As of this date, 06-05-19, there are 3 items in this folder. The links take you to sites which provide a lot of information.
******* item 1 VATICAN UPHOLDS EXCOMMUNICATIONS
******* item 2 ONTARIO BISHOP EXPELS DISSIDENT "CATHOLIC NEW TIMES" PAPER FROM DIOCESE
******* item 3 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRUSADES
*************************************************************************************************************************
******* item 1 VATICAN UPHOLDS EXCOMMUNICATIONS
******* National Catholic Register
******* March 27-April 2, 2005
******* by TIM DRAKE, Register Staff Writer
******* LINCOLN, Neb. � Nine years after Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz ordered Catholics in Lincoln to sever their ties to 12 dissident organizations or face potential excommunication, the Vatican has rejected an appeal by the Chicago-based reform group Call to Action, letting stand the bishop�s original order.
******* It�s not clear when the diocese was told that the appeal was rejected. In a March 5 Associated Press report, Father Mark Huber, a spokesman for the diocese, said Bishop Bruskewitz was notified "some time ago." Father Huber received questions for the bishop from the Register. However, neither he nor anyone else from the diocese responded as the paper went to press.
******* The recent actions date back to March 19, 1996, when Bishop Bruskewitz forbid Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln from membership in 12 groups. Those 12 groups included: Planned Parenthood, Society of Saint Pius X, Hemlock Society, Call to Action, Call to Action Nebraska, Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel, Freemasons, Job�s Daughters, DeMolay, Eastern Star, Rainbow Girls, and Catholics for a Free Choice.
******* "Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith," Bishop Bruskewitz wrote in the order.
******* Bishop Bruskewitz then gave members a month to renounce their membership and seek reconciliation. Those who remained members after April 15, 1996 were forbidden to receive holy Communion.
******* "Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact cause them to be excommunicated," said the order.
******* According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1463), "Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts." In addition, under excommunication, Catholics cannot be married or receive Christian burial unless the individual first repents and is reconciled with the Church.
******* "The Code of Canon Law expressly recognizes the right of diocesan bishops, as well as the pope, to enact laws for their dioceses," said canonist Charles Wilson, executive director of the San Antonio-based St. Joseph Foundation, which serves Catholics who seek to know and exercise their rights within the Church.
******* "Bishop Bruskewitz, by enacting the legislation, was exercising his proper role as legislator for the Diocese of Lincoln."
******* The potential excommunication received widespread media coverage, including mention on NBC�s Today show. Following the announcement, the diocese stated that it had received more than 4,000 messages from individuals, 95% supporting the bishop�s action.
******* Not everyone, though, was pleased by the bishop�s statement.
******* "We are embarrassed for Bishop Bruskewitz and for the Catholic Church of Lincoln, Neb.," said Call to Action�s co-director, Sheila Daley, at the time of the order. "The intemperate action of threatening Lincoln Diocese Call to Action members with excommunication unless they resign from Call to Action violates the most basic principles of justice."
******* When attempts at local reconciliation failed, Call to Action appealed to Rome.
******* "All the bishop did was inform those who belonged to these types of dissident groups that they placed themselves outside of the Church," said canon lawyer Pete Vere, author of Surprised by Canon Law. "He gave them a month to comply. After a month they automatically incurred an excommunication."
******* Wilson said that Call to Action chose the wrong avenue for their appeal.
******* "Call to Action probably appealed to the wrong people," he explained, stating that the group was appealing an administrative decision when they should have been appealing a legislative act. "Their appeal should have gone to the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law.
******* "The question that comes to my mind is whether one who embraces the agenda of Call to Action has placed himself in opposition to the teaching of the Church, or has gone beyond that to separating himself from the Church entirely," Wilson said. "The legislation of the Diocese of Lincoln provides that one who maintains membership in the organization warrants excommunication."
******* Vere said that the action is consistent with a bishop�s duty.
******* "He didn�t just excommunicate them," said Vere. "If it had been done ruthlessly, simply to punish the individual, that would be different, but these are dissident groups that have been leading Catholics astray," said Vere. "The bishop�s duty is to protect the flock. He gave them a canonical warning and gave the members an opportunity to renounce their membership in these groups and remain in good standing with the Church. It was only then, when the members remained obstinate that he resorted to censures."
******* Others feel Bishop Bruskewitz went too far. Msgr. Kenneth Lasch, a retired canon lawyer in Morristown, N.J., told the AP that the bishop�s blanket action was "against the whole spirit of Church law."
******* Wilson disagreed.
******* "It�s one thing to disagree with a law, but it�s not against the whole spirit of canon law," said Wilson, quoting Canon 1311: "�The Church has its own inherent right to constrain with penal sanctions Christ�s faithful who commit offences.�
******* "Bishop Bruskewitz is exercising his pastoral authority for the care of souls," he said. "It�s designed to cause the member to repent and return to full communion. That is the intent of the penalty."
******* Wilson noted that for the full effects of the penalty to apply, the diocese would need to make an official declaration.
******* Excommunication, noted Vere, while within the spirit of canon law, should be used sparingly, and only when there is a high degree of obstinacy and all other attempts to correct the situation have failed.
******* "Given the anti-Catholic nature of the groups named, I would have to agree that membership in such groups warranted excommunication," said Vere. "While some may find it unusual, Bishop Bruskewitz is taking seriously his three functions as outlined in the Second Vatican Council to govern, to sanctify and to proclaim the Gospel.
******* "He is governing the Church by maintaining discipline among Catholics," he said. "He is sanctifying by ensuring that Catholics do not become ensnared in anti-Catholic organizations, and he is proclaiming the Gospel by exposing that within these groups which is contrary to the Gospel."
******* Tim Drake writes from Saint Joseph, Minnesota.
********************************************************************************************************************
******* item 2 ONTARIO BISHOP EXPELS DISSIDENT "CATHOLIC NEW TIMES" PAPER FROM DIOCESE
******* PEMBROKE, Ontario, April 11, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pembroke Bishop Richard Smith, the current President of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, has banned the dissident Catholic New Times newspaper from parishes in his diocese. "I am hereby directing any parish that facilitates distribution of this newspaper to cease doing so immediately," wrote Bishop Smith in a letter to all pastors dated February 11.
******* The February edition of the 'Catholic New Times' "editorial comment contains views which are clearly at odds with the teaching of the church on faith and morals," Bishop Smith said. "In my judgement, it is not appropriate to have copies of this newspaper made available through our parishes, as this could be interpreted as diocesan approbation of its views."
******* In its February edition, the Catholic New Times said, "The church's teaching on homosexuality. seems to us out of touch with growing scientific evidence on the nature of homosexuality itself." The editorial added, "Same-sex, loving and committed relationships and the sexual expression thereof can be holy and may even be sacramental."
******* The Catholic New Times' decades long dissent from Catholic teaching on major issues such as abortion, same sex 'marriage' and a female priesthood, is not news, but it is a source of constant scandal to many laity and faithful clergy.
******* Despite the flagrant anti-Catholicism exhibited by the paper, it is nonetheless still available in thousands of Catholic churches and schools across Canada. Of note, CNT editor Ted Schmidt was harshly critical of Pope John Paul on the CBC and Vision TV during prime time media coverage following the Pope's death.
******* See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
******* Anti-Catholic Paper Allowed in 70% of London, Ontario Parishes Opposes Bishop's Same-Sex Marriage Fight http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05022201.html
******* Analysis Finds Canadian 'Catholic New Times' Newspaper Anything But 'Catholic' http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031503.html
*******************************************************************************
******* item 3 THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRUSADES - By ROBERT SPENCER
******* From: Ed Hardison via Robert A. Jason
******* Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
******* MODERN AFTERMATH OF THE CRUSADES - Robert Spencer on the Battles Still Being Waged
******* WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 11, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought, according to one expert.
******* Robert Spencer, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" (Regnery), claims that the damage is not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but is a more subtle destruction.
******* Spencer shared with ZENIT how false ideas about the Crusades are being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today.
******* Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?
******* Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.
******* As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.
******* "For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.
******* "If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."
He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.
******* Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?
Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.
******* In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.
******* Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies -- except for a small number who converted to Islam.
******* Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay.
******* Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the tax on non-Muslims -- jizya -- that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow believers.
******* Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled for Constantinople and other Christian cities. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.
******* In 1004, the Fatimid Caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. Over the next 10 years 30,000 churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives.
******* In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches, including the Church of the Resurrection. In 1056, the Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
******* When the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in 1077, the Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.
******* Another common misconception is that the Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force. Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to the Crusaders to convert Muslims.
******* It was not until over 100 years after the First Crusade, in the 13th century, that European Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders. This effort was largely unsuccessful.
******* Yet another misconception revolves around the Crusaders' bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1099.
******* The capture of Jerusalem is often portrayed as unique in medieval history, and as the cause of Muslim mistrust of the West. It might be more accurate to say that it was the start of a millennium of anti-Western grievance mongering and propaganda.
******* The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime -- particularly in light of the religious and moral principles they professed to uphold. However, by the military standards of the day, it was not actually anything out of the ordinary.
******* In those days, it was a generally accepted principle of warfare that if a city under siege resisted capture, it could be sacked, and while if it did not resist, mercy would be shown. It is a matter of record that Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when entering a conquered city.
This is not to excuse the Crusaders' conduct by pointing to similar actions. One atrocity does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders' behavior in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period -- since all states subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance.
******* In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city -- so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians.
******* Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination."
Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.
******* There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is widespread. When he died, the Washington Post reminded its readers "during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo."
******* However, John Paul II never actually apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the "Day of Pardon."
During his homily he said: "We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions."
******* This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades.
******* Q: How have Muslims perceived the Crusades then and now?
Spencer: For centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was thriving, the Crusades were not a preoccupation of the Islamic world. They were, after all, failures from a Western standpoint.
******* However, with the decline of the military power and unity of the Islamic world, and the concomitant rise of the West, they have become a focal point of Muslim resentment of perceived Western encroachment and exploitation.
******* Q: To what extent are false ideas about the Crusades being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today?
******* Spencer: The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought -- but not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Today's is a more subtle destruction.
******* The Crusades have become a cardinal sin not only of the Catholic Church but also of the Western world in general.
******* They are Exhibit A for the case that the current strife between the Muslim world and Western, post-Christian civilization is ultimately the responsibility of the West, which has provoked, exploited, and brutalized Muslims ever since the first Frankish warriors entered Jerusalem.
******* Osama bin Laden has spoken of his organization not as al-Qaida but of a "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," and called in a fatwa for "jihad against Jews and Crusaders."
******* Such usage is widespread. On November 8, 2002 -- shortly before the beginning of the Iraqi war that toppled Saddam Hussein -- Sheikh Bakr Abed Al-Razzaq Al-Samaraai preached in Baghdad's Mother of All Battles mosque about "this difficult hour in which the Islamic nation [is] experiencing, an hour in which it faces the challenge of [forces] of disbelief of infidels, Jews, crusaders, Americans and Britons."
******* Similarly, when Islamic jihadists bombed the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in December 2004, they explained that the attack was part of larger plan to strike back at "Crusaders": "This operation comes as part of several operations that are organized and planned by al-Qaida as part of the battle against the crusaders and the Jews, as well as part of the plan to force the unbelievers to leave the Arabian Peninsula," the jihadists said in a statement.
******* They also said that jihad warriors "managed to enter one of the crusaders' big castles in the Arabian Peninsula and managed to enter the American consulate in Jeddah, in which they control and run the country."
In the face of this, Westerners should not be embarrassed by the Crusades. It's time to say, "enough," and teach our children to take pride in their own heritage.
******* They should know that they have a culture and a history of which they can and should be grateful; that they are not the children and grandchildren of oppressors and villains; and that their homes and families are worth defending against those who want to take them away, and are willing to kill to do so.
*******************************************************************************
(A2b1a1a) Catholic news and information
Links to other sites on the Web
(A2b1a1c3) Catholic News Agency
(A2b1a1c4) Zenit - the world seen from Rome
(A2b1a1c5) Giga-Catholic information
(A2b1a1c6) (A) home page
The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974. ******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY. ******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled. ******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to ******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html ******* email me at *** [email protected] ***