Much has been written in the foreign press about the real purpose of Pope Benedict XVI’s unprecedented election-year visit to the United States. Some charge that he came to bolster the only pro-life candidate, John McCain. Others have surmised that the Pope came to make common cause with President Bush to oppose the perceived threat of an expanding Islam.

Writing for Mexico’s La Jornada, Carlos Martínez García sees another motivation as key to the visit. García writes in part:

“As for Catholics in the United States, almost a third of the population has been brought up in that faith, but today only 24 percent of Americans call themselves Catholic, less than a half of those who identify themselves as Protestant/Evangelical - almost 52 percent. The study clearly shows that the strongest adherents of the Catholic Church are amongst recent immigrants. Forty-six percent of U.S. nationals born outside the country are Catholic, while 24 percent of them Protestant.”

So why the concern on the part of the Holy See?

Garcia continues:

“The situation changes when we consider the religious affiliation of those born in the United States: fifty-five percent are Protestant and 21 percent are Catholic. In other words, a significant percentage of those who were Catholic in their infancy, have over the years decided to change their affiliation, switching primarily to Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.”

In other words, the longer immigrants remain in the U.S., the greater the likelihood that they’ll switch to another denomination or religion.

Garcia concludes:

“To the Pope’s misfortune, the dynamics of change are influenced by factors beyond his control.”

By Carlos Martínez García

Translated By Halszka Czarnocka

April 23, 2008

Mexico - La Jornada - Original Article (Spanish)

The results of the trip are more media than real. Benedict the XVI’s visit to the United States ratified a pastoral line that doesn’t confront problems at their root but treats them superficially and postpones their resolution, to the detriment of the millions of Catholics whose disillusionment with the leadership of the Catholic Church continues to deepen.

A good number of commentators and analysts expressed surprise and even praised the papal decision to meet with some victims of clerical pedophilia in the United States. They forget that due to the peculiarity of United States society, both in terms of its religious composition and the vigilance with which it monitors leaders of any kind, Pope Benedict XVI was practically obliged to show some sign that these outrageous abuses will not happen again.

We know of the magnitude of the sexual abuses perpetrated by Catholic priests in that country thanks to the mobilization of those who were assaulted and the solidarity of people who assisted them in disseminating news about the size of the problem and suing the pedophiles in court. It was an organization of citizens and its insistence on documenting and making public the sexual attacks of clergy in that country, which made it possible to make the issue a public one of such national significance.

The various centers of ecclesiastic authority, both in the U.S. and Rome, did everything possible to conceal the scandals. When they failed in the attempt, they imposed damage control measures and tried unsuccessfully to minimize the problem.

It was an entire network of complicity within the U.S. Catholic Church that permitted thousands of cases of sexual abuse, not the isolated behavior of this or that cleric. In this regard there is convincing data:

“A study ordered by the North American Episcopal Conference in 2004 … concluded that the number of children victimized by about 5 000 priests over the past three decades was over 11,000. Since many cases have been resolved according to the culture and civil law of the United States, the relevant statistics include $2 billion that has been paid in out in this regard, which has contributed to bankruptcy of more than a few diocese” (from The Pope and Clerical Pedophilia in Mexico [El Papa y la pederastia clerical en México] by Miguel Ángel Granados Chapa, Proceso).

The Pope pronounced words and promised actions favorable to Latin American immigrants, the majority of whom entered the United States without a visa. The productive apparatus in the United States has benefited on a great scale from these so-called illegals by paying them low wages and providing them with almost no social benefits. For the most part, these people come to that nation as Catholics and are the main factor in the growth of Catholicism there. This reality has another less well-known side, which is creating concern at the Holy See in Rome.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of our nation.

This Guest Voice post is by watchingamerica.com translator Dorian de Wind, who is also a retired U.S. Air Force officer. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of TMV and its writers.

I, too, am a Flip-Flopper — And I am in good company

by Dorian de Wind

People change their minds. Some change their entire way of life–sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

In today’s political climate, changing one’s mind, whether for better or for worse, can be considered a cardinal sin. Witness the withering attacks John Kerry endured during the 2004 presidential elections campaign when he tried to explain his votes on a funding measure for the Iraq war. The term “flip-flopping” acquired an entirely new meaning. It became a pejorative and an effective one.

John Kerry’s alleged “flip-flopping,” along with the smear campaign on his Vietnam War record,–the so-called “swift boating”– probably cost him the presidency.

Several years ago, Senator John McCain, now the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, flip-flopped–in my opinion for the better–on his stands on a national holiday commemorating Martin Luther King’s birthday and on the issue of apartheid in South Africa.

Today, during the presidential primaries, we again see accusations of “flip-flopping” flying back and forth between the candidates–even between candidates of the same party.

Earlier in the campaign, McCain called his rival, Romney, a flip-flopper several times. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to trade similar accusations.

There are some new and creative—and even more disparaging– compounds and constructs of the term flip-flopper, such as “serial flip-flopper,” and “Flip-Flopper-in-Chief.”

But, is flip-flopping really so bad? Is it dishonest, disloyal, or disingenuous to change one’s beliefs or loyalties?

I often ask myself those questions–and so have others—because I have flip-flopped, too.

You see, I used to be a gung-ho Republican. Today I am a staunch Democrat. How strong of a Republican was I? Perhaps, recounting an experience of almost 40 years ago will explain.

Every Christmas, as we had done for the previous six or seven years, my sisters and I, along with our families, gathered in laid-back Lakeland, Florida, to celebrate the holidays with our parents.

That particular Christmas morning in 1968 was no different. We had just finished breakfast and were sitting around a weather-beaten redwood picnic table under a large, beautiful grapefruit tree. The conversation was lively and in three languages–Dutch, Spanish and English–reflecting our family’s diverse roots and our relatively recent arrivals in the United States. Although we all spoke English relatively well, we never dwelled upon nor questioned this Babel phenomenon. However, on this day there would be some serious questioning-not of our multi-lingual tradition, but of our beliefs, loyalties and patriotism.

As I was the only member of the military and the only Republican in our immediate family, our conversation eventually turned to the major topic in those days, the war in Vietnam. As a young Air Force captain, I ardently–almost fanatically–supported the war and those who were running the war. I blindly believed in the “Domino Theory.” I was convinced that by fighting in that far-away country we were defending freedom and democracy over there and our own national security over here. I revered President Nixon and admired Henry Kissinger. Ronald Reagan would later become my idol, Ollie North my hero.

I do not remember exactly how the conversation took the turn it did. Perhaps it was my sisters defending those longhaired, unpatriotic anti-war protesters. Perhaps it was my younger sister’s whining about the tens of thousands of casualties in Vietnam and about atrocities allegedly committed by our troops–revelations about the Mylai massacre were just beginning to emerge. I painfully recall words such as “traitor” and “unpatriotic,” that I hurled across the table at my sisters and comments such as “If you hate this country so much, why don’t you go back to Holland or to Ecuador.” I do not remember all the vitriol, but I do vividly remember the tears in my sisters’ and mother’s eyes. Yes, I was a gung-ho Republican back in 1968.

I continued to be a flag-waving war supporter for several more months after that December morning, despite the horrendous human toll the war was taking on both sides. Eventually the horrors of that war and the words I had read by the Roman historian Tacitus, “They made a wasteland and called it peace,” became too poignant for even me to ignore.

Although disillusioned with the war, I continued to be a halfhearted Republican for several more years, while still in the military and for a time while working for a defense contractor. By the time I retired from my second career, however, I had fully flip-flopped.

My disillusionment with the Vietnam War was one reason for my conversion. I also gradually realized that “moral principles,” “family and traditional values,“ and other “values” that my previous party claimed to have exclusive rights on, were quite uniformly shared by all Americans, regardless of political affiliation–and were violated by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Perhaps it was because I saw that Democrats are just as God-fearing as Republicans are.

Perhaps it was because I came to the conclusion that “compassion,” “tolerance,” and “inclusion” are a way of life with Democrats, not just hollow quadrennial campaign slogans.

There were other reasons for my “flip-flopping.” But, the most personal and compelling reason was that so many from my previous party allege that my son is immoral, a biological error, or worse. A person who does not deserve all the rights and privileges other Americans enjoy. You see, my son–the finest young man in the world– happens to be gay.

Finally, it could also have something to do with the tears in my sisters’ and mother’s eyes almost 40 years ago.

I have flip-flopped in my politics, but I find that I have not changed my deeply held beliefs and principles. I do not wear my religion on my sleeve, but I still believe in God. I do not wear an American-flag lapel pin, but I still love my country. And, although I do not blazon my car with yellow ribbon bumper stickers, I do support our troops and grieve their every casualty.

At the end of 2006, after Pope Benedict XVI–referred to as “God’s Rottweiler” when a dogmatic cardinal–returned to Rome from an unprecedented visit to Istanbul’s Islamic Blue Mosque, Time asked the question “Is Benedict Flip-Flopping?” The question referred to the Pope’s possible reconsideration of his views on Islam and on priestly celibacy.

Shanta Premawardhana of the National Council of Churches USA, also commenting on the Pope’s possible flip-flopping, writes: “Many others in the Bible and throughout Christian history – too numerous to mention–flip-flopped. The Bible has a different word for flip-flopping: repentance.”

Well, let’s put it another way: I repented, too. And I am in very good company.

Dorian de Wind is a retired U.S. Air Force Officer, born in Ecuador and educated in The Netherlands. He has a bachelor’s degree from of Texas A&M University and a master’s degree from the University of Southern Mississippi. Dorian has written opinion pieces and travel and other articles for the Austin American-Statesman and for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. He also translates Dutch press articles for watchingamerica.com.

Why is it that President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI get along so well? According to this editorial from El Tiempo, Colombia’s largest newspaper:

“Bush sees the world in terms of good and evil, and he considers that only a united front encompassing all 2.2 billion Judeo-Christians will be able to resist Islam. Recent decades have seen increasing religious tension and the spread of theocracies, which now encompass almost all Arab countries.” Read the rest of this entry »

Did the Pope visit the United States in part to influence the U.S. Presidential race in favor of John McCain?

That seems to be the conclusion of a large number of mainland Europeans.

This article from France’s Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien, quoting French journalist V. Jauvert, points out, “Since April 16 - his birthday - Pope Benedict XVI has been in the United States for a rather long trip (for an old person): a week. And he didn’t go there just to blow out the candles on the cake offered by Dubya … The Pope is (subliminally) campaigning for J. McCain … the official visit of a Pope during a very tight election campaign is contrary to tradition. … this trip, beyond the spiritual and political, is a pretext to support the pro life candidate.’

Jauvert goes on to say that in 2004 before his elevation to the papacy, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to American Bishops saying, “it’s not possible to defend the right to abortion and receive communion, and that therefore, those who vote for Kerry, who take communion each Sunday, “would be guilty of formal cooperation with the devil!”

Read the rest of this entry »

Those who were waiting for Pope Benedict to issue President Bush a ’slap in the face’ over the Iraq War have been sorely disappointed. In fact, according to Patrik Etschmayer of Switzerland’s Nachrichten newspaper:

“No one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.”

Etschmayer goes on to say, “As Benedict XVI is a Pope of restoration, when he visits the United States during an election year it symbolizes a policy that is anti-liberal and is a sign of support for the only conservative candidate: John McCain. McCain’s talk of remaining in Iraq for even 10,000 years if need be changes nothing. In the end, the fact is that this Pope by far prefers a Christian theocracy that fights bloody wars over a liberal, non-Christian democracy that avoids conflict.”

By Patrik Etschmayer

Translated By Patrik Etschmayer

April 17, 2008

Switzerland - Nachrichten - Original Article (German)

The headlines looked to be rather promising for opponents of Bush: The Pope would give Bush a few verbal slaps in the face, unambiguously criticize him and perhaps the Pontiff would even administer a real beating. But one should not be deluded: Standing on the same foundation, these are two men that think reason and reality should take a back seat to belief in a world as one wishes it to be.

This unity stood out when George W. Bush integrated a core-belief of the Pope into his speech of welcome by stressing that it is important for the nation to heed “the dictatorship of relativism.” Ultimately, this means that both Bush and the Pope stand for an absolute believe in a God that accepts a diversity of faiths only in the sense that there are people left to convert.

It’s perhaps a little ironic then, that the relativism both of these men fight so passionately against exists between themselves, as Bush is a member of a Methodist Church while the Pope is the world’s top Catholic. As far as the Protestants, the Pope has already made his opinion quite clear: When he declared that the Protestant churches were in fact not real churches at all, it triggered considerable consternation among ecumenical [inter-church] organizations.

In this light, the Pope’s criticism of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy is doubly interesting and curious. It’s probably too simplistic to use oil to explain Bush’s drive to invade Iraq. This was certainly a major motivation but there might as well have been the hope of having his “Christian” army plant a flag of victory over the stylized Islamist fanaticism of Saddam Hussein, whose rhetoric certainly contained a religious component. Recall when Bush initially spoke of a crusade, it looked simply as a clumsy choice of words. But who today uses this expression in a military context? It’s quite possible that he actually meant it in a literal sense. A man that continuously stresses doing the Lord’s work will also be drawn into war for his master.

And no one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the Pope’s visit to the United States.

While Pope Benedict’s visit to the US, and the UN, was highlighted in the media with special emphasis on the US priests’ misdemeanours in the US, and the veiled criticism of the military adventures in Iraq and concern about human rights (see here), what I really enjoyed reading was 50 religious insights from George Bush…please click here…

Why is it that Popes don’t usually visit the United States during presidential election years? Lucas Mendez writes for the BBC Brazil, “As neutral as the papal robe is, his messages can and will be used by the candidates … every time Benedict XVI opens his mouth, Democrats and Republicans will interpret and “spin it,” according to their own political ‘gospels’”
Read the rest of this entry »

Rainer Hachfeld, Neues Deutschland, Germany

Read the rest of this entry »

“–Wherever the land is dry and hard, you could be the water …
–or you could be the blade disking the earth open;
–or you could be the acequia, the ditch that carries water from river to fields;
–or you could be the just engineer mapping dams that must be taken down, and those which would serve the venerable all, instead of only the very few;
–or you could be the battered vessel for carrying water by hand;
–or you could be the one who stores the water, protects it, blesses it or pours it;
–or you could be the tired ground that receives it;
–or you could be the scorched seed that drinks it;
–or you could be the vine green-growing overland in all your wild audacity …”

“If there is an ancient secret to caring for and mending the significant lacerations to this “Oh-my-dear-God-beautiful” earth we’ve been given, by soul’s light it might be just a tiny four-word prayer from Creator to humanity:

““Please, just start anywhere.”

”
(from “The Rainmakers: Beer Bottle Old Woman, Tin Can Old Man” by Dr.E, see here)

The Pope, this morning, in response to President Bush’s welcome at the White House sprang up from his ceremonial chair with the vitality of a young man, no ooofs or ehhhs, (the Pope is 81 years old as of today, April 16, 2008).

This morning President Bush ritually asked that the Pope keep the USA in his prayers. But the Pope in response, said with verve, that in addition he would exhort the people of the USA to be in spirit and “even more responsive/responsible to the life of their nation,” the USA.

This does not mean, “There there, nice people, just separate paper from plastic, and you’ll be doing your part.” It means to unleash convenings, meet to ask questions, to plan, to think of how to bring to bear, to implement, in millions of ways, and sustainedly.

The Pope’s heartfelt “God Bless America” at the end of his address at the White House today, held a sincerity and timbre not seen for years in the usual GodblessAmericabyrote at the end of many politicos’ speeches here in the USA.

President Bush noticed, and in one of his best traits when well aimed, which is a very sweet boyish enthusiasm, he leaned toward the Pope and said of the prelate’s speech, “…that was an awesome speech.”

The contrast between predictable official welcomes, and a rather startling vitality in the Pope’s opening volley, is becoming an increasing part of this Pope’s pronouncements publicly. Just as such was when the Pope recently began to describe for the first time… the debt of honor earth’s people have toward caring for the planet.

Recently, in L’Osservatore Romano, an interview entitled “New Forms of Social Sin,” offered Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti’s remarks about “ecological” sin, which undergirded Pope Benedict XVI’s now ongoing public expressions of concern about global Read the rest of this entry »

Probably because the Pope makes little of it, many may not remember that today it’s the Pope’s birthday: Born April 16, 1927. He’s a sharp and strong 81 years old. Age alone is no determinant about a person’s abilities to be a strong… Pope… or a President.

Relationships
Catholics have long had what often seems strange to others, either a kind of an arm’s length, “Touch-him-not,-he’s-like-God” relationship with their prelates, or a deep personal affection for their Church leaders, sometimes including “a talk-and-cup-of-Joe together” kind of relationship.

There are stories about the Pope that are not charming. But, one of the most charming stories I’ve heard was from my German publisher, who told me that when Benedict was elected Pope, one of the German newspapers, in a burst of pride, ran a huge front page headline: “WE ARE POPE!!”

The implication is that some have a sense that the Pope is a real person, knowable, joinable, and that his success is shared.

All grim interpretations of that all aside, I think the headline was sincere and innocent happiness.

BRIEF BIO of Joseph Alois Ratzinger, Pope Benedict the 16th
Here is a bit of the Pope’s biography, including the part many, including many Catholics, are concerned about and often want to hear far more about; his involvement as a young man in Nazi Germany.

There is also inferred here the close family life the Pope had as a child in a relatively small village, and also how he was presented and given opportunity auspiciously time and again to advance in his calling. There is also a small reference to his motto of ‘truth’ as an appointee over the Bavarian archdiocese after the war, which many would like to see a good deal more fleshing out with specifics. This is from the Vatican Library, an official brief bio of Joseph Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI:

…born at Marktl am Inn, Diocese of Passau (Germany) on 16 April 1927 (Holy Saturday) and was baptised on the same day. His father, a policeman, belonged to an old family of farmers from Lower Bavaria of modest economic resources. His mother was the daughter of artisans from Rimsting on the shore of Lake Chiem, and before marrying she worked as a cook in a number of hotels.

He spent his childhood and adolescence in Traunstein, a small village near the Austrian border, thirty kilometres from Salzburg. In this environment, which he himself has defined as “Mozartian”, he received his Christian, cultural and human formation.

His youthful years were not easy. His faith and the education received at home prepared him for the harsh experience of those years during which the Nazi regime pursued a hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church. The young Joseph saw how some Nazis beat the Parish Priest before the celebration of Mass.

It was precisely during that complex situation that he discovered the beauty and truth Read the rest of this entry »

Again, a disclosure: I am a Catholic.

Catholic social teachings
disagree with abuses of power,
disagree with politics that omit and oppress the poor and needy,
disagree with trampling the preciousness of the life force,
disagree with any idea that preemptive war is good,
disagree with any idea that humans are not worthy of justice and dignity… and much more.

These principles are in place to keep the world from going dead black with avarice and sloth and cruelty and the sounds of many mouths banging in scorn like empty pots. They are not always easy to live, but they are to be rooted in the heart and soul, and to be striven toward even though it is hard in the winds that swirl through this world.

Here, one journalist writes about some who present George Bush as having a seemingly ‘Catholic conscience.’ You can read the entire article by Daniel Burke here “A Catholic Wind in the White House,” and you can read my article I filed this morning at The National Catholic Reporter in my weekly column there where, speaking as a Catholic, I felt I had to refute the idea that George Bush is in any way following sacred Catholic social teachings. You can see that article, entitled, “Silencing a Woman: Retrieving Her Voice,” here.

April 13, 2008, in the Washington Post, Daniel Burke, a national correspondent for Religion News Service, writes about how some imagine President George Bush is actually a secret Catholic ‘believer,’ and has met with and surrounded himself by Catholics during his administration… that his policies have directly grown out of Catholic social justice teachings… and that the Pope is coming to see the President and his Catholic appointees specially, as the Pope is his ally… even though the Pope disagrees with President Bush’s Iraq war and torture.

“Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, another evangelical with an affinity for Catholic teaching, says that the key to understanding Bush’s domestic policy is to view it through the lens of Rome. Others go a step further.

“Paul Weyrich, an architect of the religious right, detects in Bush shades of former British prime minister Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicism last year. “I think he is a secret believer,” Weyrich says of Bush. Similarly, John DiIulio, Bush’s first director of faith-based initiatives, has called the president a “closet Catholic.” And he was only half-kidding.”

Mr. Burke’s article goes on to say,

“As the White House prepares to welcome Benedict on Tuesday, many in Bush’s inner circle expect the pontiff to find a kindred spirit in the president… this Protestant president has surrounded himself with Roman Catholic intellectuals, speechwriters, professors, priests, bishops and politicians. These Catholics — and thus Catholic social teaching — have for the past eight years been shaping Bush’s speeches, policies and legacy to a degree perhaps unprecedented in U.S. history….”

But, I must say otherwise:
…At a time when hardworking fathers and mothers are literally piling the children’s toys and bunk beds at the curb, for they are losing their homes in the sub-prime mortgage bunco scheme promoted by the grotesquely avaricious…

…at a time when 25% of older women only have a social security check to live on and nothing more… and they have inherited nothing but a President who wishes to do away with social security… and who admires those who call this hard earned savings account belonging to individuals who worked all their lives long, “an entitlement…”

…during a time when the last small farmers, ranchers, and overland independent truckers are being run out of business from sudden spikes in fuel and government’s one-sided subsidies… and our farmers, ranchers and trucker-heroes are becoming desperate for they not only take care of their own families, but have long taken care of us, their nation’s families at a root level, delivering the food and necessities we need…

…at a time when pharmaceutical companies produce much good, and have some charitable programs, yet still, at the back door, many also hold onto medicine patents that would have expired, thereby allowing the formulas into public domain and bringing down the costs of vital medicines for human beings in need…. but instead, some change the formula in slight and meaningless ways and thereby file to re-patent the medicine again, so they are its only producers, and prices remain high… often out of reach of those in most dire straights… and all this is okay-ed by our government…

To read the rest of both Mr. Burke’s article and mine, please see the links above….

————–
h/t Helaine

First, a disclosure: I am a Catholic who comes from a long line of deeply ethnic old believers. I’ve had my bewilderments with the Church hierarchy, and my critiques and condemnations of some of the actions of some within the hierarchy as well…. but also hold to the deep social teachings from the heart of the Church which share their core with other philosophies and other faiths’ tenets, especially the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, to attempt, as one can, to take on the repair of the world soul.

Catholic social teachings speak against dictatorial power, do not support politics that omit the poor and needy, disapprove the slighting of the preciousness of the life force, turn from the idea that preemptive war is desirable, refuse the idea that humans are to be exploited and used instead of treated with decency, reject that people are to be put to death… and much more. Catholic social principles are hard to live by sometimes, but without them, the belief is the world would be far more vulnerable to becoming a soul-less wasteland.

My father, a tailor from the old country, used to warn that it was suicide to speak of politics and religion in the same breath, that it brought out the scorn-demons on both sides. But, in our time, it cannot be avoided apparently, for the Pope is about to land in the USA to visit only two cities; New York City and Washington D.C., the USA’s pinnacles of politics and politicos…

Too, the Pope is seemingly avoiding the Boston Archdiocese and Los Angeles and Chicago where live mountains of Catholics, but also where the Church hierarchy markedly looked the other way and literally obstructed child victims from justice as they were being sexually predated upon by certain priests in the last place on earth one would ever imagine a child would be unsafe…

Those scars will never be talked away. Not by popes nor apologists. Never.

But, in another turn, already the media’s guesses and analyses are flying about the Pope’s hidden motives and overt intents to meet with pols and those in power here, and to speak at the UN; some will worship without questions, some will demonize without facts. But, many in media will have space to speculate about what the Pope will, won’t, say, what he meant, didn’t mean, what he will support and what he will condemn, whose campaign he will lean more toward supporting–without meaning to.

Some will imagine how the Pope will interfere, admonish, try to corral the free speech and thought of Catholic Universities some of which have, amongst other structures, gay and lesbian sacral groups, and so on.

I’d suggest to look for the humanity in whatever Pope has to say or do, to rest on that wherever, whenever that might occur. Just my two cents’ worth from meeting tens of thousands of people a year when I teach… Far more than admonishments and punishments, the people of the earth are in need of love without academic précis, and fully worthy of unconditional blessing…

for the rhizome, the living life force underground, ever glows and thrives on warmth and light and water, rather than on opprobrium, exile, and scorn.

EVERYBODY is a media critic these days:

Pope Benedict XVI has called on the media to underpin its work with ethical considerations and do more to promote the “dignity of the human being”.

The pontiff said there was a need for what he called “info-ethics” - as much as bio-ethics in the fields of medicine and biological research.

He said the media was often used to promote vulgarity and violence and to legitimise “distorted models of life”.

So he’s following the stories about Britney Spears, too..

But he also said the media helped to spread democracy and promote dialogue.

This isn’t the first time the Vatican has put its two-cents in on the news media. According this BBC report, It has often accused the media of promoting consumerism (by the way, make sure you patronize TMV’s advertisers) and “lifestyles that it considers unethical, such as pre-marital sex and homosexuality.”

But there is something that sets this message apart from others. Here are his words:
Read the rest of this entry »

Thousands of pilgrims joined local Palestinians in celebrating Christmas Eve in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, and the observances were more cheerful than in previous years, reports VOA. “It’s a more joyful Christmas. We have more tourists, we have more pilgrims coming to the city of Bethlehem, twice as much as last year,” said Bethleham Mayor Victor Batarseh. “All the hotels are booked. I think this Christmas brings more joy to all the citizens of Bethlehem.” The mayor attributes the change to a lull in violence and the revival of the peace process. More here…

While in the Vatican City Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday used his Christmas homily to speak out against selfishness and the degradation of the environment as he celebrated midnight mass at Saint Peter’s Basilica, reports AP. “Man is so preoccupied with himself, he has such urgent need of all the space and all the time for his own things, that nothing remains for others — for his neighbour, for the poor, for God,” he said, recalling the story of Christ’s birth, when “there was no room in the inn” for the baby Jesus.

“And the richer men become, the more they fill up all the space by themselves. And the less room there is for others,” said Benedict, wearing a white brocade robe.

(Photo above courtesy Nathalie Handal)

To see the interactive map of Bethlehem please click here…

The video and YouTube age makes if more difficult for cover stories. One of the images literally flashing around the world is of Cameraman Nagai Kenji being shot dead from the back. It’s there for everyone to see - a graphic document of repression:

Once upon a time if outrages occurred, they could be contained. Governments, organizations, celebrities or security forces could put out tidy cover stories and most people wouldn’t notice.

But then came the video camera revolution which spread the word throughout the county and often beyond. Then came the 24-news cycle with cable news networks craving more new info and images to fill hours naysayers once scornfully said pioneer CNN could NEVER fill and keep audiences.

And now we’re into the YouTube era, where anyone official or otherwise can post an image on the Internet that will be carried throughout the world — not just influencing those (particularly young people) who increasingly get news online, but television programs, print news editors and television news directors who find interesting tidbits that spark program or story ideas.

Myanmar is now being pitchforked into the headlines with more and more stories each day. For instances, as you read this:

Former U.S. UN Ambassador John Bolton says China is the key to Myanmar, not the UN:

China is the key to political change in Myanmar, not UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari who has met the military junta, the former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said here.

But there was no sign that Beijing would change tack and pressure the junta, Bolton told BBC television while attending Britain’s opposition Conservative party conference in Blackpool, England.

‘I think it’s very unclear that (Gambari) will be able to achieve anything. I have a lot of respect for Ibrahim Gambari personally but he’s in a very difficult position because the Security Council is divided,’ he said.

Gambari was dispatched to Myanmar at the weekend by UN chief Ban Ki-moon to intervene after the junta unleashed a military campaign to shut down mass protests several days ago, leaving at least 13 dead and hundreds arrested.

And Gambari has met with an opposition lead. Meanwhile, the Pope has spoken out:

A worried Pope Benedict XVI added his voice Sunday to calls from abroad for Myanmar’s military leaders to peacefully end their crackdown on protesters demanding democracy.

Benedict made his first public comments on the deadly crackdown a few hours after a U.N. envoy met with some Myanmar government leaders and detained opposition leader Aung San Sui Kyi, whose steadfast, peaceful challenge to the regime earned her the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. She has spent years under house arrest.

“I am following with great trepidation the very serious events” in Myanmar, the pope told pilgrims at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo outside Rome.

He expressed his spiritual closeness to the “dear” people of Myanmar during their “painful trial” and he asked the entire Catholic Church to follow his lead in praying intensely for them.

He said he “strongly hoped that a peaceful solution can be found for the good of the country.”

And he should worry: according to Al-Jazeera, the military’s control is tighter than ever:

Read the rest of this entry »

Reuters reports (via the New York Times that Pope Benedict has urged world leaders to do something about global warming before it is too late. The Pope said: “A decisive ‘yes’ is needed in decisions to safeguard creation as well as a strong commitment to reverse tendencies that risk leading to irreversible situations of degradation.”

He went on to say that “New generations will be entrusted with the future of the planet, which bears clear signs of a type of development that has not always protected nature’s delicate equilibriums” and that “”Courageous choices that can re-create a strong alliance between man and earth must be made before it is too late.”

The author of the article rightfully points out that the Vatican has become increasingly ‘green’ under the leadership of Pope John first, and Pope Benedict now. Pope Benedict seems to know a lot about this issue and seems to believe it should be a priority for him and the Church.

He is, of course, quite right.

I am one of those people who believe that global warming is real, and that we are slowly but surely destroying the planet we live on and on which we are dependent. I agree with the Pope that something should be done. On the other hand, I also believe that the entire controversy or spectacle surrounding global warming / the environment at this moment is not productive. We have to look at this issue seriously, but we should not automatically dismiss everything critics say. For one thing, we should fight global warming, but we should try to do so with the least damage to our economies possible. Perhaps we will suffer economically in the short run - which is not a problem if doing so means that we save the planet of course - but we should try to limit the economical damage.

Another thing I find frustrating about the global warming debate is that Europe is willing to act - and we are already acting - but that the biggest spoilers or poluters of the world (America and China) seem to see things differently. As I understand it, China is working on this issue, mainly because China has turned into one big cloud of fog. In the US, meanwhile, a lot is said about global warming, but little is done. Of course, Europe should act in its own interest and even in the interest of the rest of the world even if others do not, but as long as America and China do not follow suit, whatever we do will not have the necessary impact.

It is good to see that the Church takes the leadrole on this issue. The Church should not keep silent; the earth is God’s creation, and it seems logical that the Church does her utmost best to preserve it.

It seems that American president George W. Bush made another gaffe:

US President George W Bush drew gasps at the Vatican on Saturday by referring to Pope Benedict XVI as “sir” instead of the expected “His Holiness”, pool reporters said.

They could clearly hear the US leader say “Yes, sir” when the pope asked him if he was going to meet with officials of the lay Catholic Sant’Egidio community at the US embassy later during his visit.

James Joyner defends Bush by writing, “Bush isn’t Catholic. He’s the leader of the dominant country on the planet. Aside from the age gap, it’s rather remarkable that he’s addressing the pope as ‘Sir.’ Why on earth should he address him in the third person, let alone pretend that he considers him ‘holy’?”

Let me answer that question: manners.

When one meets the Dalai Lama, for instance, one has refer to him as “Your Holiness.” Now, I am not a Buddhist, so I do not for one second believe that the Dalai Lama is holy, but I would refer to him as “Your Holiness,” if I will ever have the pleasure to meet him, nonetheless.

There has now been a second attempt to get at a Pope, according to CBS/AP:

A man tried to jump into Pope Benedict XVI’s uncovered popemobile as the pontiff began his general audience Wednesday and held onto it for a few seconds before being wrestled to the ground by security officers.

The Pope was not hurt in any way and continued to hold the audience as if nothing happened, reports CBS News correspondent Sabina Castelfranco.

At least eight security officers who were trailing the vehicle as it moved slowly through the square grabbed the man and wrestled him to the ground. The pope didn’t even look back.

The man “looked a little crazy,” said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman. He said the man was being held for questioning by Vatican police.

The man, a 27-year-old German whose name was not released, was wearing a pink T-shirt and dark shorts, a beige baseball cap and sunglasses. He appeared to have vaulted himself up and over the barricade from the second or third row back. He got as far as the back of the jeep, holding onto it for a few seconds, before being wrestled to the ground.

This undescores a fact of 20th century and 21st century life: celebrated persons — politicos, religious leaders, even rock stars — are constantly at risk when they appear in public. Heavy security around them may be bothersome — but it’s definitely necessary.