Jeffrey Miller

The dissident theologian Hans Küng has suggested that Barack Obama would be a better pope than Benedict XVI. “The mood in the church is oppressive,” Küng told a German outlet. “Benedict is unteachable in matters of birth control and abortion, arrogant and without transparency and restrictive of freedom and human rights.” The theologian who once argued for greater democracy in the Church suggested that the Pope should follow Obama’s example and issue executive orders to bring about radical changes in Church doctrine and discipline, “using the power of his executive office to issue decrees. [source]

Well that is about par for Hans Küng. He argues against the Papacy while at the same time wants the Pope to issue “executive orders” against the will of Christ.

In other news:

Students and faculty returned to Boston College (BC), a Jesuit Catholic institution, for the Spring 2009 semester to find that crucifixes and icons had been placed in many classrooms that had been long bereft of sacred art. This move, which helps strengthen the university’s Catholic identity, came by direct request of President Rev. William P. Leahy, S.J., according to a campus newspaper editor.

“Bravo for Boston College!” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “For Catholics, outward signs, symbols and practices of our faith are an important part of relating to God in a material world.”

Crucifixes in a Catholic schools, wow what a concept. Though it is rather sad that actually having crucifix in a classroom is a positive development.

American Papist notes the following story “BC Professors Protest Crucifixes: Professors Threaten Resignation Over the Placement of Crucifixes in Classrooms.”

Returning to school for the spring semester, some professors were shocked to lean about a new university policy that added crucifix to every classroom on campus over the winter break. Calling the crucifixes and Catholic icons offensive at a Jesuit University, at least one professor is refusing to teach in classrooms adorned by crucifix even if he should have to move his class to a different room at his own expense.

Well that professor who refuses to be in the same room as a crucifix needs to be tested. For example some Holy Water thrown on him or checking to see if he casts a reflection in the mirror.

Professor Hoveyda, the Vanderslice Millennium Professor and Chemistry at Boston College, found it disconcerting that the faculty were not consulted before the decision to implement crucifixes was reached by administrators. He stated that “in any respectable university, it is the faculty who is responsible for the level and quality of the education of our students; this does not pertain to administration, particularly those who are either not scholars or are have never in there live been highly respected serious scholars.

What? So the level and quality of education is affected by a crucifix on the wall? What kind of serious scholar do you have to be to decide to have a crucifix in a Catholic classroom? The professor goes on so say this action “denigrate the faculty.”

Even some professors who recognize a duty on the part of a Catholic university to expose its students to Catholics object to the crucifixes on the basis that they impose too much upon the religious freedom of students. Professor Scott, a member of chemistry department, commented that “as a Jesuit university, BC does have a duty, in my opinion to expose its student to Catholicism. However, “expose” and “impose” ought never to be confused.

Yes a crucifix imposes Catholicism. Students are forced to accept Catholicism against their will at the site of the corpus on the cross. All I can say is if these professors resign, BC will have been done a favor.

“For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)

The scandal of the cross continues which is foolishness to BC professors.

January 30, 2009

Dear Senator Casey:

I wish to thank you for voting in favor of the Hatch Amendment to the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reorganization Act of 2009 which would have made unborn children eligible for child health assistance had it passed. I am grateful for what you have done on behalf of children in America who are without health care.

It is with deep regret, however, that I learned of your vote against the amendment offered by Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) to the same Children’s Health Insurance Act. Senator Martinez’s amendment would have reinstated the Mexico City Policy. That policy, instituted in 1984, required foreign non-governmental organizations "to agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds" that they would "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning . . . ." It also prohibited them from lobbying governments to make abortion legal. In effect, the reversal of the Mexico City policy will mean that over 450 million dollars of American foreign aid will go to organizations that are militant in promoting abortion as a method of population control, particularly in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds. Senator, is not this vote a contradiction of your repeated claim that you support the protection of unborn life?

Contrary to a release issued by your office yesterday, the 1973 Helms Amendment does not provide the same restrictions as the Mexico City Policy. The Helms Amendment prohibits only U.S. funds from being used to pay for abortions or to motivate or coerce anyone to practice abortions. It in no way keeps U.S. federal funds from organizations which use their own money to pay for or support abortions. Nor does it place restrictions on organizations that lobby foreign governments to reverse anti-abortion laws. While I understand that the Helms Amendment is still in place, it does not have the same effect in limiting abortions abroad.

On Respect Life Sunday, October 5, I addressed the faithful of the Diocese of Scranton. In keeping with the obligations of my episcopal office, I called upon my brothers and sisters in faith to be vigilant against the objections to the Church’s teaching on life so prevalent in current political discourse. I vowed to be vigilant in correcting Catholics who are in error with regard to the sanctity of life. Your vote against the Mexico City Policy will mean the deaths of thousands of unborn children. This is an offense against life and a denial of our Catholic teaching on the dignity of every human being. This action is worthy of condemnation by all moral men and women.

Your release also says that you support "family planning . . . specifically because reducing unintended pregnancies reduces the number of abortions." I remind you that it is never permissible to use immoral means (e.g., artificial contraception) to achieve a good end.

As I have done on several occasions, Senator, I urge you to consider that Church documents speak clearly and compellingly on the special responsibility that falls to you as a lawmaker to oppose abortion and other clear evils, including contraception, infanticide, euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research. To that end, I refer you to two documents:

1. Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life. It says, "Catholics . . . have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life."

2. Christifideles Laici. It states, "If, indeed everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given a particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, health workers and those who hold economic and political power."

I remind you further that when he was Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger sent a memo to the bishops of the United States advising them that advocacy of, or participation in, abortion and euthanasia can never be justified by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits or requires it. He said there can be no diversity of opinion among Catholics regarding abortion and euthanasia.

It is my deepest wish, Senator, to convince you of the necessity of rescinding your vote on the Martinez Amendment. It is the height of irony that this amendment was defeated while the Senate passed legislation to provide health insurance for children who would otherwise be without it. What hypocrisy offers health insurance to children in one part of the world when children in another part will be deprived, by the stroke of the same pen, of their first breath?

I recognize and respect the burdens that you bear as a United States Senator; however, I remind you that your responsibilities as a Catholic bound by the faith of the Church exceed even those of your office. Your failure to reverse this vote will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy.

As I have done several times before, I offer to make myself available to you to discuss the grave concerns that I raise here.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.
Bishop of Scranton

[Source]

and praying.