23 July 2008 Vol. 10 / No. 29 Dear Colleague There is a move afoot, supported by the population controllers and others on the Left, to limit your right to have children. "If we don't have any children," the secularists seem to be saying, "then you believers can't have any children either." Steven W. Mosher People of Faith Beware: The Left has Decided that There is no Right to Have More Than One Child by Steven W. Mosher The right to procreate goes back to the very beginning of time, and is part of our very nature. "Be fruitful and multiply," it should be recalled, was the first commandment given to our first parents. Even Malthus himself, the original population scaremonger, admitted that natural law guaranteed a broad and inviolable right to procreate. Yet an explicit right to bear children is not to be found in the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers simply never imagined a tyranny so great that it would refuse couples the right to procreate. This would have been akin to refusing the people the "right" to breathe. Nor did the U.S. Congress later pass laws affirming a right to bear children. So fundamental was this right--and so unquestioned--that it was never codified into law. It is true that in 1968, when the movement to control population began to gather steam, cooler heads sought to check its excesses by passing a U.N. resolution declaring that "couples have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and timing of their children." But this was merely a resolution, not a binding treaty of the kind that constitutes international law. Now along comes a proponent of population control, Carter Dillard, to argue that the right to procreate is limited to one child because there are no explicit laws guaranteeing that right. If it is any solace, he does conclude that people do enjoy one absolute right: the right not to procreate at all. Dillard is not some obscure blogger writing a vanity column. His article, "Rethinking the Procreative Right," was published by the prestigious Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal. His "rethinking" turns out to be an interminable recounting of every anti-people argument ever advanced. This, combined with the absence of specific laws guaranteeing procreative rights, leads him to conclude that that human rights theory, legal precedent and national and international practice do not support "a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and timing of one's children." According to Dillard, no couple has an inviolable right to bear a child. Instead Dillard argues that the right to bear children must be balanced against other rights. What other rights? Dillard enumerates several, including rights belonging to other people, to future generations, and even to nature, wilderness and non-human species. I admit to having trouble understanding how "nature," "wilderness", or even "non-human species" can be said to have "rights." While we are to be good stewards of the earth and its creatures who live there, this does not create "rights" for the redwoods or the raptors. Rather, it imposes duties on us. Yet the Spanish parliament is even now deliberating whether to grant human rights to the Great Apes--gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees. Such an act would not elevate the status of the Great Apes--they are what they are--but it would certainly degrade the status of man and threaten his rights. And because the Great Apes can obviously not speak for themselves, their new rights would have to be defended by the same people who are flogging the proposal in the first place: the radical environmentalists. As far as who should speak for "future generations of humanity," I think that it is obvious that this right should, and naturally does, inhere in those who provide for the future in the most fundamental way, by providing the future generations of humanity. Most radical population controllers, not to mention the Left in general, hardly try. This is, I think, the fundamental complaint of Dillard and the many secular humanists who share his views. Such types, who contracept and abort most of their children out of existence, are increasingly worried that people of faith will win the battle of the cradle. They see that they are not replacing themselves, and that we are. So they are desperate to try and limit our numbers. Dillard claims that the birth of a baby negatively impacts the rights of others. How so, one can reasonably ask? Here Dillard goes into a long and unconvincing discussion of how "each act of procreation poses a direct and obvious threat to the guarantee of natural liberty in space …" He is thinking of overcrowding, but there are other ways to protect an individual's "space" than by limiting childbearing. We can, and do, adjudicate these kinds of issues by laws against trespassing, poaching, harassment, noise, and public nuisances. Instead of an unlimited right to reproduce, Dillard argues that we should only be allowed to replace ourselves. He would, like China, impose a one-child policy on the U.S. by fiat. Like many population controllers, he not only admires how China has resolutely limited its population growth, he believes that its one-child policy is perfectly consistent with international law. The Chinese government has, in his view, fulfilled “its obligations [as a government] to protect children and society as a whole from unjustified and destructive behavior," that is to say, childbearing. Never mind that it has killed some 300 million children before and, in some cases after, birth. Perhaps realizing that his policy will be, well, somewhat unpopular in certain circles, Dillard argues that "through a society-wide process of agreement, internalization and normalization – a series of “gentle nudges” rather than “hard shoves”, similar to that involved in seat belt or anti-smoking legislation – a voluntary population policy should be incorporated into law." Put in plain English, this means that he would first soften us up with anti-people arguments before passing and enforcing stringent laws against procreating. This, of course, is exactly the purpose of China's anti-child propaganda. The Chinese people are incessantly warned that too many children will despoil the environment, harm the economy, and could derail China's plans to become, in the words of the party slogan, a "rich country with a strong military." Those in China who ignore the propaganda and conceive illegal children are locked up and forced to listen to it. Those who, after listening to it, still refuse abortion and sterilization, are aborted and sterilized anyway. The nudges may be "gentle" at first, but soon enough turn into shoves. "Given that law guides our behavior, a policy that treats procreation as private is regressive, environmentally damaging and peculiarly anti-social: it teaches us to disregard others and their interests. Until we have policies that reflect the truly public nature of having children, we will encourage irresponsible procreation, and all the harm it causes," Dillard concludes. Dillard is not the first to propose bringing reproduction under the direct purview of the state. These ideas have been current since at least the publication of Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. And he is backed by large elements of a population control movement that has never been more powerful in terms of funding, personnel and institutions than it is now. Make no mistake about it. Any law limiting the number of children would target religious conservatives. After all, the Left, firmly convinced of their right not to have children, has already adopted a voluntary one-child policy. Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute, and the author of Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits. (Transaction, 2008) Sign up for the Weekly Briefing Here Media Contact: Colin Mason Email: colin@pop.org (540) 622-5240, ext. 209 _________ (c) 2007 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted. Redistribute widely. Credit required. _________ PRI is a 501(c)(3) educational organization. If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI, please go to our Donations Page. All donations (of any size) are welcomed and appreciated. _________ The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of "overpopulation." Find us at www.pop.org. PRI, PO Box 1559, Front Royal, VA 22630 USA Phone: 540-622-5240 *************************************************************************************** SSPX to continue talks with Vatican Vatican, Jun. 30, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The head of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has responded to a Vatican message setting forth the conditions that the traditionalist group must meet to achieve reconciliation with the Holy See. Bishop Bernard Fellary, the SSPX leader, did not accept the terms presented in a June 2 letter from Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (bio - news), the president of the Ecclesia Dei commission. But informed sources in Rome report that the response from Bishop Fellay showed a positive interest in continued talks with the Holy See. In a letter that he sent to Cardinal Castrillon last week, Bishop Fellay did not accept what SSPX spokesmen called the "ultimatum" from the Vatican. But the traditionalist leader told a Swiss radio interviewer that it would be wrong to interpret his message as a rejection of the Vatican's efforts at reconciliation. Bishop Fellay told the Swiss broadcaster that he saw the June 2 message from Cardinal Castrillon as a sign that the Vatican wishes to accelerate the pace of negotiations toward reconciliation of the SSPX. He suggested that he did not see an urgent need for a "hasty" approach. But he clearly indicated that he expected the talks to continue. Cardinal Castrillon had said that in order to conclude successful negotiations, the SSPX would have to give a clear indication that its leaders would show respect for the Pope and the magisterium, avoiding offenses against "ecclesiastical charity." Suggesting that the Vatican message was an order to "shut up," Bishop Fellay said that his group would not accept the Vatican's conditions. However he did comply with the cardinal's demand for an answer from the SSPX before the end of June. The traditionalist group has not revealed the contents of Bishop Fellay's response. It seems reasonable to infer that the traditionalist leader repeated the argument that the SSPX has made for several years: that reconciliation cannot be achieved until there is an agreement on theological issues, including questions about religious freedom, ecumenism, and the authority of Vatican II teachings. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has spearheaded efforts to heal the rift that opened in June 1988 when the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained three bishops for the SSPX in defiance of the Holy See. Although he had hoped for a more positive reaction to his message of June 2, informed sources in Rome say that the Colombian cardinal was not unhappy with the response from Bishop Fellay, and saw reason to hope that his talks with the traditionalist group might still bear fruit. Glossary Terms: Ecclesia Dei commission ************************************************************************************* June 27, 2008: Urgent Appeal for Prayers by Shawn Tribe The NLM comes to all of its readers, imploring your good and ardent prayers particularly now in these most pressing days and hours, that the proposal of the Holy See to the Society of Saint Pius X will be embraced. To NLM Readers; A Proposal: Will you each commit to offering at least one holy rosary tonight or tomorrow for the intention of Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Society of St. Pius X in this matter? For the really eager, perhaps you will commit to offering one rosary each day for the next three days for this intention beginning now? If you go to daily Mass, will you offer up your Mass intention for this? Priests: Will you offer up your own Masses for this intention? Let us storm the gates of Heaven with this intention. Sometimes people feel that such things are not humanly possible, but let us remember that nothing will be impossible for God. Now is the hour for saints, not skeptics, so let us approach the matter with the fervour of the saints, imploring Divine Grace to shower down upon Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX, Pope Benedict XVI, and all others involved. Much good for souls, for the sacred liturgy and for the Faith can come from the SSPX embracing this arrangement, not only for the Society itself, but also for the entire Church. So again, the NLM asks you: pray. If you cannot commit to the prayer proposal above then commit to small acts of prayer throughout the day for this matter. And please, use the comments on this post to make your expressions of support, your pleas, and your intentions known in this matter. Perhaps they may be of some help and encouragement, one never knows. Posted by Shawn Tribe ************************************************************************************* CNA http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13044 Europe Holy See issues ultimatum to Pius X Society, Vatican expert reveals Schismatic Bishop Bernard Fellay Rome, Jun 24, 2008 / 06:34 pm (CNA).- According to Andrea Tornielli, who claims to have a copy of the original letter sent by the Holy See to the schismatic Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the St. Pius X Society, the Holy See has given an ultimatum to the Society, with a deadline of June 30 for it to respond. According to Tornielli, who writes on his blog for the Italian newspaper Il Giornale, Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos has written a letter in his capacity as President of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, presenting the conditions of the ultimatum that, if accepted would conclude with the final incorporation of the St. Pius X Society into the Church by means of the canonical procedure of personal prelature, similar to that of Opus Dei. This arrangement would allow them to "continue their activity of training seminarians and priests" and would give them autonomy for the celebration of the liturgy according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, that is to say in Latin, and according to Missal of 1962. According to Tornielli, the five demands are the result of a June 4 meeting between the Cardinal and excommunicated Bishop Bernard Fellay, leader of the fraternity St. Pius X. The Vatican demands require: "a commitment to a response proportional to the generosity of the Pope, also the commitment to avoid any public statement disrespectful to the person of the Holy Father and that could be negative to ecclesial charity, the commitment to avoid the premise of a Magisterium superior to that of the Holy Father and not to propose to the fraternity (St. Pius X) in opposition to the Church; the commitment to demonstrate the will to act honestly in full ecclesial charity and in full respect of the authority of the Vicar of Christ." The last requirement of the Holy See, Tornielli says, is "to respect the date established for June 30, ... for responding positively. This will be a required condition and necessary as immediate preparation for the adherence to have full communion." ************************************************************************************* Monday, June 23, 2008 Tornielli: Agreement between Holy See and Lefebvrians - the Countdown by Gregor Kollmorgen Andrea Tornielli, well respected Vaticanista of il Giornale has posted the following on his blog (NLM translation): The countdown has begun for the agreement between the Fraternity St. Pius X founded by French bishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Holy See, as I write on il Giornale today. The Lefebvrians, who asked for the lifting of the excommunication, will have to respond by June 28 to proposals submitted on behalf of Benedict XVI by Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. These are five points which have to be signed, and once they have been clarified, the Fraternity will be able to reenter into full communion with Rome. It is a unique opportunity: the Lefebvrians have for a long time demanded the liberalisation of the ancient missal - and Pope Ratzinger with the Motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum cura" has restored full citizenship to pre-conciliar rite - and the "catechesis" which in recent times comes from papal Masses, with the recovery of some traditional elements, is undeniable. The Fraternity must accept the II Vatican Council and the full validity of the post-conciliar liturgical rite (both points were already signed by Monsignor Lefebvre himself in 1988) and as for its [the Fraternity's future] canonical structure, it could be framed as a "prelature". It is known, however, that there is internal resistance: this Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior of the Lefebvrians, will have to try to overcome in the coming days, during the [Fraternity's] general chapter. Now that the old Mass has been liberalized - albeit with many difficulties and cases of blatant disobedience - many traditionalist faithful do not understand why the Fraternity does not make an agreement with Rome returning fully into Catholic communion. Circumstances so favourable in all likelihood will not come again. Of course, the issues of religious liberty and ecumenism are still on the table, and a recent letter of Bishop Fellay (cf. here on Rorate Cæli) gives, humanly speaking, little hope for a return to full communion, as Tornielli himself, in the comments to his blog entry, acknowledges. Nevertheless if this is accurate, we are entering into a momentous week in the life of the Church, and a prayer assault for a successful resolution according to the most holy will of God is surely in order. A translation of the il Giornale article will be posted later. Labels: Cardinal Castrillón, PCED ************************************************************************************** Latin Mass makes a comeback June 16, 2008 http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/latin-mass-makes-a-comeback/2008/06/15/1213468240674.html LONDON: The traditional Latin Mass - in effect banned by Rome for 40 years - is to be reintroduced into every Catholic parish in England and Wales. In addition, all English seminaries must teach trainee priests how to say the old Mass so they can celebrate it in all parishes. Catholic congregations throughout the world will receive special instruction on how to appreciate the old services, formerly known as the Tridentine Rite. The announcement, by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who was speaking in London on behalf of Pope Benedict, will horrify Catholic liberals. The Pope now clearly intends to go much further in promoting the ancient liturgy. Asked whether the Latin Mass would be celebrated in many ordinary parishes in future, Cardinal Castrillon said: "Not many parishes - all parishes." The Pope will reintroduce the old rite even where congregations have not asked for it. The pontiff wishes to see the two forms of Mass existing happily side by side. Linda Morris writes: Father Peter Williams, the executive secretary of the Australian Bishops' Commission for Liturgy, said yesterday that he had received no formal decree from the Vatican specifying that the Tridentine Rite be celebrated in parishes. The widespread use of a traditional Mass would depend on the competence of local priests to celebrate it, the desire of parishioners to celebrate it, and even the architecture of churches to accommodate the ceremonial aspects of the rite. It may take years for seminaries to introduce a training program to produce priests well versed in the Tridentine Mass. "The cardinal's job is to promote the 1962 Missal [the old Latin Mass] so we would expect him to be painting the issue with broad brush strokes," Father Williams said. Telegraph, London ________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Alcuin Reid: "A subtle but decisive liturgical reform being enacted..." posted by Shawn Tribe The Catholic Herald has a piece in its paper this weekend by Dr. Alcuin Reid, which also touches upon the Pope's Mass in the Sistine Chapel. I am happy to be able to share it with NLM Readers: Benedict XVI leads the faithful in ‘looking together at the Lord’ by Dr. Alcuin Reid "What matters is looking together at the Lord." These words, written eight years ago by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, explain a subtle but decisive liturgical reform being enacted through the personal example of Pope Benedict XVI. The latest and perhaps most striking step in this reform took place on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord when, as has become customary, the Pope celebrated Mass in the Sistine Chapel and baptised newborn infants. As papal ceremonial goes, this is not usually a grand liturgical occasion: the Mass is in the vernacular and is largely said, not sung. Yet it was precisely there – in perhaps as close to a parish setting as papal ceremonies often get – that the Holy Father chose to make a significant liturgical adjustment. Instead of celebrating the liturgy of the Eucharist at a temporary altar-table set up for the occasion that would have had him "facing the people" (as has often been done in recent years), at the preparation of the gifts Pope Benedict went up to the original altar of the Sistine chapel (which stands against the wall on which Michelangelo painted his Last Judgement) and celebrated "facing East" or "towards the Lord" as it were. The Pope faced in the same direction as all those present – towards the liturgical "East", towards the cross – in continuity with popes (including Pope John Paul II) and generations of the faithful before him. Let us be clear, this has nothing at all to do with the Pope's decision that the more ancient rite of the Mass (in Latin) be available to those who wish it. No, this Mass was according to the modern Missal of Paul VI, in Italian. And that is why this occasion was so important. For in this silent gesture Pope Benedict stated once and for all that there is nothing at all wrong with using the older altars in our churches. For as he wrote in his preface to Fr Michael Lang's book Turning Towards the Lord: "there is nothing in the [Second Vatican] Council text about turning altars towards the people." The Holy Father's example is not an isolated one. In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy Cardinal Ratzinger wrote "facing toward the East…was linked with the "sign of the Son of Man", with the Cross, which announces Our Lord's Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the East was linked with the sign of the cross." And, recognising that in many places, altars "facing the people" have been set up (sometimes as the result of costly and unnecessary reordering) that make a return to celebrating the liturgy of the Eucharist facing East difficult. "Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior 'East' of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community." This is what Pope Benedict has done: the cross is now at the centre of the papal altar in St Peter's Basilica (which faces East in any case), as well as at the freestanding modern altar behind it that replaced the old altar of the Chair. He has even adopted this rule when celebrating outside the Vatican – as seen in his Advent Mass in the thoroughly modern chapel at the Knights of Malta hospital in Rome . Here in England those few priests with the courage to take Cardinal Ratzinger's words seriously and return to the use of what we call "the high altar" in their churches have been misunderstood or even ridiculed by clergy and laity. Some have been upbraided for doing so by their superiors. This is undoubtedly due to the erroneous impression that "facing the people" is a mandatory part of the modern liturgy. Well, now the Holy Father – in his customarily humble way – has definitively shown us that it is not. Indeed, he has shown us that facing East where that is all that is possible, or indeed facing the cross – which is possible everywhere, can and ought to be very much a part of the modern liturgy, for "a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord." Dr Alcuin Reid is the author of The Organic Development of the Liturgy (Ignatius, 2005). © 2008 The Catholic Herald Ltd Posted by Shawn Tribe on 19.1.08 Comments (12) | Trackback http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/ ******************************************************************************** by Michael Dean Anderson Friday January 11, 2008 Pope Benedict XVI this week celebrated a public Mass facing east for the first time since becoming pontiff. In a historic step widely welcomed by traditionalists the Pope celebrated Mass in the Sistine Chapel while facing Michaelangelo’s painting of the Last Judgment. Dispensing with the temporary west-facing altar used in recent years in favour of the chapel’s original altar he consecrated the Host while facing the same direction as all others present. The liturgy, which marked the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord and included the baptism of 13 babies, was in Italian, and followed the standard text of the 1970 Roman Missal. The Pope’s gesture is likely to cause consternation among liturgists who criticise Mass facing east because the priest “turns his back” on the people and therefore downplays the communal dimension of the Mass. The Vatican’s liturgical office issued a statement shortly after the Mass, saying that the Pope had decided to celebrate ad orientem in the Sistine Chapel in order not to “alter the beauty and harmony of this architectural jewel”. The office, run by Mgr Guido Marini, who is seen as more conservative than his predecessor, Archbishop Piero Marini, added that in facing east “the Pope will find himself with his back to the faithful” but in doing so “orients the attitude and disposition of the entire assembly” in “keeping his eyes on the cross”. Last month the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano asked Mgr Marini to explain why the crucifix, the symbol of Christ’s Passion, was being given such prominence in papal liturgies. He said: “The position of the cross at the centre of the altar indicates the centrality of the crucifix in the Eucharistic celebration and the exact orientation the entire assembly is called to have during the Eucharistic liturgy: we do not look at each other, but at the one who was born, died and rose for us, the Saviour. “Salvation comes from the Lord. He is the east, the sun that rises, the one whom we all must watch.” Before his election to the papacy Benedict XVI was a strong supporter of eastward celebration. In 2000 he argued that “a common turning to the east during the Eucharist prayer remains essential”. “This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials,” he said. “Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord.” [...] John Medlin of the Latin Mass Society said the Pope’s decision to face East during a public Mass was “wonderful news for all committed to the liturgical health of the Church”. He added: “This presages much more ‘traditionalism’ to be injected into New Rite practice and brings forward the day when the Holy Father publicly celebrates a traditional rite Mass to complete his project of affirming the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ in the faith.” The popular English blogger Fr Tim Finigan, who is a parish priest in Blackfen, Kent, said: “Today’s instance of the Holy Father leading by example is of tremendous importance. We have all seen churches of outstanding architectural beauty where the harmony of the lines of sight and the overall unity of composition has been radically disrupted by the placement of a ‘people’s altar’ in front of the high altar. There are many fine Victorian churches in England whose architectural focus could be allowed once again to shine in all its original splendid harmony. “Perhaps the Holy Father’s example will help those responsible for such churches to take the step of quietly removing the wooden platform and table which is in some cases all the alteration that is necessary.” © 2008 The Catholic Herald Ltd Source: The Catholic Herald - Britain's leading Catholic newspaper Posted by Shawn Tribe on 19.1.08 Comments (5) | Trackback http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/