Allen Dulles: The Man Behind America's Shadow Empire

Cardinal Dolan urges WH to secure US borders: This is a ‘broken, sloppy’...

Rebuffing Trump's nationalism, France's Emmanuel Macron calls for a 'new breed of multilateralism'

 

DEIRDRE SHESGREEN | USA TODAY

President Donald Trump and President Emmanuel Macron of France have toasted to continued warm relations between their countries. (April 24)
AP


WASHINGTON — Without directly rebuking President Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday called on American politicians to reject the president’s America first policies and construct a “new breed of multilateralism” equipped to confront urgent global threats — from climate change to terrorism.

In adroitly crafted remarks that leaned on emotional appeals and shared history to challenge the Republican-led Congress, Macron said the United States and France had a “unique taste for freedom” and were therefore obligated to join together to fight extremism, racism, inequality and environmental degradation across the globe.

French President Emmanuel Macron addresses Congress during a joint meeting on April 25, 2018 in Washington. Vice President Mike Pence, left, and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) appear behind Macron.
JARRAD HENDERSON, USA TODAY NETWORK


“Both in the United States and in Europe, we are living in a time of anger and fear because of these current global threats,” Macron told a joint session of Congress. “You can play with fears and angers for a time. But they do not construct anything. Anger only freezes and weakens us.”

Macron credited the United States with inventing multilateralism, and said: “You are the one now who has to help to preserve and reinvent it ... We can build the 21st century world order based on a new breed multilateralism, based on a more effective, accountable, and results-oriented multilateralism."

Faith of the Candidates; Interview w/ Marco Rubio (Part 1)

POLITICS

I recently talked with Florida senator and 2016 Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio about his faith journey. | 

Ed Stetzer

Today, we continue a series on the faith of the 2016 presidential candidates.

We’ve reached out to the 2016 presidential candidates—all of them, from both major parties—and asked them to do brief interviews about their faith and how it impacts their approach to governance.

Recently, I interviewed Governor Jeb Bush about his faith. It was a fascinating interview, which you can read here.

Today, I am posting part one of my interview with Marco Rubio. Senator Rubio's interview was the same length as Gov. Bush (20 minutes), but covered a bit more ground. Both interviews have been fascinating, and I hope you take the time to read them both—and others forthcoming!
Faith Journey

Ed Stetzer: You have one of the more fascinating faith journeys. You kind of run the gamut of conservative American religious traditions. You left one and went to the other for different reasons.

So tell me a little bit about that beyond what we know. We know you grew up Catholic. You kind of were engaged in the Mormon faith and came back to Catholicism. Where are you now? Are you solely a Catholic? I know you’re theologically and doctrinally aligned. Are you an evangelical Catholic? How do you define yourself?

Senator Marco Rubio: I was born into the Catholic Church. My family attended the Catholic Church. I was 8 years old so we followed my parents, primarily my mother into the LDS church for a number of years. And by the time—I was 11 or 12—we had returned to Catholicism. So as an adult—is what I can speak to. Certainly growing up after that I attended a Catholic church, was confirmed, married in the church and I’ve never really left the church.

There was a time when I became not as engaged in my faith as I needed to be. My wife really became alive in the Spirit particularly by attending Christ Fellowship at the invitation of our sister. As my family loved attending there—my children certainly do—and she’s so alive in the church that, who was I to disrupt that based on denominational differences?

So we’ve maintained our relationship with the church ever since and continue to listen to sermons even when I’m out of town. I think [Christ Fellowship Pastor] Rick [Blackwood] is a phenomenal teacher of the Word and we enjoy very much our friendship with him and our relationship.

"If your faith is not bearing fruit then it’s not a true faith." -Senator Marco Rubio

That said, of course I’m a Roman Catholic. I mean I’m not just aligned doctrinally and theologically but I attend mass every Sunday. We participate and are in communion with the church. So, I’m a Roman Catholic, but in no way do I view that as a conflict with the Gospel teachings that our brothers and sisters in Christ offer at Christ Fellowship. In fact, I have relationships with Greg Laurie out in Orange County and others. In the end we share the same faith in Christ as our Savior.

Catholicism and Evangelicalism

ES: Evangelicals and Protestants would say that they don’t add anything to their salvation—it's by grace through faith alone. So how would you articulate that? Are you a believer by grace through faith alone or how does the work of the church and the sacraments fit into that?

MR: The fundamental difference between Roman Catholicism and most Protestant denominations and evangelicals is the belief that Roman Catholics have that the Word of God is not just the written Word but also the tradition. Oral traditions that were handed down from the early Christians are also part of the Word of God.

It’s a misunderstanding that somehow Catholics believe you can earn salvation. You cannot earn it. It’s a free gift. What Catholics do believe, however, is that true faith bears fruit and that the fruits of that faith are important. If your faith is not bearing fruit then it’s not a true faith.

So it’s not that you can earn your salvation through work. You have to accept that the gift of salvation—which is a free gift offered to all of us by His death and resurrection. But your faith is known by the fruit that it bears and so certainly we are commanded.

Beyond the concept of salvation is the notion that we have an obligation to serve one another and to model Christ’s behavior in serving one another. I think that’s true for all Christianity. It’s why for example, Christ Fellowship, they offer [a] tremendous amount of work in the community and charity. Because it’s the fruit of our faith but it also follows Christ’s commandment to love our neighbor and to care for the less fortunate.

In many ways, by doing that, you’re ministering to Christ directly that when you welcome a stranger, or when you visit the prisoner, or when you feed the hungry and clothe the naked, you are serving Him.

I think that’s certainly manifest in the Catholic Church through its tradition of charity and charitable work all over the world but also the Evangelical community has really taken up that calling as well.

Theological Understanding

ES: When you sort of went through and explained your personal faith, it was fascinating and detailed. Even here you explained the authority of the Scriptures and the authority of tradition in the church. That’s not a normal level of theological awareness for a political candidate. From where does that come?

MR: Well, I’ve always cared about it. It’s something that I’ve tried to be informed about and understand my faith better.

As I wrote in my book, I didn’t fully appreciate Catholicism until I attended a non-Catholic church and it is by a better understanding of the written Word that I came to understand for example the liturgy of the church. The entire liturgy of the Catholic Church is built on the Bible, particularly the Book of Revelation.

From the imagery of incense and candles, to the organization of the Mass, it’s all about bringing heaven to earth in that one moment in which the body and blood of Christ is actually present, as we believe in the Catholic faith.

Having that deep understanding is important. I think one of the things about Christianity is that it is not simply a faith that you understand at a spiritual faith level, but in fact can be also justified through logic... You look at how Jesus fulfilled perfectly, to the letter, every single prophecy that was made of the coming Messiah. I mean you can make an argument, as of course, [was done in] The Case for Faith...that there is a logical argument for the truth of Christianity.

So for me I’ve always been interested in the depth of that theology. It brings me into greater understanding. What fascinates me so much—not just about the Bible but about Christianity—is how deep it is.

If you spent 80 years pondering, you still wouldn’t fully understand its depth and its scope and how it virtually has answers to every challenge and every circumstance in life.

Mormonism

ES: So I get you navigate the distinction between Catholicism and Evangelicalism and that you are firmly rooted in the Catholic Church but you have a foot—a friendly foot—in Evangelicalism. How do you see Mormonism? You said in your Meet the Press interview, "I started feeling called back to the Catholic Church. It was nothing against the Mormon church it was just a calling. That happened twice in my life."

Theologically, how do you look back in your Mormon experience or at Mormonism. hearing you articulate these theological views now, how do you see Mormonism today?

MR: To be clear I was nine or 10 years old so I understood the theology at the depth a nine or 10 year old could understand.

I have tremendous respect for [Mormons]. I don’t in any way want to disparage—in any way. I have tremendous admiration for what the LDS church does, particularly the strength of families.

I have a lot of family members, the majority of my family in Nevada (which is more than half of my family) that joined the LDS church—and many good friends that are as well. I have tremendous respect for the church and in particular for the values that we all share in common that they defend.

The theological distinction—I’ll leave to others. As I said, I’m not nearly as familiar with LDS theology as I am with Catholicism or that of other Protestant denominations. But, I have tremendous respect for many people who are of the Mormon faith. The one thing that really attracted my mother at that time was the strength of the family unit in the LDS church and how it is the centerpiece of life in the LDS church.

It’s something I continue to admire greatly.

Pope Francis

ES: Within Catholicism, of course, you have a new pope who has caught the attention of the world, but also made some people nervous. What’s your perception of the pope and how do his views have bearing on your views?

MR: Well, first of all, I’m familiar with him from his time as a Cardinal. He was a leading Cardinal in Latin America and wrote extensively a number of documents that influenced the direction of the church in Latin America. I think a lot of it is colored by his experience in Argentina in which the church and the government did not have the best of relations, and in which the economic order was largely a corporatist one.

My view of the pope is someone who is trying to instigate dialogue.

One of the things he recently said was that he views the church as a field hospital where you have to go out and first treat people’s wounds and in the process of doing that you can bring them closer to Christ.

But first you have to treat their wounds— and what it is that’s going on in their life.

It’s clear that he’s trying to instigate dialogue within the church. I don’t think he has pronounced anything theologically that diverts in any way from for example his predecessor, Benedict, who is seen as a more of a traditional theological figure.

From a theological perspective the pope hasn’t pronounced anything that’s different—nor, quite frankly, can he pronounce himself in any way differently than the base theology of the church.

But obviously has a different style and focus. And I think part of it is to try to trigger a conversation within the church about how to best minister to a lost people in the 21st century.



In the next segment, I ask Senator Rubio how he would share his faith if he was President Rubio, I ask him what he means by "lost people," and I ask his thoughts on how he, as a person of devout faith, would govern an increasingly secular country.

Read the second part of the interview soon…

POSTED:December 16, 2015 at 7:02 am

Source

/

How Catholic Insurance Companies Outsource Contraceptive Coverage

policy-ish


by JULIE ROVNER
September 17, 201412:02 PM ET

Contraceptive coverage has long been required by state laws or sought by nonreligious employers the religious health plans serve.iStockphoto

Catholic and other religious hospitals and universities have been arguing in federal court for much of the past two years that they shouldn't have to offer or facilitate birth control as part of their employee health plans because it violates their religious beliefs.

But what happens when the insurance company is itself Catholic? It turns out that Catholic health plans have for years been arranging for outside firms to provide contraceptive coverage to their enrollees.

That's because such coverage has long been required by state laws or sought by nonreligious employers the religious health plans serve.

The federal health law requires most health insurance plans, including all new plans in the individual and small group markets, to provide contraceptive coverage at no out-of-pocket cost to women.

That divergence between the Catholic court claim that any link to contraceptive coverage is forbidden and the actions of Catholic insurance plans is likely to draw more attention as more large Catholic hospital systems add insurance plans to their portfolios.

Already a bishop in Arkansas is raising questions about one of the insurers in his state.

No one is keeping track of just how many Catholic health plans are entering the insurance market and selling to non-Catholics. The latest entry is Catholic Health Initiatives, the nation's fifth-largest nonprofit health system, with facilities in 18 states.

Juan Serrano, who heads CHI's new insurance subsidiary, Prominence Health, said in an interview that over the next year and a half, Prominence plans to "expand our health plan footprint into additional Catholic Health Initiative markets ... where they make the most sense."

He said that "as relates to the mandated benefits that are required in the marketplace, we are taking the same position that has been taken by other Catholic health plans, and it is to cede or contract with a third-party administrator who will administer the ERD-related benefits in an arm's-length manner."

ERD refers to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care, a document from the Conference of Catholic Bishops that among other things makes contraception off-limits for Catholic institutions.

While CHI's third-party strategy might please health law advocates, the bishop who heads the Diocese of Little Rock, Ark., raised a red flag when the company purchased QualChoice, its first commercial plan in that state, last spring.

"Having given this matter serious thought and prayer, I am not fully convinced by CHI's reasoning that their acquisition of QualChoice will pose no moral or ethical conflicts," Bishop Anthony Taylor said in a statement.

MergerWatch, a reproductive health advocacy group that tracks deals involving secular and religious health institutions, is keeping a close eye on Catholic plans in the commercial market.

"We're now seeing more and more of these plans moving into the commercial market in a big way," said Lois Uttley, director of the group. "Under the Affordable Care Act, these plans are supposed to be covering contraception. So they have to figure out some way to get that to their enrollees, despite their religious objections to contraception."

MergerWatch has been closely watching how Fidelis Care, a Catholic-owned insurer that this year was the second-most-popular plan on the New York state health exchange, is handling reproductive health services.

Fidelis has arranged for a third party to provide women's reproductive health services, although that's not clear on the plan's website. In its handbook for health care providers Fidelis explains it "has elected not to offer all reproductive and family planning services, including abortion, sterilization, and artificial contraception, as a standard benefit nor to receive premium dollars from the State of New York for such services."

Instead, the company "will inform these same providers that the New York State of Health Marketplace has approved Unified IPA, LLC to provide New York State of Health marketplace-mandated family planning services, independent of Fidelis Care." The online marketplace operates under the health law, offering competing plans to people who generally don't have approved employer-based coverage.

A spokeswoman for Fidelis wrote in an email that health plan members need not worry about getting special access to the outside insurer because "the process is seamless for members. Providers simply bill the outside firm."

Mike Elliott, a principal with Unified IPA, the outside firm, says he contracts with the same health care providers that Fidelis does and works with the same pharmacy benefit firms to ensure that prescriptions are filled without Fidelis having to participate.

"From the member's perspective they're getting to see the same doctor, they have the same benefit package ... and we utilize the same ID number as the health plan," said Elliott, who says he has been providing reproductive health services to religious health plans for nearly three decades.

With Fidelis, that process has not been exactly seamless, says MergerWatch. Uttley said her group called several health plans asking about contraceptive coverage, and the response from Fidelis "was particularly confusing. The customer service woman said, 'Well, Fidelis covers contraception if you need it to regulate yourself,' whatever that means. If you need it for other reasons, you have to call this IPA."

That's troublesome, said Uttley, because "that's confusing even to a sophisticated insurance consumer used to having health insurance, and what we have now coming into the marketplace is a lot of people who have never had insurance. It's enough of a challenge to get them to understand how health insurance works without having this wrinkle in it."

Another problem for the group is that Fidelis, unlike many other nonreligious health plans, refuses to allow Planned Parenthood into its network of covered providers, "not even for prenatal or primary care," Uttley said. "It's not clear to us that women enrolling in Fidelis in New York understand they can't use that coverage at a Planned Parenthood if that's been their primary source of family planning services in the past."

In Arkansas, the bishop's concerns remain unresolved. Taylor sought clarification from the Vatican, and according to diocesan spokesman Dennis Lee, "Bishop Taylor has received a substantive response from the Vatican regarding CHI's acquisition of QualChoice, and he is actively involved in ongoing, private discussions with CHI on how best to comply with the Vatican's response."

The issues are clearer to other Catholic health plans that don't have to meet the needs of non-Catholics in the commercial insurance market. They're arguing in court that any participation with the contraceptive mandate is forbidden.

The Little Sisters of the Poor religious order, which provides long-term-care services with employees insured by Christian Brothers Services, is rejecting the Obama administration's newest policy: allowing religious employers to notify the government, instead of their insurer, that they have a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage. "Any provision of the Mandate's services through the plan ... would violate the Christian Brothers' and Little Sisters' faith," the lawyers argue.

In the case of Christian Brothers, the administration argues that because it is itself a religious plan, it is exempt from the requirements anyway.

Source

.

Tips on Ministering in the Inner City

Tips on Ministering in the Inner City

As a pastor, I have worked in inner-city communities. Here are some of the lessons I learned and the approaches that have worked for me:

• You must care about the people in the communities. Do not try to trick or con them. They see through hypocrisy easily.
• If you are a preacher or pastor, remember that most of the people view pastors as men or women of God. Therefore they…

Read more

.

.

Archbishop Kurtz: Pope Francis Is 'Engaged' With People

December 17, 2013 4:34 AM

7 min 47 sec

• Listen to the Story
• Morning Edition

Pope Francis celebrates his 77th birthday on Tuesday. Linda Wertheimer talks to the recently elected head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, about the pope's recent statements on global economics.

 http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/251833643/archbishop-kurtz-pope-francis-is-engaged-with-people?ft=1&f=
.
.

Vatican launches world survey on modern family life

5 November 2013 Last updated at 10:15 ET

 

Pope Francis has called for an extraordinary synod to discuss the family

Related Stories
Vatican suspends 'bishop of bling'
Pope Francis pledges Vatican reforms
Pope: Church 'must heal wounds'

The Vatican has launched a worldwide survey to find out what Catholics really think about its teaching on marriage and family life.

Pope Francis is calling bishops to Rome next October to discuss possible reform that considers modern social realities.

The questionnaire asks for local views on premarital cohabitation, birth control and gay marriage.

Correspondents say it shows a greater interest in issues previously considered taboo.

"The social and spiritual crisis, so evident in today's world, is becoming a pastoral challenge in the Church's evangelising mission concerning the family," the Vatican survey says.

Analysis

David Willey BBC News, Rome

The questionnaire contains 39 questions couched in non-judgmental terms.

It aims at finding out, for example, what percentage of the Catholic flock is cohabiting with a member of the opposite sex without any intention of seeking the marriage bond.

It asks whether local laws on same-sex civil unions equate this with marriage between a man and a woman.

And it tries to find out what knowledge 21st century Catholics have about the controversial Vatican ban on artificial contraception issued back in 1968.

Since his election, Pope Francis has displayed a much more open attitude than his predecessors towards Church teaching - a position not shared by some of his top advisers.

While he is unlikely to change any basic Church doctrine, the Pope clearly wants to sound out the opinions of grassroots Catholics about new family situations. And this is something of a revolution.

Among the "many new situations requiring the Church's attention and pastoral care", it lists single-parent families, inter-religious unions and divorce. Under pressure

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says Pope Francis is under pressure from Catholics in many countries to take a fresh look at the Church's ban on contraception and its refusal to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to take Communion.

There appears to be a division of opinion on this between the Pope, who has more progressive ideas, and some of his top advisers, our correspondent adds.

The consultation is part of the preparation for the extraordinary meeting of the Synod of Bishops next year, which will focus on the subject of family.

"Concerns which were unheard of until a few years ago have arisen today as a result of different situations, from the widespread practice of cohabitation... to same-sex unions," the questionnaire says.

Pope Francis has signalled greater openness, and has said the Catholic Church is too tied up in "small-minded rules".

In an interview in September, he said the Church was too focused on preaching about abortion, gay people and contraception and needed to become more merciful.

Francis earlier created headlines by saying it was not up to him to judge about the sexual orientation of clergy as long as they were searching for God and had goodwill. 

Source

.

A Vatican scientist

.


Catholic News Service


Published on Jun 24, 2012

An interview with Jesuit Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, a research astronomer at the Vatican Observatory. Brother Consolmagno speaks on the relationship between science and faith.

.

,.

.

Related:

(Sunday -November 11, 2013)

 

Guy Consolmagno on Theology and Astronomy (PRI: To the Best of Our Knowledge)

Transcript for Guy Consolmagno on Theology and Astronomy

Interview details for Guy Consolmagno on Theology and Astronomy

VIEW OTHER INTERVIEWS FROM: Alone in the Universe?


Jim Fleming: When Guy Consolmagno was a freshman in college, he thought about becoming a Jesuit priest. Science lured him away. He went to MIT, got a doctorate in planetary science, and then realized something was missing. Today, Guy Consolmagno is “Brother Guy” a Jesuit priest and an astronomer at the Vatican. He believes science and religion can work alongside each other.

Guy Consolmagno: Anybody who’s looked at the stars and not been moved, just emotionally, has no soul. That’s something that is wonderful about astronomy that anyone at any level of education could go out and just go, “Wow!”If you look through a telescope and you see the rings on Saturn, that’s even more, “Wow!”And if you’re able to handle the mathematics to understand all of the things that you can get to when you get to graduate school, then it’s just all the more amazing and wonderful. You know, it’s one thing to be amazed at the universe is rational; it makes sense. That was completely unexpected. But that it should also be beautiful is the deepest and most wonderful mystery.

Fleming: Do you see astronomy as a spiritual pursuit?

Consolmagno: I’ll say how my religion and science interact is, it’s not the case that I’m going to use my science to prove or disprove some religious point. That doesn’t work. But they both interact on a mettle level. Religion is what motivates me to do science. Religion is what gives me the courage to say, “There are going to be answers. The universe is rational.

Fleming: So one of the big things going on right now, that I suspect is talked about a lot in all of the fields in which you work, is the search for life, that there may be life, that there is the expectation of life elsewhere in the universe, biological life, maybe intelligent life, maybe life that we can communicate with. Do you imagine that is a possibility? Is it a possibility you would welcome?

Consolmagno: Yes and yes. Absolutely. Part of that is the science fiction fan in me. I’ll confess one of the reasons I went to MIT was to read science fiction. They have a big science fiction library there. Part of it is scientific. My Master’s thesis at MIT, among other things, predicted oceans under the ice crust of Europa and even talks about the possibility of life there. That was 1975. So I would feel vindicated if we actually found life in those places. Part of it is simply, well, to quote Carl Sagan, the famous agnostic, “If there isn’t life out there, it sure is a big waste of space.”

Fleming: So tell me, does the Vatican have a position on how to respond to the possibility of life outside of Earth?

Consolmagno: The Vatican doesn’t have positions like that on anything but there’s certainly no reason to argue theologically one way or the other.

Fleming: Well, I can imagine that there might be some who would say, again, perhaps I’m just, perhaps I’m misquoting, I don’t know. God gave His only son. God created man in His own image. Those kinds of things, if those are true, how is it possible for there to be life elsewhere?

Consolmagno: Well, you know, I’ll give you three points. First, the whole idea of, “What is God’s image and likeness?” that was discussed in the Middle Ages and what they were talking about in terms of the Middle Ages was soul, what Thomas Aquinas refers to as “intellect and free-will”. In other words, an entity that is aware of itself, aware of other entities and able to make choices maybe to love or not love, to interact or not interact. That’s the essence of what the image and likeness of God is about. It has nothing to do with how many tentacles you have. The other question of God sending His son, our theology also says that this person of the Trinity was there at the beginning, long before the Earth was created. And, thus, not tied merely to planet Earth. We also have in our religious tradition, the tradition of, if nothing else, we’ve got angels who are, presumably, intelligent beings free to choose or not choose creations of the Creator and, obviously, not human beings. We’re not afraid of there being other entities out there.

Fleming: Does this suggest that there could be a seven-tentacled Jesus landing on the third moon of Saturn?

Consolmagno: For all I know. When you find him, ask me again. We don’t know how it’s going to work. One of our fellows at the observatory said, “The incarnation of Jesus is, in a sense, the word.”That’s how it’s described in John’s gospel. Who’s to say that word couldn’t exist in more than one language? On the other hand, the fact that it happened once with us human beings here on Earth is sufficient to say that it’s possible that it did happen. Like a mathematical proof, it’s the one instance that says, “OK. It could happen,”and once is sufficient. But are there a zillion? We don’t know.

Fleming: Of course for centuries, the Catholic Church’s response to the discovery of new lands, of new people, was to send out missionaries to convert everyone. Do you suppose that could happen again? It’s been the subject of that science fiction that you so love.

Consolmagno: Right. Well, the very fact that they sent out the missionaries showed that they accepted these other people as fully equal human beings.

Fleming: And if the discovery of life turns out to be lettuce plants in the galaxy next door, it’s going to be a little difficult.

Consolmagno: Well, the fact of the matter is that the possibility of finding intelligent life in our own solar system is probably limited.

Fleming: And yet it is something . . .

Consolmagno: Having said that, having said that, yeah, I agree. It’s something that is fantastic to think about precisely in the sense of science fiction and saying, “All right. Let’s posit this way. Then what happens?”Because when you ask, you know, “What is the image and likeness of God mean? What is it like to talk to a non-human entity?” You’re immediately asking, “Well, then, what does it mean to be human? What does it mean for us to have a soul? What does it mean for us to have a Savior? Is it likely that other intelligent beings who are going to be subject to, presumably, the same laws of physics and chemistry, you know, they’re going to have to eat food and if they fall off a cliff, they are going to kill themselves, are they also going to have the same laws of right and wrong? Are they going to say that lying is a sin? That taking a life, an intelligent life is a sin and that the possibility of sin exists?”These are great questions. These are science fiction questions and these are philosophy questions for which there is never going to be a final, definitive answer but always, the more you think about them, the more you talk about them, the more you play with the ideas, the more you can come back and reflect on what it really means to yourself.

Fleming: One of the other things not science fiction that is currently talked about a great deal in the world of cosmology is the theory of the multiverse, the potentially infinite number of universes and we’re living in just one. What do you think of that?

Consolmagno: Well, we’ve got people working at the Vatican observatory who are actually looking into the mathematics of this, the physics of this. One of our cosmologists did his doctorate under Martin Rees, who is one of the people who’s come up with the idea. I think it’s a great idea both to make you think and to make you appreciate the infinite possibilities of creation. Back when Genesis was being written, and whoever wrote it took the best science of that day, which was Babylonian science, and said, “Bigger than the flat world that we all know we live on and the dome and the water above and below the dome, bigger that any of that was God,”and that was as big as they could imagine. If we say, “Bigger than the solar system, bigger than this galaxy, bigger than our universe, bigger than all of the infinite multiverses together, is God.”Then we’re really talking some big.

Fleming: It does seem to present a challenge but you’re saying it’s a challenge, really, not to religion but to the imagination.

Consolmagno: It is. A religion that doesn’t challenge you is not much of a religion and, frankly, a science that doesn’t challenge you is not much of a science.

Fleming: Stephen Hawking, in his recent book said, “We no longer need philosophy.”The implication was pretty clear that he felt that we no longer need religion because science can explain everything. Do you feel you’ve answered that?

Consolmagno: Well, when Hawking says we don’t need God to start the universe, he’s right. Anyone who’s trying to use God to explain the things that science can’t explain in the 21st century, is a fool because who knows what science is going to explain in the 23rd century? That’s called the God of the gaps. In fact, it’s the fastest route to atheism because if your belief in God is the God who can explain why something happens, and then science comes along with an explanation, “Oops. Suddenly, I don’t believe in that God anymore.”Hawking is right that you don’t need God to explain the gaps in our knowledge but, of course, he doesn’t really mean we don’t need philosophy. The very statement, “We don’t need philosophy,”is a philosophical statement. And there’s an awful lot of value, a lot of value that I got as a Jesuit, in studying philosophy, in studying history, in studying the humanities. Sadly, an awful lot of British scientists of the older generation never got around to taking philosophy 101.

Fleming: Brother Guy Consolmagno is an American research astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican observatory.


Source
.

Obama on Syria and the Red Line ...

Barack Obama Full Statement - 31 August 2013 

blazekomrad

Published on Aug 31, 2013


August 08.31.2013
Breaking News

Chemical Weapon Syria Crisis
America blames Assad for attack.

President Barack Obama said that the United States "should take military action against Syrian targets" in a Rose Garden address Saturday. However, he said he would seek congressional authorization when federal lawmakers return from recess.
The president appealed for congressional leaders to consider their responsibilities and values in debating U.S. military action in Syria over its alleged chemical weapons use."Some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment," he said. "Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are united as one nation."

Flashback to 2012

Obama Warns Syria's Assad Chemical Weapons A 'RED Line'




IBTimesUK



Published on Aug 21, 2012


President Obama made a surprise appearance during Jay Carney's White House briefing. Speaking to a packed press room, he raised a smile as he traded banter with them before launching into the serious issue of Syria and chemical weapons. He confirmed that the US has said Assad needs to step down. Obama then tackled the issue of humanitarian aid to Syrians, and those who are fleeing the country to escape the Assad regime ,severely straining the resources of nearby host countries. And the President ended the briefing on a serious note, by saying that should the US and United Nations be aware of any chemical weapons then they would react accordingly to the threat. On the same day that Obama made this statement in the US, the Russian Minister and Syrian ally, SERGEI LAVROV speaking at a news conference in Helsinki, said Moscow would not approve any political transition that was forced on Syria. Stating that only the United Nations Security Council alone, can authorise the use of force against Syria, and not just the US.



Written and presented by Ann Salter

Oh, no he didn't?

Obama: I Didn't Set A Red Line On Syria




Kimberly Junction

Published on Sep 4, 2013



Obama: I Didn't Set A Red Line On Syria (September 4, 2013)

Benedict XVI to Become 'Pope Emeritus'

Benedict XVI to Become 'Emeritus Pope'


Published February 26, 2013

Fox News Latino

An artist dressed as an angel poses for tourists in front of a huge Pope Benedict XVI poster in Cologne, Germany, on Tuesday, Feb.26,2013. The words on top read:'Thanks'. Pope Benedict XVI will resign on February 28th. The poster is used as advertisement for radio channel 'domradio'. .(AP Photo/Frank Augstein) (AP2013)


They both will wear white. They both will be known as pope. They both will be causing an unholy number of double takes.

Pope Benedict XVI will be known as "emeritus pope" in his retirement and will continue to wear a white cassock, the Vatican announced Tuesday, again fueling concerns about potential conflicts arising from having both a reigning and a retired pope.

The pope's title and what he would wear have been a major source of speculation ever since Benedict stunned the world and announced he would resign on Thursday, the first pontiff to do so in 600 years.

The Vatican spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict himself had made the decision in consultation with others, settling on "Your Holiness Benedict XVI" and either emeritus pope or emeritus Roman pontiff.

Lombardi said he didn't know why Benedict had decided to drop his other main title: bishop of Rome.

In the two weeks since Benedict's resignation announcement, Vatican officials had suggested that Benedict would likely resume wearing the traditional black garb of a cleric and would use the title "emeritus bishop of Rome" so as to not create confusion with the future pope.

Benedict's decision to call himself emeritus pope and to keep wearing white is sure to fan concern voiced privately by some cardinals about the awkward reality of having two popes, both living within the Vatican walls.

Adding to the concern is that Benedict's trusted secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, will be serving both pontiffs — living with Benedict at the monastery inside the Vatican and keeping his day job as prefect of the new pope's household.

Asked about the potential conflicts, Lombardi was defensive, saying the decisions had been clearly reasoned and were likely chosen for the sake of simplicity.

"I believe it was well thought out," he said.

Benedict himself has made clear he is retiring to a lifetime of prayer and meditation "hidden from the world." However, he still will be very present in the tiny Vatican city-state, where his new home is right next door to the Vatican Radio and has a lovely view of the dome of St. Peter's Basilica.

While he will no longer wear his trademark red shoes, Benedict has taken a liking to a pair of hand-crafted brown loafers made for him by artisans in Leon, Mexico, and given to him during his 2012 visit. He will wear those in retirement, Lombardi said.

Lombardi also elaborated on the College of Cardinals meetings that will take place after the papacy becomes vacant — crucial gatherings in which cardinals will discuss the problems facing the church and set a date for the start of the conclave to elect Benedict's successor.

The first meeting isn't now expected until Monday, Lombardi said, since the official convocation to cardinals to come to Rome will only go out on Friday — the first day of what's known as the "sede vacante," or the vacancy between papacies.

In all, 115 cardinals under the age of 80 are expected in Rome for the conclave to vote on who should become the next pope; two other eligible cardinals have already said they are not coming, one from Britain and another from Indonesia. Cardinals who are 80 and older can join the College meetings but won't participate in the conclave or vote.

Benedict on Monday gave the cardinals the go-ahead to move up the start date of the conclave — tossing out the traditional 15-day waiting period. But the cardinals won't actually set a date for the conclave until they begin meeting officially Monday.

Lombardi also further described Benedict's final 48 hours as pope: On Tuesday, he was packing, arranging for documents to be sent to the various archives at the Vatican and separating out the personal papers he will take with him into retirement.

On Wednesday, Benedict will hold his final public general audience in St. Peter's Square — an event that has already seen 50,000 ticket requests. He won't greet visiting prelates or VIPs as he normally does at the end but will greet some visiting leaders — from Slovakia, San Marino, Andorra and his native Bavaria — privately afterwards.

On Thursday, the pope meets with his cardinals in the morning and then flies by helicopter at 5 p.m. to Castel Gandolfo, the papal residence south of Rome. He will greet parishioners there from the palazzo's loggia (balcony) — his final public act as pope.

And at 8 p.m., the exact time at which his retirement becomes official, the Swiss Guards standing outside the doors of the palazzo at Castel Gandolfo will go off duty, their service protecting the head of the Catholic Church now finished.

Benedict's personal security will be assured by Vatican police, Lombardi said.

Based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Source: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/02/26/benedict-xvi-to-become-emeritus-pope/#ixzz2M1bHMhYg


.

Georgetown Prof: Neurosurgeon Ben Carson Unlikely to Get GOP Nomination

(Photo: Georgetown University)
Professor Clyde Wilcox



By Leonardo Blair , CP Contributor

February 23, 2013|12:14 pm

While neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Carson's "powerful speech" at the National Prayer Breakfast two weeks ago has social conservatives rooting for him to run for president, he is unlikely to get the nod as the GOP's presidential nominee in 2016 if he decides to run, says Georgetown University professor Clyde Wilcox, who works in the school's Department of Government and is an expert on religion and politics.

"It was a pretty powerful speech. I do not think in the end it will make any difference in politics. He is not likely to be a serious candidate for president on the GOP side," wrote Wilcox in an e-mail to The Christian Post on Thursday.

In a follow-up interview with CP on Friday, Wilcox explained his thoughts. "If you look at how nominations work in the Republican Party, it's almost always the person who finished second (in the primaries) the last time that gets it (the nomination)," he said, pointing to John McCain and Mitt Romney as recent examples.

Wilcox likened Carson to conservative political commentator Patrick Buchanan, who in 1992 caused quite a stir when he challenged incumbent President George H.W. Bush in the presidential primaries. Buchanan accused Bush, whose popularity was waning, of being too liberal, and although Buchanan gained 38 percent of the votes, he failed to beat Bush.

In what later became known as the culture war speech, Buchanan in his address at the 1992 Republican National Convention said there was a "religious war" going on over America's soul. He said of Bill and Hillary Clinton: "The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America – abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat – that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country."

Wilcox also cited Carson's political inexperience as a factor against his candidacy. "If he says he wants to be President, from my point of view, he doesn't understand how politics works. When was the last time someone was elected President without ever having held public office? It's not an accident that we haven't done it in the last 20 years."

African Americans, he said, are unlikely to be sufficiently convinced to support the Republican Party. "I'm sure a number of African Americans, including friends of mine, would say 'yeah that's true (Carson's speech), but is it enough to make me switch to the Republican Party? I don't think so.'

"He may have a chance of being a vice presidential nominee but president? Probably not," said Wilcox.

The big question, argues the Georgetown professor, is where should Dr. Carson go from making such a big splash? He recommends that Carson should perhaps look into building a movement that would speak to the social conservative voice in both parties.

Wilcox has taught for 20 years in Georgetown University's Department of Government. He writes on a number of topics in American and Comparative politics, including religion and politics, gender politics, public opinion and electoral behavior, campaign finance, and science fiction and politics.

Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/georgetown-prof-neurosurgeon-ben-carson-unlikely-to-get-gop-nomination-90604/#ADOujX7lDaWviUP3.99

.

.

My response

Not that I think Dr. Ben Carson should run or that he stands a chance? But, Professor Clyde Wilcox has one 'cardinal' reason for scrutinizing Dr. Carson; Professor Wilcox is a Jesuit (he's an instructor in America's oldest and largest JESUIT university) in my opinion, or a coadjustor, and Dr. Carson is a Seventh day Adventist; The two are at the opposite ends of the religious philosophical spectrum. If anyone doubts me I suggest you read about the history of the Reformation, the founding of the Jesuit Order, the Holy Inquisition and the Counter-Reformation. You will then see a microcosm and a resurgence of history in this scenario... Diametric opposites

.

God, Man & Jerry Brown’s Ignatian Indifference

(Feb 16, 2010)

Our friend Dan Balz did a nice job after he scored a sit-down interview with Jerry Brown, in advance of Crusty’s formal annunciation that he’s running for governor. We were especially intrigued when we read this:

If she wins the GOP nomination, Whitman will have a sizable financial advantage over Brown. She has already put $39 million of her money into the race and could spend $150 million or more by the election in November. Brown can’t compete with that kind of money, but he said of Whitman, “Her money is not kryptonite.”

Asked how he will prepare for that, he offered a lesson from St. Ignatius. He would summon all the “Ignatian indifference” that he could. That is, he added, the idea of eschewing attachments to wealth or glory and preparing “to do the will of God, however it manifests.”

“Here we have the will of the people,” Brown said, “and how it turns out will be fine for me.”

Huh? Wussup with that ?

Was Jerry really saying he’s preparing “to do the will of God?” And if so, how come Balz didn’t make that the lede of his piece? Because if that’s what Jerry is saying – that he is bracing for Meg’s onslaught by preparing “to do the will of God” — then by golly, he’s right in there with Pat Robertson and Rick Warren, isn’t he?

So we called Jerry’s office for some clarification. Brown wouldn’t come to the phone for a quick theological discussion, but spokesman, Sterling Clifford (who sat in on the Balz interview but who was raised Mormon, not Catholic and certainly not Jesuit) said Jerry was trying to explain “Ignatian indifference” as an acceptance of God’s will, which he distinguished from the election, which is a matter of the peoples’ will.

We weren’t convinced.

Wasn’t Jerry saying that in preparing to accept eMeg’s multi-million-dollar attacks, he would be doing God’s will? “Jerry was not saying that,” Clifford said. “He was saying he’s making an effort not to take the personal attacks too seriously.”

When we checked with Balz, he agreed that Brown wasn’t saying he’s preparing to do the will of God but, “That the will of the people is in this case like the will of God — that is, whatever the voters decide he will accept.”

OK, but flashback to 1998. We were there when former Attorney General Dan Lungren got in some trouble talking about the role of God in public life as he launched his campaign for governor.

Is Brown on the verge of doing the same thing? It’s a fair question because Brown’s theology is deeply embedded. He took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience at the Sacred Heart Novitiate in Los Gatos in 1958 where, according to biographer Roger Rapoport, “It seemed to Jerry there was no limit to what you might accomplish if you let go of your personal ambitions and committed your life to the greater glory of God, as his instrument.”

Of course, Brown was released from those vows two years later, when he left the seminary. By then, however, he was ingrained with the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, which were designed by the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) to help “conquer oneself and regulate one’s life and avoid coming to a determination through any inordinate affection.”

Though not a Jesuit priest, as he might have become, Brown has never cast off the doctrine of contemplatio ad amorem – with its belief that the spirit of God can be found everywhere – in chaos and order, intelligence and ignorance, fame and obscurity — and that contemplation and action go hand in hand because being is active.

The same clash of concepts, unity of opposites, battling dualities (think: against Prop 13 and for it, for example) has been a hallmark of Brown’s theology, ontology – not to mention politics — throughout his life, as suggested in his comment to Balz that he would do the will of God and the will of the people at the same time.

It was no accident that the young Jerry was fascinated by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French Jesuit paleontologist and phenomenologist. About the time Brown was in the seminary, Teilhard was silenced by the Jesuit hierarchy for his attempts to synthesize theology and evolutionary biology. As Brown biographer Richard Rappoport described Teilhard’s theories, he sought “to reconcile humanism and grace, nature and the Cross, prudence and heroism, freedom and obedience.”

It’s not hard to understand why Brown would – then and now — be attracted to a priest who wrote: “Our duty, as men and women, is to proceed as if limits to our ability did not exist. We are collaborators in creation.”

In Jerry time, it was a mere nanosecond from the study of Teilhard to the Tassajara Hot Springs, the Carmel Valley Zen retreat that Brown and his one-time aide de camp Jacques Barzaghi used to visit; to E.F. Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” and onward to C.K. Chesterton, who was labeled “The Apostle of Common Sense,” in a book by Dale Ahlquist, published by (drum roll here) Ignatius Press.

It wasn’t coincidence that in his first interview heading toward this election – with Calbuzz back in April of last year — Brown said he is planning to be an “apostle of common sense.” We saw then, an echo of his 1992 Winter Soldier presidential campaign in which he autographed copies of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.”

But the phrase – actually the title of Ahlquist’s 2003 book — pays homage to Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936), the 300-pound, cigar-smoking English writer, journalist and Catholic convert who labeled common sense “that extinct branch of psychology” and who wrote: “The Bible tells us to love our neighbors and also to love our enemies, probably because they are generally the same people.”

Chesterton, who attacked both socialism and capitalism, who defended the Catholic faith and the common man is just another in the line of thinkers whose ideas seem woven into Brown’s rhetoric.

His thinking seems little changed from the window into his psyche he offered in the 1975 commencement at the University of Santa Clara – the Jesuit school he had attended for a year before joining the seminary. In part of that speech, Brown reached back to the Father Teilhard de Chardin who, he said:

“…saw that there was an evolution of the mind as well as the body. The evolution of the spirit was bringing the divergence of this planet together, not only the nuclear problems, the problem of learning to live with people who are very different, the problem of one generation accepting the different lifestyle, of accepting one another. I think we can very well think of the philosophy that all diversity is being converged toward a greater unit. That’s the way I see things and it won’t be done unless each one of us can do this for ourselves so that together we can do what none of us can do separately.”

His spokespeople can deny it, but Jerry Brown has always seemed to see himself as an instrument of God’s will and an instrument of the people’s will, simultaneously. He has never had any interest in imposing his religious beliefs on others but to assert that he is not shaped and driven by his Jesuitical ontology is to deny the obvious.

Brown’s first guru was not Baba Ram Dass, who published “Be Here Now” in 1971, but his forerunner — Ignatius — who told Jerry and all the other would-be keepers of the flame and sword from the 16th Century onward: “Age quod agis” – “Do what you are doing.”

Source

.

Pope Arrives in Lebanon With Message of Peace

September 14, 2012, 9:28 a.m. ET

Associated Press

BEIRUT—Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Lebanon on Friday and urged peace at a time of great turmoil in the Middle East, saying the import of weapons to Syria during the country's civil war is a "grave sin."

The three-day visit comes as fighting rages in neighboring Syria and a mob attack that killed several Americans in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador.

Reuters

Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Lebanon on Friday to urge peace at a time of great turmoil in the Middle East.

"I have come to Lebanon as a pilgrim of peace," the pope said upon his arrival in Beirut. "As a friend of God and as a friend of men."

Earlier, speaking to reporters aboard his plane, the pope called for an end to weapons imports to Syria and called them a sin. Syria's rebels have appealed for weapons shipments to help them fight the regime.

He also praised the Arab Spring uprisings, which have ousted four long-time dictators.

"It is the desire for more democracy, for more freedom, for more cooperation and for a renewed Arab identity," the pope said.

The pontiff was welcomed by top leaders including the Lebanese president, prime minister and parliament speaker as well as Christian and Muslim religious leaders. Cannons fired a 21-shots salute for the pope.

Lebanese authorities are enacting stringent security measures, suspending weapons permits except for politicians' bodyguards and confining the visit to central Lebanon and the northern Christian areas.

The visit brings the pope to the nation with the largest percentage of Christians in the Mideast—nearly 40% of Lebanon's four million people, with Maronite Catholics the largest sect. Lebanon is the only Arab country with a Christian head of state.

"We are hopeful that your visit to our country will bring good to the Lebanese and the people of this region, including eastern Christians who are rooted in this land," President Michel Suleiman said in a welcoming speech. "We welcome you on a sacred land."

Army and police patrols were stationed along the airport road, which was decorated with Lebanese and Vatican flags as well as posters of the pope and "welcome" signs in different languages.

"Welcome to the land of resistance," read some Arabic banners, signed by Lebanon's militant Hezbollah group.

The pope said he never considered canceling the trip for security reasons, adding that "no one ever advised [me] to renounce this trip and personally, I have never considered this."

The pope denounced religious fundamentalism, calling it "a falsification of religion"

Benedict, the third pope to visit Lebanon after Paul VI in 1964 and John Paul II in 1997, will be addressing concerns by the region's bishops over the plight of Christians in the Middle East. War, political instability and economic hardships have driven thousands from their traditional communities, dating to early Christianity in the Holy Land, Iraq and elsewhere.

"Let me assure you that I pray especially for the many people who suffer in this region," he said upon arrival.

After a ceremony at the airport, Bendict's convoy drove through Beirut as army aircraft flew overhead for protection. The pope was on his way to the mountain town of Harisa where he will stay at the Vatican embassy.

The papal visit comes amid fears that Syria's conflict might spill over to Lebanon. Clashes in Lebanon between Syrian groups over the past months have claimed the lives of more than two dozen people and left scores wounded.

The Christian community in Lebanon is divided between supporters and opponents of Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

Among Assad's supporters is former Lebanese prime minister and army commander Michel Aoun, a strong ally of the militant Hezbollah group. Hezbollah's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah welcomed the pontiff's visit, describing it as "extraordinary and historic."

"I cannot forget the sad and painful events which have affected your beautiful country along the years," Benedict XVI said, referring to Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war that left about 150,000 people dead.

"Looking at your country, I also come symbolically to all countries of the Middle East as a pilgrim of peace, as a friend of God and as a friend of all inhabitants of all the countries of the region, whatever their origins and beliefs," he said.

The turmoil stemming from the Arab Spring has deeply unsettled the Middle East's Christian population, which fears being in the cross-fire of rival Muslim groups.

The pope's visit also comes after several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have urged their citizens not to visit Lebanon because of security concerns over the recent violence.

But the pope's spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters this week that the trip has never been in question and that Benedict has made clear he expects to be warmly welcomed. The government has declared Saturday an official holiday in Benedict's honor and given the day off to tens of thousands of workers and students so they can greet him.

Rev. Lombardi said Benedict may also meet with Syrian refugees, but that hasn't been confirmed. The U.N. refugee agency said Tuesday the number of Syrian refugees seeking its help now tops a quarter-million, with at least 66,915 in Lebanon.

The 85-year-old Benedict is likely to get a full briefing on the region's problems when he meets with Lebanese political and religious leaders and his own bishops from the region.

Vatican spokesman Rev. Lombardi didn't rule out that the pope would meet some supporters of Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group that has risen steadily over the decades from anti-Israel resistance group into Lebanon's most powerful military and political force. The U.S. considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Rev. Lombardi declined to say what the Vatican's position is on the group.

The Lebanese army has imposed a 10-day ban on gliding over the coastal town of Jounieh and the mountain area of Harisa and its surroundings. Harisa, famous for its giant statue of the Virgin Mary, is the site of the Vatican ambassador's residence, where Benedict will stay. The main public event of his visit is Mass on Sunday on the Beirut waterfront.

Source

.

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate

Published July 30, 2012FoxNews.com





Read more

.

Chief Justice Roberts: A more nuanced view after healthcare ruling

Had Roberts gone the other way, the court would have wiped away the entire health care overhaul, which is the outcome embraced by dissenting Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Kennedy.

By Mark Sherman, Associated Press / July 2, 2012

• 

In this 2008 photo, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., is seen in Providence, R.I.

Stephan Savoia/AP/File

WASHINGTON

Chief Justice John Roberts could have taken down the entire, massive health care law that his fellow Republicans deride as "Obamacare." He could have prevented the Supreme Court decision that largely disabled the most disputed aspects of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants.

He didn't do either, and in the process surprised (or dismayed) longtime court observers of every political stripe.

Those two outcomes in the finals days of his seventh year on the court offer some clues for reassessing what kind of chief justice Roberts is and intends to be. Is he no longer the rock-ribbed conservative loved by supporters and jeered by opponents? Has he become a pragmatic leader mindful of the court's place in history? Is he more canny, but still solidly conservative?

The measure of a justice is best taken after decades of service, rather than a few years. At age 57, Roberts could lead the court for another quarter-century.

But at the very least, the end of the Roberts Court's most consequential term already is leading to revised, and in some cases more nuanced, appraisals of his leadership.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal scholar who is dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine, announced that the era of the Roberts Court had begun. "He authored the opinion in the most important case in his seven years on the court, and did so against what was expected," Chemerinsky said.

In truth, Roberts' vote to uphold President Barack Obama's health care law was not so much a surprise.

He long had been counted among the possible votes to uphold the law. But it was widely assumed that ifRoberts ultimately voted for it, so too would Anthony Kennedy, most often the decisive vote in closely fought cases. It was only the second time in his tenure that Roberts provided the deciding vote for the side favored by the court's liberals.

Up until now, it had been the Kennedy Court, Chemerinsky said, "This year, it was the Roberts Court."

Had Roberts gone the other way, the court would have wiped away the entire health care overhaul, which is the outcome embraced by dissenting Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Kennedy.

Instead, he said the individual insurance requirement at the heart of the law could be upheld as a tax. At the same time, he rejected administration arguments that the mandate was justified by the Constitution's clause giving Congress power over interstate commerce, which has been the authority for most federal programs since the New Deal.

Some legal scholars suggest Roberts produced an essentially conservative opinion with a liberal outcome.

Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general who argued the Obama administration's side in the health care cases in several appeals courts, said that Roberts' majority opinion opened the door to potentially important changes in the law that could restrict federal power as it has been understood since the New Deal.

Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, said on the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog that the health care case "gives supporters of limits on federal power some useful ammunition, despite also dealing us a painful defeat."

In addition, Roberts' ruling has helped refocus the public debate over the law and gave Republican opponents ammunition for calling it a big tax increase they would try to repeal.

Just three days earlier, Roberts, joined by Kennedy this time, sided with three liberal justices in the Arizona immigration case. Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, did not take part because of her previous involvement as solicitor general, when she was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer.

Roberts joined in every word of Kennedy's majority opinion that struck down three contentious provisions of the law, but allowed one to go forward — the requirement that police check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons.

Roberts could have sided with the conservatives who favored allowing other provisions to take effect, but that would have left the court divided 4-4, a distasteful outcome because it amounts to a waste of the justices' time.

What's more, Roberts might have reasoned that Kagan probably would side with

the other liberal justices and Kennedy in some future immigration case over similar state laws that she could take part in. Such a case down the road probably would produce an outcome similar to what the court achieved last week in the Arizona case. But if Roberts stuck with the conservative justices, that scenario would have deprived him of a chance to try to influence the majority opinion.

Yet as the court followed its usual practice of issuing a torrent of opinions just days before the justices scatter for the summer, Roberts did not exactly abandon his frequent allies on the right.

He wrote a sharp dissent from Kagan's majority opinion barring mandatory sentences of life without possibility of parole for people younger than 18. The chief justice and the other conservatives rebuffed pleas from supporters of campaign spending limits and from liberal justices to take a fresh look at the 2-year-old Citizens United decision, perhaps the most politically unpopular decision of Roberts' tenure.

The court struck down Montana's limits on corporate campaign spending because the majority, includingRoberts, said the state law conflicted with the Citizens United decision.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock called the court just "another political body." Liberal groups bemoaned the loss of a chance to carve out state exceptions to the Citizens United ruling that unleashed a tidal wave of big money contributions during this election year.

Roberts has called for consensus in judicial decisions since he arrived at the court in September 2005. He has advocated judicial modesty, though his critics insist he himself cast that aspiration aside in Citizens United and other high-profile cases involving abortion rights, race and gun rights.

Other predictions of furious discord among the ideologically divided justices in big cases were sometimes proved wrong. The justices avoided a major confrontation over the landmark civil-rights-era Voting Rights Act in an 8-1 decision that resolved the case without reaching disputed constitutional issues.

When the court heard a dispute over congressional redistricting maps in Texas that essentially pitted Republicans against Latinos and African-Americans who argued for greater representation, the court seemed headed for its typical conservative-liberal split. Instead, 11 days after hearing arguments, the court returned a consensus, unsigned opinion that gave both sides some of what they wanted.

Paul Clement, who argued the health care, immigration and redistricting cases, said the Texas case was a remarkable accomplishment for Roberts. "It was not foreordained as a unanimous decision. One has to assume it was largely due to the leadership of the chief justice," Clement said.

So what does the future hold?

The court already has agreed to hear a challenge to the University of Texas' affirmative action program. A new case involving the Voting Rights Act and challenges to restrictions on gay marriage are close behind.

Roberts has voiced serious reservations about racial preferences in government programs. In 2007, he declared in ruling against public school system programs to promote integration that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Ben Wittes, a legal scholar at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, cautioned against grand re-evaluations of Roberts because of the health care case.

"Roberts is, to be sure, no shrinking violet about ideologically divided opinions when, in his view, the law compels them, but he apparently has a more flexible view than do his conservative colleagues concerning the difference for constitutional purposes between a penalty and a tax," Wittes said. "In other words, don't be too surprised if Roberts next terms looks like a conservative again. He actually did not stray very far from where the other four conservatives ended up in this case — just over a consequential line."

Roberts repeated his desire to have the court adhere to judicial modesty Thursday at the start of his health care opinion.

"We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions," he wrote.

Thursday's dissenters accused Roberts of "vast judicial overreaching." Several years ago, Justice Stephen Breyer said of Roberts and the other conservatives at the end of an especially contentious term with an unusually high number of 5-4 decisions that "never have so few done so much" in so little time.

Roberts has been mocked for comparing a justice to a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes.

But umpires often take it as a compliment when both teams are griping about their rulings.

Source