10 July 2008

Benedict XVI: Unlikely Centre of Attraction

Unlikely centre of attraction

Pope Benedict XVI has a mysterious but very genuine appeal for Gen Y. A woman who is one of Australia's leading theologians explains why.
The celebration of World Youth Day, which must be the largest gathering of young people on the planet, begins next week in Sydney. It is expected to draw 500,000 people from Australia and around the world. At its centre is Pope Benedict XVI.

To understand why an 81-year-old cleric has such pulling power with the younger set, MercatorNet interviewed Dr Tracey Rowland, whose book Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, has just been published by Oxford University Press. According to Sydney’s Cardinal George Pell, "It is a sign of the times and a portent of the future that this excellent volume was written by a young married woman" well on her way to "becoming Australia's leading theologian".

Read the interview here.

+++

http://www.mercatornet.com/ is a forum well worth reading. It is based in Australia but carries quite a few articles from contributors elsewhere, especially in Canada.

08 July 2008

‘Toddlers who dislike spicy food “racist”’

When I was in primary school in Dublin back in the 1950s there was only one Chinese restaurant in the city that I was aware of. The bus I took to school passed near it and often enough we would make disparaging comments about the kind of food we imagined was being served there. We were used to traditional Irish food, nothing else. Now there are Chinese restaurants and ‘take-aways’ all over Ireland and I thank God for the great variety of dishes that we can enjoy from every part of the world.

I remember too on at least one occasion in the schoolyard, when I was 10 or 11, calling a classmate a ‘dirty Englishman’ or something to that effect. His family had migrated for a short while to England but had returned. However, we were, and whenever we meet, still are good friends.

This morning I discovered that as a kid I was a ‘racist’, without being aware of it, at least if the National Children’s Bureau, a government-sponsored group – to the tune of £12 million per year - in the UK, is to be believed. According to a report in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph (London), it ‘has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care. This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.’

The headline reads Toddlers who dislike spicy food racist. Maybe the headline writer was being racist in not writing Toddlers who dislike Yorkshire pudding racist.

Here in the Philippines I’ve more than once felt like strangling youngsters in Catholic schools who shout ‘Hi, Joe!’ at me. It rarely happens now. The term goes back to World War II and the American soldiers here who were known as ‘GI Joes’, a friendly term like that of ‘Tommy’ for British soldiers. But it’s not always used in a friendly manner here and would never be said by anyone to a person they knew. Only white people and black people are ever addressed in such a way. It's a putting aside of the normal courtesy towards anyone older in Philippine culture. In other words, it’s an expression of racism, though not very pernicious and, in the case of young children, totally unthinking.

I have a feeling that the members of the National Children’s Bureau in the UK are among the many who think that racism is a sin of white people only.

And as for saying ‘yuk’ to any kind of food, my mother simply wouldn’t tolerate it.

If toddlers in the UK who say 'yuk' to spicy food are 'racists', what term do we use for the legislators in Westminster who want to lift all legal restraints on abortion? Maybe their real purpose is to reduce the number of dangerous 'racists' under the age of 4.

If you have read my previous two posts you may be asking, as I am, 'Where are Canada, Spain and the UK headed?'

My brother's keeper or my keeper's brother?

It seems that at least some legislators in Spain don’t understand the old joke about the ape that escaped from a zoo. When captured, the ape had the Bible in one hand and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in the other. When asked why he was reading these two books the ape replied, ‘I’m trying to figure out whether I’m my brother’s keeper or my keeper’s brother.’

Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos, reported The Guardian on 26 June.

While this is still only a resolution, with cross-party supoport, aimed at preventing cruelty to apes in particular, the present Socialist government in Spain has already abolished the legal concept of 'father' and 'mother' with 'Progenitor 1' and 'Progenitor 2'.

CNA yesterday reported the reaction of one Spanish bishop.

Spanish bishop reacts to law granting rights to chimps and apes

Madrid, Jul 7, 2008 / 07:31 pm (CNA).- Bishop Jose Ignacio Munilla Aguirre of Palencia warned this week that Spain “is being used as a guinea pig for post-Marxist ideology that is characterized by its rebellion against the cultural roots of Europe, against Christian anthropology, against reason and against nature itself.”

In an article on the “Great Apes Project,” an initiative by Socialist and Green Party lawmakers granting rights to orangutans, chimpanzees and apes that the unborn are denied, the bishop warned that “Spain has become the first nation in the world to recognize three fundamental rights of man for apes: the right to life, the right to freedom and the right not to be tortured physically or psychologically.”

Read the full article here.

I wonder if Spain, the new soccer champions of Europe, will be represented next time by a team captained by an ape from Gibraltar or if the new Wimbledon Men's Single Champion, Rafael Nadal, a Spaniard, will lose the title next year to another of that species from the same place.

Bishop of Calgary challenges assaults on rights of Christians in Canada

Bishop Fred Henry of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, is not afraid to challenge 'politically correct' stances, especially when they result in injustice and stupidity. Here is an open letter of his to Premier Ed Stelmach of the Province of Alberta.

My emphases, my comments.



July 6, 2008

Dear Premier Stelmach:

I have raised the issue of the Alberta Human Rights Commission several times with you in the past eighteen months. On each of those occasions, you said that you understood the issues and shared my concerns. However, the situation is continuing to deteriorate across our country and the various levels of governments are seemingly non-responsive.

April 2008: The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered an evangelical Christian charity, Christian Horizons, to rescind its morality code and require employees to undergo anti-discriminatory training. In addition, Christian Horizons has been ordered to pay $23,000 plus lost wages for terminating Connie Heritz’s employment based on a morality code which she freely and knowingly signed as a condition of employment and which she failed to adhere to.

Every religious institution should have the jurisdictional independence to determine its own confessions, doctrines and ordinances, including conditions of employment.

May 2008: A Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal has fined a Regina marriage commissioner, Orville Nichols, $2,500 after finding he discriminated against a gay couple when he declined to perform their same-sex ceremony. Nichols, who has performed nearly 2,000 marriages since 1983, had referred the couple to another marriage commissioner because he said his religious beliefs (Baptist) kept him from performing the ceremony. In other words, he hadn’t prevented anyone from doing what the law allowed, but his own rights have not been respected.

The conflict between social pressure and the demands of right conscience can lead to the dilemma either of abandoning a profession or of compromising one's convictions. Faced with that tension, despite the ruling of the Commission, we must remember that there is a middle path which opens up before workers who are faithful to their conscience. It is the path of conscientious objection, which ought to be respected by all, especially legislators.

Every person has the right to have their religious beliefs reasonably accommodated.
Each judgment emanating out of our various Human Rights Commissions seems to be more brazen and bizarre than the one that preceded it. However, for inane stupidity and gross miscarriage of justice our own Alberta Human Rights Tribunal deserves to take first prize for its treatment of Stephen Boissoin.

June 2008: The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal fined Stephen Boissoin, $5,000.
Section 30 of the Alberta Human Rights Act states: “Evidence may be given before a human rights panel in any manner that the panel considers appropriate, and the panel is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence in judicial proceedings.” It would also seem that this panel is also not bound by reasonable argument or the elementary rules of logic but is free to skewer anyone not espousing and proclaiming politically correct views. Darren Lund, the complainant, said that Boissoin’s words in his 2002 letter to the Red Deer Advocate were hateful, and furthermore, an assault on a gay teenager three weeks later could be connected to them. No proof of either was presented. How often have we had advocates of ‘free speech’ deny that there is any connection between pornography and sexual violence in society.

Lori Andreachuk, the chairperson of the Tribunal, agreed that his words were “likely” to expose gays, “a vulnerable” group, to hatred due to their sexual orientation. No court in the land would connect the letter and the assault but this silly tribunal did.

Andreachuk acknowledged that “In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward...” However, she also wrote: “Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.” One might ask on what grounds?

She concluded that Boissoin “... shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00.” Lund wasn’t the victim of any kind of discrimination and yet he is handsomely paid, and subsequently, feted as Gay Pride Parade Marshall in Calgary.

The tribunal effectively stripped Boissoin of his right to freedom of speech. “Mr. Boissoin ..... shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” What is meant by “disparaging”? This is tantamount to ruling out honest debate and a plurality of views in the public sphere lest someone be offended by a differing viewpoint.

The tribunal decided to extract a further pound of flesh by way of public humiliation. “Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.” What happens if Lund is not satisfied with the apology?

Mr. Premier, we have talked enough about the inadequate provisions of and appointment to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunals, it is time to repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the Alberta Human Rights Act . ("No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.") and to protect the rights of religious freedom. Every person has the right to make public statements and participate in public debate on religious grounds.

Sincerely yours,

+ F. B. Henry
Bishop of Calgary.

YouTube re-posts pro-life video

Catholic News Agency (CNA) reported yesterday, 7 July, that YouTube has re-posted the pro-life video it had pulled last week.

This is good news.

07 July 2008

Confusion about murdered priest in Nepal clarified

The reports of the death of an Indian Salesian priest in Nepal have caused some confusion. Initial reports gave his name as John Prakash, while later bulletins said he was Fr Johnson Moyalan (one Salesian report giving both 'Moyalan' and 'Moylan' as his surname).
A later bulletin from Agenzia Info Salesiana clarifies that Fr Moyalan took the name 'John Prakash' when he went to Nepal. Here is the full report .

2/7/2008 - Nepal – The death of Fr Moyalan (ANS – Dharan) – The news of the killing of the Salesian Fr Johnson Moyalan, which happened in the early hours of yesterday at the mission of Sirsia, in Nepal, has quickly gone round the world provoking responses and perplexity.

The Rector Major Fr Pascual Chávez has sent a personal message of condolence to the Salesians of the Calcutta Province , “I am sure that the Lord will accept this sacrifice of our confreres and repay it back with a shower of blessings.”

According to police reports the killing of Fr Moyalan, who on his arrival in Nepal took the name John Prakash, does not seem to be anti-religious in character. The event seems to be linked to a new local underground terrorist group interested only in funding its activities. Convinced that Fr Moyalan had drawn money the previous day from a bank in the area, they broke into the Salesian house; frightened perhaps by the killing of the priest, they did not steal anything.

In Nepal there a various underground terrorist groups who fund their activities by robbery and raids; some months ago the Salesian mission in Sirsia was the subject of another robbery.

Following the killing of Fr Moyalan, for the time being the Salesians have left the Sirsia mission damaged by the explosion of a bomb thrown by the gang before fleeing. Published 02/07/2008

05 July 2008

Happy Golden Wedding Anniversary, Doug and Maeve!

I was supposed to be in Smithville, Ontario, Canada, not far from Niagara Falls, today for the Golden Wedding of dear friends, Doug and Maeve Devlin, here pictured just after their wedding in Dublin on 5 July 1958.

I couldn't go to the celebration for the simple reason that my passport expired about two months ago, after ten years.

I met Doug and Maeve in September 1968 when I was beginning studies in music as a young priest at Manhattanville College, Purchase, NY. Doug was in charge of the maintenance of everything electric on campus. I also got to know their four young children, Jacqueline, Peter, Cathy and Glenn.

In 1969 they decided to return to Dublin and sold me their old Nash Rambler for the princely sum of One Dollar. I got great value from the Rambler, which my friends named The Irish Rover.

North America drew them once again, this time Canada, and they settled in Mississauga, just west of Toronto. Later they moved further west, to Burlington, ON, still within shouting distance of Toronto, a marvellously cosmopolitan city. Now they live in the small town of Smithville, which I must confess I had never heard of and have not yet visited.

During a sabbatical year in Toronto in 1981-82 the Devlins welcomed me as a member of the family and gave me the key to their house. I was able to visit them most weeks. Burlington became an extension of Dublin.

In the USA I've seldom bumped into Dubliners but in the Toronto area I met quite a few.

Doug and Maeve are a couple of great Catholic faith and their growth in the faith has been a great help to me. Their two sons, Peter and Glenn, have Usher's Syndrome, which affects both hearing and sight. Peter had a cochlear implant some years ago. Both went to Gallaudet University in Washington DC, all of whose students are Deaf, hard of hearing or are hearing people involved with the Deaf. Peter and Glenn were part of my discovery of the world of the Deaf, with whom I got involved in the Philippines starting in 1991. I remember going with Glenn, then about 12, to see ET. Being with him heightened my enjoyment of two different intelligent species trying to communicate.

I discovered only today that Doug and Maeve were married just one week before the centennial of the wedding of Louis and Zélie Martin, the parents of St Thérèse of Lisieux, whose forthcoming beatification as a couple will probably be announced in their diocese of France on 12 July, their wedding anniversary.

Doug and Maeve, thank you for your friendship, for your faith, for your witness as a Catholic couple, for your hospitality and for all the laughs we've had together down the years. God has some reason for my not being with you on this great day but we're united in his love. May the dinner in Hamilton tonight, after the celebration of the Holy Mass, be a truel foretaste of the Heavenly Banquet - though I hope that none of us will be taking our places there for a while yet.