From Catholic Culture. Looks like a lot of eccleastical double talk on the Cardinal's part. Not the first time he's gone off the rails in the past few years,
after a long and fruitful career on the side of orthodoxy. Just one more point to confuse, mislead, or keep this hoax alive. The link to the english translation of the letter is here

You must remember that the bishop sets the rules that even outside ranking ecclesiastics must follow when in the territory. To do otherwise is insulting to the home bishop and sows the seeds of disunity and dissention. 'Nuff said.

Anyway, I digress. The story...
--
The bishop of the local Mostar-Duvno diocese has issued a statement expressing concern about statements issued by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn during a visit to Medjugorje last week and emphasizing that the cardinal’s visit “does not imply any recognition of the authenticity of the ‘apparitions’ related to Medjugorje.”

Bishop Ratko Peric has released an English-language translation of his statement, noting that he has expressed his concerns directly to Cardinal Schönborn in a private letter. In response to the cardinal's observation that Medjugorje has a flourishing sacramental life, the local bishop notes that the same active sacramental life is visible throughout the diocese. Bishop Peric rejects the idea that the large number of confessions heard by priests at Medjugorje suggests that the apparitions are authentic. "According to this conclusion on the number of confessions, Our Lady would then be appearing in all our parishes," he says.

Bishop Peric-- who has repeatedly warned against the dangers of “the Medjugorje phenomenon” and strongly discouraged confidence in the alleged apparitions—complained that the visit by Cardinal Schönborn had caused new pastoral problems for his diocese. Citing a list of conflicts and irregularities arising from the activities of the alleged seers and their supporters, Bishop Peric voiced “regret” that the Austrian cardinal’s appearance had lent new credibility to their claims.

In an interview released by the press office of his Vienna archdiocese, Cardinal Schönborn pointed out that he had never directly addressed the authenticity of the reported apparitions, leaving that question open during his “private” visit to Medjugorje. He said that he would await the judgment of the universal Church, and meanwhile respected the prudence of the demands for caution released by the bishops of the region.

Cardinal Schönborn said that in his public remarks he had stressed the need to weave the “Medjugorje phenomenon” into the normal life of the local Church. He said that the spiritual vigor he saw in the town was not due to any single event, but rather to the regular use of the sacraments and intense prayer.

However, the Austrian cardinal did repeat his observation that “good fruits” have been produced by the Medjugorje phenomenon; he cited in particular a home for recovering drug addicts. Cardinal Schönborn also noted that the reported apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Medjugorje conform to the pattern of other apparitions approved by the Church, such as those of Lourdes and Fatima, where the Blessed Virgin made her appearance in an impoverished country, to simple young people, and delivered a straightforward message encouraging prayer and devotion to the Gospel.

for the triumph of Evil, is for good men to do nothing.

It's about our identity. Pope Benedict has written and spoken on this many times.

But, what happens when we become like besotted sheep...worried about our own comfort and listening to the blandishments of smooth-talking power-hungry autocrats? The following, reporting on the shameful European Union court decision:

By Nick Squires – Tue Nov 3, 4:00 am ET

Rome – Italians reacted with outrage on Tuesday after a European court ruled that displaying crucifixes in the country’s schools violated the principle of secular education.

Italy’s education minister condemned the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, saying that the Christian cross was a symbol of the country’s Roman Catholic religion and cultural identity. [See what happens when you use courts, no matter how well-intentioned, to take matters out of the hands of the people and put them into the hands of unelected and unaccountable 'experts']

Mariastella Gelmini, a member of the conservative government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, argued that "no one, and certainly not an ideological European court, will succeed in erasing our identity," said

Other ministers said they were appalled by the ruling, calling it "absurd," "shameful" and "offensive."

Generations of Italian children have grown up studying in classrooms in which a wooden or metal crucifix looms above the blackboard. But Italy has been transformed in the past two decades from a country that exported migrants to one that has accepted around 4.5 million economic refugees and asylum seekers from Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. [And here in the US...?????]

The influx of foreigners has led to deep-seated tensions, particularly with Roma gypsies from former Eastern bloc countries and Muslim immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. [But, aren't they followers of a 'religion of peace'? I think not. Actions speak louder than words. And it's time to STOP listening to the words and taking into account their actions.]

Schools in Spain, France, and Britain have also debated whether crucifixes should be allowed in public schools. The landmark ruling could prompt a Europewide review of the use of religious symbols in state-run schools.

Europe losing its identity?

The decision was handed down by a panel of seven judges at the court in Strasbourg. They said that the display of crucifixes, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be intimidating for children from other faiths. [Tough. Take your veil off, then. That's offensive to me. What are you hiding?]

"The presence of the crucifix could be … disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities," the court said. "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities… restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions," it added.

Crucifixes were an undeniable symbol of Catholicism, the court ruled, and as such were at odds with the principle of "educational pluralism." [The real nub of the problem. It's not that there's a crucifix that's visible, but the reminder of the existence of Catholicism that bothers those people.]

‘Moral damages’

The court upheld a complaint filed by Soile Lautsi, a Finnish woman who lives in Italy and has Italian citizenship, [She could go back to Finland?] who complained that her children had to attend a state school in a town near Venice which had crucifixes in every classroom.

The court awarded her €5,000 ($7,400 dollars) in "moral damages," which will have to be paid by the Italian government unless it is successful in an appeal. The judges stopped short of ordering authorities to remove crucifixes from all state-run schools, and the long-term implications of the ruling were unclear.

The judgment sparked anger in predominantly Catholic Italy, with ministers and the Catholic Church saying the crucifix was an integral part of Italy’s national identity.

Foreign minister Franco Frattini, speaking during a visit to Morocco, said it was an attack on Italy’s Christian identity and that the government would appeal the decision.

"At a time when we’re trying to bring religions closer together, this is a blow to Christianity," he said.

The agriculture minister Luca Zaia, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League, a key ally in Mr Berlusconi’s bloc, called the judgment "shameful." Mario Baccini, a senator in Mr. Berlusconi’s People of Freedom party, said the court had "gone adrift in paganism."

The newly-elected head of the main opposition Democratic Party, Pierluigi Bersani, commented that the ruling lacked common sense. "I think a longstanding tradition like the crucifix can’t be offensive to anyone," he said.

Italian bishops protest

The powerful Italian Bishops Conference said in a statement that the ruling was based on a "biased and ideological view." The Vatican said it wanted to study the exact wording of the ruling before issuing a response.

Mrs. Lautsi first brought the case eight years ago when her two children went to a state school in the spa town of Abano Terme near Venice. She asked for them to be taken down but education authorities refused. She then spent several years fighting the decision through the Italian courts.

A court in the Veneto region where she lives rejected her arguments, prompting her to take the case to Strasbourg.

From the Creative Minority Report:

--
I've seen many polls that conclude that America is a "pro-life" nation. And that the number of self-identified pro-lifers is growing. I've even felt myself growing hopeful about the immediate future because of those poll numbers.

But after reading a story today I'm not sure I believe it.

UPI reports:

The number of babies with Down syndrome carried to term in the United States has declined to single digit percentages, officials say.

Approximately 92 percent of American women with prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome babies chose abortion, Children's Hospital Boston pediatric geneticist Dr. Brian Skotko said.

Skotko is concerned whether myths or facts drive the decisions, ABC News reports. "I am concerned about mothers making that informed decision. Are they making it on facts and up-to-date information? Research suggests not, and that mothers get inaccurate, incomplete and sometimes offensive information," Skotko said.

Firstly, 92% is a heartbreaking number. Staggering.

Now, you can't argue reasonably that mothers with babies diagnosed in-utero with Down Syndrome is a completely random sample because mothers of Down Syndrome children tend to be over 30 and usually closer to 40 or older. But even allowing that it's just a slice of the population, it's still awful. In fact, awful doesn't begin to describe it.

But there's no reason to think that younger mothers would do better in that younger women tend to get more abortions than older women. So how do we reconcile polling which indicates that 50% of the country self identifies as pro-life while only 8% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are allowed to be born?

Now, you could have a number of people who know that aborting their child is wrong but the threat of a Down child is too much to bear and they have an abortion even though they know it's wrong and still believe it should be illegal. But that's almost worse than just thinking abortion is a morally neutral act. No matter what, it's certainly not indicative of a pro-life nation.

I think sometimes when it comes to abortion I become very focused on changing the laws. But I think we have a lot of hearts to change in this country or changing the laws won't really matter all that much.

The following article was submitted in a slightly shorter form to the New York Times as an op-ed article. The Times declined to publish it [No surprise there, right?]. I thought you might be interested in reading it.


FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York

October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!

Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.

It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”

If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:


* On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”

Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.

* On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.

* Five days later, October 21, the Times gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.

* Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription -- along with every other German teenage boy -- into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans.

True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.

I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally?

The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.

I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.

Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.

let's help our protestant bretheren PROPERLY celebrate on October 31.

PCANews at the Christian Broadcasting Network website has come up with a way to overcome the satanic/occult aspects of Halloween - a Reformation Day party!

They explain it:

"...October 31 celebrates the day that the Reformation in Europe began with Martin Luther posting his 95 theses on the Wittenburg church door, leading to a firestorm response in Germany. Why not use this occasion for a celebration of our Reformed heritage. And yes, this can be fun for the kids too!

...Why not have a celebration at church where all get dressed up as characters from the Reformation such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, a peasant, and even John Tetzel (the salesman of those infamous indulgences)?

...When I couldn't get a 16th century idea then I dressed as a Bible character. You can transform the fellowship hall into Wittenburg, Germany or Geneva. Here is an opportunity to go over the great "solas" of the Reformation: by Scripture alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone, by faith alone, and to God be the glory alone. Have people explain them. Show a video of one of the reformers. Draw murals of Reformation events.

...Here are some other things our church has done over the years: Medieval line dancing (a lot like Scottish line dancing), Medieval relay races (put the indulgences in the bottle), bobbing for apples, German cover dish dinner, acting out your character (don't tell anyone who you are, but act it out -- the ideas are limited only by time and background)."

It's ironic that protestants are choosing Halloween to celebrate the Reformation, considering that many Catholic families celebrate All Souls Day the next day by dressing as Catholic saints. Of course - protestants probably won't be up for a good old-fashioned cult of the saints party like we are.

Then again, if protestants can play "put the indulgences in the bottle" to get in touch with their historical roots, and baptists can have bonfires burning Catholic bibles and books on spirituality by Catholic saints, maybe Catholics could celebrate Reformation Day by starting bonfires and burning figurines of protestant heretics to get in touch with our historical roots?

Just joking.