(Reuters) Pope Francis, ending
a contentious bishops' meeting on family issues, on Saturday excoriated
immovable Church leaders who "bury their heads in the sand" and hide
behind rigid doctrine while families suffer...
In his final address, the pope appeared to
criticize ultra-conservatives, saying Church leaders should confront
difficult issues "fearlessly, without burying our heads in the sand."
He
said the synod had "laid bare the closed hearts which frequently hide
even behind the Church's teachings or good intentions, in order to sit
in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and
superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families"...
The synod document did offer some hope for the
full re-integration into the Church of some Catholics who divorce and
remarry in civil ceremonies.
Under
current Church doctrine they cannot receive communion unless they
abstain from sex with their new partner, because their first marriage is
still valid in the eyes of the Church and they are seen to be living in
an adulterous state of sin.
They
only way such Catholics can remarry is if they receive an annulment, a
ruling that their first marriage never existed in the first place
because of the lack of certain pre-requisites such as psychological
maturity or free will.
The
document spoke of a so-called "internal forum" in which a priest or a
bishop may work with a Catholic who has divorced and remarried to decide
jointly, privately and on a case-by-case basis if he or she can be
fully re-integrated.
"In order for this
happen, the necessary conditions of humility, discretion, love for the
Church and her teachings must be guaranteed in a sincere search for
God's will," the document said.
Tally
sheets showed that the three articles on the divorced and re-married
were the most fought-over, reaching the two-thirds majority needed to
remain in the document by only a few votes each. One passed by only one
vote... (continued)
ROME, October 16, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago — who is participating in the Synod of the Family at Pope Francis’ personal invitation — said at a press scrum in the Vatican press office this afternoon that the conscience is "inviolable" and that he believes divorced and remarried couples could be permitted to receive the sacraments, if they have "come to a decision" to do so "in good conscience" - theological reasoning that he indicated in response to a follow-up question would also apply to gay couples.
During the lengthy press briefing, the archbishop also spoke approvingly of the so-called "Kasper Proposal," which would permit divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion in some cases. Cupich explained that he had distributed Cardinal Walter Kasper's book, The Gospel of the Family, in which the cardinal had laid out this proposal, to all of the priests in his diocese.
“In Chicago I visit regularly with people who feel marginalized: the elderly, the divorced and remarried, gay and lesbian individuals and also couples. I think that we really need to get to know what their life is like if we’re going to accompany them,” he said.
When asked to give a concrete example of how he would accompany the divorced and remarried in their desire to receive the sacraments, Cupich replied: “If people come to a decision in good conscience then our job is to help them move forward and to respect that. The conscience is inviolable and we have to respect that when they make decisions, and I’ve always done that.”
When asked by LifeSiteNews if the notion of accompanying people to "the Sacrament" who had a clear indication of conscience to do so also applied to gay couples in the Church, Cupich indicated an affirmative answer... (continued)
The Holy Father asked for forgiveness for the scandals in the Church,
without mentioning which scandals, it could be the latest episode of
Vatileaks or more likely the removal two Discalced Carmelites, one of
whom accused the other of homosexual acts after a male prostitute spent
several months in hospital after being beaten up, and of course the
opening scandal of the Synod with that CDF Monsignor 'coming out'.
Presumably what he is not asking for forgiveness for is the pro-Gay Fr
Rosica fronting the English language section of the media briefings who
seems to introduce at every opportunity or Abbot Jeremias Schröder who
took part in this mornings briefings wants and the issue of
homosexuality to be delegated to local bishops' conferences to decide,
who has himself long called for the Church to bless homosexual unions,
nor Archbishop Forte who added pro-gay clauses to the Relatio of the
extra-ordinary Synod last year and is on committee that will oversea the
final document - which may or may not be published.
Some have suggested this should be called the 'Gay Synod', rather than
the Synod on the Family, what is more than apparent is that what was
once a shadowy lobby is now front and centre out of the lobby and
sitting in the drawing room. The Synod presenters, if not the
discussions themselves, seem to be obsessed by the homosexual issue... (continued)
(Politico) Scott Walker stumbled over his own prior comments Wednesday, saying
that when he called on the Boy Scouts to reinstate a ban on gay leaders
because it “protected children,” he meant the ban protected them from
media scrutiny.
“The protection was not a physical protection,” Walker said Wednesday at an event in South Carolina, according
to The New York Times. Rather, the Wisconsin governor continued, he was
referring to “protecting them from being involved in the very thing
you’re talking about right now, the political and media discussion about
it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about
camping and citizenship and things of that nature.”
The Wisconsin Republican added that, ultimately, whether or not to reinstate the ban is “up to the Boy Scouts.”
The comments came after the Independent Journal Review, in a report
Tuesday, quoted Walker as saying he supported the Boy Scouts’ previous
membership policy “because it protected children and advanced Scout
values...” (continued)
(The Cardinal Newman Society) A Catholic school in Macon, Ga., is facing a federal discrimination lawsuit from a former teacher whose employment was terminated in 2014 after the school found that he would be legally marrying his same-sex partner.
“The argument being made in this suit—that a Catholic school’s commitment to upholding Catholic teaching on marriage is discriminatory toward homosexual employees—is a grave threat to Catholic education,” said Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.
“A Catholic school exists for the very purpose of teaching the faith and forming young people for God,” he continued. “The implication is that our religion itself, rooted in love and true concern for the good of the person and the common good, is discriminatory because it upholds standards of morality and natural law.”
The teacher, Flint Dollar, taught music at Mount de Sales Academy for three years before his termination on May 21, 2014. The Telegraph reported that Dollar informed the school of his upcoming same-sex marriage when he signed the contract for the 2014-2015 term on May 1, 2014.
According to Breitbart, Dollar argued that “he was fired because of his marriage plans and [because] he didn’t comport with the school’s ‘traditional gender stereotypes.’” An investigation by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reportedly determined “that ‘there is reasonable cause to conclude’ that Dollar had been discriminated against based on his sexual orientation.”
“The suit seeks a jury trial, saying that the school acted with malice or reckless indifference to Dollar’s federally protected rights. Dollar seeks back pay, reinstatement to his job, compensation for his emotional pain and suffering, and attorney’s fees,” reports Breitbart.. (continued)
A young city boy on his first camping trip awoke his father at dawn and
said, as he gazed out of his tent, “Look, Dad, the sun is rising just
like on TV.” Our present generation, of which we are privileged to be a
laggard part, does not find it easy to distinguish actuality from
artifice. In the background is a reluctance to acknowledge that an
impression of reality is not the same as reality itself. This is
symptomatic of what Pope Benedict XVI called the “dictatorship of
relativism.”
By that he meant the notion absorbed by people
bereft of logic, that what one wants something to be, comes to be simply
by the wanting. This has immediate and desultory influence on moral
conduct. So, like the little boy who thought that the real sun looked
like the cartoon sun on television (or, like the nice woman who told me
that the altar flowers were so lovely that she though they were
artificial), people may reject the concrete facts of nature and posture
that their desires are legitimate just because they are desired. A lurid
example of this is the redefinition of marriage to make that organic
and divine institution nothing more than a fantasy of one’s arrested
emotional development, the product of a plebiscite, and the opinion of
judges in solemn robes. Polls and parliaments are willing tyrants when
the mob consents to be tyrannized by their opinions and decrees.
G.K. Chesterton gently slapped his readers back to reality from
egoistic comas when he wrote in his A Short History of England: “To have
the right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing
it.” So when someone says, “I am free to do what I want with my body,”
you may be impelled by charity and justice to reply that he is indeed so
free, but if he defies the law of gravity, the pavement quickly will be
of a different opinion, and if he says there is no difference between a
man and a woman, two shades named Adam and Eve will rise up with
mocking smiles.
Those who have long sipped the intoxicating
nectar of false perception may hesitate to draw a line between desire
and dogma, fabrication and fact. If reality is nothing more than the
visible costume of an impression, impressive tyrants will orchestrate
that fantasy from their balconies, with rhetoric to mold malleable
minds. The long legacy of demagoguery attests that weak points persuade
people if the points are shouted loudly enough to overwhelm reason.
Opinion polls shout, and network “talking heads” shout, and Internet
pundits shout, but then there is a “still small voice” that does not
fade away: the long and logical echo of “Fiat Lux” uttered by the real
Creator of the real universe.
BELFAST (Reuters) - A Northern Ireland bakery owned by devout Christians who refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan was found guilty of discrimination in Belfast on Tuesday and fined.
The case has become heavily politicized in Northern Ireland with members of the province's largest political party, the Democratic Unionist Party, proposing the introduction of a Conscience Clause Bill to allow the withholding of services on grounds of religious belief.
Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, a member of the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein, welcomed the judgment as "a good result for equality".
Gay rights activist Gareth Lee took Ashers Baking Company in Belfast to court in a civil action after it canceled his order for a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" on it. The case was funded by the British province's Equality Commission.
The firm initially accepted the order but later contacted Lee to cancel it and refund his money. Lee told a court hearing over three days in March that the bakery's refusal made him feel "unworthy" and "a lesser person".
Speaking outside the court just before the judgment on Tuesday, bakery owner Daniel McArthur said: "We happily serve everyone but we cannot promote a cause that goes against what the Bible says about marriage."
In her judgment, District Judge Isobel Brownlie said that while the defendants had a right to religious beliefs "they are limited as to how they manifest them".
For it to be otherwise "would be to allow religious belief to dictate what the law is," she added.
The court found that Ashers had discriminated against Lee on the grounds of his sexual orientation as well as his political beliefs and ordered the bakery to pay £500 ($776).
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 29, 2015, (LifeSiteNews.com)
– If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex “marriage” is a
constitutional right, one justice has said that the government could
force clergy of all denominations to perform gay “weddings” or lose the
ability to officiate any state-sanctioned marriage.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges,
the case that will decide whether the Constitution forbids states from
upholding marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Among the
exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly noted that if the High
Court finds same-sex "marriage" is a constitutional right, then priests,
ministers, rabbis, and imams will be required to perform such
ceremonies – regardless of their religious beliefs – or face state
penalties.
Justice Scalia repeatedly suggested that once a constitutional right
to marry by same-sex couples was enshrined by the court, a member of the
clergy could not be given civil marriage powers by the state unless he
agreed to perform any and all marriages that the nation legally
recognizes.
"Every state allows ministers to marry people, and their marriages
are effective under state law,” Scalia said. “That will not be the case
if, indeed, we hold, as a constitutional matter, that the state must
marry two men."
As it stands, most clergy serve a dual role, celebrating church
nuptials but also signing legal documents allowing the state to legally
recognize that marriage. But if they refuse to conduct same-sex rituals,
government officials may strip clergy of their state legal standing,
rendering their marriages legally invalid in the eyes of the state
government.
He said he was reticent to give the power to compel someone to
violate his conscience to the State. “I'm concerned about the wisdom of
this court imposing through the Constitution a requirement of action
which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons,"
Scalia said. He noted that most religious denominations "are not likely
to change their view about what marriage consists of."
Justice Scalia noted the key difference between state laws, which can
make exceptions for religious beliefs, and finding a right to gay
"marriage" in the Constitution, which would allow no exceptions.
"Were
the states to [redefine marriage] by law, they could make exceptions to
what is required for same-sex marriage, who has to honor it, and so
forth. But once it's made a matter of constitutional law...is it
conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct
marriage can decline to marry two men? Is it conceivable that that would
be allowed?"
His question was rebuffed by some of the court's liberal justices,
who pointed to the "free exercise of religion" clause in the Bill of
Rights – but it was not answered.
Unsatisfied, Justice Scalia continued to explain that same-sex
"marriage" bans in the states "are laws. They are not constitutional
requirements. If you let the states [redefine marriage], you can make a
[religious] exception. The state can say, 'Yes, two men can marry — but
ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage will still be
authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the state.' You can’t do
that once it is a constitutional proscription."
A devout Roman Catholic, Scalia said that no religious exception can
be allowed for a constitutional right. A minister "is not given the
state’s power, unless he agrees to use that power in accordance with the
Constitution. You can’t appoint people who will then go ahead and
violate the Constitution.”
"I don't see how you could possibly allow that minister to say, 'I
will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry two men,'" Scalia
said.
“I don't see any answer to that,” the justice said. “I really don't."
He also drew a subtle but clear attention to the fact that the
ultimate impact would be to favor liberal denominations, like the
Episcopal Church, over traditional ones like the Roman Catholic Church.
"You could have ministers who conduct real marriages that are civilly
enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthew's
downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and
therefore, cannot be given the state power to make a real state
marriage.” The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes told Fox News' Bret
Baier that a ruling in favor of same-sex "marriage" would leave
religious liberties vulnerable.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Todd Starnes it’s now “open season on Americans who refuse to bow to the government’s redefinition of marriage.”
Many Christian leaders are concerned that if the Supreme Court finds
same-sex "marriage" a constitutional right, they will be forced to
disobey federal law – and, like the civil rights protesters of the
1960s, accept the legal consequences that follow.
Such a scenario is not new. In 2014, two Christian ministers who own
an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex
"weddings" or face a 180-day jail sentence and a $1,000 a day fine. The
ministers sued and won, this time.
"The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jeremy Tedesco said. “The reality is it’s already happening.”
(Fox News) A
Navy chaplain who faces the end of a stellar 19-year career because of
his faith-based views on marriage and human sexuality was told by a base
commander to refrain from offering a prayer in the name of Jesus,
according to attorneys representing the chaplain.
That allegation was tucked away in an 18-page letter written to the
commander of Navy Region Southeast by Liberty Institute attorneys
representing Chaplain Wesley Modder. Liberty Institute is a law firm
that specializes in religious liberty cases.
Liberty Institute asserts that Chaplain Modder’s fate could have a significant impact on every Christian military chaplain.
The letter included the results of Liberty Institute’s investigation
of allegations levied against the chaplain by Captain John Fahs.
Last December, an openly gay officer at the Naval Nuclear Power
Training Command in South Carolina, took offense at Modder’s take on
homosexuality. The chaplain, who is endorsed by the Assemblies of God,
was accused of discrimination and failing to show tolerance and respect –
among other things.
Just a few months earlier, Modder’s commander had called him the
“best of the best” and a consummate professional leader.” But now he’s
on the verge of being kicked out of the military.
“After our investigation, it is clear that the facts and law are on
Chaplain Modder’s side,” Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry said.
“He has done nothing more than provide ministerial services in
accordance with the precepts of his faith – which is completely
consistent with Navy rules and federal law.”
Their letter is a point by point repudiation of the allegations
against the highly respected chaplain – a man who once led chaplains who
ministered to Navy SEALs.
“We believe the Navy will exonerate Chaplain Modder and restore him
to continue his true calling of ministering to sailors and Marines as he
has done for the past 15 years,” Berry said.
Liberty Institute maintains that Modder’s private counseling on
issues involving human sexuality and same-sex marriage were consistent
with the beliefs of his endorsing agency – the Assemblies of God.
“As a result of honoring the tenets of his endorsing denomination, he
now faces the loss of his employment and removal from the Navy,”
Liberty Institute wrote.
While Chaplain Modder specifically denies accusations that he used
inappropriate language or gestures, he does admit to providing answers
to questions from a Biblical world view.
“On occasion and only when asked, he expressed his sincerely held
religious belief that sexual acts outside of marriage are contrary to
biblical teaching; homosexual conduct is contrary to biblical teaching
and homosexual orientation or temptation as distinct from conduct is not
a sin,” Liberty Institute wrote.
They also reminded the Navy that Department of Defense regulations allow Chaplain Modder to hold religious beliefs.
“Navy chaplains are never required to compromise the standards of
their religious organization, but are required to perform in a
pluralistic environment,” they wrote.
That brings me back to the moment when Chaplain Modder was told he could not pray in the name of Jesus Christ.
Liberty Institute alleges it happened shortly after Modder assumed
chaplaincy responsibilities at the training command. He was asked to
deliver an invocation at a ceremony.
As he was walking to the lectern, Fahs is alleged to have told him to
deep-six the Jesus talk – “counsel that Chaplain Modder accepted and
with which he complied.”
Chaplain Modder’s fate could have a significant impact on every Christian military chaplain, asserts Liberty Institute.
Taking action, they argue, “Would send a dangerous message that other
chaplains who share his beliefs – the vast majority of military
chaplains – may also suffer adverse personnel actions and would have a
profound chilling effect on any chaplain who seeks to provide biblical
care.”
And if the Navy silences chaplains – they could certainly silence sailors.
“If the Navy can remove a chaplain who expresses his religious
beliefs, then service members who share those beliefs will believe that
they, too, are unwelcome in the Navy,” Liberty Institute wrote.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), the newest and youngest official Republican candidate for president, has said he believes marriage should be “traditional”—between a man and a woman.
So Fusion’s Jorge Ramos asked him: If someone in his family or on his staff were gay and getting married, would he attend the wedding?
“If it’s somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would,” Rubio told Ramos in an interview on Wednesday.
“I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be,” he added. “Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them...” (continued)
NEW YORK, March 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan led Manhattan’s St. Patrick’s Day parade on Tuesday as grand marshal, despite backlash
from faithful Catholics unhappy with the organizers’ decision to allow
an openly homosexual activist group to march in the event.
“I’m as radiant as the sun, so thanks be to God for the honor and the
joy,” said Cardinal Dolan on Tuesday morning, as he led 250,000
marchers down Fifth Avenue – including a delegation from “Out @ NBC
Universal,” a group of gay activists who work for NBC, the network that
televises the parade.
Catholic commentator Michael Voris and his team from ChurchMilitant.TV were present at the parade and were able to question Dolan
on his decision during a press scrum. “Your Eminence, do you have
anything to say to the loyal Catholics who find what you’re doing here a
great scandal to the faith?” Voris asked.
“No, come on in. We’d love to have you,” Dolan replied.
Voris reports that he and his cameraman were then removed from the press scrum, providing video of an official telling them to leave, and then calling police over to escort them out of the area.
Both the parade’s organizers and Cardinal Dolan drew criticism
from faithful Catholics last year by approving Out@NBC Universal’s
request to march in this year’s parade, under a banner that makes
reference to their homosexuality. The controversial decision prompted
the Catholic League and at least one Catholic school to pull out of the parade, while nearly 5,000 people signed a petition urging Cardinal Dolan to withdraw from the event as a show of support for Catholic teaching forbidding homosexual behavior.
New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan responds to a question about
his decision to serve as grand marshal at the St. Patrick's Day Parade.
ChurchMilitant.tvBut the cardinal refused to back down, expressing support
for the group’s inclusion. “I have no trouble with the decision at
all,” Cardinal Dolan said at a press conference announcing his
appointment as grand marshal. “I think the decision is a wise one.”
Meanwhile, the parade’s organizers further upset rank-and-file Catholics by refusing to let a pro-life group march, saying they didn’t want to risk taking attention away from the gay group.
“That won’t be happening,” parade committee vice chairman John Lahey
said of the pro-life group’s request to march. “What we want to do is
keep 2015 focused on the gesture of goodwill we made towards the gay
community with the inclusion of OUT@NBCUniversal.”
For the second year in a row, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio
refused to attend, saying that despite all the controversy, the
organizers behind the celebration of Ireland’s patron saint haven’t done
enough to make the event gay-friendly.
According to the mayor, while he saw the inclusion of a single
homosexual group as “progress,” he won’t participate in the parade until
it is “open to [homosexual groups] who would like to participate who
don't happen to work for NBC."
"Having only one delegation associated with one company that allows
members of the LGBT community is, obviously, a pretty narrow
concession," said de Blasio, after marching in the gay-oriented “St.
Pat's for All” parade in Queens on Sunday. "We'd like to see something
that's more inclusive."
"I will not be marching [in Tuesday’s parade], but I look forward to
progress in the future," de Blasio stated, at an unrelated press
conference the following day. "I do think the first step was taken this
year and I'm hopeful that soon there'll be others taken."
It seems likely that de Blasio’s hopes will be realized. While at
least one homosexual group was turned away from participating in this
year’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, organizers were quick to note that it
was simply a matter of the available slots having been filled prior to
the group’s application to march, and said homosexual groups were
“welcome” to apply for slots in 2016’s parade.
Meanwhile, a number of Catholics disillusioned by the organizers’
actions offered an alternative event on Tuesday at Church of the Holy
Innocents, not far from the festivities on Fifth Avenue.
Proudly on
display was the Children First Foundation’s “Choose Life” banner – the
same one that was rejected by parade organizers. The event, dubbed the
“St. Patrick’s Day Lenten Pilgrimage,” included four Masses, the
opportunity for Confession, and a prayer vigil for unborn children.
(KVUE) AUSTIN -- Hours after the Travis County clerk issued the state's
first same-sex marriage license, Texas' attorney general said the
marriage is void.
Attorney General Ken Paxton said Thursday the Texas Supreme Court granted his request to stay two court rulings declaring Texas' ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
"The
Court's action upholds our state constitution and stays these rulings
by activist judges in Travis County," Paxton said in a statement. "The
same-sex marriage license issued by the Travis County Clerk is void,
just as any license issued in violation of state law would be. I will
continue to defend the will of the people of Texas, who have defined
marriage as between one man and one woman, against any judicial activism
or overreach."
According to the Travis County Clerk's office,
Judge David Wahlberg signed a state court order from the 167th District
Court to Travis County Clerk Dana Debeauvoir on Thursday, commanding
Debeauvoir to "cease and desist relying on the unconstitutional Texas
prohibitions against same-sex marriage as a basis for not issuing a
marriage license specifically to Plaintiffs Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne
Bryant," due to the fact that Goodfriend has ovarian cancer... (continued)
(NY Daily News) Their group was the elephant in the room.
For the first time ever, a delegation of American gay and lesbian
Catholics were in the VIP seats at a public papal audience in the
Vatican.
Pope Francis did not mention New Ways Ministry in his remarks Wednesday.
They were identified on the list of attendees only as a “group of lay people accompanied by a Sister of Loreto.”
And when a Vatican official read out the list of the groups that made
the pilgrimage to St. Peter’s Square, he skipped over them altogether.
But they were there. And veteran Vatican watcher David Gibson says that is a very big deal.
“It’s a substantial change of direction for the Catholic Church, not
just a symbolic move,” Gibson, of the Religion News Service, told The
Daily News.
“In the past, such groups or individuals would never be formally
acknowledged in any way — not even a response to a letter — for fear
that some could view such an attitude as approval,” he said. “Now
Francis is saying the Church must cast aside such fears...”
New Ways honcho Francis DeBernardo said they were thrilled to have been invited.
“We didn’t get the shout-out, but we were very, very close,” DeBernardo told The Associated Press.
New Ways co-founder Sister Jeannine Gramick said, “Pope Francis gives me hope.
“To me, this is an example of the kind of willingness he has to welcome
those on the fringes of the church back to the center of the church,”
she said.
Gramick would know.
Back in 1999, she defied an order to stop ministering to gay Catholics
from the Vatican’s chief liturgical watchdog, who concluded that she
didn’t sufficiently adhere to church teaching on the “intrinsic evil” of
homosexual acts.
That watchdog was the future Pope Benedict.
DeBernardo told the AP he had tried twice before to get his group VIP
seats to a papal audience — and each time he was turned down.
This time, both the Vatican ambassador in Washington and the archbishop of San Francisco forwarded the group’s request to Rome.
And in another sign that the Vatican might be shifting course, the
bigwig who invited New Ways to sit up front was none other than
Benedict’s right-hand man, Msgr. Georg Gaenswein.
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's chief justice, who famously refused to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a state judicial building, has urged probate judges to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples even though a federal judge ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional.
Related Stories
Roy Moore sent a letter to Alabama probate judges on Tuesday saying they are not bound by the ruling because they were not defendants in the lawsuit and have not been directly ordered to issue the licenses. He said the federal court did not have the authority to allow same-sex marriages.
"No federal judge, or court, should redefine marriage," Moore said in an interview Wednesday.
Moore said state courts, including probate courts, have the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution independently, just like lower federal courts do, and the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve disputes over those interpretations.
The fiery Republican judge is no stranger to controversial remarks about homosexuality and the decisions of federal judges. Moore was removed as Alabama chief justice in 2003 after he refused to obey what he called an "unlawful" federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state judicial building. Moore in 2002 called homosexuality "an inherent evil" in ruling against a lesbian mother in a child custody case.
Moore, who was re-elected in 2012, said he sent the letter to offer advice to probate judges because of confusion over the federal ruling. However, a legal group that has clashed with Moore in the past says he is the one trying to incite chaos. And Moore's advice is contrary to that of the Alabama Probate Judges Association, which said last week that the decision is binding on the state's probate judges.
U.S. District Judge Callie Granade's order striking down the state's ban on gay marriage will go into effect Monday unless the U.S. Supreme Court grants Alabama's request for a delay. Gay couples are expected to apply for marriage licenses across Alabama that day.
Granade clarified her first order, saying the judges have a constitutional duty to issue the licenses. But she stopped short of ordering them to do so.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the group that filed the complaint that led to Moore's ouster in 2003, filed a new judicial ethics complaint over his comments about the gay marriage ruling.
"Justice Moore is, I think, a dangerous person. He's created a crisis in the state before. He just seems hell-bent determined to do it again," said Richard Cohen, president of the SPLC.
Cohen said judges who refuse to issue licenses risk being sued and were being led into "very, very hot water by suggesting they ignore Judge Granade's order."
But Moore said it was his duty as head of the court system to try to help judges sort out the issues.
"I can't tell them how to think. I can't tell them how to interpret the Constitution. I can say that they are obliged to follow the Alabama Constitution and nothing prevents that," Moore said. "To disobey the Alabama Constitution would be to ignore the 81 percent of the people in this state that adopted the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment."
While Pope Francis has been silent about
many of the controversial matters being debated at the Synod, both in
the lead-up to the Synod and in the Synod Hall, veteran Vatican watchers
say he has been obliquely making his views known through other avenues,
including through some of his close advisors, as well his homilies at
his private morning masses.
When it comes to advisors, none have sparked more speculation than
Cardinal Walter Kasper, with debate swirling for months about whether
Pope Francis himself personally supports Cardinal Kasper’s controversial
proposal to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion
in some circumstances.
While the cardinal himself has repeatedly claimed the pope’s support,
and Francis has repeatedly praised the cardinal on a personal level and
his writing in general, no explicit confirmation of the pope’s position
on the specific issue has been forthcoming. But in an explosive interview yesterday
Kasper was arguably more explicit than ever before, bluntly telling
Edward Pentin of Zenit that the pontiff “wants” the change. "Of course,
the pope wants it and the world needs it," he said.
If so, it is hard to interpret a homily from Pope Francis on the
morning of October 13, 2014, the day the controversial “mid-term” report
was released, creating a firestorm inside and outside the Synod, as anything other than the pope strongly hinting at his views on this, and possibly other controversies at the ongoing Synod.
Indeed, even consummate Vatican journalist John Allen of the Boston
Globe agreed, writing: “In his usual impromptu homily at morning Mass
(Monday), Pope Francis seemed to prepare the ground for the (interim
report), and the conflicting reactions it was destined to stir, by
delivering a strong rebuke to rigid legalists of all stripes.”
During the homily,
Pope Francis spoke of the “Doctors of the Law” who were “unable to
understand the signs of the times.” They were, he said, “closed within
their system, they had perfectly systemized the law, it was a
masterpiece.
“Every Jew knew what they could do and what they could not do, how
far they could go. It was all systemized. And they were safe there."
The pope noted that the Doctors of the Law "did not like” Jesus, he
“was dangerous; doctrine was in danger, the doctrine of the law” which
the theologians had formulated over the centuries. Pope Francis said
that while the theologians had "done this out of love, to be faithful
to God," they had become “closed", they had "simply forgotten history.
They had forgotten that God is the God of the Law, but He is also the
God of surprises."
Seeming to address one of the major sub themes of the Synod, that
doctrine will never change, but pastoral practice should, Pope Francis
said: "They did not understand that God is the God of surprises, that
God is always new; He never denies himself, never says that what He said
was wrong, never, but He always surprises us. They did not understand
this and they closed themselves within that system that was created with
the best of intentions.”
But while the pope seemed to frame the controversies of the Synod as a
dispute between legalists and those who are open to God’s “surprises,”
leading Synod Fathers who are concerned about attempts to change
long-standing Church practice and teaching, have been arguing that the
controversy is ultimately about whether or not the Church will conform “to the mentality of today’s world.”
Numerous Vatican Synod Fathers have voiced grave concerns both within and without the Synod hall over the last few days that the Synod mid-term report has indeed endangered assurance of doctrinal security, and with potentially grave consequences.
Most recently, Australian Cardinal George Pell said:
"In seeking to be merciful, some want to open up Catholic teaching on
marriage, divorce, civil unions, homosexuality in a radically
liberalising direction, whose fruits we see in other Christian
traditions.” He urged, “the task now is to reassure good practising
Catholics that doctrinal changes are not possible; to urge people to
take a deep breath, pause and to work to prevent deeper divisions and
radicalising of factions.”
His remarks echo the even more blunt words of Cardinal Raymond Burke,
who himself directly addressed Pope Francis in his criticisms of the
Synod’s mid-term report, saying that a statement from the pope strongly
re-affirming Church teaching is “long overdue.”
“The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of
Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding
marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church,” he added.
The mid-term report, he said, proposes views that many Synod fathers
“cannot accept,” and that they “as faithful shepherds of the flock
cannot accept.”
The push to radically alter so-called “pastoral practice” without
simultaneously affecting doctrine is not possible. One African bishop
who was appraised of the situation at the Synod reportedly wept at the
proposals on the table. “Oh my God, what are they doing? The people will
soon get hold of declarations like these and they'll prefer to become
evangelicals or even Muslims than remain Catholic! What are they doing
in Rome? Oh my God, oh my God!,” he declared.
It’s not the first time the pope has seemed to address tensions of
the Synod in his morning homilies. Before the official launch of the
Synod, while various polarized positions were being laid out in the
media via book releases and such, Pope Francis sounded a remarkably
similar tone to Monday’s homily.
“It’s the ruling class which closes the door to God’s way of salvation,” Pope Francis said, referring to Church leaders, in the homily at his private Mass on October 4.
“This attitude is quite different from that of the people of God, who
understand and accept salvation brought to them through Jesus,” he
added. “Their leaders, on the other hand, reduce salvation to the
fulfilment of the 613 commandments they have created through their
intellectual and theological fervour.”
“These leaders,” the pope said, “don’t believe in mercy and
forgiveness but simply in sacrifices.” He urged asking ourselves: “How
do I want to be saved? On my own? Through a spirituality which is good,
but fixed and clear so that there are no risks? Or following the
footsteps of Jesus who always surprises us, opening doors to that
mystery of God’s mercy and pardon?”
That homily too was interpreted by veteran Vatican watchers as Pope
Francis staking out a position on the matters of the Synod. “The Pope
has hinted in homilies, addresses and interviews,” said the Telegraph’s
Vatican correspondent Nick Squires, “that he is in favour of adopting a
more ‘merciful’ approach towards remarried divorcees who want to receive
the Sacrament.”
Apparently the bishops at the Synod are tired of being manipulated.
They created a little lÃo of their own.
In full view of the Pope, they rose up pretty much as a body and
rebelled against the way Card.
Baldisseri, who seems to be the chief
architect of what may have been a pre-determined agenda, has been
handling them.
The General Secretary of the Synod [Card. Balidsseri] announced the decision not to publish the reports of the Circuli Minores [subcommittees by language groups, tasked with contributing elements to the final report]. The announcement provoked the protest of Card. Erdo [the president or chairman for this Synod],
and numerous other Synodal Fathers. The Pope, silent and very serious.
At last, Fr. Lombardi announced that the reports of the commissions
would be made public.
[...]
Erdo took the floor, implicitly distancing himself from the report
that bore his name, and saying that if that “disceptatio” had been made
public, then the others of the Circulo Minores ought to be made public.
His speech was followed by an avalanche from many others along the same line, underscored by thunderous applause.
The Secretary of the Synod, Card. Balidisseri, was watching the Pope,
as if in search of advice and lights, and the Pope remained silent and
very serious.
Silent also were the Under-secretaries of the Synod, Fabene, Forte, Schoenborn and Maradiaga. [What a list.]
Kasper wasn’t there.
Finally, Fr. Lombardi announced that the reports of the Commission would be made public.
This is a big deal because the bishops didn’t simply roll over and let the appointees running the Synod run them over.... (continued)
A young city boy on his first camping trip awoke his father at dawn and
said, as he gazed out of his tent, “Look, Dad, the sun is rising just
like on TV.” Our present generation, of which we are privileged to be a
laggard part, does not find it easy to distinguish actuality from
artifice. In the background is a reluctance to acknowledge that an
impression of reality is not the same as reality itself. This is
symptomatic of what Pope Benedict XVI called the “dictatorship of
relativism.”
NEW YORK, March 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan led Manhattan’s St. Patrick’s Day parade on Tuesday as grand marshal, despite backlash
from faithful Catholics unhappy with the organizers’ decision to allow
an openly homosexual activist group to march in the event.
Apparently the bishops at the Synod are tired of being manipulated.