Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill: Conflict and Context

Men carry signs in Kampala, Uganda, Feb. 24, as they celebrate a new anti-homosexuality law. (CNS photo)

While many in the United States and elsewhere have been troubled by the passage of harsh new laws against homosexual behavior in Uganda, hundreds of Ugandans gathered in Kampala on March 31 for a five-hour long parade to celebrate the recently signed “Anti-Homosexuality Bill.”  Called the “National Thanksgiving Service Celebrating the Passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” the festivities—replete with performances by fire jugglers, acrobats, and schoolchildren—were organized by the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda, an ecumenical religious organization promoting the new law.    

GLAAD, the premier lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender media advocacy organization in the United States, called the parade a “chilling celebration.” American gay advocacy organizations and their allies had been proactive in attempting to block the new law; for several months before the law’s passage, the Obama administration tried to prevent Uganda’s president from extending his country’s long-standing anti-sodomy laws to add legislation that criminalizes and punishes “the promotion or recognition of same-sex relationships” with a 14-year prison sentence, adding  even harsher penalties—including life in prison—for engaging in homosexual behavior with minors, or spreading the AIDS virus knowingly. Warning that the new law would “reflect poorly on Uganda’s commitment to protecting the human rights of its people,” President Obama concluded that the law would “mark a serious setback for all those around the world who share a commitment to freedom, justice, and equal rights.” 

But, the people of Uganda and their leaders present at the March 31 event dismissed President Obama’s concerns—taunting him with signs reading, “Obama, We Want Trade Not Homosexuality.” Some carried banners that said, “Stop AIDS with Abstinence Pride,” and “Stop AIDS, Be Faithful in Marriage.”  According to press reports, “Speakers paid tribute to President Yoweri Museveni, the official guest of honor, and linked Uganda’s fight against homosexuality with shedding its colonial past in an event that had the feeling of a campaign rally.”

Survey data indicate that Uganda’s new law reflects the will of the Ugandan people. The law’s passage was driven by concerns about morality, as 40 percent of the population in Uganda is Roman Catholic and the Protestant Evangelicals are also strong presence there. According to an editorial in America, the Uganda Joint Christian Council, which includes Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox bishops, expressed strong support for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

A Pew Research Center poll revealed that eight out of ten Ugandans described homosexual behavior as “morally wrong.” Currently, 38 African counties—about 70 percent of the continent—have laws against homosexual behavior, and concerns about morality continue to drive such legislation.

Beyond these concerns about morality, banners calling for abstinence to end AIDS point to yet another reason for the broad popular support for the new laws in Uganda—the increase in AIDS cases in the country. A 2012 New York Times article on the resurgence of AIDS in the country, “Uganda’s AIDS Success Story Comes Undone,” reports on alarming data from the Crane Survey, a collaborative study designed by Makerere University School of Public Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Ministry of Health in Uganda.  Designed to assess high-risk behaviors among groups of Ugandans, the Crane Survey investigated the sexual practices of men who have sex with men, male and female sex workers, and the partners and clients of sex workers.

Polling 3,000 individuals who were identified as “high risk” (94 percent of the respondents were Ugandan nationals) about their sexual behavior, the Crane Survey identified 306 male respondents who reported having engaged in sex with men in the three months prior to the survey.  Almost one-third (31 percent) of these men had been married to women, and 20 percent were currently married to women. Sixteen percent of these men were living with and having sex with female sex partners during the period they were engaging in sexual behavior with men. Twenty-nine percent had fathered children. 

Demonstrating a much higher incidence of bisexual behavior than occurs among men who have sex with other men in this country, the Crane Survey revealed that more than one-third of all Ugandan men who have sex with men indicate that they are bisexual (37 percent). Half claim they are homosexual (50 percent). Nineteen percent claim that they are attracted to mostly/only women, 12 percent claim to be attracted to both men and women, and 70 percent say that they are attracted to mostly/only men—but many of them still engage in sexual relations with women.  

High-risk behaviors—including putting women at risk for AIDS—were identified within the population of 306 men who had sex with men in the past three months.  Identifying the median rates of high-risk behavior, the Crane Survey revealed that in the three months preceding the survey, men who had sex with men had bought sex from two men and had two male commercial-sex clients, two casual sex partners who were male, and four steady male sex partners. Median numbers of female sex partners by partner type were also measured. In the three months preceding the survey, men who had sex with men had also bought sex from one woman and had zero female commercial clients, no casual sex partners, and one female steady sex partner.  The median number of all male and female sex partners for the 306 males who had sex with males during the three months preceding the survey was 12. 

It should not be surprising that AIDS infection rates in Uganda have been steadily rising—especially among women. The Ugandan Daily Monitor reported that, according to Uganda’s UNAIDS country coordinator, Musa Bungudu, “Uganda is the only country in Eastern and Southern Africa with rising HIV/AIDS infection rates.  According to the 2011 National HIV Indicator Survey, the prevalence rates among Ugandans between the ages of 15 to 19 are going up.  It now stands at 7.3 percent, and even higher in women at 8.3 percent, up from 6.4 percent in the 2004-2005 survey.” The Daily Monitor also reports that Dr. Kihumuro Apuuli, director of Uganda’s AIDS Commission, believes that if new infections continue to rise “the HIV burden is projected to increase by more than 700,000 over the next five years,” and about 25,000 babies will be born with the AIDS infection each year.

In his address following the signing ceremony for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, President Museveni accused unnamed “arrogant and careless Western groups” of seeking to recruit young Ugandan children into homosexuality. “There’s now an attempt at social imperialism, to impose social values,” he said. “We’re sorry to see that you (the West) live the way you live, but we keep quiet about it.”  

Believing our nation’s tolerance and growing acceptance of homosexual relationships should be exported, the Obama administration continues to attempt to impose its now-broadened definition of the family throughout the world.  Most recently, the United Nations delegation from the United States lobbied to replace the traditional definition of the family contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with one that recognizes “diverse forms of the family.”  According to Stefano Gennarini of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), an organization dedicated to defending life and family by preserving international law, the United States delegation to the United Nations has asked to replace the traditional definition of family contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with a lengthy new description of families that have “diverse forms and functions.”

Gennarini points out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has “almost sacred status” at the United Nations. It is regarded, “together with the United Nations Charter, as a founding document of the new world order set in place after World War II.”  Article 16 of the declaration identifies the family as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society” and states that it “is entitled to protection by society and the State.”  Article 16 also mandates that “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

This was not the first time that the United States has attempted to impose its views on same-sex marriage at the United Nations.  But it was the first time it attempted to exclude the traditional language from the declaration.  The UN General Assembly has rejected the notion of “various forms of the family” at its last two sessions—despite the heavy lobbying by the United States delegation. 

It is likely that this lobbying will continue—even though Article 16 and its definition of the family are reflected in the constitutions of more than 100 countries. For example, Bolivia’s constitution mandates that the “State recognizes and protects the family as the fundamental nucleus of society…. The marriage between a man and a woman is formed by legal bond.”  In Brazil, the constitution states “the stable union between a man and a woman is recognized as a family entity, and the law shall facilitate the conversion of such entity into marriage.”  In Bulgaria, the constitution demands that “Matrimony shall be a voluntary union between a man and a woman.”  In Cuba, the constitution identifies marriage as the “voluntary established union between a man and a woman.” These are just a few examples.  

It is likely that the United States will continue its campaign to redefine the family at the United Nations to include same-sex marriage.  It is also likely that the US will join other European nations like Norway, the Netherlands, and Denmark in withdrawing aid to the Ugandan people until that country’s government begins to move away from what these nations see as draconian laws that unfairly target the homosexual community.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states that gay men and women “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “unjust discrimination” in their regard must be avoided. To some in the Church, the harsh legislation passed in Uganda seems unjust and discriminatory. For example, the editors of America titled their article about the law “When the Law is a Crime.” On the other hand, many religious leaders in Uganda, including some (but not all) Catholic bishops, believe the people of Uganda have the right to endorse legislation they think will help promote morality and prevent the spread of AIDS, as well as protect marriage as a bond between one man and one woman. The severity of the legislative measures apparently reflects, justly or unjustly, the severity of the situation in Uganda—a situation that will undoubtedly be the source of further controversy and tension for quite some time.

Miracles Attributed to Popes John Xlll and John Paul ll Intercession

Healed Woman, Witness Recount Miracles Leading to Sunday's Canonizations

Sunrise, Jupiter Island, Fl.-- April 27, 2014

Popes John XXIII and John Paul II Recognized as Intercessors

By Deborah Castellano Lubov

VATICAN CITY, April 24, 2014 (Zenit.org) - The subject of a miracle attributed to the intercession of Blessed John Paul II, and the witness of a miracle attributed to the intercession of John XXIII, gave their testimonies today at the Vatican.
John XXIII:
Daughter of Charity Sister Adele Labianca, director of the Umberto I di Fasano Hospital in Brindisi in Southern Italy, cared for the beneficiary of a miracle attributed to John XXIII.
Sister Caterina Capitani was sick from stomach cancer in 1966.
After numerous hospitalizations and surgeries, Sister Capitini knew she was dying, said her fellow sister from Napoli. Her situation worsened daily, yet the sisters persisted in their prayer.
Inexplicably her condition suddenly disappeared.
She described how Sister Capitini described a miraculous encounter: One night, she saw John XXII in her room. Originally scared and in disbelief, she soon felt peace. She realized he was there to heal her, responding to the prayers of her and her sisters. She was alone in the room, felt his hand over her, saw him smiling and heard him say: "I heard many prayers from the sisters, especially from one in particular."
She said her fellow sister’s response was, “'I must admit I am that sister.'” He responded, “‘'You are ok and have nothing more to worry about.''”
“Nothing could stop her enthusiasm,” her fellow sister reflected. Her face was “transfigured" and she had a lifelong devotion to John XIII, visiting his tomb hundreds of times.
She left a legacy of abandonment of God to the Sisters of Charity and to God’s people.
John Paul II:
Floribeth Mora Díaz experienced a miracle attributed to the intercession of John Paul II.
She was diagnosed with terminal cancer and the doctors gave her one month to live.
She was watching John Paul II"s beatification at 2AM Costa Rica time and said during that ceremony, she felt "moved" as she saw the reliquary containing John Paul II's relic.
"Following that ceremony, several hours later," she added, "I woke and I felt a deep sense of hope and healing. I walked and saw a magazine with a picture of John Paul II, with his arms opened wide and heard his voice say to me ‘Get up and do not be afraid.'”
“Little by little I noticed something had changed in me.”
At that moment, she felt better, she was able to get out of bed, after having been bedridden for some time.
That’s when she walked into the kitchen, saw her husband, and told him what happened.
The doctors said it was a miracle, attributing it to "John Paul II's intercession," she said.

Pope Francis declares John XXIII, John Paul II saints

VATICAN CITY (AP) - April 27, 2014 (WPVI) -- Pope Francis declared his two predecessors John XXIII and John Paul II saints on Sunday before hundreds of thousands of people in St. Peter's Square, an unprecedented ceremony made even more historic by the presence of retired Pope Benedict XVI.

Never before has a reigning and retired pope celebrated Mass together in public, much less at an event honoring two of their most famous predecessors.

Benedict's presence was a reflection of the balancing act that Francis envisioned when he decided to canonize John and John Paul together, showing the unity of the Catholic Church by honoring popes beloved to conservatives and progressives alike. Francis took a deep breath and paused for a moment before reciting the saint-making formula in Latin, as if moved by the history he was about to make.

He said that after deliberating, consulting and praying for divine assistance "we declare and define Blessed John XXIII and John Paul II be saints and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole church."

Applause broke out from a crowd that stretched from St. Peter's to the Tiber River and beyond.

Benedict was sitting off to the side of the altar with other cardinals. He had arrived in the square on his own to cheers and applause, wearing white vestments and white bishops' miter. He stood to greet Italy's president and later Francis when he arrived, and sang along during the hymns that followed the canonization rite.

Italy's interior ministry predicted 1 million people would watch the Mass from the square, the streets surrounding it and nearby piazzas where giant TV screens were set up to accommodate the crowds eager to follow along.

By the time the ceremony began, Via della Conciliazione, the main boulevard leading from the square, nearby streets and the bridges across the Tiber were packed.

Polish pilgrims carrying the red and white flags of John Paul's beloved homeland had been among the first to push into the square well before sunrise, as the human chains of neon-vested civil protection workers trying to maintain order finally gave up and let them in.

"Four popes in one ceremony is a fantastic thing to see and to be at, because it is history being written in our sight," marveled one of the visiting Poles, David Halfar. "It is wonderful to be a part in this and to live all of this."

Most of those who arrived first at St. Peter's had camped out overnight nearby on air mattresses and sleeping pads. Others hadn't slept at all and took part in the all-night prayer vigils hosted at a dozen churches in downtown Rome.

By mid-morning, the scene in the square was quiet and subdued - perhaps due to the chilly gray skies and cumulative lack of sleep - unlike the rollicking party atmosphere of John Paul's May 2011 beatification when bands of young people sang and danced in the hours before the Mass.

Benedict had promised to remain "hidden from the world" after resigning last year, but Francis has coaxed him out of retirement and urged him to take part in the public life of the church.

In a dress rehearsal of sorts, Benedict attended the February ceremony in which Francis installed 19 new cardinals. But celebrating Mass together with Francis was something else entirely, a first for the 2,000-year-old institution and a reflection of Francis' desire to show the continuity in the papacy, despite different personalities, priorities and politics.

Pope John XIII, who reigned from 1958-1963, is a hero to liberal Catholics for having convened the Second Vatican Council. The meetings brought the church into the modern era by allowing Mass to be celebrated in local languages rather than Latin and by encouraging greater dialogue with people of other faiths, particularly Jews.

During his quarter-century papacy from 1978-2005, John Paul II helped topple communism through his support of Poland's Solidarity movement. His globe-trotting papacy and launch of the wildly popular World Youth Days invigorated a new generation of Catholics, while his defense of core church teaching heartened conservatives after the turbulent 1960s.

"John Paul was our pope," said Therese Andjoua, a 49-year-old nurse who traveled from Libreville, Gabon, with some 300 other pilgrims to attend. She sported a traditional African dress bearing the images of the two new saints.

"In 1982 he came to Gabon and when he arrived he kissed the ground and told us to 'Get up, go forward and be not afraid,'" she recalled as she rested against a pallet of water bottles. "When we heard he was going to be canonized, we got up."

Kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers from more than 90 countries attended. Some 20 Jewish leaders from the U.S., Israel, Italy, Francis' native Argentina and Poland were also taking part, in a clear sign of their appreciation for the great strides made in Catholic-Jewish relations under John, John Paul - and their successors celebrating their sainthood.

A Late Lenten Meditation on the Reality of Spiritual Warfare

Every ancient prayer manual and guide to spirituality until about fifty years ago had at least one large section devoted to what was known as Pugna Spiritualis(spiritual battle or spiritual warfare). In more recent decades, many spiritual books have downplayed or completely deleted references to spiritual battle or spiritual warfare.

Sadly, many modern approaches to faith, religion, and spirituality prefer to emphasize exclusively consoling themes rooted in self-esteem, affirmation, etc. To be sure, the authentic faith can and does offer great consolation, but the truest and deepest consolation often comes after one has persevered along the sometimes-difficult path, along the “narrow way” of the cross.

But too many today, in the name of affirmation and pseudo-self-esteem are ready to excuse, and even affirm grave moral disorders, rather than fight them. Grace and mercy are preached, but without reference to the repentance that opens the door to these gifts. Both the possibility of Hell and any consequences of sin, are absent from many modern conceptions of faith and religious practice.

Some years ago, I was approached by a rather angry woman who, having heard my sermon on the seriousness of certain sins (which were in the readings of the day), expressed great indignation that I would preach on such topics. She said, “I come to church to be consoled and have my spirits lifted, not to hear old-fashioned warnings about judgment and sins.” She felt quite a “righteous indignation,” and was most certain that I had transgressed a fundamental norm, namely, that religion exists to console, and that any challenge to one’s moral stance, (except perhaps caring for the poor), is intolerant and way out of line.

Indeed, many today have this kind of attitude: that it is their birthright not to be troubled or vexed in any way by something people might say, especially a preacher who claims to represent God! The “God they worship” would never trouble them. They will have Jesus for their consoler and best friend, but not their Lord, and certainly not their judge. And never mind the literally thousands of verses from Scripture in which Jesus himself speaks sternly and warns of sin, death, judgment, and Hell. They will have none of it, and are certain that “the Jesus they know,” would never raise his voice at them or challenge them even for a moment. Never mind that the real Jesus says to take up our cross and follow him.

With spiritual battle having been removed from many people’s spiritual landscape, the idea that the Lord would summon us to battle, or ask us to choose sides, seems strangely foreign, intolerant, and uncompassionate.

Even more dangerous, these modern conceptions not only distort Jesus, but they downplay the presence and influence of Satan. This is a very, very bad idea. Even if we cease fighting against Satan, he will never ceases his sometimes very subtle attacks on us.

Jesus called consistently for prayerful, sober vigilance against the powers of evil and sin. Like it or not, we are in a battle. Either we will soberly and vigilantly undertake the battle, or we will be conquered and led off like sheep to the slaughter.

Despite what modern spiritual approaches would like to eliminate, Christianity has been a militant religion since its inception. Jesus was exposed to every kind of danger from the beginning. Herod sought his life; Satan tried to tempt him in the desert; many enemies plotted on all sides as he worked his public ministry, misrepresenting him, levying false charges, and conspiring to sentence him to death, and eventually even succeeding though only for a moment.

And as for Jesus, so also for his mystical Body the Church: Saul, Saul why do you persecute me!?  (Acts 9:4) Jesus warns us that the world would hate us (Luke 21:17; John 15:20); that in this world we would have tribulation (Jn 16:33), and that we should watch and pray lest we give way to temptation (Matt 26:41). He summons us to persevere to the end if we would be saved (Mk 13:13). Jesus rather vividly described the kind of struggle with which we live when he said From the time of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force (Matthew 11:12). Indeed, no Christian until the time that Jesus returns, can consider himself on leave or dismissed from this great spiritual battle, from this great drama that we exist in, this battle between good and evil.

Popular theme or not, we do well to remember that we are in the midst of a great cosmic and spiritual battle. And in that battle, we must be willing to choose sides and fight with the Lord for the Kingdom of God. Either we will gather with him or we will scatter. We are to fight for our own soul, and the souls of those whom we love.

In the holy week that is about to unfold, we are reminded once again of the great cosmic battle that the Lord waged, and that is still being waged in our time. Though already victorious, in his mystical Body the Church, the Lord in his faithful members still suffers violence, rejection, and ridicule. It is also for us to reclaim territory from the evil one, to take back what the devil stole from us. We are to advance the glory of God’s Kingdom through the fruits of great spiritual struggle, sacrifice, prayer, fasting, preaching, and an extensive missionary campaign to which the Lord has summoned and commissioned us.

The battle is on; the struggle is engaged! To spiritual arms one and all! Fight the good fight for the Lord.

Still not convinced we are at war? Let the Lord pull back the veil just a bit and let you look at what’s really going on. The final words of this article will not be mine; they will be the Lord’s. Here is described the cosmic battle that is responsible for most of the suffering and confusion you experience:

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:“Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers who accuses them before our God day and night,has been hurled down. They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death. Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus. (Rev 12)

The Greatest Easter Painting Ever Made

by Elise Ehrhard

Tucked away in a central Parisian museum that was once a railway station, there hangs an Easter painting quite unlike any Gospel masterpiece created before or after it. It is not painted by a Rembrandt or a Rubens or the patron saint of artists, Fra Angelico. The painting is the work of a little-known Swiss painter.  For those who make a trip to see it, viewing the canvas is a special spiritual experience in their lives.

The work does not even show the risen Jesus.  It merely portrays two witnesses, Jesus’ oldest and youngest apostle.  The youngest who was the only man brave enough to stay by Jesus’ cross and the only one who did not die a martyr’s death as a result of it. The oldest apostle who first denied Jesus in fear, yet ultimately chose to be crucified upside down by the Roman authorities rather than deny Christ’s resurrection.

In “The Disciples Peter and John Running to the Sepulchre on the Morning of the Resurrection” by Eugène Burnand, John clasps his hand in prayer while Peter holds his hand over his heart.  The viewer feels the rush as their hair and cloaks fly back with the wind.  They are sprinting towards discovery of the moment that forever altered heaven and earth.  As you look at it, engage for a moment in what the Catholic blogger Bill Donaghy calls “the visual equivalent of Lectio Divina.”  As Donaghy notes, “This Resurrection scene does not put us before still figures near a stagnant stone, or figures standing with stony faces in a contrived, plastic posture, pointing to an empty tomb. This scene is dynamic; we are in motion.”

During his time, Burnand was fascinated by the possibilities of the emerging art of photography. Ironically, he would later be dismissed in the twentieth century as too “bourgeois” and anti-modernist when in fact he was merging his love of tradition with his interest in new technological ways of capturing the human person.  His painting feels cinematic long before cinema existed as a major art form.

Through the movement and immediacy of the scene, the preceding minutes with Mary Magdalene are palpable.  In a sense, she is in the painting too.  “You can almost hear her voice in the background, can you not, a few minutes earlier, as she burst into their house…” writes the Episcopal Bishop Dorsey McConnell in an Easter sermon meditating on the painting.

Apart from Jesus’ mother, no other three participants capture the closeness of Jesus’ encounter with humankind quite like John, Peter and Mary of Magdala. Their interactions with Christ embody a relationship to God previously unimaginable to mankind.  Jesus turning to Peter as they sit by the fire and asking three times, “Do you love me?”, thereby washing away the sin of the three denials past; Christ turning to John in the midst of his suffering and saying, “Behold, your mother,” giving her to the Church entire.  And, of course, the beautiful moment about to transpire in which Jesus’ merely says Mary’s name and she recognizes Him with a cry of “Rabbouni!”  They are the moments which cause one to wonder how those who truly hate Christianity (not merely disbelief it) can remain so hostile to its narrative beauty.

Burnand’s work was part of a late nineteenth century version of the new evangelization. The public, particularly in the United States, desired original religious imagery.  Burnand lived in an era in which a revived spiritual hunger fought against the push of emerging atheistic philosophies, philosophies that would eventually consume a continent and leave only a struggling remnant of European Christendom in its wake.

He was “an illustrator of popular working types: collectors of coal, sowers in the field and even penitent woodsmen praying at a roadside cross,” writes Gabriel P. Weisberg, a professor of art history at the University of Minnesota. For him the image of two fishermen racing toward a supernatural realization about the death of a carpenter would be instinctive.

Look into Peter’s wide open eyes and John’s intense gaze.  Their eyes contain a mix of anxiousness and hope, the way a parent or grandparent’s eyes look at the news of an impending birth.  A new life is about to emerge, but there is still uncertainty because it is a mystery beyond full human comprehension or control. Peter and John’s faces capture the same sense of anticipation.

Burnand created a sparse, simple painting capturing two of the most important players in the greatest story ever told. Meditate upon their faces as Burnand intended you to do and through them discover the empty tomb.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/the-greatest-easter-painting-ever-made

Pope Saint Martin I

Pope Saint Martin I - Saints & Angels - Catholic Online

Martin I lay too sick to fight on a couch in front of the altar when the soldiers burst into the Lateran basilica. He had come to the church when he heard the soldiers had landed. But the thought of kidnapping a sick pope from the house of Goddidn't stop the soldiers from grabbing him and hustling him down to their ship.

Elected pope in 649, Martin I had gotten in trouble for refusing to condone silence in the face of wrong. At that time there existed a popular heresy that held thatChrist didn't have a human will, only a divine will. The emperor had issued an edict that didn't support Monothelism (as it was known) directly, but simply commanded that no one could discuss Jesus' will at all.

Monothelism was condemned at a council convened by Martin I. The council affirmed, once again, that since Jesus had two natures, human and divine, he had two wills, human and divine. The council then went further and condemned Constans edict to avoid discussion stating, "The Lord commanded us to shun eviland do good, but not to reject the good with the evil."

In his anger at this slap in the face, the emperor sent his soldiers to Rome to bring the pope to him. When Martin I arrived in Constantinople after a long voyage he was immediately put into prison. There he spent three months in a filthy, freezing cell while he suffered from dysentery. He was not allowed to wash and given the most disgusting food. After he was condemned for treason without being allowed to speak in his defense he was imprisoned for another three months.

From there he was exiled to the Crimea where he suffered from the famine of the land as well as the roughness of the land and its people. But hardest to take was the fact that the pope found himself friendless. His letters tell how his own church had deserted him and his friends had forgotten him. They wouldn't even send him oil or corn to live off of.

He died two years later in exile in the year 656, a martyr who stood up for the right of the Church to establish doctrine even in the face of imperial power.

How to Assist Evil

"Engineering Evil" is a documentary recently shown on the Military History channel. It's a story of Nazi Germany's murder campaign before and during World War II. According to some estimates, 16 million Jews and other people died at the hands of Nazis (http://tinyurl.com/6duny9).

Though the Holocaust ranks high among the great human tragedies, most people never consider the most important question: How did Adolf Hitler and the Nazis gain the power that they needed to commit such horror? Focusing solely on the evil of the Holocaust won't get us very far toward the goal of the Jewish slogan "Never Again."

When Hitler came to power, he inherited decades of political consolidation by Otto von Bismarck and later the Weimar Republic that had weakened the political power of local jurisdictions. Through the Enabling Act (1933), whose formal name was "A Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich," Hitler gained the power to enact laws with neither the involvement nor the approval of the Reichstag, Germany's parliament. The Enabling Act destroyed any remaining local autonomy. The bottom line is that it was decent Germans who made Hitler's terror possible -- Germans who would have never supported his territorial designs and atrocities.

The 20th century turned out to be mankind's most barbaric. Roughly 50 million to 60 million people died in international and civil wars. As tragic as that number is, it pales in comparison with the number of people who were killed at the hands of their own government. Recently deceased Rudolph J. Rummel, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii and author of "Death by Government," estimated that since the beginning of the 20th century, governments have killed 170 million of their own citizens. Top government killers were the Soviet Union, which, between 1917 and 1987, killed 62 million of its own citizens, and the People's Republic of China, which, between 1949 and 1987, was responsible for the deaths of 35 million to 40 million of its citizens. In a distant third place were the Nazis, who murdered about 16 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others deemed misfits, such as homosexuals and the mentally ill.

We might ask why the 20th century was so barbaric. Surely, there were barbarians during earlier ages. Part of the answer is that during earlier times, there wasn't the kind of concentration of power that emerged during the 20th century. Had Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Hitler been around in earlier times, they could not have engineered the slaughter of tens of millions of people. They wouldn't have had the authority. There was considerable dispersion of jealously guarded political power in the forms of heads of provincial governments and principalities and nobility and church leaders whose political power within their spheres was often just as strong as the monarch's.

Professor Rummel explained in the very first sentence of "Death by Government" that "Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely. ... The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects." That's the long, tragic, ugly story of government: the elite's use of government to dupe and forcibly impose its will on the masses. The masses are always duped by well-intentioned phrases. After all, what German could have been against "A Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich"? It's not just Germans who have fallen prey to well-intentioned phrases. After all, who can be against the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"?

We Americans ought to keep the fact in mind that Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have had more success in their reign of terror if they had the kind of control and information about their citizens that agencies such as the NSA, the IRS and the ATF have about us. You might ask, "What are you saying, Williams?" Just put it this way: No German who died before 1930 would have believed the Holocaust possible.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/04/09/how-to-assist-evil-n1819754/page/full

Illinois bishop upholds priest’s decision to deny Communion to pro-abort Sen. Dick Durbin

SPRINGFIELD, IL, April 3, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, known for his outspoken defense of the right to life and the natural family, has signaled his support for denying Communion to Catholic politicians who publicly endorse activities gravely contrary to the moral law.

The bishop wrote recently to a pro-life activist to affirm that he is upholding a diocesan priest’s decision to deny Communion to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL, who has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.

Paprocki’s e-mail was reported Thursday by Catholic commentator Matt Abbott.

“Senator Durbin was informed several years ago by his pastor at Blessed Sacrament Parish here in Springfield that he was not permitted to receive Holy Communion per canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law,” Paprocki wrote. “My predecessor upheld that decision and it remains in effect. It is my understanding that the senator is complying with that decision here in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.”

Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

In placing the onus on ministers of Holy Communion, canon 915 is distinct from canon 916, which places the onus on the communicant to not approach for Communion if they are “conscious of grave sin.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

Canon 915 has been at the center of the dispute in recent years over how Church leaders should deal with the plethora of Catholic politicians who vote for pro-abortion and pro-homosexual legislation.

Some prelates argue that denying politicians Communion turns the Eucharist into a political “weapon.” Defenders of the canon, however, argue that it is an expression of charity by protecting the individual from taking part in sacrilege and protecting the faithful from scandal.

The clear position from the Vatican has been in favour of enforcing the canon. In 2004, as America’s bishops were debating whether to deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-head of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a letter to the bishops exhorting them to do just that.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

The cardinal’s letter was not considered during the U.S. bishops’ debate, however, because Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, to whom it had been sent, withheld the text. The letter was eventually leaked to Vatican reporter Sandro Magister, who published it in full. Cardinal Ratzinger’s office then confirmed its authenticity.

U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke has been the most prominent defender of canon 915. In an interview published exclusively in English last month by LifeSiteNews, Burke insisted denying Communion when required is not about punishment but charity.

“The priest’s refusal to give Holy Communion is a prime act of pastoral charity, helping the person in question to avoid sacrilege and safeguarding the other faithful from scandal,” he explained.

“The exclusion of those who persist in manifest and grave sin, after having been duly admonished, from receiving Holy Communion is not a question of a punishment but of a discipline which respects the objective state of a person in the Church,” he added.

As prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Burke is considered the Church’s highest-ranking canonist.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/illinois-bishop-upholds-priests-decision-to-deny-communion-to-pro-abortion