Answer: There are Catholics in both pieces of media. Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House John Boehner are both Catholic, while Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York (now Cardinal-designate Dolan) is the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The 2012 State of the Union focused on unity, on an America of liberty and equality for all. Yet on Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a set of regulations that cuts directly against the First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom in ways that will directly impact almost all Catholic organizations in America--regulations announced by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, also a Catholic. That was last week, just before the State of the Union Address. Monday was the 2012 March for Life, an event that is, once again, mostly ignored by the press.
This has got to be one of the most schizophrenic sorts of sidelining an unwanted class of people in the history of humanity. Here are Catholics announcing and implementing the regulations that will strike directly at the free operation of our Church in this country, Catholics holding some of the highest positions in the land sitting behind the President who, as Cardinal Mahoney said, must have known and been personally involved in the decision, at a speech where he reiterated a message of unity, common cause, and caring for the least among us.
There's so much going on right now, it feels like somebody just sounded the starting pistol. A round up:
Exhibit A: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) speaks more forcefully than I have ever heard in response to an Health and Human Services ruling that will, according to the bishops, "continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans."
Here is USCCB President Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the decision:
...This decision from the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] is from the highest level of Federal government, and I cannot imagine that this decision was released without the explicit knowledge and approval of President Barack Obama.
And I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster...
For me there is no other fundamental issue as important as this one as we enter into the Presidential and Congressional campaigns. Every candidate must be pressed to declare his/her position on all of the fundamental life issues, especially the role of government to determine what conscience decision must be followed: either the person's own moral and conscience decision, or that dictated/enforced by the Federal govenment. For me the answer is clear: we stand with our moral principles and heritage over the centuries, not what a particular Federal govenrment agency determines.
As Bishops we do not recommend candidates for any elected office. For me personally, I intend to vote on November 6, 2012, for the candidate for President of the United States and members of Congress who intend to recognize the full spectrum of rights under the many conscience clauses of morality and public polcy. If any candidate refuses to acknowlege and to promote those rights, then that canddiate will not receive my vote.
This is a sad moment in the life of our country where religious freedom and freedom of conscience led to the formation of this new Nation under God.
Let us all pray that the power of the Holy Sirit will come upon all elected offcials of our country, and that all will make decisions based upon God's revealed truth.
Now Cardinal Mahoney is not known as a rock-ribbed conservative. Far from it.
...To say that news of the decision by President Obama not to expand the conscience exemption for church-affiliated institutions who do not wish to cover birth control is a disaster would be a gross understatement...
They have punched Sr. Carol Keehan and Fr. Jenkins and many other Catholics who have taken shots for this Administration in the nose. They have jumped over the First Amendment to coerce religious organizations to do something we find morally objectionable. They have given people who loved the Affordable Care Act reason for pause, great pause. They have given the Republicans a huge battering ram with which to beat swing voting Catholics over the head.
I say “they,” but the full responsibility for this decision rests with the President. NCR has learned that the President called Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. bishops' conference, this morning to tell him the news. Wouldn’t you have liked to be on an extension to listen in on that conversation. The president looked Dolan in the eye in November and said he would be pleased with his decision. I am guessing that Dolan is not pleased. He is not alone...
In other words, the Catholic left might decide not to vote for the Democratic incumbent to the presidency this year. Which would be a sea-change of massive proportions within the Catholic Church.
In quickly-breaking news of conspicuous timing -- read: with Monday's March for Life in Washington just around the corner -- both the AP and Washington Post are reporting that the Obama administration has turned back calls for a wider conscience exemption, which would've allowed religious groups to opt out of funding contraceptives and sterilization procedures for their employees under the new Federal health-care law.
In the words of Captain Jack Sparrow, "That is interesting."
Exhibit D: Some of the Bishops of the United States were in Rome this week for their ad limina visits to the Pope. He addressed them on the issue of religious freedom:
...For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society...
In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.
Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-Ã -vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level....
Talk about timely.
Exhibit E: A Marriage Equality bill is being discussed in the Washington State legislature. The implications for religions in the state could be severe.
Excerpts:
...What churches could be forced to allow gay weddings?
Does the public ever use your facilities? If you ever allow non-members to use your sanctuary for a wedding you could NOT deny a gay couple from using your sanctuary.
Do you have a pop machine or sell coffee?
Do you sometimes have fundraisers where you sell cookies or popcorn for consumption at the church?
Have you ever allowed your church to be used by another Christian organization for which they paid you a fee?
All of those actions would open the door to a civil rights lawsuit and severe penalties if you failed to allow a gay couple to use your facility to have their wedding.
The laws covering discrimination create a wide net to include any place “… where food or beverages of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises,” Discrimination also includes places with “schools of special instruction, or nursery schools, or day care centers or children’s camps” Those provisions alone include thousands of Washington churches. Since the marriage laws of Washington have never referenced discrimination before, this so-called “Gay Marriage Equality” bill will change everything...
The Catholic left and right look likely to come together on this issue in a way we haven't seen in a very long time.
The implications for electoral politics are liable to be remarkably interesting.
The March for Life--well, please, everyone, keep a lid on tempers, emotions, etc. Be careful. Behave well and carefully. Don't say or do anything stupid. Love your neighbor, love of humanity as Christ loved them.
The Church is in dire need of serious catechesis and evangelization on these issues, because a lot of Catholics still aren't ready for all this.
...Moe, who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder, was being treated in a Massachusetts hospital. When she became pregnant, doctors were purportedly concerned that her medications could harm the unborn child. So they recommended an abortion.
The problem is, Moe is a Catholic, who has expressed vocal opposition to abortion.
Since Moe planned to keep her baby, her parents, in conjunction with the doctors, filed a petition with the local courts, which would give them the power to force her to get an abortion.
Incredibly, Massachusetts justice Christina Harms not only granted the petition, she went a step further. She told Moe’s parents that it didn’t matter how they got Moe to have the abortion, even if it meant she had to be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed … by ruse.”
Not only this, but she directed that whatever medical facility performed the abortion go ahead and sterilize Moe … without her permission.
According to recently released court documents, Harms simply asserted that “if Moe were competent, she ‘would not choose to be delusional,’ and therefore would opt for an abortion in order to benefit from medication that otherwise could not be administered due to its effect on the fetus.”
In other words, Justice Harms didn’t just assume that she knew what Moe was thinking. She assumed that she knew what Moe would be thinking if she wasn’t subject to a mental dysfunction. And on that basis, she was willing to not only mandate the killing of Moe’s unborn child, but the destruction of Moe’s reproductive system.
Fortunately for Moe (and her baby), the decision caused an uproar … and was overturned by the state appeals court. Appellate Justice Andrew Grainger openly questioned Harm’s reasoning pointing out that “no party requested this measure, none of the attendant procedural requirements has been met, and the judge appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air...”
The most positive side to this story may, in fact, be the extent of the controversy it has garnered. There was a time in this country, not very long ago, when mandating that a mentally ill woman be subjected to an involuntary abortion/sterilization would scarcely have raised an eyebrow. After all, our own Margaret Sanger was one of the world’s original eugenicists, recommending forced sterilizations for the improvement of the human species, in order to “cut down production of its least desirable members.” Forced sterilization was regularly practiced on racial minorities and those considered mentally unfit until embarrassingly recently (the last known forced sterilization in the United States took place in 1981).
We have made such leaps and bounds in this country when it comes to overall racial attitudes as well as attitudes towards those with disabilities. But cases like this one should serve as a warning: not all of the old bigotry and fear are gone. We must remain vigilant until these abhorrent practices are firmly and irrevocably buried in the past.
...The mystery of theosis, it seems to me, is something we need to be reminded of today more than ever, at the end of a secular age in which so many have tried to live as though God did not exist. The vision of Mary, crowned with flowers on earth and with stars in heaven, is the one image of human destiny that can stand up against the hedonistic vision, the corrupted imagination twentieth century...
Mary is the heart of the Church of which we are the members. If the only fulfilment of nature is through grace, then she who is full of grace shows us the fulfilment of our own natures also. To her state we may also attain - even if only in the partial way appropriate to our less central position in the Mystical Body, and through a process of purification that for her is unnecessary. She does not have to struggle for sanctity, but she suffers with us in our struggle, and accompanies us, not in the useless way of a person who makes all the same mistakes, but in the helpful way that can support us with unfailing patience, compassion and wisdom...
In any case, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclicals and numerous weekly audiences on Mary, has shown that Mary's "state of royal freedom" flows precisely from her humility as handmaid, mother and sister.
...If Mary is, as the Catechism tells us in one of its headings, an eschatological icon of the Church, it is in the figure of the Virgin Mary, united with Christ in heaven, that our destiny and calling as human beings are most fully revealed to us. Mary is already the Church that we are summoned to become through repentance and purification. She is nature perfected in a single person, and transfigured by the grace to which she offers not the faintest shadow of resistance. It is the image of her "Coronation" or eschatological transfiguration that most fully expresses the final effects of grace on nature: the integration of human life with the life of the eternal and ever-blessed Trinity...
President Barack Obama on Saturday reluctantly signed a defense authorization bill, saying he was concerned about some in Congress who want to restrict options used by counterterrorism officials.
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," he said of the $662 billion legislation.
The White House had lifted a veto threat against the bill after legislators made changes in language involving detainees.
In particular, the legislators added language to make clear that nothing in the bill requiring military custody of al Qaeda suspects would interfere with the ability of civilian law enforcement to carry out terrorism investigations and interrogations in the United States...
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the legislation includes a "national security waiver" that allows the president to transfer a suspect from military to civilian custody if he chooses.
"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in a statement Saturday. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
Obama said a section of the bill provides the "executive branch" with broad authority on military custody for non-citizen detainees...
Hm. He said "my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." He did not say his administration could not do this--merely that they would not.
And then, of course, there's wonderful moments like this from C-SPAN and the Senate floor:
At which point, I think there might be some valid concerns. Because the administration asked that the language excluding US citizens from the bill be removed. Also, they expressed concern that the bill unduly restricts Executive power.
And the bill, apparently (according to Senator Lindsey Graham), declares the whole world, "including the homeland," part of the battlefield.
The above refers to the portions of the bill which were passed. When it comes to what might have been...well, the Senate has officially lost it. Evidence:
"Offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror."
Sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Voted for by 41 members of the US Senate, including two Democrats, one Independent, and the rest Republicans.
Let us review the Constitution...I was sure...ah, yes. Here it is.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Methinks the constituents of 41 US Senators need to make known, loudly and clearly, exactly what will happen next election. They all need to lose reelection--every one of the 41 Senators who voted for this amendment. If some evidence comes forward to show that Sen. Paul grossly mischaracterized the nature of the amendment, I'll take a different position.
...the fight was closer over an amendment proposed by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. The amendment focused on a scenario where an al Qaeda suspect is acquitted in a court—whether military or civil—but is still judged a terrorist threat...
"Like any other captured combatant, he can be held as long as hostilities continue...."
Mr. Paul didn’t think so, and he focused particularly on the case where the accused terrorist was an American citizen. “If the evidence does not support conviction, it would be against everything we believe in and fight for in America to still allow the government to imprison you at their whim,” he said last night in a statement.
Earlier in the week, he told the Senate, “There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our Constitution, and the checks we put on government power"...
The Sessions amendment failed on a 41-59 vote. Even so, under some interpretations of current law, the president could order the kind of preventive detention Mr. Sessions advocated.
But otherwise, this is gross misconduct. These people are unfit for the office they hold.
Now, some claim there's nothing to be concerned about with Senate Bill 1867, otherwise known as the National Defense Authorization Act:
...Section 1031, which relates to the use of the armed forces to detain covered people “pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” has a very narrow purpose of describing detention “under the law of war” of people who either participated in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or is a member or “substantial supporter” of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
This DOES apply to U.S. citizens, but it has already been established in plentiful detail that traitors who join forces with the enemy are subject to military law, including detention and worse.
This concern about protecting Americans who might be judged by the government to be at war with the United States seems to be misplaced, at best, and mischievous at worst. There is a virtually nil chance that you or your neighbors will be swept up off the street and locked up in “indefinite detention” unless you are indeed engaged in war against the United States.
At that point, sorry, you lose most of your civil liberties...
Hang on. Wait a minute. Isn't there some crucial middle step in this process between "war with the United States" and "indefinite detention?" Something...oh, what's the phrase...due to people? Some sort of process? Involving law?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So the people who argue there's nothing to be afraid of end up giving me cause to be, frankly, rather afraid.
“The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. The Administration appreciates the Senate Armed Services Committee’s continued support of our national defense…
While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration would have serious concerns with provisions that would: (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions;…
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa’ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests...
Section 1034′s ban on the use of funds to construct or modify a detention facility in the United States is an unwise intrusion on the military’s ability to transfer its detainees as operational needs dictate...In short, the matters addressed in these provisions are already well regulated by existing procedures and have traditionally been left to the discretion of the Executive branch...
Broadly speaking, the detention provisions in this bill micromanage the work of our experienced counterterrorism professionals, including our military commanders, intelligence professionals, seasoned counterterrorism prosecutors, or other operatives in the field. These professionals have successfully led a Government-wide effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents over two consecutive Administrations. The Administration believes strongly that it would be a mistake for Congress to overrule or limit the tactical flexibility of our Nation’s counterterrorism professionals.
Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto…
Constitutional concerns: A number of the bill’s provisions raise additional constitutional concerns, such as sections 233 and 1241, which could intrude on the President’s constitutional authority to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive diplomatic communications. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns.”
The White House is signing off on a controversial new law that would authorize the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain alleged al Qaeda members or other terrorist operatives captured on American soil.
As the bill neared final passage in the House of Representatives and the Senate on Wednesday, the Obama administration announced it would support passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains slightly watered-down provisions giving the military a front line role in domestic terrorism cases.
The administration abandoned its long-held veto threat due to changes in the final version of the bill, namely that in its view, the military custody mandate has been "softened." The bill now gives the President the immediate power to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement, instead of the Defense Secretary, and gives the President discretion in implementing these new provisions.
"We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto," the White House statement said...
While the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges, proponents said the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare "enemy combatants," as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies. The administration, which has pledged not to use this power, believes the bill leaves this legal issue unresolved...
Shout joyfully to the LORD, all you lands;
worship the LORD with cries of gladness; come before him with joyful song.
Know that the LORD is God, our maker to whom we belong, whose people we are, God's well-tended flock.
Enter the temple gates with praise, its courts with thanksgiving. Give thanks to God, bless his name;
good indeed is the LORD, Whose love endures forever, whose faithfulness lasts through every age.
All Christian Bale wanted to do was tell a guy thank you, he said – but instead he got roughed up by a pack of apparent security guards and chased away from the home where a Chinese dissident has been held under house arrest for months.
“What I really wanted to do was shake the man’s hand and say thank you, tell him what an inspiration he is,” Bale said after the incident, which concluded with his party’s van being chased down the road by guards who jumped into their own vehicle and followed for more than half an hour.
“The man” Bale referred to is Chen Guangcheng, a self-taught lawyer and activist who has worked against China’s methods for enforcing its one-child policy – think forced abortion and sterilization. According to World Now, he has been kept under unofficial house arrest with his wife, mother and young daughter since September, when he was released after four years in prison related to charges he said he was not guilty of...
...I kept saying, “You just made me pro-life!” I kept repeating it the next morning as well, awed by the change in me and how it had happened. It was completely unexpected, and more than a little unwelcome.
I went home and got on the computer and went immediately to pro-choice websites hoping to be unconvinced. Reality was setting in, and with it the understanding that a pro-life viewpoint was not compatible with my lifestyle, my friends, my political and religious beliefs, or my irreverent sense of humor. I felt a mild sense of panic, because if abortion was what I unfortunately now believed it was, then it was not only wrong, it was reprehensible. It was not just something I was going to disagree with, it was something I was going to have to fight.
The pro-choice websites couldn’t unconvince me of the wrongness of abortion, and the scientific information I found only made things worse. More than anything, I wanted to find those photos discredited as fakes or misleading, but instead I found more photos, and plenty of authentication. I found a video in which a former abortionist turned pro-life activist, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, handled an aborted fetus and described it to the viewer. I watched and wept...
Humanity today must strive towards the goal of integral human development. Increasingly aware of his interdependence, man of today must feel that "everyone is responsible for everything" and that he must pursue the common good by promoting solidarity among generations, protecting the dignity of every human being and protecting nature. And without the fear that this common responsibility clashes with religious and cultural differences.
These are concepts dear to Benedict XVI, who confirmed them today to a group of 11 ambassadors received for the presentation of their Letter of credentials...
Mankind, noted the Pope, has understood that " the unity of the human family is now as an everyday fact." This has positive aspects, but "it is sometimes experienced as a burden," meaning that this unity "significantly broadens the scope of responsibility of each one of us, making the solution of problems proportionally complex to the number of those seeking to act".
Interdependence must be lived "not as a threat, but an advantage that men have to work with each other, for each other." Benedict XVI stressed in particular a positive aspect of this shared responsibility: the growth of inter-generational solidarity. "This finds its roots in the natural family, which must be supported so it may continues to fulfill its essential mission in society. At the same the education of young people remains the privileged way to broaden the field of solidarity and ensure promotion in the long-term . " A field towards which Benedict XVI encourages everyone, especially governments, "to show their creativity, to find and invest the resources necessary to give young people basic ethical foundations, in particular by helping in their formation and by fighting social ills such as unemployment, drugs, crime and disrespect of the person. "
Finally, he added that "there need be no fear that this common and shared responsibility for the good of all mankind will find a constant source of opposition in cultural and religious differences". The pluralism of cultures and religions is not opposed to common quest for what is true, good and beautiful." Human reason, purified by faith, allows man to rise and "is capable of overcoming the constraints or partisan interest, to recognize the universal good of which all men are in need. Among these, peace and the much desired social and religious harmony are linked not only to a just and suitable legislative framework, but also to the moral quality of every citizen, because solidarity contains two complementary aspects: social principle and moral virtue."
“The Muslim Brotherhood is not credible. We want facts, not words,” said Fr Rafik Greiche, spokesman of the Egyptian Catholic Church, as he commented a statement made by Mohammed Badie, head of the Islamist organisation, in the defence of Christians...
“The Muslim Brotherhood is always issuing statements. In the beginning, they were very harsh against non-Muslims,” Fr Greiche said. However, “If a pro-democracy or Christian leader protested, they would quickly change their tune to avoid being labelled extremist.”
Time after time, this type of attitude manifested itself during the Jasmine Revolution, which the Brotherhood first resisted but eventually accepted for electoral reasons.
“In the past few days, one of the most important spiritual leaders (Mourshed) of the Muslim Brotherhood said that anyone who is opposed to Sharia should be expelled from the country, a clear reference to Christians. Yesterday, Mohammed Badie said instead that all citizens should be equal...”
For Fr Greiche, contradictions also characterise relations with Salafists, the hard face of radical Islam, whom the Brotherhood used in the campaign to scare moderate Muslims and religious minorities. Yet, in some ridings, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists ran on the same list...
...We are living in urgent times, where illusions are swirling all about, making it difficult to discern what is true and what is not. We are distracted by a thousand things, especially in this season — and our attention is being spun toward the promptings of every sort of gadget, gizmo and noisemaker.
What happens when we are constantly spun? We become dizzy and cannot see things with directness and clarity.
Directness and clarity are at an absolute premium, these days, and I think I am not alone in wondering if we maintain our willingness to be spun and distracted at our own peril...
