All

Appointed to the post less than a year ago, Gabriel Antonio Mestre, 55, quit yesterday as the Archbishop of La Plata. No reason was given by the archbishop or the Vatican. Mestre’s abrupt resignation follows the resignations of Bishop José María Baliña, 65, who quit just 22 days after Pope Francis named him head of the diocese Mestre had vacated last year, and Bishop Gustavo Manuel Larrazábal, who quit 35 days after Pope Francis had named him as Baliña’s successor. The nunciature did say it deplored “the rumors that circulate and have no basis.” Media suggest it has to do with sex abuse.
 

 

The post Episcopal turmoil in Argentina appeared first on The Catholic Thing.

Sociology is the softest of the sciences – according to sociological surveys – and its practitioners, with noteworthy exceptions, largely lean – and more than lean – Left. Which may explain why a recent New York Times essay seems puzzled and not a little irritated by the fact, noted by the sociologists, that conservatives are measurably happier (and have been for half a century) than liberals in our radically rabid era. Their explanations tend towards the judgment that conservative happiness may be deplorable – for instance, that conservatives are (allegedly) less troubled than their liberal counterparts by inequality and injustice in the world. But it doesn’t take much insight into human existence to see that, on the question of happiness, the sociological dogs may be barking up several wrong sociological trees.

Let’s stipulate at the outset that, to a reflective mind, it’s not immediately evident what it means to be conservative or liberal. Pope Francis recently remarked in his CBS interview that conservatism is “a suicidal attitude,” characterizing conservatives as people whose hearts are “closed up inside a dogmatic box.” The world is wide, and it may indeed contain such strange creatures. But that rather illiberal judgment doesn’t come within a country mile of the vast majority of persons – inside or outside the Church – whom a sociologist would classify as a conservative.

Meanwhile, recent surveys show that almost all younger priests in the United States and large majorities in Germany (!) are what the pope would doubtless regard as conservative without showing any signs of clinging to the past and failing to engage the present. In fact, for many of us, their resistance to many currents in the world offers a viable shelter while the world – especially the Western world – seems hell-bent on suicide.

But for the sake of a manageable argument, let’s say that the sociologists have a street-level understanding of who counts as a conservative. And for the same reason, let’s accept that what they mean by such a person being happier than liberals is also – in ordinary, everyday terms – an adequate description. The reasons for this, however, seem to lie elsewhere than usually thought.

In philosophical terms, happiness, too, is no simple term to define. I’ve written here recently about what Christians might learn – actually re-learn – from the great ancient pagan philosophers. Happiness in a high, rational sense among the ancient philosophers was the aim of human life. And Christianity took over that concept from the pagans with obvious additions about the happiness we’ll find in the next life. The Dominican Servais Pinckaers, whose book The Sources of Christian Ethics remains our best account of the subject, writes: “quite frankly. . .there would have been no Christian theology or ‘philosophy’ were it not for the contribution of Greek wisdom.”

To be clear, happiness in both its ordinary and deeper meaning does not mean an absence of suffering and disappointments. As any mature person knows, those are features of the world in which we live and come to all of us in greater or lesser degree. Rather, it means the sense of satisfaction of training ourselves in the virtues (habits) that make us capable of doing what’s right despite circumstances (including, claims to the contrary, the pursuit of justice and the effort to remedy unjust inequalities) whatever suffering or criticism comes to us.

What’s different about “conservatives,” whether of a philosophical or Christian cast, in other words, is that they don’t expect the world to be anything other than what it is, a fallen and imperfect world. And they only expect to be able to control themselves to any large degree – which is the pursuit of happiness in a realist mode.

The Preaching of St. Paul at the Areopagus by Benvenuto Tisi, 1520 [private collection]

This attitude does not remove trials from our lives, but makes them less troubling and offers a certain serenity.

The pagan Epictetus counsels us to ask: “‘Is this something that is, or is not, in my control?’ And if it’s not one of the things that you control, be ready with the reaction, ‘Then it’s none of my concern.’” This is not a counsel of indifference, but realism.

St. Peter wrote: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.”  (1 Peter 4:10) In our time, Christians would do well to recall that.

Liberals generally want more out of human existence and human societies than they can give.

The New York Times essay focused on discontent among liberals: “the decline in happiness and in a sense of agency is concentrated among those on the left who stress matters of identity, social justice and the oppression of marginalized groups.”

This “sense of agency” is the crux. The term as employed here seems primarily aimed at controlling the attitudes and actions of others – not by persuasion or the daily slog of politics or education – but by a direct imposition of will, which has run wild on social media.

So, for example, the world was agitated recently when Harrison Butker made some observations that many women will find greater satisfaction – indeed happiness – in domestic rather than professional life. Naturally, there were calls for the Kansas City Chiefs to fire him, which happily failed.

But the truth is the truth by whomever spoken, as St. Augustine said. The New York Times columnist, David Brooks, made a similar argument, citing actual survey evidence, about both men and women late last year – to similar hysteria.

There’s a new bumper sticker: “Thoughts and Prayers” with the words X-ed over, and “Policies” highlighted as the alternative, as if politics can replace the need for thoughts and prayers.

One used to see a passage from Dr. Johnson’s poem “The Traveller” that has all but disappeared from public discourse. But perhaps the time has come to quote it again, often, and take its wisdom to heart:

How small, of all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure.
Still to ourselves in every place consign’d,
Our own felicity we make or find.

 

 

The post The Pursuit of Happiness appeared first on The Catholic Thing.

Recently, there have been a number of indicators of the waning impact of  threats by the U.S. government. Attempts to advance the U.S. government’s foreign policy interests by making threats in Niger, at the International Criminal Court, and in China have recently all failed to bring about their desired outcome. On March 16, 2024, the … Continue reading "It’s Time for Diplomacy, Not Threats"

The post It’s Time for Diplomacy, Not Threats appeared first on Antiwar.com.

Jew-sider Trump goes full Jew-side? Gah. New York Post: “Donors in New York” is my new favorite antisemitic euphemism. Let’s get that one on the ADL list ASAP, boys. How about stopping the radical revolution of Jews dominating American institut

The song competition Eurovision, besides producing heaps of dough, is not universally adored. For the last ten years, Eurovision has manifested sheer ugliness. A bearded lady, a pregnant man and a variety of obese freaks were introduced at the contest. It was promoted and it was successful: this is how freaks reproduce, by achieving intimate...

Naomi describes the citizens’ loss of their park to growing ranks of homeless persons attracted to the idyllic town by its provisions for and welcome to homeless, the supply of which overwhelmed the stupid town. “Now, we had gently let go of the park. I did not feel safe at dusk now walking the pathway...

Rumble link Bitchute link FFWN post with links and information on E. Michael Jones’ “Dangers of Beauty” conference The world stands aghast as the genocidal Zionist entity lashes out in its death throes, inflicting pointless mayhem on the civilians of Palestine and the leadership of Iran. And a collective global reaction is setting in. The...

Eleven more were wounded.

The post <I>Iraq Weekly Roundup</I>: 20 Killed appeared first on Antiwar.com.

Carmine De Rosa was officially invited…

Vatican World Children’s Day Features Drag Artist for Kids

What? You don’t want some effeminate creep with lipstick entertaining your little ones?

This past weekend, the Vatican put on the first World Children’s Day festival.

The event was first announced by ‘Pope’ Francis on Dec. 8, 2023. It is an initiative of the Vatican Dicastery for Culture and Education under the headship of its prefect, ‘Cardinal’ José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça.

The main event for this inaugural edition took place at Rome’s Olympic Stadium on Saturday, May 25. An almost 4-hour video has been made available by Vatican News:

Outside the stadium, a ‘Children’s Village’ was set up in the Foro Italico park, where various shows and activities for children were available between 10 am and 2 pm on Saturday.… READ MORE

Carmine De Rosa was officially invited…

Vatican World Children’s Day Features Drag Artist for Kids

What? You don’t want some effeminate creep with lipstick entertaining your little ones?

This past weekend, the Vatican put on the first World Children’s Day festival.

The event was first announced by ‘Pope’ Francis on Dec. 8, 2023. It is an initiative of the Vatican Dicastery for Culture and Education under the headship of its prefect, ‘Cardinal’ José Tolentino Calaça de Mendonça.

The main event for this inaugural edition took place at Rome’s Olympic Stadium on Saturday, May 25. An almost 4-hour video has been made available by Vatican News:

Outside the stadium, a ‘Children’s Village’ was set up in the Foro Italico park, where various shows and activities for children were available between 10 am and 2 pm on Saturday.… READ MORE

High-level dignitaries from across the world converged at United Nations headquarters in New York City earlier this month to adopt a political declaration during the 57th Session of the Commission on Population Development (CPD). This year’s political declaration was especially significant, given that this fall, the UN will commemorate the 30th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (ICPD).

One hundred seventy-nine UN member and observer states adopted the ICPD Programme of Action in Cairo, Egypt, in 1994. While no new international human rights were created, the political commitments that states made in the ICPD are influential in setting international and national policy, health programs, financing measures, and other initiatives in areas related to population and development.

As one of the most prominent functional commissions of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Commission on Population and Development has the mandate to monitor, review, and assess the status of implementation of the ICPD. Regrettably, for many of its sessions, the Commission failed to find consensus. CPD outcome documents are important because they take stock of the priority theme and contain a set of concrete recommendations to be implemented by states and nongovernmental actors at the international, national, regional, and local levels. The sources of the CPD’s failures stemmed, in large part, from the attempted inclusion of ideological and non-consensual concepts rejected by a large number of States.

Promises and Pitfalls

Likewise, thirty years on, the rest of the world has the benefit of hindsight in realizing the promises and pitfalls inherent in the ICPD agenda. Even in its initial form, it was far from a perfect document: some of its terminology and content was vague or even contested.  Thus, numerous states made reservations or interpretive declarations on the ICPD, including on terminology related to what is referred to as sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights (SRHRR), marriage and the family, the right to life, and gender.

The ICPD also contained ambiguous or conflicting language on demographic policy. For example, it called for efforts to “slow down population growth,” supported measures to “stabilize” the world population, and for countries to address “imbalances” between demographic rates and social, economic, and environmental goals. It was unclear what this all entailed or would encompass. 

Nevertheless, the document did make important concessions on population and development policy. This was an improvement to the population control measures of earlier decades with roots in the eugenics policies of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger or the discredited theories of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich. These practices, more often than not, targeted persons who were racial minorities, poor, indigenous, disabled, or otherwise considered socially unfit. In contrast, the ICPD put the human person at the center of development and rejected any form of targets or quotas in demographic goals and coercion in family-planning programs.

The ICPD also contained important caveats on abortion. In particular, it specified that in no case should it be promoted as a method of family planning. Furthermore, it urged governments to reduce recourse to abortion. States also agreed that any measures or changes related to abortion “can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process,” as opposed to through the promotion of a nonexistent international human right to abortion. 

These caveats guarded against the attempts of UN agencies misrepresenting the voices of its member states or the judicial activism of certain national and regional human rights courts legislating from the bench to renegotiate the substance of treaties and push for laws and policies that could not be otherwise won via the democratic process. 

On education, the ICPD took into account the “rights and responsibilities of parents” and recognized that responsibility for the best interests of the child “lies in the first place with the parents.” The ICPD also called on governments and nongovernmental organizations to promote programs directed at the education of parents in their attempts to support their children’s learning and growth.

Such support could look like, for instance,  capacity-building programs, home visits and community meetings, and other forms of material support. Crucially, recognition of parental rights also hinders attempts to promote so-called “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE) that sexualizes children and subverts parental rights to provide appropriate direction and guidance to their children that are recognized under international human rights law.

Additionally, while declaring that in different cultural, political, and social systems, various forms of the family exist, the ICPD also reaffirmed that “the family” is the “basic unit of society, and as such should be strengthened,” is “entitled to comprehensive protection and support,” and that “marriage must be entered into with free consent of the intending spouses,” specifying in this regard that “husband and wife should be equal partners.” That is consistent with international human rights instruments that affirm “the family” and entitle it to protection from society and the state against ideological attempts to redefine it.

The ICPD was also significant in calling out harmful and unethical practices such as infanticide and prenatal sex selection, in which “son preference” may curtail girls’ access to food, education, and healthcare, and acknowledged how the use of technologies to screen for fetal sex can result in the abortion of female children. In certain states and regions, sex ratios at birth are highly skewed, but calling out such practices now seems to be more taboo and sacrificed at the altar of abortion “rights.”

Finally, the ICPD acknowledged that implementation of its commitments is “the sovereign right of each country, consistent with national laws and development priorities, with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people, and in conformity with universally recognized international human rights.” Unfortunately, the problem in recent years is the deliberate discounting of the positions of states that value the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, protection of the family and parental rights, and sovereignty, among other concerns.

Addressing Challenges in Population and Development

Such provisions were hard-won by diplomats decades ago. Indeed, they are an explicit recognition that Western, progressive elites do not have a monopoly in defining how human rights and development priorities will be addressed globally. However, as old challenges remain and new challenges arise, it is the responsibility of a new generation to ensure that UN bureaucrats and technocratic specialists do not co-opt the next thirty years of the ICPD for their own ends.

While the old population and development paradigm was couched in the language of population “targets” and “quotas,” and used coercion to attain its goals, the new population paradigm now uses the seductive language of autonomy, rights, and individualism. The end result can be just as perilous and even more corrupting to societies, because a conception of rights that is unmoored from a grounding in human dignity or any sense of duties can do more harm to the people and societies such policies are meant to help. In a certain sense, the ideas in the ICPD were influenced by, or were precursors to, the in-vogue degrowth, net-zero, or Zero Population Growth (ZPG) movements.

For example, we are only beginning to understand the deficiencies of such an emphasis. The problem that certain regions of the world are facing now is not burgeoning populations but well-below-2.1 replacement level population—accompanied by all the social, economic, and cultural dislocations that follow such a new reality. For far too long, many demographers and statisticians insisted on the benefits of the “demographic dividend,” without realizing that, at some point, it turns into a “demographic deficit” that must be repaid. National efforts to address population decline show mixed results, with some countries experiencing fertility gains while other efforts show the limits of a top-down approach to population and development policy.

Additionally, the increasing prevalence of artificial reproductive technologies is redefining previously fundamental relationships that bound families and nations together. At the other end of life, the specter of euthanasia and assisted suicide treats human life as disposable rather than calling us to radical solidarity with those who are sick, suffering, or otherwise have a disability.

On the other hand, other regions face continuing challenges with underdevelopment, poverty, migration, human trafficking, organized crime, conflicts, and humanitarian disasters that show there is still much left to be accomplished without the need to emphasize the narrow agendas of a certain few. In this respect, the need for capacity-building programs, technology and development assistance, foreign direct investment, the engagement of civil society and nongovernmental actors, and other resource mobilization at the national and international levels should be uncontroversial. The international community can do much to partner with countries to meet their population and development needs.

 

Promoting Development and Respecting International Human Rights Law

The proliferation of “new rights” claims that have no basis in international human rights treaties, or that are neither fully consistent with those originally defined nor always acceptable, turn the once-noble human rights project on its head and threaten to sideline sincere development concerns along with them. For example, to assume that we can realistically meet population and development challenges with more of the same old, failed CSE, abortion, and contraception policies, is a form of ideological colonialism. If anything, such so-called “solutions” treat the human person as the problem rather than the solution. They also ignore the boundless human potential for experimentation, innovation, and creativity to address society’s most pressing problems.

To outside observers, all of this may seem like “inside baseball,” far too removed from the ordinary cares of people around the world. That criticism may be partly true. But it is also important to recognize that the development of international law is an accretive process that consolidates over many, many decades. Apparently small changes in that law today will have vast consequences in the future. Proponents of radical anti-life and anti-family agendas understand this point, which is why they have succeeded at advancing their cause worldwide: they are playing the long game. 

Take for example Fos Feminista, formerly known as International Planned Parenthood Federation Western Hemisphere Region (IPPFWHR). They have lamented what they characterize as the “clear danger that newly adopted conservative, diluted language may become the norm, with qualifying language taking precedence over commitments in the [ICPD Programme of Action].” Why? Because they recognize the continuing importance of the ICPD outcomes document:

Protecting the agreed language within outcome documents is important. . . . The CPD outcome documents are decisions and resolutions that member states have agreed upon at the annual sessions that guide the priorities of the international community on these issues. . . . 

Consequently, gains in language also translate to gains on the ground over a period of time; it is easier to [petition] governments to address issues if they have already committed to them at international political fora. Conversely, it can be challenging to mobilize national commitments to address an issue unless these have been recognized and named in international frameworks.

That is precisely why each of us who cherish the dignity of human life, the family, universally agreed human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the sovereignty and developmental priorities of our respective states cannot relent. To do otherwise would mean that the ICPD Agenda will continue to be selectively and deceptively promoted and implemented to the detriment of people across the world

For future CPD outcome documents and political declarations to be truly consensual and reflective of the priorities of all countries, states must ensure that the UN system as a whole stays away from ideological agendas and meets the authentic needs of the world. This is possible without privileging the myopic perspective of wealthy elites, which didn’t take us far at all thirty years later. That has been a regrettably elusive goal thus far, but one that, if pursued in good faith, can and must be achieved if we are to meet the needs of current and future generations.

Image by Sergii Figurnyi and licensed via Adobe Stock.

Well, not really a picnic, other than we used an outdoor grill...

Dinner was tried and true favorites, except...

TOP* surprised me by offering to put together the antipasto. We also had Caprese Insalata; does that break the rules? TOP surprised me further and had me make him a Martin-tini (recipe below)**. "It's Memorial Day." I made the tomato salad and sauteed the mushrooms, while the ribeyes ($12.99 at Meijers!) were reverse-searing in the oven. Steaks came out perfectly; I have decided the salt-and-pepper should go on the steaks in the morning, not the day before. All this accompanied with Cabernet -- 14 Hands -- any better suggestions?

Everything came together perfectly, which is the virtue of a familiar menu.

Question: why don't restaurants serve something a little acidic, like tomato salad, with steak? The balance is perfect!

* The other priest.

** Two parts vodka, one part gin; both kept frozen. The vodka is shaken on ice; then the gin is added, and you stir it. (See what I did here?) Add a few drops of vermouth to the frozen glass before pouring the drink; garnish with two (or three) bleu-cheese stuffed olives. Key: stuff them yourselves! The pre-packaged types are worthless.

Pope Francis of “Who am I to judge” fame, will now be remembered as walking that back and boy did His Holiness do it!

I suspect Pope Francis is receiving a lot of blow-back from his perceived LGBTQ+++ friendliness and enablement. 

But I think the fiasco of a LGBTQ+++blasphemous, sacrilegious and really unbelievable funeral at St. Patrick’s may have shown the pope what his enablement of this ideology is doing in dioceses in the world and how the LGBTQ+++political lobby is so powerful in the Church led like people like Fr. James Martin that Jesuitical priest that Pope Francis has also enabled. Who knows and Who am I to judge?

You better believe that what I report next is a game-changer and the wrath of the LGBTQ++ community will be loud and bitter. It will be interesting how the pope and the Vatican walk this back. I suspect they will ignore it, but indeed it is a game changer! 

This was reported by Rorate Caeli just now and I thought it was a joke, but you can read it HERE.

Then I went to see if it was reported anywhere else, and sure enough, the Jesuitical America Magazine has a full article HERE (They offer free readings but then a paywall). 

America reports that “Il Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica and Dagospia report that Francis, whose native language is Spanish, not Italian, and who often uses colloquial language in conversation, surprised bishops by using the Italian word “frociaggine,” which is a derogatory term for “queerness” in Italian. It is not clear if he was aware of the word’s offensive nature. The main Italian dailies quoted him as saying that “there is too much frociaggine in seminaries.” 

Rorate Caeile translates the Italian into proper English Slang, which is what caused me to doubt the veracity of their reporting, which it turns out, to be true. We do know that this “street” Pope likes to use colorful language at times that would make old ladies blush:

“Pope Uses the “F word”: Tells Italian Bishops Not to Admit Gay Seminarians, because “there’s already too much faggotry” in the Church”

And another news outlet reports this:

 “There's already too much 'faggotry'.” Pope Francis thus invites Italian bishops not to admit gay seminariansBy Iacopo ScaramuzziLa Repubblica May 27, 2024[Full article in Italian here] -From the Il Giornale/MSN version:Very harsh attack by Pope Francis against the presence of homosexuals in seminaries. In the closed-door meeting with the more than 200 Italian bishops that New Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04118576661605931910noreply@blogger.com

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

An excellent article by Dr Joseph A. Caruana, a retired surgeon and clinical ethicist; and Philip A. Reed, Ph.D., a professor of philosophy at Canisius University was published in the Buffalo News on May 26, 2024. 

Caruana and Reed explain why medical professionals should not support assisted suicide and why the New York Assisted Suicide Bill A995 and S2445 should be rejected:

Last month the Medical Society of the State of New York (MSSNY) endorsed assisted suicide legislation for the first time. While some state medical societies have adopted positions of neutrality with respect to assisted suicide, the MSSNY is the first to support such legislation. We believe this is unwise and unethical for the following reasons. 

They then explain why the New York assisted suicide bill is particularly concerning:

The Medical Aid in Dying Act, currently being considered in the New York State Legislature, would allow terminally ill patients access to lethal drugs prescribed by a physician. The bill has fewer safeguards than other states that have legalized assisted suicide. Unlike most other states, it lacks a residency requirement, potentially making New York a destination for suicide tourism. If successful, the legislation will also be the first U.S. policy to omit a waiting period for obtaining lethal drugs, enabling terminally ill patients impulsively to end their lives.

They then explain why most doctors oppose assisted suicide:

The legalization of assisted suicide sends the message that the intentional introduction of death is an appropriate treatment option when illness compromises one’s quality of life. It is no wonder, then, that among the most vocal critics of assisted suicide tend to be palliative care physicians and the disability rights community, which hold that the legislation does not protect the vulnerable against coercion and provides a lethal end-around to sufficient medical and social support for the terminally ill and disabled. The experience of Oregon shows that patients choose assisted suicide not primarily for reasons of pain-relief but because they are afraid of losing their autonomy and burdening others.

Doctors have consistently opposed assisted suicide at least since the Hippocratic Oath because it involves the intentional introduction of a fatal pathology into a patient’s body. The American Medical Association still maintains a strong position against assisted suicide, stating that it is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would
pose serious societal risks.”

They then write about the pressure on doctors to participate and the confusion that legalizing assisted suicide causes.

It is true that the MSSNY also expressed support for a doctor’s decision to refuse to participate in assisted suicide. However, this overlooks the difficulty that many physicians will experience when assisted suicide is thought of as a regular treatment option by their patients.

Even now, some dying patients avoid hospice care because they believe that such care will intentionally hasten death. Imagine how much more difficult it will be to care for the dying–and suffering patients in general–in an environment where assisted suicide is a legal right with institutional support.

They then conclude:

Many physicians are of course well-meaning in their support of aid in dying. And this is obviously a complex and difficult issue for many terminally ill patients and their families. But doctors better protect the practice of medicine and its patients by formally opposing the option of intentionally causing death.

Thank you Dr Joseph A. Caruana, and Professor Philip A. Reed, Ph.D., for your excellent article.