of a pope from the developing
world has swirled for years, as that is where the Catholic Church
is growing most: In Africa, between 1978 and 2007, the number of
Catholics grew from 55 million to 146 million. By contrast,
Catholic communities in Europe are in decline.
In 1978, the Polish-born Pope John Paul II became the first
non-Italian pope in 455 years. Cardinals followed in 2005 by
electing German-born Pope Benedict XVI.
Whether the European-heavy College of Cardinals will look outside
Europe for Benedict’s successor is an open question. Benedict
enjoys good health at 82, and there are no signs the job will
become open soon.
But Turkson may well be in the running when the time comes. The
60-year-old archbishop of Cape Coast, Ghana, was appointed by
Benedict to be the relator, or key discussion leader, of the
synod on Africa.
It’s a high-profile position – important for letting cardinals
get to know prelates from regions other than their own.
During the press conference Monday, he was deft in handling
delicate questions about the church in Africa, including one
about priests who stray from their vows of celibacy and live
openly with women.
“I might say I knew that question would come up,” he quipped.
He said the matter was not something to hide or be ashamed of.
Rather, he said, the aim should be to help priests who are
struggling and support them in living out their vows.
Turkson also was asked about the Catholic Church’s position on
the use of condoms as a way to fight HIV, which has ravaged the
continent. The Vatican opposes condoms, as well as any form of
artificial birth control. Critics say the church’s position has
only worsened the HIV problem.
Turkson didn’t rule out condoms outright, suggesting they could
be useful in a situation of a married, faithful couple where one
partner is infected.
But he said the quality of condoms in Africa is poor, and can
engender false confidence. He said abstinence and fidelity were
the key to fighting the epidemic, along with refraining from sex
if infected.
He also said the money being spent on condoms would be better
spent providing anti-retroviral drugs to those already infected.
“Let’s talk clearly,” he said. “We’re talking about a product of
a factory, and there are different qualities. There are condoms
that arrive in Ghana which in the heat will burst during sex. And
when that is the case, then it gives a false sense of security
which rather facilitates the spread of HIV/AIDs. And when that is
the case, we are reluctant – even in the case of conjugal
relations of people who are faithful,” to suggest condom use as a
way of preventing AIDS.
|
|
| Tuesday 6th October 2009 08:46pm 2 |
JohnK
39 Posts
|
Church Loses Fight Over Sealed
Papers
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125475356953564707.html
Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 6, 2009
By
KEITH J.
WINSTEIN
The
U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the release of thousands
of pages of sealed documents concerning sexual abuse by priests
in the Catholic diocese of Bridgeport, Conn.
The court's decision Monday effectively lifts a stay that has
delayed the release of the documents since 2006, when four
newspapers persuaded a Connecticut court to unseal them.
The materials were filed in 23 lawsuits against the Catholic
diocese by parishioners during the 1990s, alleging that the
church failed to supervise its priests and reassigned those
suspected of abusing children. The cases were settled in 2001, as
the Catholic abuse scandal grew in national prominence.
The sealed documents are said to include transcripts of
depositions of church officials, including Cardinal Edward Egan,
and files from the investigation of priests accused of abuse
during the 1960s and 1970s. A 2002 article in the Hartford
(Conn.) Courant described some of the documents, which the
newspaper said it obtained from sources it didn't name.
The other newspaper plaintiffs were the New York Times, the
Boston Globe and the Washington Post.
A Connecticut judge scheduled a hearing for Nov. 9 on unsealing
the documents.
The case demonstrates the diocese's failure to "take appropriate
action to protect innocent children from priests that it knew to
be sexual predators," Dan Sullivan, the co-chairman of the
Bridgeport affiliate of Voices of the Faithful, an advocate for
victims of sex abuse by clergy, said in a statement.
In an interview, Bridgeport's bishop, the Most Rev. William Lori,
said the church had apologized and improved. "The Catholic Church
today is one of the safest places your child can be, thanks to
all the steps the diocese has taken," he said.
"Every employee, every volunteer, every member of the clergy
undergo background checks," Bishop Lori said. "No one who abused
a child or harmed a young person has been in ministry for 10 or
15 years."
Bishop Lori said the diocese was concerned "about the impact that
these court decisions will have on our First Amendment rights, to
determine who is or is not fit to become a priest, and that
applies to all religions." The church has maintained it only
released the documents to the plaintiffs under the promise that
they would remain sealed.
Write to Keith
J. Winstein at keith.winstein@wsj.com
|
|
| Wednesday 7th October 2009 06:45pm 3 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
DignityUSA Endorses National Equality March, Oct. 10-11,
2009
Submitted by dignityusa on Thu, 08/27/2009 - 12:22 www.dignityusa.org
Below is a statement from DignityUSA's Board of Directors:
DignityUSA endorses the National Equality March,
October 10-11, 2009 in Washington, DC, and will participate
fully in this event. As the nation's foremost organization
of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender Catholics and our
allies, we call on members and friends to support this
March, and the principles for which it stands. Civil rights
for our community is a hallmark of justice, and as
Catholics, members of the largest denomination in the US,
we believe we have a particular responsibility to witness
to our belief in justice for all people in the places where
public policy is made, as well as in our Church. We urge
those who are able to be present to March with Dignity in
Washington, DC on Oct. 10-11, and for those unable to be
there to March for Equality in another way: by getting
involved in a civil rights campaign in your home state, by
volunteering for an organization seeking justice for anyone
currently marginalized in our country, by donating to an
organization that works for equality, by sharing your own
experiences of discrimination, and by praying for those who
will gather in our nation's capital.
DignityUSA is finalizing negotiations with a local hotel to
provide a block of rooms at a reasonable rate for our
members and friends planning to attend the March. Watch
this space for additional details.
Dignity/Northern Virgina (NoVA) and Dignity/Washington, DC
will be hosting liturgies at their regular time and space
during the March weekend. In addition, we will sponsor a
training session for Catholics who wish to become involved
in pro-LGBT civil rights lobbying. Details will follow
soon.
|
|
| Saturday 10th October 2009 07:40am 4 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
|
|
| Saturday 10th October 2009 12:34pm 5 |
JohnK
39 Posts
|
Disturbing news indeed. . . pointing in my view to gross systemic
failures: orgnaised systems of abuse, and fear to address these
since whistle blowing would highlight; and prehaps oust prominent
cleric in high ranking leadership roles.
. . . what a mess.
|
|
| Saturday 10th October 2009 01:26pm 6 |
JohnK
39 Posts
|
|
|
| Wednesday 14th October 2009 05:32am 7 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
|
|
| Tuesday 20th October 2009 12:41am 8 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
|
|
| Tuesday 20th October 2009 01:26am 9 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
|
|
| Tuesday 20th October 2009 08:40pm 10 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
|
|
| Tuesday 20th October 2009 10:45pm 11 |
JohnK
39 Posts
|
Curious that Anglicans should want to convert to Roman
Catholicism, especially when Anglo-catholicism offers a parallel
orthodoxy without the entrenched ultraconservative position of
papacy. When Anglo-catholics left in 1992 for Rome on the advert
of the ordination of women priests in the church of England, this
was very telling. Again when Anglicans want to leave the Cof E
because of the acedency of women and LGB people to the office of
bishop, one can only draw one conlcusion; the reasurence of
homophoba and misyogny
|
|
| Thursday 22nd October 2009 05:54am 12 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
October 21st, 2009
As they do every year, the cartoon show: The Simpsons
released a special Halloween episode. This year’s Halloween
special, “Treehouse of Horrors XX” poked some fun at
Christianity.
He’s the plot: The story entitled “Don’t
have a Cow, Mankind” dealt with a burger that turned people
into zombies after they ate it. Bart was able to eat the burger
without being affected. Since Bart is immune to the effects of
the zombie-burger, he is referred to as “The Chosen One,” the
remaining humans take Bart to a safe zone to create an antidote.
They arrive at the safe zone and the following exchange takes
place:
Guard: “Welcome, son. To survive, all we must
do is eat your flesh.”
Marge: “Hold it right there, Bub! What kind of
civilized people eat the body and blood of their savior?”
Reverend Lovejoy: [Groan]
Personally, I found the comment rather innocent. It’s just a
funny remark about a goofy belief. Other cartoons have poked fun
at religion more directly and been mostly ignored. (Jesus is a
reoccurring character on The Family Guy)
Bill Donohue and the Catholic League disagree. Bill
thinks the cartoon has gone too far:
“Last year, when they poked some gentle fun at the
Apostle’s Creed on the Halloween episode, we said nothing.
That’s because it didn’t cross the line. This year is
different: mocking the heart of any religion always crosses the
line, and mocking the Eucharist does it for Catholics.”
Sorry Bill, all religion is fair game, including yours. No one
else is obligated or expected to respect silly superstitions just
because you do.
(Of course it wouldn’t be so easy to make fun of if it wasn’t
such an absurd belief.)
*********************************************************
Does anybody remember the infamous "Hallowe'en Letter" from the
Vatican in '86?
That was when we were informed by the grand vizier that we are
inherently
evil.
 BOO !
JP
|
|
| Wednesday 28th October 2009 10:52am 13 |
JohnK
39 Posts
|
The Vatican thirst for power divides Christianity and
damages Catholicism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
… ism-church
Hans Kung - Tuesday 27th October 2009
The astonishing efforts to lure away Anglican priests show that
Pope Benedict is set on restoring the Roman imperium The
astonishing efforts to lure away Anglican priests show that Pope
Benedict is set on restoring the Roman imperium
After Pope Benedict XVI's offences against the Jews and the
Muslims, Protestants and reform-oriented Catholics, it is now
the turn of the Anglican communion, which encompasses some 77
million members and is the third largest Christian confession
after the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches. Having
brought back the extreme anti-reformist faction of the Pius X
fraternity into the fold, Pope Benedict now hopes to fill up
the dwindling ranks of the Catholic church with Anglicans sympathetic to Rome.
Their conversion to the Catholic church is supposed to be made
easier: Anglican priests and bishops shall be allowed to retain
their standing, even when married. Traditionalists of the
churches, unite! Under the cupola of St Peter's! The Fisher of
Men is angling in waters of the extreme religious right.
This Roman action is a dramatic change of course: steering away
from the well-proven ecumenical strategy of eye-level dialogue
and honest understanding; steering towards an un-ecumenical
luring away of Anglican priests, even dispensing with medieval
celibacy law to enable them to come back to Rome under the
lordship of the pope. Clearly, the well-meaning Archbishop of
Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was no match for cunning Vatican
diplomacy. In his cosying up with the Vatican, he evidently did
not recognise the consequences. Otherwise he would not have put
his signature to the downplaying communique of the Catholic
Archbishop of Westminster. Can it be that those caught in the
Roman dragnet do not see that they will never be more than
second-class priests in the Roman church, that other Catholics
are not meant to take part in their liturgical celebrations?
Ironically, this communique impudently invokes the truly
ecumenical documents of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International
Commission, which were worked out in laborious
negotiations between the
Roman Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity and the Anglican Lambeth conference: documents
on the Eucharist (1971), on church office and ordination
(1973), and on authority in the church (1976/81). People in the
know, however, recognise that these three documents, subscribed
to by both sides at that time, aimed not at recruitment, but
rather at reconciliation. These documents of honest
reconciliation provide the basis for a recognition of Anglican
orders, which Pope Leo XIII, back in 1896, with anything but
convincing arguments, had declared invalid. But from the
validity of Anglican orders follows the validity of Anglican
celebrations of the Eucharist. And so mutual Eucharistic
hospitality would be possible; in fact, intercommunion. A slow
process of growing together of Catholics and Anglicans would
have been the consequence.
However, the Vatican Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith
quickly made sure that these documents of reconciliation
disappeared in the dungeons of the Vatican. That's called
"shelving". At the time, a confidential press release out of
the Vatican cited "too much Küng theology" in them – in other
words, a theological basis for a rapprochement between the
churches of Rome and Canterbury.
As I wrote in 1967, "a resumption of ecclesial community
between the Catholic church and the Anglican church" would be
possible, when "the Church of England, on the one side, shall
be given the guarantee that its current autochthonous and
autonomous church order under the Primate of Canterbury will be
preserved fully" and when, "on the other side, the Church of
England shall recognise the existence of a pastoral primacy of
Petrine ministry as the supreme authority for mediation and
arbitration between the churches." "In this way," I expressed
my hopes then, "out of the Roman imperium might emerge a
Catholic commonwealth."
But Pope Benedict is set upon restoring the Roman imperium. He
makes no concessions to the Anglican communion. On the
contrary, he wants to preserve the medieval, centralistic Roman
system for all ages – even if this makes impossible the
reconciliation of the Christian churches in fundamental
questions. Evidently, the papal primacy – which Pope Paul VI
admitted was the greatest stumbling block to the unity of the
churches – does not function as the "rock of unity". The
old-fashioned call for a "return to Rome" raises its ugly head
again, this time through the conversion particularly of the
priests, if possible, en masse. In Rome, one speaks of a
half-million Anglicans and 20 to 30 bishops. And what about the
remaining 76 million? This is a strategy whose failure has been
demonstrated in past centuries and which, at best, might lead
to the founding of a "uniate" Anglican "mini-church" in the
form of a personal prelature, not a territorial diocese. But
what are the consequences of this strategy already today?
First, a further weakening of the Anglican church. In the
Vatican, opponents of ecumenism rejoice over the conservative
influx. In the Anglican church, liberals rejoice over the
departure of the catholicising troublemakers. For the Anglican
church, this split means further corrosion. It is already
suffering from the consequences of the heedless and unnecessary
election of an avowed gay priest as
bishop in the US, an event that split his own
diocese and the whole Anglican communion. This friction has
been enhanced by the ambivalent attitude of the church's
leadership with respect to homosexual partnerships. Many
Anglicans would accept a civil registration of such couples
with wide-ranging legal consequences, for instance in
inheritance law, and would even accept an ecclesiastical
blessing for them, but they would not accept a "marriage" in
the traditional sense reserved for partnerships between a man
and a woman, nor would they accept a right to adoption for such
couples.
Second, the widespread disturbance of the Anglican faithful.
The departure of Anglican priests and their re-ordination in
the Catholic church raises grave questions for many Anglicans:
are Anglican priests validly ordained? Should the faithful
together with their pastor convert to the Catholic church?
Third, the irritation of the Catholic clergy and laity.
Discontent over the ongoing resistance to reform is spreading
to even the most faithful members of the Catholic church. Since
the Second Vatican Council in the 60s, many episcopal
conferences, pastors and believers have been calling for the
abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests,
a prohibition which, in the last few decades, has deprived
almost half of our parishes of their own pastor. Time and
again, the reformers have run into Ratzinger's stubborn,
uncomprehending intransigence. And now these Catholic priests
are expected to tolerate married, convert priests alongside
themselves. When they want themselves to marry, should they
first turn Anglican, and then return to the church?
Just as we have seen over many centuries – in the east-west
schism of the 11th century, in the 16th century
Reformation and in the First Vatican Council of the 19th
century – the Roman thirst for power divides Christianity and
damages its own church. It is a tragedy.
|
|
| Tuesday 3rd November 2009 02:42am 14 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
|
|
| Thursday 5th November 2009 12:37am 15 |
Harry
10 Posts
|
I disagree stronly. Gay Catholics are beneath
contempt. Dignity USA shows that that there are some sad gay people
whose irrational belief s in all the stupid things that Catholics
believe in (do you want the catechism references to gay sex??) make
them try to square an intellectual circle.
|
|
| Thursday 5th November 2009 10:38am 16 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
You are free to disagree all you want, Harry. That doesn't make
you right.
I said: "IF nothing else, Dignity USA could teach us how to get along."
How ofen have I been appalled at the way members of our so-called
gay "community" ruthlessly tear each other apart in public
(PinkNews has international readership) and for what...some
insignificant little detail which indicates that someone is
bending the elbow while being belligerent online.
|
|
| Thursday 5th November 2009 02:06pm 17 |
Harry
10 Posts
|
The question is I suppose whether we want to get along
or not. My expereince is that harsh words encourage gay catholics
to choose - their silly beliefs or the reality of their gay
nature. Remember that we are in a war here. Maine is the most
recent battleground, where we lost. Gay catholics are
contributors to the enemy's warchest.
|
|
| Thursday 5th November 2009 03:02pm 18 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
The "war" as you call it is not so much with the RCC which is
doomed to extinction in the next couple of hundreds years, but
with the Jihad who would just as soon slice your head off as to
look at you, no questions asked.
Am I exaggerating? Maybe...maybe not.
Equal civil rights in America will happen sooner than
later.
Why don't you concentrate on the Equality Bill instead? Why has
England ceased to be a world leader in the 21st Century? Why has
Canada, of all places, come out ahead?
It was because Pierre Eliot Trudeau read the Wolfenden
Report hot off the press, that's the long and the short
of it.
The fact remains that the RCC is not as big of a threat as you
are making it out to be. The indoctrinated christian bigots can
be best handled with simple and honest educational tools, e.g.,
Dr. John Corvino (check out his website), than with harsh
language which will do nothing but polarize them and you.
But I ain't no sociologist; I just read a lot, and follow my
conscience or whatever you want to call it.
What do you mean 'the question is wether we want to get along or
not?'
I'm talking about unity within the membership of the gay
community, that's all. Who gives a sh*t about getting along with
homophobic religious institutions. Hello Bingo every Thursday
night!!
Look at the trouble the Trans had this year getting involved in
the Pride Parade in London, and for what? A lack of unisex
washrooms along the path of the Parade.
Detail? Yea. Try telling that to a Trans who has been refused
entrance into a ladies room. Some of the finest persons in the
LGBT community are Trans. Don't argue; I know a few and I love
them deeply. And Trans are killed everyday all over the world.
Why?
Welcome to the real world, Harry, and we need you...very
badly.
|
|
| Sunday 8th November 2009 01:35am 19 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
|
|
| Sunday 15th November 2009 12:16am 20 |
Jean-Paul
301 Posts
|
|
|
| Sunday 15th November 2009 09:49am 21 |
Harry
10 Posts
|
I agree with you about infant baptism - it only causes more
trouble to get the wretched thing cancelled when one grows
up!
But actually I think this would have happened anyway as Kennedy
claims to be a practising Catholic. He needs to be to get
re-elected I suppose in a state crawling with Papists. I have
amazingly some sympathy the the Bishop: Kennedy has the right
views on abortion, gay rights etc., but is an active member of a
church which promotes bigotry and wrong. He is therefore (to get
on my favourite band wagon :-) ) a good old fashioned hypocrite.
|
|
