Ask Pope Francis to Promote John Paul I’s Teaching on Mercy

John_Paul_I_Credit_ANSA_OLDPIXThe Pope John Paul I Association has started a petition to Pope Francis asking him to promote John Paul I’s teaching on Mercy during the coming Jubilee Year of Mercy. I wrote a little something about his teaching here.

Just click here to sign. Takes a couple of minutes.

We wrote to Pope Francis to ask him for a meeting to present the petition to him during his US trip.

 

About Those Videos

Those Planned Parenthood videos, that is. My take:

I don’t think the main point is whether PP is technically “selling” baby body parts and hence doing something illegal. They have the legal means to wiggle out of that. I’m disappointed that CMP is focusing on this. The deeper question is: are they profiting from the butchery? It’s abundantly clear that they are. Even the ads of StemExpress and like companies stress that these transactions are going to be profitable to clinics. So a PP exec jokes about getting a Lamborghini off peddling babies’ bodies? This makes for great theater. But there’s not even that much of this in the videos. And is even this the main point?

To me, the main thing to learn from the videos is that PP knows exactly what they are doing. They talk abundantly and freely about the nature and construction of the little human bodies they are destroying. They say “it’s a boy!” when they identify one. They discuss the “crunchiness” of different baby-crushing techniques. They talk about it as something completely unremarkable. All the while they continue to use their usual bland euphemisms for the public and their clients: “clumps of cells”; products of conception”. They won’t be able to hide behind them any more.

The oddest thing is that PP execs appear to be much less comfortable talking about the money than about the baby-crushing. I believe, in spite of what some pro-lifers say, it’s not all about the money for many in PP. They feel they are doing what they do for altruistic motives, as Abby Johnson says. That’s why she and many others got involved with PP. They think they are helping women. I think that’s why they can numb themselves to the horrific realities of their work more easily than they can admit they might have mercenary motives. Baby-crushing can be a badge of honor if it’s something you have to go through for the “cause.” Talk about money and you’re no longer talking about a cause at all.

Perhaps a deeper and more compassionate consideration of the real tragedy and real-self-deception of PP could lead to some interesting and useful discussions.

“Do African Christians Not Matter?”

You really must read this. Yesterday, June 29, the Feast of S. Peter and Paul, at a prayer service for Christian Martyrs in Africa, Cardinal Dolan read out loud an exchange of letters between himself and His Excellency, Ignatius Kaigama, the Archbishop of Jos, Nigeria.

“My dear brother Timothy:  Thank you for your recent expression of concern for my safety.  It is in daily peril, especially on Sundays, but my people and I remain together and strong in faith.

As I send you these lines, I watch millions march in Paris and throughout Europe at the horror of the slaughter of journalists by Islamic extremists.  I am glad this outrage is causing such worldwide protest, and we here in Africa are spiritual and moral unity with them.

But understand, please, how this only increases our sense of abandonment and isolation here in Africa.  Europe and North America rightly abhor the massacre of writers for Charlie Hebdo, but we hear hardly a whimper about our 276 Christian girls, kidnapped, raped, disfigured, and probably soon to be murdered by Boko Haram here in Nigeria, or the ongoing religious cleansing in Sudan, or the continued harassment, injustice, and persecution of Christians in Egypt.  Africa is the new coliseum, where we are thrown to the beasts, and the world seems deaf, blind, mute.  Please do not abandon us!  Do African Christians not matter?”

Cardinal Dolan’s reply;

“My brother, Ignatius:  At least in this corner of New York City, in the shadow of the United Nations, in the parish where leaders and ambassadors worship, in the city proud to claim as neighbors your good people from Uganda, Ghana, Kenya, Chad, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea and French speaking Africa; in company with our Jewish friends who, too, are still hounded, and who have been full-throated in condemnation of your persecution; in company with our Islamic neighbors, eager for the protection of Christians, Jews, and their own peace-loving people who are victims of radicals as well; we Christians – – Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelical, Anglican, Lutheran, Armenian — are not deaf, blind, or mute.  We hear you!  We see what they are doing!  We this evening speak up to God, to the unconcerned world, for you and your people.

We are in tears as well for the venom against Christians in the Mideast, where Christian families trace their roots back to the apostles, seven centuries before the arrival of Islam, a religion of peace, that, sadly, in the words of Pope Francis, has been “perverted” by hate by those whose extremism makes their appeal to God murderously illogical and an abomination;

We are conscious as well of attacks against followers of Jesus in India, Indonesia, and Pakistan;

We worry that hatred of Jews hardly lets up, and seems on the rise internationally, and that, as you tell us, Ignatius, your Islamic neighbors are under attack as well by radicals.  The bishop in Aleppo, Syria, told me recently, that when their churches are torched and his people wounded, it is often their Islamic neighbors who help them rebuild and heal.

My brother Ignatius:  you are aptly named after a martyr literally thrown to the lions in Rome nineteen centuries ago.  We gather on the Feast of the Princes of the Apostles, the patrons of the Eternal City, one, St. Peter crucified upside down on a hill called the Vatican across the Tiber of Nero’s Rome; the other, St. Paul beheaded at the opposite side of the city.  So we realize, Ignatius, as do you, that such persecution of believers is as old as the wood of the cross, forecast by the prophets of Israel, a warning given us by the Savior Himself.

We know, with you, Ignatius, that God can bring good out of evil, life from death, light from darkness, as we already witness such fruits, seeing all the children of Abraham – – Jews, Christians, Islam – – close in a bond of sorrow and solidarity Pope Francis calls an “Ecumenism of Martyrdom.”

We admit, with you and Africa, Ignatius, that, as the ancient African Church Father, Tertullian, assured us, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of faith,” and that your African soil, so purpled by massacred Christians, will produce an even greater harvest of faithful Christians.

You can read the whole thing here. Note that Cardinal Dolan has a new blog!

“Just Who Do We Think we Are?”

More eloquence on The Supreme Court gay marriage decision, from the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.