Europe

Rome, Italy, Mar 16, 2017 / 02:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- This week Cardinal George Pell sat down with some 20 students from Harvard visiting Rome, with the goal of challenging them to both set firm ideals and to work hard to achieve them – something the Church can help with by providing a basic framework for moral leadership.

In a March 14 interview with CNA ahead of his speech, Cardinal Pell said the main point he would make to the students is “that they need a cause. They need a set of principles that they accept and follow and that they will be prepared to make sacrifices for.”

He stressed the importance of conveying the message that as future leaders “they need to be courageous and they need to be persevering. And if they can be strategists, take a long-term view, so much the better.”

Cardinal Pell, prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, spoke just before giving his speech on Principled Leadership to a group of 20 people who are among Harvard University’s graduating class of 2017 and who traveled to Rome for a four-day “Harvard Vatican Leadership Summit.”

A student-led initiative, the event was held at the Pontifical Lateran University and hosted students from various backgrounds at Harvard, including the business, law, divinity, medical, and dental schools.

In addition to Cardinal Pell, other key figures participants have met with during the summit include Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin; Vatican Secretary for Relations with the States, Archbishop Paul Gallagher; Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Integral Human Development; and Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi, prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education.

In his comments to CNA, Cardinal Pell outlined the key principles that ought to guide business and economic decisions, saying that no matter what, “you must be aware of the common good.”

“Think of the whole of society, not just the shareholders, not just the workers in the small group,” he said. “Have some real understanding of what justice is. Have a special sensitivity for those who are less fortunate, those who are poor.”

One of the most important things to have a constant awareness of is our responsibility toward future generations, he said, cautioning that one modern danger is that “people know more and more about less and less.”

An advantage of the Catholic Church in this regard, he said, is that it can help provide “a general scheme” into which specific principles, causes, and points of view can fit.

However, he stressed that despite the Church’s role in providing this scheme for various fields, particularly economics and business, it is above all a religious institution, and as such doesn’t embrace any one system in particular.

Reflecting on criticisms Pope Francis has at times voiced in reference to the current global market system, the cardinal stressed that the Pope “is a religious leader, he is not an economist.”

The Church, he said, “does not espouse socialism, much less communism or Nazism or the free market. It announces general principles and says this fits or that doesn’t fit.”

“We should listen very seriously to everything the Pope says on economics,” he said, but emphasized that as Christians, we listen to him because “he is the successor of Peter, he teaches us things religious.”

In this sense the Pope is applying Gospel standards to the economic situation, Cardinal Pell said, adding that if he himself were to speak out on the topic, people wouldn’t necessarily need to take notes on the economic aspect, “but if I preach the Gospel, I hope people listen.”

Since not all of the students participating in the summit are Catholic, the cardinal voiced his hope that they would walk away with at least a better idea of the Church’s social doctrine.

He brought a compendium of the social doctrine of the Church for each of the participants, because it is “a coherent exposition on many, many important topics,” including “right and wrong, natural law, subsidiarity, the common good and different types of justice.”

The Catholic Church is “one of the few organizations that has an over-arching system of thought to make people think,” he said, explaining that “it is logical and coherent, it’s an impressive piece of work.”

Cardinal Pell praised the idea of summit as unique, and “exactly what a Catholic university needs to be doing.”

“I think the Christian perspective brings flourishing, brings life, makes good societies, brings happiness, development,” he said. So to have a group of students from a university such as Harvard is “a wonderful thing. I think it’ll be good for them and it’ll be good for us.”

Okendo Lewis, a student at the John F. Kennedy School of Government who spent part of his childhood in Milan, was the one who initially thought of the summit and made it happen with the help of Mary Ann Glendon, who was a US Ambassador to the Holy See during the George W. Bush administration and who now teaches at Harvard Law School.

In comments to CNA, Lewis said part of why he wanted to offer students a Vatican perspective on leadership is because “there seems to be a crisis in leadership” throughout the world, “and Pope Francis very much speaks to many who are trying to figure out how to lead in these difficult times.”

“I definitely wanted this next generation of leaders, whether they’re in business or in medicine or in law, to learn from the wisdom of the Pope, but also the city and the Church, which has had two thousand years of experience,” he said.

Lewis said he initially had doubts about whether or not people would come, since it was already late when they started to advertise the trip. However, they received over 180 applications, and had to narrow it down to 20 spots.

“I think that speaks to the power of the Catholic Church and the interest there is in Pope Francis. So people were actually very enthusiastic to be here,” he said.

Lewis voiced his hope that the summit would become an annual event. This year’s theme of “How to Answer the Call to Serve” fits into what most of the university’s students hope to accomplish, he said, explaining that “they’re trying to figure out how to leverage their education and their studies to help meet the needs of society, how can they be student leaders.”

“So my hope is that this will become an annual tradition so that students across Harvard and hopefully across the United States, can come to Rome and learn from so many of the institutions here where there’s the pontifical universities, there are dicasteries, and certainly the Pope himself.”

Kiernan Schmidt, a student at Harvard Business School, told CNA he wanted to participate not only because of his Irish and Catholic background, but also because the idea of “how morality plays into the decisions we make” as leaders in various fields.

“The idea of examining how morality guides our leadership styles was really the main impetus,” he said, adding that Pope Francis’ challenge for global leaders “to reexamine what we’re doing for each other and how we think of ourselves as leaders” was also a key factor.

What had impacted Schmidt so far in the meetings they had with Vatican officials was “hearing humility from almost every level of leadership that we’ve met with.”

Another point of particular interest was gaining “a profound understanding that traditions and conditions in local Churches can be very different from what you hear in Rome.”

“I think that that adjusting of leadership and tactics in how we approach problems can be very different in the cultural context,” he said, noting that in their meeting with Archbishop Gallagher, the prelate told them that he not only explains Rome to the local Churches of where he goes, but he also “explains the local Churches to Rome.”

This “two-way dialogue” in the Church, Schmidt said, “was something that felt very new, very refreshing and very modern and also very true to the words we hear from Pope Francis, you know, approaching problems with humility and seeking to talk one to one.”

[…]

Rome, Italy, Mar 15, 2017 / 02:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- When reports came out recently about Pope Francis’ decision to modify the penalties for several priests found guilty of abusing minors, the question arose as to whether the Pope was being too merciful in his decision.

Another concern was whether priests found guilty of abuse of minors would continue to be dismissed from the clerical state, or “laicized.”

To address these issues and clear up some of the grey area on this topic, CNA spoke with a canonist, Fr. Damián Astigueta, SJ.

A professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University with a specialty in criminal proceedings, Fr. Astigueta offered insights on what dismissal from the clerical state is, why the Church doesn’t always choose to dismiss from the clerical state priests who are guilty of abuse, what those condemned to a life of prayer and penance actually do, the role of bishops in abuse cases, the lessening of sentences, and more.

What is dismissal from the clerical state?

While frequently used in the media, the term “laicization” doesn’t really exist anymore among canonists, Fr. Astigueta said, and has been widely replaced by the term “loss of the clerical state.”

When a priest loses his clerical state, either because he requested it or because it was taken from him, he is “‘dismissed from the clerical state,’ because this is a juridical status,” Fr. Astigueta explained.

“He remains in a situation judicially as if they were a layperson. This is where the term ‘laicization’ comes from.”

He clarified that when this happens, it doesn’t mean that a priest is no longer a priest: “the sacrament of Holy Orders isn’t lost; it imprints an ontological sign on the being of the priest that can never be lost.”

What happens instead is that exercising the rights proper to the clerical state are prohibited, such as saying Mass, hearing confessions, and administering the sacraments; as are the obligations, such as that of reciting the Liturgy of the Hours and obedience to their bishop.

However, since a man dismissed from the clerical state remains a priest, there are times at which the Church continues to oblige him to act as a priest.

For example, if he finds someone in danger of death who asks for the sacraments, even though he is no longer in a clerical state, he “must hear (the person’s) confession because the most important thing is the salvation of that person.”

Fr. Astigueta also emphasized the importance of not misinterpreting the process to mean a “reduction to the lay state.” This phrase is not correct, he stressed, since it inaccurately treats laity “in a derogatory way, as if they were lesser.”

Why not all priests guilty of abuse lose the clerical state

For Fr. Astigueta, the answer to the question of why not all priests found guilty of abuse are dismissed from the clerical state has two primary components: not all acts of abuse are the same in terms of severity, and the situation of the priest himself varies.

“Why doesn’t the Church dismiss from the clerical state all abusers? Because not all abuses are the same entity,” he said. Even civil law recognizes a difference in severity between pedophilia – which involves prepubescent children – and ephebophilia – which involves mid-to-late adolescents. In other cases, there may be the appearance of consent with an older teen, he said, which can further complicate the matter. The penalty assessed to the priest takes these factors into account, he added.

When it comes to priests who are found guilty of abuse, there are different types of punishments, including dismissal from the clerical state, or a life of “prayer and penance,” depending on the situation.

“There are certain cases in which dismissal would be the just punishment,” Fr. Astigueta said.

But there are also cases – even with several instances of serious abuse that have caused a lot of damage – when the Church decides against this dismissal, he said, pointing to Legion of Christ founder Fr. Marcial Maciel as an example.

Fr. Maciel was a person “who was proven to have committed a series of very serious crimes, a person who when one knows what he did truly realizes they are in front of a very disturbed person,” the priest said. “Can a disturbed person be punished with the maximum penalty?”

At times the Church prefers to use a different system, prohibiting the person from ministry, particularly in public. Instead, the person is isolated at home, dedicated to prayer “and nothing more.” This means no visits from people, at times not even friends or their congregation.

In the case of Fr. Maciel, even his funeral, for which he had saved enormous funds, was closed to the public.

“Is it a gilded prison? In a certain way, yes,” Fr. Astigueta said. However, he said the Church at times chooses this punishment, which is less strong, because at a certain point, “when I give a person a sanction that destroys them, it’s not a sanction, but revenge.”

Fr. Astigueta also spoke of the importance of mercy in the process, particularly when it comes to elderly priests and the Church’s own responsibility toward her members.  

Even in a tragic case when a child has been abused, “the Church is still a mother, and mercy is used for the victims and the priest,” he said, noting that abusers often have serious psychological problems that require treatment.

If a priest chooses to renounce his clerical state, he is often inserted into society without a problem; but when it comes to those who have been dismissed, it can be a lot harder, Fr. Astigueta said, explaining that there is a canon (c. 1350 §2) establishing “that there exists a duty of charity toward them.”

This means “helping them and taking care of them in the measure that the person lets themselves be helped,” he said.

If an 80-year-old priest is dismissed from the clerical state, “where do we send him? Can he find work? He’ll end up living on the street as a homeless man. How long will he last? He won’t last anything,” he observed.

To put a man on the street in this circumstance, unless he has relatives ready to take him on, “is practically to kill him.”

Often, despite the harm done, something good in the person remains, he said, explaining that because of this, sometimes a more just penance is to let him “live with his conscience.” While a life of prayer and reflection might sound comfortable, Fr. Astigueta asked: “reflecting with whom? With your memories before God, with your regrets.”

He noted that in order to avoid pressure from the media in these cases, the Church “is obliged at times to punish, in my view, more seriously than it should.”

Offering help to victims and bringing about justice is always the Church’s top priority when it comes to clerical abuse, but concern must also be shown to the sinner, he said, explaining that if the Church were to immediately dismiss from the clerical state every abusive priest, it could cause more harm.

“Sometimes we find ourselves in situations that if these people are thrown out on the street, I am leaving a possible serial killer,” Fr. Astigueta said, referring to pedophiles. The Church, he said, must also take this into account.

Fr. Astigueta stressed that when it comes to mercy in abuse cases, it “never goes against justice,” and that the first act of mercy is “to tell the truth.”

Once the truth is known, the measure in which the offender can be sanctioned must be taken into account “in order to avoid that the penalty is a revenge,” because this helps no one.

“The pain of the victim is never cured with revenge; the only way to heal the victim’s pain is forgiveness offered freely,” he said, noting that “this can never be forced on anyone; but certainly neither can the spirit of revenge be forced.”

What a life of prayer and penance actually means

Many priests found guilty of abuse, instead of being dismissed from the clerical state, are instead sentenced to a life of “prayer and penance.”

But while the sentence is fairly common, among elderly priests in particular, what it actually involves is at times a bit obscure to the public eye, and it can seem like the priest is getting off easy despite committing heinous crimes.

Fr. Astigueta explained that on a practical level, “the person is isolated, sometimes more, sometimes less.”

Often “the person is isolated, possibly without having direct access to the telephone or the TV, and must dedicate himself to reading, praying and walking around inside the house.”

At times the person might even be barred from leaving the house without permission, under pain of incurring further punishments.

He pointed to the recent case of Luis Fernando Figari, a layman and founder of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, who was found guilty of an extreme, authoritarian style of leadership as well as several accounts of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse.

As a punishment, the Vatican didn’t expel Figari from the community, but ordered that he live alone, and barred him from any contact with the community’s members and from receiving people.

If a priest who receives this sentence doesn’t want to follow the rules, the Church in this case “can impose the full dismissal” from their clerical status, Fr. Astigueta said, noting that the majority of priests who choose to this life are people who “want to be helped and recognize that this penalty is a table of salvation for them.”
 
“It’s strong, yes, but at least I have something to eat and I can live my final years in peace,” Fr. Astigueta said, noting that in general it is elderly priests who end up in this situation, whereas younger ones with some sort of major mental health disorder are typically sent to a therapeutic communities.

At times they are able to celebrate Mass with others, but “always with the very clear ban that ‘from here, you cannot go away without permission.’”

The Church, Fr. Astigueta said, “is not a prison … it doesn’t have penitential system like a state, but someone must keep watch over those removed from ministry.”

And this implies “a very heavy duty for the Church, because who is the one that supervises? Who is responsible for him? It’s not so easy, it implies a lot of obligations.”

Fr. Astigueta also noted that there’s a different canonical process for lay founders such as Figari, versus priests who abuse.

“Technically speaking, the case of a layman doesn’t enter into the canon on abuses like the priests,” he said.

Clerics who commit sexual abuse are charged under a canon (c. 1395 §2) which criminalizes those offenses against the sixth commandment which are committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of 16.

But when it comes to the laity specifically, “this lack in the code must be thought of,” because unfortunately “the times are those in which we can’t only think about priest founders, but of many laity who have a position in the Church … who can abuse minors,” such as school directors or professors.

In these cases, he said, the Church applies a canon (c. 1399) which covers the situation in which the criminal “goes against a divine or ecclesiastical law with harm or danger of grave scandal.”

Cases in which the victims are mentally disabled must also be taken into consideration, he said, as well as many other forms of abuse “that should be considered crimes,” and are in many states.

The role of the bishop in cases of abuse

When it comes to the responsibility of bishops in abuse cases, Fr. Astigueta said that while expectations might have been murky in the past, they are clear now, and require the bishop to act immediately.

“When the bishop is informed, when he receives the news that an abuse has been committed, he has the obligation, a serious obligation, to intervene.”

A bishop must first intervene on a judicial level, alerting civil authorities, but also on the pastoral level, he said, explaining that the process looks different for every nation.

On a pastoral level, bishops must from the start turn their immediate attention to the victims “in order to welcome them and to help them understand that we are not against them and we are looking for the truth,” he said.

After the initial investigation has begun, the bishop may, but is not obliged to, apply a “precautionary measure,” which is a type of disciplinary measure enforced in order to avoid “the process from being polluted.”

Giving a theoretical example, Fr. Astigueta said a priest might try to pressure a victim into retracting their statement, so the bishop could decide to “distance” the priest from the process. This choice might also be made in situations where there is risk of a serious scandal, he said.

Once a priest is found guilty, the bishop will have to carry out the sentence, and it may even be the bishop himself to enforce the decree of dismissal from the clerical state with the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fr. Astigueta explained.

Victims must be helped to live a “process of reconciliation, of accompaniment” and one in which they are made to feel that “they are part of the Church,” he said, but stressed that this is at a pastoral level, which must always remain separate from the judicial level.

Fr. Astigueta also spoke on cases of negligence on the part of a bishop, which Pope Francis in his 2016 motu proprio Come una madre amorevole established as grounds for removal from office.

The canon behind the rule (c. 1389 §2), the priest said, states that “A person who through culpable negligence illegitimately places or omits an act of ecclesiastical power, ministry, or function with harm to another is to be punished with a just penalty.”

The issue is also dealt with in a canon (c. 193 §1) which speaks of removal from office “for grave causes.” Removal from office, he explained, is “the act through which a person loses a series of rights which are part of an office.”

“So this person who was the bishop had rights and duties regarding the community. As he has not fulfilled them, this office is removed,” Fr. Astigueta said.

Removal in this sense can either be for disciplinary or penal reasons, Fr. Astigueta said, explaining that in the case of penal removal for negligence, the bishop is dismissed because “he didn’t act as he should have.”

While in the past bishops moved abusive priests around in part because they didn’t understand the severity of the problem, “today no one can say that they don’t know what abuse is and the magnitude of the problem.”

In cases of abuse, then, “it’s already so severe that there is no need for another cause, negligence is enough.” Part of this negligence, Fr. Astigueta explained, could be moving priests, not acting immediately, or letting time pass until more accusations arise: “Here we would have a case of negligence.”

Another instance, he said, would be failing to take precautionary measures against a priest accused of abuse, and it is later discovered that the priest had committed other abuses during that time. Other reasons for removal of office due to negligence could be that the bishop didn’t follow the protocol requested by the state.

He noted that there are a variety of situations, but “the Pope wanted to say that this negligence in itself so important because the damage to the other produced due to negligence, which is almost – even if it can’t be said in a clear way – an act of complicity due to negligence.”

Stronger punishment isn’t always the best way to prevent abuse

No matter the situation of the priest or the bishop, Fr. Astigueta stressed the importance of pursuing the just punishment given the particular situation, and warned against the temptation to immediately impose the maximum punishment – dismissal from the clerical state – on all cases.

To do so, he said, “would be an injustice, it would be a type of witch hunt, and this produces fugitives. If everyone is punished with the maximum, with this you resolve nothing.”

It’s a fact, he said, that all states which have attempted to toughen the penalties in order to prevent further crimes “have failed to do so.”

The only thing that actually makes the crimes diminish, he said, are preventative measures and “the consciousness of the people, the intervention of the people,” specifically through education.

“If the people within the Church were all to work so that there were a healthy environment, not one of suspicion, but healthy and prudent,” these delinquent act would diminish. “Not because the maximum penalty is applied.”

[…]

Brussels, Belgium, Mar 15, 2017 / 12:12 am (CNA).- Responding to the case of a receptionist fired for wearing a hijab to work, the Court of Justice of the European Union has allowed a qualified ban on religious headscarves in the workplace.

“Nob… […]

Amatrice, Italy, Mar 10, 2017 / 06:16 am (CNA/EWTN News).- As Benedictine monks in Norcia, Italy rebuild their monastery from the rubble caused by devastating earthquakes last year, they do so in the spirit of their founder, Saint Benedict.

“For… […]

Rome, Italy, Mar 10, 2017 / 02:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Hundreds of musicians and pastors from around the world have signed a document urging parishes and publishers should take care to develop the Church’s rich musical traditions, not discard them.

They did so after outlining trends within the Church’s musical traditions in the past five decades that they deem harmful to the Church’s liturgical life and musical heritage.

The statement’s authors write that they “cannot avoid being concerned about the current situation of sacred music, which is nothing short of desperate, with abuses in the area of sacred music now almost the norm rather than the exception.”

The letter, entitled “Cantate Domino Canticum Novum”, or  “Sing a New Song Unto the Lord”, was signed by over 200 musicians, pastors, and musical scholars from around the globe, and published in six languages.

Its publication commemorates the 50th anniversary of the March 5, 1967 promulgation of Musicam sacram, a Vatican instruction on music in the liturgy. In their reflection on the “via dolorosa” of liturgical music in the past five decades, the musicians lay out the challenges facing liturgical music today – before offering some possible solutions.  

They highlight advice from Vatican II’s constitution on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which points to the Church’s musical tradition as a “treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.”

“The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy,” the document continues, noting the link between a music’s holiness and its connection to the liturgy.

The document outlines several areas in which the preservation of the Church’s musical traditions has been ignored, or even, the authors state, opposed.

This break with the past makes any attempt to connect the Church to the future meaningless – because the context the tradition provides has been taken away. The letter’s authors liken this break to a “sort of spiritual Alzheimer’s,” that takes away not only musical and artistic memories, but theological and cultural ones, too.

In this regard, traditional elements of the liturgy such as the Mass propers and the Liturgy of the Hours have been overlooked. Meanwhile, secular music styles have had undue influence on the liturgy, and the commercial music industry has now reinforced these secular styles as the primary kind of music sold to parishes.

The letter warns that not only does the secularization damage the Church’s connection with the past and ability to grapple with the future, but it also “destabilizes the sense of adoration that is at the heart of the Christian faith” by effectively selling out to secular trends. By molding Church music to different secular trends, recent practices also endanger the Church’s ability to truly exalt and praise good cultural traditions, they note.  

“The secularism of popular musical styles has contributed to a desacralization of the liturgy, while the secularism of profit-based commercialism has reinforced the imposition of mediocre collections of music upon parishes,” the declaration states.

Instead of making culture, the “lack of commitment to tradition has put the Church and her liturgy on an uncertain and meandering path.”

The letter also pushed back against groups in the Church that have lobbied against repertoires that respect tradition and the guidelines set out by Vatican II, instead leaving “repertoires of new liturgical music of very low standards as regards both the text and the music.”

“If we desire that people look for Jesus, we need to prepare the house with the best that the Church can offer,” the letter said of this trend of deliberately sidelining chant and other traditional forms of liturgical music. “We will not invite people to our house, the Church, to give them a by-product of music and art, when they can find a much better pop music style outside the Church.”

Another contributing factor to the struggles facing liturgical music, they said, is clericalism, and some clerics’ decisions to supersede the expert opinion of musicians and scholars of liturgical music in order to impose their own opinions.

Lastly, the authors of the letter pointed out that liturgical musicians and composers are undervalued, and often undercompensated for their efforts – which require education, expert skill, and years of training.  “If we pay florists and cooks who help at parishes, why does it seem so strange that those performing musical activities for the Church would have a right to fair compensation,” they ask.

The writers of the document point towards numerous ways of addressing these challenges. Their first suggestion is the reaffirmation of Vatican II’s support for Gregorian chant, other traditional chant forms, and modern sacred compositions that are inspired by the chant tradition, along with the reaffirmation of the pipe organ as the instrument of choice in the Church.

They also advocate for strong music education that focuses on traditional music for children, as well as for adult laity. They also ask that “the Church will continue to work against obvious and subtle forms of clericalism, so that laity can make their full contribution in areas where ordination is not a requirement.”

Lastly, they strongly encourage musical training of clergy and strong liturgical formation for liturgists. “Just as musicians need to understand the essentials of liturgical history and theology, so too must liturgists be educated in Gregorian chant, polyphony, and the entire musical tradition of the Church, so that they may discern between what is good and what is bad,” they write.

In addition, the authors encourage cathedrals and basilicas to hold at least one Mass a week in Latin in order to preserve the area’s link with the Church’s tradition, and for every parish to hold at least one fully-sung Mass a week.

Finally, the musical experts point out that many “Catholics think that what mainstream publishers offer is in line with the doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding liturgy and music, when it is frequently not so.”

They ask that publishers put aside profits and commercial incentives in order to emphasize and educate the Catholics in liturgical practices and doctrine.

Among the signers of the declaration are Bishop Rene Gracida, Emeritus Bishop of Corpus Christi; Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Maria Santissima in Astana; Aurelio Porfiri, PhD cand., organist of Santa Maria dell’Orto in Rome; Abbot Philip Anderson of Clear Creek Abbey; and James MacMillan, composer.

[…]

Geneva, Switzerland, Mar 7, 2017 / 04:17 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations reiterated the Vatican’s defense of all human life in a meeting with UN Human Rights Council on the death penalty.

“… […]

Šibenik, Croatia, Mar 7, 2017 / 06:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A giant 55-foot statue of Our Lady of Loreto is in the works in the coastal city of Primošten, Croatia, which will be known as one of the largest Marian sites in the world when it is completed.

“This project is unique in Croatia and beyond,” stated the Municipality of Primošten, according to Total Croatia News.

“It has been an object of considerable interest and acclaim, and a blessing has been given by the Holy See and Pope Francis,” they continued.

The larger-than-life statue of Our Lady of Loreto is being constructed along the coastline of Primošten, a hill-city about 20 miles south of Šibenik. Primošten is known for its vineyards and beaches, and will now also be marked as the site of one of the biggest Marian statues in the world.

The citizens of Primošten are known to have a particular devotion to Our Lady of Loreto, and the townspeople hold a traditional feast in honor of Our Lady every May 9-10, with a festive procession around the boats and coastline.

On a clear day, the facing coast of Italy will be able to see the Marian monument after its completion.

The construction of the statue has been in collaboration with Cammini Lauretani, which works to connect the dots among Marian shrines across Europe, in a joint effort with the European Cultural Itinerary of the European Council Initiative.

Mayor Stipe Petrina of Primošten has been meeting with leaders from Cammini Laurentani in an effort to link Marian shrines in Italy and Croatia, with the overarching goal of creating sustainable religious tourism and development.

Their most recent meeting took place in Gaj hill, where the organizations were able to see the progress of the statue.

The Croatian municipality has yet to declare when the Marian site will be complete, although they did note that the statue is in the final stages of construction.

[…]

Madrid, Spain, Mar 6, 2017 / 03:07 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- After an anti-clerical childhood and adolescence, filled with hatred for the Church, Fr. Juan José Martínez says he discovered “that God exists and wants me as his priest.”

“Sunday mornings I would peer out of the balcony of my house, and when the people were going by on their way to Mass, I would spit on them. I told them that the Church was a sect that wanted their money,” explained the priest, who ministers in the Diocese of Almeria, Spain.

Fr. Juan José’s parents were not believers, and he had received no religious formation, but he said they did not raise him to be intolerant. In fact, he says he does not know where he got all those ideas, because the perception he had of the Church and God was that of a “multinational corporation with branches in every neighborhood to extract money, like a sect.”

“I was absolutely anticlerical, I was the first student in my school and the town of Carboneras, Almeria Province, to never be taught Religion because when I was 8 or 9, I chose the alternative course which was Ethics. In the following years, I went on convincing my friends to quit Religion classes and to take Ethics with me. In the end, my whole class ended up being taught Ethics and none of them Religion.”

But what he never imagined is that the end of his journey would be to help his friends to come back to the Church. Fr. Juan José remembers quite well that the first day he went into a Catholic church, “I went to make fun of those who had invited me.”

“It was in January 1995, some friends from class invited me to a Catholic Charismatic Renewal prayer group at the parish. Obviously I told them I wasn’t planning on going because I didn’t want them to brainwash me. For a whole month they persisted. I finally gave in – it was a Thursday in February 1995 when I went into a Catholic church for the first time.”

A golden box

A lot of his friends were there, and he was surprised because “they were all looking at a golden box at the back of the church. I didn’t know what it was, but I thought it was where the parish priest kept the money.”

That golden box was the Tabernacle.

Fr. Juan José says that he came to make fun of them because “I thought they were crazy. Inside, I was laughing at them a lot, but I was polite and concealed it.  But I decided to come back the following Thursday to laugh at them some more.”

And so one Thursday after another, Fr. Juan José was letting go of his prejudices against the Church and religion.

“The pastor seemed to me to be a very wise man who was helping the people,” he told CNA. And little by little, the love of God was penetrating his heart: “I was 15 years old and I started to sing at Mass, which meant I would attend Mass on Saturdays. I liked being in front of the tabernacle and little by little, I realized that God existed and loved me. I felt the love of God. The Charismatic Renewal group, which I had come to make fun of, helped me a lot.”

“My eyes were being opened and I saw that God was not a legend or story for the weak, but that he existed and that he was supporting and guiding me. I experienced that he loved me so much that he wanted me for himself and was calling me,” he recalled.

“I am yours for whatever you need”

Fr. Juan José had been baptized and made his First Communion because of his grandparents’ wishes, but he did not have a relationship with God after that. “I made my Confirmation as I was right in the midst of the process of conversion, and it was a genuine gift. That day I told the Lord, ‘I am yours for whatever you need.’ My mother came but my father did not. It was a unique moment in my life to receive the Holy Spirit and to put my trust in the Lord.”

For months, the young Juan José was resisting the call to the priesthood. “I told the Lord that I didn’t want any hassles and to quit talking to me. Until I had to make a decision and it was to follow him, becoming a priest.”

One Saturday afternoon when he was 17, Fr. Juan José told his father he wanted to go to the seminary. His father beat him and said that “he would be a priest over his dead body.”

“They did not understand that I would want to be a priest. In fact, my father offered to pay for me to go to college in the United States but (he told me) he would never pay for the seminary.”

In such a difficult moment, Fr.  Juan José recalled that all he could think of was the prayer of Saint Teresa of Avila: “Let nothing disturb you, nothing frighten you. All you need is God” and when his father stopped rebuking him, the young man gave him a hug and said to him, “I knew you were going to react like that, but I also knew that one day you’d understand.”

“Welcome”

In fact, his father went so far as to threaten to report the pastor to the police if kept helping his son discern his vocation. “My father was trying everything, but the Lord is stronger,” he said.

To obey his father, Fr. Juan José could not start the seminary, and so he began to study teaching at the University of Almeria. For years he was patient, and continued to be faithful to his vocation to the priesthood. Until one day in May 1999, as he recalled, his mother told him that she had spoken to his father and that finally he would let him enter the seminary. “I began to cry and cry. I remember when I told the pastor about it he said “welcome” and gave me a great big hug.”

In September 2000, he finally entered the seminary.

In 2006, Fr.Juan José was ordained in the Almeria cathedral and his father even attended the ceremony. “In no way did he want me to become a priest, but he saw that I was happy and even though he was totally anticlerical, he decided that the happiness of his son came before his ideology and if I was happy, even though he didn’t understand it, he would have to accept it. “

In fact, he recalled that two years ago, “before dying, my father received the Anointing of the Sick. And it was I who administered it to him.”

“When somebody tells me he doesn’t believe in God, I always tell him that neither did I believe in Him, but I was mistaken, because I have discovered the genuine happiness that Jesus has given to me. If you’re not completely happy, ask the Lord to help you, because only He will give you the happiness that your heart needs.”

 

 

[…]

Kyiv, Ukraine, Mar 5, 2017 / 04:02 pm (Aid to the Church in Need).- Parents forced to choose which of their children will eat dinner that day. Children watching as their parents succumb to the gruesome effects of starvation. Farmers having their crops snatched up and taken away while neighbors lie emaciated on the roads, too exhausted to move.

Thousands of documented instances of cannibalism.

This is the story of the Holodomor, the “death by hunger” that gripped Ukraine between 1932 and 1933 – leaving between 2.5 and 7 million people dead in its wake.

“The story is really horrific: the amount of people who went through life and were forced to eat horrible things just to stay alive,” Ukranian Greek Catholic priest Fr. Mark Morozowich told CNA.

“People talk about (how) there would just be some water with a little bit of fat in it that they were able to eat,” said Fr. Morozowich, who also serves as dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America.

“And then the stories of people dying: the young people, the old people, in some cases, if there were protests, people were shot and killed,” he recalled. “It was really a demonic reality in some ways.”

An overlooked history

The Holodomor, or “death by hunger” in Ukrainian, was a man-made famine that terrorized the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic – a Soviet state under the USSR – between the spring of 1932 until the summer of 1933. Through a combination of decreased crop requisition and a series of policies that restricted rations and seized food throughout the country, between an estimated 2.5 to 7.5 million Ukrainians starved to death in one of the most agriculturally productive areas of the USSR.

Contributing factors to the famine across the Soviet Union were the Soviet collectivization movements, which consolidated land and labor onto collective state farms as well as changes in crop production from grain to non-native species like sugar beets. Meanwhile, much of the grain that was grown was either not harvested, or mismanaged during production or shipping.

However, while food shortfalls were experienced in pockets across the Soviet Union, policies enacted in Ukraine in November 1932 specifically contributed to widespread death and starvation. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s policies required that Ukraine produce a third of the Soviet Union’s grain stocks, even though it consisted of just a fraction of the union’s arable land.  

In addition, peasants and collective farms who did not meet their grain quotas were severely punished, forced to turn over livestock or surrender up to 15 times the food they originally owed the Soviet government. Those who could not turn over the required amount of goods found their farms raided by party officials.

After these policies were put into place, Ukrainian borders were closed, prohibiting starving citizens from leaving. These policies remained in effect, with food continuing to be seized, even after the Soviet government met its food requisition goals in early 1933. As a result of these factors, tens of thousands of Ukrainians died every day during the winter of 1932-1933. Citizens turned to drastic measures just to survive – including thousands of documented cases of cannibalism.

The classification of the Holodomor as a “genocide” is contentious today, due to questions over the extent of Stalin’s intention to specifically target and extinguish the Ukrainian people, as well as differing definitions of what constitutes genocide. Currently, the Holodomor is recognized as a genocide by 24 countries – including the Vatican.

Despite these questions, Stalin’s complicity in causing and then perpetuating the starvation in Ukraine has been well-documented.

“I don’t think that the way to think about the Holodomor is as something that there was a clear blueprint for and that the blueprint was just put into action,” said Prof. Michael Kimmage, a history professor at the Catholic University of America.

“It was a number of competing agendas and, of course, the willingness of Stalin and those in his inner circle to inflict tremendous suffering on the population of the Soviet Union.”  

While there was an “anarchic” element of administrative errors and unorganized policies, Kimmage said, there was also “certainly a form of political coercion to minimize access to food.” In addition, many within the Soviet government experienced and perpetuated fears and paranoias of secret enemies within the state – particularly within Ukraine, he said.

“You have a moment of genuine political terror, of state-sponsored, state-driven violence across the Soviet Union, but it has this particular chapter, particular element within Ukraine which is dictated and guided by Stalin’s paranoia about, perhaps Ukrainian loyalties being outside of the Soviet Union.”

In addition to the scope of the famine, what also sets the Holodomor apart is the degree of state complicity – not only in the creation of the famine, but in its refusal of any aid once news of the famine started to spread, Kimmage noted.

“The state was aware of the problem, it could have allocated resources differently,” he told CNA.

“The fiendish reality of the Holodomor is that it wouldn’t have happened if the Soviet state had not made it happen. There was no way that once it was underway that the state was going to come to the rescue of its starving subjects and citizens, and that’s perhaps the core tragedy of this event.”

The Soviet’s denial of wrongdoing lasted beyond the famine itself, Kimmage pointed out. Ukrainian people were prohibited from speaking or writing about the famine and its unique impact on their people until the Soviet Union broke apart in the 1990s.

“The thing that the Soviet Union wanted to prevent after the Holodomor was the usage of this event for any nationalist purposes – so to classify the Holodomor as a specifically Ukrainian tragedy, that was impermissible in Soviet times.”

Echoes of the Famine

While the Holodomor was a verboten topic of conversation in Ukraine, it is now an important touchstone both for the Ukrainian American community and for post-soviet Ukraine, who can now speak freely and remember publicly what happened.

“What has been forbidden to be spoken about until 1991 is very much spoken about after 1991,” Kimmage said.  

For Ukrainians, said Fr. Morozowich, talking about the famine is also a means of commemorating the deep dehumanization experienced by the Ukrainian people during that period.  

“When we look at what a famine does, it strips a person, it destroys networks, it brings them down, it pits neighbor against neighbor,” Fr. Morozowich said.

The perversion of these relationships and the choices people were faced with to survive destroyed not only society, but persons as well. “It was a whole dehumanization of the person. All that was good was stripped away and a stripping away the identity of the Ukrainian people.”

‘Who is going to remember Ukraine?’

The footprint of the Holodomor today is not only in the people’s reclamation of their identity, but in the people’s response to the situation and conflicts facing Ukraine today.

“It’s difficult for people who don’t live here or don’t know the history of these areas to understand,” Archbishop Claudio Gugerotti, apostolic nuncio to Ukraine, told CNA/EWTN News.

He spoke of Ukrainian’s fears that the conflicts facing the country today will be overlooked again not only by those imposing the violence, but also the world.  

“The fact that they are afraid of being alone, of being forgotten: this is a fact that we cannot not take into consideration.”

Since 2014, conflict has raged between pro-Russian forces and the Ukrainian government in Eastern Ukraine. Nearly 10,000 people have been killed by the violence, and over 1.5 million people have registered as displaced, according to the United Nations. Nearly two million people face shortages of water and restrictively high food and medicine prices in the areas of the most fighting, according to UN reports.

“Our present situation is not the Holodomor, but it is extremely difficult, and there are areas where, I wouldn’t say they starve, but they are at the minimum level of surviving,”Archbishop Gugerotti said.

He described that in many places, citizens hide and store basic food items like bread for fear of scarcity or theft. Social cohesion has eroded in the eastern part of the country, particularly between ethnic and language groups as well as between the different Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Churches. This has limited the churches’ ability to respond to the needs of the people, and heightened citizens’ feelings of hopelessness and paralysis.

“These kind of tensions are overwhelming, so the possibility of proper reaction is limited to the minimum.”  

The challenges facing both Russia and the West has left many people in Ukraine feeling that their needs are being overlooked.

“When one is afraid, certainly one doesn’t want to meet with people who are more afraid than he or she is,” Archbishop Gugerotti said. “We have a disastrous situation in the whole world and who is going to remember Ukraine?”

Fr. Morozowich reflected that the lesson of the Holodomor still echoes in the challenges the Ukrainian people are facing today.  

“When we look at history and we look at things that have happened, unfortunately in many cases, political power sometimes speaks louder than historical realities. We need to continually bring the stories forward,” he said, pointing to recent attention to the Holodomor in film and in research, as a hopeful sign.

Fr. Morzowich also spoke about the renewed attention to the atrocities of the Armenian genocide as another example of stories now receiving the attention they need.

Ultimately, however, both the Holodomor and the current Ukrainian conflict ask the same question, he said: “Are we really ready to listen to the plight of our brothers and sisters?”

In the Holodomor, the Soviets imposed a new reality for the Ukrainian people through the starvation and suffering of the famine.

“One that was devoid of God, stripping of their dignity, stripping of their culture, stripping of their culture, stripping of their intellectual past, stripping of their wonderful melodies,” Fr. Morozowich said. “They were deprived and then they were rebuilt into agents of the system.”

Similarly, the violence, hunger and displacement of today’s Ukrainian conflict makes people fear the same kind of deprivation, he added. “It’s a it’s a large part of the struggle of yesterday, it’s a large part of the struggle that’s going on today.”

“We have to ask if we’re ready to stand with our brothers and sisters to help them be free, to be able to live a decent life without the fear of a bomb falling, without the fear of hunger, and how do we as a people, a society for the voices of the innocent to rise above the military machinery that is just subjecting these people.”

[…]

London, England, Mar 4, 2017 / 04:09 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Is it ok to abort a baby who has been diagnosed with Down syndrome? What about if you find out the baby is a girl, and you wanted a boy?

 
One UK ethics watchdog recently endorsed early pregnancy tests to screen for Down syndrome but opposed the same tests to find out the baby’s sex, lest it lead to gendercide.
 
And that logic is far too widespread, says a disabilities rights group, which is challenging such thinking in a recent petition.

“While many denounce gendercide and few would argue that parents should be free to abort a girl because they prefer a boy, when it comes to Down syndrome, the logic tragically changes. It becomes a valued individual ‘free and accepted choice’ to discriminate against people with genetic variations. How is this possible?”, asks a petition from Stop Discriminating Down,  a project of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation and DownPride.

This week, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics published its findings on non-invasive prenatal testing, recommending it should not be used to reveal the unborn child’s sex, lest it promote sex-selective abortion.

However, it also recommended that NIPT be accessible to parents who wish to find out whether their child “has a significant medical condition or impairment, but only within an environment that enables them to make autonomous, informed choices.”

The test involves taking a blood sample from the mother at around 9 or 10 weeks of pregnancy. It is a non-invasive way of testing for genetic conditions and variations in the unborn child, and is thus safer than invasive measures such as amniocentesis, which carry a risk of miscarriage and other harms to the child.

The Nuffield Council’s recommendations would encourage the use of NIPT to screen for Down syndrome, Edwards syndrome, and Patau syndrome – “fetal anomalies” that in England, Wales, and Scotland are grounds for abortion under the Abortion Act 1967. The National Health Service will offer NIPT to pregnant women whose unborn children have a high risk of these anomalies from 2018.

The Nuffield Council noted that 74 percent of pregnant women in the UK currently choose to have a screening test for Down syndrome, and that between 89 and 95 percent of women abort their child after receiving a Down syndrome diagnosis.

It estimates that annually, nearly 200 more fetuses with Down syndrome in the UK will be identified, and there will be an estimated 17 fewer miscarriages related to procedures such as amniocentesis.

However, an additional 200 fetuses who are identified as having Down syndrome means, given the figures provided by the Nuffield Council, that nearly between 178 and 190 of those fetuses will be aborted.

“To offset the possibility that the increased use of NIPT might adversely affect disabled people, the Government … have a duty to provide disabled people with high quality specialist health and social care, and to tackle discrimination, exclusion and negative societal attitudes,” the Nuffield Council wrote in its report.

The council acknowledged, however, that introducing NIPT could affect the specialist health and social care received by disabled persons, and the importance attributed to research into their conditions.

And “Making NIPT available on the NHS could be perceived as sending negative and hurtful messages about the value of people with the syndromes being tested for,” it added. “Disabled people and their families might be more vulnerable to discrminination, stigma or abuse if NIPT gives rise to perceptions that people are ‘to blame’ for having a baby with a disability.”

The council also recommended that NIPT be accompanied by “accurate, balanced and non-directive information for women and couples,” and that private providers of the test be monitored to ensure their advertising is neither misleading nor harmful.

Turning from screening for “fetal anomalies”, the Nuffield Council said that “NIPT should not generally be used to find out whether a fetus has a less significant medical condition or impairment, has an adult onset condition, or carries a copy of a gene tht does not cause a condition on its own. Nor should it be used to reveal non-medical features of the fetus, such as sex.”

It added that “the Government should ensure that private NIPT providers stop offering fetal sex determination,” and that it should establish that “whole genome sequencing of fetuses is not offered outside research environments.”

The report of Nuffield Council acknowledged “the offer of NIPT to determine the sex of the fetus at an early stage of pregnancy may increase the risk of sex selective terminations taking place,” which they said “there is some evidence that sex selective terminations have happened in the UK, and they are known to occur in other countries.”

Sex-selective abortions are illegal in the UK, but in recent years the government has been criticized for a lack of enforcement.

The UK’s Department of Health has expressed concern for the pressure on pregnant women in some south Asian immigrant communities to have boys, and former Minister of Parliament Paul Uppal has said “the expectation is there – I’ve seen it firsthand myself.”

Advocates for persons with Down syndrome are strongly opposed to the expansion of NIPT.

Stop Discriminating Down says that “Government encouraged selective abortion, the refusal to provide health-benefits, or the refusal to provide adequate medical care equal to that provided to their typical peers is a social and moral crime against all people with disabilities and their families who thanks to developments in research, medical care, and social acceptance have many possibilities. The expansion of government sponsored prenatal screening and abortion stand in stark contradiction to the social progress made over the past 40 years towards an inclusive and equal society.”

“While throughout the world we petition, walk, and meet together to fight against discrimination and to protect biodiversity, no-one should have to defend threats to their life because of his or her genetic make-up. In a humane world aware of the need for acceptance and inclusion of differences, people with Down syndrome should not be discriminated against.”

[…]