Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Pope Francis, The People’s Pope



He took the name of a humble saint and then called for a church of healing. The first non-European pope in 1,200 years is poised to transform a place that measures change by the century



Pope Francis
Illustration by Bryan Drury for TIME; Photo reference: Alessandra Tarantino / AP
 
On the edge of Buenos Aires is a nothing little street called Pasaje C, a shot of dried mud leading into a slum from what passes for a main road, the garbage-strewn Mariano Acosta. There is a church, the Immaculate Virgin, toward the end of the ­pasaje—Spanish for passage—where, on one occasion, the local priest and a number of frightened residents took refuge deep in the sanctuary when rival drug gangs opened fire. Beyond the church, Pasaje C branches into the rest of the parish: more rutted mud and cracked concrete form Pasajes A to K. Brick chips from the hasty construction of squatter housing coagulate along what ought to be sidewalks. The word asesino—­murderer—is scrawled in spray-paint on the sooty wall of a burned-out house, which was torched just days before in retaliation for yet another shooting. Packs of dogs sprawl beneath wrecked cars. Children wander heedless of traffic, because nothing can gather speed on these jagged roads. But even Pasaje C can lead to Rome.
As Cardinal and Archbishop of Buenos Aires, a metropolis of some 13.5 million souls, Jorge Mario Bergoglio made room in his schedule every year for a pastoral visit to this place of squalor and sorrow.­ He would walk to the subway station nearest to the Metropolitan Cathedral, whose pillars and dome fit easily into the center of Argentine power. Traveling alone, he would transfer onto a graffiti-blasted tram to Mariano Acosta, reaching where the subways do not go. He finished the journey on foot, moving heavily in his bulky black orthopedic shoes along Pasaje C. On other days, there were other journeys to barrios throughout the city—so many in need of so much, but none too poor or too filthy for a visit from this itinerant prince of the church. Reza por mí, he asked almost everyone he met. Pray for me.
.
.



Read more
.
.

Monday, December 09, 2013

Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God




9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.

10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

13 Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God.

14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;


Deuteronomy 18:9-15
King James Version (KJV)



.

Looking Past Website, More Challenges Await Obamacare

7 min 48 sec
An increasing number of people are signing up for health insurance through the government's new exchange, suggesting the Obama administration has made progress in fixing its broken website. But the exchange is just one part of the health care law, which remains politically divisive almost four years after its passage.


Source

.

Pope prophetic, not political: Column



Tom Krattenmaker, USATODAY 3:41 p.m. EST December 8, 2013

Pontiff has conservatives up in arms over views on economic inequality and capitalism.



(Photo: Osservatore Romano via AFP/Getty Images)


Story Highlights
Palin and Limbaugh pile on over pontiff's 'liberal' viewpoints.
Progressives are delighted, but he's no liberal on gay marriage or contraception.
In fact, he's standing outside of business and politics and speaking inconvenient moral truths.


It's one thing to say kind words about gay people and atheists while admonishing those who would bury them in stones. It's one thing to walk humbly and call the Catholic Church to compassion for the poor. It's one thing to kiss a horribly disfigured man from whom most people would run in disgust.

But apparently, it's quite another to start calling out growing economic inequality and naive faith in capitalism. By doing just that in his recent encyclical, Pope Francis has touched a third rail in conservative American politics. So begins the backlash.

Yet in the new round of skirmishing around Francis and his supposedly "liberal" views, U.S. political pundits and news media wags — both progressive and conservative — are missing the point about the pope and what he's up to. Their mistake? They see his words and deeds through the lens of American politics and ideology. What Francis is doing is prophetic, not political, and we should recognize that he's playing, to his credit, in a whole different arena.

Liberals beware

Many American conservatives have come to regard the Catholic hierarchy as their culture war ally. This pope is becoming something of a head-scratcher — and headache — for them now that he has spoken out against trickle-down economics and the fetishizing of free markets.

Too liberal, Sarah Palin said, while promising, uncharacteristically, to look into it further. Too political, Fox News' Stuart Varney charged, claiming Francis had crossed the line. Too Marxist, Rush Limbaugh concluded: "Somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him."

You might have heard some of the liberal cackling in response to all this conservative hand-wringing. Progressive news media figures who could always be counted on to criticize, not applaud, the Catholic Church are sounding positively gleeful about the pope's pronouncements and, more precisely, the conservative reaction.

"When Palin calls the pope too liberal, he's probably doing something right," wrote Allen Clifton on the Forward Progressives website. "A Progressive Pope is Driving the Wingnuts Batty," declared a headline at the progressive Daily Kos.

Allow the progressives a moment to enjoy their adversaries' discomfort. But before they start claiming Pope Francis as the standard bearer for the progressive movement, they ought to remind themselves of a few less enjoyable realities.

As observed by pundit E.J. Dionne — a liberal-leaning Catholic and unabashed Francis admirer — the pope is no liberal on abortion. Nor, despite his tone change on the matter of same-sex couples, has Francis come out in favor of gay marriage or ordination of women, or contraception. The day could come when progressive activists are no longer swooning over Francis but lamenting his "conservative" views on these and other liberal causes.

A religious figure

Which, one suspects, will be of little concern to this new face of the worldwide Catholic Church. To state what should be obvious, Francis is not a player in American politics. He's not even American, for God's sake. Growing up and pursuing his vocation in Argentina for most of his life has no doubt had a profound effect on him.

Even more important, the pope is not a politician, a media loudmouth or an activist. He is a religious figure, wholly dedicated to representing the Gospel of Jesus Christ as he understands it to a world caught up in a thousand other things.

As conservative Catholic George Weigel writes, "Pope Francis is a revolutionary. The revolution he proposes, however, is not a matter of economic or political prescription, but a revolution in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church."

Prophetic is probably the best word for the role the pope is playing — not in the sense of predicting the future, but of standing outside of business and politics as usual and speaking hard and inconvenient moral truths.

Has someone gotten to the pope, as Limbaugh suggests? Yes, actually. Jesus Christ apparently has. So when a news media figure such as Varney blasts Francis for wanting "to influence my politics," one has to ask who's really bringing politics to the discussion about Pope Francis. We'll probably find the answer not in the Vatican but in the mirror.

Tom Krattenmaker is a Portland-based writer specializing in religion in public life and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. He is author of the new book The Evangelicals You Don't Know.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook.


Source
.

Mandela: 18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013


 Nelson Mandela and the Duke of Gloucester, at the Knights and Dames Investiture on November 23, 2004, at St James’s Palace, when the Duke invested Mr. Mandela as a Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St. John.

Photo (Courtesy)

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/albums/p/6/Mandela-South-Africa-knights.jpg

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/the-vaticans-new-world-order-the-knights-of-malta-a-well-researched-history-that-may-shed-light-on-masonry-at-least-it-is-a-jumping-off-point-to-understanding-j/

.

Open Letter to Obama and Congress From Internet Giants Calls For Reining In Government Surveillance



Ronald Bailey
Dec. 9, 2013 10:20 am





EFF

Today, eight leading internet companies have published in several major newspapers an open letter to President Barack Obama and to Members of Congress urging them to rein in the growth of the national security surveillance state. From the letter:

We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for a change.

For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure — deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope.

We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.

The companies behind the letter are AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo. They set out a list of five principles at the ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com website including (1) no bulk collection of user data; (2) independent judicial review of intelligence agency demands, (3) transparent reports on what is being compelled; (4) no country firewalls against cross border data; and (5) a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) among countries to prevent conflicts.

Given the attitudes of authoritarian governments with respect to the internet privacy of their citizens, a comprehensive MLAT that also protects the constitutioinal rights of American citizens to be free from government surveillance might be difficult to negotiate. Or sadly, given the Edward Snowden revelations about the extent of National Security Agency spying, perhaps not that difficult after all.

Privacy violations mean something very different when companies collect collect vast amounts of customer data in order to target ads and services (as annoying as that may be to some users) than when governments collect the similar information in order to monitor the activities of their citizens. The government gaze is a lot more threatening to liberty than is the Google gaze.

Ronald Bailey is a science correspondent at Reason magazine and author of Liberation Biology (Prometheus).
 

Source
.

Saturday, December 07, 2013

The United States – A Democracy or a Republic – A Dragon or a Lamb



The United States – A Democracy or a Republic – A Dragon or a Lamb
Prophecy Add comments


In a republic the government is to protect your God given natural rights. The declaration of independence and the constitution exclude disbelief in or even doubt as to the existence of God as the Creator of Man as we shall see.

Democracy:

In a democracy, the people accept their government given civil rights. Democracy was repugnant to the founders of the United States and it is repugnant to God and to bible believing Christians who understand the principles of liberty and justice for all as we shall see.

America United States Lamb like beast dragon
2nd beast out of the earth



It's really bad for you, but government doesn't have the right to take away your right to drink it.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” – Thomas Jefferson

For instance, let’s say that 51% of the nation votes for military drones to monitor people and take away their privacy and freedom or federal departments such as the TSA to touch every part of your body and grope your private parts to ensure the safety of others, the Department of Education to make sure your kids are being educated by the powers that be to believe that we are no longer free, and that God doesn’t exist, and that they came from animals and were not formed in the image of God.

Or how about the Department of Energy to force you to pay taxes for breathing, the Food and Drug Administration to govern us and force down our throats fluoridated water and to also force us to put mercury, aluminum, and other poison in our veins and bloodstream by means of vaccinations, meanwhile outlawing the sale of herbs and vitamins. Or the Department of Buildings creating laws and red tape so much so that a small business cannot operate anymore, a construction company can no longer cut down a tree without a permit from the government, or do renovations on the home, build a fence, or a deck etc.

The businesses pay so much to follow all of these guidelines, and get all this government training, permits etc. that the small business cannot afford to pay it’s workers and thus all good jobs disappear and taking over 50% of our income in unconstitutional taxes, and forcing the people to give them more money by way of permits and other red tape while corporations like Wal-Mart are given government grants of land and don’t have to pay taxes and import products from China etc promoting slavery and other unconstitutional principles.

Not only that, but also forcing us into a health care system that forces

the healthy to support and pay for those who choose to be sick by means of improper lifestyle habits. It’s like forcing me to pay high insurance premiums because other people get in lot’s of car accidents, and not only that , but to put millions of dollars into the pockets of the monopolized insurance companies.

Furthermore, taking your money to put into foreign wars to destroy innocent civilians who are upset because you are trying to “FORCE democracy” on them and they don’t want it because it’s to destructive. Also being supposedly Christian they make God look tyrannical to the other nations, and obviously many Christians who think God is a war monger also become tyrannical. Please see my article on whether or not Christians should fight in war for more on that topic:

http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/should-christians-fight-in-wars-%E2%80%93-gods-non-intervention-policy

How about 99% of the people of Occupy Wall Street using their democracy or shall we say mobocracy because that’s what democracy is, to force the government to come up with equal rations for all by demanding that those who are wealthy must split their income among the poor. And they believe that they are 99% and they want to take away the rights of others(by force) and if 51% of them believe that wealth distribution by force is the answer then that’s the way it will be whether the other 49% agree or not. I am definitely part of the 99% who are not wealthy, but not part of the % who believes that the government needs to redistribute wealth from wealthy people to poorer people.

We have in excess of 50 million people on food stamps(welfare) in America right now. That’s 1 in 7 people. Sadly when the people become immoral the cry is for others to govern us and take away our rights and enslave us and make us a complete welfare State dependent entirely on the government to feed us our daily rations, tell us what to eat and drink, give us a little room to live in, tell us what job to do, and basically enslave the nation because they did not accept that they were the government and were to govern themselves giving you a little card to buy and sell with and you must accept their rules first in order to do so.

The cry right now is becoming “Give us a King” and they have fallen right into the hands of power hungry dictators who are quite willing to make the 99% equal in a total police state where they give you your vaccination shots, some white bleached bread, and some water, and lots of Federal Emergency Management Agency camps where everyone will have equal bedding, and a radio going 24 hours re-educating the people into accepting the tyranny they got themselves into and how they believe they can correct it and save everyone.

That’s democracy for you, and that’s where it’s heading. If 51% wants to force the other 49% to take a mark in their right hand or in their forehead, then the majority cheers as they take away the rights of the minority.

Self Government The Republic:

A republic is not a democracy, and far from it, and it is well worthwhile to study this issue out. Abraham Lincoln defined to us what a republic is. “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, “We the People.” Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

The power is structured thus:

1. God
2. People
3. Government

The opposite is true with democracy as well as most churches today.

A republic was known as the greatest at self government and the early republic of Rome became the greatest and most powerful nation on earth before its fall. But by their continual conquests they became rich. Historian AT Jones writes that:

“In the train of luxury came vice; self-restraint was broken down; the power of self-government was lost; and the Roman republic failed, as every other republic will fail, when that(self government) fails by virtue of which alone a republic is possible. The Romans ceased to govern themselves, and they had to be governed. They lost the faculty of self-government, and with that vanished the republic, and its place was supplied by an imperial tyranny supported by a military despotism.” – (AT Jones The Two Republics page 3)

Don’t just step over that quote. It say’s a lot. Especially since it was written over 130 years ago. The republic was about self government, but they stopped governing themselves.

So the steps were:

1. Riches and luxury
2. Vice (Loss of morality)
3. Self restraint broken down (self government lost)
4. Democracy sets in and majority cries for government restraint (Give us a King)
5. Tyranny supported by a military despotism (police state)

I read in the bible “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”(Eccl 1:9).

These steps are nothing new. The government of the people, by the people and for the people” was lost. It was lost because the people lost morality and didn’t realize that the people they had called as governors were immoral. Study history and you will see what made a great republic fall yesterday, and what has made it fall today. It’s interesting how the bible say’s “Babylon is fallen, is fallen”(Revelation 14:8, and 18:2). Seems to me that God was telling us that history repeats itself.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . .”

In a constitutional republic, we govern ourselves. There is not mob rule, but a rule of law. And the law states in it in amendments 1 to 8 of the constitution our unalienable rights which are protected from a mob rule democracy. Which can be summed up in the declaration of independence as thus:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”(Declaration of Independence)

If you are going to step on my liberties or encroach my pursuit of happiness, or want to kill me, then you are violating the constitution and my God given not government given rights. Doesn’t matter if you have 51% or not.

Examples of Democracy at Work to Destroy Freedom and Liberty

If I choose to drink a 16 ounce Coca-cola in the streets of New York City(which I don’t by the way, I think it’s unhealthy), you have no right to stop me, you then are infringing on my liberty which the constitution protects. In a democracy you could vote to put me in jail for 6 months for drinking that much Coca-cola, and that’s the difference from a republic. In a democracy people begin to force others to comply to their beliefs.

In a constitutional republic you cannot force me not to drink Coca-cola, not even to not smoke Marijuana, though I disagree strongly with that as well. The war on drugs is unconstitutional.

I recently heard of a woman who had a beautiful garden in her yard. The city came by and cut it all down and gave her some fines to pay and told her it was against the city law. They came up with these laws because she might grow marijuana in her garden. Basically the 51% destroyed the rights of the other 49%. I’m sure they’ll remember someday should they ever want to grow a garden. But this is the fruit of democracy.

Some might quickly say “Your for drugs”. No, I’m for liberty.

2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

The bible has many examples of the majority taking away the rights of the minority. Such as the three boys who would not bow to the image.(Daniel 3) They stood alone. Daniel when he prayed to his God 3 times a day.(Daniel 6) And finally in the end of time we read in Revelation just before Jesus comes that a second beast or nation(Daniel 7:23, Revelation 13:11) would come out of the earth looking like a lamb, but it would eventually speak like a dragon.

Democracy in this country was feared as much as a monarchy by the founders. Because it did was intolerant toward those with differing views. In Revelation 13 we see 3 beasts. A first beast rising out of the sea.(Revelation 13:1, 2), a second beast rising out of the earth(Revelation 13:11) and an image to the first beast which the second beast forms. The image or copy of this first beast is given all the power of the first beast by the second beast.

It is my personal belief however, and you have the freedom to differ with me. Some reading this may feel the urge to take away my rights as they are reading this because they cannot tolerate what they feel to be erroneous, some may differ with me, that is your right. I have personally come to believe that the first beast of Revelation 13 is the Papacy, and the second beast is the United States, and the Image to the Beast is a copy of the Papacy and very similar to what developed in Rome after the fall of the republic where worship was publicly forced on the people and those who refused to bow were tortured, killed, and slain for not accepting the beliefs of the Roman Church. Some have said that 50 million or more were killed by the Roman Church during the dark ages.

If anything has ever been more destructive it was the Church trying to force it’s will on the people using civil government. And this is what the founders tried to protect against in the first amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..”(1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights)

We are told that Christians are to be servants. Jesus Christ himself served us. And the servant is not here to rule and reign over others. They are to govern themselves. And the government is to serve the people. They are not to rule and reign. The bible tells us that there are “three things for which the earth is disquieted” and the first of those is written “A servant when he reigneth”(Proverbs 3:22). In other words there is nothing that alarms this planet more than a servant who wants to rule.


The founders of the United States believed that government was only in place to serve and protect the people and their God given rights. And also government was not to do anything without the consent of the people. This is a far cry from what is happening right now.


Democracy Leads to Dictatorship

I read in Revelation that:

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

It came up like a lamb, but then eventually begins to speak like a dragon. The Dragon is pictured here:

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Eventually it would come to a point where the power of the dragon was given to the first beast.(Revelation 13:2), and finally that power was excercised by the second beast who wanted to make an image or a copy of the first beast which would then take away the rights of those who refused to comply with the request of the kingdom.

Revelation 13:15-17 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. (16) And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: (17) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.



Vice President Joe Biden appears to be in favor of a mark in the forehead.

I intend shortly to put together a few more studies which go over this in much more detail as I understand that some may be skeptical. I believe that the bible and history clearly lay out what is happening and that God has not left us ignorant regarding the remaining events to close world history. But I believe that we are heading quickly into this final democracy where the majority 51% say’s “no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

A very great issue here is the misrepresentation of the character of God in the way the government is now carrying things out and the way in which many people, professing themselves to be Christian have fought against the very thing that God stands for trying to spread democracy around the world, and coming up with silly saying such as “We must give up our liberties for freedom”. They fail to understand that they are saying that they must give up their freedoms and liberties for freedom and liberties. It’s an oxymoron.

If you are interested in the upcoming bible studies regarding America in Bible prophecy, please sign up for my blog at:

http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/


Posts Related to The United States – A Democracy or a Republic – A Dragon or a Lamb



Source


.

Court of Appeal Recognises In Law Sunday as Christian Rest Day



Published: December 5th, 2013
|
Religious Freedom



The Court of Appeal has today (5th December) upheld protection of Sundays as a day of worship and rest for Christians. In a landmark judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed earlier findings that Sunday observance was ‘not a core component of the Christian faith’. The ruling comes in the case of children’s worker, Celestina Mba.

The Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal had ruled that since not all Christians observe Sunday, it could not be a ‘core component’ of the Christian faith and was therefore not safeguarded.

Had such logic prevailed, Christians could not have expected the Courts to protect them from pressure to work on Sundays.

Importantly, the Court of Appeal today rejected this reasoning saying that the faith of the individual believer should be recognised and in principle protected. Employment Tribunals must balance the religious beliefs of their employees in relation to business need. Crucially, the Court recognised that Sunday observance is a valid and genuine expression of faith for many Christians and cannot be simply jettisoned. This principle stands in sharp contrast to other cases in recent years.

However, in spite of finding that an 'error of law' had been made in earlier rulings, the Court of Appeal upheld Celestina's dismissal.

Pressure to work on Sundays

Ms Mba resigned from her job at a Children’s home operated by Merton Council after being put under pressure to work on Sundays.

An Employment Tribunal had found that the committed Christian ‘genuinely believed’ that she had made it clear at her job interview that she was unable to work on Sundays owing to her faith. An initial agreement respected her Christian faith and she didn’t work on Sundays. But after two years her employer sought to change the arrangement.

Disturbingly, from 2009 onwards, knowing that she would refuse, Merton Council ordered Celestina to work on Sundays and then sought to discipline her.

Celestina Mba, said: “They were trying to break my faith and see if I really believed in the Lord’s Day. Merton disrespected my Christian faith. I said to the Court that the Council would not treat other faiths like they treat Christians. It was like giving pork to a Muslim every meal-time and then disciplining them for not eating it!

“If they really needed someone to work on a Sunday, they should have recruited that person and I would have been glad to leave. I had offered to take unpopular shifts and work anti-socials in order to protect Sundays.”

‘Error in law’

Paul Diamond, her barrister, argued that the onus was on her employer to seek reasonable accommodation for the employee and that the employers must act conscientiously.

The Court of Appeal found that the earlier courts had applied the wrong test to Merton’s decision. Lord Justice Maurice Kay said “I am satisfied that there was an error of law in the decision of the ET and that it was repeated in the judgment of the EAT.”

However, in spite of this, the Appeal Court refused to reconsider the findings of facts made by the Employment Tribunal or to order a new hearing to apply the correct test to the facts of the case. Thus, the dismissal of Celestina was upheld.

In his ruling, Lord Justice Maurice Kay concluded: “After the most anxious consideration, I have come to the conclusion that, in all the circumstances of this case, and notwithstanding the legal errors to which I have referred, the decision of the ET that the imposition of the PCP was proportionate was ‘plainly and unarguably right’.”

‘Big Step Forward’

Andrea Minichiello Williams, Barrister and Director of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Ms Mba, said: “We believe if the Court of Appeal had been prepared to consider the facts according to the correct test, Celestina would have won. The onus should be on the employer to reasonably accommodate their employee.

“However, this judgment is a big step forward for proper treatment of Christians and is an important victory. At last the courts are beginning to demonstrate greater understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Christian identity extends beyond private belief into daily life. We pray that the tide is turning.

“Celestina Mba was popular and highly respected amongst colleagues and the children for whom she cared. She loved her job and she has paid a high price for her Christian faith.”


Source
.

Jesus on Wealth Redistribution



13 And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.

14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

Luke 12:13-15
King James Version (KJV) 
.

EVANGELII GAUDIUM



APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
EVANGELII GAUDIUM
OF THE HOLY FATHER
FRANCIS
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY,
CONSECRATED PERSONS
AND THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL
IN TODAY’S WORLD



INDEX

The joy of the gospel [1]

I. A joy ever new, a joy which is shared [2-8]

II. The delightful and comforting joy of evangelizing [9-13]


Eternal newness [11-13]

III. The new evangelization for the transmission of the faith [14-18]


The scope and limits of this Exhortation [16-18]

CHAPTER ONE

THE CHURCH’S MISSIONARY
TRANSFORMATION [19]

I. A Church which goes forth [20-24]


Taking the first step, being involved and supportive, bearing fruit and rejoicing [24]

II. Pastoral activity and conversion [25-33]


An ecclesial renewal which cannot be deferred [27-33]

III. From the heart of the Gospel [34-39]

IV. A mission embodied within human limits [40-45]

V. A mother with an open heart [46-49]

CHAPTER TWO

AMID THE CRISIS
OF COMMUNAL COMMITMENT [50-51]

I. Some challenges of today’s world [52-75]


No to an economy of exclusion [53-54]
No to the new idolatry of money [55-56]
No to a financial system which rules rather than serves [57-58]
No to the inequality which spawns violence [59-60]
Some cultural challenges [61-67]
Challenges to inculturating the faith [68-70]
Challenges from urban cultures [71-75]

II. Temptations faced by pastoral workers [76-109]


Yes to the challenge of a missionary spirituality [78-80]
No to selfishness and spiritual sloth [81-83]
No to a sterile pessimism [84-86]
Yes to the new relationships brought by Christ [87-92]
No to spiritual worldliness [93-97]
No to warring among ourselves [98-101]
Other ecclesial challenges [102-109]

CHAPTER THREE

THE PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL [110]

I. The entire people of God proclaims the Gospel [111-134]


A people for everyone [112-114]
A people of many faces [115-118]
We are all missionary disciples [119-121]
The evangelizing power of popular piety [122-126]
Person to person [127-129]
Charisms at the service of a communion which evangelizes [130-131]
Culture, thought and education [132-134]

II. The homily [135-144]


The liturgical context [137-138]
A mother’s conversation [139-141]
Words which set hearts on fire [142-144]

III. Preparing to preach [145-159]


Reverence for truth [146-148]
Personalizing the word [149-151]
Spiritual reading [152-153]
An ear to the people [154-155]
Homiletic resources [156-159]

IV. Evangelization and the deeper understanding of the kerygma [160-175]


Kerygmatic and mystagogical catechesis [163-168]
Personal accompaniment in processes of growth [169-173]
Centred on the word of God [174-175]

CHAPTER FOUR

THE SOCIAL DIMENSION
OF EVANGELIZATION [176]

I. Communal and societal repercussions of the kerygma [177-185]


Confession of faith and commitment to society [178-179]
The kingdom and its challenge [180-181]
The Church’s teaching on social questions [182-185]

II. The inclusion of the poor in society [186-216]


In union with God, we hear a plea [187-192]
Fidelity to the Gospel, lest we run in vain [193-196]
The special place of the poor in God’s people [197-201]
The economy and the distribution of income [202-208]
Concern for the vulnerable [209-216]

III. The common good and peace in society [217-237]


Time is greater than space [222-225]
Unity prevails over conflict [226-230]
Realities are more important than ideas [231-233]
The whole is greater than the part [234-237]

IV. Social dialogue as a contribution to peace [238-258]


Dialogue between faith, reason and science [242-243]
Ecumenical dialogue [244-246]
Relations with Judaism [247-249]
Interreligious dialogue [250-254]
Social dialogue in a context of religious freedom [255-258]

CHAPTER FIVE

SPIRIT-FILLED EVANGELIZERS [259-261]

I. Reasons for a renewed missionary impulse [262-283]


Personal encounter with the saving love of Jesus [264-267]
The spiritual savour of being a people [268-274]
The mysterious working of the risen Christ and his Spirit [275-280]
The missionary power of intercessory prayer [281-283]

II. Mary, Mother of Evangelization [284-288]


Jesus’ gift to his people [285-286]
Star of the new Evangelization [287-288]



Read more
.
.

True and Honest Men


The greatest want of the world is the want of men
-- men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall. 

- Education, p.57 \
.
.

Happy Sabbath



Wednesday, December 04, 2013

Social Justice Sunday on NPR

 From: December 1, 2013

Sunday's Show

Middle East

Palestinian Refugees On Losing Side Of UN Budget Crunch 

Palestinian refugee Lawahez Burghal stuffs tripe with rice and garbanzo beans for her family in their home in the Amari refugee camp in the West Bank. Many refugees still depend on the United Nations for food, health care and education.  

December 1, 2013 The UN agency that supplies the basic needs for Palestinian refugees may not be able to meet December payroll for 30,000 teachers, doctors and social workers across the Mideast. The agency serves an ever-increasing number of refugees, the descendants of the Palestinians uprooted in 1948.

 

The Sunday Conversation

In Gujarat, Anti-Muslim Legacy Of 2002 Riots Still Looms 

Zahir Janmohamed on his terrace in Juhapura, in the Muslim ghetto of Ahmedabad.  

December 1, 2013 Indian writer Zahir Janmohamed was in Gujarat, India, during the 2002 riots that left more than a thousand Muslims dead. He talks with NPR's Rachel Martin about the riots, and how Muslims have fared in Gujarat since then under Narendra Modi, who is now a leading candidate to be India's next prime minister.

 

Technology

Helping Haiti, In 3-D

3:50

The Role Of Faith In Jewish Life

6:32

Obama Praises Pope’s Call For Greater Income Equality



A couple months after saying he’s “hugely impressed” by Pope Francis, Obama gives the pontiff a shout-out in an economic address. posted on December 4, 2013 at 12:34pm EST



Evan McMorris-Santoro BuzzFeed Staff





Dylan Martinez / Reuters


WASHINGTON — President Obama really seems to like the new pope.

At a speech focused on economic equality hosted by the progressive think tank Center for American Progress Wednesday, Obama noted the pope’s recent remarks on the topic that have rankled some prominent conservatives.

“Some of you may have seen this last week. The pope spoke about this at eloquent length. ‘How can it be,’ he wrote, ‘that it’s not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure but it is when the stock market loses two points?’” Obama said. “This increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people.”

The pope’s speech last week took on capitalist economics, condemning “trickle-down economics” and the “idolatry of money.”

The remarks led some conservatives to take on the leader of the Catholic Church. Rush Limbaugh said Pope Francis was preaching “pure Marxism.” Other conservatives, like Sarah Palin, have warned the pope sounds like a “liberal,” and Palin also said reports of his statements have “taken me aback.”

Wednesday was not the first time Obama has praised the pontiff. In October, Obama said he was “hugely impressed” with Pope Francis.

“He seems somebody who lives out the teachings of Christ,” Obama told CNBC. “Incredible humility, incredible sense of empathy to the least of these, to the poor.”


(Go to link below to see video)


Source
.
.
.
.

Rush Limbaugh: Pope is preaching 'pure Marxism'



 

December 2nd, 2013
11:29 AM ET


Rush Limbaugh: Pope is preaching 'pure Marxism'


By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor


(CNN) – Pope Francis: Successor to St. Peter ... the people's pontiff ... Marxist?

That's what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests, calling the Pope's latest document "pure Marxism."

Limbaugh blasted the pontiff on Wednesday, a day after Francis released "Evangelii Gaudium" (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and castigates elements of modern capitalism.

Limbaugh's segment, now online and entitled "It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists)," takes direct aim at the pope's economic views, calling them "dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong."

The Vatican issued the English translation of "Evangelii," which is known officially as an apostolic exhortation and unofficially as a pep talk to the worlds 1.5 billion Catholics.

Francis – the first pope ever to hail from Latin America, where he worked on behalf of the poor in his native Argentina – warned in "Evangelii" that the "idolatry of money" would lead to a "new tyranny."

The Pope also blasted "trickle-down economics," saying the theory "expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power."

READ MORE: Pope Francis: No more business as usual

The Pope's critique of capitalism thrilled many liberal Catholics, who have long called on church leaders to spend more time and energy on protecting the poor from economic inequalities.

But Limbaugh, whose program is estimated to reach 15 million listeners, called the Pope's comments "sad" and "unbelievable."

"It's sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth."

In fact, Argentina was a battlefield between leftist socialists and right-wing security forces during much of Francis' early career in the country, where he was a Jesuit priest and later archbishop of Buenos Aires.

Limbaugh, who is not Catholic, said he admires the faith "profoundly." He admired Pope Francis as well, "up until this," Limbaugh said.

The talk show host also said that he has made numerous visits to the Vatican, which he said "wouldn't exist without tons of money."

"But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him," Limbaugh added. "This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope."

Limbaugh took particular issue with the Pope's criticism of the "culture of prosperity," which the pontiff called a "mere spectacle" for the many people who can't afford to participate.

"This is almost a statement about who should control financial markets," Limbaugh said. "He says that the global economy needs government control."

"I'm not Catholic, but I know enough to know that this would have been unthinkable for a pope to believe or say just a few years ago," Limbaugh continued.

In fact, Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI, now pope emeritus, could be just as strong a critic of capitalism.

In 2009, Benedict, in an official church document called an encyclical, said there was an urgent need for "a political, juridical and economic order" that would "manage the global economy."

As Limbaugh notes, Benedict's predecessor, the late Pope John Paul II, was a noted foe of communism, after living under its oppressions in his native Poland. But even John Paul thought that unregulated capitalism could have negative consequences.

In "Evangelii," Francis called for more of a spiritual and ethical revolution than a regulatory one.

"I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: `Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs,'" said Francis, quoting the fifth-century St. John Chrysostom.

Liberal Catholics defended Pope Francis on Monday, calling on Limbaugh to apologize and retract his remarks.

"To call the Holy Father a proponent 'pure Marxism' is both mean-spirited and naive," said Christopher Hale of the Washington-based Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. "Francis's critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church's social teaching."

Limbaugh is not the only conservative commentator to take issue with the Pope's views on capitalism.

READ MORE: Sarah Palin 'taken aback' by Pope Francis's 'liberal' statements

“I go to church to save my soul," said Fox News' Stuart Varney, who is an Episcopalian. "It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”

It doesn't sound like the criticism is slowing Francis down, however. He's started sending a Vatican contingent, including the Papal Swiss Guards, into Rome to deliver food and charity.


Daniel Burke - CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor


Source
.

The Catholic Church's War on Borders




By David Simcox
Volume 5, Number 3 (Spring 1995)

Issue theme: "Religious lobbies and the immigration debate"

View original PDF format



The Catholic Church has developed an elaborate theology of immigration since World War II, and along with this an abundance of moral-political prescriptions it promotes to secular governments for dealing with immigration. These norms have been enunciated by the Vatican, and even more energetically by The Catholic Bishops' Conference (NCCB) here in the United States.

The Church has virtually sacralized immigration, proclaiming it as a 'sacrament of unity,' a process through which the Holy Spirit moves the world toward greater brotherhood. Migration, the Church preaches, witnesses to God's goodness, promotes the unity of the human family, and offers Christians a ministry of love and service to the stranger among us.

Human dignity, as the Church defines it, becomes a critical litmus test of the moral legitimacy of national responses to immigration pressures, just as it has been in Church judgments of other population and reproductive policies. The innate dignity of human beings entitles them to seek work in other lands and to be joined by their families there. This prerogative has in recent decades come to take precedence in Church teaching over the rights of nation-states to protect their borders.

The Church's concept of migrants' rights has moved closer to the absolute since Vatican II. Papal statements in the 1950s at least recognized the need to reconcile the right to migrate with national concern for the common good, as expressed in the regulation of immigration. That prudent approach is heard less now, Since Vatican II, and particularly in the thinking of John Paul II and the U.S. Bishops, any conditions on the right of migrants to cross national borders in search of work or to join family members have all but vanished. In the words of Los Angeles' Cardinal Roger Mahony Catholic social teaching takes what many view to be a counter-cultural position on this matter and insists that the right to immigrate is more fundamental than that of nations to control their borders.1

Oddly, a statement of the Catholic Bishops in late 1994 claimed that 'the Catholic Church has long recognized the right and obligation of nations to control their borders and create systems regulating immigration.' The statement, particularly in asserting states' 'obligation' to control borders, suggest a departure from existing doctrine. But the statement cited no authority for this uncharacteristic position, nor has the concept figured in more recent angry Church discourse on proposition 187 or legal immigration reform.2

The Church's cosmic image of migration as a celestially sanctioned human right, not surprisingly, crimps the debate on immigration regulation for many policy makers, conservationists, advocates of a sound environment and high labor standards, and among millions of ordinary Catholics of good faith. Disputing the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium of a 2000-year old institution is, for many, an intimidating venture.

Moral Imperatives

and Institutional Interests

The Church's stress on immigration as a moral imperative has practical as well as mystical roots. Organizational politics, institutional self-interest, and the desire to maximize utility are hard at work. Migration is central to the Church's history of recovery and growth following its losses from the Reformation and the secession of the Church of England. The catholization by Spain, France and Portugal of much of the Western Hemisphere in the 16th and 17th centuries was essentially a work of colonization and migration.

The current immigration mentality of the Church has been deeply influenced by its experiences in the 19th century. In that epoch of mass migration, Catholic-sending nations such as Ireland, Italy and Central Europe populated regions in the Western Hemisphere that were either sparsely populated or heavily Protestant. The most important country of settlement, the United States, was neither heavily Catholic nor culturally congenial to Catholicism.

Catholic immigrants of that era were thus religious pioneers who, though beleaguered and isolated in the host nations, were creating bridgeheads for the spread of the faith in the New World. The Church views itself as having accompanied its sons and daughters in their wanderings. The growth of large Catholic communities in nations where the Church's presence had been weak or non-existent has, for the Church, imbued immigration with a providential character, seemingly a manifestation of God's plan working itself out in the world.

Spiritual and institutional interests have prospered together. Through immigration and high fertility, the Church acquired an important new treasure a community of nearly 60 million souls and contributors in the United States, the World's richest nation. Such temporal power and financial strength counts for a great deal, even in a belief system valuing humility and self-abnegation.

'Since the late 1950s ... the

'common good' of receiving

states has been increasingly

soft pedaled and

in some instances

rejected outright.'

But during the 19th century the papacy's outlook on world immigration policy differed from what it is today. The Church's priority mission was to serve spiritually the Catholic immigrants in their new homelands, protect them to the extent possible from discrimination and anti-Catholic hostility, and - in the U.S. - ensure their cultural survival in an overwhelmingly Protestant milieu.3 The U.S. parochial school system is a response to early Catholic feelings that the public schools were expressions of Protestant culture.

Absent then were papal policies asserting the human right of free immigration for all the moral obligation of states to acquiesce in the individual immigration choices of millions. The open immigration policies of the United States and some other major host nations in the 19th century made such special claims unnecessary.

In the 1910s and 1920s Catholic groups, such as the Knights of Columbus and ethnic brotherhoods, fought the mounting restrictionist sentiment. But there is no record of papal opposition to the Johnson-Reed act of 1921 or other major restrictive actions, nor any high-level intimations that such immigration policies contravened God's will.

Radicalization Since World War II

Circumstances in Europe after World War II had much to do with the radicalization of the Catholic Church's teaching on the primacy of immigrants' rights. Major migrations were taking place from the heavily Catholic, labor-surplus countries (Spain, Italy, Portugal and Yugoslavia) to nations such as Germany, Switzerland, France, and the Scandinavian countries, which perceived themselves as labor deficient. Europe was still awash with displaced persons scattered by the war.

It is in this setting that Pius XII issued 'Exsul Familia.' This 1952 document explicitly identified emigration, immigration and family reunification as basic human rights. Worth noting is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in that same period also enshrined the freedom to travel and the right of emigration as fundamental.4 But a series of diplomatic objections by the U.S. and other Western countries in the negotiations had blocked the treaty from asserting a comparable right to immigrate.

Since the late 1950s, in subsequent teaching documents of the Vatican and other magisterial bodies within the Church, the 'common good' of receiving states has been increasingly soft-pedaled and in some instances rejected outright. The depreciation of the sovereignty of nation-states in migration matters has several different roots, some old, some recent. Three Theses

First, the Church, in the very catholicity of its name and in its outlook and mission is universalist. It has never been philosophically comfortable with the modern nation-state with its connotation of exclusion and its claims to be the ultimate community. For the Church, a main reason for the existence of states is to promote the human rights of individuals. Borders are often incompatible with human needs. Suffering this outlook is the biblical and early historical view of the Church as a cosmopolitan, multi-class, multi-cultural community for all. In the words of Paul 'there is no Greek or Jew here, circumcised or uncircumcised, foreigner, Scythian, slave or freeman. Rather, Christ is everything in all of you.' (Colossians 3 11).

'In current discourse [the church]

draws on writers like

Julian Simon to argue that

nations must welcome immigration

in their own best interest...'

Another transforming factor has been demographics. In the United States and some other Western nations, falling fertility in the 1960s among long-established Catholic populations dimmed the prospects for further Church growth. Predominantly Catholic immigration from Latin America and Vietnam provided both a new ministry and a new opportunity for expansion of the flock. Immigrants, in the words of Reverend Richard Ryscavage of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, are the 'growing edge' of the Church, as they were in the 19th century, and the 'assurance of the Church's health in the 21st century.5

A final tenet in the Church's open border vision is its faith in cornucopian economics as a response to issues of population growth and resource depletion. In current discourse it draws on writers like Julian Simon to argue that nations must welcome immigra-tion in their own best interest, as it enriches economically as well as culturally and spiritually. Church doctrine in the past has recognized that population in excess of resources can justify emigration. But it overlooks the corollary that excessive immigration can bring a similar imbalance to the receiving countries. Cornucopian economics, it seems, really applies only in Western industrial nations.

Changing priorities in Catholic social doctrine have also reinforced the view of immigration as a supra-national prerogative. The Church's heightened interest in social action to promote human rights to combat dehumanizing structures was both articulated in, and intensified by, the Vatican Councils of the 1960s. The U.S. Church's close exposure to Latin America conditioned its commitment to the 'prefer-ential option for the poor' proclaimed in the literature of liberation theology. Pope John Paul II has made the rights of migrants a major theme of his papacy.

This outlook readily fused with the Church's vision of its area of future growth as the Third World and its increasing identification with the anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist liberation movements in those nations. Also present is an unfolding sense of mission to address the unequal distribution of the world's wealth highlighted in the U.N.'s North-South dialogue. Open immigration into major industrial nations becomes a way of sharing wealth and balancing out past exploitation. For the U.S. 'Sanctuary' movement in the 1980s, acceptance of heavy flows of immigrants and asylum seekers was a form of national atonement for real or imagined U.S. foreign policy misdeeds and economic exploitation in Latin America.

Current Battles of the American

Church Against Restriction

The Church's theology of immigration takes operational form in the continuing tactical struggles of the Church against immigration restriction. Here are some of the leading skirmishes in the American hierarchy's ongoing battle

* The Catholic Bishops opposed employer sanctions in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. In scattered areas and diverse ways Catholic religious groups have litigated unsuccessfully against sanctions as an interference with their freedom of religion. In a few cases, they have simply flouted the law. Church leaders backed a coalition of interest groups supporting the Kennedy-Hatch bill to repeal sanctions altogether. It is unclear whether that legislation will reappear in the Republican-controlled 104th Congress.

* Church leaders and organizations were major actors in the coalition of human rights, ethnic, legal and labor groups that in 1989 and 1990 designed and pushed through the 1990 law expanding legal immi-gration 35 percent and creating a new category for easier humanitarian admission 'Temporary protected status.' Failing to get a universal amnesty for illegal aliens in the 1986 law, Church forces and other human rights groups won a special provision for otherwise ineligible immediate relatives of legalized aliens to remain here. High on the Church's agenda now is a new amnesty for those entering since the 1982 cutoff date in the 1986 act who do not otherwise qualify.

* The Catholic Bishops' Conference consistently condemned Proposition 187. California's Catholic dioceses worked assiduously but unsuccessfully in the fall of 1994 to defeat the proposition with special mailings, appeals from the pulpit, media outreach and voter registration drives. Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles once characterized support for the resolution as 'Grave social sin.' The Church remains a major actor among the groups fighting to block implemen-tation of Proposition 187 in the courts.

* At the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, Vatican representatives worked with migrant-sending states in an attempt to establish family reunification as a basic right in the final document of the conference. They were unsuccessful in overcoming the resistance of the U.S. and other migrant-receiving nations.

* Generally, the American Church is well represented in the ad hoc coalitions that have formed to fight the current wave of what they call 'anti-immigrant hysteria' and the drive for tighter controls of legal immigration, and for an end to abuse of asylum and of immigrant access to public assistance.

Recalcitrance among Lay Catholics

A 'Shepherd/Flock' Gap

Polls consistently show that individual Catholic views on immigration are only modestly more supportive of generous immigration policies than those of non-Catholics. Some of the difference stems from the higher proportion of foreign born and Latinos among Catholics. But a solid majority of Catholic respondents in polls believe that immigration should go no higher or be reduced. This deviation from official Church doctrine resembles the profile of Catholic public opinion on birth control.

The vote on Proposition 187 indicated wide-spread resistance among the rank-and-file parishioners to the hierarchy's expansionist instincts on immigration. Overall, California Catholics, more than a third of them Hispanic, opposed 187 by 51% to 49%. But non-Hispanic white Catholics - two-thirds of all Catholic voters - favored it by 58% to 42%, roughly the measure's margin of victory statewide. The Los Angeles diocesan newspaper, The Tidings, saw in the results 'a Catholic electorate which increasingly seems to view the statements of its pastoral and moral leaders as having little credibility and urgency.'6

Many Catholic legislators necessarily share the pro-immigration instincts of the powerful ethnic constituencies in which they are rooted. Senator Edward Kennedy, tireless advocate of immigration expansion, particularly from Ireland, is an example. But there has been no shortage of Catholic legislators who have led or supported sound restrictionist efforts.

'The Los Angeles diocesan

newspaper saw in the results

[of the vote on Proposition 187]

'a Catholic electorate which

increasingly seems to view the

statements of its pastoral and

moral leaders as having

little credibility and urgency.''

Well-known was Senator Pat McCarran, a leading Catholic layman, who co-authored the 1952 McCarran-Walter act that preserved national origins quotas and restrictions on Asian immigration. Another, Peter Rodino of New Jersey, originated employer sanctions legislation in the early 1970s, and Ron Mazzoli of Kentucky, a devout Catholic, saw that concept through to enactment in 1986. Mazzoli also favored a far more limited amnesty than Church leaders sought.

Senator Pat Moynihan, as a White House staffer, orchestrated the 1970 Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth, which recommended, among other measures, a freeze on immigration. Currently Moynihan plays a more passive role on immigration issues, although he supports a counterfeit-resistant social security card.

Perhaps most representative within the Church of pluralist views on immigration and the importance of separating the secular and the sacred, was the performance of Father Theodore Hesburgh as chair of the 1979 Special Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policies. Under his leadership, the commission recommended employer sanctions and an immigration ceiling more than a third lower than the present one.

Outlook Continued Confusion

Between God and Caesar

The attitudes of lay Catholics in the U.S. on population, environmental and reproductive issues have shifted inexorably away from those of the Vatican and the American hierarchy, shrugging off warnings from the pulpit against what the Church characterized as immoral or inhumane options on these issues. An insecure, impoverished and ethnic-based immigrant population at the turn of the century, American Catholics have achieved the wealth, education and self-confidence, in an increasingly crowded and environmentally threatened world, to define values for themselves.

Yet the Church's governing structure remains hierarchical, highly centralized and enduring. Changing attitudes in the pews are unlikely to profoundly influence the top leadership. The Church's name and organization clout are likely to remain indefinitely at the service of pro-natalism and immigration expansionism, with or without the assent of its millions of loyal contributors. This points up a fundamental irony in the Church's confusion of the realms of God and Caesar the Church hierarchy has power without responsibility - Caesar, not Rome, will be accountable and responsible for the social and environmental costs of disruptions flowing from mass immigration and rapid population growth. ;

NOTES

1 Los Angeles Times, October 9, 1993.

2 Welcoming the Stranger A Reflection on the Current Immigration Debate. Statement of William Cardinal Keebler, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Washington, November 17, 1994.

3 See 'The Scalabrinian Fathers Catholic Apostles to the World's Immigrants' by James S. Robb, in The Social Contract, Vol. V, No. 3, Spring 1995, p. 185-190.

4 'UN Declaration of Human Rights,' Articles 13 and 14, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.

5 Catholic Standard and Times, October 22, 1992.

6 Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1994.



Source
.