El Papa anima a la Iglesia en Estados Unidos a pasar la página de la crisis

La clave para superar las divisiones: ver la realidad con los ojos de Dios

http://www.zenit.org/

NUEVA YORK, sábado, 19 abril 2008 (ZENIT.org).- Benedicto XVI alentó a la Iglesia en Estados Unidos a pasar la página de la crisis que ha vivido en los últimos años, no sólo a causa de los escándalos de algunos sacerdotes, sino también por motivo de las divisiones que surgieron tras el Concilio Vaticano II (1966-1965).

Fue la consigna que dejó a unos tres mil sacerdotes, diáconos, religiosas y religiosos, que se congregaron en la mañana de este viernes en la catedral de San Patricio para participar en la celebración eucarística presidida por el Papa.

La misa «por la Iglesia universal» sirvió para celebrar el tercer aniversario del inicio de este pontificado. Miles de files, que no pudieron participar por falta de espacio, se congregaron en la Quinta Avenida.

«Quizás hemos perdido de vista que en una sociedad en la que la Iglesia parece a muchos que es legalista e "institucional", nuestro desafío más urgente es comunicar la alegría que nace de la fe y de la experiencia del amor de Dios», aclaró.

«Vosotros, que habéis consagrado vuestra vida para dar testimonio del amor de Cristo y para la edificación de su Cuerpo, sabéis por vuestro contacto diario con el mundo que nos rodea, cuantas veces se siente la tentación de ceder a la frustración, a la desilusión e incluso al pesimismo sobre el futuro», reconoció.

En esta situación, el Papa invitó a los sacerdotes y religiosos, entre ellos había también seminaristas, «a una fe cada vez más profunda en la potencia infinita de Dios, que transforma toda situación humana, crea vida desde la muerte e ilumina también la noche más oscura».

El secreto, dijo, está en ver la realidad con los ojos de Dios, que él llamó «conversión intelectual». Y se preguntó: «¿acaso no es tan necesaria como la conversión "moral" para nuestro crecimiento en la fe, para nuestro discernimiento de los signos de los tiempos y para nuestra aportación personal a la vida y misión de la Iglesia?».

Para Joseph Ratzinger, que fue perito como teólogo en el Concilio Vaticano II, «una de las grandes desilusiones que siguieron» a aquella cumbre de obispos del mundo ha sido «la experiencia de división entre diferentes grupos, distintas generaciones y diversos miembros de la misma familia religiosa».

«¡Podemos avanzar sólo si fijamos juntos nuestra mirada en Cristo! Con la luz de la fe descubriremos entonces la sabiduría y la fuerza necesarias para abrirnos hacia puntos de vista que no siempre coinciden del todo con nuestras ideas o nuestras suposiciones», aseguró.

«Así podemos valorar los puntos de vista de otros, ya sean más jóvenes o más ancianos que nosotros, y escuchar por fin "lo que el Espíritu nos dice" a nosotros y a la Iglesia».

De este modo, aseguró, «caminaremos juntos hacia la verdadera renovación espiritual que quería el Concilio, la única renovación que puede reforzar la Iglesia en la santidad y en la unidad indispensable para la proclamación eficaz del Evangelio en el mundo de hoy».

Refiriéndose a los abusos sexuales, el Papa manifestó a los sacerdotes y religiosos su «cercanía espiritual».

«Me siento unido a vosotros rezando para que éste sea un tiempo de purificación para cada uno y para cada Iglesia y comunidad religiosa, y también un tiempo de sanación. Además, os animo a colaborar con vuestros obispos que siguen trabajando eficazmente para resolver este problema»¸ les dijo.

«Que muestro Señor Jesucristo conceda a la Iglesia en América un renovado sentido de unidad y decisión, mientras todos --obispos, clero, religiosos, religiosas y laicos-- caminan en la esperanza y en el amor recíproco y para la verdad», concluyó.

«De este modo la Iglesia en América conocerá una nueva primavera», aseguró.

Kosovo Constitution Rushed Through in 60 Days

Leaders say Foreign Experts to Blame for Controversial Language

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) A team of American and European pro-life non-governmental organizations (NGOs) met with top Kosovo officials last week to discuss problems with the draft constitution for the newly forming state. The team, which was led by C-FAM Vice President Susan Yoshihara, met with the President of Kosovo, the Speaker of the Parliament along with other members of Parliament.

These officials said that the influence of international experts explains the controversial nature of their new constitution, including special rights based on “sexual orientation” which they admit Kosovars overwhelmingly reject. The leaders said this just two days after the adoption of the Constitution during a series of meetings with the team which presented a petition on behalf of 44 U.S. and European pro-life and pro-family organizations.

President Fatmir Sedjiu told the group that he had “trusted the experts” that Kosovo was compelled to include sexual orientation so that Kosovo would have a “contemporary” understanding of international human rights. Jakup Krasniqi, president of Kosovo’s assembly, said that he had opposed the article but that UN, European Union, and Council of Europe representatives told him that the reference put Kosovo’s law in line with other European constitutions.

Kosovars criticized the fact that they were not allowed to see the draft Constitution though they were encouraged over the past year to offer “public comment.” They also objected to the fact that all of their comments to the constitutional commission, the small body of experts responsible for the drafting process, apparently needed review by the representative from an American NGO called the International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX) during the proceedings.

Kosovo’s religious leaders said the constitutional commission never sent them a copy of the draft document. After consenting to meet Catholic and Muslim leaders, the commission agreed to omit language that would have explicitly removed legal protection from the unborn, but never provided promised feedback on other complaints and instead claimed “consensus” had been reached.

Immediately after its adoption, the Kosovar press criticized the way officials rushed though the approval process after the February 17th declaration of independence. Rather than allowing the 120 days given by the UN, the EU special representative to Kosovo signed the law and passed it to the president on April 8th, who approved immediately and gave it to the assembly for a vote. The assembly never discussed or voted on the document, but gathered two days later and simply rose to applaud a final version. Kosovar Serb lawmakers remained seated and silent in protest.

In sharp contrast to other sources, the head of the new US embassy in Pristina, Tina Kaidanow, insisted there was “no international involvement” with the new constitution. She explained that the reason the constitution was withheld from Kosovars was because its release would have been problematic for the UN Security Council which could not agree on Kosovo’s independence, which Russia still opposes. The hurried pace of adoption was done in part to show the international community “progress” to gain recognition of sovereignty, she said.

The head of the constitutional commission, Hajredin Kuci, told the press that the pro-life/pro-family delegation’s intervention came “too late.” One Kosovar observer said, “It’s not that they were too late but that the approval was too early.”

Most of the lawmakers who met with the delegation said that they expected to handle the problems with the new constitution through legislation and possibly by amendment, all of which will have to be first approved by the new EU mission in Kosovo, EU-Lex, whose legal basis some European countries are now challenging.

The pro-life delegation included Stephen Bartulica from the Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe in Austria, Christine Dupuis from Chrétiens Démocrates Fédéraux in Belgium, Glen Lavy, senior vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund, Antun Lisec, director of Human Life International in Croatia, Carol Soelberg, president of United Families International, Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, and Susan Yoshihara, vice president for research at Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute.

http://www.c-fam.org/

Important Supreme Court Decision Rejects UN High Court over US Treaty Obligations

originally posted: April 10, 2008
By Piero A. Tozzi
from C-FAM.org

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirmed the right of the United States to govern its affairs in accordance with the US Constitution rather than specific provisions of international treaties. In the process, the Court rejected a directive of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Medellín v. Texas not only reaffirmed principles of sovereignty and self-government, but also undercut arguments of international pro-abortion activists that accession to international treaties requires nations to disregard domestic constitutional protections for the unborn.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court rejected the argument that Texas law enforcement officials were required to notify a Mexican murder suspect of his right under international law to contact his country’s consulate following his arrest. An order by the ICJ – the United Nations’ “principal judicial organ” headquartered at The Hague, also known as the “World Court” – had directed that the Mexican national was entitled to have his case reviewed by the state court based a provision of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty which the U.S. has ratified.

The Bush Administration had urged compliance with the ICJ decision, arguing that the executive branch had authority to direct a state court to give it effect. Analyzing the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution and case law dating back to the early decades of the Republic, the Supreme Court ruled that the President lacked such authority.

As the treaty provision at issue was not “self-executing” – in other words, it did not become automatically binding upon ratification by Congress – it could not bind states without further Congressional action. The U.S. Constitution requires action by the legislative, not the executive, branch to transform a non-self-executing treaty obligation into domestic law.

The principles underlying the U.S. Supreme Court decision have application beyond the immediate case. In recent years, radical pro-abortion NGOs like the Center for Reproductive Rights have argued that sovereign nations must liberalize abortion laws based on non-binding recommendations of certain UN committees, even though such reinterpretations of treaty obligations are inconsistent with the original language in the treaties. Abortion advocates were successful in convincing the Supreme Court of Colombia in 2006 to overturn Colombia’s pro-life laws based on such arguments. A similar challenge is currently pending in Mexico, where the Mexican Supreme Court is weighing the constitutionality of a municipal law passed by Mexico City that allows first trimester abortion.

The Medellín decision, however, while premised upon the importance of the United States fulfilling its treaty obligations, would not allow outside parties – in this case the ICJ – to dictate how such obligations would be fulfilled. Rather, the outcome was dictated by reference to domestic constitutional principles.

Medellín thus marks an additional chapter in the on-going debate over the interrelationship between democratic self-determination and the scope of obligations imposed upon sovereign nations participating in international legal regimes.