During one of his vacation strolls, Benedict XVI came across five children, stopping to chat with them about his wrist injury.
The Pope encountered the children, accompanied by two women, during a walk Wednesday afternoon, Vatican spokesman Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi recounted.
As can be seen in Vatican Television video, one of the women asked the Holy Father about his recovering wrist, which he fractured last week in a fall.
"It needs time and patience," he replied.
One of the children surprised the Pontiff, telling him that at his home, nearby Val di Rhemes, there was a 6-meter (19.7 feet) snowfall last winter.
"I can't imagine 6 meters of snow," the Pope exclaimed. "That's higher than a house!"
This is a difficult decision that we see often in our country. On the one hand, as followers of Jesus discrimination can never be part of our policy. On the other, we are guaranteed the freedom in this country to impose certain requirements on church employees such as morality clauses.
I hope this case was a legitimate and ethical dismissal due to declining enrollment:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court says religious school teachers are not protected by the state's anti-discrimination laws.
In a 4-3 decision, the court says religious schools have a constitutional right to choose their own employees to carry out their missions and that includes many teachers.
In 2002 Coulee Catholic Schools, now called Aquinas Catholic Schools, cited declining enrollment when they fired then 53-year old Wendy Ostlund and eight other teachers. Ostlund sued, claiming age discrimination was the reason she was fired.
The court says employees cannot make discrimination claims under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act because that would interfere with their employers' right to religious freedom.
Aquinas Catholic Schools argued to have the case thrown out, citing first amendment rights. They say the state should not be able to dictate who teaches religion.
Ostlund had taught at St. Patrick's elementary school since 1974.
Dissenting Justice Patrick Crooks says the decision "extends a free pass to religious schools to discriminate against their lay employees."
When lay employees agree to work for the Church, they know what they're getting themselves into. They give up the freedom to act how they wish. There are certain ethical lines that are not breached (cohabitation, for example).
As a Catholic employed by the Church since the age of 14, I'm just used to it, I guess. I don't understand when people are surprised.
Irish Roman Catholic priests in the country’s second-biggest diocese took pay cuts of about 10 percent after church investments in bank stocks dropped as much as 7 million euros ($10 million).
The Killaloe diocese, which covers parts of the midlands and west of Ireland, cut salaries by between 8 and 12 percent, after shares fell and bank dividends were eliminated, Willy Walsh, the Bishop of Killaloe, said in an interview with Ireland’s RTE radio today.
Ireland’s ISEF Index of financial stocks has fallen more than 90 percent from its February 2007 peak, as the banking system last year came close to collapse after real-estate prices tumbled and credit markets froze. The government has nationalized Anglo Irish Bank Corp., and pumped 7 billion euros into Bank of Ireland Plc and Allied Irish Banks Plc to help save the lenders as bad debts surged.
“All of us thought that bank shares were a safe as possible place to put money,” Walsh said. “Obviously in hindsight, they weren’t.”
Legacies Lost
Priests in Killaloe earn between 20,000 euros and 25,000 euros a year, the Irish Times reported today, citing Walsh. A spokeswoman for the Catholic church in Ireland said it doesn’t keep data on priests’ earnings and that payments are a matter for individual dioceses.
Around 120 priests work in the diocese, which covers most of County Clare and parts of Tipperary, Offaly, Laois, and Limerick. There are 58 parishes in the diocese, with a population of about 122,000, according to its Web site.
The Church of England has issued new guidelines allowing the two ceremonies to be combined in one service.
The Church says it is responding to a real demand, and denies that the change will undermine its teaching on the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage.
Couples tying the knot will be able to take part in their children's baptism or say a simple prayer of blessing.
Baptism is regarded as one of the holiest sacraments that Christianity offers, as it signifies the church community welcoming the child into the family of God.
It usually takes place within a traditional Sunday service, but the new rules mean that it could become a popular add-on for wedding services.
Catholics combine sacramental rituals, of course. Most are celebrated in the context of the Eucharist (or can be). Confessions can also be heard by another priest while Mass is in progress. But baptizing kids while their parents are getting married? This just might be a bit much for me.
During his latest visit to Africa pope Benedict XVI told the journalists: “Condom distribution is not the solution to Aids, on the contrary they worsen it”. An editorial comment of The Lancet retorted that the Pope's comment was “outrageous and wildly inaccurate”. Based on your experience about the issue, is the Pope right or wrong?
As I have said in the Washington Post and elsewhere, the Pope is basically right – about Africa. It will be easiest if we confine our discussion to Africa, because that’s where the Pope was en route to and that is the place he was talking about. There’s no evidence at all that condoms have worked as a public health intervention intended to reduce HIV infections, at the “level of population.” This is a bit difficult to understand. It may well make sense for an individual to use condoms every time, or as often as possible, and he may well decrease his chances of catching HIV. But we are talking about programs, large efforts that either work or fail at the level of countries, or, as we say in public health, level of population. Major articles published in Science, The Lancet, British Medical Journal, and even Studies in Family Planning have reported this finding since 2004. I first wrote about putting emphasis on fidelity instead off condoms, in the book AIDS in Africa, in 1988.
Condoms fail because people do not use them consistently, because they are not used once people get to know someone, and because they provide a false sense of security, allowing people to take greater risks then they would take if condoms were not used at all. They also divert resources from interventions that work better, such as promoting faithfulness.
I read these words in the pope's encyclical several times when I hit them, and they continue to echo in my thought and prayer. Benedict's letter to the Church is about helping us understand the Christian implications of development within this newest environment of globalization. There is much to be gleaned from this long encyclical. These words above struck me, not in the sense of economic or political development, but as a call for me to examine the "connections" that exist in my own life. Never before in history has humanity been so in touch with one another - through the World-Wide Web, through electronic mail and media, through social networking websites. Ideas and personalities are transmitted at the speed of a mouse click, and yet, in spite of all this connectedness, are we any closer to each other?
I think of Facebook. I have almost 500 "friends" there. But some of them I have never met; some of them I have never had a "conversation" with; some of whom I don't know from Adam (they connected to me because I was connected to someone else they know). They are all human. They all share a call to holiness. They are all my brothers and sisters by virtue of our common Father. But in spite of all we share, we don't share the one thing that can serve us all together. We are not sharing life - we are not sharing "communion." Yes, those who participate in the sacramental life of the Church (and there are many) are united in Christ in that Communion of the Saints, but what Facebook does, in some way, is take the humanity out of these "friendships."
What to do? Well, one need not abandon these social networking sites. They are helpful and useful in their own regard. But, we are responsible for the humanity of it all. Talk with those "friends." Send them a message and get a conversation going, and, better yet, meet up and chat. Proximity - either in space or in cyberspace - is really just an accident. Friendship - and the humanizing effect that friendship has - is deliberate. Facebook asks you to "confirm" or "ignore" friend requests. When you click "confirm," make sure that it is not just a collection of yet another name and thumbnail on your profile page. Try to see it as a way to help the world be more human - and to become more human yourself.
I've been writing everyday which is a blessing. I'm trying to convince myself that even when I'm not in the mood, I should write something everyday even if it is insignificant. It's been good. The fruits of this will appear on the site before the end of the summer.
Although I haven't done much today: played a funeral and visited the rectory staff for a bit, went grocery shopping, then ate lunch while watching an SVU on the DVR, read a few chapters in this book I'm reading, then sat at the keyboard with Beethoven's Diabelli Variations for a little bit. A light day overall especially this afternoon but I'm feeling the itch to do some work now.
I got back from Nebraska on Saturday night because I had Masses to play on Sunday morning. Monday was filled with visits from former students (after a morning funeral in a nearby town). I met with the three different sets of them. All looks to be well with them. I anticipate a brief visit from another couple of them this evening sometime.
I'm considering a New York trip tomorrow night. Not sure what I'm in the mood to see. There are two summer theatre festivals in the Berkshires from what I understand. I need to look into them and buy tickets. Be a shame to let the summer go by without visiting them.
I re-read the book last week so I'm ready! But I'm visiting the great Diocese of Lincoln, Neb. so I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to see it this week. I need to consult my handlers.
The Vatican newspaper gave the new Harry Potter movie four stars for promoting "friendship, altruism, loyalty and self-giving."
As "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" was set to open worldwide July 15, L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, once again downplayed concerns that the film and book series by J.K. Rowling promote magic and witchcraft.
"Certainly, Rowling's vision lacks a reference to transcendence, to a providential design in which people live their personal histories and history itself takes shape," the paper said in its July 14 edition.
But, it said, the new film and the books make clear "the line of demarcation between one who does good and one who does evil, and it is not difficult for the reader or the viewer to identify with the first."
"This is particularly true in the latest film," the review said. "They know that doing good is the right thing to do. And they also understand that sometimes this involves hard work and sacrifice."
The magic in Harry Potter is similar to the magic found "in classic fairy tales," it said.
When the book is finished or the film credits roll, what is remembered are "the values of friendship, altruism, loyalty and self-giving" rather than the magic tricks, the newspaper said.
L'Osservatore said the film "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," the sixth Harry Potter film, is the best adaptation so far.
"As the characters -- now adolescents on the threshold of adulthood -- have grown, the tone of the story has as well and the film benefits," it said.
The Vatican newspaper said the fact that the teen stars are starting to experience a bit of romance, "with the right balance, makes them more credible" because "they are called to face the same problems as their 'Muggle' peers." In the Harry Potter series "Muggles" are people not endowed with magical powers.
So I'm fairly well recovered from my little trip (I didn't get home until about 3am). I've been catching up on various projects all day.
I saw Billy Elliot last night. It won the best musical Tony this year and, more importantly, beat out my favorite Next to Normal. So I was anxious to see what all the fuss was about.
Well, I can see why it won, though I still don't agree with the outcome (Next to Normal was better and was original rather than a cheap movie knockoff). There are four young men who take turns playing the lead and they are around 13-14 years old. The story takes place during the British mining strike at the time of Maggie Thatcher. It centers around a boy who wants to study ballet and faces resistance because of two main issues: the strike and the stereotype.
The dancing is truly spectacular. The fact that a 13/14 year old can do it is astounding. I was spellbound by the whole thing. Not only is it legitimate ballet but tap and contemporary as well. And the music wasn't half bad either!
Note to Catholics: there is a thread of the plot that glorifies homosexuality in a rather young boy (along with the tune "Expressing Yourself"). While this is certainly a problematic aspect of the show, it didn't come close to ruining it for me. There is a lot of cursing as well, even by the younger actors. But I'm a teacher and rather used to it (not that it's necessarily right). I didn't think it was gratuitous, just a way to make the story more realistic (let's be honest, most people use those words).
Overall, the message of the story is a good one and it was very moving.
Two issues: Got the understudy for Billy's dad. He did a great job but I was looking forward to the regular guy (Gregory Jbara). Second, the show was in English... I mean English English and it could be very difficult to understand. They kept saying "bal-ley" instead of "bal-lay."
This is very interesting to me. From today's Zenit:
A scholar who specializes in the life of Cardinal John Henry Newman is explaining the importance of the Servant of God in the Church after the Second Vatican Council.
Ian Ker is a professor at the University of Oxford, and the author of "John Henry Newman: A Biography," which was first published in 1988 and reissued last week.
In an article published today by Britain's The Catholic Herald, Ker asserted that Cardinal Newman will be seen as "the doctor of the post-conciliar Church."
On July 3, Benedict XVI announced his approval of a miracle through Newman's intercession, advancing the cause for his canonization. <>The Servant of God was approved for beatification after the miraculous healing of an American permanent deacon who had a debilitating spinal disorder.
People always asked me, said Ker, "why, for instance, the founder of Opus Dei could be canonized so comparatively quickly after his death, while the cardinal had not even been beatified."
He explained that "it was because the members of Opus Dei were busy asking for their founder's intercession, while the kind of people who studied and wrote about Newman were not."
However, he added, "in recent years all this has changed."
Historical importance
Ker affirmed that the Pope underlined "the beatification of Newman as being of great importance for the Church."
The cardinal has often been called "the Father of Vatican II" because he "anticipated key themes of the council," the scholar explained.
H e continued, "But if Newman was an innovative or radical theologian, he was so only because he was a deeply historical theologian."
Ker affirmed: "Where Newman anticipated the council in his theology, he was always careful not to exaggerate, not to lose his balance.
"It is well known, for example, that Newman championed the cause of the laity, but he never conceived of some kind of lay as opposed to clerical Church.
"From his study of the Greek Fathers he understood the Church to be primarily a sacramental communion, the organic community that Vatican II embraced in the two opening chapters of the Constitution on the Church."
The scholar noted that the cardinal, being immersed in history, "understood very clearly that councils move 'in contrary declarations [...] perfecting, completing, supplying each other.'"
He continued: "Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility needed to be complemented, modified by a much larger teaching on the Church, so, Newman correctly predicted, there would be another council which would do just that.
"But equally Vatican II needs complementing and modifying.
"Newman keenly appreciated that councils have unintended consequences by virtue both of what they say and what they don't say."
Thus, Ker said, an issue that the Second Vatican Council was silent on became a main theme of Pope John Paul II's pontificate: evangelization.
The scholar predicted that due to Newman's understanding and proliferation of these points of Church history, he will be seen not only as a "Father of Vatican II," but also as a "doctor of the post-conciliar Church."
I'm very happy he will be beatified. Imagine a doctor of the Church who wrote in English... ahhh the possibilities.
I always use this quote from Discourses to Mixed Congregations on "Faith and Private Judgment." It's quoted in Chapter Four of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults and it really resonates and makes sense to the kids (emphasis mine):
This is what faith was in the time of the Apostles, as no one can deny; and what it was then, it must be now, else it ceases to be the same thing. I say, it certainly was this in the Apostles' time, for you know they preached to the world that Christ was the Son of God, that He was born of a Virgin, that He had ascended on high, that He would come again to judge all, the living and the dead. Could the world see all this? could it prove it? how then were men to receive it? why did so many embrace it? on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers from God. Men were told to submit their reason to a living authority. Moreover, whatever an Apostle said, his converts were bound to believe; when they entered the Church, they entered it in order to learn. The Church was their teacher; they did not come to argue, to examine, to pick and choose, but to accept whatever was put before them. No one doubts, no one can doubt this, of those primitive times. A Christian was bound to take without doubting all that the Apostles declared to be revealed; if the Apostles spoke, he had to yield an internal assent of his mind; it would not be enough to keep silence, it would not be enough not to oppose: it was not allowable to credit in a measure; it was not allowable to doubt. No; if a convert had his own private thoughts of what was {197} said, and only kept them to himself, if he made some secret opposition to the teaching, if he waited for further proof before he believed it, this would be a proof that he did not think the Apostles were sent from God to reveal His will; it would be a proof that he did not in any true sense believe at all. Immediate, implicit submission of the mind was, in the lifetime of the Apostles, the only, the necessary token of faith; then there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. No one could say: "I will choose my religion for myself, I will believe this, I will not believe that; I will pledge myself to nothing; I will believe just as long as I please, and no longer; what I believe today I will reject tomorrow, if I choose. I will believe what the Apostles have as yet said, but I will not believe what they shall say in time to come." No; either the Apostles were from God, or they were not; if they were, everything that they preached was to be believed by their hearers; if they were not, there was nothing for their hearers to believe. To believe a little, to believe more or less, was impossible; it contradicted the very notion of believing: if one part was to be believed, every part was to be believed; it was an absurdity to believe one thing and not another; for the word of the Apostles, which made the one true, made the other true too; they were nothing in themselves, they were all things, they were an infallible authority, as coming from God. The world had either to become Christian, or to let it alone; there was no room for private tastes and fancies, no room for private judgment.
I really enjoy walking around and seeing shows and all of that. I haven't seen Billy Elliot yet, which won the Tony for best musical this year, so I bought a ticket for tonight last week (popular shows... gotta buy early). Since I didn't have to play any funerals this morning, I figured a matinee would be in order as well. Then I thought about what might be keeping me from coming Tuesday night, seeing something, then just staying over for Wednesday. I couldn't think of any impediment so here I am.
I saw God of Carnage last night. It was brilliant. It was written by Yasmina Reza who won a Tony for it this year. Knowing I was coming to see it before the end of the summer, I bought a book of her plays last time I was here. I've only read one and I really liked it (called "Art") so the others are on the summer reading list.
God of Carnage features just four actors, two couples whose sons had a little tussle on the playground (one hit the other in the head with a stick, knocking out a couple of teeth). Well, it all begins quite civilly then all hell breaks loose and goes on for ninety minutes of mayhem. It stars James Gandolfini (of Tony Soprano fame), Marcia Gay Harden (who won a Tony for the role this year), Jeff Daniels (Dumb and Dumber), and Hope Davis (she's been in a bunch of stuff, you'd recognize her if you saw her). They were each wonderful and the audience loved it (looked like a sold-out house to me).
It definitely makes you take a good strong look at relationships and how messed up they can be and that all it takes is a spark for the chaos beneath to really bubble to surface and explode. It also leads one to ask the question: "Are we all just savages underneath it all, living according to a code of carnage?" Many philosophers have asked that question and I certainly know how I answer it as a Catholic but it's interesting nonetheless from a secularist standpoint.
Summary: I laughed a lot. I'm still thinking about the questions it raised. I liked it. Case closed.
So I'm checking out of my very interesting hotel and walking up to Saint Patrick's for the noon Mass then a bit of lunch, show, walking and relaxing, show, train, home. Reactions to this afternoon's matinee and Billy Elliot tomorrow. I was just counting and I've been to 17 shows since mid-February (they haven't been 17 different ones though because I've seen a couple more than once). There are many on the summer list as well, so I'll be back soon!
"God's Rottweiler" is really scary. Or maybe not.
