More on the Underpopulation Problem

It turns out that the ecumenical dialogue has turned to emphasize the great need posed by underpopulation in nations.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com)—Participants in the First European Catholic-Orthodox Forum chose to emphasize the coming crisis of declining birth rates as the main topic of their meeting. That came as a delight to the producer of the movie Demographic Winter, who says the underpopulation problem is growing.

Meeting in Trent, Italy earlier this month, 30 delegates from the Orthodox Churches, European Bishops Conference and the Vatican met to discuss their common concerns on family matters.

In their joint statement, "The Family: A Good for Humanity," the delegates observed that, despite the current focus on the global economic crisis, "Another vital element of this turning point is the crisis in regard to the family."

"The demographic trends alone in Europe are clear signals of a crisis much greater than the financial one," the statement said.

It added that families and their resulting children "needs to be rediscovered as valuable social capital."

Read this article in full on LifeNews.com.

Massacre and Martyrdom in Uganda

Our prayers go out to the persecuted and the dead in Congo. Reports have arisen there of a bloody scene where dozens of people inside a Catholic church were hacked to death. The BBC is reporting that more than 400 people have been killed by Ugandan rebels and about 20,000 people have fled.

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord.
And may perpetual light shine upon them.
May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.
Amen.

Urgent Prayer Reminder this Christmas Season

Just a reminder to my readers during this Christmas season – please keep the Christians and Hindus in India in your prayers. Anti-Christian violence continues there as Christians are under grave threat of persecution there ahead of the Christmas holiday.

Hindu extremists only a few weeks ago had vowed to initiate a Christmas Day massacre if the killers of a Hindu leader did not come forth (a Maoist group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but militants are scapegoating Christians).

Please take a moment this Christmas to remember those who will suffer at the hands of intolerance and to pray that the charity of our brothers and sisters in Christ may win the hearts of the enemies we love so dearly.

Bl. Mother Teresa speaks of "Jesus in His Distressing Disguise" - Quoteboard

I love this one.

The fullness of our heart comes in our actions: how I treat that leper, how I treat that dying person, how I treat the homeless. Sometimes it is more difficult to work with the street people than with the people in our homes for the dying because they are peaceful and waiting; they are ready to go to God.

You can touch the sick, the leper and believe that it is the body of Christ you are touching, but it is much more difficult when these people are drunk or shouting to think that this is Jesus in His distressing disguise. How clean and loving our hands must be to bring that compassion to them!

Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, No Greater Love,
MJF Books, New York, 1997, pp. 69-70

Jesus comes to us in "distressing disguise." How freeing I find this thought to be. I often get so tempted to think of some people, "you should know better!" and then to think frustration towards that person would be justified.

No, Jesus is hidden in the sinner as well because he loves the sinner. Hence we are challenged to love all. Of course love does not mean affirmation of the sin, because that would be hateful towards any sinner, as it could lead them to choose eternal separation from Christ. Jesus seeks restoration to lost grace, that the sinner turn from sin and toward him. When we reach out with compassion toward the sinner and call them out of the sin, then we show our love for Jesus.

Thank you, again, Bl. Mother Teresa for your most wise words!

The Manipulation of the Embryo or the Human Genetic Patrimony - Final Reflections on Dignitas Personae

This is the third and final part of my commentary on the new CDF document, Dignitas Personae. Please follow the previous link to read this important document. Also, if you are interested, please click to read the first or second parts of my commentary.

Part III: New Treatments which Involve the Manipulation of the Embryo or the Human Genetic Patrimony
This section deals with issues of vast modern importance – embryonic stem-cell research and adult stem-cell research, the therapeutic use of stem-cell treatment, human cloning, human-animal hybridization (also commonly known as chimeras), use of vaccines derived from biological material of illicit origin. I strongly recommend reading the document for greatest clarity on these issues.

Please, I urge you, do not drink the kool-aid the mainstream media has prepared for you in their reporting on these issues. If you have time for an LA Times or Washington Post story, then you have time to read this document. You don’t need to have worked in the mainstream media like I have to know that those who commonly report on these documents allow their biases and presuppositions to influence their interpretation of Vatican happenings. It is easily observable. What is the presupposition of The Charcoal Fire? Faith and trust in the Magisterium and fidelity to the Catholic faith under the supreme Pontiff.

That said, on to the document…

The document distinguished between two current forms of gene therapy, somatic cell gene therapy and germ line cell therapy (somatic cells are non-reproductive cells, germ-line cells are gametes and cells that carry hereditary information to offspring). Therapeutic procedures on somatic cells are morally licit in principle, while all current forms of germ line cell therapy are morally illicit (cf. DP, 26; see also the ethical evaluation herein). The CDF also warns of the dangers of such endeavors in fostering a “eugenic mentality” and “indirect social stigma” (DP, 27).

There are two types of human cloning – for birth of a baby and for therapeutic reasons. Below, I will come to the document’s treatment on human cloning—an “intrinsically illicit” technique of artificial fertilization that is “gravely injurious to human dignity” (DP, 28). Therapeutic cloning is listed as the most serious form of cloning (cf. DP, 30). But that makes sense because therapeutic cloning in its deepest essence is human sacrifice.

While embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) is “gravely illicit,” the CDF gives some guidelines for moral evaluation of methods of obtaining stem cells for clinical and experimental use. It is licit to use stem cells for research when the tissues are taken from a.) an adult organism, b.) umbilical cord blood, or c.) fetuses who have died of natural causes.

Concerning embryonic stem-cell research, the document draws from the teachings of Pope Benedict:

“… research, in such cases, irrespective of efficacious therapeutic results, is not truly at the service of humanity. In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves. History itself has condemned such a science in the past and will condemn it in the future, not only because it lacks the light of God but also because it lacks humanity” (Pope Benedict, Symposium of September 16, 2006; cf. DP, 32).

The document briefly but strongly treats hybridization (DP, 33) and serious ethical considerations regarding biological material of illicit origin, including vaccinations and the responsibility upon Catholics to try to bring an end to this practice (DP, 34-35). Many people do not know that many vaccinations are derived from the cell lines of aborted babies. This is a prime example of “biological material of illicit origin.” Regarding the vaccinations,

Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material”. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available (DP, 35, my emphasis).

A Few Closing Reflections
This is a very strong document. I am struck by how well it calls to defense for the most marginalized of all human beings – the unborn.

For those who would question the Magisterial weight of such a document, Dignitas Personae is thoroughly papal, with dozens of references to papal encyclicals and addresses, with some of the most beautiful quotes coming from various addresses Pope Benedict XVI has given himself. A document of a major congregation is weighty in itself, but fortified with the constant teachings of the Holy Fathers means, yes, this is something to which we should give the assent of faith to help foster a culture of life (cf. DP, 37).

Some people of the world may find the judgments of the Church too strict. Dignitas Personae addresses that objection quite beautifully:

Behind every “no” in the difficult task of discerning between good and evil, there shines a great “yes” to the recognition of the dignity and inalienable value of every single and unique human being called into existence … in every human being, above all in the least among us, one meets Christ himself (DP, 37; cf. Mt 25:40).

Open Doors for Future Consideration
Observers have noted how it leaves the ethical door open to potential “adoption” of frozen embryos. I personally think that this is the right move, but I defer to the ultimate decision of the Church. It is a great moral conundrum. But the question as I see it is: Is the intended end (the saving of the life of the subjugated human being) render as good something that in literally all other circumstances would be objectively evil.

Question of the Soul – Clones and Chimeras?
One of the questions about which I am curious is as to the spiritual state of those beings who are clones, and even more beings who are “chimeras” (a name deriving from the Greek monster chímaira, a mythological creature with the parts of multiple animals, but in modern genetics represents a being with a hybridization of genetic material from two distinct creatures).

Would clones have souls? Would “chimeras” have souls?

A “yes” or “no” answer in either case has dramatic repercussions. Cloned human beings are coming, as are chimeric creatures are coming. They will be among us in the human community. So these questions are important.

Some may say that there is no way God would honor the cloning process and infuse a soul into a being created by science. But I think that is a grave error. Because there is a name for a soulless material being – an animal, metaphysically speaking. Zoologically, human beings are considered animals. Spiritually speaking, we are above the animals and possess dominion over the animals.

To say that a clone is an animal is a saying that has unfortunate consequences. Talk about a stigma! So what does Dignitas Personae say about the matter? While it does not explicitly state that clones have a soul, it certainly implies it:

If cloning were to be done for reproduction, this would impose on the resulting individual a predetermined genetic identity, subjecting him – as has been stated – to a form of biological slavery, from which it would be difficult to free himself. The fact that someone would arrogate to himself the right to determine arbitrarily the genetic characteristics of another person represents a grave offense to the dignity of that person as well as to the fundamental equality of all people.

The originality of every person is a consequence of the particular relationship that exists between God and a human being from the first moment of his existence and carries with it the obligation to respect the singularity and integrity of each person, even on the biological and genetic levels. In the encounter with another person, we meet a human being who owes his existence and his proper characteristics to the love of God, and only the love of husband and wife constitutes a mediation of that love in conformity with the plan of the Creator and heavenly Father (DP, 29, my emphasis).

This is incredibly personalistic language. The great mystery here is one of God’s love, that God would permit such reprehensible and irresponsible behavior on the part of science and still infuse a soul, a soul that cries out for the dignity of being treated as a unique human being, a fundamental human right. Even in the case of natural identical twins, the brothers or sisters are respected as individual human beings and are seen as existing for their own sake.

Would clones be honored as true members of the human society? No way. This great tragedy must be averted! Scientists are so busy saying, “yes we can!” that they have forgotten to ask the question, “should we?”

New Problems Concerning Procreation - The CDF's Bioethics Document Dignitas Personae

This is the second of three parts of my commentary on the new CDF document, Dignitas Personae. Please follow the previous link to read this important document. To read the first part of my commentary, click here.

Part II: New Problems Concerning Procreation
This section begins with a treatment of the ethical considerations involved in treating fertility. There are three “fundamental goods”:

a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse; c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses” (DP, 12).

The following common practices violate these ethical principles: 1.) Artificial fertilization techniques used to obtain a human conception artificially by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage (heterologous artificial fertilization) (DP, 12, footnote 22); 2.) Artificial fertilization techniques used to obtain a human conception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in marriage (homologous artificial fertilization) (DP, 12, footnote 23).

Those practices that fall within these categories are intracytoplasmic sperm injection (DP, 17); the freezing of embryos, which leads to “no morally licit solution” to the problem of the thousands upon thousands of “orphans” created (DP, 18-19, and the freezing of oocytes for future in-vitro fertilization is not a morally acceptable answer, DP, 20).

The CDF document goes on to say that certain medical techniques are licit means to achieve natural fertilization, such as “hormonal treatments for infertility, surgery for endometriosis, unblocking of fallopian tubes or their surgical repair” (DP, 13).

Why are these licit as opposed to the others?

…because, once the problem causing the infertility has been resolved, the married couple is able to engage in conjugal acts resulting in procreation, without the physician’s action directly interfering in that act itself. None of these treatments replaces the conjugal act, which alone is worthy of truly responsible procreation.

This one is particularly close to my heart. It grieves me that people don’t understand why the Church has continued in opposition to in-vitro fertilization. In addition to the violation of the ethical principles above, which alone renders it contrary to the dignity of marriage, there is the reality of abortion, abortion, abortion. “Embryo reduction” as it has been so-called is ethically “intentional selective abortion” (DP, 21). Further, the process known as preimplantation diagnosis often leads to the “eugenic mentality” that causes abortion, discrimination, and opens the way to legitimization of infanticide and euthanasia (DP, 22).

Commenting on this, the document states:

The fact that the process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction of embryos was already noted in the Instruction Donum vitae. There were some who maintained that this was due to techniques which were still somewhat imperfect. Subsequent experience has shown, however, that all techniques of in vitro fertilization proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded.

It is true that approximately a third of women who have recourse to artificial procreation succeed in having a baby. It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high [currently, 80 percent of all babies created in in-vitro fertilization are killed, cf. footnote 27]. These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of each individual embryo (DP, 14).

Truly tragic. And observe still the further objectification and use of the human person that goes on in the medical community. In a word, utilitarianism:

Embryos produced in vitro which have defects are directly discarded. Cases are becoming ever more prevalent in which couples who have no fertility problems are using artificial means of procreation in order to engage in genetic selection of their offspring. In many countries, it is now common to stimulate ovulation so as to obtain a large number of oocytes which are then fertilized. Of these, some are transferred into the woman’s uterus, while the others are frozen for future use. The reason for multiple transfer is to increase the probability that at least one embryo will implant in the uterus. In this technique, therefore, the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost and multiple pregnancy may not occur. In this way, the practice of multiple embryo transfer implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos. One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities.

How this can go on in the modern world boggles my mind. The document goes on…

In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied.

This sad reality, which often goes unmentioned, is truly deplorable: the “various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life” (DP, 15).

The Church recognizes the desire to have a child and understands the suffering associated with fertility problems, but such a desire “should not override the dignity of every human life to the point of absolute supremacy. The desire for a child cannot justify the ‘production’ of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived” (DP, 16).

Moreover, the ethical problems are fueled by researchers who 1.) lack any ethical point of reference, 2.) are aware of the possibilities inherent in technological progress, and 3.) surrender to the logic of purely subjective desires and economic pressures (DP, 16).

Before moving to more specific problems concerning the evils of modern practices, Dignitas Personae quotes the words of Pope Benedict XVI:

“God’s love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother’s womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person. God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness (Gen 1:26) in each one … Therefore, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life from its conception until its natural end” (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the Pontifical Academy for Life, Feb. 27, 2006; quoted in DP, 16).

The other problems outlined in the rest of the second part I have already mentioned. But there is one more: interception and contragestation. There has been heard a recent rallying cry, “contraception is not abortion!” I believe there is even a Facebook group by that name. Indeed, contraception is not abortion. Contraception presupposes that conception is prevented.

But when some medication or measure either prevents implantation of an already conceived human being (interception) or causes the detachment from the uterus of an already conceived human being (contragestation), that is no longer contraception, but abortion. Interceptives and contragestatives are not contraceptives, but abortifacients. Use of interceptives and contragestatives are “gravely immoral” and “fall within the sin of abortion” (DP, 23).

Up next: New Treatments which Involve the Manipulation of the Embryo or the Human Genetic Patrimony

Some Thoughts about the CDF's New Bioethics Document (Dignitas Personae)

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has just released Dignitas Personae, a document concerning modern bioethical problems.

This is a real gem. All those who are involved in the Church’s moral mission to the modern world should read this document – it is not very long. I have selected some highlights from my reading. The document is divided into three parts. Along these lines, too, I offer my thoughts.

Part I: Anthropological, Theological and Ethical Aspects of Human Life and Procreation

The body of a human being, from the very first stages of its existence, can never be reduced merely to a group of cells. The embryonic human body develops progressively according to a well-defined program with its proper finality, as is apparent in the birth of every baby (DP, 4).

The document then goes on to quote Donum Vitae, defining the bodily and spiritual totality of the human being from the moment of conception.

This ethical principle, which reason is capable of recognizing as true and in conformity with the natural moral law, should be the basis for all legislation in this area (DP, 5; cf. Pope Benedict XVI’s address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, April 18, 2008).

Basically, this debate is not entirely religious in nature (hence, those debating should not first appeal to religious belief, but to reason, which is common to all humanity). You don’t need the Bible to recognize that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. It is anthropologically and ethically self-evident (and should be legislated as such).

The implication is for those politicians who say, “I don’t agree with such-and-such morally, but I do not feel it is my duty to legislate my religious beliefs.” Human dignity from conception is not primarily a religious belief (sure, religious people believe this, but only because religions share with philosophy a love for the truth). Human dignity from conception is a philosophical truth common to all mankind. It should be legislated to protect the innocent from those who would impose “lawful” killing on the most vulnerable.

Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person (DP, 5).

On the other hand, it is the interrelation of the natural and supernatural dimensions that the gravity of protection of human life comes fully to light. It is our knowledge that man is created to become sharers in the divine nature, to become sons of God (cf. 2 Pet 1:4, Jn 1:12). All people are created by God and are called to union with God. By the very fact of existence, because all existence is existence that is conferred and willed by the Creator, all human beings must be respected. This is something proper to all mankind without distinction.

This boundless and almost incomprehensible love of God for the human being reveals the degree to which the human person deserves to be loved in himself, independently of any other consideration – intelligence, beauty, health, youth, integrity, and so forth. In short, human life is always a good, for it ‘is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory (DP, 8; cf. Evangelium vitae, 34).

Finally, what is the Church’s relation to medical science? Not as invasive as the mainstream media would have you believe:

The Church, by expressing an ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical research concerning man and his beginnings, does not intervene in the area proper to medical science itself, but rather calls everyone to ethical and social responsibility for their actions. She reminds them that the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence, and the defense of the specific character of the personal act which transmits life. The intervention of the Magisterium falls within its mission of contributing to the formation of conscience, by authentically teaching the truth which is Christ and at the same time by declaring and confirming authoritatively the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself (DP, 10).

It is the Church’s responsibility to call science to task when it leaves its own field and draws conclusions based on faulty philosophical reasoning. When science forsakes morals, it is the duty of both philosophy and the Magisterium (teaching office of the Church) to correct the ethical error.

Up next: New Problems Concerning Procreation

Is it OK to Petition the Pope for a Marian Dogma?

To all a happy feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the greatest of all missionaries, who converted millions with a single glance from her eyes!

One of the objections I hear often when talking with people who are uncertain about the movement for a dogmatic proclamation of Mary’s role in salvation history goes something like this:

I accept the doctrine of Mary’s role in redemption. And I accept that the definition of a dogma would be good for the Church. However, I don’t think it’s appropriate to petition the Holy Father for the proclamation of a dogma. After all, faith and morals are not decided by popular opinion.

This is true that doctrines of the faith are not settled by popular opinion. Popular opinion often errs in matters of faith and morals. So in that case, is it right to petition the Holy Father for another Marian dogma? Does this in some way restrict the spiritual freedom and discernment of the Holy Father?

Further, in a second counterargument some have compared the nature of petitioning the Holy Father for a Marian dogma with that of petitioning the Holy Father in favor of allowing wider use of artificial contraception. The argument goes:

What if millions of the faithful had petitioned Pope Paul VI ahead of the issuing of Humanae Vitae? Perhaps he would have changed the Church teachings.

First, a response to the latter objection, then we’ll look at the former.

Let’s look at the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Humanae Vitae document. In that case, the Holy Father called a commission of clergy and lay faithful to examine the question of contraception. The commission concluded that the Church should change her longstanding Tradition in light of the developments of the modern age. Pope Paul VI, however, disregarded their recommendation, but issued Humanae Vitae and affirmed the Church's constant Tradition. There is no reason to believe that had petitions been sent to the Holy Father (and they probably were) that he would have acted any differently in the case of Humanae Vitae, because in that case, the faithful would not have been acting in accordance with the true sensus fidei, or "sense of the faithful" (see, Donum Veritatis, a CDF document of 1990 also known as the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 35). The guarantee of infallibility protects the Sovereign Pontiff from error in faith and morals, no matter how many petitions he receives.

Another thing to consider: Marian coredemption is already the Church's present doctrine. This is and has been a matter of faith and morals from the beginning of the Church and was taught explicitly by St. Irenaeus in the second century ("Mary became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race," Against Heresies, quoted in Lumen Gentium, Chapter VIII, n. 56, Second Vatican Council). Contraception, however, has never been an acceptable practice in the Catholic Church. The doctrine on contraception has always been that it is forbidden. Marian coredemption and spiritual motherhood, on the other hand, has been Church doctrine from the beginning. So clearly the example differs entirely (petitioning for the definition of an already existing Marian doctrine; vs. petitioning to alter the moral teaching of the Church [as if such a change were even possible]).

Finally, with regard to our first objection as to whether a petition could prevent some sort of spiritual obstacle to the Holy Father, Church history offers the best answer to the first question.

The two most recently proclaimed Marian dogmas were promulgated by Bl. Pope Pius IX in 1854 (the Immaculate Conception of Mary) and by Pope Pius XII in 1950 (the Assumption of Mary into heaven). Both Popes were inundated with petitions from the lay faithful before the respective definitions. How did they respond? Negatively?

Quite the contrary. Some may find it surprising, but both Pius IX and Pius XII praised the petition drives. The popes thanked the faithful for assisting the discernment process and for their heartfelt desire to see these doctrines elevated to the level of Church dogma.

In fact, Blessed Pius IX described how the Church considered the petitions "most attentively with particular joy in our heart." Pope Pius XII called such actions "pious striving" that associated the faithful in a "wonderful way" with their bishops.

In light of this holy precedent set by our faithful brothers and sisters in Christ who have gone before us, we continue in this great tradition of beseeching the Holy Father for a dogmatic definition. It would be my joy to continue discussion on this topic if you are as yet unconvinced for the need or appropriateness or even the truth of such a dogma.

If you are convinced, then I invite you to join your more than 7 million Catholic brothers and sisters who have already sent in their petitions to the Holy Father asking that he solemnly define the doctrine that Mary is Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate – the Spiritual Mother of all humanity. To sign the online petition or for instructions on how to mail yours in today, go to FifthMarianDogma.com.

Latest News on Pope’s New Encyclical (Caritas in Veritate)

This is the latest news concerning the upcoming papal encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), which will take up economic and globalization themes and will be released in early 2009.

Here is the story from Zenit.

Cardinal: Peace Message Previews New Encyclical
VATICAN CITY, DEC. 11, 2008—Cardinal Renato Martino presented Benedict XVI's message for the World Day of Peace as a sneak preview of an upcoming encyclical on social doctrine.

The president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace suggested that the Pope's third encyclical could be published as early as the beginning of next year, implying it will be released in the midst of the ongoing global economic crisis.

The Holy Father's message for the Jan. 1 World Day of Peace is titled "Fighting Poverty to Build Peace." [For the full text of the Holy Father’s World Day of Peace message, click here.]

According to the cardinal, some points from this message will be further developed in the encyclical, which he previously indicated could be called "Caritas in Veritate" (Charity in Truth).

In offering a synthesis of the papal message, Cardinal Martino said one of the most interesting themes was the originality in his approach to globalization.

The text "returns to and develops the message of John Paul II for the World Day of Peace 1993, which explained the reciprocal connections and conditions existing between poverty and peace," the cardinal noted.

Benedict XVI "shows us how peace and the fight against poverty intersect: a given that constitutes one of the most stimulating assumptions, giving a proper cultural, social and political focus to the complex themes tied to the achievement of peace in our day, which is characterized by the phenomenon of globalization," he added.

The Vatican official said the Pope above all takes into consideration "the role of the social sciences to measure the phenomenon of poverty," which provide data measuring the material reality of poverty.

However, Cardinal Martino explained, poverty is more than a material phenomenon.

"In advanced wealthy societies, the phenomenon of affective, moral and spiritual poverty is widespread: Many persons feel marginalized and live with various forms of malaise despite their economic prosperity," he said. "This is what is known as 'moral underdevelopment.'"

The message, the cardinal concluded "establishes two parts in the theme of the fight against poverty"—the first deals with the moral implications ties to poverty and the second with the need for greater solidarity in the fight against this global problem.

More about the new prefect of the CDW, Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera

Here is some more information about Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera of Toledo, Spain, who will succeed Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria as prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Pope Names Cañizares to Succeed Arinze at the Vatican Sacraments Post

Vatican City, Dec 9, 2008 / 11:03 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict XVI announced on Tuesday that he has accepted the resignation of Cardinal Francis Arinze as prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He is being succeeded by Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera.

Cardinal Arinze was appointed to head the Congregation on October 1, 2002 by Pope John Paul II and has served in the position for the last six years.

The prefect of the Congregation oversees the regulation and promotion of the sacred liturgy, with an emphasis on the sacraments.

Pope Benedict has appointed Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, who until today was the archbishop of Toledo, Spain, to take the reins from Cardinal Arinze. At 63 years-old Cardinal Cañizares is a young cardinal, having only been given the red hat in 2006.

According to reports in the Spanish press, Cañizares will serve as the apostolic administrator of Toledo until a successor is appointed. The cardinal told the press that he will shuttle between the two positions during the transition period.

The Secretary General of the Spanish Episcopal Conference (CEE), Bishop Juan Antonio Martínez Camino, has responded to the appointment by sending a congratulatory letter to Cardinal Cañizares. The Spanish bishops congratulated him "in particular for the confidence that the Holy Father has shown in him by calling him to work closely with him in the government of the Universal Church."

+ † +

Dear readers, though it is sad that Cardinal Arinze will be retiring, this pick of Cardinal Cañizares is good news. This is a brilliant choice by Pope Benedict. This man is a great liturgist. (But of course, he will surely continue in the outspoken ways of Cardinal Arinze, as evidenced by this story: "Opposition to War Incompatible with Support for Abortion, says Spanish Cardinal.")

According to Fr. Zuhlsdorf, Cardinal Cañizares (right, I love this photo) is a member of Ecclesia Dei. The following information is translated from the Italian post on Palazzo Apostolico, Web site of Paolo Rodari:

The nickname "little Ratzinger" was born in the Roman Curia. From 1985 to 1992 Canizares played the same role in the Spanish bishops conference that Ratzinger played in the Vatican: he took care of the "doctrine of the faith" sector for the bishops conference. It was this role, together with the special friendship he had with Ratzinger, that prompted the men of the former Holy Office good-naturely to start nicknaming him that way.

The friendship with the present Pope had not secondary role in his arrival in Rome. Benedict XVI trusts him. It is known that liturgy is a determining domain at the heart of his pontificate, and he wants to be certain that, in the face of the future farewell of Malcolm Ranjith, the present secretary of the same Congregation (who will become the Archbishop of Colombo and later cardinal), there will be in the dicastery a man who will guarantee the continuation of a very clear liturgical line: the liturgy is at the apex of the life of faith and, at the same time, it lives from continuity. And so: the Church, in the name of a illuminated progress, proceeds renews herself without losing sight of her own roots and her own living tradition.

And so the fact that there arrives at Liturgy a man who in the past has thoroughly digested theology is not irrelevant. Theological understand is useful and "Little Ratzinger" has it. A great scholar of Teresa of Avila, having been bishop of Avila from 1992-96 (it was his first, and for him unforgettable, bishop's see), he demonstrated love for the study of theology founding, at Avila, the Catholic University "Saint Teresa of Jesus". In the balance, in his curriculum there is only one fault: he speaks only Spanish.

Immediately after the arrival of Canizares Benedict XVI will touch up other crucial sectors of the Roman Curia: Cardinal Walter Kasper, after the funeral of Alexis II (today) and the octve of prayer for unity of Christians (starting in 2009) will leave his dicastery which deals with ecumenism. Farther down the line the prefects of other dicasteries will also leave, all near to 75 years of age, Claudi Hummes, Giovanni Battista Re, Ivan Dias, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Javier Lozano Barragan e Franc Rodé. The example could be given with Re: next January he turns 75 and he could do what in the past his predecessor Lucas Neves Moreira did. He could step down exactly on the day of 75th birthday: it was 16 September 2000.

Notice that in there about Cardinal Kaspar on his way out? More to come on that as it develops.

In parting, Cardinal Arinze is a great shepherd. I love Cardinal Arinze and will miss him, but in light of the strength of Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, this is clearly the right move for the Church that is trying to reclaim the beauty of her liturgy. In tribute, I leave you with a video of Cardinal Arinze highlighting the absurdity of the notion of "pro-choice." I am certain he will not be any less beloved or outspoken.

Mary is the Immaculate Conception, but is she the Co-redemptrix?

Co-redemptrix – the idea that the Blessed Virgin could be dogmatically proclaimed under this title makes Protestants and even some Catholics cringe. Would this dogma virtually elevate Mary to the level of the “fourth person of the Trinity”? The Church has always condemned the idea that Mary could be a divine person. But is this what “Co-redemptrix” actually means?

The saints know that Mary is not God (otherwise, they would not be saints, because that would be idolatry), so what do they say about calling Mary Co-redemptrix?

Many saints in fact, throughout the centuries in both the East and the West, have testified to the truth of Mary’s participation in the work of redemption: St. Justin Martyr, St. Ephraem, St. Augustine, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Anselm, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, and more.

St. Irenaeus in the second century said, “Mary became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”

St. Francis Xavier Cabrini, the first American to be canonized, stated that on Calvary Mary “merited to become our most worthy Co-redemptrix.”

St. Edith Stein: “Mary leaves the natural order and is placed as Co-redemptrix alongside the Redeemer.”

St. Maximilian Kolbe, who along with Belgian Cardinal Mercier strongly advocated for the proclamation of the dogma of Marian coredemption and mediation of all graces, said, “Mary, as Mother of Jesus the Savior, becomes Coredemptrix, while as Spouse of the Holy Spirit she takes part in the distribution of all graces.”

St. Josemaria Escrivà, founder of Opus Dei, wrote, “The Supreme Pontiffs have rightly called Mary ‘Co-redemptrix.’ At that point, together with her Son who was suffering and dying, she suffered and almost died; at that point she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of humanity and immolated Him, insofar as she was able, in order to placate the justice of God; thus one can rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ.”

St. Padre Pio wrote, “Now I seem to be penetrating what was the martyrdom of our most beloved Mother. … Oh if all people would but penetrate this martyrdom! Who could succeed in suffering with this, yes, our dear Co-redemptrix?”

John Paul II called Mary Co-redemptrix at least six times during his papacy. He said, “Mary, though conceived and born without the taint of sin, participated in a marvelous way in the sufferings of her divine Son, in order to be Co-redemptrix of humanity.”

Mother Teresa of Calcutta stated: “Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix. She gave Jesus his body, and the body of Jesus is what saved us.”

John Paul II’s quote above best highlights the connection with today’s feast. Mary is the Co-redemptrix because she is the Immaculata – she is the Immaculate Conception, as she told St. Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858, four years after the truth was dogmatically defined by Bl. Pius IX. Mary had no taint of original sin that she would be able to give Jesus a body undefiled.

The Problem of the Immaculata’s Sufferings
The reality of Jesus’ sufferings would be an infinite injustice on account of His innocence and supreme dignity as a divine person were it not for the infinitely redemptive value of His sufferings. His suffering is union and love with all who suffer from injustice and is redemption for all who commit injustice – as such, His infinitely merciful act is an act of perfect mercy and perfect justice. There is no contradiction between the two, because as divine attributes (pure perfections), justice and mercy are one in the same.

But what of the suffering Mother? If it is as some hold, that her sufferings are not in any way meritorious, then there is great injustice perpetrated on Calvary, injustice perpetrated not by man but by God. The accusations the feminist theologians have been making against the patriarchal God who they say has little esteem for women would then be true. For in His strivings to redeem the world, He would have wounded His mother by His own hand with the sword of sorrow (Lk 2:35) when by His own power He could have spared her in the first place.

(Of course, we know this to be impossible. It is contrary to God’s nature that He could ever be unjust. By His very nature, He is Justice personified.)

First of all, we all know that she suffered – the Gospel of John attests to her presence at the foot of the Cross of her Son (see John 19:25-27). We remember her sorrows during the Stations of the Cross every Friday during Lent when we pray the Stabat Mater. We commemorate her sorrows on September 15 every year. That she suffered is not in question.

Now if Mary were not immaculately conceived, it could rightly be said that her sufferings were due to her sins. Her suffering would not be problematic. Yet Mary is immaculately conceived and she suffers. Let me say that one more time, because its importance must be seen:

Mary is immaculately conceived and she suffers.

And because she is the Immaculata (as St. Maximilian Kolbe often called Our Lady), there is no greater martyrdom in the history of the followers of Jesus than her own. “It was on Calvary that Mary’s suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view …” (Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, n. 25). Her Immaculate Conception meant that she had all the original innocence of Adam and Eve before the fall. Suffering is the result of sin. Yet there she stands in all her innocence engulfed in suffering.

It would seem that Mary has incurred injustice. How could it be justice that the effects of sin fall upon a sinless creature who is altogether undeserving of the consequences? The position is altogether unthinkable that God in His goodness could grant infinite merit to the sufferings of His divine Son, unblemished by the stain of sin, and withhold merit altogether in the face of the sufferings of the unblemished mother.

The Superabundance of Christ’s Merit
and Mary’s Suffering as Gift for Redemption
Would Christ in His act of infinite love, the redemption of the world, transgress the Fourth Commandment in such a cruel manner? For surely He could have taken her into heaven before His glorious Passion. Yet there she stands at the foot of the Cross.

No my friends. Christ did not transgress the Fourth Commandment. He did not perpetrate injustice against His suffering mother. It is a supreme act of justice and love that Mary stands at the foot of the Cross. The reality of Mary’s suffering—though altogether undeserving of pain and sorrow because of her immaculate nature—means one thing and one thing only: Her sufferings are gift, meritorious in the one Merit of her Son, redemptive in the one Redemption of her Son. Her suffering is love and it is Love that gives her the gift of suffering with her Son.

She is the suffering handmaid of the Suffering Servant. Together the New Adam and the New Eve suffer together in an immaculate human nature to make satisfaction for us and merit our incorporation into this new humanity.

Again, it must be emphasized that it is the one merit of Christ that accomplishes all of salvation. But in the superabundance of His merit, He has seen fit to involve the Blessed Mother in a secondary and subordinate way in the plan of salvation, that her suffering in Christ is made “supernaturally fruitful for the redemption of the world” (John Paul II, SD, n. 25).

It is as St. Josemaria Escrivà said, “she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of humanity and immolated Him, insofar as she was able, in order to placate the justice of God; thus one can rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ.”

If you remain unconvinced, let us have dialogue in this matter, so that you will at least know that the Catholic doctrine of coredemption in this way does not obscure the one Redemption of Christ, but rather glorifies it. For what gift is greater: the gift that satisfies the individual, or the gift given so superabundantly that it cannot help but transform the recipients into givers themselves to all who are able to receive? The one giver is the same. The abundance of the gift is the question here.

Mary merits in and under the totality of merits acquired by her Son in an altogether unique way from sinful humanity. But through her we see that we, too, may make a generous offering of our sufferings in union with Jesus to merit in Him as well. Then we may say with St. Paul that “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His Body, that is, the Church” (Col 1:24).

The infinite mercy of God the Father is neither compromised nor obscured by Mary Co-redemptrix. To the contrary, Mary Co-redemptrix magnifies the Lord and her spirit rejoices in God her savior.

For those of you who are convinced that the Immaculata is the Co-redemptrix, I invite you to join your name to Mother Teresa, St. Maximilian and the more than 7 million Catholic brothers and sisters who have already sent in their petitions to the Holy Father asking that he solemnly define the doctrine that Mary is Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate – the Spiritual Mother of all humanity.

I sent my petition to Pope Benedict XVI one year ago today. To sign the online petition or for instructions on how to mail yours in today, go to FifthMarianDogma.com.

Demographic Winter: Check Out This Trailer!

I have a feeling that this may be the most important documentary since Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. After just having gone through the pregnancy process with my wife and being surrounded by contraception propaganda literally on every side, I understand why there is no wonder why this documentary is so necessary.

Without further adieu, the trailer:

Unfortunately, I do not think this is available for viewing in theaters, but it may be purchased from the Demographic Winter Web site.

Zenit: Vatican Opposes Discrimination Against Homosexuals

The Vatican is taking a lot of heat for opposing decriminalization of homosexuality. Here is a brief commentary from Fr. Federico Lombardi explaining the position.

Vatican Opposes Discrimination Against Homosexuals
Spokesman Restates Teaching After Holy See Criticized

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 2, 2008 (Zenit.org)—Contrary to the way the media paints the picture, the Holy See is against the discrimination of homosexuals, clarified a Vatican spokesman.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, said this in response to Italian press reports on an interview with Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations. The archbishop told a news agency that the Holy See would not support an expected French proposal for a U.N. resolution to decriminalize homosexuality. The prelate explained that the initiative could include at the same time the imposition of homosexual marriage in national law.

Father Lombardi clarified that refusal to support the proposal does not imply support for discrimination against homosexuals.

"Obviously no one wants to defend the death penalty for homosexuals, as some would insinuate," he said.

"The well-known principles of respect for the fundamental rights of the person and the rejection of all unjust discrimination—recognized clearly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself—evidently exclude not only the death penalty, but all violent or discriminatory penal legislations in relation to homosexuals," the spokesman stated.

Paragraph No. 2358 of the Catechism affirms: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (my emphasis)

Now then, Father Lombardi continued, the proposed resolution from France does not seek solely the "decriminalization of homosexuality."

He explained: "Rather it moreover introduces a declaration of political value that could result in systems of control, according to which, every norm—not only legal, but also related to the life of social or religious groups—which does not place every sexual orientation on exactly the same level could be considered as contrary to respect of human rights.

"This could clearly become an instrument of pressure or discrimination against those who, just to put a very clear example, consider marriage between a man and a woman to be the fundamental and original form of social life, and as such, [believe] that it should have a privileged place."

Furthermore, the priest noted, the Vatican is hardly alone in rejecting the possible resolution.

"It is not coincidence that less that 50 member states of the United Nations have adhered to this proposal," he said, "while more than 150 have not. The Holy See is not the only one."

A closing thought following-up on this article: Society is moving toward total ignorance of the philosophy of natural law. Civil law has no grounds to assert itself over natural law. Natural law is greater. For instance, natural law keeps murder in the objectively immoral order for all civilizations of all time. No civil law could justify its legalization. No civil law can legislate that which is objectively immoral; hence the Vatican opposition here.

Modern political structures through civil law have again and again asserted themselves over natural law, and the result is clear – legalization of divorce, contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage. If civil law does not operate within natural law, we legislate toward unknown horrors.

Consider what it means, and it is worth pondering, to consider the implications of “there is no such thing as an objective moral order.” The total relativization of morality and its subjugation to civil authorities is tragic for all of society and must be opposed in all its gradualism.