Solar Tornado Five Times Wider Than Earth Dazzles Space Weather
By: SPACE.com Staff Published: 03/29/2012 09:58 AM EDT on SPACE.com
A NASA spacecraft has captured video of a massive solar “tornado” five times wider than the Earth twisting its way across the surface of the sun.
NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) looked on as the huge, swirling storm raged on Sept. 25, 2011, spinning solar gas at speeds up to 186,000 mph (300,000 kph), researchers said. Here on Earth, tornado wind speeds top out at around 300 mph (483 kph).
“This is perhaps the first time that such a huge solar tornado is filmed by an imager,” Xing Li of Aberystwyth University in Wales, who analyzed the SDO footage, said in a statement. “Previously, much smaller solar tornadoes were found by the [NASA/European Space Agency] SOHO satellite. But they were not filmed.”
Li and other researchers will present a movie of the tornado Thursday (March 29) at the 2012 National Astronomy Meeting in Manchester, the United Kingdom.
SDO’s instruments saw gases as hot as 3.6 million degrees Fahrenheit (2 million degrees Celsius) rise from a dense solar structure called a prominence, then travel about 124,000 miles (200,000 kilometers) along a spiral path into the upper solar atmosphere, researchers said.
CMEs that hit Earth can wreak havoc on our planet, causing temporary disruptions in GPS signals, radio communications and power grids. They also typically supercharge the dazzling light shows near Earth’s poles known as the northern and southern lights.
The $850 million SDO spacecraft, which launched in February 2010, is the first in a fleet of NASA efforts to study our sun. The probe’s five-year mission is the cornerstone of a NASA science program called Living with a Star, which aims to help researchers better understand aspects of the sun-Earth system that affect our lives and society.
The sun is currently in an active period of its 11-year weather cycle. The current cycle is known as Solar Cycle 24 and will peak in 2013.
- Huge ‘Tornado’ Churns on Sun’s Surface – Close-Up Video
- Stunning Photos of Solar Flares & Sun Storms
- The Sun’s Wrath: Worst Solar Storms in History
Chinese Police Raid Underground Christian Newspapers In Latest ‘House
Chinese police raided the offices of two underground Christian newspapers on Monday and seized four prominent staff members who are still missing, the Texas-based Christian rights group ChinaAid reports.
“Four of the magazines’ most important personnel were taken into police custody,” ChinaAid said of the raids in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province. “There has been no further word about them.”
The publications, A Kernel of Wheat and A Foreign Land, were started by members of China’s 40-million strong “house church” movement, an underground network of Christians who meet in private homes because the government disallows them from registering larger spaces to worship and repeatedly cracks down on open-air gatherings, according to Radio Free Asia.
Pastor Zhang Mingxuan, head of the Beijing-based Chinese House Church Alliance, told reporters that he heard about the detainments but had had no clue as to which house churches the detainees belonged, because there are a great number of them in the area.
“The political atmosphere is very tense right now and the house churches are feeling the pressure, too,” Mingxuan said.
Persecution of house churches by Chinese authorities was so widespread in 2011 that ChinaAid called it “the year of political and religious persecution,” according to The Christian Post.
But activists are predicting that 2012 will be even tougher for house churches.
The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15, 2008.
March 26th, 2012
Before he was killed by French police, the jihadist murderer of three French-Algerian soldiers and four Jews, including three children, said that he was driven to killing by the “murder” of Palestinian children by Israelis. Of course, when all else fails blame the Jews. But this excuse is a mere pretext, a propaganda tactic for finding Western moral support by exploiting the unsavory anti-Jewish prejudices still lurking in too many Westerners.
The narrative that the Israeli “brutal occupation” of the “Palestinian homeland” is the cause of jihadist violence is a hoary cliché, a jihadist pretext for terror enabled by Western anti-Semitism and pop psychology. Examples of this received wisdom are easy to collect. French foreign minister Hubert Védrine in 2002 explained increasing anti-Semitic attacks and car-burnings in France by saying, “One shouldn’t necessarily be surprised that young French people from immigrant families feel compassion for the Palestinians and get agitated when they see what is happening. The historian Tony Judt in his history of post-war Europe concurred, agreeing that the attacks were “a direct outcome of the festering crisis in the Middle East.” Repeating this received wisdom, General David Petraeus, in his 2010 Congressional testimony, said that the Arab-Israeli “conflict foments anti-Americanism sentiment, due to a perception of U.S favoritism for Israel. Anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples” in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.” No doubt cognizant of the Western penchant for blaming Jews, Osama bin-Laden added Palestine to his ever-growing list of pretexts for attacking America: “The creation and continuation of Israel,” he lectured us in 2002, “is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals.”
Of course, bin Laden was never short of pretexts for rationalizing murder. First it was the American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Then in 2004, he said American involvement in Lebanon in 1983 made him hate America. Elsewhere, he claimed that the U.S. had waged “a war against Muslims” since 1945. Yet in his statements after 9/11, bin Laden mentioned the real reason: the “humiliation and disgrace” inflicted on Muslims by the dissolution of the caliphate in 1924. That, not the creation of Israel, is the real “catastrophe” for Islamists, the culmination of three centuries of Western encroachment into the House of Islam. For theorists of jihad like Muslim Brothers Hassan al Banna and Sayyid Qutb, the existence of Israel was merely a symptom of a larger corruption of Islam by Western ideas that opened the door to the Western dominance that made Israel possible in the first place.
Moreover, it is hard to credit Arab or Muslim concern for Palestinian suffering, given the contempt most Arabs have shown for the people who ran away in 1948 rather than fight, or the way Arab countries herded Palestinian refugees into squalid camps existing on international welfare, or the body-count of Palestinians killed by their fellow Arabs, a number that dwarfs those killed by Israel while defending herself from terrorist attacks. Just the toll of Palestinians killed in the 1970 Black September massacre in Jordan, for example, around 5000, is over half the 8000 killed by Israel during the whole six-decade conflict. Clearly, the issue isn’t the number of dead, tortured, imprisoned or oppressed, but rather the identity of the enemy––infidels whose fate is to be subjected to Muslims, whom Allah called the “best of nations” destined to dominate the world.
The jihadist pretext of angry compassion for their oppressed Palestinian brothers, then, is a function of propaganda, a way to exploit the latent anti-Semitism still lurking in the Western soul in order to find support for the jihadist cause. No other explanation for hatred of Israel can account for the obsession with that country on the part of many Europeans, the irrational hatred that accompanies the ritualistic mantras of “never again” even as European countries pursue anti-Israel policies that aids those who in fact passionately want another genocide. Remember when France’s ambassador to England called Israel “that shitty little country” even as Palestinian terrorists were slaughtering Israeli women and children during the Intifada? That insult was just a new version of the old anti-Semitic tropes redolent of Der Sturmer that can be found everywhere in Europe. During the debate over the Iraq war, a British Labour M.P. said Tony Blair was “unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisors.” A German former defense minister said President Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein because of “a powerful––perhaps overly powerful––Jewish lobby.” A member of the European Parliament claimed that in the U.S. Defense Department “key positions are held by Jews; the Pentagon is today a Jewish institution.” And according to a recent Anti-Defamation League survey, such anti-Semitic attitudes are on the rise across Europe. Given these prejudices, blaming Israel as the global arch-villain comes easy to many Europeans, and puts in the hands of jihadists a powerful tool for rationalizing their terrorism and making it easier for Europeans to marginalize Israel.
Beyond European anti-Semitism, though, the “Israel made them do it” excuse bespeaks a remarkable arrogance on the part of Westerners, who can explain jihadist behavior only by the materialist and psychological categories with which Westerners are comfortable. Thus the jihadists have no motives of their own derived from their faith, but are merely reacting to Western sins like colonialism and imperialism, or to a lack of material prosperity and political freedom. No matter how often the jihadists quote chapter and verse of the Koran, hadiths, and Muslim theologians and jurisprudents, smug Westerners dismiss it all as the “distortions” of a fanatic fringe, and brand as “Islamophobes” those who call attention to these facts. When such rationalizations are impossible, then our pundits and academics simply ignore this ever-increasing evidence of mainstream Islamic intolerance. Thus we heard nothing in the mainstream press when Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Al al-Sheikh, the grand mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, recently said it is “necessary to destroy all the churches in the Arabian Peninsula,” as the Freedom Center’s Shillman Fellow Raymond Ibrahim reported. Rather than take religion seriously and acknowledge the intolerant and violent theology of Islam that drives the jihad, Western intellectuals find it easier to blame Israel, which also allows them to indulge their irrational dislike of “Zionism,” the new face of the old anti-Semitism.
Western demonization and scapegoating of Israel have warped our foreign policy and our tactics for confronting jihadist terror and its state sponsors like Iran and Syria. We forget that Israel has been on the front-line of this war long before 9/11, and is our most important ally in this struggle. The more we compromise Israel’s security, the more we hearten our enemies and make them believe they can win.
Public Schools Manipulate Beliefs
Friday, 23 Mar 2012 07:11 PM
By Dr. Laura
This morning I came across two stories which seemingly have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. However, I see the link as clear as day and as scary as zombie movies.
The first story’s headline: “Pa. Bishop Does Not Recant Saying that Hitler and Mussolini ‘Would Love Our Public School System.'”
|Bishop Joseph P. McFadden
(Catholic Diocese of Harisburg)
According to CNS News, Bishop Joseph McFadden made a comparison between the interests of the public school system and totalitarianism, while discussing what he saw as a lack of school choice in Pennsylvania.
“The reference to dictators and totalitarian governments of the 20th century which I made in an interview on the topic of school choice (aka “vouchers”) was to make a dramatic illustration of how these unchecked monolithic governments of the past used schools to curtail the primary responsibility of the parent in the education of their children,” he said.
Instead of dealing with the urgency of quality education and school vouchers, the ACLU and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League sent out stern admonishments attacking Bishop McFadden’s mention of dictators and totalitarian governments: “. . . he should not be making his point at the expense of the memory of six million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust.”
The bishop never mentioned the Holocaust. While expressing concern for anyone “offended” he did not retract his statements.
Good for him.
The second story, from The Telegraph in Great Britain: “Girls, 13, given contraceptive implants at school. Girls as young as 13 have been fitted with contraceptive implants at school without their parents knowing.” This was part of a government — GOVERNMENT — initiative to drive down teenage pregnancies.
As many as nine secondary schools in the city of Southampton are thought to be involved. The health chiefs have defended this saying teenage pregnancies had dropped by 22 percent.
They don’t, however, tell us how much promiscuity and STDs have risen as boys tell girls to get the implant so they can have sex without mum and dad being the wiser. And they don’t tell us how much these youngsters will be emotionally and psychologically damaged by reckless so-called “safe” sex behaviors.
As one parent said, “Parents send their children to school to receive a good education, not to be undermined by health workers who give their children contraceptives behind their backs.”
Now . . . the ADL and the ACLU don’t see the reason Bishop McFadden made reference to totalitarian governments? Are the ADL and ACLU skirting the real issue by being “offended” that there is a connection between totalitarian governments and mass murder: Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Soviet Union, Northern Korea, Cambodia, etc. . . . shall I go on and on and on?
In America, Planned Parenthood will give abortions to minor girls, without parental knowledge or permission, and not report to the authorities that the male involved is an adult.
Many, many, many schools across the country invite Planned Parenthood representatives to their schools to give “information” on “family planning.” (I call it recruitment of future abortions).
In America, our public schools will teach about every sexual combination and orientation of existing sexual experience as morally equal and acceptable, disallowing discussion, much less disagreement.
This is pretty standard for public schools and is why I always recommend children be taken out of public schools and put in conservative religious schools or home schooled.
Our public schools have become politically correct sites of manipulation of thought and beliefs.
The bishop was right.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Public Schools Manipulate Beliefs
The best of Fred Hutchison
The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda
Five years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my newspaper concerning how the paper was becoming an organ of gay advocacy. I forwarded the letter to a group who received regular mailings from me. One man responded and disclosed himself as a gay. He accused me of wanting to submit gays to the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. He used several abusive terms which reminded me of other encounters I have had with gays, including the individual mentioned in the first paragraph. I replied that I refused to be bullied and intimidated into silence.
“All normal people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack…The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicted twinge of shame….when his homohatred surfaces.
Almost all of us have been through this kind of thing. A perfect example is the high school clique. Retribution for violating the code of the clique involves public shaming and demonization. One becomes an “untouchable” — a pariah to every clique and caste in the school.
Race and gender are permanent innate characteristics that are fixed at birth. No moral judgment can be made of race and gender, because no one chooses their race or gender.
By contrast, gay sexual activity is a behavior — and a homosexual orientation seems to emerge in developmental stages. Individual choices and social environment profoundly influence the trajectory of development. Sexual perversions must be learned through experimentation and instruction. Such practices are subject to moral judgments.
In view of these facts and controversies, what we need today in America is a moral citizenry immune to such brainwashing and disinformation. If we are to preserve civilization in the face of the relentless lies and deceptive techniques of the gay agenda, enough God-fearing Americans must be willing to stand up for what is right, courageously, and make a difference in the culture war.
Obama ‘further escalating’ confusion about marriage, North Carolina’s
|Ben Johnson||Mon Mar 26 16:13 EST||Faith|
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, March 26, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Roman Catholic bishops of North Carolina have stood up to the president of the United States over the state’s proposed marriage protection amendment.
Earlier this month, Barack Obama made a rare comment on a pending state issue, saying he opposed the North Carolina voter referendum that would amend the state constitution to preserve marriage as a union between one man and one woman. His North Carolina campaign spokeswoman Cameron French, said, “While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the president does not support it.”
“In his comments on the upcoming referendum in our state, the president regrettably characterized the marriage amendment as a matter of discrimination,” they wrote, adding: “While we are respectful of the office of the president, we strongly disagree with this assessment.”
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
“His stated opposition to the referendum on the marriage amendment in North Carolina is a grave disappointment, as it is reported to be the first time the president has entered into this issue on the state level, further escalating the increasing confusion on the part of some in our society to the very nature of marriage itself.”
The Catholic Church has strongly supported the amendment, which will appear on the ballot during the May 8 primary election. The state’s pro-family organizations say they are thankful for the bishops’ leadership.
“Both the bishop in Charlotte as well as the Bishop in Raleigh responded to the president’s position, stated it’s a grave disappointment, and they went on to point out the unique place marriage has, not only in the church but into our society,” Jere Royall, legal counsel at the North Carolina Family Policy Council, told LifeSiteNews.com. His organization has led the campaign for the amendment.
The bishops’ letter states, “Children have the right to the indispensable place of fatherhood and motherhood in their lives as they grow, are loved, nurtured, and formed by those whose unique vocation it is to be a father and a mother through the unique bond of one man and one woman in marriage.”
Royall agreed, saying, “there are thousands of studies” from “a Biblical, medical, social, scientific perspective” that show “the best place environment for raising children is with their married father and mother.”
Although the state has laws protecting true marriage, Royall is supporting a marriage amendment to the constitution to make the definition permanent. “By putting [the definition of marriage] in the constitution, then the institution of marriage would be protected from being changed by either the courts or the legislature,” he said.
“If private corporations want to offer benefits to unmarried couples, they can still do that,” he added, “but the government won’t recognize any other domestic legal union other than one man and one woman.”
Although it would only affect state government employees, the North Carolina amendment has become a political issue nationwide. In addition to the president, homosexual activist organizations and the California state Democratic Party are trying to defeat the measure.
“California Democrats stand ready to help and we will soon be in touch with ways that Democrats here can start getting the word out to voters in North Carolina about the need to defeat Amendment One,” party chairman John Burton said last week.
Tami Fitzgerald, the chairwoman of Vote For Marriage NC, replied, “The fact that the Democrat Party of California wants to help defeat North Carolina’s marriage amendment will only help us. The voters of North Carolina want to determine for themselves, without interference from activists outside the State, that marriage cannot be re-defined to be genderless.”
Royall says he is working with local churches to counteract the outside pressure. He and other marriage supporters have organized voter registration and education drives, he said. Under 501(c)3 regulations, churches cannot campaign for a person or a party but may take sides on a pending ballot issue.
Christians must be involved in society to fully live out the Gospel, he stated. “It’s part of how we love our neighbors, to be involved in the public policy process, as well as the election process,” Royall said. “If we’re committed to the greatest good of our neighbor, then we will be involved.”
The Democratic National Convention will be held in Charlotte this summer.
Polls currently show the amendment with strong support statewide.
Honor Killings Grow in the West: Islam’s Gruesome Gallery (VIDEO)
March 27th, 2012
As Islamic honor killings continue to rise in the West and on U.S. territory, our media and higher literary culture remain completely silent about them.
While our own president gets personally involved in the Trayvon Martin case, joining the race hustlers that have set out to convict George Zimmerman based on narrative, not evidence, the world is waiting for him to breathe one word on behalf of Islamic honor killings victims.
In this context, the editors of Frontpage believe it is an important time to rerun Honor Killings Grow in the West: Islam’s Gruesome Gallery compiled by modern day freedom fighter Pamela Geller, the editor of Atlas Shrugs.
Below we provide a link to the gallery. We also run Frontpage editor’s recent speech in Orange County on behalf of Islamic honor killing victims, in which he explains the Left’s callous and heartless indifference to the suffering of Islamic women under Islamic gender apartheid.
We encourage all of our readers to get involved in bringing attention to the terrible suffering of Muslim women under Islamic gender apartheid and to call out the Left on its shameful effort to push Islam’s victims into invisibility.
To view Islam’s Gruesome Gallery, click here.
See Jamie Glazov’s speech on honor killing victims and the Left’s silence below:
USA Under Siege: Congress and Obama Vote in Secret to End Bill of Rights
and other Atrocities
Monday, March 26, 2012
Canada Free Press
America, we have an enormous problem. And, it’s a quickly expanding one. Fueled by the palpable fear of We-the-People that is now observably apparent from arrogant elected members of both the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government, Orwellian bills denying the American people their Constitutionally protected rights are now being routinely crafted and passed by an increasingly draconian “ruling—not governing—political class.”
For the first time in the history of the United States of America, its people are being reigned over and reined in by thoroughly totalitarian and an almost completely corrupt set of individuals…individuals whom we elected.
The USA has been heading for Leftist rule for many decades. The markedly minority Marxists and Maoists have been incessantly and, for years, feverishly working to take over our country and install a Stalinist/Hitlerian-styled government. In fact, in 2010 at least 70 members (we suspect there are probably more) of the US Democrat Party were listed as members of the American Socialist Party. But, this is the first time they have claimed the unconditional power to do so.
In the past, we were able to keep these subversive and patently destructive elements at bay. The way in which we were able to effect our continued survival as a free country was via the Republican Party. Tragically, those days appear to be gone. The “Republican Establishment” (aka “Rockefeller Republicans,” Global Elitists or New World Order followers) is now firmly in control of the GOP and it has no intention of releasing its iron grip.
Note: Leftists are leftists wherever they deign to appear.
Recently, leftist John McCain (R-AZ)—one of the GOP “Sleeper Cell” members?—partnered with leftist Carl Levin (D-MI) in greatly increasing the Executive branch’s power over the American people. The ‘McCain-Levin US citizen Imprisonment Bill’ effectively does away with the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process (under the law)” clause which mandates: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Obama signed the bill as quickly as possible and then immediately issued a signing statement outlining his new powers. In it, he states: “I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States.”
In other words, although Section 1022 provides a bare skeleton structure (one sentence) “protection” for US citizens and legal resident aliens, Obama claims he can (and I suspect will soon) affect its subordination-to-his-will and use the “national security” excuse to eliminate due process for those who oppose him and his policies. He claimed this “power” with his signing statement. And yet, The Republicans in Congress (even those who falsely represented themselves as being “conservative”) went along with and voted for this tyrannical legislation. Sadly, even my representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) voted for it as well as the extreme H.R. 347 that not only says protestors may not protest any government official within the confines of now “restricted” government buildings but, apparently, gives the Secret Service (SS) the power to say that wherever the POTUS is located (think Obama) will be designated as a restricted area in which no “free” anti-Obama-speech shall be allowed.
To be fair, I emailed Pearce’s Press Secretary Jamie Dickerson and was provided with his position statement on HR 1540: “There were also important objections on the conservative side to this bill, dealing specifically with whether or not the provision in section 1022 excluding American citizens from the “covered persons” language went far enough. This was discussed thoroughly in the Republican Conference before the bill went to the floor for debate. Two of my colleagues, one of whom sits on the Armed Services Committee, had objections to the language.
“However, after consulting with the Chairman on protection of civil liberties, and getting a supportive response that the Chairman would work in the future to assure our rights are not violated, both Congressmen voted for it. I listened to all objections, from constituents and other Members of the House. I read the language personally many times, and asked my staff to research every objection brought to our attention. We concluded, after many internal discussions and hours of research, that section 1022 sufficiently protected our liberties.”
Hmmm. Here is how the protection of liberties (in Section 1022) statement reads: “Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens.” That’s it—-somewhat nebulous (the word “requirement” does not necessarily restrict it from being used and “inapplicable” will apparently be overridden at the whim of Obama). This is, also, the section to which Obama claims “broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories.”
Then, there is the passed in secret HR 347, which restricts free speech (First Amendment being summarily dismantled) to the point of its being denied. Mr. Dickman’s response is: “We’re still gathering information on the articles constituents have sent, but our interpretation of the accusations in the articles and the Judiciary Committee staff who drafted the bill conclude that the accusations are inaccurate. The bill does not change Secret Service practices from the past. Again, we are still gathering information, but our position on this bill is the same as it was three weeks ago when it came up for a vote.”
Rep. Pearce is not unique in his support of both of these bills. Most in Congress voted to pass both of them. He is just one of the latest apparent casualties to shed himself of the restrictions of working for the people of his district and our country. I strongly suspect this is to protect themselves from the active electorate who now sees that Obama and his supplicant—on both sides of the aisle—Congress are working only to enrich themselves. However, none of them would need said protection from the US citizenry if they actually listened to and abided by the directions from their respective constituencies.
If, in 2012, we do not elect true and verifiable Constitutionalists to replace many of our fallen brethren we as a free (the few vestiges that are still left) country and people are finished. Most of it is already gone. Either we vote in a majority of Constitutionalists or we can kiss ourselves goodbye. By the way, is there a Constitutional Conservative slated to run against Speaker Boehner in Ohio and Sen. McConnell in Kentucky? Just asking.
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” – John Adams
Cardinal Martini and the false theology promoting homosexuality
|John-Henry Westen||Tue Mar 27 14:31 EST||Faith|
ROME, March 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Cardinal Carlo Martini, who at the conclave of 2005 was a favorite of ‘social justice’ Catholics to be elected Pope, has penned a book wherein he supports homosexual relationships. The powerful Cardinal who was Archbishop of Milan until his retirement in 2002 at age 75, now lives in Jerusalem and suffers from Parkinson’s disease.
Given Cardinal Martini’s prominence in the Catholic Church (some sources suggest that he had quite a few votes to become Pope in the 2005 conclave) his statements on homosexuality point to a powerful counter-ideology that has made significant inroads into the Church’s teaching on the matter of homosexuality. It is an ideology or theology that was warned about already in 1986 by Martini’s contemporary Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
In his newly released book, Credere e conoscere (Faith and Understanding), Cardinal Martini posits his disagreement with the Catholic teaching against homosexual civil unions. “I disagree with the positions of those in the Church, that take issue with civil unions,” he wrote. “It is not bad, instead of casual sex between men, that two people have a certain stability” and that the “state could recognize them.”
Cardinal Martini says that he can even understand (but not necessarily approve) gay pride parades. He says he agrees with the Catholic Church’s promotion of traditional marriage for the stability of the human species, however he adds, it is “not right to express any discrimination on other types of unions.”
In his 1986 ‘Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,’ then-Cardinal Ratzinger outlined the “causes of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching” on homosexuality. He described a false “new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life.”
Cardinal Ratzinger laid out the false theology and counters it with a true Biblical exegesis which seeks, he says, to “speak the truth in love.”
He warned that “increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity.”
“The movement within the Church,” he explained, is made up of “those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. … One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.”
Most importantly he said, “No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.”
He added: “But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”
Gay ‘marriage’ push aims to ‘recreate society’ and marginalise
Christianity: Archbishop of Glasgow
|Patrick B. Craine||Tue Mar 27 14:49 EST||Homosexuality|
GLASGOW/STRASSBURG, March 27, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Creating “gay marriage,” is an attempt to rewrite the natural law and “recreate society,” says Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow.
The bishop’s strong comments as the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there is no such thing as a “right” to “gay marriage” in the European Convention on Human Rights, a revelation that has yet to put a damper on the UK government’s enthusiasm for changing the legal definition of marriage.
“It is certainly not the role of law to recreate our society according to passing fashions and ideologies, nor to redefine nature whether in terms of persons and their rights or its natural institutions,” Archbishop Conti said in a homily at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh this weekend.
The prelate said that current plans to alter the definition of marriage, promoted by the Conservative government of David Cameron as an effort to strengthen marriage, are in reality just the next step in the “marginalisation” of Christianity and any voice opposed to homosexual activity.
“Those voices are growing ever louder in our country,” Conti said, “that attempted marginalisation is becoming ever more acute and we are witnessing the transformation of tolerance into a kind of tyranny in which religious views are the only ones which seem unworthy of respect and acceptance.”
The Archbishop cautioned, “We are witnessing the transformation of tolerance into a kind of tyranny in which religious views are the only ones which seem unworthy of respect and acceptance.
“Our society will descend further into ethical confusion and moral disintegration the more that those in Government and the judiciary slip society’s moorings from the capstans of virtue.”
While Prime Minister Cameron’s plans to rewrite the definition of marriage will only affect England and Wales, the local government of Scotland reportedly “tends towards the view” that the definition should also be altered in Scottish law. The consultation in Scotland closed in December, and never received the same media attention as England’s consultation that began this month.
In related news, a much-anticipated ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has come down against the concept of “gay marriage” as a human right, protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court said March 18th that the wording of the Convention itself restricting marriage to a man and a woman was “deliberate”. The ruling upheld one made earlier by France’s highest court prohibiting homosexual “marriage” and adoption.
There is no “indirect discrimination founded (…) on the impossibility of marriage,” the Court said. Article 12 of the Convention “does not impose on the governments of the state parties the obligation to open marriage to a homosexual couple”.
“Moreover, regard must be had to the historical context in which the Convention was adopted. In the 1950s marriage was clearly understood in the traditional sense of being a union between partners of different sex.”
Launching the British government’s consultation early this month, Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said, “Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.” It remains to be seen if the ECHR ruling, which is binding on the UK, that there is no such right, will put a damper on the government’s plans to introduce “gay marriage”.
The government’s plans are not popular among the British public. A recent ComRes poll showed that 70 per cent want marriage to remain defined as a “lifelong exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”. A similar poll in Scotland found that 53 per cent of the public thinks that “homosexuals should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else”. Members of Cameron’s party have warned the Prime Minister that while pushing “gay marriage” will win him few points on the extreme left it will alienate voters who are more concerned with the economy and immigration.
A petition being circulated by the Coalition for Marriage to oppose the plan has collected 323,986 signatures as of today. Colin Hart, the head of the Coalition, has described the government’s consultation on the subject as “a sham” in which the crucial question of whether the change ought to be made has already been taken, and all opposition will be ignored. The government’s document launching the consultation said that “points raised in responses that are out of the scope of the consultation and the consultation questions will not necessarily be considered”.
“I always thought that a consultation was about listening to people and asking them their views before making a decision,” Hart said. “Not only are they redefining the meaning of marriage, they’re redefining the meaning of consultation.”
According to MEP Nigel Farage, the head of the increasingly popular libertarian United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), David Cameron’s unprecedented push to create “gay marriage” has less to do with a sincere interest in the homosexualist political agenda than with fear of appearing weak to a public that is increasingly disillusioned with the EU and its mechanisms.
“The last thing he needs at the moment is to have the European courts declare our law discriminatory again and demand it be changed,” Farage wrote.
“He does not want you to realise that a foreign court is the highest court in the land,” a UKIP brief said.
David Coburn, UKIP’s openly gay London Regional Chairman, warned that the government is pointlessly picking a fight with religious people in Britain who could find themselves accused of “hate crimes” for their support of traditional marriage.
“That would be a grotesque assault on peoples’ freedom of conscience. As we all know these things tend to be the thin end of the wedge once the government’s ludicrous overpaid /over-pensioned thought police get on the job.”
Coburn wrote on the homosexualist news service Pink News, “The same-sex marriage debate is not an old-fashioned left-right political issue. It’s about freedom.”
“The Tories over the last few years have raced to catch up with Labour’s authoritarian politically correct agenda.” All three mainstream parties, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour have adopted the authoritarian mode.
Calling the government’s plans for marriage “equality fascism,” Coburn said, they have “created a grotesque, maximum security, Kafkaesque society where everything including speech and thought are regulated in the name of security and equality.
“You can stab old ladies or promising teenagers and do three months, but woe betide if you transgress the language and thought police.”