Is the global economic disaster we are living through today just a harbinger of a much more dramatic global ecological collapse to come?

According to Patrik Etschmayer of the Swiss newspaper Nachrichten - the same people that got the world into the present crisis - and that favor John McCain - are driving the world over an ecological cliff.

Etschmayer writes in part:

“What if this crisis was just a prelude - a precursor to a much greater threat - one that could possibly cost millions of lives? The current economic crises was based on the idea that we can live and consume based on credit - and the belief that we can continue to do so unabated as long as we steadfastly ignore the facts and spread the risks widely enough. That idea didn’t fly. Yet its seems that humanity still seems to believe that the things that have failed in the monetary economy, will, in the long run, still apply to the material reality of our world. Quite simply, because nature will not present us with a bill for the resources upon which we depend for our very survival.”

And who are the chief culprits? Etschmayer continues:

“The fact that during the current U.S. election campaign, this insane exploitation of nature has been combined with the dim-witted rejection of scientific evidence being propagated by promoters of one side (of course, by the “Christian” Republican side) is actually quite logical. It’s no coincidence that it is precisely those people who have paved the way for the economic collapse that are still of the opinion that as long as we pray hard enough, everything is possible. But no prayer or contingency plan will contain an ecological collapse once it begins.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Catholicism is rife with euphemisms, and …following the Pope’s actual intentions and motives is often reduced to a kind of Pope-omancy, interpreting a gesture or a smile as carrying volumes of unspoken information about the actual skivvy. The Church is not known for revealing the roots of its choices and decisions; nor its back-room gamblings and gambolings, so to speak.

However, being “invited’ to come speak with/ appear before the Archbishop is somewhat like being called to the Principal’s Office to, um, ‘chat.’ It is not high tea. It is not a social call, no matter how it might be spun afterward.

This, just in a few minutes ago from The National Catholic Reporter, the USA’s largest weekly online/print Catholic Newspaper, read by many whom some would call progressives, and as well as read by many that some would call conservatives.

SAN FRANCISCO — Calling recent nationally broadcast comments by U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi “in serious conflict with the teachings of the Catholic church,” Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco in a Sept. 5 statement underscored church teaching on abortion, the beginning of human life, and the formation of conscience — and invited the Catholic lawmaker “into a conversation with me about these matters.”

The statement was carried in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco, newspaper of the archdiocese.

Many Catholics “have written me letters and sent me e-mails in which they expressed their dismay and concern about the Speaker’s remarks,” the archbishop said, adding, “Very often they moved on to a question that caused much discussion during the 2004 campaign: Is it necessary to deny Holy Communion to some Catholics in public life because of their public support for abortion on demand?”

“The practice of the church is to accept the conscientious self-appraisal of each person” when he or she approaches for Communion, he wrote, alluding to Canon 912. He also quoted the U.S. bishops’ 2006 document, “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper”: “…we should be cautious when making judgments about whether or not someone else should receive Holy Communion.”

However, he continued, again quoting from the 2006 bishops’ document, “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

You can read the rest of the article here

——–
disclosure: I’m a weekly columnist at The National Catholic Reporter online

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.

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 »