Washington D.C., Apr 19, 2017 / 03:24 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- One hundred and seventy-nine years ago, two Jesuit priests sold 272 persons at a slave auction. Their families were torn apart: many of them were shipped over a thousand miles to Louisiana, and… […]
Washington D.C., Apr 19, 2017 / 02:42 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments about whether a state benefit program could exclude churches because of their religious status.
Several justices appeared skeptical of Missouri’s rationale for denying a church preschool access to a reimbursement program intended to encourage safety updates to playground surfaces.
Justices also debated the extent to which public services – including firefighting and security services – can constitutionally be offered to religious organizations.
Justice Elena Kagan stated that “there’s a constitutional principle” for religious institutions to be eligible for certain public programs.
“As long as you’re using the money for playground services, you’re not disentitled from that program because you’re a religious institution doing religious things,” she said of the case at hand. “And I would have thought that that’s a pretty strong principle in our constitutional law.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the most significant religious freedom case of this term so far.
At issue is whether a playground owned by a church and operated by its preschool can be denied access to a state benefit program simply because of the church’s religious status. Other properties of non-profits and secular institutions are eligible for the program.
Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center in Columbia, Missouri, applied for the Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant program within the state’s department of natural resources, which would have provided reimbursements for making safety upgrades to its playground surfaces with material from used tires.
The state ultimately denied Trinity Lutheran participation in the program because it is run by Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, after the church was initially ranked fifth out of 44 applicants to receive reimbursements. On the state’s list of eligible recipients, the church originally scored higher than the ultimate recipient of the grants, the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom has said.
Missouri’s state constitution forbids taxpayer funding or preferential treatment of churches, an amendment passed at the same time as the federal Blaine Amendment was proposed.
The Blaine Amendment forbade federal funds from going to churches or their schools, and was seen by many as a ban on taxpayer funding of Catholic schools, as the public school system at the time, in the 1870s, was largely Protestant. Other states have similar amendments.
Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have argued that the amendment is a protection against the unconstitutional government establishment of religion, although the Eighth Circuit said in its ruling that Trinity Lutheran being reimbursed by the state would not be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The state’s new governor, Eric Greitens (R), recently announced that religious groups will be eligible for grant programs from the natural resources department in the future, although Trinity Lutheran might not be retroactively eligible for its playground grant.
On Wednesday, David Cortman of the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom argued on behalf Trinity Lutheran. He said that the state had conceded its denial of funding was “not facially neutral” and was “based on their religious character,” thus making it “discrimination against religion.”
Inside the Court on Wednesday, the justices pressed Cortman on whether the playground would be used for religious purposes and if that effectively constituted state funding of religious ministry.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg promptly brought up the Court’s 1947 Eberson decision, which said public funding for maintenance of churches or church property was unconstitutional. Cortman replied that the decision also said that churches shouldn’t be deprived of all public benefits.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she believes “that this program is part of the religious ministry of this church.” She then asked if the playground surface reimbursement was an establishment of religion if play time at the preschool began with prayer, or if religious ministries took place on the playground.
The church’s case is for a “safe surface,” Cortman replied, and just because the playground might be used for religious purposes does not mean that it should be ineligible for the funds. If a church school receives public funding, that does not mean that it has to “just stop all religion in school,” he said.
The Supreme Court in Locke v. Davey drew a “narrow distinction,” he said, as that case focused on taxpayer funding of education of religious ministers.
Justice Sotomayor pressed Cortman to explain how the church’s free exercise of religion was being unconstitutionally violated, as it would not close its doors just because it had not received a reimbursement for the playground surface.
James Layton represented the state’s natural resources department, arguing in place of the new Missouri attorney general who recused himself in the case. Layton said that the state amendment is rooted in the 1820 Constitution, which was inspired by Thomas Jefferson’s Statute on Religious Freedom from 1786. It was “reenacted” in the latest version of the state’s constitution in 1945.
The state has “concerns” about the church’s eligibility for the program, he said, as a playground resurfacing funded by the state would be a “visible physical improvement on church property.” The church, he added later, admits it “uses the preschool to bring the Gospel to non-members.”
Justice Alito asked him if a Jewish synagogue or a mosque, threatened by vandals, asked for a public security detail, would that be a violation of the state’s constitution. Layton said it would, according to a traditional reading of the constitution.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Kagan followed up, asking him if emergency responses by fire departments or police officers to the school, or public health programs, would be allowed under the state’s constitution.
Layton admitted that wouldn’t be denied, and Breyer then followed up, asking, “If it does not permit a law that pays money out of the treasury for the health of the children in the church, school, or even going to church, how does it permit Missouri to deny money to the same place for helping children not fall in the playground, cut their knees, get tetanus, break a leg, et cetera? What’s the difference?”
Layton countered that the safety reason, and other health reasons, would not meet exceptions for public benefits for churches.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newest addition to the Supreme Court, did not ask many questions save for an exchange with Layton over government discrimination against religious groups in “selective” and “general” public programs.
After the arguments, Cortman was optimistic about the reception from the justices.
“I think the theme that came out was what we emphasized in our briefs, and that is if the government is going to open up some sort of a neutral benefit program, then it can’t discriminate against religious organizations simply because of their religious status,” he insisted.
“The government should be religion-blind just like it’s race-blind,” he added. “When the government’s engaging in safety benefit programs, it should want all kids to be safe. It shouldn’t matter what their status is, it shouldn’t matter where they decide to attend school, and I think that’s a principle here that the state violated.”
Fatima, Portugal, Apr 19, 2017 / 10:45 am (CNA/EWTN News).- St. Peter’s Cricket Club, the Vatican’s cricket team, is traveling to Fatima April 19-22 for an interreligious tournament ahead of the 100th anniversary of the appearance of Our Lady to three shepherd children in the country.
The team’s third international tour, the tournament will include Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish teams coming from Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
It takes place just three weeks before the Pope’s pilgrimage to Fatima May 12-13 to join in the centenary celebrations.
Established in 2013, St. Peter’s Cricket Club is made up of priests, deacons, and seminarians currently living and studying in Rome.
Current and past members have hailed from England, India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. The team was formed under the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture as a way to creatively engage with people from other Churches, ecclesial communions, and religions.
The first day of the trip will be dedicated to visiting the shrine at Fatima, and the three following to the tournament. The team is hosted by the municipal council and people of Miranda do Corvo, near the historic university city of Coimbra.
The cricket club’s third “Light of Faith Tour,” the first was held in England in 2014. On April 23, 2016 the team played their second cricket match against the Royal Household in Rome to mark Queen Elizabeth II’s 90th birthday.
Their second “Light of Faith Tour” was also held in England, in September 2016.
Pope Francis has frequently praised sports, particularly for their ability to bring people together.
In June 2014, he told a crowd of Italian youth gathered in St. Peter’s Square for a field day event that “Sports in the community can be a great missionary tool, where the Church is close to every person to help them become better and to meet Jesus Christ.”
And in October 2016, he told participants in an international conference on sports at the Vatican that the beauty and joy found in sports, whether playing or watching, is something that benefits and unites everyone, regardless of religion, ethnic group, nationality, or disability.
“Sport is a human activity of great value, able to enrich people’s lives,” he said. “As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, she is working in the world of sport to bring the joy of the Gospel, the inclusive and unconditional love of God for all human beings.”
Vatican City, Apr 19, 2017 / 06:05 am (CNA/EWTN News).- As the Church jumps into the Easter season, Pope Francis Wednesday offered a reflection on Christ’s Resurrection and the start of Christianity, saying it’s not about us and what we do, but what the Lord has done for us.
“(Christianity) is not so much our search for God, but rather God’s search for us. How beautiful to think that Christianity, essentially, is this!”
Jesus, the Pope said April 19, “has taken us, has seized us, has conquered us in order to not leave us anymore.”
In his catechesis for his first general audience of the Easter season, Francis spoke about the “grace” and “surprise” found in our Christian faith, saying we need hearts able to wonder, because hearts that are closed-off cannot understand the truth of what Christianity is.
Even though we are sinners and might look at our lives realizing how many times we have failed to live out our good intentions, we can follow the example of the men and women in the Gospel on Easter morning, he said.
“We can do as those people spoken of in the Gospel: go to the tomb of Christ, see the large upturned stone and reflect that God is building for me, for all of us, an unforeseen future.”
And more, we can all go into the tomb of our hearts, he said, and see how God is able to transform death into life.
“Here is happiness, here is joy and life where everyone thought there was only sadness, defeat and darkness,” Francis said, adding that “God raises his most beautiful flowers in the midst of the most arid stones.”
Pope Francis then reflected on the start of Christianity following Christ’s death and resurrection, emphasizing that these events aren’t just an “ideology” or a “philosophical” belief, but real events witnessed by Jesus’ disciples.
These, he said, are the facts: “he died, was buried, is risen and has appeared. That is, Jesus is alive! This is the core of the Christian message.”
If facts had been different and Jesus hadn’t risen from the dead, but only died for us, we would perhaps have an example of heroism or supreme dedication, but it could not be the source of our faith, he said.
Instead, our faith is born out of Christ’s resurrection, the Pope said, noting that this is true even for the faith of St. Paul, who was no “altar boy,” but actually persecuted Christians and the Church.
“And the persecutor becomes an apostle because?” he asked, explaining that the reason is because he saw the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus.
“This is the foundation of Paul’s faith, like the faith of the other Apostles, like the faith of the Church, of our faith,” he said. “Because I have seen Jesus alive! I have seen the risen Jesus Christ!”
Francis closed his audience saying that Christianity comes not from death, but from God’s love for us in defeating our “bitter enemy.”
“God is bigger than anything, and you only need one lite candle to overcome the darkest of nights,” he said. “Paul cries, echoing the prophets: ‘Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?’”
“In these days of Easter, let us carry this cry in our hearts, and if they ask us for the reason for our smile and our patient sharing, then we can respond that Jesus is still here, he continues to live in the midst of us. Jesus is alive!”
Vatican City, Apr 19, 2017 / 06:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Existing in some form since several hundred years before Christ, the Latin language seems like an unlikely subject to still be generating brand new research, especially among young scholars.
Neve… […]
Vatican City, Apr 19, 2017 / 05:09 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On Tuesday the Vatican announced the appointment of Msgr. Thomas Robert Zinkula as the new leader of the Davenport diocese in Iowa, and Fr. John P. Dolan as a new auxiliary bishop for San Diego.
… […]
Denver, Colo., Apr 19, 2017 / 03:27 am (CNA).- Noting the sharply increasing costs of weddings, marriage advocates have begun to urge couples to be less extravagant in their nuptial celebrations for the good of their relationships.
“We ran a survey [in early 2013] with a law firm that looked at reasons for not marrying, and the top reason for men was the cost of the wedding,” said Harry Benson, an official with the U.K.-based think tank The Marriage Foundation.
Benson said that the average price for the event in the United Kingdom is around $30,000, according to wedding magazines. Such expenses, he told CNA, are “definitely a barrier” to getting married.
“I think the celebrities have set the bar very, very high with all these hyped-up, high profile, highly photographed weddings, very extravagant events.” When couples want the “big, dream wedding,” he added, “often it’s very unrealistic.”
The Marriage Foundation was established by British judge Paul Coleridge, an expert in family law. Having seen a “stream of human misery pass through his doors,” Coleridge decided to launch the charity to promote strong marriages, Benson said.
Part of the promotion of strong marriages, he believes, is focusing more on the marriage than on the wedding.
Melissa Naasko, a Michigan-based wife, mother, and blogger at Dyno-mom, agrees. “If I was going to give a bride advice, it would be to focus more on the marriage and less on the wedding,” she told CNA.
Naasko advocates celebrations that won’t break the budget and put burdensome financial stress on the married couple. She recalled planning the wedding of one of her friends a year ago, helping keep the cost reasonable.
When her friend got engaged, the first piece of advice she gave her was “never ever, ever buy a bridal magazine…because they’re all geared just to sell stuff.”
“Anytime you pick up a bridal magazine, they’re at least 60 percent ads. You’ll look and see that all the articles in it are sponsored articles.”
Avoiding wedding magazines – and shows such as “Say Yes to the Dress” – helps brides to “pay attention more to what their friends and their family are saying, and it becomes more about the people and less about the stuff.”
“There’s nothing wrong with having smaller weddings,” Naasko urged. “And the marriage obviously is the most important part of a wedding.”
“But one of the reasons it’s a social event, is because it’s the public aspect of our lives. Making the wedding itself about people always makes it less expensive.”
Not being influenced “by all the propaganda that surrounds the wedding mystique,” will ultimately benefit the couple, Naasko reflected.
Catholic commentator Matt Archbold added to the discussion in a blog post for the National Catholic Register in May 2013, noting that “big weddings…might just be causing heartbreak, damaging society, and hurting people’s faith.”
Being engaged for more than a year, saving up the money to splurge on the big day, can put couples in a precarious moral situation, often involving cohabitation, which in turn is linked to higher rates of divorce.
“The dream of the lavish Hollywood style wedding is not only ridiculous but harmful to one’s faith and society in general,” Archbold wrote.
Another factor that can put stress on couples is the societal pressure put on a fiancé to spend, on average, two months of his salary – $3500 to $5000 – purchasing an engagement ring for his beloved.
The two-month figure was first promoted decades ago by advertisers from the De Beers diamond and mining business, according to Business Insider writer Robin Dhar.
De Beers has effectively held a monopoly on the global diamond market for some 100 years.
Dhar wrote in March 2013 that “Americans exchange diamond rings as part of the engagement process, because in 1938 De Beers decided that they would like us to.”
The marketing campaign of the company that year pushed the idea that diamonds are a sign of love and affluence, and was massively successful in doing so.
Diamond rings are now given to 80 percent of American fiancées on their engagement – mostly because the company which has effectively monopolized the market for diamonds told men they should.
Adding to the financial strain of many couples in the U.S. is student loan debt. A May 2013 survey for the American Institute of CPAs showed that 15 percent of student loan borrowers have postponed getting married because of debt incurred from going to university.
Student loan debt in 2012 averaged nearly $25,000, a figure 70 percent greater than in 2004.
In his comments to CNA, Benson of The Marriage Foundation also touched on the rise in cohabitation, linked to the delay in getting married.
“The fundamental issue is that we’ve normalized cohabitation, which is much more unstable than marriage.”
He added that “deferring marriage is because we’ve effectively broken the link between marriage and childbirth.”
The Marriage Foundation is focusing its mission on educating couples about the benefits of getting married and having children, and helping them to realize they can have a wedding reception focused on what’s important, rather than on extravagant spending.
This article was originally published on CNA June 15, 2013.
Santiago, Chile, Apr 19, 2017 / 12:08 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In the process of declaring the nullity of marriage there is a position of utmost importance which allows the judges to reach the moral certainty required to make their judgement: the office of the defender of the bond.
A marriage is presumed valid unless it is proved otherwise. The nullity of a marriage is established only when there exists proof that a marriage never in fact took place.
The defender of the bond participates in the process of declaring nullity “always to defend the validity of the marriage,” Sigal Rodríguez Conca, a canon lawyer who has worked for the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Santiago de Chile, told CNA.
The defender of the bond, Rodriguez said, aims to ensure that the process is conducted fairly, and upholds the marriage’s presumed validity. This role sets out arguments and aims to rebuts any evidence and conclusions of the petitioner – the spouse who is seeking to challenge the marriage’s validity.
“Obviously if there is no argument to make in favor of a marriage’s validity, the case is left to the knowledge and conscience of the judges,” said Rodriguez.
The role of the defender of the bond is outlined in canon law, and the person who fills the role is appointed by the bishop.
This role makes it possible to have “a true examination in the process of marriage nullity,” Rodriguez said. The respondent to an annulment case sought by the petitioner rarely participates in the proceedings, and “when they do respond, in the majority of casese they are in favor of a declaration of nullity.”
Once a diocese’s judicial vicar has accepted a request to hear a process of declaring the nullity of marriage, the defender of the bond is notified in writing, and must respond to the arguments presented by the lawyer representing the petitioner’s case.
Pope Francis made changes to the nullity process in December 2015, introducing a shorter process.
In the shortest available annulment process, in which the bishop hears the case, the defender of the bond has 15 days to present observations in favor of the existence of the marriage bond.
The defender of the bond has the right to be present at the statements by the parties to marriage, and the statements by witnesses and experts. He has the right to examine the judicial documents and any documents presented by the parties.
In addition, the defender must be notified of the entire content of the ruling and has the right to appeal any declaration of nullity if it is considered unjust. He has “the last word” in all arguments presented before the verdict in the case, Rodriguez said.
Without the defender of the bond, there would not exist a real cross-examination in the marriage nullity process, which allows a greater possibility for the moral certainty required to rule in favor of or against nullity.
Fresno, Calif., Apr 18, 2017 / 04:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A 39-year-old man is in custody following a shooting spree that left three people dead in Fresno, California on Tuesday, including one person who was killed in the parking lot of a Catholic Char… […]
Cleveland, Ohio, Apr 18, 2017 / 03:28 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Mourning family members of a Cleveland man whose murder on Easter Sunday was posted online in a Facebook video said that despite their grief, they forgive their father’s killer.
“Each one of us forgives the killer. The murderer. We want to wrap our arms around him,” said Tonya Godwin Baines in a CNN interview.
She said that it was her slain father who taught her, through the example of his life, how to forgive.
“The thing that I would take away the most from my father is he taught us about God. How to fear God. How to love God. And how to forgive.”
On Sunday afternoon, 74-year-old Robert Godwin Sr. was shot and killed in Cleveland while walking home from Easter dinner with his family. Police said that the suspect, 37-year-old Steve Stephens, apparently chose his victim at random, and then uploaded a video of the murder to Facebook. The social media network later removed the video.
Following a nationwide manhunt, authorities were notified that Stephens’ car had been seen in a McDonald’s parking lot near Erie, Pennsylvania on Tuesday morning. Stephens shot and killed himself after a brief pursuit, police said.
The daughter of the Facebook murder victim has a message for the killer: I want him to know that “he’s loved by God” https://t.co/1lbr6fXvsX
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) April 18, 2017
On Monday night, Anderson Cooper spoke with Godwin Sr.’s children in a CNN interview, asking them if there was anything they would like to tell the suspect, who at the time was still at-large.
In addition to encouraging Stephens to turn himself in, Debbie Godwin voiced her forgiveness, saying, “(Y)ou know what, I believe that God would give me the grace to even embrace this man. And hug him.”
“It’s just the way my heart is, it’s the right thing to do. And so, I just would want him to know that even in his worst state, he’s loved…that God loves him, even in the bad stuff that he did to my dad…even though he’s going to have to go through many things to get better, there’s worth in him. And as long as there’s life in him, there is hope for him too.”
Though shocked and deeply pained by their father’s brutal murder, the children said they felt sorry for his killer.
“I honestly can say right now that I hold no animosity in my heart against this man. Because I know that he’s a sick individual,” Debbie said.
She added that she is able to forgive him because of her faith in God.
“I could not do that if I did not know God, if I didn’t know him as my God and my savior, I could not forgive that man,” she said.
© Catholic World Report