I took a pilgrimage to DC for the pro-life march. I will post the pics and information on my personal site, dustymbrahlek.net
Please take time to see what was involved in the trip and pray for the unborn, old, and disadvantaged.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Post Term Abortions
I have talked to many people who do not know or don't want to believe that full term abortions occur in the US... well here is an artical given to me by Pro-Life (her link to the right) showing just that...
LifeNews.com Note: Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?" There is something terrible going on in Kansas, and you should know about it. A doctor named George Tiller is performing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of late-term abortions using a variety of medical reasons, including a mother's depression. In Kansas, there is a mental health exception that allows an abortionist to terminate a fetus at any time up until birth. The exception is vague, and so is Tiller's oft-used depression diagnosis, according to documents currently under investigation by Kansas authorities. So the deal is this: If you want to walk away from your pregnancy at any time, just contact Dr. Tiller; he'll help you out. But only if you have at least $5,000. The doctor, known as "Tiller the baby killer" among some people who object to his practice, lays it all out on his web site. He'll terminate your baby, and even cremate it for you if you wish. He's one-stop shopping. According to published reports, Tiller injects the fetus with poison while in the womb, removes it and disposes of the body. While it's true that sometimes a mother's health is severely impacted in late term, most doctors agree this is rare. Babies can now live after 22 weeks when removed by C-section. Late-term abortions are almost never necessary. Unless the mother wants out, that is. And that's what some people believe Tiller is doing: terminating viable, healthy babies because the mother simply doesn't want the child. While the American media wails about alleged human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, champions fetal stem cell research in the name of compassion, and hollers aplenty at the atrocities in Darfur, the press is largely ignoring the Tiller story, with the exception of the Los Angeles Times. It has glorified Tiller. An article by Times reporter Stephanie Simon focused on Tiller terminating babies who are seriously ill. Ms. Simon makes no mention of the "depression" factor. She does, however, report that Tiller is aborting Down Syndrome babies, which, when you think about it, is kind of chilling. George Tiller could not do what he's doing in ultraliberal France or even in permissive Holland. In France, a baby cannot be aborted after 12 weeks unless two doctors certify a woman's physical health is endangered or the fetus has a serious abnormality. In the Netherlands, abortion is prohibited at all times once the baby is viable outside the mother's womb. But in Kansas, if the mom is feeling a bit blue on Tuesday and carries a certified check, Dr. Tiller is willing and able to terminate the baby. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution? I don't think so, but the secular press disagrees. Just this week The New York Times, whose editorial writers worship at the altar of abortion, called the investigation into Tiller's gruesome practice a "gross assault on privacy and legal rights ..." You see, to the Times' editorial board, no baby in the womb deserves any protection at any time. It's all under the secular-progressive banner of "reproductive rights." But even the secularists who run France and Holland are not that militant. It is hard to believe that babies have more protections in Paris and Amsterdam than they do in Wichita, Kansas. But that's the truth.
LifeNews.com Note: Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?" There is something terrible going on in Kansas, and you should know about it. A doctor named George Tiller is performing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of late-term abortions using a variety of medical reasons, including a mother's depression. In Kansas, there is a mental health exception that allows an abortionist to terminate a fetus at any time up until birth. The exception is vague, and so is Tiller's oft-used depression diagnosis, according to documents currently under investigation by Kansas authorities. So the deal is this: If you want to walk away from your pregnancy at any time, just contact Dr. Tiller; he'll help you out. But only if you have at least $5,000. The doctor, known as "Tiller the baby killer" among some people who object to his practice, lays it all out on his web site. He'll terminate your baby, and even cremate it for you if you wish. He's one-stop shopping. According to published reports, Tiller injects the fetus with poison while in the womb, removes it and disposes of the body. While it's true that sometimes a mother's health is severely impacted in late term, most doctors agree this is rare. Babies can now live after 22 weeks when removed by C-section. Late-term abortions are almost never necessary. Unless the mother wants out, that is. And that's what some people believe Tiller is doing: terminating viable, healthy babies because the mother simply doesn't want the child. While the American media wails about alleged human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, champions fetal stem cell research in the name of compassion, and hollers aplenty at the atrocities in Darfur, the press is largely ignoring the Tiller story, with the exception of the Los Angeles Times. It has glorified Tiller. An article by Times reporter Stephanie Simon focused on Tiller terminating babies who are seriously ill. Ms. Simon makes no mention of the "depression" factor. She does, however, report that Tiller is aborting Down Syndrome babies, which, when you think about it, is kind of chilling. George Tiller could not do what he's doing in ultraliberal France or even in permissive Holland. In France, a baby cannot be aborted after 12 weeks unless two doctors certify a woman's physical health is endangered or the fetus has a serious abnormality. In the Netherlands, abortion is prohibited at all times once the baby is viable outside the mother's womb. But in Kansas, if the mom is feeling a bit blue on Tuesday and carries a certified check, Dr. Tiller is willing and able to terminate the baby. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution? I don't think so, but the secular press disagrees. Just this week The New York Times, whose editorial writers worship at the altar of abortion, called the investigation into Tiller's gruesome practice a "gross assault on privacy and legal rights ..." You see, to the Times' editorial board, no baby in the womb deserves any protection at any time. It's all under the secular-progressive banner of "reproductive rights." But even the secularists who run France and Holland are not that militant. It is hard to believe that babies have more protections in Paris and Amsterdam than they do in Wichita, Kansas. But that's the truth.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Sometimes it is not good to Listen to Doctors!
It has been more than 15 years since I almost killed my son.In my defense, all the doctors agreed it was the sensible thing to do. My wife did not want to go through with the abortion, so it fell to me to convince my wife to sign a medical consent form so her doctors could proceed with the abortion that would kill my son.It all began 25 weeks into my wife’s second pregnancy. Our first child, a girl, had been born less then two years before and there was no reason to expect complications with our second child. When my wife felt slight contractions, she insisted on going to the local hospital for observation. There, she was put on “bed rest” but, over the next several days, her doctors repeatedly dismissed my wife’s concern that she was in premature labor.After three days and nights at her bedside, one of my wife’s doctors stopped by her room to tell us that they were now sure the whole thing had been a “false alarm” and that she was being sent home. The doctor suggested that I take a break for a few hours — go home, clean myself up and get something to eat — and that they would have my wife ready for discharge when I got back.Several hours later, when I walked back into the maternity ward, a doctor I had never met approached me with a somber look on his face and said, “We can't save the baby, but we think we can save your wife.”Puzzled, I assured the doctor he must have me confused with someone else because my wife was being discharged. Out of the corner of my eye, I noticed the other doctor from earlier in the day and reached up to point her out. Seeing me motioning towards her, the color drained from her face. She quickly broke eye contact, opened a door and disappeared into a small closet.Now, thoroughly confused, I listened in disbelief as this stranger ticked off the bad news: My wife was in premature labor, she was hemorrhaging badly, the baby was no longer viable, even if the baby survived the birth the hospital did not have a pediatric ICU to care for him, even if he lived he would likely end up with brain damage, blindness and other complications. The doctor was emphatic: The pregnancy needed to be terminated.When I was finally taken to see my wife, I found her in tears, pleading with a nurse, “Don’t let them take my baby.”Raised a Catholic, I was always vaguely opposed to abortion, but now there was no avoiding the issue. The doctors were demanding an answer, all the while whispering in my ear that they were prepared to proceed without a consent form. Under the circumstances, you could hardly blame me for agreeing to an abortion.But I didn't. My son didn't die that day.I took my wife by the hand, looked her in the eye and told her: “We're getting out of here.” I turned to the doctor and said, “You're fired.” The doctor muttered something about my not being competent to make a decision and stalked off saying that he was going to proceed on his own authority. I chased after him, grabbed his arm and told him in no uncertain terms, “If you proceed I am going to sue … if you don’t get my wife to a hospital with a pediatric ICU immediately, I am going to own your practice, your house and your dog.”Five minutes later, my wife and I were in an ambulance on our way to the nearest tertiary care facility and 12 hours later my son was born weighing a pound and a half.It was only years later that my wife told me what had happened when I left the hospital that day. As soon as I walked out, the doctors began pressuring my wife to have an abortion. They told her they had come to realize — too late — that my wife was in premature labor. Afraid to move her and fearing a lawsuit, they decided to cover up their error by browbeating my wife into agreeing to an abortion while assuring her that they would tell me she had miscarried.Today my son is 15 years old. He had a tough first few years, but has had no lasting medical problems related to his premature birth. He is now an honor student at our local high school. And while we argue from time to time, I am fairly certain he is glad I did not go along those doctors who wanted to kill him all those years ago
This was given to me by a person on my myspace page...http://www.myspace.com/13824724
This was given to me by a person on my myspace page...http://www.myspace.com/13824724
Monday, January 15, 2007
Ok here is an artical from the Catholics United for the Faith website on Stem Cell Resarch and why the Embryonic Stem Cell Research is wrong. Some very noteworthy information is in green.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=156
Drawing the Line: The Church's Teaching on Embryonic Stem Cell Research Issue: What are stem cells? What does the Church teach about embryonic stem cell research?
Response: Stem cells are the building blocks of human tissues. The Church teaches that the intentional destruction of human embryos, which is necessary for embryonic stem cell research, is gravely immoral (cf. Catechism, no. 2274-75).
Discussion: Stem cells have two characteristics that make them stem cells. First, they can reproduce without becoming differentiated (specialized). Examples of differentiated cells are nerve, muscle, and blood cells. Second, stem cells can produce other cells, called progenitor cells, which can eventually spawn highly differentiated cells. In other words, a stem cell can produce a cell that can become the “ancestor” of a lineage of cells that produce muscle or blood cells. The progenitor cells and the lineages of cells they produce are together called stem cell lines.
Stem cells can be extracted from living human embryos or from the tissues of those who have been born, including the tissues of a mother’s placenta. The former type of extraction for the purposes of research is called embryonic stem cell research; the latter, adult stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research involves several stages:
· First, embryos are obtained for experimentation, either by being deliberately brought to life for this purpose or by using already living embryos. In either case, these embryos have been brought to life through in vitro fertilization—the fertilization of an egg by a sperm outside the human body—and may have been frozen for some time.
· Second, the fertilized eggs divide and develop from one cell to blastocysts of at least 32 cells. Ordinarily, the development of a human being from his or her first stage of life (as a fertilized egg) to the blastocyst stage occurs during the first four or five days of life.
· Third, the embryoblast, or inner cell mass, of the blastocyst is removed by the researcher. This removal of the embryoblast kills the embryo.
· Fourth, the embryoblast is placed on irradiated mouse cells; here the human cells are cultured and multiply. · Fifth, human cell lines are harvested; these cell lines eventually differentiate into nerve, blood, and other cell lines.
Stem cells can be classified as totipotent, pluripotent, or multipotent stem cells. Totipotent stem cells can differentiate into all of the various stem cell lines. Pluripotent stem cells have the capacity to differentiate into most human tissues. Embryonic stem cells obtained from embryoblasts are pluripotent. Multipotent stem cells can differentiate into more specialized stem cell lines. Adult blood stem cells, for example, can become red or white blood cells, or platelets. Recently, pluripotent adult stem cells have been discovered in the brain, bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and in other organs. The distinction among the types of stem cells is important because multipotent cells are the least versatile of the three and can potentially treat the fewest number of diseases.
The Promise of Stem Cell Research Stem cells, according to scientific consensus, hold promise for restoring the tissues of people who suffer from Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and other debilitating illnesses. For example, insulin-producing cells developed from stem cells could cure some forms of diabetes. Nerve cells developed from stem cells could mitigate the effects of paralysis from spinal injuries.
Currently, a majority (but not a consensus) of scientists believes that embryonic stem cells hold more promise than adult stem cells for the treatment of such conditions. Embryonic stem cells exist in greater quantities and multiply more rapidly than adult stem cells.
However, the much-touted promise of embryonic stem cell research is not yet a reality—embryonic stem cells have yet to help a single human patient. “There is no evidence of therapeutic benefit from embryonic stem cells,” according to Marcus Grompe, M.D., Ph.D., of the department of molecular and medical genetics of Oregon Health Sciences University.[1] Dr. Bert Vogelstein, professor of oncology and pathology at Johns Hopkins University, states that the promise of embryonic stem cell research is “conjectural.”[2]
Adult stem cells, in contrast, are currently being used to help patients who suffer from the following conditions: (1) cancer, including brain tumors, retinoblastoma, ovarian cancer, solid tumors, testicular cancer, multiple myeloma and leukemias, breast cancer, neuroblastoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma; (2) autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis; (3) stroke; (4) immunodeficiencies; (5) anemias; (6) cartilage and bone diseases; (7) corneal scarring; (8) blood and liver disease; (9) gene therapy; and (10) heart damage. [3]
Advances in biology have proven that a new human being exists with his or her own well-defined genetic identity at the moment of fertilization. From that point forward, the individual will develop gradually and continuously into a mature human being. At the moment the human person begins to exist, he has a right to life (Catechism, no. 2270). Every medical intervention on a human embryo that does not seek to benefit that particular human being is morally illicit.[4]
For these reasons, the Church teaches that the removal of the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, which kills a human being in his embryonic stage, is a gravely immoral act, whether the embryo was brought to life for this specific purpose or whether the embryo already exists.[5]
No intention, however good, can justify the killing of an innocent human being. Even if human embryonic stem cell research could one day provide relief for those who suffer from debilitating illnesses, the killing of one human embryo for this purpose could never be justified.[6]
Suppose, however, a researcher were not directly involved in the killing of the embryos. Could his participation in embryonic stem cell research be justified? If his cooperation were formal, the answer is clearly no. Formal cooperation is the willing or intentional cooperation in an act committed by the principal agent (doer) of the act. Formal cooperation in an evil, like embryonic stem cell research, is always immoral—much as the accomplice in a bank robbery who does not rob the bank but drives the getaway car commits an immoral act.
If a researcher does not approve of the gravely immoral acts by which embryonic stem cells are produced, and intends to conduct research on already existing embryonic stem cell lines for the benefit of humanity, would his cooperation be morally permissible?
The bishops of the United States and the Pontifical Academy for Life say no. The Pontifical Academy believes such acts constitute proximate material cooperation in the evils of in vitro fertilization and the killing of embryos:
Is it morally licit to use ES [embryonic stem] cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable? The answer is negative, since prescinding from the participation—formal or otherwise—in the morally illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them.[7]
Embryonic stem cell research on existing stem cell lines is also immoral because the embryos never consented to the research. Even if the parents consented to the research, such consent would be gravely immoral because the research does not benefit the child but, on the contrary, kills the child. The Catechism teaches:
Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him (no. 2295).
Parents who consent to embryonic stem cell research on their children do not legitimately speak for their children because such consent kills the child. While parents under ordinary circumstances legitimately speak for their children, they fail to do so when they consent to homicide.
Moreover, embryonic stem cell research on existing stem cell lines is immoral because it is contrary to the dignity owed to the bodies of the deceased:
The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit (Catechism, no. 2300).
And further:
The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. . . . Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also, in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited.[8]
By Their Fruits You Will Know Them
Embryonic stem cell research is a poisonous fruit of in vitro fertilization. The Church teaches that in vitro fertilization, even when the donors of the sperm and the egg are married, “is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.”[9]
In vitro fertilization is gravely immoral because it destroys “the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”[10] Contraception is always immoral because it excludes the conjugal act’s procreative intention. In vitro fertilization is always immoral because it excludes the conjugal act’s conjugal relation.
In vitro fertilization, moreover, is ordinarily attended by the grave moral evil of masturbation.
In conclusion, embryonic stem cell research is gravely immoral because it necessarily involves the killing of an innocent human being. Adult stem cell research is already helping patients who suffer from nearly two dozen conditions. The former should be shunned and the latter pursued, to the glory of God.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=156
Drawing the Line: The Church's Teaching on Embryonic Stem Cell Research Issue: What are stem cells? What does the Church teach about embryonic stem cell research?
Response: Stem cells are the building blocks of human tissues. The Church teaches that the intentional destruction of human embryos, which is necessary for embryonic stem cell research, is gravely immoral (cf. Catechism, no. 2274-75).
Discussion: Stem cells have two characteristics that make them stem cells. First, they can reproduce without becoming differentiated (specialized). Examples of differentiated cells are nerve, muscle, and blood cells. Second, stem cells can produce other cells, called progenitor cells, which can eventually spawn highly differentiated cells. In other words, a stem cell can produce a cell that can become the “ancestor” of a lineage of cells that produce muscle or blood cells. The progenitor cells and the lineages of cells they produce are together called stem cell lines.
Stem cells can be extracted from living human embryos or from the tissues of those who have been born, including the tissues of a mother’s placenta. The former type of extraction for the purposes of research is called embryonic stem cell research; the latter, adult stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research involves several stages:
· First, embryos are obtained for experimentation, either by being deliberately brought to life for this purpose or by using already living embryos. In either case, these embryos have been brought to life through in vitro fertilization—the fertilization of an egg by a sperm outside the human body—and may have been frozen for some time.
· Second, the fertilized eggs divide and develop from one cell to blastocysts of at least 32 cells. Ordinarily, the development of a human being from his or her first stage of life (as a fertilized egg) to the blastocyst stage occurs during the first four or five days of life.
· Third, the embryoblast, or inner cell mass, of the blastocyst is removed by the researcher. This removal of the embryoblast kills the embryo.
· Fourth, the embryoblast is placed on irradiated mouse cells; here the human cells are cultured and multiply. · Fifth, human cell lines are harvested; these cell lines eventually differentiate into nerve, blood, and other cell lines.
Stem cells can be classified as totipotent, pluripotent, or multipotent stem cells. Totipotent stem cells can differentiate into all of the various stem cell lines. Pluripotent stem cells have the capacity to differentiate into most human tissues. Embryonic stem cells obtained from embryoblasts are pluripotent. Multipotent stem cells can differentiate into more specialized stem cell lines. Adult blood stem cells, for example, can become red or white blood cells, or platelets. Recently, pluripotent adult stem cells have been discovered in the brain, bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and in other organs. The distinction among the types of stem cells is important because multipotent cells are the least versatile of the three and can potentially treat the fewest number of diseases.
The Promise of Stem Cell Research Stem cells, according to scientific consensus, hold promise for restoring the tissues of people who suffer from Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and other debilitating illnesses. For example, insulin-producing cells developed from stem cells could cure some forms of diabetes. Nerve cells developed from stem cells could mitigate the effects of paralysis from spinal injuries.
Currently, a majority (but not a consensus) of scientists believes that embryonic stem cells hold more promise than adult stem cells for the treatment of such conditions. Embryonic stem cells exist in greater quantities and multiply more rapidly than adult stem cells.
However, the much-touted promise of embryonic stem cell research is not yet a reality—embryonic stem cells have yet to help a single human patient. “There is no evidence of therapeutic benefit from embryonic stem cells,” according to Marcus Grompe, M.D., Ph.D., of the department of molecular and medical genetics of Oregon Health Sciences University.[1] Dr. Bert Vogelstein, professor of oncology and pathology at Johns Hopkins University, states that the promise of embryonic stem cell research is “conjectural.”[2]
Adult stem cells, in contrast, are currently being used to help patients who suffer from the following conditions: (1) cancer, including brain tumors, retinoblastoma, ovarian cancer, solid tumors, testicular cancer, multiple myeloma and leukemias, breast cancer, neuroblastoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma; (2) autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis; (3) stroke; (4) immunodeficiencies; (5) anemias; (6) cartilage and bone diseases; (7) corneal scarring; (8) blood and liver disease; (9) gene therapy; and (10) heart damage. [3]
Advances in biology have proven that a new human being exists with his or her own well-defined genetic identity at the moment of fertilization. From that point forward, the individual will develop gradually and continuously into a mature human being. At the moment the human person begins to exist, he has a right to life (Catechism, no. 2270). Every medical intervention on a human embryo that does not seek to benefit that particular human being is morally illicit.[4]
For these reasons, the Church teaches that the removal of the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, which kills a human being in his embryonic stage, is a gravely immoral act, whether the embryo was brought to life for this specific purpose or whether the embryo already exists.[5]
No intention, however good, can justify the killing of an innocent human being. Even if human embryonic stem cell research could one day provide relief for those who suffer from debilitating illnesses, the killing of one human embryo for this purpose could never be justified.[6]
Suppose, however, a researcher were not directly involved in the killing of the embryos. Could his participation in embryonic stem cell research be justified? If his cooperation were formal, the answer is clearly no. Formal cooperation is the willing or intentional cooperation in an act committed by the principal agent (doer) of the act. Formal cooperation in an evil, like embryonic stem cell research, is always immoral—much as the accomplice in a bank robbery who does not rob the bank but drives the getaway car commits an immoral act.
If a researcher does not approve of the gravely immoral acts by which embryonic stem cells are produced, and intends to conduct research on already existing embryonic stem cell lines for the benefit of humanity, would his cooperation be morally permissible?
The bishops of the United States and the Pontifical Academy for Life say no. The Pontifical Academy believes such acts constitute proximate material cooperation in the evils of in vitro fertilization and the killing of embryos:
Is it morally licit to use ES [embryonic stem] cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable? The answer is negative, since prescinding from the participation—formal or otherwise—in the morally illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them.[7]
Embryonic stem cell research on existing stem cell lines is also immoral because the embryos never consented to the research. Even if the parents consented to the research, such consent would be gravely immoral because the research does not benefit the child but, on the contrary, kills the child. The Catechism teaches:
Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him (no. 2295).
Parents who consent to embryonic stem cell research on their children do not legitimately speak for their children because such consent kills the child. While parents under ordinary circumstances legitimately speak for their children, they fail to do so when they consent to homicide.
Moreover, embryonic stem cell research on existing stem cell lines is immoral because it is contrary to the dignity owed to the bodies of the deceased:
The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit (Catechism, no. 2300).
And further:
The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. . . . Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also, in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited.[8]
By Their Fruits You Will Know Them
Embryonic stem cell research is a poisonous fruit of in vitro fertilization. The Church teaches that in vitro fertilization, even when the donors of the sperm and the egg are married, “is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.”[9]
In vitro fertilization is gravely immoral because it destroys “the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”[10] Contraception is always immoral because it excludes the conjugal act’s procreative intention. In vitro fertilization is always immoral because it excludes the conjugal act’s conjugal relation.
In vitro fertilization, moreover, is ordinarily attended by the grave moral evil of masturbation.
In conclusion, embryonic stem cell research is gravely immoral because it necessarily involves the killing of an innocent human being. Adult stem cell research is already helping patients who suffer from nearly two dozen conditions. The former should be shunned and the latter pursued, to the glory of God.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Here is somthing I found during my discussion with the one and only person looking at this blog! Well if I am wrong and more than one person looks at this, here is some information from our Presidental Administration...
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
January 11, 2007
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 3 – Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007H.2007
(Rep. DeGette (D) CO and 210 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3, which would use Federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research. The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells, overturning the President’s policy that funds research without promoting such ongoing destruction. If H.R. 3 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill.
The President strongly supports medical research and has worked with Congress to increase resources for the National Institutes of Health. This Administration is the first to provide Federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research and has done so without encouraging the destruction of human embryos. The President’s policy permits the funding of research using embryonic cell lines created prior to August 9, 2001, the date his policy was announced, along with stem cell research using other kinds of cell lines. Scientists can therefore explore the potential applications of such cells, but the Federal government does not offer incentives or encouragement for the destruction of human life.
Over the past six years, more than $130 million in taxpayer dollars has been devoted to human embryonic stem cell research consistent with the President’s policy. Overall, nearly $3 billion has gone to innovative research on all forms of stem cells, contributing to dozens of proven medical treatments. However, this bill would provide Federal funding for the first time for a line of research that involves the intentional destruction of living human embryos for the derivation of their cells. Destroying nascent human life for research raises serious ethical problems, and millions of Americans consider the practice immoral.
The Administration believes that government has a duty to use the people’s money responsibly, both supporting important public purposes and respecting moral boundaries. H.R. 3 seeks to replace the Administration’s policy with one that uses Federal dollars to offer a prospective incentive for the destruction of human embryos. Embryonic stem cell research is at an early stage of basic science and has never yielded a therapeutic application in humans. Alternative types of human stem cells – drawn from adults, children, umbilical-cord blood, and other non-embryonic sources, without doing harm to the donors – have already achieved therapeutic results in thousands of patients with many different diseases.
Researchers are now developing promising new techniques to produce stem cells similar in nature to those derived from human embryos, but not requiring the use of embryos. A series of encouraging research reports, the latest of which was released this week, offers hope that stem cells drawn from non-embryonic sources may possess characteristics like those of embryonic
stem cells. The Administration believes that the availability of alternative sources of stem cells further counters the case for compelling the American taxpayer to encourage the ongoing destruction of human embryos for research.
Moreover, private sector support and public funding by several States for this line of research, which will add up to several billion dollars in the coming few years, argues against the notion of any urgent shortfall of research funding. Whatever one’s view of the ethical issues or the state of the research, the future of this field does not require a policy of Federal subsidies that is offensive to the moral principles of millions of Americans.
H.R. 3 advances the proposition that the Nation must choose between science and ethics. The Administration believes it is possible to advance scientific research without violating ethical principles – by enacting appropriate policy safeguards and pursuing thoughtful scientific techniques. H.R. 3 is seriously flawed legislation that would undo essential ethical protections, and slow the development of new techniques that avoid bio-ethical concerns.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr3sap-h.pdf
What's in a name?
Side note, this will be short!
I looked up the "name" given for our anonymous poster! Yes, I am not up to date on my Latin, though I attend the Latin Mass... Something for the future I suppose! Anyway this is what I found from Wikipedia (so if it is not correct please let me know). It means the voice of the people and is, "Often quoted as, Vox populi, vox dei, (The voice of the people is the voice of God). This old proverb, was first quoted by William of Malmesbury in the Twelfth Century" I would say that his/her post is a voice of a person, and even of a group of people, but it is not THE voice of the people. I pray as time goes on this voice will sofen as the voice defending those whom cannot defend themselves becomes more powerful.
I looked up the "name" given for our anonymous poster! Yes, I am not up to date on my Latin, though I attend the Latin Mass... Something for the future I suppose! Anyway this is what I found from Wikipedia (so if it is not correct please let me know). It means the voice of the people and is, "Often quoted as, Vox populi, vox dei, (The voice of the people is the voice of God). This old proverb, was first quoted by William of Malmesbury in the Twelfth Century" I would say that his/her post is a voice of a person, and even of a group of people, but it is not THE voice of the people. I pray as time goes on this voice will sofen as the voice defending those whom cannot defend themselves becomes more powerful.
Contraceptives
Again with the Pro-Life March coming up, it is important for Catholics to remember that the movement is not just to protect the unborn children from surgical abortions, but also from chemical ones. These chemical abortions include contraception. I know that many think that contraception is a way to lower the changes of getting diseases and unwanted pregnancy; however, if this is the goal of a sexual union, then it is not truly a union.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church Jesus taught that the marital union was willed by the Creator from the start of time and were to last for all of time (CCC 1614). The church also teaches in paragraph 1631 that the fulfillment of a faithful contract of marriage is required for many different reasons.
The purpose of these marriages is not only to bring two people together, but to imitate the Trinity (CCC 2335); this is done by the procreation of children. The marriage is also there to educate the children (CCC 2249). This idea is also repeated in paragraph 2263. Here we are told that the union is twofold, the transmission of life as well as the good of the spouses. It continues to proclaim these ideas cannot be separated from marriage without altering the spiritual life and the good of the family unit.
If you do not agree with my interpretation, please comment and I will be glad to defend the Church’s teachings. Though I am not highly educated in theology, I have been well taught by the Church. Also here are the quotes used from the Catechism.
As a side note, if you are a Catholic and you are reading this, remember if you are knowingly behaving in such a manner that contradicts the Church you are living in sin and should not be partaking in the sacraments of the Church until you make things right with Her and God.
Contraception
Original meaning 1614
1614
In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning: permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it: "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."107
As a state of life in the Church 1631
1631
This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134
· Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
· Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
· Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
· The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.
Ordered to the procreation and education of offspring 1652, 2249
1631
This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134
· Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
· Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
· Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
· The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.
· 2249
· The conjugal community is established upon the covenant and consent of the spouses. Marriage and family are ordered to the good of the spouses, to the procreation and the education of children.
Marriage union of man and woman 2335, 2363
2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.122
2363
The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church Jesus taught that the marital union was willed by the Creator from the start of time and were to last for all of time (CCC 1614). The church also teaches in paragraph 1631 that the fulfillment of a faithful contract of marriage is required for many different reasons.
The purpose of these marriages is not only to bring two people together, but to imitate the Trinity (CCC 2335); this is done by the procreation of children. The marriage is also there to educate the children (CCC 2249). This idea is also repeated in paragraph 2263. Here we are told that the union is twofold, the transmission of life as well as the good of the spouses. It continues to proclaim these ideas cannot be separated from marriage without altering the spiritual life and the good of the family unit.
If you do not agree with my interpretation, please comment and I will be glad to defend the Church’s teachings. Though I am not highly educated in theology, I have been well taught by the Church. Also here are the quotes used from the Catechism.
As a side note, if you are a Catholic and you are reading this, remember if you are knowingly behaving in such a manner that contradicts the Church you are living in sin and should not be partaking in the sacraments of the Church until you make things right with Her and God.
Contraception
Original meaning 1614
1614
In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning: permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it: "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."107
As a state of life in the Church 1631
1631
This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134
· Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
· Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
· Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
· The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.
Ordered to the procreation and education of offspring 1652, 2249
1631
This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134
· Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
· Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
· Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
· The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.
· 2249
· The conjugal community is established upon the covenant and consent of the spouses. Marriage and family are ordered to the good of the spouses, to the procreation and the education of children.
Marriage union of man and woman 2335, 2363
2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.122
2363
The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
Comment
I received a comment on my posting "I Really Hate This". I would like to post the comment here with my response since that person posted anonymously and I cannot respond directly... I also felt it was important enough to obtain its own post :)
From: Vox Populi anonymous-comment@blogger.com
You know what I really hate? Seeing people suffering from curable diseases because a handful of their countrymen think that a cluster of cells is more entitled to life than a living, breathing human being. I've got news for you: Every member of Congress that voted against stem cell research just voted to destroy 400,000 embryos (which you call 'babies'), not for research purposes, but just because that's what will happen to the 400,000 embryos now sitting in storage freezers, left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. With the stem cell research you hate so much, those embryos might be put to some use, saving lives. When you vote against stem cell research, your vote not only says that it's ok to kill the millions of people suffering from what may be curable diseases, you're also voting for an even more wanton, wasteful destruction of embryos than would occur via stem cell research. The bottom line is this: Those embryos are going to be destroyed, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now do you want to do the real pro-life thing and use these embryos to save human life, or do you want to just pitch them in the dumpster and call it moral? --Posted by Vox Populi to Gethsemane at 1/13/2007 12:36:55 AM
***My response***
Thank-you for your words. I do understand and once held the same ideas :) As far as the research goes, the bill was to add federal funding for these programs. It is different if it is personal funds and the embryos are already available. Also there is nothing wrong with using stem cells from adult cells. In fact to date these are the only cells that have achieved any results! It is the embryonic cells that are the road to a very scary place. God has given man wondrous abilities to find ways to preserve life, this I have no doubt. Just remember, there are always the adult cells, we can concentrate on those and leave the embryo cells alone. It is like saying that we need a child's life to be sacrificed to save a life when we can use materials from an adult without harming the adult! This was off the cuff so I hope it makes sense. Again thank-you for your comments and interest in the topic.
From: Vox Populi anonymous-comment@blogger.com
You know what I really hate? Seeing people suffering from curable diseases because a handful of their countrymen think that a cluster of cells is more entitled to life than a living, breathing human being. I've got news for you: Every member of Congress that voted against stem cell research just voted to destroy 400,000 embryos (which you call 'babies'), not for research purposes, but just because that's what will happen to the 400,000 embryos now sitting in storage freezers, left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. With the stem cell research you hate so much, those embryos might be put to some use, saving lives. When you vote against stem cell research, your vote not only says that it's ok to kill the millions of people suffering from what may be curable diseases, you're also voting for an even more wanton, wasteful destruction of embryos than would occur via stem cell research. The bottom line is this: Those embryos are going to be destroyed, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now do you want to do the real pro-life thing and use these embryos to save human life, or do you want to just pitch them in the dumpster and call it moral? --Posted by Vox Populi to Gethsemane at 1/13/2007 12:36:55 AM
***My response***
Thank-you for your words. I do understand and once held the same ideas :) As far as the research goes, the bill was to add federal funding for these programs. It is different if it is personal funds and the embryos are already available. Also there is nothing wrong with using stem cells from adult cells. In fact to date these are the only cells that have achieved any results! It is the embryonic cells that are the road to a very scary place. God has given man wondrous abilities to find ways to preserve life, this I have no doubt. Just remember, there are always the adult cells, we can concentrate on those and leave the embryo cells alone. It is like saying that we need a child's life to be sacrificed to save a life when we can use materials from an adult without harming the adult! This was off the cuff so I hope it makes sense. Again thank-you for your comments and interest in the topic.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The children die
OK, I am going to the Pro-Life March in DC. My co-worker and I were speaking about my trip. Another co-worker got angry because there was a march! She said that it is no ones business if a girl wants to "fix-it" if her father molests her! What bothers me is the fact most people do not understand is most of the time the abortion is there to PROTECT the offender. The abused young girl hides the event and has to live with the pain her entire life that she not only was violated, but she killed her child. I did not know how much abortion hurt the women until I read things from the Indianapolis archdioceses Pro-Life office! It is amazing these things are hidden from us. Women do not know that their child has a beating heart when it is savagely ripped from her, or even when it is cut up.
In fact they have found that the child feels the pain! Think about that when someone says that it is a woman's choice! It is also the woman's choice to drown her children, no, but it is OK if she has someone else cut it to pieces and vacuums it up.
In fact they have found that the child feels the pain! Think about that when someone says that it is a woman's choice! It is also the woman's choice to drown her children, no, but it is OK if she has someone else cut it to pieces and vacuums it up.
I really hate this
Now here is something very sad... Why does the House spend so much of our tax money to make it legal to spend more tax moeny to kill babies?
It amazes me that so many people think that it is OK to kill children! I firmly believe the research should be done, but it should be done with adult cells not embryonic! Besides all of the break thoughs have been made with the adult, so why push the agenda? It seems so sad to me that people still fight to distory instead of save.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-11-stem-cell_x.htm?csp=34
Bill's backers predict end to stem cell limitsUpdated 1/11/2007 8:58 PM ET
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Despite threats of a presidential veto, supporters of research on embryonic stem cells say an end to restrictions on federal funding is inevitable after an overwhelming House vote Thursday.
The House of Representatives voted 253-174 on a stem cell research bill identical to one President Bush vetoed last year. Supporters were 37 votes shy of the 290 needed to override a veto but got 14 more votes than last year.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush remains opposed to the legislation. "We believe we should not be using tax dollars to provide incentives for the continued destruction of embryos," Fratto said.
In the Senate, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he has 66 votes lined up in favor of the bill; he needs 67 to override Bush. "We're working on everybody," Harkin said.
Harkin and other proponents of research with embryonic stem cells — basic building blocks that can be coaxed into developing into a wide range of cells — say the work holds the promise of curing diabetes, Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Opponents such as Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., say it's an unproven field of study that involves the destruction of human life, because embryos are used to obtain the stem cells. "This is not necessary, and it's morally wrong," said Weldon, a doctor. He and others argued that medical breakthroughs can be achieved by using adult stem cells, such as those derived from a pregnant woman's uterus.
At issue is whether to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research that Bush established early in his first term. Under an Aug. 9, 2001, order, Bush limited federal funding for research to stem cell lines created before that date. Of the $600 million the National Institutes of Health provides for stem cell research, $39 million went to human embryonic stem cells last year. The rest went for studies on animal and adult stem cells.
"None offer as much promise as human embryonic stem cells," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., a microbiologist.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and other bill supporters said the measure would provide a positive use for leftover embryos kept at fertility clinics and destined for destruction. That was the reason Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., switched his vote this year to support the bill. "He felt that since the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, it was better that some good come out of it," said Christopher Mansour, Kildee's chief of staff. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said federal funding for the research would amount to a financial endorsement for "a policy that innocent life can be destroyed for utilitarian purposes."
Some lawmakers cited friends and family members they said might be aided by embryonic stem cell research. Freshman Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., said the research could help his predecessor, Lane Evans, an Illinois Democrat who retired last year because of Parkinson's disease. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., told members about his 5-year-old daughter's battle with brain cancer.
In all, 38 freshmen lawmakers voted for the bill. "I'm a pro-life Democrat," said Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. "This is a pro-life vote."
DeGette and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., the bill's sponsors, said the growing support in the House of Representatives is a sign that political momentum is shifting. "This will be the law of the land in 2009 no matter what," said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., referring to the year Bush's term ends. "Our job is to get the inevitable to happen as early as possible."
DeGette said she's eager to discuss a compromise with the White House, but she said Bush has rejected offers to meet with her and GOP bill supporters.
Contributing: David Jackson and Dan Vergano
It amazes me that so many people think that it is OK to kill children! I firmly believe the research should be done, but it should be done with adult cells not embryonic! Besides all of the break thoughs have been made with the adult, so why push the agenda? It seems so sad to me that people still fight to distory instead of save.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-11-stem-cell_x.htm?csp=34
Bill's backers predict end to stem cell limitsUpdated 1/11/2007 8:58 PM ET
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Despite threats of a presidential veto, supporters of research on embryonic stem cells say an end to restrictions on federal funding is inevitable after an overwhelming House vote Thursday.
The House of Representatives voted 253-174 on a stem cell research bill identical to one President Bush vetoed last year. Supporters were 37 votes shy of the 290 needed to override a veto but got 14 more votes than last year.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush remains opposed to the legislation. "We believe we should not be using tax dollars to provide incentives for the continued destruction of embryos," Fratto said.
In the Senate, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he has 66 votes lined up in favor of the bill; he needs 67 to override Bush. "We're working on everybody," Harkin said.
Harkin and other proponents of research with embryonic stem cells — basic building blocks that can be coaxed into developing into a wide range of cells — say the work holds the promise of curing diabetes, Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Opponents such as Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., say it's an unproven field of study that involves the destruction of human life, because embryos are used to obtain the stem cells. "This is not necessary, and it's morally wrong," said Weldon, a doctor. He and others argued that medical breakthroughs can be achieved by using adult stem cells, such as those derived from a pregnant woman's uterus.
At issue is whether to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research that Bush established early in his first term. Under an Aug. 9, 2001, order, Bush limited federal funding for research to stem cell lines created before that date. Of the $600 million the National Institutes of Health provides for stem cell research, $39 million went to human embryonic stem cells last year. The rest went for studies on animal and adult stem cells.
"None offer as much promise as human embryonic stem cells," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., a microbiologist.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and other bill supporters said the measure would provide a positive use for leftover embryos kept at fertility clinics and destined for destruction. That was the reason Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., switched his vote this year to support the bill. "He felt that since the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, it was better that some good come out of it," said Christopher Mansour, Kildee's chief of staff. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said federal funding for the research would amount to a financial endorsement for "a policy that innocent life can be destroyed for utilitarian purposes."
Some lawmakers cited friends and family members they said might be aided by embryonic stem cell research. Freshman Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., said the research could help his predecessor, Lane Evans, an Illinois Democrat who retired last year because of Parkinson's disease. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., told members about his 5-year-old daughter's battle with brain cancer.
In all, 38 freshmen lawmakers voted for the bill. "I'm a pro-life Democrat," said Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. "This is a pro-life vote."
DeGette and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., the bill's sponsors, said the growing support in the House of Representatives is a sign that political momentum is shifting. "This will be the law of the land in 2009 no matter what," said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., referring to the year Bush's term ends. "Our job is to get the inevitable to happen as early as possible."
DeGette said she's eager to discuss a compromise with the White House, but she said Bush has rejected offers to meet with her and GOP bill supporters.
Contributing: David Jackson and Dan Vergano
Monday, January 08, 2007
The tabernacle
Personal beef!
I went into a Catholic Church and I could not find the tabernacle! I guess from what some people tell me it is in the backroom, or in other strange places. I feel it should be front and center and near the alter. However, it seems that some churches do not agree. So let us see what the Catechism has to say…
IV. Where Is the Liturgy Celebrated?
1179
The worship "in Spirit and in truth"53 of the New Covenant is not tied exclusively to any one place. The whole earth is sacred and entrusted to the children of men. What matters above all is that, when the faithful assemble in the same place, they are the "living stones," gathered to be "built into a spiritual house."54 For the Body of the risen Christ is the spiritual temple from which the source of living water springs forth: incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit, "we are the temple of the living God."55
1180
When the exercise of religious liberty is not thwarted,56 Christians construct buildings for divine worship. These visible churches are not simply gathering places but signify and make visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ.
1181
A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful—this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial."57 In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.58
1182
The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross,59 from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited.60 In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).
1183
The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor."61 The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.62 The sacred chrism (myron), used in anointings as the sacramental sign of the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, is traditionally reserved and venerated in a secure place in the sanctuary. The oil of catechumens and the oil of the sick may also be placed there.
I went into a Catholic Church and I could not find the tabernacle! I guess from what some people tell me it is in the backroom, or in other strange places. I feel it should be front and center and near the alter. However, it seems that some churches do not agree. So let us see what the Catechism has to say…
IV. Where Is the Liturgy Celebrated?
1179
The worship "in Spirit and in truth"53 of the New Covenant is not tied exclusively to any one place. The whole earth is sacred and entrusted to the children of men. What matters above all is that, when the faithful assemble in the same place, they are the "living stones," gathered to be "built into a spiritual house."54 For the Body of the risen Christ is the spiritual temple from which the source of living water springs forth: incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit, "we are the temple of the living God."55
1180
When the exercise of religious liberty is not thwarted,56 Christians construct buildings for divine worship. These visible churches are not simply gathering places but signify and make visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ.
1181
A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful—this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial."57 In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.58
1182
The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross,59 from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited.60 In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).
1183
The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor."61 The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.62 The sacred chrism (myron), used in anointings as the sacramental sign of the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, is traditionally reserved and venerated in a secure place in the sanctuary. The oil of catechumens and the oil of the sick may also be placed there.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Eastern Churches
I have found much happiness in the Catholic Church. I am Roman Catholic. There are many other types of Catholic Churches out there, most Eastern Churches. These should not be confused with the Orthodox Churches. The difference between the two types is that the Eastern Churches are in communion with the Pope where Orthodox is Catholic Churches that are not in communion with the Pope. Here is an article from the Catholics United for the Faith website that may be able to shed some light on the different Catholic Churches. Also remember that all of churches that are in communion with Rome are all under the ONE Catholic Church!
Eastern Catholic Churches
Issue: What are the Eastern Catholic Churches?
Response: Eastern Catholic Churches are “Churches of the East in union with, but not of Roman rite, with their own liturgical, theological, and administrative traditions, such as those of the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean rites. The variety of particular churches with distinctive traditions witnesses to the catholicity of the one Church of Christ, which takes root in distinct cultures” (Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, second ed.).
Discussion: Most Catholics in the United States belong to the Roman, Latin rite of the Catholic Church. They are “Western” Catholics. Unfortunately, many Western Catholics do not know or understand the rich heritage of the Eastern Catholic Churches. These Churches, together with the Western Church, constitute the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” which we profess in the Nicene -- Constantinopolitan Creed.
While these individual Churches differ somewhat in respect to their liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, they all profess the same faith and submit themselves to the authority of the Pope. The Bishops of all the Churches constitute the Apostolic College of Bishops. And, united through bonds of the Holy Spirit, the faithful of all these Churches are properly called “Catholic.”[1]
This diversity within the Church encourages unity. It allows the rich traditions of many peoples to be expressed in an authentic encounter with Christ. These traditions, because they are diverse, witness to the inculturization of the Gospel intended by Christ.[2]
Some Eastern Churches have patriarchs, all of whom are equal in dignity but some of whom retain traditional places of honor in assemblies.
While Western Catholics should cherish their own rite,[3] Pope John Paul II has asked all Catholics, Western and Eastern, “to be familiar with that [Eastern] tradition, so as to be nourished by it” (Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen, May 2, 1995, 1).
Five Traditions, Twenty-one Churches
Different Eastern Catholic Churches share different traditions of liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage.[4] In many areas, Latin Rite dioceses coexist with Eastern Catholic Churches.
Alexandrian Tradition
The Alexandrian tradition, which comprises two Eastern Catholic Churches, has its roots in the evangelization of Alexandria by Saint Mark.
The Coptic Catholic Church, with 196,248 members (as well as 10,000 in diaspora under the care of Latin bishops), has six eparchies (dioceses) in Egypt. The hierarchy and laity of the Church in Egypt by and large did not accept the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451); thus the Coptic Orthodox Church developed. In 1442, the Coptic Orthodox Church briefly united with the Holy See. In the seventeenth century, Jesuit, Capuchin, and other Franciscan missionaries became active among the Copts. In 1741, a Coptic bishop in Jerusalem became a Catholic, and Pope Benedict XIV named him Vicar Apostolic of the 2,000 Coptic Catholics in Egypt. In 1824, the Holy See temporarily established a Patriarchate of Alexandria, which Pope Leo XIII re-established in 1895. The current Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts is His Beatitude Stephanos II Ghattas (born 1920, elected 1986), who resides in Cairo. The Church’s liturgical languages are Coptic and Arabic.
The Ethiopian Catholic Church, with 202,043 members, has two dioceses in Ethiopia and three in Eritrea. Ethiopia was evangelized by Saint Frumentius in the early fourth century. The Church in Ethiopia, like the Church in Egypt, did not accept the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, and thus the Ethiopian Orthodox Church developed. Catholic missionaries arrived in the fourteenth century. In the early 1500s, the Ethiopian emperor appealed to the Portugese for help in repelling an Islamic invasion, and Jesuit missionaries accompanied the Portugese. In 1622, the emperor converted to Catholicism, and four years later the Ethiopian Orthodox Church united with the Holy See. Pope Gregory XV appointed a Portugese Jesuit as patriarch; his Latinizations of the liturgy, along with the autocratic rule of the emperor, helped contribute to the dissolution of the union in 1636 under the emperor’s successor. Catholic missionaries were allowed to return in 1839, and missionary activity expanded when Italy ruled the country from 1935-41. The present ecclesiastical structure was established in 1961. The current head of this Church is Metropolitan Archbishop Berhane-Yesus Demerew Souraphiel (born 1948, appointed 1999) of Addis Ababa. Liturgical languages are Ge’ez and Amharic.
Antiochene Tradition
The origin and development of the Antiochene tradition, which comprises three Eastern Catholic Churches, is recorded in the New Testament and involved Saints Peter and Paul (Acts 6:5, 11:19-26, 15:22-32, Gal 2:11). The Antiochene liturgy was strongly influenced by the Liturgy of Saint James in Jerusalem.
The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, with 326,654 members, has four dioceses in India, which traces its evangelization to Saint Thomas the Apostle. Christians in India were in communion with the Assyrian Church of the East, which broke off from communion with the Holy See after the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (431). Portugese colonialization brought the forced Latinization of this Church, which most “Thomas Christians” rejected. Thus in 1653 the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which rejected the authority of the Roman Pontiff, was formed. In the following century, four attempts to reunite this Church with the Holy See failed. In 1930, two bishops, one priest, one deacon, and one layman of this Church were received into the Catholic Church, and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church was formed. By 1950, membership in the Church had grown to over 65,000. There are seventeen Syro-Malankara Catholic communities in the United States, Canada, and Germany. The current head of the Church is Metropolitan Archbishop Cyril Mar Basileos Malancharuvil (born 1935, appointed 1986) of Trinvandrum, Kirala State, India. The liturgical language is Malayalam.
The Maronite Catholic Church, with 3,221,939 members, has ten dioceses in Lebanon, three in Syria, two in the United States, and one each in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, and Mexico, as well as exarchates in Jerusalem and Jordan. The Church traces its origin to the establishment of a monastery in Lebanon by Saint Maron (c. 400). The Maronite Catholic Church has always been in communion with the Holy See. The Church’s current patriarch is His Beatitude Mar Nasrallah Cardinal Sfeir (born 1920, elected 1986), who resides in Bkerke, Lebanon. The liturgical language is Arabic.
The Syrian Catholic Church, with 128,931 members, has four dioceses in Syria, two in Iraq, and one each in Egypt, Lebanon, and North America, as well as patriarchal exarchates in Iraq/Kuwait and Turkey. After many Christians in Syria did not accept the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Syrian Orthodox Church developed. In 1444, this Church briefly reunited with the Holy See. In 1626, Capuchin and Jesuit missionaries began to work among the Syrian Orthodox. So many became Catholic that Syrian Catholics had their own patriarch from 1662-1702. During the 1700s, the Ottoman Turkish government persecuted Syrian Catholics harshly, and the Church was driven underground. In 1783, the newly elected Syrian Orthodox patriarch became a Catholic and fled to Lebanon. The Church’s current patriarch is His Beatitude Ignatius Peter VIII (born 1930, elected 2001), who resides in Beirut. The liturgical languages are Syriac/Aramaic and Arabic.
Armenian Tradition
The Armenian tradition embraces one Eastern Catholic Church and traces its origin to the missionary activity of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, the Apostle of Armenia (c. 257-c. 337).
The Armenian Catholic Church, with 343,198 members, has two dioceses in Syria and one each in Argentina, Egypt, France, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Ukraine, as well as an apostolic exarchate for the United States and ordinariates in Eastern Europe (Armenia), Greece, and Romania. In 506, the Armenian bishops formally rejected the Christological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451), and thus the Armenian Apostolic Church was born. Armenians in Cilicia reunited with the Holy See from 1198-1375, and the entire Church reunited briefly with the Holy See in 1439. Subsequent Catholic missionary activity was successful, and the increasing number of Catholics led Pope Benedict XIV in 1742 to name a former Armenian Apostolic bishop as patriarch. A large number of Armenian Catholics lost their lives in the Turkish genocide of their nation (1915-6). The current patriarch is His Beatitude Nerses Bedros XIX Tamouni, who resides in Beirut. The liturgical language is classical Armenian.
Byzantine Tradition
The Byzantine tradition comprises thirteen Eastern Catholic Churches. It began with the construction of Constantinople as the second capital of the Roman Empire in 330.
The Albanian Church, with 2,164 members, has one apostolic administration in Albania. In the fourth century, Roman soldiers and traders brought the Gospel to Albania. The Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Albanian Orthodox Church. In 1628 and 1900, small groups of Albanian Orthodox became Catholic. The head of the Albanian Church, appointed in 1996, is Bishop Hil Kabashi. The Church has no other priests and no parishes, and the liturgical language is Albanian.
The Belarussian (Byelorussian, White Russian) Church has no hierarchy. A 1992 Belarussian State University survey estimated that 100,000 Belarussians are Eastern Catholics; there are 5,000 Belarussian Catholics in diaspora. Modern day Belarus was once part of Kievan Rus’, which received the Catholic faith when Saint Vladimir, Grand Duke of Kiev, was baptized in 988. The Great Schism of 1054 led to separation of the Orthodox in Belarus from the Holy See. Most Orthodox Christians in Belarus became Catholic as a result of the Union of Brest (1595-6). The liturgical language is Belarusan.
The Bulgarian Catholic Church, with 15,000 members, has one apostolic exarchate. While there was a bishops’ synod in 343 in what is now Bulgarian territory, the beginnings of the evangelization of Bulgaria are usually dated to the baptism of King Boris I by a Byzantine Rite bishop in 865. The Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria. In 1861, when a group of Bulgarian Orthodox approached Pope Pius IX to become Catholic, he named one of them an archbishop. The current head of the Church is Bishop Christo Proykov (born 1946, appointed 1995), who resides in Sofia. The liturgical language is Old Slavonic.
The Eparchy of Krizevci, with 48,920 members, has one diocese in Croatia with jurisdiction over all of the former Yugoslavia. Pope Saint Martin I sent John of Ravenna to evangelize the Croats in the middle of the seventh century, and the evangelization of the Serbs dates from this period as well. In 1219, the Church in Serbia broke from communion with the Holy See, and thus the Orthodox Church of Serbia developed. In the early seventeenth century, some Serbs in Croatia sought union with the Holy See, and in 1611 they were granted a bishop. The current head of the Church is Bishop Slavomir Miklove (born 1934, appointed 1983), who resides in Zagreb, Croatia. Liturgical languages are Croatian and Old Slavonic.
The Greek Catholic Church, with 2,345 members, has apostolic exarchates in Greece and Turkey. The New Testament records the evangelization of Greece. The Orthodox Church of Greece developed after the Great Schism of 1054. In 1829, the Ottoman sultan removed restrictions against the formation of an Eastern Catholic community in Greece. Catholic missionary activity began in 1856, and Pope Saint Pius X appointed a bishop for the Church in 1911. The current head of the Church is Bishop Anarghyros Printesis (born 1937, appointed 1975), who resides in Athens. The liturgical language is Greek.
The Hungarian Catholic Church, with 281,998 members, has one diocese and one apostolic exarchate in Hungary. Saint Adalbert came to Hungary in 985 to evangelize, and Saint Stephen, who died as a Latin Rite Catholic, became king in 997. Turkish invasions throughout Europe caused many Carpatho-Russian and Romanian Orthodox to emigrate to Hungary, and most of them became Catholic in the 1600s. In 1924, these Catholics, who had been under the care of non-Hungarian Eastern Catholic bishops, were constituted into the Hungarian Catholic Church. The current head of the Church is Bishop Szilard Keresztes (born 1932, appointed 1988), Bishop of Hajdudorog and Apostolic Administrator of Miskolc, who resides in Nyiregyhaza, Hungary. The liturgical language is Hungarian.
The Italo-Albanian Catholic Church, with 63,956 members, has two dioceses and one territorial abbey in Italy. In the fourth century, Roman soldiers and traders brought the Gospel to Albania. The Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Albanian Orthodox Church. In the 1400s, the Turkish conquest of their nation caused many Albanians to flee their country for southern Italy. The Albanian Orthodox who eventually became Catholic were granted their own Byzantine Rite bishop by the Holy See in 1595. Because the Church’s two dioceses are of equal rank, the Church does not have a single head.
The Melkite Greek Catholic Church, with 1,189,557 members, has seven dioceses in Lebanon, five in Syria, and one each in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, and the United States, as well as exarchates in Iraq, Kuwait, and Venezuala. The origin and development of the Church of Antioch is recorded in the New Testament and involved Saints Peter and Paul (Acts 6:5, 11:19-26, 15:22-32, Gal 2:11). After the Great Schism of 1054, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch developed. In the mid-1600s, Capuchins, Carmelites, and Jesuits began missionary activity among these Orthodox. In 1724, two men were elected Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, and one of them became Catholic. The current Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem is His Beatitude Gregory III Laham (born 1933, elected 2000), who resides in Damascus. Liturgical languages are Greek and Arabic.
The Romanian Greek Catholic Church, with 1,118,823 members, has five dioceses in Romania and one in the United States. In the third century, missionaries evangelized Romanian, and the Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Orthodox Church of Romania. In 1698, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Transylvania sought communion with the Holy See, and the reunion was made formal in 1700. The head of the Church is Metropolitan Lucian Murean (born 1931, appointed 1994), Archbishop of Fagara and Alba Iulia, who resides in Blaj. The liturgical language is Romanian.
The Russian Church, with 3,500 members in diaspora, has no hierarchy. The evangelization of Russia followed from the baptism of Saint Olga (950s) and Saint Vladimir (988), and the Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Orthodox Church of Russia. Eastern Catholic Churches were illegal in Russia until 1905. After Czar Nicholas II’s edict of toleration that year, a few small Eastern Catholic communities formed. Apostolic exarchates were then established in Russia in 1917 and China in 1928 (for Russian emigrants); these have not been reconstituted since the fall of Communism. Today, there are two Russian Catholic parishes in the United States, one in Australia, and one in Canada.
The Ruthenian Catholic Church, with 533,000 members, has one diocese in the Ukraine and four in the United States, as well as an apostolic exarchate in the Czech Republic. The motherland of this Church is Transcarpathia, which is located in what is now the western part of Ukraine. The Carpathians (Rusines, Rusyns) who lived there were evangelized by Saints Cyril and Methodius in the 860s. After the Great Schism of 1054, Christians in this area were Orthodox and no longer in communion with the Holy See. The Ruthenian Catholic Church dates from the Union of Uzhorod in 1646, when 63 Orthodox priests were received into the Catholic Church. The current head of the Church is Bishop Ivan Semedi (born 1921, appointed 1991), Bishop of Mukaeevo of the Byzantines, who resides in Uzhorod, Ukraine. In the United States, Ruthenian of Pittsburgh is an autonomous, metropolitan Church with its own hierarchical structure. The archbishop of the Pittsburgh metropolitan is Archbishop Basil Myron Schott, O.F.M. (born 1939, appointed 2002). Liturgical languages are Old Slavonic and English.
The Slovak Catholic Church, with 221,757 members, has one diocese in Slovakia, one diocese in Canada, and one apostolic exarchate in Canada. Saints Cyril and Methodius evangelized the Moravians from 863-67. Like the Ruthenian Catholic Church, the Slovak Catholic Church dates from the Union of Uzhorod in 1646. The current head of the Church is Bishop Jan Babjak (born 1953, appointed 2002), Bishop of Preeov (Slovakia) of Catholics of the Byzantine Rite. Liturgical languages are Old Slavonic and Slovak.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, with 5,181,759 members, has one archepiscopal exarchate and six dioceses in the Ukraine, five dioceses in Canada, four dioceses in the United States, two dioceses in Poland, and one each in Argentina, Australia, and Brazil, as well apostolic exarchates in France, Germany, and Great Britain. Kievan Rus’ received the Catholic faith when Saint Vladimir, Grand Duke of Kiev, was baptized in 988. The Great Schism of 1054 led to separation of the Orthodox in the Ukraine from the Holy See. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was formed in 1595-96, when the Orthodox bishops of the Metropolitan Province of Kiev sought reunion with the Holy See at the Union of Brest. The current head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church is Cardinal Archbishop Lubomyr Husar of Lviv (born 1933, appointed 2001). The liturgical languages are Old Slavonic and Ukrainian.
Chaldean (East Syrian) Tradition
The Chaldean (East Syrian) tradition, which comprises two Eastern Catholic Churches, traces its roots to the evangelization of Mesopotamia (Persia) by the mid-second century.
The Chaldean Catholic Church, with 303,096 members, has ten dioceses in Iraq, three in Iran, and one each in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and the United States. The Church in Persia did not accept the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (431), and thus the Assyrian Church of the East developed. In 1552, a group of Assyrian bishops sought union with the Holy See, and thus in 1553 the Chaldean Catholic Church was formed. The current Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans is His Beatitude Emmanuel III Delly (born 1927, elected 2003), who resides in Baghdad, Iraq. The liturgical languages are Syriac and Arabic.
The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, with 3,885,388 members, has 22 dioceses in India. The Church in India traces its origins to the evangelization of India by Saint Thomas. In 1498, when Portuguese colonizers encountered these “Thomas Christians,” who were in communion with the Assyrian Church of the East, the “Thomas Christians” declared their allegiance to the Roman Pontiff. In 1923, Pope Pius XI established a full hierarchy for the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. The current head of the Church is Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil (born 1927, appointed 1999), Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly, India. The liturgical language is Malayalam.
The varied liturgical traditions, disciplines, and structures of government of the Eastern Catholic Churches express the diversity of the Catholic Church. From this diversity comes the unity of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Because of this unity, the Church encourages the faithful to acquaint themselves with the various traditions found within the Church, and recognizes the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments within any rite of the Catholic Church.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=177
Eastern Catholic Churches
Issue: What are the Eastern Catholic Churches?
Response: Eastern Catholic Churches are “Churches of the East in union with, but not of Roman rite, with their own liturgical, theological, and administrative traditions, such as those of the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean rites. The variety of particular churches with distinctive traditions witnesses to the catholicity of the one Church of Christ, which takes root in distinct cultures” (Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church, second ed.).
Discussion: Most Catholics in the United States belong to the Roman, Latin rite of the Catholic Church. They are “Western” Catholics. Unfortunately, many Western Catholics do not know or understand the rich heritage of the Eastern Catholic Churches. These Churches, together with the Western Church, constitute the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” which we profess in the Nicene -- Constantinopolitan Creed.
While these individual Churches differ somewhat in respect to their liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, they all profess the same faith and submit themselves to the authority of the Pope. The Bishops of all the Churches constitute the Apostolic College of Bishops. And, united through bonds of the Holy Spirit, the faithful of all these Churches are properly called “Catholic.”[1]
This diversity within the Church encourages unity. It allows the rich traditions of many peoples to be expressed in an authentic encounter with Christ. These traditions, because they are diverse, witness to the inculturization of the Gospel intended by Christ.[2]
Some Eastern Churches have patriarchs, all of whom are equal in dignity but some of whom retain traditional places of honor in assemblies.
While Western Catholics should cherish their own rite,[3] Pope John Paul II has asked all Catholics, Western and Eastern, “to be familiar with that [Eastern] tradition, so as to be nourished by it” (Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen, May 2, 1995, 1).
Five Traditions, Twenty-one Churches
Different Eastern Catholic Churches share different traditions of liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage.[4] In many areas, Latin Rite dioceses coexist with Eastern Catholic Churches.
Alexandrian Tradition
The Alexandrian tradition, which comprises two Eastern Catholic Churches, has its roots in the evangelization of Alexandria by Saint Mark.
The Coptic Catholic Church, with 196,248 members (as well as 10,000 in diaspora under the care of Latin bishops), has six eparchies (dioceses) in Egypt. The hierarchy and laity of the Church in Egypt by and large did not accept the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451); thus the Coptic Orthodox Church developed. In 1442, the Coptic Orthodox Church briefly united with the Holy See. In the seventeenth century, Jesuit, Capuchin, and other Franciscan missionaries became active among the Copts. In 1741, a Coptic bishop in Jerusalem became a Catholic, and Pope Benedict XIV named him Vicar Apostolic of the 2,000 Coptic Catholics in Egypt. In 1824, the Holy See temporarily established a Patriarchate of Alexandria, which Pope Leo XIII re-established in 1895. The current Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts is His Beatitude Stephanos II Ghattas (born 1920, elected 1986), who resides in Cairo. The Church’s liturgical languages are Coptic and Arabic.
The Ethiopian Catholic Church, with 202,043 members, has two dioceses in Ethiopia and three in Eritrea. Ethiopia was evangelized by Saint Frumentius in the early fourth century. The Church in Ethiopia, like the Church in Egypt, did not accept the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, and thus the Ethiopian Orthodox Church developed. Catholic missionaries arrived in the fourteenth century. In the early 1500s, the Ethiopian emperor appealed to the Portugese for help in repelling an Islamic invasion, and Jesuit missionaries accompanied the Portugese. In 1622, the emperor converted to Catholicism, and four years later the Ethiopian Orthodox Church united with the Holy See. Pope Gregory XV appointed a Portugese Jesuit as patriarch; his Latinizations of the liturgy, along with the autocratic rule of the emperor, helped contribute to the dissolution of the union in 1636 under the emperor’s successor. Catholic missionaries were allowed to return in 1839, and missionary activity expanded when Italy ruled the country from 1935-41. The present ecclesiastical structure was established in 1961. The current head of this Church is Metropolitan Archbishop Berhane-Yesus Demerew Souraphiel (born 1948, appointed 1999) of Addis Ababa. Liturgical languages are Ge’ez and Amharic.
Antiochene Tradition
The origin and development of the Antiochene tradition, which comprises three Eastern Catholic Churches, is recorded in the New Testament and involved Saints Peter and Paul (Acts 6:5, 11:19-26, 15:22-32, Gal 2:11). The Antiochene liturgy was strongly influenced by the Liturgy of Saint James in Jerusalem.
The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, with 326,654 members, has four dioceses in India, which traces its evangelization to Saint Thomas the Apostle. Christians in India were in communion with the Assyrian Church of the East, which broke off from communion with the Holy See after the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (431). Portugese colonialization brought the forced Latinization of this Church, which most “Thomas Christians” rejected. Thus in 1653 the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which rejected the authority of the Roman Pontiff, was formed. In the following century, four attempts to reunite this Church with the Holy See failed. In 1930, two bishops, one priest, one deacon, and one layman of this Church were received into the Catholic Church, and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church was formed. By 1950, membership in the Church had grown to over 65,000. There are seventeen Syro-Malankara Catholic communities in the United States, Canada, and Germany. The current head of the Church is Metropolitan Archbishop Cyril Mar Basileos Malancharuvil (born 1935, appointed 1986) of Trinvandrum, Kirala State, India. The liturgical language is Malayalam.
The Maronite Catholic Church, with 3,221,939 members, has ten dioceses in Lebanon, three in Syria, two in the United States, and one each in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, and Mexico, as well as exarchates in Jerusalem and Jordan. The Church traces its origin to the establishment of a monastery in Lebanon by Saint Maron (c. 400). The Maronite Catholic Church has always been in communion with the Holy See. The Church’s current patriarch is His Beatitude Mar Nasrallah Cardinal Sfeir (born 1920, elected 1986), who resides in Bkerke, Lebanon. The liturgical language is Arabic.
The Syrian Catholic Church, with 128,931 members, has four dioceses in Syria, two in Iraq, and one each in Egypt, Lebanon, and North America, as well as patriarchal exarchates in Iraq/Kuwait and Turkey. After many Christians in Syria did not accept the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Syrian Orthodox Church developed. In 1444, this Church briefly reunited with the Holy See. In 1626, Capuchin and Jesuit missionaries began to work among the Syrian Orthodox. So many became Catholic that Syrian Catholics had their own patriarch from 1662-1702. During the 1700s, the Ottoman Turkish government persecuted Syrian Catholics harshly, and the Church was driven underground. In 1783, the newly elected Syrian Orthodox patriarch became a Catholic and fled to Lebanon. The Church’s current patriarch is His Beatitude Ignatius Peter VIII (born 1930, elected 2001), who resides in Beirut. The liturgical languages are Syriac/Aramaic and Arabic.
Armenian Tradition
The Armenian tradition embraces one Eastern Catholic Church and traces its origin to the missionary activity of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, the Apostle of Armenia (c. 257-c. 337).
The Armenian Catholic Church, with 343,198 members, has two dioceses in Syria and one each in Argentina, Egypt, France, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Ukraine, as well as an apostolic exarchate for the United States and ordinariates in Eastern Europe (Armenia), Greece, and Romania. In 506, the Armenian bishops formally rejected the Christological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451), and thus the Armenian Apostolic Church was born. Armenians in Cilicia reunited with the Holy See from 1198-1375, and the entire Church reunited briefly with the Holy See in 1439. Subsequent Catholic missionary activity was successful, and the increasing number of Catholics led Pope Benedict XIV in 1742 to name a former Armenian Apostolic bishop as patriarch. A large number of Armenian Catholics lost their lives in the Turkish genocide of their nation (1915-6). The current patriarch is His Beatitude Nerses Bedros XIX Tamouni, who resides in Beirut. The liturgical language is classical Armenian.
Byzantine Tradition
The Byzantine tradition comprises thirteen Eastern Catholic Churches. It began with the construction of Constantinople as the second capital of the Roman Empire in 330.
The Albanian Church, with 2,164 members, has one apostolic administration in Albania. In the fourth century, Roman soldiers and traders brought the Gospel to Albania. The Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Albanian Orthodox Church. In 1628 and 1900, small groups of Albanian Orthodox became Catholic. The head of the Albanian Church, appointed in 1996, is Bishop Hil Kabashi. The Church has no other priests and no parishes, and the liturgical language is Albanian.
The Belarussian (Byelorussian, White Russian) Church has no hierarchy. A 1992 Belarussian State University survey estimated that 100,000 Belarussians are Eastern Catholics; there are 5,000 Belarussian Catholics in diaspora. Modern day Belarus was once part of Kievan Rus’, which received the Catholic faith when Saint Vladimir, Grand Duke of Kiev, was baptized in 988. The Great Schism of 1054 led to separation of the Orthodox in Belarus from the Holy See. Most Orthodox Christians in Belarus became Catholic as a result of the Union of Brest (1595-6). The liturgical language is Belarusan.
The Bulgarian Catholic Church, with 15,000 members, has one apostolic exarchate. While there was a bishops’ synod in 343 in what is now Bulgarian territory, the beginnings of the evangelization of Bulgaria are usually dated to the baptism of King Boris I by a Byzantine Rite bishop in 865. The Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria. In 1861, when a group of Bulgarian Orthodox approached Pope Pius IX to become Catholic, he named one of them an archbishop. The current head of the Church is Bishop Christo Proykov (born 1946, appointed 1995), who resides in Sofia. The liturgical language is Old Slavonic.
The Eparchy of Krizevci, with 48,920 members, has one diocese in Croatia with jurisdiction over all of the former Yugoslavia. Pope Saint Martin I sent John of Ravenna to evangelize the Croats in the middle of the seventh century, and the evangelization of the Serbs dates from this period as well. In 1219, the Church in Serbia broke from communion with the Holy See, and thus the Orthodox Church of Serbia developed. In the early seventeenth century, some Serbs in Croatia sought union with the Holy See, and in 1611 they were granted a bishop. The current head of the Church is Bishop Slavomir Miklove (born 1934, appointed 1983), who resides in Zagreb, Croatia. Liturgical languages are Croatian and Old Slavonic.
The Greek Catholic Church, with 2,345 members, has apostolic exarchates in Greece and Turkey. The New Testament records the evangelization of Greece. The Orthodox Church of Greece developed after the Great Schism of 1054. In 1829, the Ottoman sultan removed restrictions against the formation of an Eastern Catholic community in Greece. Catholic missionary activity began in 1856, and Pope Saint Pius X appointed a bishop for the Church in 1911. The current head of the Church is Bishop Anarghyros Printesis (born 1937, appointed 1975), who resides in Athens. The liturgical language is Greek.
The Hungarian Catholic Church, with 281,998 members, has one diocese and one apostolic exarchate in Hungary. Saint Adalbert came to Hungary in 985 to evangelize, and Saint Stephen, who died as a Latin Rite Catholic, became king in 997. Turkish invasions throughout Europe caused many Carpatho-Russian and Romanian Orthodox to emigrate to Hungary, and most of them became Catholic in the 1600s. In 1924, these Catholics, who had been under the care of non-Hungarian Eastern Catholic bishops, were constituted into the Hungarian Catholic Church. The current head of the Church is Bishop Szilard Keresztes (born 1932, appointed 1988), Bishop of Hajdudorog and Apostolic Administrator of Miskolc, who resides in Nyiregyhaza, Hungary. The liturgical language is Hungarian.
The Italo-Albanian Catholic Church, with 63,956 members, has two dioceses and one territorial abbey in Italy. In the fourth century, Roman soldiers and traders brought the Gospel to Albania. The Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Albanian Orthodox Church. In the 1400s, the Turkish conquest of their nation caused many Albanians to flee their country for southern Italy. The Albanian Orthodox who eventually became Catholic were granted their own Byzantine Rite bishop by the Holy See in 1595. Because the Church’s two dioceses are of equal rank, the Church does not have a single head.
The Melkite Greek Catholic Church, with 1,189,557 members, has seven dioceses in Lebanon, five in Syria, and one each in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, and the United States, as well as exarchates in Iraq, Kuwait, and Venezuala. The origin and development of the Church of Antioch is recorded in the New Testament and involved Saints Peter and Paul (Acts 6:5, 11:19-26, 15:22-32, Gal 2:11). After the Great Schism of 1054, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch developed. In the mid-1600s, Capuchins, Carmelites, and Jesuits began missionary activity among these Orthodox. In 1724, two men were elected Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, and one of them became Catholic. The current Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem is His Beatitude Gregory III Laham (born 1933, elected 2000), who resides in Damascus. Liturgical languages are Greek and Arabic.
The Romanian Greek Catholic Church, with 1,118,823 members, has five dioceses in Romania and one in the United States. In the third century, missionaries evangelized Romanian, and the Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Orthodox Church of Romania. In 1698, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Transylvania sought communion with the Holy See, and the reunion was made formal in 1700. The head of the Church is Metropolitan Lucian Murean (born 1931, appointed 1994), Archbishop of Fagara and Alba Iulia, who resides in Blaj. The liturgical language is Romanian.
The Russian Church, with 3,500 members in diaspora, has no hierarchy. The evangelization of Russia followed from the baptism of Saint Olga (950s) and Saint Vladimir (988), and the Great Schism of 1054 led to the development of the Orthodox Church of Russia. Eastern Catholic Churches were illegal in Russia until 1905. After Czar Nicholas II’s edict of toleration that year, a few small Eastern Catholic communities formed. Apostolic exarchates were then established in Russia in 1917 and China in 1928 (for Russian emigrants); these have not been reconstituted since the fall of Communism. Today, there are two Russian Catholic parishes in the United States, one in Australia, and one in Canada.
The Ruthenian Catholic Church, with 533,000 members, has one diocese in the Ukraine and four in the United States, as well as an apostolic exarchate in the Czech Republic. The motherland of this Church is Transcarpathia, which is located in what is now the western part of Ukraine. The Carpathians (Rusines, Rusyns) who lived there were evangelized by Saints Cyril and Methodius in the 860s. After the Great Schism of 1054, Christians in this area were Orthodox and no longer in communion with the Holy See. The Ruthenian Catholic Church dates from the Union of Uzhorod in 1646, when 63 Orthodox priests were received into the Catholic Church. The current head of the Church is Bishop Ivan Semedi (born 1921, appointed 1991), Bishop of Mukaeevo of the Byzantines, who resides in Uzhorod, Ukraine. In the United States, Ruthenian of Pittsburgh is an autonomous, metropolitan Church with its own hierarchical structure. The archbishop of the Pittsburgh metropolitan is Archbishop Basil Myron Schott, O.F.M. (born 1939, appointed 2002). Liturgical languages are Old Slavonic and English.
The Slovak Catholic Church, with 221,757 members, has one diocese in Slovakia, one diocese in Canada, and one apostolic exarchate in Canada. Saints Cyril and Methodius evangelized the Moravians from 863-67. Like the Ruthenian Catholic Church, the Slovak Catholic Church dates from the Union of Uzhorod in 1646. The current head of the Church is Bishop Jan Babjak (born 1953, appointed 2002), Bishop of Preeov (Slovakia) of Catholics of the Byzantine Rite. Liturgical languages are Old Slavonic and Slovak.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, with 5,181,759 members, has one archepiscopal exarchate and six dioceses in the Ukraine, five dioceses in Canada, four dioceses in the United States, two dioceses in Poland, and one each in Argentina, Australia, and Brazil, as well apostolic exarchates in France, Germany, and Great Britain. Kievan Rus’ received the Catholic faith when Saint Vladimir, Grand Duke of Kiev, was baptized in 988. The Great Schism of 1054 led to separation of the Orthodox in the Ukraine from the Holy See. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was formed in 1595-96, when the Orthodox bishops of the Metropolitan Province of Kiev sought reunion with the Holy See at the Union of Brest. The current head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church is Cardinal Archbishop Lubomyr Husar of Lviv (born 1933, appointed 2001). The liturgical languages are Old Slavonic and Ukrainian.
Chaldean (East Syrian) Tradition
The Chaldean (East Syrian) tradition, which comprises two Eastern Catholic Churches, traces its roots to the evangelization of Mesopotamia (Persia) by the mid-second century.
The Chaldean Catholic Church, with 303,096 members, has ten dioceses in Iraq, three in Iran, and one each in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and the United States. The Church in Persia did not accept the dogmatic Christological definitions of the Council of Ephesus (431), and thus the Assyrian Church of the East developed. In 1552, a group of Assyrian bishops sought union with the Holy See, and thus in 1553 the Chaldean Catholic Church was formed. The current Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans is His Beatitude Emmanuel III Delly (born 1927, elected 2003), who resides in Baghdad, Iraq. The liturgical languages are Syriac and Arabic.
The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, with 3,885,388 members, has 22 dioceses in India. The Church in India traces its origins to the evangelization of India by Saint Thomas. In 1498, when Portuguese colonizers encountered these “Thomas Christians,” who were in communion with the Assyrian Church of the East, the “Thomas Christians” declared their allegiance to the Roman Pontiff. In 1923, Pope Pius XI established a full hierarchy for the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. The current head of the Church is Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil (born 1927, appointed 1999), Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly, India. The liturgical language is Malayalam.
The varied liturgical traditions, disciplines, and structures of government of the Eastern Catholic Churches express the diversity of the Catholic Church. From this diversity comes the unity of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Because of this unity, the Church encourages the faithful to acquaint themselves with the various traditions found within the Church, and recognizes the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments within any rite of the Catholic Church.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=177
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
One More thing...
I just reread the post I made called "Political Issue :( " and this was before I knew that the Church was against both birth control AND artificial insemination! So it is all good.
I hate when Catholics proclaim one thing and live another.
Though my title may be a bit misleading, it is true. I hate when ANYONE proclaims something and acts contrary to it, though I have accused of doing it myself. For anyone actually reading this... CATHOLICS ARE PRO-LIFE... there is no other way to be. If you proclaim to be apart of The True Church then you must go by Rome! Rome says that every life is worthwhile and should not be killed. Well here is another example of a person who does not know what it means to be Catholic! It really hurts me!
Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith
By Judie BrownPosted Jan 02, 2007The new speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, is showing what I consider extreme arrogance, even for a pro-abortion figure in public life who claims to be a faithful Catholic. Her handlers are making it abundantly clear that anything goes in their effort to showcase Pelosi and her life story, including the use of a Catholic Mass to cement her public image as a Catholic mother and grandmother.That, my friend, is a disgrace that I cannot ignore.As a practicing Catholic mother and grandmother, I am highly offended that this woman would use the influence of her new office to flaunt her Catholic label while advocating the brutal murder of Preborn children without apology. This “mother and grandmother” from California’s 8th District in San Francisco has been one of the most outspoken advocates for unrestricted abortion in Congress.Perhaps the only thing more egregious than her support for aborting Preborn children is her inability to comprehend the sacrilegious nature of her intended use of the Mass scheduled for tomorrow at Trinity University, a Catholic institution in Washington, D.C. To prevent such a scandal from occurring we have respectfully asked Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. To intervene and cancel any festivities at the Catholic college, particularly any attempt to honor Pelosi during Mass.The reasons for this request are best characterized by quoting Archbishop Wuerl’s recent commentary, “The Human Quest for God.” He faithfully wrote, “a reflection on the moral order in the universe can lead us to a natural knowledge of God. We are aware that our actions should be just, truthful and temperate.”The act of abortion is a grave injustice perpetrated against an innocent human being created by God in His own image. Those who advocate this act are deceiving mothers by suggesting to them that their children are nothing more than disposable problems and instilling in these mothers the idea that “freedom of choice” empowers them to make a decision that results in the death of their child. There is nothing temperate about the act of abortion. In fact, aborting a child falls into the category of one of the most intemperate acts currently engrained in the culture.A thinking person with any sort of moral sensibilities would conclude that the bald-faced contradiction between advocating for abortion and heralding one’s attendance at a Catholic Mass is simply outrageous and should not be permitted. While it is usually the case that we should not prevent another person from attending Mass, which is a source of grace and blessing, this is no ordinary grandmother attempting to reconcile her abortion advocacy with her God; this is the soon-to-be speaker of the House making a public spectacle of the Mass for political purposes as she attempts to improve her public image.At what cost does a prelate of the Catholic Church permit such an atrocity?Archbishop Wuerl wrote in the same column that we “hear in the voice of our conscience,” which is a “manifestation of the presence of God,” the insistent call to goodness. “Conscience is described as the still, quiet voice of God within each of us,” he said. It seems to me that the archbishop would be doing Congresswoman Pelosi a tremendous favor if he were to quietly but firmly inform her that her staff’s public and repeated focus on the Mass as part of her “agenda” is an insult to her faith because she has not listened to the voice of God, but rather has succumbed to the voices of the culture of death. Otherwise, she would not champion abortion on demand as a “right” in America, nor would she be continually casting her votes against even the slightest pro-life legislation.Our request of the archbishop is based on the most basic of Catholic teachings: That the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is both a reminder of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice for us by His death on the Cross, and also an opportunity for Catholics, with contrite hearts, to come to Him and receive Him in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Mass is not a political rally; the Mass is not a public relations event; the Mass is not an “extreme makeover” for an intransigent, pro-abortion politician.Perhaps, as our public statements on this tragic state of affairs settles in on the minds and hearts of those closest to Pelosi, she herself will realize that her choice of venue is more scandalous than it is anything else. Perhaps that still, quiet voice within will invite her to cancel her public forays into a Mass that she might otherwise have attended without the public hoopla and without the disingenuous statements of those who work for her.Perhaps, as Archbishop Wuerl wrote, Pelosi will come on her knees before the Lord, publicly repudiate her support for abortion, human embryonic stem cell research and other crimes against life, and “respond to God’s loving call with a ‘yes’ of faith.”If not, we hope and pray that Wuerl intervenes for the sake of every believing Catholic, young and old, who knows that every single abortion is an act of murder. For the sake of all those who believe, we beseech the archbishop to act in defense of Christ, regardless of headlines or public image. We need his leadership and, as a Catholic grandmother myself, I realize that Pelosi desperately needs his moral guidance as well.
Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith
By Judie BrownPosted Jan 02, 2007The new speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, is showing what I consider extreme arrogance, even for a pro-abortion figure in public life who claims to be a faithful Catholic. Her handlers are making it abundantly clear that anything goes in their effort to showcase Pelosi and her life story, including the use of a Catholic Mass to cement her public image as a Catholic mother and grandmother.That, my friend, is a disgrace that I cannot ignore.As a practicing Catholic mother and grandmother, I am highly offended that this woman would use the influence of her new office to flaunt her Catholic label while advocating the brutal murder of Preborn children without apology. This “mother and grandmother” from California’s 8th District in San Francisco has been one of the most outspoken advocates for unrestricted abortion in Congress.Perhaps the only thing more egregious than her support for aborting Preborn children is her inability to comprehend the sacrilegious nature of her intended use of the Mass scheduled for tomorrow at Trinity University, a Catholic institution in Washington, D.C. To prevent such a scandal from occurring we have respectfully asked Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. To intervene and cancel any festivities at the Catholic college, particularly any attempt to honor Pelosi during Mass.The reasons for this request are best characterized by quoting Archbishop Wuerl’s recent commentary, “The Human Quest for God.” He faithfully wrote, “a reflection on the moral order in the universe can lead us to a natural knowledge of God. We are aware that our actions should be just, truthful and temperate.”The act of abortion is a grave injustice perpetrated against an innocent human being created by God in His own image. Those who advocate this act are deceiving mothers by suggesting to them that their children are nothing more than disposable problems and instilling in these mothers the idea that “freedom of choice” empowers them to make a decision that results in the death of their child. There is nothing temperate about the act of abortion. In fact, aborting a child falls into the category of one of the most intemperate acts currently engrained in the culture.A thinking person with any sort of moral sensibilities would conclude that the bald-faced contradiction between advocating for abortion and heralding one’s attendance at a Catholic Mass is simply outrageous and should not be permitted. While it is usually the case that we should not prevent another person from attending Mass, which is a source of grace and blessing, this is no ordinary grandmother attempting to reconcile her abortion advocacy with her God; this is the soon-to-be speaker of the House making a public spectacle of the Mass for political purposes as she attempts to improve her public image.At what cost does a prelate of the Catholic Church permit such an atrocity?Archbishop Wuerl wrote in the same column that we “hear in the voice of our conscience,” which is a “manifestation of the presence of God,” the insistent call to goodness. “Conscience is described as the still, quiet voice of God within each of us,” he said. It seems to me that the archbishop would be doing Congresswoman Pelosi a tremendous favor if he were to quietly but firmly inform her that her staff’s public and repeated focus on the Mass as part of her “agenda” is an insult to her faith because she has not listened to the voice of God, but rather has succumbed to the voices of the culture of death. Otherwise, she would not champion abortion on demand as a “right” in America, nor would she be continually casting her votes against even the slightest pro-life legislation.Our request of the archbishop is based on the most basic of Catholic teachings: That the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is both a reminder of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice for us by His death on the Cross, and also an opportunity for Catholics, with contrite hearts, to come to Him and receive Him in the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Mass is not a political rally; the Mass is not a public relations event; the Mass is not an “extreme makeover” for an intransigent, pro-abortion politician.Perhaps, as our public statements on this tragic state of affairs settles in on the minds and hearts of those closest to Pelosi, she herself will realize that her choice of venue is more scandalous than it is anything else. Perhaps that still, quiet voice within will invite her to cancel her public forays into a Mass that she might otherwise have attended without the public hoopla and without the disingenuous statements of those who work for her.Perhaps, as Archbishop Wuerl wrote, Pelosi will come on her knees before the Lord, publicly repudiate her support for abortion, human embryonic stem cell research and other crimes against life, and “respond to God’s loving call with a ‘yes’ of faith.”If not, we hope and pray that Wuerl intervenes for the sake of every believing Catholic, young and old, who knows that every single abortion is an act of murder. For the sake of all those who believe, we beseech the archbishop to act in defense of Christ, regardless of headlines or public image. We need his leadership and, as a Catholic grandmother myself, I realize that Pelosi desperately needs his moral guidance as well.
Too Long!
Wow it has been almost a year since I posted. Since I have not received an email missing me, I guess I was not missed. However, here I am back again. I think I shall give link all of my personal sites! LOL
I have a "My Space" account, you can look me up there... Also my own personal website www.dustymbrahlek.net I am easy to find...
I guess I have not had much time to post, then again that could be a lie. So here is an update.
1. I love being a Catholic! It is the most amazing thing in my life (just under God). I am so thankful to my dearest friends Phil Gray and Justine Dixon for showing me the road to this path.
2. I HAVE GRADUATED... I think. I am waiting for the results of the CLEF exam to come back, but I think I passed. If I did I have my BS in accounting...
3. My heart has been broken many times, not because I did not get a guy, but because my two dearest friends have been lazy about Sunday Mass. I want the best for my friends and when I see that someone is choosing to skip having intimate time with God for some other reason, it just hurts.
4. "edited and removed"
5. "edited and removed"
Ok, enough personal information... In fact I think I have already said too much. But I will post more on the latest updates on the Catholic world!
I have a "My Space" account, you can look me up there... Also my own personal website www.dustymbrahlek.net I am easy to find...
I guess I have not had much time to post, then again that could be a lie. So here is an update.
1. I love being a Catholic! It is the most amazing thing in my life (just under God). I am so thankful to my dearest friends Phil Gray and Justine Dixon for showing me the road to this path.
2. I HAVE GRADUATED... I think. I am waiting for the results of the CLEF exam to come back, but I think I passed. If I did I have my BS in accounting...
3. My heart has been broken many times, not because I did not get a guy, but because my two dearest friends have been lazy about Sunday Mass. I want the best for my friends and when I see that someone is choosing to skip having intimate time with God for some other reason, it just hurts.
4. "edited and removed"
5. "edited and removed"
Ok, enough personal information... In fact I think I have already said too much. But I will post more on the latest updates on the Catholic world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
