The New Marriage-Wrecker

Internet Pornography Burrows Deeper Into Culture

By Father John Flynn, LC

ROME, FEB. 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- In Lent we should think of fasting not only in relation to food and drink, but also from images, recommended Benedict XVI. The Pope’s advice came during a question-and-answer session with Rome’s clergy, held Feb. 7.

The question dealt with how best to evangelize people as to what is true beauty in the context of contemporary culture. Part of the Pontiff’s reply dealt with the use of images and also the problems created by mistaken ideals of beauty. During Lent:, “we need a space that is free from the permanent bombardment of images,” Benedict XVI commented.

One application of the Pope’s counsel would be to fast, not only during Lent, but permanently, from the ever-increasing presence of pornography. A Feb. 12 article posted on the ABC News Web site cited data from a trade publication that put at $14 billion the sales generated in the United States related to pornography in one form or another. The article also reported that one estimate puts at 4.2 million the number of pornographic sites online, with 40 million visitors daily.

Federal government attempts to control the flourishing industry have not had much success. Obscenity investigations into adult pornography by the FBI have diminished due to other issues such as terrorism, reported Reuters on Sept. 19. The FBI has, however, taken action in fighting child pornography.

As well, attempts to regulate the Internet pornography industry have run into repeated legal defeats. Last year a federal judge upheld previous rulings invalidating the Child Online Protection Act, on the grounds it denied free-speech rights, reported the Washington Post on March 23.

The law made it a crime for those running Internet sites to let anyone under 17 have access to sexual material. The law, approved in 1998, never entered into force as it was blocked by a series of legal actions.

Dangerous consequences

The increasing use of pornography is creating not a few problems. Late last year a judge in Melbourne, Australia, sentenced a man to 11 years in jail on a rape charge, reported the Age newspaper on Jan. 3.

Judge Damian Murphy, said that the Andrew Bowen had acted out a fantasy seen in material downloaded from the Internet.

The article’s authors, Maree Crabbe and David Corlett, commented that one consequence of Internet-based pornography is a shift to more extreme and violent sexual imagery. Scenes that are so degrading and humiliating that they would be banned from film and television are now freely available to anyone with a Web connection.

Crabbe and Corlett said that research shows a link between consumption of pornography and male sexual aggression. Even when the pornography is not violent, exposure to it tends to increase in the viewer tolerance of sexual violence.

Earlier last year a report published in Australia revealed record numbers of visitors to porn Web sites. According to a May 26 article in the Sydney Morning Herald, a survey found that 35% of Internet users had visited an “adult” site at least once in the preceding three months.

According to the article, psychologists and counselors say Internet pornography is a growing cause of marital problems due to increasing numbers of men who become compulsive users.

A lengthy feature article on this issue was published in the Age newspaper May 26. “The impact of internet pornography on sexual attitudes, practice and relationships may prove to be as profound as the introduction of the contraceptive pill in 1961," the article affirmed.

Terming it as the “new marriage-wrecker,” the article commented that not only do large numbers of men become habitual users, but also that it causes unhappiness and self-doubt for many women.

Mobile images

After the Internet, it is now mobile phones that are becoming an avenue for pornography. Already widespread in Europe, the use of cell phones for this purpose is set to take off in the United States, according to a Jan. 30 Reuters article.

According to Reuters, pornography sales via cell phones in Europe reaped $775 million in 2007, compared to just $26 million in the United States. One study cited in the article estimated that worldwide, the porn industry could generate $3.5 billion in revenue by 2010.

Phone companies in the United States are planning to loosen controls on their networks, allowing more gadgets and services. As well, newer phone models have higher quality images and an improved ability to browse the Web. Video-sharing sites are also expanding to offer services to those with more advanced cell phones.

The spreading use of pornography via cell phones sparked off a confrontation last year in the Church of England, when an ecclesiastical tribunal ruled against the use of phone antennas in church spires and towers, reported the Times on March 17.

Churches can make more than 10,000 pounds ($19,621) a year in rent from mobile phone companies, the article noted. This was put in danger when a church judge in Chelmsford, Essex, ruled against an application to install a mast in the tower of St. Peter and St. Paul in Chingford. Judge George Pulman concluded that some of the material transmitted “is not consistent with the Christian use of a church.”

His ruling, however, was overturned shortly afterward by the Court of Arches, the highest ecclesiastical body in the Church of England, reported the Telegraph newspaper on July 25. The court said that it must be remembered that human beings are "imperfect" and to refuse the mast on that ground would be an "unbalanced approach.”

Fortunately a saner view is prevailing in other circles. The Feb. 10-16 edition of the National Catholic Register reported on action being taken by some Catholic colleges in the United States to block pornography and gambling Web sites.

Starting in 2006, St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, put filters in place to block access to such sites from all public and residence hall computers. “As a parent of five children, I assumed that at a Catholic college you couldn’t stream porn into your dorm room,” commented college president, Jim Towey, who introduced the policy shortly after taking office.

Other Catholic institutions that filter access include Franciscan University of Steubenville and Wyoming Catholic. Nevertheless, the Register article noted that many other Catholic colleges do not put any filters in place.

Chaste living

Concern over pornography was expressed in a publication approved by the November 2007 meeting of the U.S. episcopal conference: “Catechetical Formation in Chaste Living: Guidelines for Curriculum Design and Publication."

Chastity, the document explained, “is not a matter of repression of sexual feelings and temptations but the successful integration of the gift of sexuality within the whole person.”

One of the pitfalls identified by the text is the misuse of the Internet that enables easy access to virtual pornography. Sexually explicit content in blogs, instant messages, and posting photos on social networking Web sites are also other avenues that violate chastity.

“Pornography defames the intimacy of the marital act and injures the dignity of viewers and participants,” the guidelines observed. “Christians are to shun all participation in pornography as producers, actors, consumers or vendors."

More catechetical instruction and education is needed in order to help us appreciate the value of chastity, the document commented. It might also help to remember what Benedict XVI mentioned in his Feb. 7 remarks on images and beauty.

God can liberate us from “the inflation of images,” the Pope said. In fact, he continued, through Christ’s incarnation God has shown us his image. Convincing the world of the beauty of the truth revealed in Christ may well be the key to overcoming the allurement of impoverished images that only degrade our humanity.

Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-21874?l=english

AIDS in Africa: Abstinence Works

Interview With Expert Matthew Hanley
By Carrie Gress

BALTIMORE, Maryland, FEB. 27, 2008 (Zenit.org).- In the fight against AIDS, abstinence-based programs that focus on changing behaviors rather than handing out condoms simply work better, says an AIDS expert.

Matthew Hanley has been a HIV/AIDS technical adviser at Catholic Relief Services (CRS) for the last seven years and is the author of the forthcoming book "Avoiding Risk, Affirming Life: Science, Love, and AIDS."

In this interview with ZENIT, Hanley comments on the programs and principles that have led to dropping rates of HIV prevalence in Africa.

Q: You seem to be something of a lone voice in the wilderness promoting Catholic principles in the fight against AIDS, and yet so much of the research is showing that this approach is really what is heading off the disease. How and where is this actually working?

Hanley: First, actual changes in patterns of sexual behavior have led to the most significant reductions in HIV prevalence. Take the well-known case of Uganda, where the prevalence rate dropped from 15% in 1991 to a little over 5% in 2001. Behavior change was so thorough in Uganda that by the mid-1990s, 95% of adults in that country said they had only one partner or none at all. But it is not only Uganda.

The most important factor in recent HIV declines observed in several other countries, such as Kenya, Zimbabwe and Haiti has been an increase in fidelity or "partner reduction." This should not be altogether surprising, considering that in a large swath of southern Africa, where over half of new infections globally come from, the AIDS epidemic is being driven by the dynamics of multiple and often concurrent sexual partnerships.

Where this kind of behavior change has not taken place, HIV incidence has remained high. This is the case in South Africa, which has been a vigorous promoter of condoms, but rather silent about the need for a more profound modification of behavior, specifically multiple partnerships.

The primacy of behavior change comes into even sharper relief when we consider that the two other major planks of HIV prevention besides condoms -- treating other sexually transmitted infections, and the promotion of voluntary counseling and testing -- have not been particularly effective in decreasing HIV incidence.

Q: One currently popular approach to AIDS prevention is called ABC -- Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms. The Catholic Church supports the AB. As someone who works in the fight against AIDS in a Catholic organization, how do you present the Church's teaching against condom use?

Hanley: First, we try to articulate what the Church actually proposes, abstinence and fidelity, in a positive manner. I have found in my trips to Africa that there is a real thirst for something different, something hopeful. We all know that people yearn for more than the satisfaction of their appetites. In other words, they yearn for love, for respect and for meaning in life. In his first encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est," Benedict XVI reminded us of long-standing Christian tradition, namely that human beings are a "union of body and soul," that love is characterized by exclusivity, or fidelity, and that love contains a quality of permanence over time.

When we conducted training recently with five dioceses in Ethiopia, one of the participants, a wife and a mother, spoke for the group by saying how much she appreciated the emphasis on fidelity and related human values such as respect and communication. She was puzzled as to why such basic themes are not more routinely promoted in the context of HIV prevention, adding: "Why hasn't anyone explained it like this before?"

So we try to address the whole human person, their deeper aspirations, and in proposing love, affirm basic Christian sexual ethics. It is on this level that the Church then encounters the wider culture, which as Pope John Paul II suggested in "Familiaris Consortio," often holds "fundamentally irreconcilable views of the human person and of human sexuality," leading many to aggressively reject these first principles.

Perhaps one of the most helpful means that I have seen of expressing the moral significance of the issues involved comes from the Kenyan bishops. In their pastoral letter on AIDS, they hit upon the crux of the matter: The Church proposes the same sexual morality even "when and where AIDS poses no danger." The central issue with respect to the Church's consistent teaching on sexual matters is thus not the risk of HIV, but the lack of chastity, and "this is not easy for 'the world' to grasp."

So the Catholic Church, among others, objects to the widespread promotion of condoms, primarily on legitimate moral and ethical grounds, over and above the practical limitations observed to date in practice.

I think it is also fair to point out that even from a practical point of view, the claims made by religious leaders -- that the promotion of condom use could lead to a false sense of security and even end up increasing overall risk -- have been echoed in the scientific literature; even long-time condom advocates have described this phenomenon as real.

Q: From your experience, why is there so much pressure to promote the C of the ABC approach given that despite the moral implications, it is not proving to be effective?

Hanley: Yes, researchers have noted that in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV transmission rates have remained high despite a considerable increase in condom use. For example, condom sales in Botswana increased from 1 million in 1993 to 3 million in 2001, while HIV prevalence among pregnant urban women increased from 27% to 45%. In Cameroon, during the same period, condom sales rose from 6 million to 15 million, while HIV prevalence increased from 3% to 9%.

A study commissioned by UNAIDS concluded, "Prevention campaigns relying primarily on the use of condoms have not been responsible for turning around any generalized epidemic."

I also found one survey conducted in Lesotho to be particularly revealing. It found that about 75% of respondents could identify condoms as a means of preventing HIV, but only approximately 5% of respondents identified abstinence or faithfulness as a means of avoiding HIV.

The more interesting element to consider, implicit in your question, is the underlying assumptions and philosophy behind how prevention measures are prioritized and emphasized. Since the primary approach of condoms, voluntary counseling and testing and treatment of other sexually transmitted infections, has not produced the intended results, in terms of achieving reductions in HIV prevalence, it would be difficult to avoid concluding that these interventions maintain their privileged position not because of empirically observed scientific excellence, but at least in part because of the desire of their proponents to cling to an underlying vision of the human person, freedom and sexuality.

Yet it is the Church that is routinely characterized as being opposed to science, or "dogmatic." But this charge does not stand up to scrutiny. The reference to dogma, though, calls to mind one of G.K. Chesterton's observations, "There are two kinds of people: Those who have a dogma and know it, and those who have a dogma and don't know it."

In other words, any approach to these issues is inherently charged with meaning. As products of our own time and place, we all naturally bring some sort of vision to the table, some presuppositions about life, relationships, sexuality, the dignity of the human person, family and so many other fundamental topics.

Beyond that, public health is deeply influenced by a kind of utilitarianism, known for its aim to achieve the "greatest happiness for the largest number." As it applies to HIV prevention policy, the objective becomes seeking to maximize the good of sexual pleasure while minimizing the pain of AIDS. But as the very name suggests, utilitarianism allows for the use or the manipulation of one person by another. In Christian thought, to "use" another person is the polar opposite of loving another person.

Public health approaches also borrow heavily from an inflated sense of "human autonomy" within the wider culture. This form of individualism exalts personal freedom as the supreme value. Freedom is thus enthroned above truth, as opposed to being subject to it. It is a concept of freedom that is, rather sadly, unencumbered by human relationships.

These schools of thought, in denying and rejecting objective moral and philosophical truths, advance no internally consistent or coherent rationale for limiting sexual partnerships, and thus tend to yield interventions that would rightly only be considered "secondary" measures of HIV prevention.

Source Article

UN Conference Sees Rare European Union Split Over Question of Abortion

UN Conference Sees Rare European Union Split Over Question of Abortion

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) The governments of Poland and Malta broke ranks with the European Union on the question of abortion this week. The dissention occurred at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which convened it’s annual two-week meeting at UN headquarters in New York on Monday. The reaction of Poland and Malta happened after the EU tried to shift the meeting’s agenda to include the right to abortion.

On Tuesday Radoslaw Mleczko, the Polish Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, told the gathering of UN Member States that Poland generally aligned itself with the EU but that any EU reference to sexual and reproductive health could not include abortion. On Thursday afternoon, the head of Malta’s mission to the UN, Ambassador Saviour F. Borg said, “Malta would like to clarify its position with respect to the language relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights in the [EU] statement. Malta firmly continues to maintain that any position taken or recommendations made regarding women’s empowerment and gender equality should not in any way create an obligation on any party to consider abortion as a legitimate form of reproductive health rights, services or commodities.”

The split in the European Union is significant because the EU hardly ever splits on questions of social policy at the UN. Even countries that are generally anti-abortion go along with the more radical approach taken by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. They do this as an agreement that the EU will always work out their differences behind closed doors and present a united front at UN negotiations. This works to the advantage of the pro-abortion states since they outnumber the anti-abortion states. Moreover, an EU that is divided is one that can be defeated on social policy questions. In fact, the last time the EU split in any significant way was in the UN cloning debate which resulted in the UN calling for the ban of all forms of human cloning, an effort opposed by the UK, France, Germany and other left-wing European governments. It is unclear how meaningful this current split will be in the negotiations which will begin in earnest tomorrow.

Pro-life and pro-family issues were also woven into UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s opening remarks to the commission on Monday when he criticized the now widespread practice of choosing abortions based on the sex of the baby, an issue that was all but taken off the agenda at last year’s CSW despite solid support from both civil society and numerous governmental delegations. In his speech to launch the new UN multi-year campaign to end violence against women, the Secretary-General stressed, “Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countless others are denied the right even to exist. No country, no culture, no woman young or old is immune to this scourge.”

The Secretary-General also highlighted the importance of families and children stating, “We know that violence against women compounds the enormous social and economic toll on families, communities, even whole nations. And we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women, we empower our greatest resource for development: mothers raising children.”

Among the many pro-life and pro-family lobbyists attending the CSW is a large contingent of high school girls from Overbrook Academy in Rhode Island. Fourteen year old Elsa Corripio told the Friday Fax, “We want these delegates to know that there are many young people who believe in respecting life.” Ana Paola Rangel, 15, added, “Maybe we can’t change the world, but we know we can make a difference.”

The CSW meeting continues through next week.

Correction:

We reported yesterday that Norway spoke for the European Union at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Norway is not part of the EU. It was Slovenia that spoke for the European Union and in favor of "sexual and reproductive rights." Norway also spoke in favor of sexual and reproductive rights.

Reporter Impressed by Lourdes Research

Says Truth Triumphed Over Slanderous Stories

By Antonio Gaspari, http://www.zenit.org

ROME, FEB. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- To mark the 150th anniversary of Mary's apparitions in Lourdes, renowned Vatican reporter Andrea Tornielli interviewed Father René Laurentin, perhaps the foremost expert on Our Lady's appearances to Bernadette Soubirous.

The book-interview resulting from Tornielli's dialogue with Father Laurentin is called "Lourdes, inchiesta sul mistero a 150 anni dalle apparizioni" (Lourdes: An Investigation of the Mystery 150 Years After the Apparitions), and is published in Italian by Ediciones ART.

In the volume, the French theologian recounts what happened in Lourdes between February and July, 1858, and the happenings that characterized the life of St. Bernadette, including her vocation to religious life, and the experience of suffering and illness that marked her even as a child.

ZENIT spoke with Tornielli, who said he was impressed by Father Laurentin, "the priest who, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the apparitions, now a half century ago, on the request of the Bishop of Tarbes et Lourdes, Bishop Pierre-Marie Théas, searched for, analyzed and published all the available documents about the happenings of 1858."

According to Tornielli, Father Laurentin "has been the protagonist in an unprecedented investigation. Because of this, his person, and above all, his writings will remain an irreplaceable point of reference for anyone who wants to approach the mystery of Lourdes."

19th-century France

Il Giornale's Vatican reporter also said he was impressed by the amount of criticism against St. Bernadette in an attempt to deny the "Lourdes phenomenon."

Tornielli explained to ZENIT that "it was not easy for Lourdes to affirm itself in 19th-century France, homeland of anticlericalism. From the beginning, the apparitions were at the center of attacks, criticism and attempts to disprove them."

In the book, Father Laurentin tells how, after the first apparitions, there were those who said the "beautiful lady" who Bernadette saw was in reality the attractive spouse of the local pharmacist who had a clandestine meeting in the grotto with an official of the cavalry. The lady, the report claimed, pretended to be the Virgin to confuse the girl who had caught her in adultery.

The woman, who according to the tale had chosen a dirty and cold grotto for her meeting that Feb. 11, was in reality at home in bed, because she had just two days before given birth to her fifth child. She would herself deny the allegations and denounced those who had slandered her reputation.

Tornielli notes how even the well-known author Émile Zola tried to portray "poor Bernadette as a miserable victim of hysterics and malnutrition."

Zola, who arrived in Lourdes in 1892, was present at two instantaneous cures, which he relates in his novel "Lourdes," nevertheless claiming that the "two people who experienced the miracle died shortly thereafter, and thus the supposed cure had been brief and above all illusory."

"Unfortunately," Tornielli related, "one of the cured women did not give up and continued protesting in the newspapers, saying that she was just as alive and healthy as the author. In the effort to discredit Lourdes, Zola went to the extent of going to see her to offer her money in exchange for her silence. Miserable stories, over which history, the truth, has triumphed."

2008 NFL Combine Preview

This from Sigmund Bloom of NFLdraftguys.com

Draftguys has caught our breath after three all star games and a visit to a training facility. Expect an exciting announcement about those trips in the next few weeks. In the meantime, the draft scene chugs on, with the next stop being at Indianapolis for the NFL combine. We'll have Josh Buchanan reporting from the RCA Dome daily on The Audible, and of course the NFL Network will again deliver unpredecented coverage of the event. We will be watching every player closely, but some have more to gain or lose than others. Here's our list of the biggest stories to watch over the next week out of Indy:



QB

Most to Lose:
Andre Woodson (Kentucky) is losing momentum in the draft stock race. He had an uneven Senior Bowl week, and his flaws are starting to overshadow the parts of his game that are NFL ready. His fall could continue if he doesn't have a good week in Indy.

Most to Gain:
Joe Flacco (Delaware) is an ideal combine QB. He should put the highest number up on the radar gun of any QB at the combine, and he should be one of the two or three tallest. At least a few teams will fall in love with him.

Other Players to Watch:
Colt Brennan (Hawaii) could help his stock with a good week after a disappointing Senior Bowl week that revealed a slight, weak-armed version of the QB we knew. Anthony Morelli (Penn State) should stand out with his size and arm strength. Bernard Morris (Marshall) and Kevin O'Connell (San Diego State) could get more late round attention if they stand out among the best athletes at QB at the combine as expected.


RB

Most to Lose:
Darren McFadden (Arkansas) has slipped from the perception of a top 3-5 type pick, and unless he lights up the combine, he might slip from his presumed status as RB1.

Most to Gain:
Steve Slaton (West Virginia) had a middling Junior year, but the quickness and speed he showed in 2006 seemed rare. If his combine numbers match his highlights, he could get back into the top 50 picks.

Other Players to Watch:
Chris Johnson (East Carolina) and Jamaal Charles (Texas) will put up rare 40 times. Tashard Choice (Georgia Tech) does not have any elite attribute, and is more of a grinder, but with good numbers, his solid game will seem a lot more impressive. Ray Rice (Rutgers) may run a lot faster than anyone expects. RB is one of the positions where a player can make a LOT of money at the combine (see: Chris Henry 2007)


WR

Most to Lose:
The draft community has already factored in Malcolm Kelly's (Oklahoma) rare size/speed/athleticism combination into his grade, with some already putting him at WR1. If he doesn't deliver numbers to match, he could fall back into the pack.

Most to Gain:
Jerome Simpson (Coastal Carolina) has the hands and frame, but his speed and quicks are questions. Simpson can become as high as a 2nd round pick if he hangs with the top athletes in Indy.

Other Players to Watch:
Donnie Avery (Houston) and Dexter Jackson (Appalachian State) are expected to turn heads with their 40 times, but don't be surprised if JayMar Johnson (Jackson State) joins them at the top of the list. Stevie Johnson (Kentucky) is another WR we expect to move up the boards after this week.


TE

Most to Lose:
Fred Davis (USC) has already been hurt by measuring only 6'2" in Mobile. Unless he stands out in the RCA Dome, his status as TE1 is in jeopardy.

Most to Gain:
Jermichael Finley (Texas) and Martellus Bennett (Texas A&M) have always looked like rare physical specimens in the Big 12. Either one could end up being the story of the TEs at the combine.

Other Players to Watch:
Kellen Davis (Michigan State) could crack the top 5 TEs if his numbers match his ability. Brad Cottam (Tennessee) was surprisingly athletic in Mobile at the Senior Bowl, and he has a chance to make the first day if he stands out in Indy.


OL

Most to Lose:
Ryan Clady (Boise State) has been presumed to be a top 20 pick from the moment he declared because he is very athletic for a guy with the natural size to play LT in the NFL. He has to deliver on that promise this week.

Most to Gain:
Chris Williams (Vanderbilt) was far and away the best OT in Mobile at the Senior Bowl, and he has the chance to do the same in Indy and become a surprise top 10 pick.

Other Players to Watch:
King Dunlap (Auburn) got benched for a true freshman in his Senior year, but his combine numbers could make a lot of teams forget that after this week. Heath Benedict (Newberry) should also be one of the more impressive OL when the results come in.


DL

Most to Lose:
Calais Campbell (Miami-FL) did not produce up to his rare gifts at The U. He needs to put up great numbers have a chance to go in the first round after coming out as a Junior.

Most to Gain:
Tommy Blake (TCU) has not looked the same after a dominant Junior year that made him a presumed first round pick on most lists. He's barely in the draft right now, but if he finds that fire at the combine, he will be one of the more intriguing risks in April. Frank Okam (Texas) has had a similar fall since 2006, but not nearly as dramatic. He's in the middle of the draft right now, but can get into the first day if he reminds NFL teams of the player he was in the past.

Other Players to Watch:
Vernon Gholston (Ohio State), Philip Merling (Clemson), and Derrick Harvey (Florida) need to show that they truly are rare athletes at the DE position after coming out as Juniors. Athyba Rubin (Iowa State) has been rocketing up draft lists since a strong showing in the all star games, and could crack the 2nd round with a good week in Indy.


LB

Most to Lose:
Quentin Groves (Auburn) has to show in LB drills that he can make the transition in the NFL, or he could end up with the dreaded "tweener" label.

Most to Gain:
Jameel McClain (Syracuse) is versatile enough to play ILB, OLB, and put his hand down on third downs in the NFL. With good combine numbers, he might end up as high as a 3rd or 4th round pick.

Other Players to Watch:
Dan Connor (Penn State) is more instincts than athleticism, but decent to good numbers will help solidify his first round grade. Jordan Dizon (Colorado) will win over a lot of teams with a good time to go with his outstanding instincts and all out style of play.

DB

Most to Lose:
Antoine Cason (Arizona State) needs to light up the combine after skipping the Senior Bowl if he wants to remain among the elite CBs.

Most to Gain:
Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie (Tennessee State) has the ability to put up one of the all-time great combine lines with his size, speed, ups, and explosiveness. Antwaun Molden (Eastern Kentucky) has a similar skill set and should move up boards after this week.

Other Players to Watch:
Kenny Philips (Miami-FL) should stand out in a weak safety class. Chevis Jackson (LSU) has proven everything he can on the field, with good combine numbers, he may end up in the first round.


Millions of dollars will made and lost in the RCA Dome. We'll be watching every minute so that you don't miss any of the important developments.

I'm really looking forward to the combine. I remember watching guys like Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, and Brady Quinn last year. And some TE from Delaware.... not sure if he did anything this year. Not like Quinn did either. I remember there were all of these injury concerns about AP.... and what happened? NFL ROY, 2nd leading rusher, Pro Bowl MVP..... not bad! Calvin Johnson did well this year, Quinn didn't take a snap. It'll be interesting to read my draft coverage 5 years from now to see who became a star and who fizzled out.

I want to name a couple of guys who I hope the Giants get:
S: Kenny Phillips, Zbikowski (apparently a really hard hitter!)
CB: Reggie Smith, Aqib Talib, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Leodis McKelvin, Antoine Cason, Brandon Flowers, DeJuan Tribble
LB: Erin Henderson, Dan Connor, Xavier Adibi, Tavares Gooden, Ali Highsmith, Ezra Butler, Beau Bell, Jerod Mayo, Ben Moffitt
WR: Early Doucet, Limas Sweed, Mario Manningham, Lavelle Hawkins, Adrian Arrington, Dexter Jackson, Ryan Grice-Mullen


Some early predictions -

Guys who will become NFL STUDS
DT Sedric Ellis
QB Matt Ryan
QB Chad Henne
WR Adrian Arrington
CB Dominique Rodgers Cromartie
RB Rashard Mendenhall
TE Jermichael Finley
RB Jamaal Charles
WR Early Doucet
QB John David Booty


Guys who will become NFL BUSTS
RB Darren McFadden
FS Kenny Phillips
QB Andre Woodson
DE Calais Campbell
RB Tashard Choice
RB Mike Hart

The Killing Fields of Spain

Scandal of Late-Term Abortion

By Father John Flynn, LC
http://www.zenit.org/

ROME, DEC. 9, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Once again questionable practices at abortion clinics have made the headlines. In Spain authorities are investigating four clinics after accusations they carried out abortions beyond the legal time limit, reported London's Times newspaper, Nov. 30.

The Barcelona clinics were frequently used by British women according to the article, and carried out abortions up until the 8th month of pregnancy. The Times noted that Spanish law permits abortion only up until the 22nd week. In their investigations police discovered machines attached to the drains, used to crush the bodies of aborted babies, thus destroying the evidence.

According to a Nov. 27 article published by the Spanish newspaper ABC, authorities carried out a raid on the clinics following a denunciation by the Christian organization E-Cristians, made over a year ago. Part of the material sent to the police by E-Cristians came from a Danish television investigation that secretly filmed a pregnant journalist who asked if, being 30 weeks pregnant, one of the clinic's doctors would carry out an abortion on her. The doctor agreed.

In 2004, the British newspaper the Telegraph performed a similar undercover operation to expose illegal late abortions in Barcelona's clinics. According to ABC, the official investigations that came as a result of the articles published on the issue came to nothing.

An article published the next day by ABC contained graphic details of the brutal methods used in the late abortions by the Barcelona clinics. According to one doctor quoted by the paper, some of the abortive methods used differ little from infanticide. As well, an organization of Christian doctors (Médicos Cristianos) told the newspaper that they have proof that some of the bodies from late abortions finished up in laboratories to make cosmetics.

Other recent data on abortions in Spain also caused concern. On July 4 the ABC newspaper reported that according to a study of data from 1991-2001, researchers found that the number of abortions among 15-19 year olds almost doubled, from 5,441 to 9,918. During this period the total number of abortions rose sharply, from 41,910 to 69,857.

Then, on Dec. 2, the ABC reported that among adolescents less than 20 years old the number of abortions is greater than live births. The data came from 2005, the latest year for which complete information is available. In that year there were 12,883 young women under 20 who carried out their pregnancy to term, against, 13,031 who opted for abortion.

Grave injustice

Earlier this year the bishops making up the ecclesiastical province of the country's capital, Madrid, published a n ote on what they termed the grave problem of abortion. In their declaration, dated March 25, the feast of Our Lord's Incarnation, the prelates recalled that abortion is a grave injustice and a crime against innocent life.

The bishops strongly criticized legislators who approve laws enabling unjust violence against life and that squash the rights of those who cannot speak out for themselves. This is a totalitarian way of governing that forgets the first principle of justice, which is the right to life, they said.

Ireland's bishops also spoke out recently against abortion in a pastoral letter issued to mark the Oct. 7 annual celebration of the Day for Life. Every life has been created by God in his own image and likeness, they pointed out. This means that all life is sacred, from the moment of conception until natural death.

The bishops invited everyone to pray for all those affected by abortion, and also to pray for politicians that they will keep in mind the sacred ness of life in their decisions.

From Australia, Melbourne archbishop, Denis Hart, wrote an article on abortion published in the Herald Sun newspaper, Aug. 25. Sadly, he commented, the most dangerous place for a baby in the state of Victoria is to be in a mother's womb. One in four pregnancies in Victoria ends in abortion.

Australia has enjoyed substantial economic progress in recent years, the archbishop observed, but we need to be rich in humanity and not just in economic terms, he added. Moreover, if we allow democracy to be distorted by denying the right to life, "new slaveries will replace the dream of a real democracy," he concluded.

Defending life

It's not just the Church that defends unborn life. Francis Beckwith, associate professor of philosophy and jurisprudence at Baylor University, published a book that outlines the secular case against abortion. "Defending Life," published by Cambridge University Press, is a very thorough anal ysis of the abortion issue from the perspective of a discourse on the human person.

The key point to bear in mind, Beckwith argued, is that the unborn entity is a full-fledged member of the human community. Once this is accepted then it can also be argued that this entity is entitled to all the rights to which free and equal persons are entitled, among them the right to life.

Beckwith explains in the book's introduction that he chose to argue from philosophical and legal grounds, and not theological, because in both public life and academic circles religious arguments are often automatically discounted.

One of the difficulties in the debate, according to Beckwith, is that when we say something is morally wrong, there is often an assumption that this just depends on a personal view. Thus, defending the right to choose an abortion makes the issue one of mere personal preference, without any acknowledgment of objective principles of right or wrong.

The argument for moral relativism, often justified in the name of tolerance or cultural differences, is flawed, he maintained. In fact, over the centuries systems of moral reasoning have attempted to guide people in making their decisions, and arguments can be applied to the abortion debate.

After a couple of chapters dissecting the flaws in arguments advanced by the U.S. Supreme Court in its approval of abortion, Beckwith turns to look at the scientific case for the human status of the unborn.

From the moment of conception no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity an individual human being. The new entity is a whole organism, with the capacity and powers to bring the whole to maturity. From a biological point of view there is no decisive break or substantial change from conception until death.

Another chapter of the book deals with the argument that while the unborn entity may be a human, it does not have the status and rights of a person. Beckwith ter ms as anti-equality advocates those who defend the position that not all humans are equally valuable because they lack certain properties or functions.

Beckwith, by contrast, defends the position that a human being is intrinsically valuable because of what it is. A further chapter of the book applies this to the cloning issue. Unless we have a principled position based on the intrinsic value of human life at all stages of development it is more difficult to resist pressures for cloning, he concludes.

In concluding Beckwith reasons that if the unborn life is a person, and if is morally unjustified to take the life of a human, then the law should reflect this and prohibit the unjust killing of innocent persons.

This is a position shared by Benedict XVI, who in a Nov. 19 address to bishops from Kenya stated that the "direct destruction of an innocent human life can never be justified, however difficult the circumstances that may lead some to consider taking suc h a grave step." This fundamental equality of life, the Pope continued, is essential as a basis for a social life founded on truth and justice. Principles that are valid for all, regardless of faith.

Raw Deals for John Paul II and Mother Teresa

Raw Deals for John Paul II and Mother Teresa?
Authors Speculate if Media Reports Are Intentional

ROME, OCT. 11, 2007 (Zenit.org).- With new charges against Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II, it appears that the secular media are trying to cast doubts on the reputation of two saintly world figures.

A recent story from Time magazine speculated on whether John Paul II was euthanized by the removal of feeding tubes during his last days.

The story was prompted by the speculation of Dr. Lina Pavanelli, an anesthesiologist in Italy. Time magazine reported that the doctor "believes that the Pope's doctors dutifully explained the situation to him, and [Pavanelli] surmises that it was the Pontiff himself who likely refused the feeding tube after he'd been twice rushed to the hospital in February and March."

Pavanelli's speculation, originally publi! shed in May, was picked up by the Italian press and Time magazine, but not until after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document in mid September, explaining the moral guidelines for providing food and water for patients in the "persistent vegetative state."

George Weigel, author of "Witness to Hope," a biography of John Paul II, told ZENIT: "Pavanelli is either ignorant or malicious -- perhaps both.

"The Italian left is unhappy with the Vatican over its recent statement on care for patients in a vegetative state; this is the revenge they take.

"No serious person will take this seriously."

Dark night

Before the latest scuffle over the events surrounding John Paul II's death, there was the much publicized discussion of Mother Teresa's experience of feeling a deep sense of doubt about God's existence.

Secular media cast doubts upon Mother Teresa's sincerity! , given her strong temptations against faith. Time magazine again reported on the phenomenon.

Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the postulator of Mother Teresa's cause and editor of the book of her writings, "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light," told ZENIT: "First of all, we need to recognize that the aspects of the Christian spiritual life discussed in the book are not so well known or easy to grasp, and for some, to accept, even among committed Christians -- e.g., 'Why do the saints have to suffer so much?'

"With regard to the secular media, I think one basic reason why Mother Teresa's darkness has been misinterpreted is the superficiality with which the darkness was treated.

"The Time [magazine] piece for the most part, apart from the title and cover photo, tried to present the nuances of Mother Teresa's darkness."

Ignorance?

The priest continued: "Many others just jumped on some expressions of M! other Teresa and thus entirely misrepresented the darkness, for example one headline was: 'Mother Teresa's Secret: I Have No Faith.' Some may have done so out of ignorance and others out of an effort to discredit her.

"Perhaps some who have lost their faith, or have little or no faith, felt 'justified' in some way, thinking: 'If even Mother Teresa had no faith or at least doubted her faith, then how do you expect me to have faith?' And others in the 'culture wars' were happy to discredit one of the other side's heroes.

"Those who have no experience or expertise in spirituality or psychology should have the good sense and humility not to presume to analyze what is indeed so far beyond them."

Father George Rutler, author of "Coincidentally," published by Crossroad Books, and a regular columnist for Crisis magazine, told ZENIT that journalists often have their role backward: "Journalism is supposed to report events. Bloa! ted egos in journalism think they should shape events.

"This unfortunately encourages a significant minority actually to lie to achieve an end. When there is no confidence in objective truth, all is propaganda, just as in politics, justice is replaced with sheer power."

The commentator also acknowledged that faulty reporting is not always intentional: "Having worked with the media for a long time I have learned that most of those involved in the various media are not willfully deceitful. Many of them are limited by a lack of formation."

source: www.zenit.com

Cardinal Pell's Response to Parliamentary Inquiry

Cardinal Pell's Response to Parliamentary Inquiry

"I Enjoy the Right to Comment on Proposed Laws"

SYDNEY, Australia, SEPT. 21, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a statement written by Cardinal George Pell, archbishop of Sydney, in which he welcomes a report clearing him of contempt of Parliament.

Cardinal Pell was referred to the Privileges Committee of the New South Wales Legislative Council for comments he made during the debate on the Human Cloning Bill earlier this year.

Answering questions at a press conference June 5, Cardinal Pell pointed out that "Catholic politicians who vote for this legislation must realize that their voting has consequences for their place in the life of the Church."

Cardinal Pell’s comments were referred to the Privileges Committee on June 6.

In its report t o the state's upper house, the Privileges Committee has found there is no contempt of Parliament in Cardinal Pell's remarks, and has recommended that no further action be taken.

* * *

Introduction

This response is written at the invitation of the Privileges Committee of the Legislative Council of the Parliament of New South Wales.

I understand that the Privileges Committee is to inquire and report on whether public comments made by me constitute a contempt of Parliament. The terms of reference of the Committee refer to comments by me contained in:

1. A written media statement issued by the Bishops of New South Wales on June 4, 2007 to which I was a signatory, and

2. Comments attributed to me in articles published in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph on June 6, 2007.

It is important to note at the outset that I issued the Bishops' statement and participated in the press conference as a par t of a public debate on the Human Cloning Bill then before the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. Along with other citizens I enjoy the right to comment on proposed laws on my own behalf and on behalf of the community I represent. That is the essence of democracy. Therefore it seems to me to be an extraordinary step for the Legislative Council to require a citizen to justify his contribution to the debate or risk a finding of contempt. Before returning to this point however, a brief comment on the public debate which took place on the Human Cloning Bill may be useful.

Public debate on legislation before Parliament

On 6 June 2007 by the Honourable Richard Torbay MP, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, referred to my comments in the following terms:

High profile and eminent people often make comments on legislation before Parliament. That is the nature of a democratic society, which enables people of all persuasions to voice t heir views.

Public debate about legislation before the Parliament does not necessarily insult the House or its Members. Comments directed at Members could be construed as reflecting on the character or conduct of Members in Parliament. However, for such comments to be a breach of privilege they must have dire consequences for Members, such as impeding Members in their duties in the House.

I consider in this case that the comments made about the legislation before the House have been made as part of the public debate on a controversial issue and have not affected the rights of Members to express their views and vote as they deem appropriate.

The Speaker's words would be equally applicable to comments attributed to the convenor of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia also contained in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 June 2007:

The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia said there would be elec toral consequences for politicians who did not vote in support of research that could offer potential therapy for spinal cord injury, motor neurone disease, Parkinson's disease, and juvenile diabetes.

'There are patients and their families who are also constituency members and will not vote for them when the next election comes along', said the advocacy group's convenor, Joanna Knott.

As I understand it no allegation of contempt has been made, nor is being contemplated, in relation to the comments by the convenor of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia.

Both my comments and those of the convenor of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia are properly seen as, adopting the words of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, "part of the public debate on a controversial issue [which do not affect] the rights of Members to express their views and vote as they deem appropriate".

I need hardly remind Members of the Committee that votes in the Parliament are almost always subject to party discipline. If a Member of Parliament votes against party policy, that Member is subject to sanctions which may be imposed by party officials outside the Parliament, including expulsion from the party itself.

Similarly, by way of example, a parliamentarian who supported a bill for capital punishment could hardly complain were his or her membership of anti-capital punishment organisations to be forfeited.

I am not aware that the customs and conventions of the Legislative Council have ever deemed such conduct by party officials or outside bodies to be contempt of Parliament.

On the much lesser "offence" of making a bona fide contribution to public debate, I do not believe that a citizen of this State has ever been charged with contempt for views he has expressed on a controversial bill. Nevertheless I will give Members of the Committe e an account of my views so that they may better understand why I regard your requirements of me as both undesirable and unprecedented.

My comments on the Human Cloning Bill

My comments on the Human Cloning Bill were derived from the conviction that Parliamentarians who legislate for the destruction of human life (in any circumstances and especially in this case where no cures from human embryos have been effected during many years of research) are acting in a way that departs from the principles of both the natural law known through human reason alone and Christian teaching. The natural law principles and the teaching in question are that human life should be accorded the full protection of the law without regard to race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, condition of dependency or stage of development.[1]

I put forward this moral argument as a contribution to the public debate because it is rational, an argument open to acceptance by all people of no religion and any religion. I was not asserting some supernatural dogma beyond human reason and seeking to impose it on the general community. It would be a sad day for Australia if only members of the Christian majority accepted the unique dignity of the human person. But this is not the case. Defenders of human life -- from conception to natural birth -- come from every section of the Australian population.

As a Catholic archbishop I am also charged with ensuring that Catholics know the moral teaching of the Church. The Church's teaching on cloning states that the cloning of a human being is wrong and cannot be justified by any known or imagined effects. The Church also teaches that destructive experimentation on embryonic human beings -- cloned or otherwise -- is an intrinsically evil act, because experimentation involves their dismemberment and therefore mutilation and death.

In asking Catholic politicians -- and other Members of Parliament who are Ch ristian or who respect human life -- to vote against this legislation, the New South Wales bishops were not calling for the "enforcement" of Catholic beliefs, but reminding legislators to fulfil the demands of justice and the common good that follow from the inherent and equal dignity of every member of the human family.[2] This is exactly the basis on which the Church also calls on legislators to protect the poor or to oppose racial discrimination.

In the press conference on June 5, after reading the joint statement of the New South Wales Bishops, I faced repeated questions about the consequences for Catholic politicians who did not follow the natural law teaching of the Church on these matters, after being reminded in a written question that on May 9, Pope Benedict XVI had spoken about abortion in these terms: "It simply states in Canon Law that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with going to Communion, where one receives the Body of Christ".

In response, I pointed out factually that "Catholic politicians who vote for this legislation must realise that their voting has consequences for their place in the life of the Church", while also pointing out that legislating for abortion is not the same act as performing an abortion, and supporting legislation for human cloning is somewhat different again.

The phrase "consequences for their place in the life of the Church" refers to the effect a seriously wrong decision has on the personal relationship between that individual and God, and that individual and the Church community to which he belongs. These consequences need not be imposed from outside by a third party such as a bishop or priest, but are intrinsic to the infraction itself and loosen the person's bonds to the Church.

No one is compelled to be or remain a Catholic. Obviously outsiders are not liable to Catholic discipline, and Catholics are able in our situation of religious freedom to ignore or reject any Church sanction.

My task as a Catholic Archbishop is to point out that God judges human conduct, as well as pointing out the importance of Catholics following Church teaching on matters of faith and morals. The vast majority of political matters are for the prudential judgment of each individual Catholic, but the Church is unambiguous that there are certain choices which are intrinsically evil and cannot in good conscience be condoned or promoted by faithful Catholics -- the evil being known through right reason itself, as well as through Catholic faith.

It is possible that some Catholic politicians have been misled by the theory of "primacy of conscience", allegedly an invention of the Second Vatican Council, although the phrase can be found nowhere in the documents of the Council.

It is difficult to know what this theory means, as everyone is obliged to act as he thinks proper. Unfortunately, as the Jesuit theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles writes, "the idea of conscience has been deformed by some modern thinkers . . . [who] often depict conscience as a supreme and infallible tribunal that dispenses us from considerations of law and truth, putting in their place purely subjective . . . criteria such as sincerity, authenticity and being at peace with oneself".[3] From this mistaken view some conclude that Church authorities, and by implication God himself, must accept every conscientious decision even when such a decision violates natural law, the Ten Commandments, and important Church moral teaching.

Jurisdiction to commit and punish for contempt

I will now turn to the question of the Legislative Council's jurisdiction with regard to contempt. I have taken legal advice which is reflected in what follows.

I note that the letter of 27 June 2007 from the Chair of the Privileges Committee of the Legislative Counc il, the Hon. Kayee Griffin MLC, identifies my public comments concerning the Human Cloning Bill as constituting the basis of an alleged contempt. I assume that the reference to the Committee is to enquire whether those public remarks come within the following description in Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (23rd ed., 2004 at 128):

Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its function, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

However Erskine May does not deal with the law of contempt of Parliament as it applies to New South Wales. That statement of law is to be found in the judgements of the High Court and the Privy Council.

A recent High Court discussion of the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Parliament on contempt is to be found in Egan v Willis.[4] The history of the Parliament's powers was discussed at length by Justice McHugh who reviewed the various authoritative statements of the Privy Council and the High Court as to the limits of those powers. These authorities show that (leaving aside any statute that the Parliament itself might enact) the common law does allow the Parliament to do what is reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of its functions. What is "reasonably necessary" is to be understood "by reference to what, at the time in question, have come to be the conventional practices" of the Parliament.[5]

However the authorities reject any notion that the common law empowers either House to proceed against a citizen for statements made in the past and outside the House. Justice McHugh quotes Mr Baron Parke in the Privy Council who said: "The whole question is reduced to this -- whether by law, the power of committing for contempt, not in the presence of the Assembly, is incident to every local legislature."[6] In answer, the existence of such an "extraordinary power" was emphatically rejected by the Privy Council, and there is no reason to think that it has ever been a part of the practices of either House of the New South Wales Parliament. This conclusion is reinforced by other cases referred to by Justice McHugh.[7]

The reasoning which supports this conclusion depends upon the distinction between the powers of the Parliament at Westminster and the powers of colonial parliaments, including that of the colony of New South Wales from its establishment.

The power to commit and punish for contempt is a power of the Parliament at Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments. This power had its origins in that Parliament's prior status as a court, the High Court of Parliament. But it has been long established that other parliaments created elsewhere in the British Commonwealth do not automatically possess this same power, simply by virtue of being a parliament.

Parliaments established under British law outside the United Kingdom were established not as courts in any sense, but purely as legislative bodies, typically with circumscribed powers. The New South Wales Parliament had its origins as a colonial assembly and in these circumstances Australian law confines the privileges of a parliament to those expressly conferred by statute, or "necessarily incidental" to its status, existence, and "the reasonable and proper exercise of [its] functions."[8]

In Australia the parliaments in every state except New South Wales have enacted legislation to identify their powers and privileges, often equating them to those possessed by the Parliament at Westminster. Because the New South Wales Parliament has never enacted this sort of statute, its privileges are confined to those "necessarily incidental" to its status, existence, and "the reasonable and proper exercise of [its] functions". The power to commit and punish for contempt only accrues to the New South Wales Parliament if it meets this criterion.

In considering the powers of parliaments in relation to contempt the courts have repeatedly held that there is a distinction between the removal of an impediment to the performance of parliamentary functions, and the punishment of past actions alleged to have had such an effect. The former is a power the possession of which is "really necessary . . . to secure the free exercise of [a Parliament's] legislative functions", but the same is not true of the latter.[9] The distinction between defensive and punitive action has been applied in relation to the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales.[10]

In other words, the power to investigate, judge and punish alleged past misconduct is an "extraordinary" rather than a "necessarily incidental" power, and it is properly a judicial power belonging to a judicial body.[11] Because the Parliament of New South Wales was not established as a court (as was the Parliament of Westminster), and has not enacted legislation to grant itself the privileges of Westminster, this power does not fall within its competence.

The courts have thus defined the kind of obstruction which would constitute a contempt of Parliament as limited to an attempt made to impede Members of Parliament from carrying out their duties freely. But there is no evidence that any Member of the Parliament was impeded from performing their duties or was in any way intimidated by my public remarks about the duties of Catholic politicians in considering this legislation. Quite the contrary.

It is also clear that the Legislative Council believed there was no need to take "defensive" action ag ainst any of the participants outside the Parliament, myself included, at the time of the debate to prevent obstruction and to ensure a free and open vote on the legislation. Certainly the Legislative Assembly, through its Speaker, did not perceive the remarks as obstruction but rather as part of a vigorous public debate as befits a democracy.

Religious Freedom
In a democracy such as Australia any citizen should be free to argue publicly for certain policies on religious grounds; these arguments to be accepted or rejected by legislators or electors as they see fit.

It is my submission that it is essential that religious leaders, including myself, are free to express the position taken by their Church or religion on matters of public interest and debate. To prevent religious leaders from doing so has the effect of stifling religious freedom and hampers effective and open debate on matters of public interest.

One of Christianity's most impo rtant public services is to preserve and strengthen Australia as a decent, prosperous and stable democracy. It does this through its many works of practical service and care, but also from time to time by regular participation in public debate, usually by lay people, but sometimes through Church leaders.

So too legislators are free to use religious considerations in deciding their position on legislation. I might add that the same principle allows atheists, be they legislators or electors, to act on the basis of their atheistic convictions when it comes to the formation of legislation and public policy. If the right of legislators and electors who are religious believers to do the same were to be denied, then we would have informally mandated atheism as the unofficial state religion. This is hardly compatible with the principle and practice of religious liberty.

Freedom of religion is not to be reduced merely to the freedom to perform ceremonies on private property. As Professor James Hitchcock, the distinguished American historian of the United States Supreme Court, has observed, "if freedom of religion means anything, it surely includes the right of every church to determine who is a member in good standing". To deny that Christian churches and other faiths have the authority to make such a judgement "is to deny religious freedom in a fundamental way."[12]

This implies that for good reasons a Christian church, somewhat like a political party or even a sporting club, has the right to exclude a person or persons from membership, and to recommend that they abstain from receiving Holy Communion or even, in some instances, to refuse to give them Holy Communion.

One good reason for the high respect given to Parliaments in Australia is that parliamentarians do not regard themselves as being above the law of the land. For the same reason it would be incongruous for Catholic parliamentarians t o declare that they are above basic Christian moral teachings, while still asserting their good standing in the Church.

Conclusion

In a democracy, any person can offer himself for public office. He may be affected or unaffected by religion, sympathetic or hostile to it. Our constitution imposes no religious test and excludes no candidate by reason of his attitude to religion. Public office is open to all. Things are no different when it comes to participation in public debate. Every citizen is entitled to take part. No one is excluded, including those who hold office within a religious community.

Although Australian life has been marred by sectarianism in the past, Catholics here never suffered the centuries of persecution that befell Catholics in Britain and Ireland, and nor have they been victims of the mob-violence and church-burning that anti-Catholicism occasionally produced in the United States. The idea that religion is irrational and mus t be excluded from public affairs is not a native Australian plant, and it would be regrettable if American or European frames of reference were imposed on the very different situation of religious life and public culture here in Australia.

Christians in Australia have long played an important part in ensuring that fundamental human rights are respected and will strive to continue this important work. My contribution to this public discussion on human cloning was made in this spirit and tradition.

ARCHBISHOP OF SYDNEY
20 August 2007

[1] Robert P. George, "Political Obligations, Moral Conscience, and Human Life", Voices 22:2 (Pentecost 2007), 15.
[2] Ibid. 16.

[3] Avery Dulles, S.J., "Truth as the Ground of Freedom: A Theme from John Paul II" (Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, 1995), 5.
[4] [1998] HCA 71.

[5] Ibid. at [50], per Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ.
[6] Ibid. at [72].

[7] Ibid. at [76] & [77].
[8] Namoi Shire Council v Attorney-General of New South Wales [1980] 2NSWLR 639 at 643 (per McClelland J).

[9] Kielly v Carson (1842) 4 Moo PC 63 at 88-90; 13 ER 225 at 234-35.
[ 0] See Barton v Taylor 11 AC 197; Willis & Christie v Perry (1912) 13 CLR 592; Armstrong v Budd [1969] 1 NSWLR 649; and Gripps v McElhone (1881) 2 (LR) NSW 18.

[1 ] Kielly v Carson loc. cit.
[12] James Hitchcock, "Freedom of Religion at Political Crossroad", Women for Faith and Freedom, 10 June 2007.

Belarus to Deport Foreign Priests

Belarus to Deport Foreign Priests

MINSK, Belarus, SEPT. 21, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Belarusian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Kosinets said that all foreign Catholic priests would be banned from the country over the next few years.

Of the roughly 350 Catholic priests in the country, the majority are foreign and almost all of those are Polish. Belarus has been targeting foreign Catholics since last year, deporting all those without papers, reported the U.S.-based Stratfor intelligence firm.

Now the campaign is extended to all foreign Catholic priests.

Kosinets said Thursday that "foreign priests cannot conduct religious activities in Belarus because they do not understand the mentality and traditions of the Belarusian people."

Fr. Rosmini to be beatified

Vindicated Thinker to Be Beatified

Father Rosmini's Writings Were Condemned

NOVARA, Italy, SEPT. 21, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The beatification of a 19th-century priest whose writings were once condemned by the Holy Office will take place in Novara this fall.

Father Antonio Rosmini, a theologian and philosopher, will be beatified Nov. 18 by Cardinal José Saraiva Martins, prefect of the Congregation for Saints' Causes.

Some of his works were condemned because of erroneous interpretations promoted by a few of his followers.

Ordained a priest in 1821, he went on in 1830 to found the Institute of Charity, a religious congregation recognized in 1839 by Pope Gregory XVI.

Despite his absolute fidelity to Pope Pius IX, in 1849 the ecclesiastical authorities placed two of Father Rosmini's works on the Index of banned books. Condemned later with the doctrinal decree "Post Obitum" were 40 ! of his propositions, taken especially from posthumous works and others published in his lifetime.

It was not until July 1, 2001, that a note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by the then prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stated that "the reasons for concern" regarding the work of Antonio Rosmini have been surmounted.

"The beatification of Father Rosmini," said Bishop Renato Corti of Novara in a press conference, "will be a singular event for the Church in Italy because it will focus the attention of today's Christians on the example of a person who dedicated his life to bringing together faith and reason. This is exactly the challenge facing us today."

According to the bishop, "The beatification will be above all a moment of great celebration for the men and women religious of the Rosminian order, who are present today throughout the world, and also for the city of Novara."

www.zenit.com

Top UN Official Praises Efforts to Throw the Vatican Out of the UN

Top UN Official Praises Efforts to Throw the Vatican Out of the UN

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) A top advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made what can only be seen as a major diplomatic blunder in an article published recently. In the article Nafis Sadik, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS, praised the campaign to have the Vatican stripped of its UN Observer status and effectively kicked out of the UN General Assembly. The comment will likely have serious repercussions for Sadik, long a controversial and polarizing figure in the UN system.

The article ran in Conscience Magazine which is published by the pro-abortion group "Catholics" for a Free Choice (CFFC), a group dedicated, in the words of its past president Frances Kissling, to "overthrowing" the Catholic Church. In the article Sadik praised Kissling as "an ally" who shares Sadik's "passion for sexual and reproductive health and rights."

Sadik also praised CFFC's "See Change" campaign which was meant to drive the Holy See out of the UN. Over several years Kissling managed to get a few hundred mostly pro-abortion non-governmental organizations to endorse the removal of the Holy See's Observer status, a status that allows the Vatican to negotiate UN documents. Sadik said the campaign "showed all the audacity, intelligence, organization and wit for which Frances [Kissling] is renowned."

While the campaign is ongoing it has largely died, and instead of succeeding fomented a global wave of support for the Holy See at the UN. A campaign in support of the Holy See was launched and 4,200 groups from all over the world endorsed the Holy See at the UN [this campaign was run by C-FAM, publisher of the Friday Fax]. The US Congress passed a nearly unanimous resolution praising the Holy See at the UN. Not a single Member State of the UN endorsed throwing the Catholic Church out of the UN. And finally, a few years ago, the UN General Assembly upgraded the status of the Holy See. So it is perhaps odd that Sadik should choose this late date to praise the "See Change" campaign.

Close observers of the UN would, however, say Sadik's undiplomatic praise of an attack on a sovereign state and well regarded member of the UN community, fits with her long tenure at the UN. It was during her time running the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) that UNFPA was charged by British and American investigators with complicity in the forced abortion program in China, actions for which UNFPA's funding from the US was withdrawn and never regained. It was under her watch that UNFPA was shown also to be complicit in forced sterilizations in Peru. Sadik has long shown a tin ear when it comes to politics having once given UNFPA's top award to the director of the coercive Chinese program. And during the negotiations for the Cairo+5 Conference in 1999 she angered a group of Muslim Ambassadors when she excoriated them for working too closely with Christian NGOs.

It is not known what action the Secretary General will take. The Friday Fax repeatedly called the Secretary General's office for a comment. The Friday Fax also called the press office of UNPFA to see if the current head of UNFPA agrees with Sadik. No answer was given.

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

The Irrational Dogmas of Rational Atheism

The Irrational Dogmas of Rational Atheism

I was recently re-reading sections of what I think is one of the best and yet most under-appreciated works of Catholic apologetics written in recent decades, Faith and Certitude by Father Thomas Dubay, S.M., published by Ignatius Press in 1985. (And, for the record, I thought that long before I ever wrote or worked for Ignatius.) Fr. Dubay's book is, as the title suggests, especially concerned with skepticism and unbelief, and is an excellent examination of the intellectual premises and varied attitudes held by atheists. In a chapter titled, "Clarifying Our Concepts," Fr. Dubay writes:

Everyone is dogmatic. The statement may startle, but it is easy to demonstrate. We human beings differ not as to whether we consider ourselves infallibly right about this or that but as to what this or that may be. ... All of us have dogmas, some with good reason, some without.

This is Chestertonian in nature, as this quote from G.K.'s Heretics indicates: "Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . Trees have no dogmas" A bit later Dubay states:

Yet despite this confusion [brought about by relativism] there lurks in the human heart a deep need for what we shall call objective truth and the secure possession of it.

Simple enough, but also profound. Those statements came to mind when I stumbled today upon a piece on ScientificAmerican.com (September 2007) titled, "Rational Atheism," which is "An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens," written by Michael Shermer. He is publisher of Skeptic and author of Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt, 2006). He is not too taken with the often harsh and sensational methods of attack someitmes employed by the best-selling authors he addresses his letter to; he pleads for a more calm and reasoned approach that stresses positive thoughts and action: "I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher..." And:

Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

A higher moral principle....um...based on what? He refers to the "golden rule," which is, if I'm not mistaken (yes, a bit of sarcasm), a religious principle made famous by a man who claimed to be God (His name was Jesus, as I'm sure you know.) The "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" blog remarks:

This is from a guy who says he believes that ultimate reality is matter in motion. Molecules. Matter. Nothing transcendent. Just matter. That's it.

Reading Shermer make moral arguments based on objective moral principles, therefore, is irrational if his worldview is true. The supreme irony is that Shermer titled his article Rational Atheism.

Exactly. Shermer ends his letter with what can only be read as an overt dogmatic statement: "Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion." Funny how atheists tend to find something out there and above us that is providing objective guidance—a "principle" in this case—but don't you dare think it could be a personal Creator. For example, Sam Harris, in his screed The End of Faith, writes that there “is no reason that our ability to sustain ourselves emotionally and spiritually cannot evolve with technology, politics, and the rest of culture. Indeed, it must evolve, if we are to have any future at all.” If that isn’t an overt statement of dogmatic faith—in the necessity and inevitability of some sort of evolution—what is?

Harris's book, which I've mentioned before, is a rather fascinating read, but not for any good reason. In fact, good reason and reasoning are rarely found, as Harris's favorite argument against "faith" and "religion" (mostly Christianity and Islam) is that religious people and beliefs are ignorant, foolish, backwards, insulting, intolerant, violent, insane, etc., etc. Every religion, he writes, “preaches the truth of propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable. This puts the ‘leap’ in Kierkegaards’ leap of faith.” And: “Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity—a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.”

In glancing through The End of Faith once more, I noted how much it resembles a bad magic act, with the magician (the atheist author) trying to confuse the audience with a flurry of clumsy distractions (name calling; straw men; rapid fire accusations; emoting; whining) so they won't notice that how poorly he performs the "trick" (makes God disappear). It is curious, for example, that a 336-page book with extensive endnotes, written by someone with a degree in philosophy who supposedly relies occasionally on philosophical arguments—and which describes Catholic doctrine and beliefs as "suggestive of mental illness"—does not contain a single reference to Thomas Aquinas. Or John Henry Newman, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Claudel, Josef Pieper, von Balthasar, Mortimer Adler, Hans Küng (a man I often criticize, but whose 800-page book, Does God Exist?, makes Harris's look like third-rate graffiti), Guardini, Richard Swinburne, Rahner, William Lane Craig, Michael Novak, etc., etc. Augustine is mentioned a few times, mostly to call him an anti-Semitic "sadist." Of Pascal: "That so nimble a mind could be led to labor under such dogma [regarding the divinity of Jesus] was surely one of the great wonders of the age." (Funny how bullies only pick on the weak kids when the bigger kids aren't around.) Imagine if a theist wrote a book titled The End of Disbelief and failed to mention, say, Hume, Voltaire, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Marx, Comte, and Sartre, with only passing reference to Darwin, Freud, and Singer. It would be roundly and rightly criticized. By Christians!

Equally revealing is this passage by Harris:

Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God.

Here, again, it is the omission that stands out, especially from a student of philosophy. What are the famous words of Socrates? "Know thyself." Harris is so fixated on scientific and technological achievement and knowledge that he ignores the perennial greatness of self-examination and knowledge of man—who he is, how he thinks and feels, how he lives and should live, how he should treat others, etc. That is what the well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century knew far better than the average, self-absorbed, unthinking denizen of the Information Age. Of course, Aquinas spends much time in the Summa Theologica considering the nature and existence of God; but he also focuses on the nature and meaning of being human, the meaning of life, the goal of life, the what and why of ethics, and so forth. It is one reason that even non-Christians generally recognize him as a philosophical/theological genius (even if Harris has never heard of him).

As Fr. Dubay points out, there are three untenable conclusions "that necessarily flow from the atheistic choice." They are the belief in blind chance "as the origin of an unimaginably complex universe"; atheism's "lack of rationality and the ultimate nihilism to which it necessarily leads the consistent mind"; and, to the point I've just made, atheism's "inability to explain men and women to themselves." Atheism, especially the popular sort peddled by Harris and Co., tends to spend much time explaining what it doesn't believe and why it hates Christianity. That might be enough for some people to live on intellectually and otherwise, but it's not enough for folks who are really grappling with the mysteries of life and reality.

By Carl Olson

Mother Teresa's Dark Night

Mother Teresa's Dark Night Unique, Says Preacher

Father Cantalamessa Calls Her Saint of the Media Age

VATICAN CITY, AUG. 27, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta's dark night of the soul kept her from being a victim of the media age and exalting herself, says the preacher of the Pontifical Household.

Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa said this in an interview with Vatican Radio, commenting on previously unpublished letters from Mother Teresa, now made public in Doubleday's book "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light," edited by Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, postulator of the cause of Mother Teresa's canonization.

In one of her letters, Mother Teresa wrote: "There is so much contradiction in my soul. Such deep longing for God -- so deep that it is painful -- a suffering continual -- and yet not wanted by God -- repulsed -- empty -- no fa! ith -- no love -- no zeal. Souls hold no attraction. Heaven means nothing -- to me it looks like an empty place."

Father Cantalamessa explained that the fact that Mother Teresa suffered deeply from her feeling of the absence of God affirms that it was a positive phenomenon. Atheists, he contended, are not afflicted by God's absence but, "for Mother Teresa, this was the most terrible test that she could have experienced."

He further clarified that "it is the presence-absence of God: God is present but one does not experience his presence."

Martyrdom

Father Cantalamessa contended that Mother Teresa's spiritual suffering makes her even greater.

He said: "The fact that Mother Teresa was able to remain for hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament, as many eye-witnesses have testified, as if enraptured … if one thinks about the condition she was in at that moment, that is martyrdom!

"Because of this, for me, the figure of Mother Teresa is even greater; it does not diminish her."

The Capuchin priest further lauded Mother Teresa's ability to keep her spiritual pain hidden within her. "Maybe, this was done in expiation for the widespread atheism in today's world," he said, adding that she lived her experience of the absence of God "in a positive way -- with faith, with God."

Not scandalous

Father Cantalamessa affirmed that Mother Teresa's dark night should not scandalize or surprise anyone. The "dark night," he said, "is something well-known in the Christian tradition; maybe new and unheard of in the way Mother Teresa experienced it."

He added: "While 'the dark night of the spirit' of St. John of the Cross is a generally preparatory period for that definitive one called 'unitive,' for Mother Teresa it seems that it was one stable state, from a certain poin! t in her life, when she began this great work of charity, until the end.

"In my view, the fact of this prolongation of the 'night' has meaning for us today. I believe that Mother Teresa is the saint of the media age, because this 'night of the spirit' protected her from being a victim of the media, namely from exalting herself.

"In fact, she used to say that when she received great awards and praise from the media, she did not feel anything because of this interior emptiness."

Father Cantalamessa on the Narrow Gate

Father Cantalamessa on the Narrow Gate

Pontifical Household Preacher Comments on Sunday's Readings

ROME, AUG. 24, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a commentary by the Pontifical Household preacher, Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, on the readings from this Sunday's liturgy.

* * *

Enter Through the Narrow Gate
21st Sunday in Ordinary Time
Isaiah 66:18-21; Hebrews 12:5-7, 11-13; Luke 13:22-30

There is a question that has always nagged believers: Will there be many or few people saved? During certain periods this problem became so acute as to cause some people terrible anxiety.

This Sunday's Gospel informs us that Jesus himself was once asked this question. "Jesus passed through towns and villages, teaching as he went and making his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, 'Lord, will only a few people be saved?'"

The question, as we see, focuses on the number -- How many will be saved? Will it be many or few? In answering the question, Jesus shifts the focus from "how many" to "how" to be saved, that is, by entering "through the narrow gate."

We see this same attitude in regard to Jesus' second coming. The disciples ask "when" the return of the Son of Man will happen and Jesus answers indicating "how" we should prepare ourselves for that return, and what to do during the time of waiting (cf. Matthew 24:3-4).

Jesus' way of responding to these questions is not strange or discourteous. He is just acting in the way of one who wants to teach his disciples how to move from a life of curiosity to one of true wisdom; from the allure of idle questions to the real problems we need to grapple with in life.

From this we already! see the absurdity of those who, like the Jehovah Witnesses, believe they know the precise number of the saved: 144,000.

This number, which recurs in the Book of Revelations has a purely symbolic value (the square of 12 -- the number of the tribes of Israel -- multiplied by 1,000) and is explained by the expression that immediately follows: "A great multitude that no man could number" (Revelations 7:4, 9).

Above all, if 144,000 is really the number, then we can both close up shop. Above the gate to heaven there must be a sign like the ones parking lots put up: "Full."

If, therefore, Jesus is not so much interested in revealing to us the number of the saved as he is in telling us how to be saved, we can understand what he is trying to tell us here. In substance, there are two things: one negative and the other positive.

It is useless, or rather it is not enough, to belong to a certain ethnic group, race, tradition, or institution, not even the chosen people from whom the Savior himself comes. What puts us on the road to salvation is not a title of ownership ("We ate and drank in your presence..."), but a personal decision, followed by a consistent way of life. This is even more clear in Matthew's text which contrasts two ways and two gates, one narrow and the other wide (cf. Matthew 7:13-14).

Why are these ways respectively called "narrow" and "wide"? Is it perhaps that the way of evil is always easy and pleasant to follow and the way of goodness always hard and tiresome?

Here we must be careful not to cede to the usual temptation of believing that here below everything goes magnificently well for the wicked and everything goes terribly for the good.

The way of the wicked is wide, but only at the beginning. As one goes down this way it gradually becomes narrow and bitter. In any case, it becomes very narrow at the end because ! it finishes in a blind alley.

The joy that is experienced in it has the characteristic of diminishing more and more as one tastes it, and it finally causes nausea and sadness. We see this in certain forms of intoxication experienced in drugs, alcohol and sex. A larger dose or stronger stimulation is needed each time to produce pleasure of the same intensity.

Finally the organism no longer responds and it begins to break down, even physically.

The way of the just is instead narrow at the beginning, when one starts off on it, but it then becomes a spacious boulevard because hope, joy and peace of heart are found in it.

A Muslim Friend's Letter to Slain Father Ragheed
"In the Name of What God of Death Have They Killed You?"

ROME, JUNE 6, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of a letter written posthumously to Father Ragheed Aziz Ganni by a Muslim friend of his who is a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University. Father Ragheed and three deacons were shot and killed in Mosul, Iraq, on Sunday after Mass.

* * *

In the name of the compassionate and merciful God,

Ragheed, my brother,

I ask your forgiveness for not being with you when those criminals opened fire against you and your brothers. The bullets that have gone through your pure and innocent body have also gone through my heart and soul.

You were one of the first people I met when I arrived to Rome. We met in the halls of the Angelicum and we would drink our cappuccino in the university's cafeteria. You impressed me with your innocence, joy, your pure and tender smile that never left you.

I always picture you smiling, joyful and full of zest for life. Ragheed is to me innocence personified; a wise innocence that carries in its heart the sorrows of his unhappy people. I remember the time, in the university's dining room, when Iraq was under embargo and you told me that the price of a single cappuccino would have satisfied the needs of an Iraqi family for a whole day.

You told me this as if you were feeling guilty for being far away from your persecuted people and unable to share in their sufferings …

In fact, you returned to Iraq, not only to share the suffering and destiny of your people but also to join your blood to the blood of thousands of Iraqis killed each day. I will never forget the day of your ordination [Oct. 13, 2001] in the [Pontifical] Urbanian University … with tears in your eyes, you told me: "Today, I have died to self" … a hard thing to say.

I didn't understand it right away, or maybe I didn't take it as seriously as I should have. … But today, through your martyrdom, I have understood that phrase. … You have died in your soul and body to be raised up in your beloved, in your teacher, and so that Christ would be raised up in you, despite the sufferings, sorrows, despite the chaos and madness.

In the name of what god of death have they killed you? In the name of which paganism have they crucified you? Did they truly know what they were doing?

O God, we don't ask you for revenge or retaliation. We ask you for victory, a victory of justice over falsehood, life over death, innocence over treachery, blood over the sword. … Your blood will not have been shed in vain, dear Ragheed, because with it you have blessed the soil of your country. And from heaven, your tender smile will continue to light the darkness of our nights and announce to us a better tomorrow.

I ask your forgiveness, brother, for when the living get together they think they have all the time in the world to talk, visit, and share feelings and thoughts. You had invited me to Iraq … I dreamed of that visit, of visiting your house, your parents, your office. … It never occurred to me that it would be your tomb that one day I would visit or that it would be verses from my Quran that I would recite for the repose of your soul …

One day, before your first trip to Iraq after a prolonged absence, I went with you to buy souvenirs and presents for your family. You spoke with me of your future work: "I would like to preside over the people on the base of charity before justice" -- you said.

It was difficult for me to imagine you a "canonical judge" … And today your blood and your martyrdom have spoken for you, a verdict of fidelity and patience, of hope against all suffering, of survival, in spite of death, in spite of everything.

Brother, your blood hasn't been shed in vain, and your church's altar wasn't a masquerade. … You assumed your role with deep seriousness until the end, with a smile that would never be extinguished … ever.

Your loving brother,

Adnam Mokrani
Rome, June 4, 2007
Professor of Islamic Studies in the Institute for the Study of Religion and Culture,
Pontifical Gregorian University

[Original text: Arabic. Translation by ZENIT]

Is it any shock that the leftists are the ones throwing a fit when they don't get their way?

Leftists: They preach tolerance, peace-loving, acceptance, embraces, open arms… but what they practice is infanticide, discrimination, property destruction and physical violence. Why? They think they have a “god”-given right to change the world, in the name of ‘progress.’ By their fruits you shall know them….

Police hurt in French election violence
By Thierry Leveque and Alexandra Steigrad

PARIS (Reuters) - Hundreds of people were arrested in France overnight in clashes between police and protesters angry over conservative Nicolas Sarkozy's victory in Sunday's presidential election, police said.

Official figures released on Monday said demonstrators set fire to 730 cars and injured 78 policemen across France, with 592 people arrested in the violent protests against the tough-talking former interior minister.

The tally was revised sharply upwards after an initial report appeared to downplay the clashes and was at odds with local police figures and eyewitness reports, which suggested widespread troubles in numerous French cities.

Sarkozy made his name as a law-and-order hardliner who also tightened France's immigration laws, making him a hate figure for the left. Slogans spray-painted on the streets of Paris overnight included "Sarkozy fascist."

Leftist sympathizers clashed with police in and around Paris's Place de la Bastille after Sarkozy's victory against Socialist Segolene Royal and security forces fired tear gas and at least one burst of water cannon to disperse the crowd.

Youths went on the rampage in adjoining streets, smashing phone cabins and shop windows.

"Everyone got hit," said Sophie Wolkowitch, whose pharmacy suffered 14,000 euros ($19,000) of damage.

Similar attacks were reported in the southeastern city of Lyon and the southern city of Toulouse. Bus shelters were smashed in the northern city of Lille and a school was set on fire in the Paris suburb of Evry.

In the northern department clustered around Lille, about 100 cars were torched, the fire brigade said.

In Nantes, 26 people were held for questioning and six police were slightly injured after 1,000 people joined a march against Sarkozy in the western city, said Yves Monard, head of public security of the Loire-Atlantique department.

Cars and shop windows were also damaged in Nantes while to the northwest, in Caen, four police were hurt and an attempt was made to set fire to the local office of Sarkozy's UMP party.

Sarkozy is a particularly controversial figure in France's poor, multi-ethnic suburbs, which were the epicenter of three weeks of rioting in 2005.

At the time Sarkozy branded the troublemakers as scum and Royal said last week that a victory by her opponent would provoke violence in French suburbs.

However, an internal police memo obtained by Reuters said there was no large-scale trouble there.

"The second round of the presidential election did not generate any large demonstrations of urban violence in sensitive neighborhoods," said the memo.

It added that the level of violence was above that usually seen on July 14 Bastille Day, France's national holiday, "but below that of New Year's celebrations."

Police say on an average just over 100 cars are set ablaze in France each night.