The Philippine Society of Jesus in cooperation with John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues, Loyola School of Theology and Jesuit Communications Foundation, Inc. invites you to Veritas in Caritate: A Symposium on the Social Encyclical of Benedict XVI, on December 2, 2009, Wednesday, 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Leong Hall Auditorium, Ateneo de Manila University.

Main speaker is Reverend Father Jose Cecilio Magadia, SJ,  Provincial Superior of the Society of Jesus.

The panel of reactors include Cielito Habito, Ph. D.  (Academe), Guillermo Luz (Business), Ma. Antonia Loyzaga (Environment), and Bp. Luis Antonio Tagle, D.D. (Church).

Middle of this year, Pope Benedict XVI issued out his third encyclical since coming to office in 2005. In Veritas in Caritate or, roughly, “truth in charity,” the Pope, widely known for his scholarship and erudition, confronts the urgent social issues of our time, including the roots of this year’s global economic meltdown. The current symposium aims to lead discussions on the important insights of the Pope especially as these relate to Philippine socio-economic realities.

Admission is free.

For early registration, please email esablan@admu.edu.ph.  For more information, please call Malou at 4266001 loc 4666 or Dit at 426-5971 loc 112



A couple of months ago, I began a series of posts on beauty.  Pope Benedict XVI just last week addressed a group of some 250 artists gathered in the Sistine chapel on this very theme. What particularly struck me in his address was the link he made between beauty and hope.

Unfortunately, the present time is marked, not only by negative elements in the social and economic sphere, but also by a weakening of hope, by a certain lack of confidence in human relationships, which gives rise to increasing signs of resignation, aggression and despair.  . .  . What is capable of restoring enthusiasm and confidence, what can encourage the human spirit to rediscover its path, to raise its eyes to the horizon, to dream a life worthy of its vocation–if not beauty? . . . the experience of beauty, beauty that is authentic, not merely transient or artificial, is by no means a supplementary or secondary factor in our search for meaning and happiness; the experience of beauty does not remove us from reality, on the contrary, it leads to a direct encounter with the daily reality of our lives, liberating it form darkness, transfiguring it, making it radiant and beautiful. [You can read the rest of the address here.]

Though this was addressed particularly to artists, I am convinced of the importance of all of us having this mind in the living of our daily lives.  We can all be “custodians of beauty” (Paul VI) wherever we are.  Even if all we do–and by no means of little importance–if all we do is constantly invite the Holy Spirit to make of our souls a thing of beauty, we will be a worthy custodian of beauty.  We each need contact with beauty ourselves, true beauty, that is–art, music, poetry, literature, nature, people–and we each need to be purveyors of beauty to those around us.  And, as we do this, I think we will discover that link that Pope Benedict spoke of between beauty and hope.

Need I say that most of all we need to long for the beauty of God, a longing that will not be fulfilled until we see Him face to face.    ”The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing . . .to find the place where all the beauty came from.” (C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces)And isn’t that what Advent is all about?

I would be interested in where you find beauty: what books you’ve read, how you bring beauty into your homes, etc.  Please feel free to comment.

Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury is in Rome, for meetings at the Vatican, including an audience with Pope Benedict XVI (see some details HERE).

The Archbishop also contributed to the Willebrands Symposium, an academic event celebrating the ecumenical contribution of Cardinal Willebrands, the first President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, organised after the Second Vatican Council.

Rowan Williams has read a paper at this event. I reproduce below a fragment from this discourse, related to the recent openings at the Vatican for receiving among Catholics those Anglicans who are discontent with recent evolutions in the Anglican Communion.

The recent announcement of an Apostolic Constitution making provision for former Anglicans shows some marks of the recognition that diversity of ethos does not in itself compromise the unity of the Catholic Church, even within the bounds of the historic Western patriarchate. But it should be obvious that it does not seek to do what we have been sketching: it does not build in any formal recognition of existing ministries or units of oversight or methods of independent decision-making, but remains at the level of spiritual and liturgical culture, as we might say. As such, it is an imaginative pastoral response to the needs of some; but it does not break any fresh ecclesiological ground. It remains to be seen whether the flexibility suggested in the Constitution might ever lead to something less like a ‘chaplaincy’ and more like a church gathered around a bishop.

You may read the whole text HERE.

W najblizsza niedziele, 29 listopada 2009r. Msze Swieta w rycie nadzywyczajnym (trydenckim) odprawi ksiadz Wlodzimierz Wygocki.

Prosimy zajrzec do dzialu mapka/kontakt po szczegoly dotyczace dojazdu i parkingu.

Polish priest Fr Wlodzimierz Wygocki is to say a latin Mass in the old, tridentine rite in the Polish Church in Bedford.

Please see map/contact us section for details.

This CD, with the pope singing and praying, in multiple languages, will be available for sale as of end of November 2009.

Some of the proceeds will be used to provide musical instructions to underprivileged kids around the world. Not sure how it is going to done. From what I see, the record [i.e., CD] company, viz. the British Geffen Records, is going to handle this directly, rather than the Vatican.

Anyway, I found a couple of good videos clips about this CD on YouTube. Here are the links:

1. First link
   
2. Second link, where you can see the pope playing the piano. I, for one, did not know that this pope could play the piano. Good for him.

Hope this helps. Thanks.

Anura Guruge
www.guruge.com

by: Anura Guruge

Another retirement, today, three weeks after the last. This time it was 79 year old Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi of Cameroon, who had been the Archbishop of Douala. The prior material change relating to a cardinal had been on October 24, 2009. That day, Italian Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino (b. Nov. 23, 1932), who had been the President of the  Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace since October 2002 resigned, he having been well over the retirement age of 75 for curial cardinals. He had already resigned another post earlier this year. Sixty one year old Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson, of Ghana, has been appointed the new President — making him the youngest of the curial cardinals. Before this October 24 change, things had been quiet since July 17.

On July 17, 2009, Cardinal Jean Margéot (Mauritius), a cardinal priest since 1988, died at the age of 93. The last cardinal to die prior to that was the Italian, Franciscan Cardinal Umberto Betti on April 1, 2009, at the age of 87.

On July 4, 2009, Darío Castrillón Hoyos (Columbia), a cardinal priest, turned 80 — and thus lost his right to participate in a conclave. Four days later he retired from his post as President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.” On June 25, 2009, Francesco Marchisano (Italy), a cardinal deacon, turned 80.

Consequently, the College is now at 185 with 113 under the age of 80 (and thus eligible to vote at a conclave) and 72 over the age of 80.

I as is my wont, I checked yet again, today [i.e., November 17, 2009], on the Vatican list of cardinals.  It says it was last updated 11.11.2008 [i.e., Nov. 11, 2008], and as such it has the total count at 192. THAT WAS A YEAR AGO. So they are kind of way behind. So, per my constant refrain, please be aware if you use these lists that they might not be as up to date as you assume. Why they appear to be reluctant to update their Web site is a mystery. If they really are that short-handed (as I have heard them claim, though I am reminded on Pope John XXIII’s incisive answer when he was once asked how many people worked at the Vatican < see below >) they really should think about getting some interns to help them out.

This is the smallest the College has been in awhile. After the last consistory on November 24, 2007, there were 201 cardinals, with 120 eligible to vote . I had thought that we were due for another consistory this year. November and December are popular months for consistories. So I haven’t totally given up yet. Maybe the pope is preoccupied trying to lure in the Anglican priests. Wonder whether he will make any of them cardinals.

Following my “Next Pope — Papabili List for 2009,” I had some questions as to the amount of sway the curial cardinals would have at the next conclave. So I did some analysis on the composition of the current College beyond just age and nationalities. This is an ongoing effort to keep the data that I found up to-date. This data is now accurate as of July 5, 2009.  There is also a steady trickle of cardinals that retire that impact these numbers. On July 8, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, as discussed at the start, retired. Five days earlier, Cardinal Francesco Marchisano (Italy), who had been the President of the Labor Office of the Apostolic See, and Cardinal Andrea Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo (Italy) who had been the Archpriest of Pontifical Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls retired. Prior to that it had been Cardinal James Francis Stafford (USA) on June 2 and before that Cardinal Michael Michai Kitbunchu (Thailand) on May 14. These have been factored in

Of the 185 total cardinals:

• 6 are Cardinal Bishops, 3 are Oriental Rites Patriarchs, 148 are Cardinal Priests & 28 Cardinal Deacons
• Average age is 77 years
• The macro geographic breakdown is as follows:
  Africa 14, Americas 48 (U.S.A. 16), Asia 19, Europe 100 (Italy 39), Oceania 4
  Africa 13 countries, Americas 16, Asia 12, Europe 23, Oceania 2 — 66 countries in total
  Italy 39, U.S.A 16, Spain 10, France 9, Poland 8, Germany 7, Brazil 8, India 6, Argentina 4, Mexico 4, Canada 3, Ireland 3, Philippines 3 & Switzerland 3

• 4 are Cardinal Bishops, 1 is an Oriental Rites Patriarch, 91 are Cardinal Priests & 17 are Cardinal Deacons
• 19 hold curial offices. Of these 2 are cardinal bishops (viz. Bertone & Re), 5 are cardinal priests and the others cardinal deacons
  (Italy – 7, Rest of Europe – 7, U.S.A. – 1, Latin America – 2 , India – 1 & Africa – 1)
• 63 are Archbishops including two Patriarchs – i.e., Venice and Lisbon (Portugal)
• 1 is Bishop — Mainz (Germany)
• 1 is the Vicar General of Rome, viz. Cardinal Agostino Vallini (papabile)
• 1 is the Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of Jerusalem, viz. Cardinal John Patrick Foley
• 27 are ‘retired,’ i.e., emeritus status
• 1, viz. Cardinal Bernard Francis Law (formally of Boston, USA), is an Archpriest
• Average age is 72 years; 5 in their 79^th year, youngest being Peter Erdö (Hungary) at 56
• 21 belong to religious orders, 4 of whom are Salesians, 3 Franciscans, 2 Jesuits & 2 to Opus Dei
• 83 (74%) of these cardinals were created by Pope John Paul II between 1983 and 2003
• 30 were created by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 & 2007
• The macro geographic breakdown is as follows:
  Africa 9, Americas 35 (U.S.A. 13), Asia 10, Europe 57 (Italy 19), Oceania 2
  Africa 8 countries, Americas 14, Asia 7, Europe 21, Oceania 2 — 52 countries in total
  Italy 20, U.S.A 13, France 6, Spain 6, Germany 5, Poland 4, Brazil 4, Mexico 4, Canada 3, India 3

• 2 are Cardinal Bishops, 2 are Oriental Rites Patriarch (Babylon of the Chaldeans & Antioch for Maronites), 57 are Cardinal Priests & 11 are Cardinal Deacons
• 1 is an Archbishops – Cardinal Vithayathil, Syro-Malabra (India)
• 64 are ‘retired,’ i.e., emeritus status
• 1 is a nuncio, Cardinal Coppa (Italy)
• 2 are Oriental Rites Patriarchs
• 4, Cardinal Deacons and distinguished academics all, fall into a ‘continuing prior career’ category in that they were created cardinals after they had turned 80 and were thus too old to hold curial offices.
• Average age is 85 years; oldest Cardinal Mayer (Germany) at 98 with three in their 80^th year.
• 15 belong to religious orders with 7 of them Jesuits & 3 Franciscans
• 4 of these cardinals were created by Pope Paul VI between 1969 and 1976
• 62 (86%) by Pope John Paul II between 1979 and 2003
• 6 by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 & 2007
• The macro geographic breakdown is as follows:
  Africa 5, Americas 13 (U.S.A. 3), Asia 9, Europe 43 (Italy 20), Oceania 2
  Africa 5 countries, Americas 7, Asia 7, Europe 12, Oceania 1 — 32 countries in total
  Italy 19, Spain 4, Poland 4, Brazil 4, France 3,  U.S.A 3, India 3

Pope John XXIII’s answer to the question as to how many people worked at the Vatican: “about half!” Judging by recent events, even that might have been overly optimistic.

I am not a cardinal-watcher. For that matter, I am not really even a pope-watcher. My interest and expertise is in research and analysis. So I really am more of a papal historian and analyst — which is what I have ever professed to be. So please do not rely on me for keeping you updated as to the latest happenings with the cardinals. I do not even check necrology on a daily basis — let alone weekly. Sometimes not even monthly. Though I get a daily summary of Vatican news — I don’t read it! I am usually heads down doing research, writing what I have found or trying to make a living. We do not have another cardinal turning 80 until December 18. But much is likely to change before that. So I expect I will be updating this again in a few weeks.

Hope this helps. All the best.

Anu

Forbes magazine published this week its rankings of the world’s most powerful people for 2009*. Its choices showed just how wildly out of touch the magazine is with reality. It is an undisputable fact that Pope Benedict XVI is by far the most powerful, important, influential and infallible man in the world. But in the Forbes rankings the Holy Father, God’s representative on Earth, placed 11th. Ahead of him was one Chinese guy, one Saudi guy, one Mexican billionaire, one Australian billionaire, the founders of Google, the CEO of Wal-Mart, the greatest Russian that has ever lived and Bill Gates (nerd!). Oh, also the list was topped by a Kenyan man who loves abortions, gays, Allah and Karl Marx.

B. Hussein Obama, the "President" of America. #1 on Forbes' list.

Vladimir Putin. The only other person who deserves to be on this list. At #3.

Happily, Benedict did place one spot above Silvio Berlusconi (incredible he even made the list considering he has difficulty keeping control of his own penis), and way above that hack the “Dalai Lama,” but the list was otherwise absolutely insulting! Vladimir Putin is pretty fucking awesome, we’ll agree with that. Everyone else above the Pope, however, had zero right to be there. Does Barack Obama have a conversation with God and Jesus every single day? Um, no! Does Rupert Murdoch get to ride around in an invincible armored car like the Popemobile? I don’t fucking think so. That Saudi dude doesn’t even believe in Jesus, let alone hold ultimate power over almost a billion believers. And Hu Jintao? More like Who Jintao, am I right?? These people are jokes.

Well, we’re not going to stand for it. That’s why here at Pope Watch we’ve decided to devise our own list of the world’s most powerful people. But unlike that pussy little magazine “Forbes,” we’re taking it one step further. Ladies and Gentlemen, we present: The 11 Most Powerful People in the History of the World.

1)      Jesus Christ

2)      Jesus Christ

3)      Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ!

Jesus takes up the top 3 spots in our ranking. We felt he deserved it. No explanation necessary really. If you don’t know why he’s at the top (three times) you’re almost definitely going to Hell anyways.

4)      Moses

Moses. File Photo.

Moses brought the Jews from Egypt to Israel, where they would one day betray the savior leading directly to his death and torture, which inadvertently saved humanity. Also, one time he parted the sea.

5)      St. Peter

Saint Peter. The greatest saint that ever lived. Also a founding member of 1960's folk rock group Peter, Paul and Mary.

Peter founded the Catholic Church, the greatest and most powerful organization the world has ever known.

6)      Adam

Adam, seen here with the world's first dumb blonde.

Back in Adam’s day there were only two people around. Which means that he automatically had control over 50% of the world’s population. And until his idiot of a wife ate some mushrooms and began talking to an imaginary snake (causing the rest of humanity throughout history to be drenched in sin), he pretty much held control over her too.

7)      Noah

Noah. Seen here with a rainbow. Before they were gay.

This one time God took a piss on the world and flooded the whole thing. But before he did he told Noah his plan. The idea was that Noah could save himself, his family, and all of the animals (except the cool ones like unicorns). So without Noah, whales would be ruling the planet right now. We think he was pretty important.

8)      Buddha

Buddha. Looking like a bit of a tranny.

So far everyone on this list has been a force for good in the world. But power can also be a source for great evil. That’s why Buddha’s here. It is because of his blasphemous teachings that a billion Chinese people are going straight to hell.

9)      Mohammed

Mohammed. File Photo.

The most evil man that ever lived. Mohammed was an infidel who got his brain fried from wandering around in the desert, and then thought he could talk to God. He created the largest force of evil in the world today.

10)  Vladimir Putin

Putin hunting people.

No explanation necessary.

11)  Pope Benedict XVI

Damn. Eleventh again. Oh well, that’s pretty good I guess. Maybe with a little more effort he can one day crack the top ten. Until then, God Bless!

*http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/worlds-most-powerful-leadership-power-09-people_land.html

The Vatican is looking to the Heavens (both literally and figuratively) as a growth market.

You’ve gotta hand it to the Catholic church when it comes to marketing. Five hundred years ago, they were sending priests and armies into the New World to save souls for Christ. Heathens by the millions were baptized, catechized, and taught the virtues of donating heavily to the already overflowing coffers of the One True Church.

Since then, competition has stiffened. Gone are the undiscovered lands filled with unwashed pagans yearning to hear the Good News. And, despite the occasional poaching opportunities ( RLIFUD October 23, 2009), there aren’t too many souls left on the planet who have either not been laid claim to by a competing Purveyor of Magic or who have not told all the religionists to fuck off.

So it came as a bit of bright news when the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, informed His Holiness the Pope that chances were improving for the discovery of life outside our solar system. The Rev. Funes said the European Space Agency recently added 32 new planets to the hundreds already cataloged. The Vatican was so excited about the discovery of these new planets that it recently hosted a five-day conference attended by theologians and scientists.

Creationists were not invited. Neither was Giordano Bruno. Unfortunately, the Church burned him at the stake back in 1600 for suggesting there might be life outside our solar system.

But Pope Benedict XVI is willing to let bygones be bygones. After all, if there are souls out there in the universe in need of indulgences, dispensations, annulments, witch burnings, hangings, and other services traditionally offered by the Church, the Church Marketing Department had better get ready for the big campaign on Gorgamek or whatever.

The really great part is going to come when the Catholics show up on some distant planet and discover it’s filled with Mormons.

This is a daily look at the pulse of Kansas City through the finest prism of local opinion: the Star’s letters section. Hey, don’t you just hate it when noted DC liberal Maureen Dowd rains on the parades of local Catholics? And isn’t it even worse when she’s… um, completely right?

I’ll tell you who it really bothers: a man named Greg Ringel of some magical place called “Gladstone,” who would like to register his objection to the inclusion of, well, facts in Miss Dowd’s column. How dare you, snotty NYT columnatrix!

Why does The Star feel compelled to print Maureen Dowd (10/29, “It seems some habits never change”) just because she is popular with their readers? The article exposed Dowd as hostile to Catholicism by her rants at Pope Benedict XVI calling him “uber-conservative pope” also known as “God’s Rottweiler,” who was once “a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth.”

These epithets are examples of unfair, prejudicial and just downright mean anti-Catholicism. Dowd would never say these things about an Islamic, Jewish or African-American religious issue. Too often the Catholic Church is deemed fair game as a punching bag for anything liberals want to rant about.

The Star should remember that although there are subscribers who “enjoy” Dowd’s column, there are far more subscribers — including non-Catholic Christians — who sympathize with Catholics, who find this type of diatribe offensive.

Hmm. Okay, so the things that he deems “epithets” are as follows: 1. calling B16 “uber-conservative.” 2. calling B16 “God’s Rottweiler.” 3. saying B16 was once a “conscripted member of the Hitler Youth.” Let’s do some fact-checking, shall we? First, by virtually any comparison — and particularly to the unapologetic liberal John Paul II — Benedict is quite conservative. He was known, in his Ratzinger days, as one of the most conservative cardinals, and was responsible for enforcing a conservative-ization of Church policies as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He came down hard on liberalized teachings of homosexuality, among other things — hence the appellation “God’s Rottweiler,” which nickname has been around for years. Not so much in the epithet category, eh?

As far as the Hitler Youth thing: please note, Mr. Ringel, that Miss Dowd takes care to say “conscripted.” In other words, young Master Ratzinger did not choose to serve in the Hitler Youth (even though he did, once he turned 14). See how Maureen actually went out of her way to say “conscripted”? That’s purely to avoid the criticisms of Philistines like you, sir, who appear to lack basic reading comprehension skills.

In other delightful letters:

Chubby and concerned.
Staking out an unpopular position.
Perhaps directed at a departing running back?

In the 60’s and 70’s, the beginning of the Radical Dissident Catholic Era, many priests were laicized and got married. In fact, many of them married former nuns. While I have only personally been acquainted (that I know of) with one laicized priest, he wasn’t someone who should’ve been ordained. He had the same sort of wardrobe malfunction that Ted Kennedy had. I believe it was intended as a way out. In his case it was successful.

Now that the personal ordinariate for Anglicans has been announced, The Washington Post thinks that celibacy for Roman Catholic Priests is on its way out. What impressed me about the article is that they do point out that Eastern Catholics ordain married men but that priests aren’t married; most people assume that priests may marry after ordination. Eastern Catholic Churches in the US typically ordain only celibate men. Eastern Catholic Bishops are always celibate as are Orthodox Bishops.

I disagree with the Washington Post; Anglicans have made many changes since the church of England was formed, including allowing priests to be married before or after ordination. Eastern Catholics, formerly Orthodox, were brought into Communion with Rome while retaining their traditions, traditions that had existed at the time of the Great Schism, including the Ordination of married men. The difference here is that a married priesthood in the Latin Rite Catholic Church did not exist at the time the Anglicans left and while married men in the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Church may be Ordained, priests may not marry after ordination. While it’s certainly possible that the Church would decide to allow married men to be Ordained within the Anglican Personal Ordinariate, I would be very surprised if she would allow priests to get married or allow a married Priesthood in the Latin Rite.

Swami Chidananda Saraswati, another loose-cannon from something called ‘Divine Life Society, Uttaranchal’ who will also be present at the table today, was also present in Advani’s house last year with the Archbishops of Orissa and Delhi, and penned his name to the declaration called infamously, the Delhi Declaration, which the BJP proudly mentioned in its election manifesto. The Delhi Declaration stated that Swami Chidananda Saraswati would re-build the churches burned down by angry tribal communities after Christian terrorists gunned down the venerable Swami Laxmananda Saraswati. This Chidananda Saraswati signed the Delhi Declaration which also stated that he deplored not only “unethical religious conversion” but also “unethical re-conversion”. He deserves nothing but the strongest condemnation not only for his pathetic understanding of religious conversion but also for his poor understanding of the critical necessity for re-conversion on Hindu bhumi to the parent religion. – RR

The Vatican wolf is at our doors again playing grandmother and perhaps hoping that the Hindu religious leadership with whom it wants ‘dialogue’ and the de-Hinduised political leadership which permitted its entry into the nation will play naive Red Riding Hood. Among the several individual Hindu religious leaders who will be meeting the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for inter-faith dialogue in Mumbai on the 12th and 13th of June 2009, will be the senior Mathathipathi of the Kanchi matham, monks of the Ramakrishna Mission, Sri Sri Ravishankar and one Swami Chidanand Saraswati from Divine Life Society, Uttaranchal.

Hindu nationalists know and understand the political objectives of the Church and Islam; the outcome of the meeting on the 12th and 13th of June notwithstanding, we firmly dismiss the very idea of inter-faith dialogue because, by the Vatican’s own admission, dialogue is only Church ploy to seek accommodation in non-Christian, non-Islamic nations and societies to carry out its only mission – to Christianize the world. Hindu nationalists will be compelled to publicly reject any joint declaration, or resolutions adopted at these dialogue meetings if they in any manner compromise the interests of Hindu dharma on Hindu bhumi. Knowing what they do, Hindu nationalists therefore consider the very presence of Hindu religious leaders at such dialogues with the enemies of dharma to be an affront to the dignity of our sanyasis and to the honour of all dharmis.

The Christian church and the Muslim mosque are not sacred places like the Hindu temple. These are places for the faithful to congregate for prayer and politics while our temples are abodes of the divine; the Divine, in supreme compassion for the bhakta, consents to reside in the structure raised by the bhakta. Hindu temples are therefore the sacred and divine core of Hindu society and all activities of society are governed by the consciousness that the divine is residing in our midst. The village and village temples were therefore self-governing autonomous units linked by a common worldview defined by dharma, karma and the purusharthas to the larger pradesa, desa and rajya.

The Church however is both the small ‘c’hurch building in the locality where the Christian faithful gather and also the big ‘C’hurch which is the entire edifice of the religion called Christianity; and this includes its headquarters in the Vatican and the Catholic Hierarchy – the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Pastors, Monks, Nuns and Priests. The Vatican is a State, its purpose is political and militarist and its Religious Hierarchy constitutes the government (Cardinals), the diplomats (Cardinals), the bureaucracy (Archbishops and Bishops) and the local municipal councilor (Monks, Nuns, Pastors and Priests). All of them are also collectively the Army of Christ driven by the mission to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. Christian theology is therefore also replete also with militarist jargon.

The Anglican Church and the Protestant Churches outside the UK also have their own Capitals and well-organized centralized, hierarchical edifices like the Vatican. And they are all expansionists by nature and have the same single-pointed objective of christianising the world. To the Hindus and other targeted victims of the Church therefore, there is no redeeming distinction among the denominations; Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, New Life, Adventist or Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are all the same.

The Church is a self-perpetuating creature; it has to keep reiterating its raison d’etre or its mission for existence periodically for sheer survival; and these statements of intent and objectives have come at more frequent intervals in the last five decades, signaling the challenges to the survival not only of the Christian religion but also its expansionist edifice. The Second Vatican Council declaration Ad Gentes, Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio and Cardinal Ratzinger-authored (the incumbent Pope before he became the Pope) Dominus Jesus, all reiterate the agenda and the mission of the Catholic Church.

We are concerned in the main with the Catholic Church for two reasons: one, the intended inter-faith dialogue in Mumbai is a Catholic-Hindu dialogue; and two, the Catholic Church or the Vatican has written and documented statements on its website of its intent and its mission which prove its guilt. We have it on the best authority that this dialogue was sought by the Vatican and also that the Vatican has taken the position that the escalating disharmony between Hindus and Christians in India has been caused by some of the new denominational churches with their brash conversion methodology. In essence, the Vatican has absolved itself of ‘offensive and unethical’ religious conversion. It is our responsibility to prove that the Vatican is lying through its teeth in the hope that it can still get away behind the veil of Hindu ignorance/tolerance and its own notorious secretive modus operandi.

We will refer to only two important documents to expose the Vatican for the fascist state that it is – the mission statement Ad Gentes from the Second Vatican Council and ‘Challenges Today to Mission “Ad Gentes” – Meeting of the Superiors General of Societies of Apostolic Life, Maryknoll, NY, USA, 1st May, 2000’. Fascism is not a word to be used lightly or loosely; political fascism derived from a monotheism which is only religious fascism. While the original Ad Gentes stated the mission of the Catholic Church in the brevity of a couplet, the statement of the Superiors General states the same in epic format.

• “The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature, since it is from the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit that she draws her origin, in accordance with the decree of God the Father”
• “Then, when He had by His death and His resurrection completed once for all in Himself the mysteries of our salvation and the renewal of all things, the Lord, having now received all power in heaven and on earth (cf. Matt. 28 18), before He was taken up into heaven (cf. Acts 1:11), founded His Church as the sacrament of salvation and sent His Apostles into all the world just as He Himself had been sent by His Father (cf. John 20:21), commanding them: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19 ff.). “Go into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe, shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15ff.).” (Ad Gentes, Second Vatican Council).

Fascism is inherent in Christ’s proclamation that it is not enough to believe, but the faithful have to be baptized (self-perpetuating church) and also that while he who believes and is baptized will be ‘saved’, those who do not believe and who reject the church will be condemned. This fascist exhortation rooted in the intolerant Christian God the Father and in the intolerant Son, Jesus Christ created the fascist Church which caused genocide of entire non-Christian nations, civilizations, peoples, faiths and religions. It is this Catholic Church which is seeking to sweep its bloody past history away from sight and is seeking dialogue with Hindu religious leaders in the backdrop of angry Hindu reaction to frenzied religious conversion undertaken by the Church across India.

• “Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris missio, subtitled “On the Permanent Validity of the Church’s Missionary Mandate”, was an eloquent appeal to renew missionary fervor within the Church.
• “The very need for an encyclical such as Redemptoris missio was indicative that a problem existed. There had been an acute questioning of the purpose of mission immediately after the Council even by missionaries themselves. The crisis of the 1960’s and 1970’s was not just a theological one; the decolonization and new statehood of many mission lands had led to calls — especially in Africa — of a “moratorium” on mission.
• “The second shift has to do with the forms of evangelization. Most important here is the introduction of dialogue alongside proclamation. Redemptoris missio tries to address the relation between dialogue and proclamation; the Vatican document Dialogue and Proclamation, issued jointly by the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Pontifical Council on Inter-religious Dialogue just a few months after Redemptoris missio, tries to go even further. Mission had been rather clearly understood as proclamation of the Gospel to those who had not heard it. The importance given to dialogue by Nostra aetate at the Vatican Council raised a new set of issues. By according respect to other religious traditions, and by promoting dialogue with them rather than an apologetic to prove their errors, how to relate the aims of proclamation and dialogue to each other becomes problematic. While both Church documents and theological publications have tried to explicate and clarify the relationship between them, the confusion continues. If dialogue (or at least certain kinds of dialogue with certain aims of respect of the other) is an end in itself, then what happens to proclamation as traditionally understood, and a fortiori to mission ad gentes?” (Statement of the Superiors General in NY, USA, 2000)

Now let us take these documents apart to clearly see what the Vatican stands for and what our Hindu religious leaders have to confront when they sit across the table with these diabolic agents of destruction of other religions.

Ad Gentes says the Church is missionary be nature. This means the Church’s whole purpose of existence is only its mission to take the Gospel to those who have not heard it. In brief, Christianize the world.

The core of the Christian faith is that it ‘saves’ all humans who believe and who are baptized, This is a two-in-one proposition – ensures the relevance of the persona of Jesus Christ and also ensures the continuity of the Church edifice. This is salvation or the salvific nature of the Christian religion and the Church. Like Allah and the Prophet Mohammed who cannot be separated as two entities by the Muslim faithful, belief in Christ as the Son of God and the Church are two in-severable entities. They go together and sustain each other.

The mission of the Catholic Church to Christianize the world, in the beginning, was effected by weapons that suited the fascist agenda in a world disarmed and subjugated by White Christian colonialism – genocide, war, forcible conversion, separation of children from parents in non-Christian colonized nations when the children were brought up as Christians. Second World War and the ugly truths of Christian roots of Nazism, fascism and colonization made such ruthless methods increasingly untenable and so the Second Vatican Council crafted its modified weapon – inter-faith dialogue. Now, the Church will not ram the Christian faith down the throats of non-believers by hectoring to them about ‘satan worship, false gods and barbaric, pagan superstitions’ but will approach them respectfully for dialogue and tell them politely that the Catholic Church is the sole repository of truth, Jesus Christ is the only Lord and the Church the only way to salvation. The agenda remains the same – Christianize the world but the words, on the surface will be polite but the execution of the mission will be just as ruthless and as determined.

Inter-faith dialogue is the weapon of the Catholic Church crafted in the Second Vatican Council for easy penetration not of societies but penetration of Hindu and Buddhist religious leaders through access during these dialogues. The Pontifical Council on Inter-religious Dialogue is in Mumbai now to meet with our religious leaders. Hindu religious leaders must understand that inter-religious dialogue by the Church is cancer, like Sufism in Islam – intended to disarm the gullible with sweet talk. Our leaders must prove equal to the task.

The Second Vatican Council exhorted the faithful, clergy and laity alike to reach out to non-Christian peoples to engage them in dialogue. This Council made the startling submission that the Catholic Church acknowledged that while all religions had some elements of truth in them, only the Christian faith had all the truth and that the Catholic Church alone was the repository of that truth. The Catholic Church states that the essence of the Christian faith is its salvific quality – the power to ‘save’. It accepts that all religions may have some salvific capacity in them but only the Christian faith is wholly salvific.

Hindus who promote inter-faith dialogue must know what they are getting into when they sit across the table with an intolerant, fascist religion. They must know the enemy before them for what it is, as it is, in its own words. Hindus go to the table with absolutely no knowledge of the nature of the enemy and go to these meetings with no prior planning and equipped with little besides their smug tolerance and pacifism. At the end of all such ‘dialogues’ Hindus have either failed to assert their position or ended up signing documents and resolutions most insulting to Hindus. These inter-faith dialogues, because Hindus did not care to know the enemy, have always ended favorably for the Church. This of course is not to say that these resolutions and declarations are in any way binding upon Hindu society which knows exactly how to deal with jihad and the evangelising missionaries. The problem is with idiot Hindus who think there is an intellectual and pacifist way to deal with issues of survival.

Non-resident Hindus and Hindu PIOs living in Europe and America, and globe-trotting gurus and sanyasis with growing numbers of foreign bhaktas and foreign funds have been guilty of drawing Hindus at home and high Hindu religious organizations into the vortex of inter-religious or inter-faith dialogue with foreigners. Growing NRI Hindu and non-Indian Hindu influence on a section of Hindu religious leaders and formerly Hindu political leaders has made these leaders look more and more at overseas Hindus and their interests to the detriment of Hindu interests in the country. It must be emphasized that in all these dialogues Hindu religious leaders have belonged to non-traditional, new cult, or neo-vedantin sects. The Mumbai inter-faith dialogue for the first time will have the high-voltage presence of the senior pontiff of the Kanchi matham while all other Hindu sanyasis at this meet come from the non-traditional stream.

This point deserves close attention for only one reason. Religious leaders of traditional mathams are rooted in centuries-old tradition and are the living symbols of a timeless heritage with the extraordinary responsibility not only to preserve that heritage but to hand it down to the next generation. This is a mind-boggling and breath-taking responsibility. Mathathipathis, Adeenams and Mandaleshwars do not act as individuals driven by personal beliefs or fleeting interests and are therefore very unlikely to give in to any demand from the Church and even more unlikely to make any concession harmful to Hindu dharma or dharmi. And that is why at all these dialogues we find only Hindu religious leaders from non-traditional streams engaged in a dialogue with the Church, in the Church’s own territory or in territory loyal to the Church. Hindu religious leaders knowingly and willingly start with this disadvantage. One does not meet the enemy on his territory unless one is Sri Krishna.

The intense discussion of the Superiors General in New York in 2000 points to an existential dilemma among a section of the Catholic Hierarchy – if religious conversion or ‘taking the gospel to those who have not heard it yet’ is the Church’s whole and only mission, then what is the purpose of inter-faith dialogue and what is the relationship between Proclamation and Dialogue? Good question; and it has been answered unambiguously by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. Pope John Paul II declared on Indian soil in November 1999 that he intended to plant the Cross in Asia in the third millennium; what he did not say explicitly was that ‘Dialogue’ was all bunkum and that Dialogue and Proclamation were the classic good cop-bad cop ploy by the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger declared in Dominus Jesus that Christ was the path and the destination; what he did not say explicitly was that the soporific, all religions have some elements of truth in them and all religions have some salvific power in them was bunkum too.

When Hindus sit down to ‘dialogue’ with the enemy, they must keep the following in mind –

• The Church, as it is understood and as it is in reality, is the White Church. The coloured drops in the Hierarchy of the Church are only permitted colour and flavour.
• The White Church is racist and has expanded across what were once non-White continents only by brute force.
• The White race’s religion, trade, history, politics and science all share the same characteristics – exploitative, avaricious, intolerant, brutal and destructive whose only objective is to wield absolute control over all things in Creation
• The White Church began by first controlling the Sovereign (King) and then expanded its horizons by controlling/converting peoples, then nations and then continents
• The Catholic Church was assisted in its mission to convert the world to Christianity by Sovereigns and freebooters alike, by armies and traders alike, by the clergy and laity alike
• The Church’s expansionist path in the beginning took the “trade-routes and highways” of the Roman Empire and then took the trade-routes and highways of expanding, colonizing Spanish and Portuguese Empires and then the trade-routes and highways of British, French and Dutch Empires
• The White Catholic Church, White Christian Empires and White agents of Trade have not just worked in tandem but have walked hand in hand to the mutual benefit, growth and entrenchment of all three
• A Christian King, politician, shop-keeper, smuggler or academic, serves his religion first and always

This much is White Christianity’s distant and recent history. This should be kept in mind of all those who think the Church is the padre in popular Hindi and vernacular films and who maintain in public discourse and private conversations that the only mission of the Church is to provide education, healthcare and beatific smiles for those in distress. Those desirous of indulging in religious diplomacy (or so they think) by sitting across table with the White Church must also keep in mind what the White Church has said in New York in May 2000.

For better understanding of what follows, it must be borne in mind that Christianity and Islam have NO native land because they are both only derivatives of the parent religion – Judaism. Therefore they do not subscribe to concepts like matrubhumi, and pitrubhumi (not fatherland but land of our pitrus or ancestors). They also reject Hindu nationalist assertion that the Hindu nation, religion, culture and dharma, while it is universal and may exist anywhere in the world with no conflict, tension or disharmony with other ways of life and worldview because of its very nature, Hindu nation, religion, culture and dharma was born on a specific territory and the sense of nation, nationhood and nationalism is only territorial even when the nationalism is narrowly construed as being only religious, only cultural, only civilisational or only dharmic.

Hindu nationalists assert that the Hindu nation is all these. This is the territory of Bharata, Hindusthana, India and it is a nation or territory with well-defined borders even from historic times. This is the territory of sanatana dharma. Sanatana dharma may be universal but it is not amorphous that predatory religions can deny the territorial content of Hindu nationhood so that this territory too may be Christianized.

Our religious leaders and non-sanyasi vacuous ‘scholars’ who advocate inter-faith dialogue with the Church as some defining gesture of Hindu tolerance must keep all this in mind to understand what the White Church is saying about its mission, its new goals and new opportunities and the methods that these opportunities provide. The White Church has always converted every social, economic, political trend in the world to its benefit and advantage. In the following excerpts from the statement of the Superiors General in New York in May 200, which is of critical importance to understand the Church, the White Church has a name for the two fascist, expansionist, and genocidal Abrahamic faiths – Islam and Christianity; the name is ‘great translocal religions’. The name is pregnant with all kinds of possible interpretations. Non-Christian, non-Islamic faiths and religions which have existed for millennia before these two religions are simply “local, oral traditions”. Not religions mind you, not civilizations, not worldviews, and above all, not universal; just simply “local, oral traditions”. This is what it is saying now -

• “One thing that globalization is changing (we will return to others in the final part of this presentation) is the meaning of territory and the nation-state. Because the information and capital flow made possible by communications technology, boundaries of the nation-state, which have been a staple of political economy since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, have ever decreased significance. With the flow and migration of peoples, as well as the incursion of global cultural forces on local communities, “culture” as territory has ever decreasing significance. While neither nation-state nor cultural territory will completely disappear (as was the fear in earlier stages of discussion of globalization), its significance is greatly diminished. What does this mean for a mission that defines itself as ad gentes, if the world is no longer so neatly divided into cultural and ethnic groups? Missionary institutes ad gentes have tried to redefine ad gentes as ad extra (that is, simply going out from where one is), or more recently, as ad altera (that is, to those who are made “other”).
• ” The first is that the converts who join the great translocal religious traditions (such as Christianity or Islam) come largely from local, oral traditions. Indeed, history would seem to indicate that people in local, oral traditions (sometimes called indigenous religions) shift rather readily to join a translocal tradition such as Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam. But once having done so, they are unlikely to move from one translocal tradition to another. Only those who have not yet been fully integrated into the translocal tradition or those who have been alienated from it are likely to change their affiliation. If that is indeed the case, then mission ad gentes will end for Christianity (and Islam) when the final indigenous peoples have been reached.”

Hindus generally being idiot Hindus, let us break this astounding presumption into small parts. Hindus and tribal communities “readily” convert to Islam or Christianity and these Christian and Muslim converts do not abandon the religion to which they have converted to re-convert to Islam or Christianity. That is, when a Hindu converts to becoming a Christian, then that same converted Hindu Christian will not convert again to becoming Hindu Muslim convert; not unless the Hindu who converted to the Church has not been integrated fully with the Christian community. Read this, understand this and beware. This is full of significance for the way the Church in India operates to pressure Indian polity for concessions for so-called dalit and BC Christians. Ditto with how the Muslims pressure Indian polity to keep the Muslim flock contented in the pen. And that is why the Sachar Committee report assumes significance for Hindu nationalists.

• “The story of empire and mission has been told often, by opponents and defenders of mission alike. It is not my intention to recount that history here once again. Rather, I would like to focus on one aspect of that history: namely, that the expansionist designs of Europe provided the infrastructure for an organized and concerted mission ad gentes. Empire not only provided a necessary infrastructure for transportation, protection, and even fiscal support for missionaries, but no doubt figured into the thinking of how mission itself was to be organized, both on the home front and in the distant lands. Individual efforts of missionaries can be traced through history. But the mobilization of religious institutes — and later the founding of institutes specifically for that purpose — followed the pathways and even assumed the military rhetoric of the empire-builders.”

Now, the Church admits to how it has always played both sides of the game in any conflict to the advantage of its expansionist designs. Do Hindus who engage in inter-faith dialogue at the behest of the White Church have the sense to know the enemy with whom they are “engaged” from its own words, from its own description?

• “In saying this, I do not wish to reduce organized mission ad gentes to a byproduct of empire. That would be simplistic and inaccurate. Missionaries often became the opponents of empire, siding with local people against their colonizers. Missionaries preserved local culture through writing down indigenous oral languages even as empire was crippling or destroying it. What I am trying to do here is trying to indicate some factors arising from this convergence of empire and mission ad gentes which may be instructive for our own time.
• “The convergence of mission ad gentes and empire created a powerful way of thinking wherein the notion of mission ad gentes became bound up with territory. One sees this as early as the founding of the Propaganda Fide in Rome in the seventeenth century and as late as the establishment of the “jus commissionis“ in the twentieth century. Rather than models (of religious conversion) wherein going ad gentes meant going to the sovereign (the King) to effect his conversion, mission was seen as Christianizing a territory. The convergence of empire and mission provided models of mission which were derived from the empire and colonizing process.
• “Most prominent throughout the period of European empire was the civilizing model, which meant bringing European education, technical training, and health care ad gentes. Put in late twentieth century terms, models of human promotion go hand in hand with mission. Today we would think more in terms of social justice or the defense of human rights. In both the earlier and more recent models, what evangelization is becomes extended in terms of an infrastructure which supports mission.
• ” Two characteristics of globalization today which are of significance here are its homogenizing power, whereby it interlinks the world and communicates the same message throughout this network; and its fragmenting power, which in local settings disrupts social arrangements, creates resistance, and heightens the sense of the particular and the local. How does this aspect of globalization interconnect with mission ad gentes?
• ” In responding to the interlinkage through communication as a form of homogenization, missionary institutes and the Church itself should utilize its resources as a transnational and non-governmental organization to bring people together in the solidarity of the human family, and form networks of support and advocacy. Missionary institutes should show by how they live and operate that transnational organizations need not be oppressive, but can bring together human and material resources for the betterment of life for humankind. They should use their resources to reach the gentes, who are now scattered throughout the world, as a result of migration and refugee status, those gentes who drift into our huge cities and lose their identities in the process. We need to think through as missionaries and missiologists how the homogenizing factors in the world today are shaping our thinking and our relationships.
• ” Globalization also fragments the world. Here it seems to me that the mission ad gentes is called to address the consequences of that fragmentation, where people reshape and construct new identities to resist the encroachments of globalization, where refugees and displaced persons have to rebuild lives and heal memories. The work of mission here is a work of reconciliation; that is, restoring human dignity and healing a broken society. It is about telling the truth, seeking justice, and creating a new moral vision. Indeed, it seems to me that reconciliation may well be the metaphor for mission as we enter the twenty-first century.”

The Superiors General, the White Catholic Church has nothing to hide because there are in effect, no real challenges to their agenda, which they have articulated with an openness that is insulting but which is a commentary on Hindu powerlessness to deal with this agenda. The Church is backed and supported thoroughly by the US and the EU. The US and the EU will first create, trigger and nurture conflicts around the world (and these are always countries and regions where the Church has not been successful so far) and once the people have been devastated by prolonged conflict, then the Church will step in to administer the healing touch!

US and European aid agencies and funding agencies – USAID, DFID, Red Cross, World Vision, these are the foot-soldiers of the White Church. Human rights, religious freedom, freedom of conscience, social justice, justice with peace are the new weapons of war in this war-by-other-means. Truth and Reconciliation is the new Church Opening Gambit in this great chess game between the Church and its victims; and we the idiot Hindus mindlessly parrot the slogans the White Church has coined for entrapment, and which have been legitimised by the supporting White Christian nations as the new liberal universal political ideology for the world. The globe-trotting Sri Sri Ravishankar is one of the “spiritual” (not religious, by his own admission) leaders who will be sitting across the table today and he conducted with much media fanfare his own variation of the (in)famous “truth and reconciliation” circus with the dalits in India.

Swami Chidananda Saraswati, another loose-cannon from something called ‘Divine Life Society, Uttaranchal’ who will also be present at the table today, was also present in Advani’s house last year with the Archbishops of Orissa and Delhi, and penned his name to the declaration called infamously, the Delhi Declaration, which the BJP proudly mentioned in its election manifesto. The Delhi Declaration stated that Swami Chidananda Saraswati would re-build the churches burned down by angry tribal communities after Christian terrorists gunned down the venerable Swami Laxmananda Saraswati. This Chidananda Saraswati signed the Delhi Declaration which also stated that he deplored not only “unethical religious conversion” but also “unethical re-conversion”. He deserves nothing but the strongest condemnation not only for his pathetic understanding of religious conversion but also for his poor understanding of the critical necessity for re-conversion on Hindu bhumi to the parent religion.

The presence of the revered mathathipathi of the Kanchi matham is the only saving grace in this whole disgraceful event. Hindu nationalists and Hindu bhaktas are hoping passionately that the Pujya Kanchi seer will tell the White Church on its face that until the Church declares that it will no longer undertake or countenance religious conversion in India, this will be the last inter-faith dialogue with the Church on Hindu bhumi.

English | Español

I thought the people who created Katamari Damashi were the ones who had a “unique” perspective in character development and cultural video-craziness. They still do with the release of Katamari Forever. But, let’s put Katamari aside.

Recently, I saw the political parody video of  an erotic Japanese game called “My boyfriend is the President” (which should have been translated as “The President is my childhood friend”). No sex scenes appear in this one video, but the plot in this trailer is essentially, well, “loco” anyway. The story is about aliens who brainwash people to make them think the presidents and prime ministers are beautiful girls. But, what if those anime characters were replaced with their real-life counterparts in the video? There’s already one like that.

Just be ready to LOL when you watch this video.

Source: JapanProbe.com [http://www.japanprobe.com/2009/11/04/my-boyfriend-is-obama/]  & JapanSoc.com [http://www.japansoc.com/Anime-and-Otaku/my-boyfriend-is-the-president/].

Español | English

Pensé que la gente que creó Katamari Damashi era la que tenían una  perspectiva “única” en el desarrollo del personajes y locura vídeo-cultural. Todavía lo hacen con el lanzamiento de Katamari Forever. Pero, vamos a poner a Katamari de lado.

Recientemente, vi un vídeo parodia político de un juego erótico japonés llamado “Mi novio es el Presidente” (que debería haberse traducido como “El Presidente es mi amigo de infancia” o “The President is my childhood friend” en inglés). Escenas sexuales no aparecen en este vídeo, pero la trama en este tráiler es esencialmente, bueno, “loca” de todos modos. La historia trata de los extraterrestres que lavan el cerebro de personas para hacerles creer que los presidentes y primeros ministros son jóvenes mujeres hermosas. Pero, ¿qué pasaría si los personajes del anime fuesen sustituidos con sus homólogos en la vida real en el video? Ya hay uno así.

Simplemente estén listo para reirse a carcajadas cuando vean este vídeo.

Fuente: JapanProbe.com [http://www.japanprobe.com/2009/11/04/my-boyfriend-is-obama/]  & JapanSoc.com [http://www.japansoc.com/Anime-and-Otaku/my-boyfriend-is-the-president/].

]]> http://blog.ancient-future.net/2009/11/04/vatican-explains-visit-to-u-s-sisters/ Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:38:17 +0000 David Bennett http://blog.ancient-future.net/2009/11/04/vatican-explains-visit-to-u-s-sisters/

The Vatican is concerned about the state of U.S. religious life, and is currently in the middle of an Apostolic visitation to investigate their concerns. With many orders of sisters in steep decline, and with the number of nuns that openly and proudly oppose Church Teaching, the Vatican’s concern is, in my opinion, justified.

While many sisters have been opposed to the visit, the Vatican insists that the visit is to increase vocations and ensure the well-being of sisters. Cardinal Rode, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, said

“My hope is that the apostolic visitation will not only provide the Holy See with a thorough analysis of the condition of religious life in the United States, but also be a realistic and graced opportunity for personal and community introspection, as major superiors and sisters cooperate with this study.”

While the Vatican is not presenting this as a confrontational visit, I think there is certainly a large degree of much-needed “reining in” going on here.

There’s been a lot of virtual ink spilled over the last week or so about the Vatican’s announcement that it will make it easier for Anglicans to convert, establishing, it appears, a more widespread use of the so-called Anglican Rite liturgy and allowing for some degree of self-governance for former Anglican communities. (Including continuing the practice of allowing married Anglican clergy to convert, be re-ordained, and lead these parishes.)

People have interpreted the announcement as everything from crass sheep-stealing, to creating a haven for Anglicans opposed to women’s ordination and/or gay clergy, to attempting to establish a united Christian front against Islam. But I think before we jump to conclusions about the significance of this move, it’s important to get at least some sense of who’s likely to actually make such a move.

A lot of the media reports have been focusing on “traditionalist Anglicans,” a vague and not terribly helpful term that could include everyone from a Nigerian charismatic-evangelical to the spikiest of high-church Anglo-Catholics. The former is, for obvious reasons, far less likely to swim the Tiber than the latter.

But even among Anglo-Catholics–a notoriously fissiparous lot–there are significant differences of opinion and practice. There are Anglo-Catholics who worship with the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer (or its equivalent in other countries) and those who insist on using the 1928 BCP. There are Anglo-Catholic parishes that use the Catholic Tridentine Rite; there are others that use the reformed Roman rite (the so-called Novus Ordo). There are “Affirming” Anglo-Catholics who support the ordination of women and equality for LGBT Christians; there are others who take traditionalist positions on these matters (or, in some cases, a traditionalist position on one and a revisionist position on the other). There are Anglo-Papalists who identify very strongly with the Catholic Church and long for reunion with Rome, and there are even a few “Byzantine” Anglicans who identify with the spirituality and theology of the Eastern church. (Obviously not all these groupings are mutually exclusive.)

Needless to say, not all of these folks–even within the minority persuasion of Anglo-Catholicism–will be enticed to convert. It’s true that in addition to Anglo-Papalist types, there may be some people in the traditionalist wing of Anglo-Catholicism who will be tempted to convert not because they unhesitatingly accept all the claims of the Catholic Church but because they feel–rightly or wrongly–that Christian orthodoxy is a losing proposition within Anglicanism. Even still, it’s hard to imagine more than a small minority of Anglicans making the decision to go over to Rome. Whether the Pope showed ecumenical bad manners is debatable, but if Benedict’s goal was to absorb the Anglican Communion, Borg-like, into the Catholic Church, this is a peculiar way to go about it.

Pope Benedict XVI has appointed Card Cormac Murphy-O’Connor to the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples today.

Thank you Fr Blake

Jon Stewart reports on The Daily Show that the Vatican is attempting to lure Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church just like a cell phone provider reaches out to new customers.

Apparently, Pope Benedict XVI’s recent offer to Episcopalians and other Anglicans who make the switch to the Roman Catholic Church not only provides more reliable service, but you get to keep your phone number, as well.

Pope Benedict XVI announced his plans to allow for special provisions that would accept groups of former Episcopalians and other Anglicans who wish to convert to the Roman Catholic Church, according to an Oct. 20 press release from The Vatican.

Stephen Colbert calls it “holy water under the bridge” in his October 27th Colbert Report. Colbert interviews Episcopal Priest and author The Rev. Randall Balmer, professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, who questions the Pope’s move saying he’s suspicious of any religious group that defines itself in negative terms.

Hans Kung doesn’t like Benedict XVI,  who used to be his protege and whom he regards as intellectually and socially his inferior.  It’s not surprising, therefore, that Father Kung says very harsh things about the Vatican in an article published in today’s Guardian.

Kung, however, knows Anglicanism well and makes it clear that part of Anglican troubles are self-created.  This is the only note of friendly criticism that the Anglican Communion seems to be receiving at the moment.  Father Kung sees Rome as being power-obsessed and Anglicanism as confused.   There’s always a grain of truth in any criticism, but Hans Kung (who had his head turned by early success) always overstates his case.