Shamelessly Stealing Deacon Greg's Headline: E.T. Phone Rome

The Vatican is close to admitting that life may indeed be present on other planets/galaxies.

Catholic News Service has the scoop. I dare the NY Times to run this on page one without being condescending. I double dog dare Sean Hannity to talk about it on Fox.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Dozens of scientists gathered at a Vatican-sponsored meeting to fit together emerging pieces of a puzzle still waiting to be solved: whether there is life on other planets.

If finding extraterrestrial life is like "a detective chase, a crime to be solved, we're getting very close to the answer," said Chris Impey, head of the Steward Observatory and the University of Arizona's department of astronomy in Tucson, Ariz.

Impey was one of 30 high-level scientists attending a Nov. 6-10 study week on astrobiology sponsored by the Vatican Observatory and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He and others spoke at a Vatican press conference Nov. 10.

The astronomer said it is widely believed that life needs three basic ingredients: carbon-based material, energy provided by stars, and water, "which is one of the most common molecules in the universe."

"These three elements have already been found in a lot of places in galaxies," he said.

"The universe, if it's like a table, the table is set for dinner. Everything is there, all the ingredients are there" to welcome and support life, Impey added.

Until 1995, no one knew whether there were planets circling some of the billions of stars in the universe.

Advancements in planet detection have since led scientists to discover more than 400 planets outside of the solar system and dozens more are found each year, he said.

Jonathan Lunine, professor of planetary science and physics at the University of Arizona, said three or four worlds within the solar system also have conditions where life may be found.

More research into how the Earth and earthly life evolved is helpful in understanding what habitable worlds may look like, he said.

Read more here but scientists need to rejoice today because here is a clear example where the Church is stating that science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

And since this is a far cry from what the church used to regard as valid scientific theory, I thought I'd pull out one of my old favorites from the Indigo Girls:

Vatican Paper: Obama invites us to work in common effort

David Gibson quotes L'Osservatore Romano today:

The newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said the president also confirmed that pushing for a more liberal abortion law would not be a priority of his administration. The comments came in a L'Osservatore report May 18, the day after Obama spoke at the university in Indiana.

"The search for a common ground: This seems to be the path chosen by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, in facing the delicate question of abortion," the newspaper said.

It said Obama had set aside the "strident tone" of the 2008 political campaign on the abortion issue.

"Yesterday Obama confirmed what he expressed at his 100-day press conference at the White House, when he said that enacting a new law on abortion was not a priority of his administration," it said.

The newspaper, which was reporting on the Notre Dame commencement for the first time, acknowledged the controversy caused by the president's appearance at what it called "the most prestigious Catholic university in the United States."

"Yesterday, too, as could have been predicted, there were protests. But from the podium set up in the basketball arena, the president invited Americans of every faith and ideological conviction to 'work in common effort' to reduce the number of abortions," it said.

I guess the Pope's paper is run by a bunch of heretics too? Would anyone dare to say that they are a bunch of people who are "killing our children?"

More moderate voices are arising. Thank God for that. After all, if President Obama is suggesting that we stop women from aborting by offering them viable alternatives than I think it's time we took him up on the help he's offered--as opposed to stating that he's trying to hoodwink us.

100 Days of Obama - And the Church still stands

From CNS - the Church claims President Obama's first 100 days have not been as bad as they may have feared.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican newspaper said President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office have not confirmed the Catholic Church's worst fears about radical policy changes in ethical areas.

The comments came in a front-page article April 29 in L'Osservatore Romano, under the headline, "The 100 days that did not shake the world." It said the new president has operated with more caution than predicted in most areas, including economics and international relations.

"On ethical questions, too -- which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops -- Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed," it said.

It said the new draft guidelines for stem-cell research, for example, did not constitute the major change in policy that was foreseen a few months ago.

"(The guidelines) do not allow the creation of new embryos for research or therapeutic purposes, for cloning or for reproductive ends, and federal funds may be used only for experimentation with excess embryos," it said.

Read the rest here

A hat tip to Deacon Greg and Rocco who also adds a bit more including this snippet that we all should read:

A certain surprise has otherwise come about in these days through a bill designed by the Democratic party: the Pregnant Women Support Act would move to limit the number of abortions in the United States through initiatives of aid for distressed women. It's not a negation of the doctrine until now expressed by Obama on matters of the interruption of pregnancy, but the legislative project could represent a rebalancing in support of motherhood.

If it's good enough for the Vatican paper...

Pope's Gift to Prince Charles...Or Not?

This in today with hat tips to The Times of London and Catholic News Service

Upon Prince Charles' visit to the Vatican the Times of London reported the Pope was going to issue a luxury facsimile of the 1530 appeal by English peers to Pope Clement VII asking for the annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. This seems somewhat cheeky (as the Brits would say) since Charles is married to divorcee Camilia Bowles.

One problem: The Vatican says it's not true.

Could it be the Vatican is getting fed up with inaccurate reporting?

The Times story said that when Prince Charles comes to the Vatican next week, Pope Benedict planned to present him with ”a gift that may strike an unwelcome chord”: a facsimile of the 1530 appeal by English peers to Pope Clement VII asking for the annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

As everyone knows, Pope Clement refused that appeal, King Henry married his mistress anyway and renounced Roman Catholicism, establishing the Church of England.

As the Times put it, the pope’s gift appeared to be either “an unfortunate accident or a piece of mischievous theater.” That was no doubt enough to set people off at the Vatican.

One part of the story did appear to be true: The Italian company Scrinium is in fact producing a limited-edition facsimile of the famous letter of Henry VIII, in collaboration with the Vatican Secret Archives, which holds the document in its underground vaults.

This is getting ridiculous. Are media outlets taking advantage of the obvious weakness of the Vatican press office by trying to put out plausible but untrue stories and turning Vatican News into a sideshow? Fr Federico Lombardi, SJ (pictured above) must be going insane today.

Vatican Ambassador Possibilities

After getting several Facebook messages and emails from people asking me what I thought about Caroline Kennedy being rejected as a choice for Vatican Ambassador.

For the record, she was not rejected at all. No names were floated or rejected according to the Vatican.

However, in today's Washington Post, Eric Gorski does indeed float some possibilities and the inside track to how these decisions would be made.

One frequently mentioned name is Douglas Kmiec (pictured,right), a former dean of the Catholic University of America law school and Reagan administration lawyer who broke Republican ranks and endorsed Obama. Kmiec, who has a long record of opposing abortion, was lambasted by conservative Catholics and denied Communion by one priest.

Asked whether the administration had contacted him about the ambassadorship, Kmiec declined to comment.

Another possible candidate is Nicholas Cafardi, a professor at Duquesne University law school and the school's former dean. Cafardi, who once considered the priesthood, is a canon lawyer and speaks Italian.

He was an original member and former chairman of the National Review Board, a panel of lay people formed by U.S. bishops in 2002 to help oversee the response to the clergy sex abuse crisis.
ad_icon

Cafardi opposes abortion rights and endorsed Obama. While not as visible as Kmiec, Cafardi did resign last year from the board of trustees at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, a conservative Catholic school in Ohio, to head off any conflict over his support for Obama.

Cafardi told The Associated Press on Thursday that the administration has not asked his advice about the post or offered it to him. He said he would be honored to be considered.

Read the whole article here

A hat tip to David Gibson for pointing us in the right direction.

With reference to Kmiec, Catholic News Agency says he's got no shot.

To Vatican Critics: Media Matters for You Too

I got annoyed at a few friends the other night and I think I shot the messenger. They mentioned that they were annoyed at Pope Benedict's statements while he was in Africa about how condoms are not a solution to the AIDS crisis.

I asked them (probably in an angry NY tone) what they thought the Pope meant. One claimed that they weren't sure and the other said that they thought the Pope was saying that condoms are not a way to prevent the spread of AIDS--that they don't work--that scientifically condoms don't really prevent the AIDS virus.

Balderdash.

What the Pope was saying was that condoms are a quick fix. That they don't stop the real systemic problem at hand which is an unhealthy and cheapened view of sexuality--which most people in the world actually subscribe to and which many men especially in Africa have taken to an extreme.

Women are regarded in Africa by many men in that culture as disposable. They are only there to serve the sexual needs of men. We shouldn't single out Africa in this regard as this is a widespread phenomenon.

So the Pope's suggestion is that condoms do not create a culture change and a shift in the sexual mindset of the world--especially on a continent where AIDS and HIV is a huge problem--is what is really needed.

But what happens now? His answer is taken out of context and blown up in the media as the Pope saying that we don't need condoms in Africa to solve the AIDS crisis with no explanation at all and most people come away thinking that the Pope just made a stupid and perhaps even an out-of-touch statement.

He did not. But now we'll never hear him go beyond this statement because the Vatican PR department won't field anymore questions on the subject out of fear.

The good follow up question that I suspect the Pope may even have a brilliant idea about is this:

"While it may be true that a more systemic change is needed to really solve the problem of AIDS in the world, there are many people who may not share that opinion. While we realize that you need to set the bar high by calling people to a higher standard and uphold the teachings of the Catholic faith, can you also share any ideas you may have to keep people safe in the meantime, before this culture change hopefully takes hold on the culture--or even dare we say, if it doesn't?"

Culture change doesn't happen overnight. And while I agree with the Pope's point, I'd sincerely like to hear what ideas he might promote of a practical nature that will protect, especially women who are often raped by men with the AIDS virus or are forced to have sex with their husbands who may be transmitting the virus as well.

While I'm not likely to get an answer from the Holy Father on this matter, I'm wondering what y'all think about two things:

1) Is the media as well as the general public shooting us in the foot by taking questions out of context?

2) What ideas might we have for both building a change in the culture and for keeping people safe in the meantime?

Let's say that condoms are not an option just for kicks!

Cardinal Egan adds to SSPX outrage

Rocco has the scoop:

"Yesterday, the Vatican condemned in the clearest terms a statement made by an illicitly consecrated Bishop by the name of Richard Williamson in which the evil of the Shoah was questioned or at least minimized. As Archbishop of New York, I add my voice to that of the Holy See and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in rejecting Williamson’s words as hurtful, baseless, and outrageous..."

Head over to Rocco for more.

It's good to see the Bishops speaking with some unity on this albeit a few days late.

Being the Pope is Lonely

Sandro Magister--Vaticanista par excellence, has much to add about the SSPX story.

In the disaster, Pope Benedict XVI found himself to be the one most exposed, and practically alone.

Both within and outside of the curia, many are blaming the pope for everything. In effect, it was his decision to offer the Lefebvrist bishops a gesture of benevolence. The lifting of excommunication followed other previous gestures of openness, also decided personally by the pope, the last of which was the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum," dated July 7, 2007, with the liberalization of the ancient rite of the Mass.

As he had done before, this time as well Benedict XVI did not demand in advance anything from the Lefebvrists in return. So far, all of his acts of openness have been unilateral. The pope's critics have seized upon this in order to accuse him of naivety, or appeasement, or even of wanting to take the Church back to before Vatican Council II.

In reality, Benedict XVI has explained his intention absolutely clearly, in one of the key addresses of his pontificate, the one delivered to the Roman curia on December 22, 2005. In that speech, pope Ratzinger maintained that Vatican II did not mark any rupture with the Church's tradition, but in fact it was in continuity with tradition even where it seemed to mark a clear break with the past, for example when it recognized religious freedom as an inalienable right of every person.

In that speech, Benedict XVI was speaking to the entire Catholic universe. But at the same time, he was also addressing the Lefebvrists, to whom he pointed out the direct route for healing the schism and returning to unity with the Church on the points that they oppose most vigorously: not only religious freedom, but also the liturgy, ecumenism, relations with Judaism and the other religions.

On all of these points, after Vatican Council II the Lefebvrists had gradually separated from the Catholic Church. In 1975, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X – their organizational structure – did not obey an order to disband, and formed a parallel Church, with its own bishops, priests, seminaries. In 1976, its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was suspended "a divinis." In 1988, the excommunication of Lefebvre and of four new bishops he had ordained without papal authorization – who were in turn suspended "a divinis" – was the culminating action of a schism that had been underway for years.

The lifting of this excommunication therefore did not by any means heal the schism between Rome and the Lefebvrists, just as the lifting of the excommunications between Rome and patriarchate of Constantinople – agreed on December 7, 1965, by Paul VI and Athenagoras – did not by any means mark a return to unity between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches of the East. In both cases, the dropping of the excommunication was intended to be simply a first step toward reversing the schism, which remains.

He goes on to add something even more profound:

The question comes naturally: was all of this really inevitable, once the pope had decided to lift the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops? Or was the disaster produced by the errors and omissions of the men who are supposed to implement the pope's decisions? The facts point to the second hypothesis.

The decree revoking the excommunication bears the signature of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the congregation for bishops. Another cardinal, Darío Castrillón Hoyos, is the president of the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei," which, ever since its creation in 1988, has dealt with the followers of Lefebvre. Both of these cardinals have said that they were taken by surprise, after the fact, by the interview with Bishop Williamson, and that they were never aware that he was a Holocaust denier.

But wasn't it the primary responsibility of these two cardinals to carry out an in-depth examination of Williamson's personal profile, and of the three other bishops? The fact that they did not do so seems inexcusable. Such an examination wasn't even difficult. Williamson has never concealed his distaste for Judaism. He has publicly defended the authenticity of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." In 1989, in Canada, he risked being taken to court for praising the books written by Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. After September 11, 2001, he supported conspiracy theories to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers. Just a click on Google would have turned up all of this background material.

Another serious lapse concerned the pontifical council for the promotion of Christian unity. Reversing the schism with the Lefebvrists is logically part of its competencies, which also include relations between the Church and Judaism. But the cardinal who heads the council, Walter Kasper, says that he was kept out of the deliberations: this is all the more surprising in that the issuing of the decree lifting the excommunication took place during the annual week of prayer for Christian unity, and a few days before International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Church politics at its best. I wonder if Cardinal Kasper who is known in many circles for being somewhat progressive in his thought was shut out of these conversations simply because of his purported liberalism? A clear case of people not checking with those in the know.

I also wonder how long it's been since either of the Cardinals have touched a keyboard, much less done a google search. They should both hold their staff's feet to the fires for this one. And yet, I wonder if the Cardinal's staff people even had any inkling of this. It seems to me that the two Cardinals "rubber stamped" this along without much consideration. The prevailing wisdom seems to be one of arrogance.

Vatican bureaucrats think only in terms of what the main purpose of events like this are. In this case, it was the start of healing a schism. So if the Pope wants to start that process the Cardinals look at this as something minor--after all, it is just the start of these talks, primarily in theory designed to separate the wheat from the chaff anyway. Or in this case the nutters from those who just value the Latin mass.

But only geeks like me and Vaticanistas like Sandro or Rocco would know that. Joe Catholic has no idea and neither does the mainstream media. A huge learning session needed to go along with this action--and I suppose the Pope will end up taking his lumps for this but it's really the fault of anybody else who knew about the start of this process and didn't act to advise the pope.

And now he's left to take most of the heat in this regard.

Being the Pope is lonely. Even when good intentioned in Peoria, you might make Catholics in Zimbabwe angry. When something makes sense to Chinese Catholics, it might seem repressive or scary to U.S. Catholics.

Moral of the story: Always have good PR people posted at all four corners of every room you're in.

Pope mandates recant to reconcile with SSPX

For those who doubted:

The Vatican demanded Wednesday that a bishop who denied the Holocaust recant his positions before being fully admitted into the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vatican also said in a statement that Pope Benedict XVI didn't know about Bishop Richard Williamson's views when he agreed to lift his excommunication and that of three other ultraconservative bishops Jan. 21.

The statement was issued by the Vatican's Secretariat of State a day after German Chacellor Angela Merkel urged the pope to make a clearer rejection of Holocaust denials, saying there hadn't been adequate clarification from the Vatican.

Read more here

This needed some public clarification--so while the Vatican is showing some semblance of PR savvy all of a sudden, they finally are showing the world what the process of reconciliation will entail. My guess is that Williamson won't recant and that he will maintain some kind of renegade society while others in the SSPX will reunite with the Pope. As I believe I stated here and certainly stated to others who spoke to me about it, it seemed obvious to be that the Pope didn't know about this guy even when an easy 30 second google search would've uncovered it. The headline was expected to be "Pope heals schism" which shows the single-mindedness of his intentions but a lack of seeing the big picture. It also shows that the Pope considers this guy a minor player in the society as a whole since he obviously wasn't on his radar.

Perhaps we should consider him in a similar vein. After all, there are nuts in every walk of life and although we don't always like to admit it, in every corner of the church as well.