Socialism Destroys

As the Church taught for decades, and the current destruction is in Venezuela, as this story from Zero Hedge reports.

An excerpt.

• The question of whether Socialism can be an effective economic system was famously raised when Margaret Thatcher said of the British Labor Party, “I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything.”
• There are dire reports of people waiting in supermarket lines all day, only to discover that expected food deliveries never arrived and the shelves are empty.
• There are horrific tales of desperate people slaughtering zoo animals to provide their only meal of the day. Even household pets are targeted as a much-needed source for food.
• President Maduro is doubling down on the proven failed policies and philosophies of “Bolivarian Socialism,” while diverting attention away from the crisis — pointing fingers at so-called “enemies” of Venezuela such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and others.
• A dozen eggs was last reported to cost $150, and the International Monetary Fund “predicts that inflation in Venezuela will hit 720% this year.Severe shortages of food, clean water, electricity, medicines and hospital supplies punctuate a dire scenario of crime-ridden streets in the impoverished neighborhoods of this nearly failed OPEC state, which at one time claimed to be the most prosperous nation in Latin America.Darkness is falling on Hugo Chavez’s once-famous “Bolivarian revolution” that some policy experts, only a short time ago, thought would never end.“[a]t present it does not appear that the current economic expansion is about to end any time in the near future. The gains in poverty reduction, employment, education and health care that have occurred in the last few years are likely to continue along with the expansion.”The question of whether Socialism can be an effective economic system was famously raised when Margaret Thatcher said of the British Labor Party:In short: “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”” …markets expect Venezuela to default on its debt in the very near future. The country is basically bankrupt. It is not easy for a nation to go bankrupt with the largest oil reserves in the world, but Venezuela has managed it. How? Well, a combination of bad luck and worse policies. The first step was when Hugo Chávez’s socialist government started spending more money on the poor, with everything from two-cent gasoline to free housing. That may all seem like it’s a good idea in general — but only as long as there’s money to spend. And by 2005 or so, Venezuela didn’t have any.”Chavez had the good fortune to die just before the grim reaper showed up on Venezuela’s doorstep. According to policy specialist Jose Cardenas:Maduro is doubling down on the failed Chavismo economic and social policies that have contributed to an inflationary crisis not seen since the days of the 1920’s Weimar Republic in Germany, when the cost of a loaf of bread was a wheelbarrow full of cash.There are dire reports of people waiting in supermarket lines all day, only to discover that expected food deliveries never arrived and the shelves are empty.There are horrific tales of desperate people slaughtering zoo animals to provide their only meal of the day. Even household pets are targeted as a much-needed source for food. This is a desperate time for a desperate people.
• In desperation, some middle class families have organized online barter clubs as helpless citizens seek to trade anything for diapers and baby food, powdered milk, medicines, toilet paper and other essentials missing from store shelves or available only on the black market for double and triple already impossibly inflated prices..
• Demonstrations and public cries for food are the unpleasant evidence of a once-prosperous society being torn apart by the very largess that marked its utopian ideals less than a decade ago.
• “What began as a war against the ‘squalid’ oligarchy in order to build what he called ’21st-century socialism’ — cheered on as he was by many leftists from abroad — has collapsed into an unprecedented heap of misery and conflict.”
• When President Nicolas Maduro inherited the Venezuelan Socialist “dream”, in April of 2013, just one month after Chavez died, he was facing a mere 53% inflation rate. Today the Venezuelan bolivar is virtually worthless, and inflation is creeping to 500% with expectations of much more. A recent Washington Post report stated:
• “I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means.”
• While it was not so long ago that many people heralded Venezuela as Latin America’s successful utopian Socialist experiment, something has gone dreadfully wrong as the revolution’s Marxist founder, Hugo Chavez, turned his Chavismo dream into an economic nightmare of unimaginable proportions.
• In a 2007 study on the Chavez years for the Washington, DC-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval wrote:
• Today, a once comfortable middle-class Venezuelan father is scrambling desperately to find his family’s next meal — sometimes hunting through garbage for salvageable food. The unfortunate 75% majority of Venezuelans already suffering extreme poverty are reportedly verging on starvation.
• For many Venezuelans, by every economic, social and political measure, their nation is unravelling at breakneck speed.

The World & the Church

Very insightful article from Boston Review about the intersection, and the division.

An excerpt.

Over the last few decades many Western nations have become less religious, but countries in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East—even the United States itself, in fervor if not in numbers—have seen the rise of a religious revivalism that is dramatically reshaping politics. Societies in which religion appeared to have been overcome as a political force only half a century ago are witnessing what political philosopher Michael Walzer calls a “return of the negated.” Of course, as Freud says of the repressed, the negated does not return unaltered. Today’s religious revival is not a resurrection of the traditionalist opposition to secular nationalism but a new form of hyper-nationalism underwritten by religious eschatology.

Traditionalist revivalism tends to evoke three types of responses. One is fascination. Michel Foucault’s embarrassing embrace of Iran’s Islamic revolution is a prime example. Another, typical of revolutionary Marxists and scientistic atheists, is militant rejection of religion as such. A third is more nuanced, advocating neither reckless romanticism nor blanket rejection but critical engagement.

Walzer advances a powerful case for the third position, which has been gaining popularity among leading intellectuals. His latest book, The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, studies the rise of religious revivalism as a political force in Israel, Algeria, and India, three countries created by movements of national liberation that were “committed . . . to an explicitly secular project.” Yet in the states these movements created, “a politics rooted in what we can loosely call fundamentalist religion is today very powerful.”

What explains this unexpected trajectory, according to Walzer, is a tension inherent to national liberation. Liberation requires not just removing the yoke of foreign oppression but also transforming the consciousness of the liberated—“a struggle against, rather than an ‘exaltation’ of, the existing nation.” Consequently, “the old ways must be repudiated and overcome—totally. But the old ways are cherished by many of the men and women whose ways they are. That is the paradox of liberation.”

But many among the liberated cling to traditions, rituals, symbols, and habits as wellsprings of meaning and identity. After the revolution subsides and its exhilarating heroism is replaced by the inglorious business of ordinary politics, the cherished old ways resurface, fuelled by resentment of the modernizing elites. In all three of his case studies, Walzer concludes that the secular nationalist revolution failed because “the culture of liberation was apparently too thin,” and it was too thin because it cut itself off from the tradition. Had the founders of these modern nations adopted a less hostile attitude toward tradition and “aimed at a critical engagement with the old culture rather than a total attack upon it . . . the story might have turned out differently.”

Walzer’s recipe for combating religious revivalism is critical engagement. “Alongside the ongoing work of negation,” he writes, “the tradition has to be acknowledged and its different parts ingathered” so they can “become the subject of ongoing argument and negotiation.” This is primarily an intellectual endeavor, focused on textual and cultural interpretation. As Walzer has written elsewhere, “The texts of our tradition are important, not holy. Every generation must read them again, and must debate them, to choose some and reject others,” with the aim of developing democratic, egalitarian versions of traditional texts and customs. Some years ago Kwame Anthony Appiah advanced a similar plea with respect to Africa, arguing that “ideological decolonization is bound to fail if it neglects either endogenous ‘tradition’ or exogenous ‘Western’ ideas, and that many African (and African American) intellectuals have failed to find a negotiated middle way.” Others advance such an approach with respect to Hinduism and to Islam.

Church & Capital Punishment, Support Teaching

As this article from Crisis Magazine makes clear, the Church cannot reverse its teaching on capital punishment, exactly the case I made in my book on the subject.

An excerpt from the Crisis article.

Pope St. John Paul II was well-known for his vigorous opposition to capital punishment. Yet in 2004, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—the pope’s own chief doctrinal officer, later to become Pope Benedict XVI—stated unambiguously that:

[I]f a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment … he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities … to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible … to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about … applying the death penalty … (Emphasis added)

How could it be “legitimate” for a Catholic to be “at odds with” the pope on such a matter? The answer is that the pope’s opposition to capital punishment was not a matter of binding doctrine, but merely an opinion which a Catholic must respectfully consider but not necessarily agree with. Cardinal Ratzinger could not possibly have said what he did otherwise. If it were mortally sinful for a Catholic to disagree with the pope about capital punishment, then he could not “present himself to receive Holy Communion.” If it were even venially sinful to disagree, then there could not be “a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics.”

The fact is that it is the irreformable teaching of the Church that capital punishment can in principle be legitimate, not merely to ensure the physical safety of others when an offender poses an immediate danger (a case where even John Paul II was willing to allow for the death penalty), but even for purposes such as securing retributive justice and deterring serious crime. What is open to debate is merely whether recourse to the death penalty is in practice the best option given particular historical and cultural circumstances. That is a “prudential” matter about which popes have no special expertise.

We defend these claims in detail and at length in our book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of the Death Penalty, forthcoming from Ignatius Press. What follows is a brief summary of some key points.

Sacred Scripture The Church holds that scripture is infallible, particularly when it teaches on matters of faith and morals. The First Vatican Council teaches that scripture must always be interpreted in the sense in which the Church has traditionally understood it, and in particular that it can never be interpreted in a sense contrary to the unanimous understanding of the Fathers of the Church.

Both the Old and New Testaments teach that capital punishment can be legitimate, and the Church has always interpreted them this way. For example, Genesis 9:6 famously states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” The Church has always understood this as a sanction of the death penalty. Even Christian Brugger, a prominent Catholic opponent of capital punishment, admits that attempts to reinterpret this passage are dubious and that the passage is a “problem” for views like his own.

Papal Errors?

If all true, another devastating account from Remnant News.

An excerpt.

It seems that not a week goes by without some twisting of Sacred Scripture by a Pope who, as the past three-and-a-half years have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, has the singular distinction among all his predecessors of being nothing short of a font of error. This unparalleled development has prompted the emergence of a group of diocesan priests who have compiled a vast assortment of Francis’s errors under the title Denzinger-Bergoglio, declaring as their motivation “We all have responsibility for the Church of the Lord.”

Indeed we do. Which is why this newspaper is obliged to follow the example of these priests by reporting and refuting as many of Francis’s errors as possible. For compared to the innumerable errors of Francis, the infamous errant sermons of John XXII, which provoked furious public opposition from orthodox theologians at the time, leading to the wayward Pope’s deathbed retraction, are trivial in comparison. The faithful have a duty to respond to this situation in keeping with their natural right as baptized members of the Church Militant to communicate with the sacred pastors and with each other regarding ecclesial concerns. (Cfr. Canon 212 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law) Hence this new feature: the Font of Error Update, which mirrors the intent of the Denzinger-Bergoglio website. Where Sacred Scripture in particular is concerned, we have learned from bitter experience that practically nothing Francis says by way of interpretation can be trusted; every “interpretation” must be checked. And, far too often, one will find that the Bible says the opposite, or very nearly the opposite, of what Francis claims, particularly where the teaching and mission of Christ are concerned. (A particularly egregious example, discussed here, is the twisting of Matthew 19:3-9 from Our Lord’s condemnation of the Pharisees’ toleration of divorce into a condemnation of present-day Catholic as Pharisees for defending Christ’s teaching against divorce!) The latest example is the Audience Address of September 7, 2016, a discussion of the eleventh Chapter of Matthew wherein John the Baptist, in prison, sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the promised Messiah. John, says Francis, “was anxiously awaiting the Messiah and in his preaching had described him [sic] in bold colors, as a judge who would finally install the reign of God and purify his people, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked.” But, according to Francis, Jesus had “launched his public mission with a different style” and “John suffers… because he does not understand this style of Jesus and wants to know if he really is the Messiah or should we wait for another.” That is, Francis suggests that John the Baptist was disappointed with the “style” of Jesus and therefore dubious about His Messianic pedigree. Francis begins his twisting of the Gospel by noting that earlier in Matthew’s account (Matthew 3:10), Jesus had indeed preached: “For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.” But, according to Francis, when John’s disciples inquire of Jesus whether he is the Messiah:

“the reply of Jesus seems at first sight not to correspond to the request of the Baptist. Jesus, in fact, says: “Go and related to John what you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are purified, the deaf heard, the dead rise gain, the poor have the Gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who shall not be scandalized in me (Matt 4-6).” Here the intention of the Lord Jesus becomes clear: He responds that he is the concrete instrument of the mercy of God, who encounters everyone, bringing the consolation of salvation, and in this way manifests the judgment of God.”

Note, first of all, the conflation of God’s mercy with His judgment, as if His mercy simply is His judgment and there is no judgment or condemnation. Note also the subversive implication that John, not expecting this merciful Messiah, suffered with doubt because Jesus was healing the sick, raising the dead, and preaching the Gospel to the poor as opposed to simply rewarding the good and punishing the wicked as John had prophesied. Francis thus sets up a false opposition between John’s prophesy of the coming Messiah and Jesus’s works of mercy, when in fact there is no opposition at all. He twists Christ’s miracles into a “style” that John supposedly could not comprehend: the beneficiaries of the miracles “recover their dignity and are no longer excluded, the dead return to life, while to the poor is announced the Good News”—as if John somehow objected to this!

Catholic Bishops & Government Money

A devastating article from Remnant Newspaper lays out the money trail, and the political payoff.

An excerpt.

Crickets…….

The silence about Hillary Clinton is deafening. One hears nothing but crickets from the U.S. Bishops and Cardinals about the democratic presidential candidate’s radical pro-abortion stance, but for the banished Cardinal Raymond Burke.

Why are they sitting mute on the sidelines? How could they be conflicted between an abortion laden democratic platform and the most prolife republican platform ever? Seems like an obvious choice for Catholics. After all, St. John Paul II described life as “the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights.” What’s going on?

When in doubt, follow the money. This ecclesial trail is flush with cash.

Could it be that the bishops don’t want to anger their federal piggy bank by squealing about that rabid abortion loving democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton?

Could it be that the USCCB enjoys and wants to continue to be awash in Obama cash?

Did the democratic Obama Administration buy the election silence of the Catholic episcopacy by bestowing millions of federal dollars into the coffers of Catholic institutions?

Do the Bishops believe that a President Hillary Clinton is preferred because she will continue to fund their plentiful federal grants for Muslim refugee resettlement?

Oh, the irony! This is the same Obama Administration that has forced lawsuits by the Little Sisters of the Poor, Catholic schools, Catholic businesses and Catholic lay organizations for mandating compliance with Obamacare rules in violation of Catholic doctrine. Yet, the Bishops stand ready, willing, and able with their hand in the federal cookie jar to implement the Muslim refugee resettlement agenda.

While the Little Sisters of the Poor battled Uncle Sam, the U.S. Bishops and Cardinals were lining the Church coffers with blood money from Uncle Sam.

This isn’t about conscience, folks. It’s about their checkbook.

Take a look at the jaw dropping beneficence from the federal fairy godmother government deposited into the bank accounts of the Catholic hierarchal institutions. It’s all on display at USASpending.gov.

During the most anti-Catholic administration in the history of the U.S., the Catholic bishops have enjoyed enormous financial benefits carrying out the mission of the Obama administration.

Here’s the Church, here’s the steeple, open the doors and see all the federal dollars.

This is only a partial list of federal government grants to Catholic groups, but the USCCB, Catholic Charities, CRS and the International Catholic Migration Commission received jaw dropping grants to carry out the Obama agenda in FY16.

These grants cover fiscal year 2016 only:

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

During FY16, the USCCB received federal grants totaling a whopping $91,132,305.

Social Justice

Excellent article about it from Crisis Magazine.

An excerpt.

American universities used to be a place where difficult ideas were encountered and built in biases challenged. The universities, an inspiration from the Catholic Church, were the home of diverse ideas that were meant to inspire wisdom in students in addition to the learning of practical skills that would help build the economic strength that enabled America to dominate the globe. A fine example of this thinking is ensconced in the motto of DePaul University, Viam sapientiae monstrabo tibi, or I will show you the way to wisdom. Wisdom enlightens the mind and strengthens the individual, which has direct consequences for the broader culture and society. But our universities have turned their backs on promoting wisdom and instead have adopted a mission of promoting a distorted sense of social justice.

Social justice is a concept that originates in Catholic Social Teaching. Indeed, it could be said to be foundational to Catholic Social Teaching. The concept emerged in the mid-nineteenth century in the writings of the Italian Jesuit Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio. Taparelli coined the term to defend the rights of landed nobles during the turbulent mid-nineteenth century nationalization process that led to the founding of the Italian state. Later the term would be invoked and defined broadly in papal writings, most notably in Pope Pius X’s 1904 encyclical Iucunda Sane, which sang the praises of Pope St. Gregory the Great, whom Pope Pius X called a great defender of social justice and the essential foundation of society, the family.

The Catechism defines the just society as one that “provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority” (CCC 1928). Social justice requires the recognition of the transcendental dignity of man as a creature made in the image and likeness of God and that as a result rights are prior to society. Social justice is concerned principally with promoting human dignity and strives for promoting the common good, which according to Gaudium et Spes “embraces the sum of those conditions of social life by which individuals, families, and groups can achieve their own fulfillment in a relatively thorough and ready way” (GES 74). Little mention of power arrangements are made in the Catechism and the body of Catholic Social Teaching, and for good reason, as the Church is principally concerned with the spiritual health of the person and the earthly health of society beginning first with the traditional family. Power and politics is only of concern when it conflicts with our duties to our neighbor and to God.

This is a far cry from those definitions promoted at secular and nominally Catholic universities. These institutions define the just society as one that promotes the equal distribution of political and social rights and an equal distribution of wealth while being one that opposes structural injustices of power and unearned privilege. This is a definition that comes from Marxism, which is concerned primarily with the two facets of materialism—productivity and power—which are the false idols of the secular world.

Women Deacons

Excellent article in America Magazine about this issue, timely as the Holy Father has appointed a commission to study the issue.

An excerpt.

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae,” wrote St. Paul in the Letter to the Romans (16:1). What did Paul mean when he referred to Phoebe as a deacon? What kind of diakonos was she? How did she serve the church? Was she ordained as a deacon? And if so, what did her ordination mean? These questions, which may once have seemed arcane, have taken on greater urgency in the wake of Pope Francis’ recent decision to appoint a commission to study the historicity of women deacons.

We should note that the ordination of women to the priesthood is not under consideration. In “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” the apostolic letter promulgated by St. John Paul II in 1994, which Pope Francis has endorsed on several occasions, the late pontiff declared “definitively” that only men can be ordained to the priesthood. While St. John Paul II made no definitive pronouncement on the separate question of women deacons, the apostolic letter forestalled consideration of the issue in some quarters out of concern that discussion of women deacons would inevitably lead to talk of the ordination of women to the priesthood. We welcome Pope Francis’ decision to reopen the question of women deacons, which manifests his faith in the Holy Spirit to guide the discernment of the people of God.

This is not the first time in recent history that the Vatican has examined the role of deacons. In 2002 the International Theological Commission concluded a study of the diaconate that included commentary specific to women deacons. For example, the document concluded that in Phoebe’s case, the Greek word diakonos was meant in the broadest sense, as “one who serves.” The commission noted that “the deaconesses mentioned in the tradition of the ancient Church—as evidenced by the rite of institution and the functions they exercised—were not purely and simply equivalent to the [male] deacons.”

At the same time, the commission said that “there is a clear distinction between the ministries of the bishop and the priests on the one hand and the diaconal ministry on the other.” In other words, while all three are sacred orders, essential differences among them may allow for women deacons. In the words of Bishop Emil Wcela (see America, 10/1/12), the commission left “the ordination of women to the diaconate an open question.”

The question took a new turn in May, when a woman religious asked Pope Francis about women deacons during a meeting with the heads of women’s religious orders from around the world. The pope in his response promised to set up a commission, whose members were appointed in July. Among them is the scholar Phyllis Zagano, author of Holy Saturdays: An Argument for the Restoration of the Female Diaconate in the Catholic Church. 

Professor Zagano’s book considers the historical evidence of women deacons, much of which might surprise many Catholics. As she wrote in America in 2003 (see Vantage Point in this issue, page 30), “While the work of women deacons—always rooted in the word, the liturgy and charity—differed regionally, the fact of women deacons is undeniable.” She is not the only reputable scholar to sift through the historical record. In their book Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History, Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, R.S.C.J., sum up the ministries that women deacons performed in the Eastern churches: “Female deacons…exercised liturgical roles, supervised the lives of women faithful, provided ongoing care for women baptizands, and were seen going on pilgrimage and interacting with their own families and the general population in a variety of ways.”

Other scholars disagree, averring that diakonos, when applied to women in New Testament times and in the early church, was more likely to have referred to service in general, according to cultural norms for women at the time. Moreover, they argue, “ordination” ceremonies for women in the early church cannot be equated with the contemporary understanding of ordination.

As indispensable as it is, the historical data is neither wholly conclusive nor ultimately dispositive. The church’s discernment regarding women deacons must be guided, in the words of the International Theological Commission, by “a greater knowledge of both historical and theological sources, as well as of the current life of the Church” (emphasis added). We should also bear in mind this additional insight of the commission: “Nowhere did the [Second Vatican] Council claim that the form of the permanent diaconate which it was proposing was a restoration of a previous form…. Vatican II never aimed to do that. What it re-established was the principle of the permanent exercise of the diaconate, and not one particular form which the diaconate had taken in the past.”

This raises a question: If the church discerns in light of its reflection on the historical and theological data and the current life of the church that, at a minimum, it enjoys the freedom to admit women to the permanent diaconate, then should we do so? Yes, we should. What might that mean for the church today?

To begin with, while acknowledging the myriad ways in which women already serve the church, “ordaining women as deacons who have the necessary personal, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral qualities would give their indispensable role in the life of the church a new degree of official recognition, both of their ministry and of their direct connection to their diocesan bishop for assignments and faculties,” as Bishop Wcela has written. The church would be enriched by women’s leadership in its sacramental life. Like their male counterparts, women deacons could preside over some of the sacraments. Women deacons could preach at baptisms, weddings and funerals, providing the church with powerful models of women leading the community during some of life’s most important moments. That alone—the more complete inclusion of the voices of half the church in a sacramental setting—would be a great source of apostolic creativity and energy. While Pope Francis has said that ordained women deacons would not be permitted to preach at Mass, he has yet to offer a compelling reason why this must be so. It seems that if we are to have women deacons, then they should be permitted to perform all the functions that their male counterparts do.

It is also important to consider the possible ways that women deacons might serve as models for young women—and men. If it is true that some people have written off the church as a “patriarchal” institution, then imagine what it would mean to see a woman presiding at a liturgy. Many women in particular might feel more invited into a community in which the sacramental leadership includes them.

Lutherans & Catholics Unified?

Can’t see the Lutherans ever accepting Peter Primacy, but the article says on the way to unity, not yet arrived there, as this article from Crux Now reports.

An excerpt.

Nearly 500 years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Castle Church door, the largest Lutheran denomination in the U.S. has approved a declaration recognizing “there are no longer church-dividing issues” on many points with the Roman Catholic Church.

The “Declaration on the Way” was approved 931-9 by the 2016 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Churchwide Assembly held last week at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans.

ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth A. Eaton called the declaration “historic” in a statement released by the denomination following the Aug. 10 vote.

“Though we have not yet arrived, we have claimed that we are, in fact, on the way to unity,” he said.

“This ‘Declaration on the Way’ helps us to realize more fully our unity in Christ with our Catholic partners, but it also serves to embolden our commitment to unity with all Christians,” Eaton said.

The declaration comes as the Lutheran and Catholic churches prepare to kick off a year of celebrations to mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

Luther had touched off the Reformation on Oct. 31, 1517, when he nailed the 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany. That document included 95 questions and propositions he wanted to debate within the Catholic Church.

Most notably, the “Declaration on the Way” includes 32 “Statements of Agreement” where Lutherans and Catholics no longer have church-dividing differences on issues of church, ministry and the Eucharist. Those statements previously had been affirmed by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.

It also lists remaining differences between the two churches and next steps on addressing them.

Eaton pointed to past agreements reached by the ELCA and Catholic Church, as well, including 1999’s “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.”

Last November, Pope Francis sparked controversy when he seemed to suggest a Lutheran could receive Communion in the Catholic Church, saying “life is greater than explanations and interpretations.”

The pontiff is scheduled to visit Sweden on Oct. 31 to preside at a joint service with Lutherans.

The Horror Continues?

This story from SNAP, if it turns out after full investigation to be true, about Cardinal George Pell, is truly horrifying, considering his status in the Vatican.

An excerpt.

Abuse case vs. Vatican’s #2 moves forward; SNAP responds

For immediate release: Wednesday, July 27

Statement by David Clohessy of St. Louis MO, Director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (314 566 9790, 314 645 5915 home,davidgclohessy@gmail.com)

Police have sent to prosecutors their investigation into the second most powerful Catholic official on earth. Eight brave individuals – most of them alleged child sex abuse victims – have given sworn statements. Three are courageously disclosing their names and giving credible interviews to a credible, mainstream news source in a new 30 minute program. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2016/s4508646.htm

One man says he hopes these developments will prompt others with information about Cardinal George Pell’s wrongdoing to come forward. We share that hope. Despite Pell’s power, it’s crucial that others with suspicions or knowledge of his wrongdoing find the strength to speak up to secular authorities, not church figures.

After a lengthy investigation, police have deemed eight accusers’ accounts are credible enough that they’re giving the evidence to prosecutors. That speaks volumes.

Pell refuses to be interviewed about the serious allegations. That too speaks volumes.

We commend the compassion and courage of Les Tyack, Lyndon Monument, Damian Dignan, Darreen Mooney, and forensic psychologist and former priest Terry Laidler who agreed to be interviewed for the program.

No matter what lawmakers or church officials do or don’t do, we urge every single person who saw, suspected or suffered child sex crimes and cover ups in Catholic churches or institutions to protect kids by calling police, get help by calling therapists, expose wrongdoers by calling law enforcement, get justice by calling attorneys, and be comforted by calling support groups like ours. This is how kids will be safer, adults will recover, criminals will be prosecuted, cover ups will be deterred and the truth will surface.

St. James

Great historical article from Catholic World Report.

An excerpt.

Soon after the March, 2004 bombing of Madrid’s Atocha train station by Al Qaeda partisans, there were calls to remove the statue of Saint James the Moorslayer from Spain’s famous cathedral in Santiago de Compostela. The Madrid carnage—191 dead, 2000 more injured—stunned the country. The government hoped that Muslims would find Spain friendlier if the “offensive” Matamoros was banished. But the Spanish people protested vigorously against removal of an iconic image that figures so prominently in the nation’s history.

Today is the feast day of Saint James the Greater. Millions of pilgrims have trekked across four ancient pilgrim paths that thread through Europe, converging in  the Pyrenees, then across northwestern Spain to the tomb of  St. James at his shrine in Santiago de Compostela (St. James of the Starry Field).

Modern pilgrims walk the Camino, “The Way of St. James,” in the footsteps of great pilgrims of the past, including St. Godric of Norfolk, El Cid, St. Francis of Assisi, John of Gaunt, and Lorenzo de Medici. Henry II, father of Richard the Lionhearted, offered to make the pilgrimage in expiation for the murder of St. Thomas Becket. Historians credit the forging of a common European identity to  the Camino de Santiago. Through the centuries Christian pilgrims have built great monasteries, abbeys, and hospitals along these roads, along with a shared culture—art, architecture, fashion, literature, and faith.

Pilgrimage fervor suffered when the Reformation split Europe, dividing European identities and loyalties. Interest surged again in the 1980s; today more than a quarter million pilgrims a year set off for Santiago where archeologists have found inscriptions for the Apostle’s two disciples, and where Christians believe the Son of Zebedee himself lies in a silver casket.

The apostle James, along with his brother John, and Simon Peter were Jesus’ confidantes. They alone among the apostles were present at the Transfiguration and in the Garden of Gethsemane. James preached in Spain after the disciples went forth following the Resurrection. He was beheaded by Herod Agrippa in 42 A.D., the first apostle to die, the first apostle martyred. His followers returned James’ body to Spain, burying his remains in Galicia in the northwestern corner of the peninsula. And there the apostle lay forgotten until 813, when most of Spain groaned under the Saracen boot.

A Muslim storm burst from North Africa over most of Iberia in 711 A.D. taking Christians captive, pillaging towns and swarming north over the Pyrenees into France. By 800, Christians had been backed into the northernmost region and a humiliating tribute of a 100 virgins per year was demanded of local governors.

The twelfth-century collection of history, verse, liturgy, and travelogue about the Camino, known as Codex Calixtinus, records a legend that Charlemagne himself had a vision of a knightly protector who identified himself as St. James (Sant Iago, Santiago), the apostle of Jesus Christ:

Look you, my body is in Galicia, but no man knoweth where and the Saracens oppress the land…the starry sky signifies you shall go to Galicia at the head of a great host and after you all peoples shall come in pilgrimage even till the end of time…and your name shall abide in the memory of man until the Day of Judgment.

The warrior emperor was to liberate the roadway that ran to the tomb. In Galicia, James’ burial crypt had been rediscovered in 813 and a small chapel was built (by Bishop Teodomir) to protect it. Myth or miracle, a rout now known as the Battle of Clavijo was fought in the year 844  by desperate Christians with their backs against the mountains, led by Ramiro 1 of Asturias. Suddenly, there appeared a heavenly horseman, sword aloft, who slew every Muslim in his path: Santiago Matamoros. Inspired by their champion, the faithful began the reconquest of Spain.

Seven hundred years later Queen Isabella finally recovered all of Spain from Muslim rule. She immediately pawned her jewels to finance Christopher Columbus. Isabella, who built hospitals for pilgrims along the Camino, knew that Christianity must evangelize any lands beyond the horizon, lest Mohammed’s forces dominate the world.  Today’s politically correct agenda overlooks Isabella’s urgent hope. But there is confirmation of her intent in a letter from Columbus to an official “Treat the Natives with the utmost kindness. Protect them from all wrong and insult…and ever bear in mind that their majesties are more desirous of the conversion of natives than any riches to be derived from them.”