Rorate Caeli

The Holy See chooses...

"Global entrepeneurs, such as a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet, establish social foundations. ... As Christians, we note, not without satisfaction, that in social life the Biblical commandment of love for neighbor seems to be universally accepted."

Archbishop Paul Josef Cordes, President of the Pontifical Council "Cor Unum", in the presentation of the 2007 Papal Message for Lent (February 13, 2007).

__________

Before any comment, let us remember some past news:


Warren Buffett Gives until it Hurts: Hurts Women, Hurts the Developing World and Kills Preborn Children [Human Life International]

"Warren Buffett's philanthropy aims at killing pre-born children not curing childhood disease, eliminating the poor not poverty, destroying the developing world not aiding in development," states prominent Roman Catholic Priest.

(Front Royal, VA) The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President of Human Life International responds to Warren Buffett's announcement to donate billions of dollars to the pro-abortion Gates Foundation.

"Warren Buffett's money has gone to fund the deadly abortion causing drug RU- 486, the production and distribution of portable suction abortion devices in the developing world, organizations that push abortion on developing countries, and among many other radical organizations Buffett's foundation gave a grant to the Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization that fought bans on partial-birth abortion…

"Warren Buffett, who is not a Roman Catholic, has also donated money to the Anti-Catholic organization Catholics for a free Choice a group that seeks to undermine the Catholic Church's teachings on the sanctity of human life.

"Warren Buffett's philanthropy aims at killing pre-born children not curing childhood disease, eliminating the poor not poverty, and destroying the developing world not aiding development.

"The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have also given millions of dollars to organizations pushing abortion around the world. The merger of Gates and Buffett may spell doom for the families of the developing world.

"Warren Buffett will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents and ceases using tax deductible donations to promote a culture of death and desolation…," concluded the Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer.

For other examples, visit the website of the Gates Foundation and search "Planned Parenthood".
__________

The "Dr. Mengele of philanthropy"... What Catholic with any knowledge of the difficulties of the pro-life movement does not know that for years Gates, Buffet, and their ilk have been funding pro-abortion measures around the world, under the mystifying title of "reproductive health", including during the biased campaign for the Portuguese referendum?

Yet, during the press conference for the presentation of the 2007 Papal Message for Lent, the "charitable" donations of "global entrepeneurs, as for instance a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet" were hailed as examples that "in social life the Biblical commandment of love for neighbor seems to be universally accepted".

Yes, the charity work of Messrs Gates and Buffet is well-known around the world; it finances, among other works, those involved in what John Paul II called a conspiracy against life:

"Aside from intentions, which can be varied and perhaps can seem convincing at times, especially if presented in the name of solidarity, we are in fact faced by an objective 'conspiracy against life', involving even international Institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying out actual campaigns to make contraception, sterilization and abortion widely available." (Evangelium Vitae)
Yet, these financiers of death are hailed by the Holy See's high representative for Charitable Work (Cor Unum), Archbishop Cordes, as examples of love for neighbor! Death "presented in the name of solidarity"!

Mentioning Gates and Buffet as examples of the "universal acceptance" of "the commandment of love for neighbor" is a monumental betrayal of the Catholic pro-life movement and of millions of Catholics, and an insult to unknown number of unborn children killed with the help of their dirty "charitable donations". Period.

31 comments:

titurator veritatis said...

------"Global entrepeneurs, such as a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet, establish social foundations. ... As Christians, we note, not without satisfaction, that in social life the Biblical commandment of love for neighbor seems to be universally accepted."------

Thus:


"When the skilled exploitation, ill-intentioned and sophistic, of charity and Christian morality, is added to the above, one can form an idea of the crushing aids which are at the disposal of the enemy, in order to disarm us and to prevent us from fighting against atheistic Communism and the “Synagogue of Satan”. One must not forget that Christian charity carries the obligation of protecting the good from the corruption of the bad, but not of protecting the bad and allowing them free rein, so that they can seduce, rob and enslave the good, at the same time as the powers of the good are chained hand and foot with a fake morality, [and philanthropy] so that the latter can be subjected to compulsion by the forces of Bolshevism."

Taken from the Plot against the Church by Maurice Pinay

http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/

bona gratia said...

And Mrs. Bill Gates III is Melinda Gates, a very active partner in the Gates Foundation, who is a "Roman Catholic."

Anonymous said...

Let's not give a ridiculous line in an obscure commentary on the Pope's message distract our attention from the Pope's message itself. As Fr. Zuhlsdorf has noted on his blog, Archbishop Cordes' commentary seems, strangely, to drift away from the point of the Pope's message, as though he wanted to talk about something else entirely.

New Catholic said...

...

prof. basto said...

I will abide by the rule:

"No one passes judgement on the first See".

But I hope the Holy Father rebukes his aide, for this position on Gates & Buffet can´t be the Church´s position.

New Catholic said...

A press conference of the Holy See is not the Holy See, Prof.Basto.

Which is why the title of the post is written as it is.

Nonetheless, this is the Papal high representative for Charity-related issues speaking.

With Peter said...

Is it possible that the good archbishop meant that the commandment to love one's neighbor is almost universally accepted "in principle"?

Obviously many of the practical applications - such as the pro-abortion & contraception projects supported by these two men - are grotesque contradictions of the principle.

I still cannot understand why he would hold these two up as examplars...

Jordan Potter said...

Could this aide be so amazingly out of touch as to not know who Buffet and Gates really, I mean really, are?

Thomas Shawn said...

Hmm, portable abortion devices ... are those the ones that suck the child's brains out as her head emerges from her mother's body?

Simon-Peter said...

"in an obscure commentary"

I like it, condmened from your mouth :-).

Yes, 2007, the Holy See, the Vicar of Christ, comments by the president of Cor Unum, and it *IS* obscure, or is it only a language barrier?

It doesn't help dissemination that it isn't in the global language itself: hint to Holy See, try using English as your *first* choice. What were we saying yesterday about common sense and technology? I suppose we'll just have to wait to see if someone gets around to translating it by which time the world has moved on.

I enjoyed the comment on VIS:

"Until now the pontiffs' Lenten Messages have concentrated, said Archbishop Cordes,'on works of charity in the sense of the social commitment of Christians.' However, Benedict XVI's Message this year 'focuses forcefully upon God the Father of Jesus Christ and has, therefore, not an anthropocentric but a theocentric emphasis'".

Nice emphasis.

Hey Jordan: it is possible, sure, after all, Archbishop Niederauer claims (lies) he doesn't understand what Nancy Pelosi's stand viz. abortion etc. is. He is, of course, lying through his teeth: See "Nancy Pelosi Fan Club" http://simon-peter-says.blogspot.com/.

Whether it is Oscar Wilde or Bill Gates or the "banal" and "prefabricated" Mass condemned and continued out of the same and highest mouth the Holy See and Catholic Episcopacy are nothing if not consistent.

Anyway, I think I'll go and offer some banal and prefabricated prayers this blog is properly recognized.

gregorius minor said...

"Sancta Sedes a nemine judicatur" means that no-one has jurisdiction over the Holy See. It does not mean that the completely absurd statements of its representatives (which in this case are seriously prejudicial to the credibility of the Holy See, re one of the MAJOR social problems of our time) cannot be criticized.

Janice said...

Remember when there was a "press conference" on Deus caritas est, the commentators were Levada, Cordes and one other person, and the "commentary" was said to be only marginally competent. Same goes for Cordes' remarks on the Pope's Lenten message. Apparently, theology isn't one of his strong points.

Anonymous said...

All is lost... I think that the end of the world is comming soon. Concil, modernismo, dead of the babies...

thetimman said...

I think a "de profundis" might be in order on most days, anon.

Simon-Peter said...

Can anyone figure out a. what his point is, and b. what his point is, and c. why he felt the need to say this (now)?

WOMEN DID NOT ABANDON JESUS
VATICAN CITY, FEB 14, 2007 (VIS)
http://tinyurl.com/2kucsk

They already occupy 90% of every position in the parishes, most EMoHC are wimmin, they never tire of lectoring.

Looking forward to more wimmin having their feet washed...

Janice said...

Simon-Peter,

For God's sake ... and the women WERE the ones who didn't abandon Jesus at the Cross. All Benedict was doing was finishing up his exegesis on figures of the NT. What's your problem? Even St. Paul acknowledged women who helped him. It doesn't mean Pope Benedict will be ordaining women tomorrow or anything. If you read the Catechism, there are many passages referring to the holy women. You might want, a la Thomas Jefferson, to get out your scissors and excise them.

Simon-Peter said...

You really don't get it do you?

Janice said...

Simon-Peter,

That's hardly a rejoinder. Yes, I "get" it. You are afraid of the feminization of the Church. Well, that's old, it's retro, it's a canard, and it's a red herring. Women's ordination is not in the future. Women will not be taking over the Church. What are you so afraid of? All the Pope did was give some credit to women in the NT era, who travelled with the apostles and evangelized. Their names are the NT, so the canonical Scriptures acknowledge them. And women have contributed to the life of the Church since then. You don't like the current set up, that's all. Well, I don't like it, either. And not just the "wimmin lectoring" part, but the male-generated faulty theology, the male bishops who never stand up for Church doctrine, etc. It's not a "women's" issue, it's a doctrinal and disciplinary issue.

Brideshead said...

To be sure, women have played a more prominent role in the Church since Vatican II, ESPECIALLY at the parish level and ESPECIALLY in matters liturgical and catechetical. To the extent that women have played an active role in the liturgical wreckovation, I dare say that they have indeed abandoned our Lord at the foot of the Cross.

Back to the original theme of this post, I wonder how Melinda Gates, that strong and busy Catholic woman, serves our Crucified Lord when she's not busy funding abortionists. Not to judge, I don't know the woman; just thinking aloud.

Simon-Peter said...

Janice:

you've reached certain conclusions about what I think, why I think those things, what I know, what I don't know, what I understand and do not understand.

If all the data you had on me was my initial question on this post, I still would not understand how you arrived at these conclusions.

Simon-Peter said...

sorry, I meant my second post begnning "Can anyone figure out."

Brideshead said...

'Can anyone figure out a. what his point is, and b. what his point is, and c. why he felt the need to say this (now)?'

I think that his point is self-evident and non-controversial: women have a vitally important role in the Church.

Why the need to say it now? I think that it's simply that he's wrapping up his catechesis on the earliest NT witnesses.

Brideshead said...

The more pointed point is that all the men (except for the Beloved Disciple) abandoned Jesus on the Cross, while a handful of faithful women remained. To put a finer point on that point, the question could be asked: when the Bugninis and Marinis of the world expose our Lord to mockery on the Cross ("the liturgy is a SHOW!"), should we not look to women to remain faithful, to see to it that our Blessed Lord on the Cross is given the honor and adoration that is due? Yet when women take the reins of parish-level "worship and praise" committees, what happens? The Bugnini/Marini program gets implemented with a fervor. My point is not that men are any better. My point is that when modernist male clerics abandon Jesus on the Cross (this is the crux, if you will, of the liturgical revolution), we should expect better things from his women disciples. I speak not of the women among the ordinary, traditional faithful, but of the women who have "come into power" at the Novus Ordo parish level.

With Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
With Peter said...

A huge problem in contemporary Western culture and so likewise in the Catholic Church in these places is that there are a lot of over-femininized men and over-masculinized women. Nobody seems to really want to say it, but it's a huge problem. Too frequently, bishops seem to be wearing skirts and talking about their emotions and relationship with Jesus. Too frequently, "nuns" are wearing the pants, boldly standing up, demanding assent to their doctrines, which of course are politically liberal and theologically heretical. What happens? We've got a bunch of weak fathers, workplace mothers, spoiled children and broken families.

I think the current series of catecheses compliments that last CDF document under Ratzinger: "On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." I think it is good to be reminded about the men who Jesus chose to succeed him: Men who by the power of the Holy Spirit overcame their fears to courageously lead the Church. And there is something to be said for the women who remained silently faithful. You can accuse me of being sexist, but this will reflect more on your ideology and personality than on my own.

PS. I'm not sure that there is a single "man" teaching theology at any major Catholic university in North America or Europe. There are a fair share of Richard McBriens but no men.

With Peter said...

Simon-Peter- I just read that catechesis on women in the New Testament. I think you're correct in saying there's more to it than just rounding off a series of Wednesday Audiences.

It seems rather a part of a coordinated effort to demonstrate that the Church is NOT "sexist" in maintaining her dogmatic prohibition of women from admission to the priesthood.

I understand that you probably believe it is imprudent to take a conciliatory attitude toward feminism. But I think a successful argument must absorb elements of truth in an otherwise false position. In other words, I think what the pope is doing is not only legitimate, but I think it is prudent.

Issuing the Theology of the Body and Muliaris Dignitatem before his strong upholding of the prohibition on female ordination was a masterstroke by John Paul II. It (1) ensured universal assent from the world's bishops and (2) armed Catholic apologists with a powerful arsenal to diffuse the accusation of supposed "sexism."

Respectfully,

Simon-Peter said...

"Issuing the Theology of the Body and Muliaris Dignitatem before his strong upholding of the prohibition on female ordination was a masterstroke by John Paul II. It (1) ensured universal assent from the world's bishops and (2) armed Catholic apologists with a powerful arsenal to diffuse the accusation of supposed "sexism."

*Perhaps* this Pope is about to do something that might be considered "sexist"? e.g. "cover your heads, it is still the law, get away from the altar, no more female EMofHC, no more altar girls" etc.

I had wondered hmmmm...it was the tone,it seemed so over the top, stating the obvious and after 40 years or so of the drum beat of co-workers in the vinyard I thought it wholly unnecessary as Brideshead said:

"I think that his point is self-evident"

*Quite*.

Which is why I was flabbergasted when Janice then kept stating the obvious...and asking me if I'd ever read St.Paul etc.

That bugged me as I don't think it is I who selectively quote and apply St.Paul, and, reading the first lines of my post on my blog "Bertie Wooster saves the Motu Proprio" should have given a BIG clue, because it reads "Exclusive.
From our correspondent hiding behind the Presider's Chair,
St. Paul of the Selectively-Quoted, Rome.
February 7th 2007, 1500hrs GMT."

Then again, no one reads my blog. So why should I be surprised.

I think I am going to have to start stating the obvious...

Such as opposition to OLoF speaks volumes about a persons TRUE understanding of the *proper* role of women...Mary the co-redemptrix etc. Where co does not mean equal, it means "with",indispensible, complimentary, but not equal. That anyone could intimate I am sexist, or anti-woman whilst at the same time, telling me to stop talking about Our Lady of Fatima is astonishing.

It seems to have gone right over everyones head these days,but Jesus was true man, and not just true mankind, but true MALE. I don't see a woman nailed to the cross...and there is a reason why women stayed at the foot, reparation for Eve, who consented to the serpent in the other tree and betrayed her man...DUH! Biblical typology not a stong point of the modern Church, I know...Yet this "not abandoning Jesus" is taken as a sign of womankinds extra super duper specialness whilst the men ran away...

IT WAS A MAN ON THE CROSS

good grief...which as far as I am concerned shows forth how much Jesus has been stripped of his masculinity AND the secret handrubbing joy some wimmin take in repeating the charge "the men ran away" ...

I don't care if the whole world ran away, it was a MALE on the cross, TRUE God and TRUE MALE, undoing what a woman started and a man ratified & completed...it was ADAM who ratified and completed what Eve began, and it was the Second Adam, not the second Eve who is the efficient cause of our salvation...why am I not surpised that those who think men and women are in every way equal are also opposed to OLoF in her role as prescurser to the announcement of the final marian dogmas e.g. co-Redemptrix? It is they who have got it bass ackwards, not I.

I don't think women need *anymore* encouragement...

The proper role of men in the Church is please? Apparently that is not so self-evident.

brideshead said...

'The proper role of men in the Church is please? Apparently that is not so self-evident.'

If I follow your logic, Simon-Peter, our role is to be nailed to the Cross. St. Paul supports this conclusion: "I am crucified with Christ" and "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves his Church".

Very interesting points, indeed. And, BTW, your blog does get read.

Simon-Peter said...

Brideshead:

just to make it clear: I AM subject to a woman, my Mother and yours, our Queen and my big sisters, St.Teresa de Avila and St.Therse de Lisieux: I do not have a reputation for blowing them off as silly females. After the Mother of God they stand front and centre on the family altar and appear throughout the house...I mean I have a 5 1/2 foot statue of Our Lady praying under a crucifix (affixed to the wall above & behind her head) right as you enter my house. There are no men around her...

Two years ago on fathers day, a priest durring his sermon (a manly word, sermon: homily is a girlie word, sound it out) informed the men present that today was not about laying on the couch having the wife feed one chocolates, rather, it was about intensifying one's sacrifice for ones wife and children, that is, a Catholic fathers Fathers Day is the opposite of the worlds. We all burst out laughing...then coughed and went silent.

You're right. An awful lot of emphasis is placed by certain men on wives being submissive, but not quite so much on loving one's wife as Christ loved the Church.

That cross that Christ was nailed to is a sword, inverted and plunged into the heart of the earth: it is a sword fitted to a King, the one King, warrior King, the bravest man who ever lived and always lives, a sword that only He could wield and His Mother is the bravest woman who ever lived ands always lives. She did remain throughout His Passion she did watch her son his entire life engage the enemy then finally close with him and destroy him hand to hand.

As a disordered man, I am just asking for proper ordering.


Anyway. I've said too much and not very well.

Bridesdhead said...

'That cross that Christ was nailed to is a sword, inverted and plunged into the heart of the earth ..'

And plunged sevenfold into the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and ours.

Well said, Simon-Peter.

With Peter said...

Simon-Peter: I think this an important phrase in your discourse: "equal in every sense." I think you are striking to the heart of a sort of "equality" that actually destroys complimentarity, rendering the sexes independent of one another, "the same."

Traditionalist do not need to shy away from a proper sense of sexual equality, which was expressed in the millennial war that the Catholic Church fought against polygamy. The equal dignity of the sexes was the natural law presupposition upon which the Church drove polygamy from Christendom: "regarding marriage plurality in either sex - since they are not judged unequally - must be condemned" (Innocent III).

Let's be clear: The Catholic Church has always set itself against the belief that women comprise a species lesser in personhood and dignity. Our devotion to Mary as the greatest of all saints - greater than the sum of all other saints - has always had this effect on our thinking. Christ infinitely exceeds the greatness of Mary not because of his masculinity but because of his divinity.

As equal as bone is to bone and flesh is to flesh is as equal as woman is to man, but this equality is BUILT UPON and is BECAUSE OF their diverse and complementary relationship (as head and body).

To place women into the roll of men means to place her onto a tennis court with Pete Sampras. Not the best way to promote the idea of "equality" among the sexes. As John Paul II said, the heights of female dignity are not to be found in economic employment, but in virginity and in motherhood.