Notes: Tuesday, September 6-Wednesday, September 14, 2011 (part 2 of 2)

9. Dr. Tighe on what makes a Council Ecumenical

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/a-pessimitic-article-about-sspx-and-talks-with-rome/#comment-294303

Labels: Church Councils, Eastern Schism, Hierarchy, Papacy, theology

10. More from Dr. Brown on the notion of "the Eucharist [as] a memorial of the Last Supper"

Point 3 of this blog comment, in which there is a link to the text of one of Paul VI.'s General Audiences:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/when-diocesan-priests-choose-to-use-exclusively-the-extraordinary-form-fr-z-rants-a-lot/#comment-294513

Labels: liturgy, Paul VI. Montini, Sacraments, theology

11. "it has now become a constitutional convention that [the British] Parliament does not interfere in the internal affairs of the Established Church"

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/uk-mp-pushes-to-force-church-to-have-contrary-to-nature-marriages-or-no-marriages-at-all/#comment-294030

Labels: Anglicans, U.K.

12. A very short, but very interesting, biography of St. Robert Bellarmine

http://www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1141

(I first read that biography in the Sydney Catholic Weekly last Sunday.) These are the parts which were of most interest to me and for which I log that biography here:

His most famous work is his three-volume Disputations on the Controversies of the Christian Faith. Particularly noteworthy are the sections on the temporal power of the pope and the role of the laity. He incurred the anger of monarchists in England and France by showing the divine-right-of-kings theory untenable. He developed the theory of the indirect power of the pope in temporal affairs; although he was defending the pope against the Scottish philosopher Barclay, he also incurred the ire of Pope Sixtus V.

[...] ... The process for his canonization was begun in 1627 but was delayed until 1930 for political reasons, stemming from his writings. In 1930, Pope Pius XI canonized him and the next year declared him a doctor of the Church.

Labels: Papacy, political science, St. Robert Bellarmine, theology, William Barclay

13. Two recent opinions pieces from Mr. Steyn

13.1 "Using rights to gag free speech"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/using-rights-to-gag-free-speech/story-e6frg6zo-1226136138035

(Needless to say, I reject that 'freedom of speech' is a true moral freedom; I mainly log that web-page for its information on examples of anti-'hate-speech' action.)

Labels: hate speech

13.2 "FOURTH TRIMESTER ABORTION"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38913

Labels: abortion

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, A.D. 2011

Notes: Wednesday, May 3-Monday, May 9, 2011 (part 2 of 2)

6. A couple of recent items on socio-political doctrine

6.1 Fr. Rhonheimer on socio-political doctrine before and after Vatican II

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37113

I don't have time to write a proper rebuttal of that fascinating piece, so my initial intention was just to mention the main points of interest, each with little or no accompanying commentary from me. But as I started selecting representative quotations, it became clear that Fr. Rhonheimer's article, or at least the extract which Mr. Magister provided, was so thoroughly riddled with error, and grave error at that, that that approach would simply not do it justice, so I'll just give the link.

Labels: Benedict XVI. Ratzinger, Church and State, Confessional State, Dignitatis Humanæ, Magisterium, Martin Rhonheimer, morality, Quanta Cura, religious liberty, Vatican II

6.2 The latest from H.H. The Pope on religious liberty

MESS/ VIS 20110504 (430)

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37176

Labels: Benedict XVI. Ratzinger, Dignitatis Humanæ, Magisterium, morality, religious liberty, Vatican II

7. On "Apostolic Canon 34"

If you ever encounter on the Internet an apologist for the Eastern Schism, then you're likely to see "Apostolic Canon 34" cited at some point. I saw this cited by an Eastern-Catholic-turned-Eastern-Orthodox AQer a while ago, and most recently I've seen it cited in comments in the combox of a recent post by Mr. Schütz: See chiefly the comments in this sub-thread and also this comment. The comments of most interest to me were this one, this one, and this one. Some of The Catholic Encyclopedia's articles, such as those on the Apostolic Canons and on the councils in question, are also useful.

Labels: Eastern Schism, law

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2011

Notes: Thursday, March 31-Monday, April 4, 2011

1. The Conciliar Church and the 'search for truth'

1.1 "[Vatican] MESSAGE TO BUDDHISTS: TRUTH IS NECESSARY TO SEEK PEACE"

Excerpts from one of the Vatican Information Service daily e-mail bulletins of last week:

MESSAGE TO BUDDHISTS: TRUTH IS NECESSARY TO SEEK PEACE

VATICAN CITY, 31 MAR 2011 (VIS) - Made public today was the annual Message to Buddhists for the Feast of Vesakh, issued by the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. [...]

The message, which is entitled "Seeking Truth in Freedom: Christians and Buddhists live in Peace", Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran and Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata, respectively president and secretary of the pontifical council, note that "in the pursuit of authentic peace, a commitment to seek truth is a necessary condition. ... This human striving for truth offers a fruitful opportunity for the followers of the different religions to encounter one another in depth and to grow in appreciation of the gifts of each".

The English-language text continues: "[...] Wherever religious freedom is effectively acknowledged, the dignity of the human person is respected at its root; by the sincere search for what is true and good, moral conscience and civil institutions are strengthened; and justice and peace are firmly established". CON-DIR/ VIS 20110331 (270)
[my square-bracketed ellipses]

See also the discussion on that Message at AQ:

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36698

Labels: inter-religious dialogue, religious liberty, Roman Curia

1.2 Dr. Casey on how the shared 'search for truth' leads to social Nirvana

A question put to Dr. Michael Casey, who works for the Sydney Archdiocese, in an interview, followed by his answer:

But how can you possibly be tolerant if you believe in truth? Aren’t you thereby committed to discriminating against people who don’t accept “your truth”?

Casey: That view explains why relativism is regarded as the only form of moral philosophy safe for democracy. Given the abundance of conflicting views, values and desires, and the adamant insistence on our own supremacy, truth appears to be not only implausible but tyrannical. When truth prevails, so the standard line goes, it narrows existence, constrains the possibilities of knowledge, and limits freedom and autonomy. Its ideas of “good and evil”, “true and false” cause division and intolerance.

The way forward is to move from a stubborn insistence that there is no such thing as truth, or that truth is dangerous, to conceding that perhaps truth is possible and available to us after all, and that in our own way we are all seeking it.

Conceding the possibility of truth, and that we all share a desire to find the truth and to live in its light, changes the situation completely. Nothing is lost from diversity, disagreement, scepticism and dispute, but they are re-located within a common journey which makes trust, openness and respect for each other in our different moral commitments stronger and easier. This is what real tolerance means.

Truth is not an answer in a box and it is not a cudgel. It is the unfolding of reality in which each of us takes part. Wherever our own search for the truth might lead us, the shared acceptance that it is the truth we are all seeking changes the game. It takes us out of the dead end of intolerant tolerance.
[http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/thread/1301520054.html]

In other words (at the risk of over-simplification): In order to bring about a Utopia of 'tolerance', relativism about the existence of truth is forbidden, but relativism (at least at the level of society) about the essence of truth is compulsory. So long as we agree that truth is, we can all live in harmony even though we disagree about what truth is. Yeah, right.

Labels: Michael Casey

2. "Vatican II coming to Orthodox churches?"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36676

Labels: Eastern Schism

3. "Company Uses Fetal Cells From Abortions for [testing of] Artificial Flavors"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36663

See also:

"Companies Stop Using Abortion Cells to Test Artificial Flavors"
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36699

Labels: abortion, Senomyx

4. Pius XII. on the death penalty

In this comment by a reader at Dr. Feser's blog, I found a link to the text of a speech which Pius XII. gave which dealt with the death penalty and for which I had previously looked unsuccessfully. (Though for lack of time I have not read the post in whose combox I found that comment, I did read Dr. Feser's subsequent post and it's worth reading, though not perfect (but, again for lack of time, I can't write a critique of it).) Here is the link to the text of that speech (in Italian):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/speeches/1955/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19550205_unione-giuristi-cattolici_it.html

Labels: death penalty, justice, morality, Pius XII. Pacelli

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Isidore, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2011

Notes: Thursday, December 23, 2010

1. "Bishop Williamson appoints new lawyer"

http://www.sspx.org/bishop_williamson_lawyer_update.htm
(brought to my attention by this AQ thread)

2. A new website against 'Communion in the hand'

http://www.communion-in-the-hand.org/index.html
(brought to my attention by this AQ thread)

3. An interesting AQ comment by "Amemus Athanasium"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=391844#391844

Interesting chiefly for mention of how

dissident patriarch Bartholomew I, while being a schismatic, received his theological doctorate and primary formation in the (Uniate) Russian College 'Russicum' in Rome. It is now a sadly ecumenist and dogmatically relativist institute, but it was once a great theological institute of the united Russian Byzantine Rite Catholic Church (or 'Russian Orthodox Church in communion with Rome').

4. Mr. Donohue with the names of those who have "theorized ["pedophilia"] as something fully in conformity with man and even with children"

http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/msg/1293010728.html

Reginaldvs Cantvar
23.XII.2010

Notes: Saturday-Monday, October 9-11, 2010

"Attitudes harden towards the lot of a working mother"

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/attitudes-harden-towards-the-lot-of-a-working-mother-20101010-16e39.html?skin=text-only

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/takes-two-to-bake-and-make-the-bread-20101010-16e3s.html?skin=text-only

"Russian Orthodox patriarch lauds Putin’s leadership" and "Moscow Patriarchate thanks Catholics for support to Orthodox abroad"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34137

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=382540&sid=f93e38554ba45bb2dc83ab52c5fef176

Mr. Muehlenberg with some statistics on Australian doctors and euthanasia

The situation in Australia appears to be no better. In South Australia, for example, where voluntary euthanasia is illegal, a recent survey of doctors who had taken active steps to end a patient’s life found that 49 per cent of them had never received a request from the patient to do so.

And a more recent survey of nearly 1000 Australian surgeons found that more than one third had intentionally hastened the death of a patient by administering more medication than was necessary to treat the patient’s symptoms. Of this group, more than half said they did so without an explicit request from the patient.

Another survey of 683 general surgeons, conducted a year later by the University of Newcastle, found similar results: over a third had sped up the death of terminally ill patients, and over half of the patients had not explicitly asked for a lethal dose of drugs. Only a few of the patients had clearly asked for euthanasia.
[http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/09/euthanasia-%e2%80%9csafeguards%e2%80%9d-and-the-slippery-slope/]

Mr. Coyne on "the "essential message" of Jesus"

http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=57547

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday, October 7, 2010

A good question in a letter in today's Australian

The last sentence of this letter in the "Last Post" section of the letters section:

Why does marriage need to be between one man and one woman? The arguments for same-sex marriage equally apply to polygamy and polyandry. If people want to fundamentally transform Australia's culture, why stop at half measures?

D. Straface, Perth, WA
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/last-post-october-07/story-fn558imw-1225935108767]

Mr. Magister on the September 20 to 27 meeting of the joint international commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church ("Papal Primacy. Russia Heads the Resistance Against Rome")

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34058

I was interested to read in that article that

the Eastern Churches are slowly approaching the convocation of the pan-Orthodox "Great and Holy Council" that should finally unite them in a single assembly after centuries of incomplete "synodality," [...]

Material preparation for the end of the Eastern Schism after the Consecration of Russia, perhaps.

Mr. Schütz contra Dr. Gray on euthanasia

http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/you-do-not-have-a-right-to-chose-your-time-of-death/

Mr. Schütz uses a very good piece of rhetoric in that rejoinder to Dr. Gray's opinion piece, which (opinion piece) I covered in yesterday's edition of Notes:

To die with dignity is, I would agree, a “human right” – but in a secondary sense: ie. everyone is entitled to that “dignity” which is due to them because they are a human being in BOTH life and death. The question is: what do you mean by “dignity” in this context? Japanese warriors and Jihadist Terrorists both had/have ideas about what a “dignified” death is. We disagree with both their accounts. We disagree with Nigel Gray’s too.
[my emphasis]

Pro-Confessional-State pronouncement from the Vatican?

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/03/theyre-making-their-move.html

I was interested to read the following from the text of the conclusions from the meeting of March 11-13, 2007 of the Bilateral Commission of the Delegation of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel's Delegation for Relations with the Catholic Church in an old post at the Maurice Pinay blog:

6. In addition to respecting the freedom of religious choices, the integrity of faith communities should also be guaranteed. Accordingly it is legitimate for a society with a predominant religious identity to preserve its character, as long as this does not limit the freedom of minority communities and individuals to profess their alternative religious commitments, nor to limit their full civil rights and status as citizens, individuals and communities. This obliges us all to safeguard the integrity and dignity of holy sites, places of worship and cemeteries of all religious communities.

A few thoughts:

• To say that "it is legitimate for a society with a predominant religious identity to preserve its character" is encouraging insofar as that it is saying that it is legitimate for a Catholic Confessional State to have Catholicism as the State religion and the Catholic Church as the established Church. (Unfortunately that does not seem to have been Vatican policy in the aftermath of Vatican II.)
• But of course, it is discouraging insofar as it is saying, by the same token, that an Anglican Confessional State, or Lutheran Confessional State, or Muslim Confessional State, or Atheist Confessional State, or, given the context, Jewish Confessional State, is also legitimate, which is false.
• It is also discouraging insofar as it does not affirm, or does not affirm adequately, the right (and duty) of a Catholic Confessional State to repress, where prudent, offenders of the Catholic religion.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of The Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of St. Mark I., Pope, Confessor, and of St. Sergius and Companions, A.D. 2010

Notes: Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Mr. Kelly on euthanasia

Excerpt:

The entire key to the euthanasia debate lies in its great paradox: consistent polls showing a majority in favour. But what, exactly, are people supporting? The 1996-97 debate provides the answer: most people think that turning off life-support machines and discontinuing life-preserving treatment is euthanasia. In fact, this is nothing to do with euthanasia. Indeed, it is the precise opposite of euthanasia. If a family turns off a life-support machine, the patient dies because of their illness, not because of the doctor. But if the doctor gives a lethal injection, then the patient is killed. This is a fine yet critical distinction.

Because euthanasia involves one person being sanctioned to kill another, it cannot be seen just within a human rights framework. It is an ethical and intellectual failure to pretend that euthanasia is merely a human right awaiting recognition. It is about society and its norms and values. There is no escaping the chasm that euthanasia crosses. Creation of a legal framework to permit killing must affect the way all people perceive their lives and the expectations that friends, family and doctors have of patients.

This issue was best put by former NSW politician Tony Burke, now Minister for Sustainability and Environment in the Gillard government, when he led the 1996 campaign from Labor's side: "There is a maxim often used in the capital punishment debate which applies perfectly to legalised euthanasia: whether you support it or oppose it in principle, if one innocent person is going to be killed, that is too high a price." Exactly.

Former Labor MP Lindsay Tanner, on October 28, 1996, tore to shreds the logic of the Northern Territory law. Asking where the line should be drawn, Tanner asked rhetorically: "Why is it that it is only the terminally ill? Why shouldn't it also be the severely disabled? Why not somebody with an incurable mental illness? Why not children who are terminally ill?"

Tanner's point is that lines cannot be firm or fixed. Reinforcing his argument is that many euthanasia advocates, such as Peter Singer, actively promote its extension more widely.

Tanner also dismissed the furphy about territory rights, saying it was absurd to let the Northern Territory, representing 1 per cent of the people, make such a decision affecting all Australians. Finally, he asked: What about the terminally ill who do not want to die? Good question. It was the question hammered by Burke and Andrews. Once the killing culture is established, the aged, sick and disabled will have to consider whether to put up their hands. They will feel obligated. Financial pressures, healthcare costs and expectations of family will assume new dimensions.

The old joke for the sick is that euthanasia is "putting us out of your misery".

Yes, some people in pain want to die and it is hard to deny their claim. Yet there are many others glad to be alive today who would have volunteered for euthanasia if it had been legal five years ago. As Andrews said in 1996, a well person who is suicidal is offered counselling, but under euthanasia an ill person who is suicidal becomes an option for death.
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/browns-euthanasia-bill-a-perilous-test-for-gillard/story-e6frgd0x-1225931193178]

"Nitschke says GP poll shows euthanasia support"

Body of the CathNews article:

One in three GPs in major cities believe people older than 70 who feel "tired of life" should have the right to professional help in ending it, a poll conducted by Philip Nitschke's Exit International has found.

More than 33 percent of 500 doctors surveyed in Sydney (35 percent), Melbourne (36 percent) and Adelaide (43 percent) agreed with the provocative question. In Perth, 28 percent endorsed it, according to a report in The Australian.

Dr Nitschke said he was surprised by the support for a proposition that sits at the radical end of the euthanasia spectrum. He conducted the poll during weekend workshops convened by Sydney-based Elixir Healthcare Education on "clinical controversies" that GPs attended in July and last month, the news report said.

People feeling "tired of life" are a potentially enormous group of elderly citizens who may not be suffering from chronic health problems.

"My feeling is, and not everyone agrees, is that this opens up a much broader debate around the fundamental idea of control towards the end of life," Dr Nitschke said. "Baby boomers want control."

About half the GPS surveyed from the four capital cities agreed that they want legislative reform to allow euthanasia for the terminally ill, said the report.
[http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=23483]

Some figures on the knowledge (or agreement?) Catholics have of (with?) Catholic teaching

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/atheists-beat-the-faithful-in-knowledge-of-religion-20100928-15vru.html?skin=text-only

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=23481

See also here:

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=381416#381416

"Catholic-Orthodox talks: officials optimistic but ... [sic, but no breakthroughs]"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33932

Mr. Robertson on, among other things, the Vatican City State and Pius XI.

Excerpt:

This is perpetuated, Mr Robertson writes, by the ''pseudo state'' of the Holy See that was created in 1929 in a deal between Mussolini and the pro-fascist Pope Pius XI, and which the Vatican describes as an ''absolute monarchy''. As its head of state, the Pope is immune from prosecution, to which Mr Robertson says he has no rightful claim.
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/holding-pope-responsible-for-abuses-is-not-too-dangerous-20100928-15vun.html?skin=text-only]

At the time of the (needless to say, illegitimate) overthrow of Papal civic sovereignty over the States of the Church, the Pope's title to that sovereignty was the strongest of the respective titles of all the European rulers (they (the Popes) had held that title for a good thousand years or more). Given this, it's hard to begrudge the Popes the tiny concession of the present-day Vatican City State. And as for Pius XI. being "pro-fascist", well that's just ridiculous, though I don't have the time to do a proper rebuttal of it.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Michaelmas, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday, September 23, 2010

"Angelus [magazine] Now Online"

http://www.angelusonline.org/
(Link added at the right of this screen too. I discovered that link here: http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33803)

A letter in The Australian on palliative care and euthanasia advocacy:

I WONDER whether your readers are aware of the appalling state of palliative care and pain management services in this country? If any of them have attempted to find palliative care services for a terminally ill relative or friend who wants to die at their appointed time in their own home with their family and friends around them, they will know what I mean.

It's a struggle to find someone to monitor pain relief and nutrition and help with nursing care to enable this most precious of times to proceed with dignity and love. Good end-of-life care is expensive and time-consuming, and doesn't win votes.

I will not accept that Bob Brown, Marshall Perron, Philip Nitschke or any other euthanasia campaigner has anything other than economics and convenience in mind until they lobby as noisily for good and accessible palliative care services as they do for so-called "mercy-killing".

Sally Parnis, North Adelaide, SA
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-logic-of-euthanasia-lacks-moral-foundation/story-fn558imw-1225927525841]

Mr. Muehlenberg on euthanasia

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/09/22/clear-thinking-on-euthanasia/

A timely piece, citing various authors who explain some of the concepts involved in discussion of euthanasia. Some excerpts:

Monique David puts it this way: “Currently, there is much confusion; many accept euthanasia because they do not want their lives to be maintained artificially nor to become victims of excessive treatment. However, these practices can be legitimately refused by the patient or their family through the ethical perspective of the right to die within the limits of natural death. Euthanasia and assisted suicide advocates claim something else: the right to terminate life at the moment and in the way that the individual chooses – or that someone chooses for them.

“Therefore, we should not use these terms to refer to the right to die (because this right is intrinsic), but rather to the right to be killed. This desire, expressed as a personal right, demands the intervention of a third party and a legal system that authorizes it. In other words, euthanasia and assisted suicide imply that doctors become agents of death and that society legally recognizes a criminal act to be lawful; or even more pernicious, a medical act.”

[...] Margaret Somerville points out the differences between euthanasia and pain-relief treatment: “In both cases there is an effort to relieve suffering. The difference is that the primary aim of euthanasia is to do so by inflicting death, whereas the primary aim of pain-relief treatment is simply to relieve pain – not to shorten life or cause death (although either might be a secondary effect).”

Euthanasia, then, is about one thing only: the killing of another person. The intent is to kill someone. It does not matter whether this is done with a gun or a lethal injection – the effect is the same. No civilised society can permit the legalised killing of its own citizens, even if done in the name of compassion.

One point which Mr. Meuhlenberg does not make in there is the problem of consequentialism. If one judges the morality of an act by, and only by, the consequences which it produces, so that an evil act is an act whose evil consequences outweigh its good consequences (and vice versa for a good act), then there is no reason intrinsic to euthanasia for opposing it. Influenced by this kind of thinking, someone like Prof. Mirko Bagaric, who has written that

The doctrine of double effect has been discredited in philosophy schools for decades. In the end, there is no inherent distinction between consequences that are intended and those which are foreseen. The fact civilians will be killed is often just as certain as the killing of combatants. We are responsible for all the consequences which we foresee, but nevertheless elect to bring about. Whether we also "intend" them is largely irrelevant.
[http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2010/05/notes-wednesday-may-19-2009.html]

will also write, as I mentioned the other day, that "from the perspective of the parties directly involved in euthanasia (the patient and health worker), the practice is not inherently objectionable" (http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2010/09/notes-saturday-tuesday-september-18-21.html), though as I also mentioned, Prof. Bagaric opposes, for other reasons, moves to legalise euthanasia.

Union and university write "gender neutral" industrial agreement

In The Australian today:

Modern transition

THERE are times in the troubled history of industrial relations when the populace can only stand still and marvel. One such moment is upon us: the Community and Public Sector Union and the University of NSW have reached an enterprise agreement that is completely gender neutral. Take it away, CPSU secretary John Cahill: "This is an important start in making a safe and welcoming environment for . . . staff who may be trans or intersex workers who may not identify as either male or female, or who are transitioning."
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/someone-has-to/story-e6frgdk6-1225928036349]

"POPE CALLS FOR PRAYER FOR CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX UNITY"

Full text of an item from the Vatican Information Service daily e-mail bulletin:

POPE CALLS FOR PRAYER FOR CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX UNITY

VATICAN CITY, 22 SEP 2010 (VIS) - At the end of his catechesis during this morning's general audience, and before greeting those present in various languages, the Holy Father invited people to pray for the success of the work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which is currently meeting in plenary session in the Austrian capital, Vienna.

"The theme of the current phase", he said, "is the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Universal Church, with particular reference to the first millennium of Christian history. Obedience to the will of the Lord Jesus and consideration for the great challenges facing Christianity today, oblige us to commit ourselves seriously to the cause of re-establishing full communion among the Churches. I exhort everyone to intense prayer for the work of the commission and for the ongoing development and consolidation of peace and harmony among the baptised, that we may show the world an increasingly authentic evangelical witness".
AG/ VIS 20100922 (180)

Which is a reminder that one can still pray for the Consecration of Russia. See also the discussion on this in the combox to this post at Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog, in which combox we read of the interesting story of St. Sergius of Radonezh, or of Moscow, in the first comment there.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Ember Wednesday, and, feast of St. Linus, Pope, Martyr, and of St. Thecla, Virgin, A.D. 2010

Notes: Wednesday, May 26, 2010

On the push to punish for murder or manslaughter those who kill late-term unborn babies

The Sydney Daily Telegraph has been running this for the past couple of days and I see it's being discussed at The Punch:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Why-cant-a-foetus-be-a-victim-of-crime/?referrer=email&source=Punch_nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

and at Cath Pews:

http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/thread/1274739589.html

Arabella made the following comment at the latter:

I can't imagine any law coming into being which would impinge upon a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion.

A paragraph from a USA court case around abortion sums up the current state of affairs well I believe. Basically the way of life in countries such as the USA and Australia now depends upon the availability of abortion.

Quote:
The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.
Unquote.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833
See paragraph ‘e’ at link.

A website which monitors Facebook posts

I saw this in today's Herald. Here's the U.R.L.:

http://www.openfacebooksearch.com/

Might be useful.

"Testimony to the Primacy of the Pope by a 17th c. [Ruthenian] Orthodox Prelate"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31701

Interesting article on AQ. Here's an exerpt:

The appropriate solution would be the following: Let all recognize the primacy. The Apostolic See ought to content itself with this without changing or abandoning any of its principles and basic rights. It is real union and not mere change that we must seek. Now, the constitution and nature of union is to unite two realities and to safeguard each natural integrity. That which existed previously should exist today; that which did not exist previously ought to be suppressed. That which has always existed is the Sovereign Pontiff regarded as the first and supreme pastor in the Church of Christ, as the Vicar of Christ, the Chief. May that be conserved today! But we have never read that a Latin has ever exercised a direct jurisdiction over the Greek rite. The Greeks have always acknowledged the primacy, but they themselves have always been under the jurisdiction of a patriarch of their own rite.

... We confess openly, in virtue of the principles and basic foundations of the Church of God that our own (Byzantine) rite distinguishes us from the Roman, but that we have communion in one and the same faith. We are not able to deny that the Blessed Apostle Peter has been, as we profess in the hymns of our Church, the Prince of the Apostles and that his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, hold in perpetuity the supreme authority in the Church of God.

Consequently, without distancing ourselves from our father, the patriarch [of Constantinople], from whom we Ruthenians have received initiation into holy baptism, and without delaying the union of the Church (in which is given true salvation), everyone of us - clerics and laity - (in order to escape the dangers of dissensions) has accepted the following solution in the name of Our Lord: to live in unity under one head and one only pastor, the Vicar of Christ, as the Symbol of Faith [the Creed] prescribes for us; to profess one only Catholic and apostolic Church and in her, one only sovereign successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff; and to remain faithful to the rites of our holy Greek religion conserved in their integrity from the beginning and until the most clement God (by His power from on high) will render liberty to the Greek people (from the Turks) and to our pastor, the Patriarch (of Constantinople) who will conduct us to that salutary concord which we implore with a holy ardor, especially in the Divine Liturgy.

I worry about where it says

The Greeks have always acknowledged the primacy, but they themselves have always been under the jurisdiction of a patriarch of their own rite.

though. Although Eastern Catholics are, of course, under the jurisdiction of their respective Patriarchs, they are also under the full, supreme and immediate jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which jurisdiction he is free to exercise at any time.

Joshua on the Old and News Rites of Mass

"Offertories Old and New":
http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/05/offertories-old-and-new.html
"A Few Restorations to the Mass":
http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/05/few-restorations-to-mass.html
"Three Most Untraditional Prayers":
http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/05/three-most-untraditional-prayers.html
"Offerimus tibi Domine":
http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/05/offerimus-tibi-domine.html

I've left the following comment at the first of those posts:

Cardinal Pole said...

"Then someone had the bright idea of adapting the Jewish table blessings of bread and wine, much as, just perhaps (who can say?), Our Lord did at the Last Supper."

It ought to be noted that the N.O.M. 'preparation of the gifts' comes from the Talmud, which is the written collection (written down hundreds of years after the time of Christ) of the very 'traditions of men' which Our Lord condemned. There is no proof that the table blessings therein are those of the Jews before and during the time of Christ, and, on the contrary, according to Encyclopedia Judaica they probably date to no earlier than the second century A.D.

"It is important that sacrificium nostrum... placeat tibi, Domine Deus be read in the strongest sense, as praying that the sacrifice offered – which is Christ – please the Lord, placate Him, appease Him, be a propitiation availing for us men and for our salvation."

The surrounding text does not impose that reading. Someone who knows the theology of the T.L.M. will read that into it, but someone who does not would be perfectly reasonable to read that as 'pleasing' in the way a mere sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is pleasing, not 'pleasing' in the sense in which a true, propitiatory sacrifice is pleasing.

"Undeniably, however, this is doctrine is deëmphasised ..."

'expunged' would be a better word.

"The Supreme Pontiff formerly known as Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned, while yet in that rank, that Lumen Gentium has passages that sound almost semi-Pelagian in their overconfident view of "modern man"."

I think you mean Gaudium et spes, Joshua.

(I hope I don't come off sounding too harsh here, Joshua; I appreciate these posts you've done on the Old vs. New Masses and am about to link to them at my blog.)

Wednesday, 26 May, 2010

Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Wednesday in the Octave of Pentecost, A.D. 2010

Notes: Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Russian Orthodox patriarch: Vatican concert an "event of great importance"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31701

Dr. Pemberton on Magna Carta and Mediaeval kingship

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/it-is-no-crime-to-make-merry-with-the-history-of-robin-hood/story-e6frg6zo-1225870276897

Dr. Pemberton makes the following two points, among others:

[1.] The Charter was less an assertion of modern rights than of traditional feudal liberties against a modernising, centralising authority. [2.] Autocratic kings were more fathers of modern democratic states than feudal lords.

Fair points, do you think, or not?

"Catholic Bible search tool launched"

From yesterday's edition of CathNews:

A new online Catholic Bible search engine, believed to be the first complete Catholic Bible translation made available for keyword search, has been launched.

The program, which enables people to find specific Scripture passages using keywords, has been developed by Catholic.net with the support of the US Bishops' Conference, said the Independent Catholic News
[http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21501]

This might be useful, though I'm not sure which version of the Bible is used; I suppose that if it's a modern translation one could use the search function to find the required chapter and verse and then consult the Douai-Rheims version. Anyway, here's the U.R.L.:

http://www.bible.catholic.net/

Death of H.I.H. The Dowager Grand Duchess of Russia

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/romanov-grand-duchess-dies/story-e6frg6so-1225870734179

See also Her late Imperial Highness's Wikipedia entry here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonida_Georgievna

Blog comments by me

At A.C.M.:

"1. For one Church in the Catholic Communion of Churches to claim to be the "standard" for the entire Catholic Church is for the eye to say to the hand or rest of the body, "I have no need of thee.""

Jack, that's a bad analogy to use here, because

1. The Church of Rome is not just any old member of the Body of Christ, but the Head, not just any Church, but the Mother and Mistress of all Churches.

2. The Universal Church cannot say to the Church of Rome "I have no need of thee", since it is in the Church of Rome that the Petrine supremacy perdures (and cannot be transferred to any other place), but she can say that to any other given Church; any other Church, or even a large number of Churches, of West or East could become extinct without the extinction of the whole Church, but if, by an impossibility (and I stress 'by an impossibility'), the Church of Rome became extinct then so would the Universal Church--the body would have been decapitated.

3. In order for an Act of the Ordinary Magisterium of any Church other than Rome to be infallible it must also be universal. But the Church of Rome is infallible in her Ordinary Magisterium without any need to compare her teachings to the teachings of the other Churches; the perennial teaching of the Bishops of Rome is a rule of Faith superior to the teaching of any other Bishop or even all other Bishops. In other words, the teachings of any Bishop other than that of Rome must have been taught always and by all Bishops (or at least at many times and by many Bishops) in order to be infallible, but for the Bishop of Rome, it suffices for infallibility that the teaching have been taught always (or for a very long time) by the Bishops of Rome. And since the teaching in the liturgy is the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, the liturgy of the Church of Rome is indeed the standard for the whole Church of Christ.
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2010/05/cardinal-schonborns-remarks-freudian.html]

"... Bl. John XXIII and Ven. John Paul II have celebrated in various Eastern forms."

I am surprised to learn that. Do you have sources to back this up (I ask not because I doubt you--though surprising, it is plausible--but in order to keep for future reference)?

And does anyone know: Did any Popes before Bl. John XXIII. do likewise?
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[Ibid.]

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
May 25, 2010 at 4:12 am

“[You] note, incidentally, that the Bishop of Rome doesn’t use a cross in his signature. He’s just “Benedictus PP. XVI”.”

Good point.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/a-man-of-devastating-sanity-professor-claudio-veliz-on-cardinal-george-pell/#comment-14921]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Tuesday in the Octave of Pentecost, A.D. 2010

Notes: Friday, May 21, 2010

A nice response to yesterday's Herald letter on stealing

Brand of faith

With all due respect to Donald Howard, if I wanted an unbiased analysis of Catholic theology, Moore College is the last place I would go (Letters, May 20).

Stephen Magee Epping
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/little-people-suffer-when-twiggy-acts-like-a-log-20100520-vnv5.html?skin=text-only]

Upcoming Compass episode on the Australian experience of Vatican II and its aftermath

From Yesterday's CathNews:

This episode of Compass explores the Catholic Church in Australia during one of the most dynamic periods in its recent history, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Vatican II challenged elements of Catholicism unquestioned since the 16th century. Pope John XXIII wanted to bring the church 'up to date' in a dynamic and fast changing world.

Almost 50 years later this film explores how Vatican II changed Catholic practice, identity and faith through the personal stories of eminent and ordinary Australians.

It also examines how the reforms of the Second Vatican Council are faring today in a time of rising conservatism in the church.

Challenge, Change, Faith: Catholic Australia and the Second Vatican Council - Compass, 10.05pm ABC- TV1, May 23

[http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21404]

Russian Orthodox prelate on relations between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=361642&sid=416531fe6b2dd8306e12130cbc1910ac

Archbishop Hilarion [Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Department of External Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate] went on to note that in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church "the awareness has grown of not being in competition, but of being allies." The rivalries of the past, he added, "must stay there, in the past."

He noted that cultural changes, particularly the "de-Christianization of our countries," is calling for "greater collaboration."

Other cultural changes call increasingly for an open dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, the prelate said: "Today there are many mixed marriages. We often find an Orthodox person next to a Catholic."

[...] Archbishop Hilarion affirmed that for many Orthodox, "the election of Benedict XVI was received positively," especially because of "his position on moral questions."

"There is a commitment [among the Orthodox] to observe and promote traditional values," he said.

In regard to the theological dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics, the archbishop projected that it will last for many years.

"Each stage of the dialogue ends with a text where Catholics and Orthodox say something together," he explained. "What is important is that these texts are received not only by theologians but also by the faithful."

From another report on the same web-page:

"I think the atmospere of dialogue has improved and without a doubt relations improve along with the theological dialogue. But I think the theological dialogue still has a long way to go," [Metropolitian Hilarion of Volokolamsk, president of the Moscow Patriarchate's office for external relations] said.

[... Regarding the prospects for a meeting between the respective heads of the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church:] "An encounter between a pope and a patriarch should be a historic event, not just because it is the first meeting between the head of the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church but especially because such a meeting must be sign of the intention to move our relations forward, which is why is must be prepared for well," he said.

"I hope there could be an encounter not between just any pope of Rome and patriarch of Moscow, but between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Benedict XVI," Metropolitan Hilarion said.

Pressed on the question, he said, "By mentioning these two concrete people, I tried to indicate somewhat a desired deadline."

He told reporters that most of the Russian Orthodox clergy and faithful have a very favorable opinion of Pope Benedict and particularly appreciate his efforts to promote traditional moral values and to strengthen the Christian culture of Europe.

Blog comments from me:

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
May 21, 2010 at 4:07 am

Thanks, Peregrinus. (Also, you might be interested to read the comment I’m about to post at the bottom of the main thread, on the origin of the symbol.)
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/a-man-of-devastating-sanity-professor-claudio-veliz-on-cardinal-george-pell/#comment-14837]

Cardinal Pole
May 21, 2010 at 4:16 am

I wonder how the convention of prelates using the plus sign originated? I seem to recall reading somewhere some time ago that Bishops used to write ‘sinner’ before their respective names when signing something, and this evolved into the plus sign, which, as Peregrinus rightly noted, represents a cross. But if, as I think, it is for Ordinaries only, not just anyone consecrated Bishop, perhaps it’s meant to signify the heavy burden–the cross–of exercising Ordinary jurisdiction? The care of a single soul, let alone the souls of thousands, is a weighty enough responsibility, and they say that Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/a-man-of-devastating-sanity-professor-claudio-veliz-on-cardinal-george-pell/#comment-14838]

Cardinal Pole
May 21, 2010 at 4:37 am

“what is the Catholic view on the priesthood of believers,given that St Paul clearly talks about it?”

For what it’s worth (I’m no expert either!):

Any priesthood is the power to offer sacrifice. As a living member of the Body of Christ, the Christian has the power–and is required–to offer up spiritual sacrifices ‘on the altar of his heart’, as they say. By offering up good works, performed from a motive of Faith while in the state of grace, the Christian merits increase of grace and glory and makes satisfaction for his sins and the sins of others. This is the priesthood of all believers.

The ministerial priesthood, on the other hand, is the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which (Sacrifice) is a true, propitiatory sacrifice, one and the same as that offered on Mt. Calvary, differing only in the manner of offering (unbloody rather than bloody), by which the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed and represented and its fruits received.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/rare-but-allowable-former-baptist-pastor-becomes-catholic-priest/#comment-14839]

Cardinal Pole
May 21, 2010 at 4:58 am

Is that “masters and magistrates” as in civic officers, or as in ecclesiastical officers (‘pastors and doctors’)? (From the contrast to following “individual intuition and authority” I expect the latter, but I might be mistaken.)
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/on-heretics/#comment-14840]

Two blog comments by others which I wish to save for future reference:

From Mr. Schütz's blog:

Schütz
May 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm

The difference between Calvinists/Lutherans and the Anabaptists is often described (and well) as the difference between a “magisterial” reformation and a “radical” reformation. “Magisterial” in this sense means that they followed the authority of the “masters and magistrates”, rather than individual intuition and authority.

Mark Henderson
May 20, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Yes, quite a valid and helpful distinction, David. Lutherans and Reformed also gained official toleration from the Holy Roman Empire, which the Anabaptists didn’t ever do, to my knowledge. By the way, I note that the Anabaptist presence in Australia has been growing over the last two decades; they now have their own association with a website (I mean true Anabaptist groups like the Mennonites, not just run-of-the-mill Baptists).
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/on-heretics/#comments]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
21.V.2010

Remarkable material preparation for the Consecration, and subsequent conversion, of Russia

In His Lordship's most recent interview, The Rt. Rev. Bernard Fellay F.S.S.P.X., General Superior of the S.S.P.X, was asked the following:

Brian Mershon: Ever since Pope Benedict was elected and the new Russian Orthodox Patriarch was chosen, there has been an obvious thaw in relations, and for the better, I believe. The Russian Orthodox Patriarch even published a book of the Pope’s writings to be disseminated to his lay faithful! How do you read this? Is this related to the Third Secret of Fatima as well?

Bishop Fellay: I personally believe there is something on the move in Russia. There definitely does seem to be something moving in Russia. There is something in the air. How far and how deep? I do not know. But, there are many things that show there is a revival of religion in Russia.
[http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31573]

"[S]omething on the move in Russia", indeed--and it's coming to Rome (in more ways than one, I hope): Here's a recent item from the Vatican Information Service's daily e-mail bulletin:

DAYS OF RUSSIAN CULTURE AND SPIRITUALITY IN THE VATICAN

VATICAN CITY, 7 MAY 2010 (VIS) - At midday today in the Holy See Press Office, Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, presented two initiatives due to take place on 19 and 20 May: the "Days of Russian Culture and Spirituality in the Vatican", and a concert in honour of Benedict XVI.

The events are being promoted by the Patriarchate of Moscow, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Archbishop Ravasi explained how between 14 and 20 May, Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, president of the Department for External Church Affairs of the Patriarchate of Moscow, will head a delegation as it visits various Italian cities: Ravenna, Milan, Turin, Bologna and Rome.

In Rome on the evening of 19 May, Archbishop Hilarion will inaugurate a photographic exhibition by Valdimir Chodakov on the Russian Orthodox Church today. He will also attend a symposium on the theme: "Orthodox and Catholics in Europe today. The Christian roots and the shared cultural heritage of East and West". Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and Archbishop Ravasi are also due to participate in the symposium.

At 9 a.m. on 20 May, Archbishop Hilarion will preside at the divine liturgy in Rome's Russian Orthodox church of St. Catherine Martyr. At 6 p.m. on the same evening, the Russian national orchestra and the synodal choir of Moscow will give a concert in honour of the Pope. The concert, promoted by Kirill I, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, will be held in the Vatican's Paul VI Hall.

OP/ VIS 20100507 (280)
[bold type in the original]

Related reports:

(Schismatic) Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Sluck: '[T]he time has come to take decisive steps toward unity'
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31516

"Russia planning to forge closer alliances with West"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/russia-planning-to-forge-closer-alliances-with-west/story-e6frg6so-1225865376273

(Nevertheless, though I don't want to dampen people's excitement too much (and I myself am certainly excited at these developments), I must say that I have been disappointed at some of the, shall we say, unorthodox things I've been hearing from the Russian schismatics, viz.:

Father Philipp [Ryabykh, deputy head of the Department for External Church Relations of the schismatic Patriarchate of Moscow] calls for guarantees for the rights of religious communities to freely express their concerns on issues of bioethics or same-sex marriages: "If we build a society in which religious believers can also speak freely, we will have achieved the desired result for Europe '.
[http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31516]

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech? False, absurd and condemned by the Church. No thank you.

and

To overcome ["the desire", in the West, "to relegate the faith to the private realm in a way that is almost worse than the Soviet regime did in our country"], [schismatic Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia] added, the Church will have to enter "into a serious dialogue, devoid of prejudices, with lay and liberal humanism," but without falling into the temptation of "unilateralism."
[http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31629]

'Unprejudiced multilateral dialogue with lay and liberal humanism'? Do I detect the Spirit of Vatican II there? How uninspiring.)

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Peter Celestine, Pope, Confessor, and of St. Pudentiana, Virgin, A.D. 2010

A Holy-See-dependent charity sponsoring the Russian schism

Last Sunday’s edition of the Sydney Catholic Weekly featured the annual Catholic charities guide. That issue’s back page (p. 48, September 6, 2009) was a full-page advertisement for Aid to the Church in Need (A.C.N.), which (the advertisement, that is) described A.C.N. as “A Catholic charity under the guidance of the Holy Father”, and which contained the following startling passage:

In 1992, Fr Werenfried [van Straaten, A.C.N.’s founder] extended Aid to the Church in Need’s work to supporting the Orthodox Church in Russia: for as Pope John Paul II said in Ut Unum Sint, it is “an imperative of charity” to help our Orthodox brethren.

Now A.C.N. is not a charity like the St. Vincent de Paul Society or Caritas; it does things like funding the formation of seminarians and distributing Bibles and catechisms rather than providing social services like those which secular government or non-government organisations provide, so naturally I reacted with consternation to the thought of donations for the support of the Catholic religion going to fund the religious activities of formal schismatics. But could it be that I had misconstrued the advertisement, and that A.C.N funds are just going towards innocent social-services-type activities rather than fomenting schism and disseminating error? (Mind you, even if that were the case, it would still seem to be a misuse of donations, since A.C.N. is supposed to focus on assistance for the support of the Faith as such rather than for non-religious humanitarian activity.) Alas, no:

Before the end of the Gorbachev years, many bishops began to make plans for the daunting task of rebuilding seminary life. The strides they have made over the past ten years have been impressive. A useful benchmark is the remarkable ecumenical venture by the Roman Catholic agency, Aid to the Church in Need. In 1992 its founder, the Dutch Norbertine monk Werenfried van Straaten, already 79 years old, had a vision which challenged him to support the Russian Orthodox Church. His advisers settled on helping Russian Orthodox theological education as the most effective focus for this new outreach. Of the 46 theological academies, seminaries and schools in Russia, Aid to the Church in Need is now
[as at April 4, 2001] helping 26 financially.
[my square-bracketed interpolation,
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2099]

And at A.C.N.’s own official Australian website we find the following things:

He [A.C.N. international president Father Joaquín Alliende] also underlined the charity’s commitment to continue supporting the Russian Orthodox – as well as the Catholic Church in Russia – and developing east-west relations.

and

Last year, ACN gave over $4 million to support Church communities in Russia, prioritising help for the Catholic Church but also some giving help to the Russian Orthodox Church as well as ecumenical projects.
[my square-bracketed interpolation,
both quotations from
http://members4.boardhost.com/acnaus/msg/1227482615.html]

Furthermore, a Google search using the keywords “Aid to the Church in Need”, “Orthodox Church” and “Russia” led me to an article by the respected Traditional Catholic lawyer and journalist Mr. Christopher A. Ferrara, who had the following things, among others, to say:

Meanwhile, as Aid to the Church in Russia seeks funds to build a headquarters for the Archbishop at Moscow, another Catholic charity, Aid to the Church in Need, is giving millions of dollars to the Orthodox Church for its continued functioning in Russia - a fact recited by the Vatican itself as justification for its creation of the Catholic pseudo-dioceses: "Navarro-Valls also reminded reporters that in the past decade Catholic groups such as Aid to the Church in Need have provided more than $17 million in direct aid to the Russian Orthodox Church." (CWNews.com, Feb. 11, 2002) The website for Aid to the Church in Need proclaims: "Following a 1984 decree of the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy, Aid to the Church in Need was recognized by the Catholic Church as a universal public association of faithful." [http://www.kirche-in-not.org/e_home.htm]

So, one Catholic charity combats the agenda of another in Russia! The faithful are asked, on the one hand, to help build up the Catholic Church in Russia, and, on the other hand, to give money to an organization that helps build up its hateful opponent, the Russian Orthodox church, already fattened by the spoils that Stalin robbed from the Catholic Church at gunpoint in the 1940s.
[bracketed content in the original,
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cr/perspective208.asp]

(I encourage you to read the whole article.) Now I seem to recall a recent controversy over funds from a Canadian Catholic charity going towards a Latin American organisation which supported abortion, which would and should have generated outrage. But how much more outraged should we be at Church sponsorship (by an “international Catholic charity dependent on the Holy See”, no less) of schism—abortion kills the body, but schism kills the soul. Of course, God only permits an evil in order to avert a greater evil or procure a greater good, and perhaps the indifferentists behind this scandalous funding—ecumenism at its worst—are contributing unwittingly towards, if not what one Angelqueen reader called the ‘material preparation for the conversion of Russia’, then at least, in some inscrutable way, the material preparation for the Consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of Sts. Protus and Hyacinth, Martyrs, A.D. 2009