Full Text of Pope Francis's Homily for Pope Benedict's Funeral Mass Celebrated Today

You can find the full text of the homily here: https://aleteia.org/2023/01/05/francis-homily-for-benedicts-funeral-full-text/

Rest in Peace Pope Benedict XVI: My thoughts on the former pontiff

It is with great sadness that I announce the death of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I'm glad he had a long life where he was able to contribute much to the world. However, it is still very sad that he passed away.

I found out this news this morning as I was just getting up. He passed away at 9:34am in the Mater Ecclesia Monastery in Vatican City where he had been living for many years. As of right now, funeral arrangements are still underway. Obviously Pope Francis will be in attendance, but the date and times are currently unknown.

I really came to admire Pope Benedict. He spoke with clarity and precision, but also with love and kindness. He wasn't a robot, in fact, he was quite human and loving. Unfortunately the media insists on placing people into well-defined boxes, and thus portrayed Benedict as some arch-conservative that never smiles. Admittedly, he did have a big act to follow coming after Pope John Paul II, however, I think he was unduly smeared in public perception.

One thing I liked about Pope Benedict is that he was an intellectual. He was a theologian and scholar, long before he became pope. He was well-known in the academic world. I appreciate this trait because we need clarity now more than ever. Morality in our world is something that cannot be taken for granted. People take terms that have long been well-understood and distort their meaning to fit their own evil desires. That's why we need a clear-speaking and precise pontiff who will guide the people.

As mentioned though, Pope Benedict wasn't just providing information, he was inspiring and wrote beautiful works, including his encyclical "God is Love".

People probably assumed that when Benedict retired in 2013 that he would not have much time left. Every few months we would hear health updates and it would make you wonder how he was doing, but he always seemed to pull through. 95 is a great age to reach. It's interesting that Queen Elizabeth was just a little older (96) when she passed away, also this year. I wonder how often it happens that a pope and a British monarch die in the same year. Randomly, I also recall Betty White died on this date last year. Apparently the most common day of death if January 1. I don't think the deaths of Betty White and Pope Benedict are related, however.

I am curious about what to expect when it comes to Pope Benedict's funeral. When will it be, who will be in attendance, what will the actual ceremony look like? All interesting things to think about.

Most of all, let's pray for the repose of the former pope's soul. May he rest in peace.

Pope Benedict has died at the age of 95

It is with great sadness that I announce the death of Pope Benedict XVI. He is the oldest person who was ever pope. This is not to be confused with "oldest pope" as Benedict retired at the age of 85, making him the 4th oldest pope at the end of the papacy.

Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict, had a long and distinguished academic career before being elected pope in 2005.

He was born in Germany in 1927 and studied theology at the University of Munich and the Higher School of Philosophy and Theology in Freising. After ordination to the priesthood in 1951, he continued his studies and earned a doctorate in theology in 1953.

Ratzinger began teaching theology at the University of Bonn in 1959 and later held positions at the University of Münster, the University of Tübingen, and the University of Regensburg. In 1977, he was appointed to the chair of dogmatic theology at the University of Regensburg, where he served as dean of the faculty of theology from 1984 to 1989.

In 1981, Ratzinger was appointed as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a position he held until his election as pope in 2005. He also served as a member of the International Theological Commission from 1969 to 1981 and as its president from 1981 to 1985.

Throughout his academic career, Ratzinger was known for his scholarship on the theology of the Church Fathers, the history of dogma, and the relationship between faith and reason. He is the author of numerous books and articles on these and other topics, and his work has been widely respected in the Catholic Church and beyond.

After retiring from the papacy, Pope Benedict led a quiet life in a monastery. He will be greatly missed. He provided great insight into the faith and he was a truly great man!

Happy Birthday Pope Benedict!

Happy Birthday to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who today turns 94 years old. He is about one year younger than Queen Elizabeth who turns 95 next week on Wednesday.

Who'd have thought that Pope Benedict would still be around 8 years after his retirement? I'm sorry he left so soon. He is a deep and complex character with much to offer to the Church. I have written about the potential damage being done by the current pontiff. While Pope Benedict offered, in what some might see as stereotypically German, clarity, Pope Francis on the other hand tends to offer confusion.

Pope Francis has done some good things as well, but it mainly seems like virtue-signaling to appeal to enemies of the Church. I will leave it to readers to make that evaluation.

I think Pope Benedict got a bad rap. He was attacked in the media, but it was all based on some kind of emotional reaction to him. "He doesn't look all that friendly". Stuff like that. As if that has anything to do with anything. Most people only know what the media tell them. They hear he is strict or orthodox or conservative, etc. and that's about all they know.

In reality, Pope Benedict wrote 66 books, 3 encyclicals and 3 exhortations, on a wide range of topics. He was an esteemed professor at several universities and became a full professor at the age of 31.

Over his career, Pope Benedict became more and more conservative as he saw the problems afflicting a more liberal point of view in the Church. He staunchly defended traditional Catholic doctrines.

To be honest, I have not read a large number of Pope Benedict's books, but I think it is something worth doing.

So Happy Birthday Pope Benedict, we miss you!

Pope Francis: What he's done in 8 years....

It's kind of hard to believe it's been 8 years since Pope Benedict resigned from the papacy. Even to this day, there are conspiracy theories circulating as to his motivation for making such a move. Some say he was forced out by powerful groups within the Church. I haven't read up on these theories enough to make an evaluation of them.

If you theorize that Pope Benedict was forced out and replaced with Pope Francis by globalists looking to further their world-altering agenda, then you could be forgiven for doing so given the many statements made by Pope Francis over the years which seem to approve of the overall leftist agenda. Admittedly, he has not gone completely "globalist", but in many aspects he has.

Among other things, Pope Francis talks constantly about global warming, globalizing the economy and having supranational organizations rule over us, socialism, reducing individual freedom, the evils of capitalism, and so on. Since Covid-19, Pope Francis seems to have made the disease a staple of his pontificate.

In his 8 years as pope, Francis has called out traditional Catholics in many ways, yet he rarely does the same for liberals in the Church. He has told Catholics to stop breeding like rabbits and to "get over" abortion, homosexuality and contraception. He has cracked down on the Traditional Latin Mass. Lucky for us Pope Benedict made it more available, not less.

The current Supreme Pontiff seems obsessed with environmentalism. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be within the context of Catholicism. The Catholic understanding of the topic is that humans are the greatest of God's creation on Earth and that the Earth and her resources are here for our use and growth. The reason we don't pollute unnecessarily or waste things is because is can harm our fellow man, not because of some obligation towards Mother Earth.

The pontiff has gone so far as to condemn air conditioners (Laudato si', para. 55) and has said the world is starting to look like "an immense pile of filth". These weren't off-the-cuff remarks of which he is quite fond, but are found one of his several environmentalism encyclicals.

Although there is plenty of disagreement regarding the proper way to deal with Covid-19 to minimize damage from all angles, Pope Francis decided to write an op-ed in the New York Times in which he praises any and all lockdown protocols and condemns those who disagree as being unconcerned about others. Of course, there cannot be any legitimate disagreement on that topic. You either care about people or your don't.

Pope Francis has become well-known for his airplane interviews in which he says confusing and seemingly unCatholic statements. Sometimes these statements are "clarified" by his entourage, sometimes they are not.

Following the publication of his exhortation Amoris laetitia, a group of 4 prominent cardinals issued what's called a Dubia in which they sought clarification on several points in the encyclical as it related to the reception of communion for people who were civilly divorced and remarried. The pope refused to answer their dubia, even though it was straightforward. According to Wikipedia, some have said that he refused to respond because he wanted to emphasize a more pastoral approach to these issues. This is a nonsensical statement. No matter how "pastoral" one might be, he cannot teach error either by omission or commission in order to do so. It makes no sense.

More recently, the pope has seemed to make veiled negative comments regarding Former President Donald Trump and others seemingly in favor of President Joe Biden.

These are just a tiny fraction of the confusing, unsettling things Pope Francis has done since ascending to the Papal Throne. Has he done anything good? Yes he has. He has spoken out clearly against abortion in many cases. He has spoken against the newfangled gender ideologies going around on leftist campuses. These are good things. But to be honest, these are the minimum things we would expect from the Holy Father.

Let's hope Pope Francis listens to people who only have his best interests at heart. The cardinals who wrote the dubia aren't trying to "trap" him or make him look bad, they are trying to be shepherds to their people. Those who tell the pope that his comments are confusing and controversial aren't doing it to bash him or be hard-hearted, they simply want teachings that make sense and represent the Catholic faith.

In the next 8 years, Pope Francis must listen more to his critics because in general they are the daily Mass-goers, they are the people who are serious about the faith, they want to grow in their relationship with God, and all they are asking for is a Holy Father who reflects this.

Pope receives ashes too

Why the Church is right about Condoms

Over the past few days, much hoopla has been made about the pope's most recent comments where he spoke about condom use. As I've mentioned in previous blog posts here and here, the pope did not say condoms are now permissible.

In this article I will explore why the Church's stance on condoms is the correct one.

The Church is officially against the use of artificial contraception, including condoms. It is important to make some distinctions here. Officially, the church is only concerned with marital relations, because sex outside this context is considered grave matter. This means objectively it is sinful, although subjectively it may not be. Therefore, official teachings concerning the specifics of a gravely immoral act would usually be superfluous. For example, the Church has not yet made any comment on the use of a condom during a homosexual act, because homosexual acts are considered gravely immoral anyway, and the use of a condom is irrelevant in this case.

Having made those clarifications, let's explore the main point of this article. The pope said last year that condoms are not the solution to AIDS in Africa. He was met with outrage over these comments. The reason is many people rely on the following mentality when dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic:

1) HIV and AIDS is a serious problem in Africa
2) People spread HIV through promiscuous sex, which is human nature and thus unchangeable
3) Condoms reduce the risk of transmission in a given sex act
4) Condoms are the solution to the problem.

Anyone would agree, which includes the pope as well I would assume, that the first and third premises are correct. It is scientifically shown that a condom reduces the risk of transmission of HIV/AIDS in a particular sex act vs. not using one. Nobody believes that the rate of transmission stays the same with or without condom use. Of course, everyone also agrees that HIV and AIDS are a serious problem in Africa.

It has been shown that condoms are 85% effective against HIV/AIDS, so naturally if there is a given sex act, there is a reduction in the risk of transmission.

Above, the conclusion (4) that condoms are a solution, automatically follows if the other three premises are correct. However, I believe, as does the pope, that premise #2 is false, and that is the specific premise that is being challenged by the pontiff. He believes the only real solution to the AIDS crisis in Africa is through a change in behavior.

This change includes not having sex outside of marriage. Just imagine if the rate of AIDS in a country started off at 1%. If everyone followed the rule of waiting until marriage to engage in sex, at most the rate would go from 1% to 2% and then drop. The disease could only spread to another partner and that's it. What happened in reality though was that the 1% infected many others who then infected many more and so on until the rates grew exponentially.

If condoms were introduced, the exponential growth would not stop, but would only be slowed. There is an 85% rate of effectiveness with condom use, and therefore a 15% failure rate. That means that with everyone using condoms, AIDS would be spread at 15% the normal rate, assuming behaviors do not change. This may sound great, but really it is only delaying the inevitable. Also, I am assuming a lot here. I am assuming a 100% rate of use within a country from a 0% rate to begin with, which is unheard of. However, this is the goal of many organizations such as the UN. Many people believe that with complete condom use, AIDS will decrease. It will not. Even if the rate of transmission slows, it is still there. Their perfect solution just reduces the rate of spread, based on the assumption that behavior is unalterable. Plus, it will continue to grow exponentially by definition.

Let's take the rate of HIV transmission for heterosexual sex without a condom of around 0.75%. The UN and others' perfect solution is to reduce this rate to 0.1125% and leave it at that. Of course, once again, this is assuming the country goes from 0% use to 100% use. The main problem with this "solution" is that the rate will continue to increase. Think of it like interest rate. If you are getting a 0.75% interest rate, your money will grow faster, but with 0.1125%, your money will still grow and continue to grow faster and faster. This "perfect" solution does not solve the problem at all.

On top of this, using condoms have been promoted as "safe sex". They are not presented as offering a reduction in the risk of infection, but rather as solving the problem. People use them as complete security against disease and therefore people are far less inhibited when it comes to sex. It gives them a sense of invulnerability.

Of course, everything I've said so far has been based on the assumption that people are incapable of changing behavior. That going from promiscuity to fidelity is impossible. But I disagree. I have much more confidence in people than others do. I think society can change for the better.

What the pope is proposing is a perfect solution. If people waited until marriage to have sex with a single partner, there would not be an exponential growth of the AIDS epidemic. It would flatline and eventually disappear.

Some may ask about married couples where one partner has AIDS. The Church would say that the loving thing to do is NOT risk infecting one's partner with a terrible illness. Whether that risk is one in 150 or one in 900, putting someone at risk of contracting a lethal disease is always immoral.

Therefore, if people listened to the Catholic Church, AIDS would cease to spread COMPLETELY. It is not an 85% solution, it is a 100% solution.

In order to really understand the Church's stance vs. the rest of the world, we must look at real world examples. In Uganda, there was a dramatic reduction in AIDS cases, unlike anywhere else in Africa. Why? Because they started to employ the ABC strategy, which is Abstinence, Be faithful, and if necessary, use a Condom. This is unlike other African countries whose main focus was the distribution of condoms. The countries with the highest use and availability of condoms experienced an increase in infection rates. Only Uganda which focused on Catholic values saw a reduction.

In this case, we can see that people really can change behavior, and the impact is positive. If condoms were the solution, Africa would have been rid of HIV and AIDS long ago, or at the very least there would be no new cases. However, that scenario is a mere dream. The rates have actually increased. They say it is easier to find condoms than it is to find clean water in Africa. Billions of Western dollars flood Africa with money for condoms every year with little impact.

What the pope is constantly saying is that the real and sustainable solution to the AIDS epidemic is a change in values and actions. If people were faithful to marriage and those with HIV/AIDS did not infect others, the disease would disappear completely. Why must we have such little confidence in humanity?

Some believe that the pope is unconcerned with AIDS in Africa, but the fact is most people suffering from AIDS receive treatment from the Catholic Church. Many scientists have explicitly or implicitly confirmed what the pope is saying. A Stanford University study found that the ABC approach was the most successful because it emphasized abstinence and faithfulness, as the pope has.

Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, said the evidence shows that the pope is correct in his assertion that condoms are not the solution.

This debate is rarely about science, it's about ideology. Condoms are seen as sexually liberating. No longer must a couple be completely committed in order to have sex, but sex can be enjoyed as a casual activity between people. Condoms in some way undermine the old paradigm of sex being connected with birth and have "liberated" us sexually. It's a fairytale that, despite the evidence, has continued to survive. To suggest that the solution lies in sexual morality is anathema to modern society's notion that sex is only about self-gratification. I believe most of the attacks on the pope are motivated less out of concern for HIV and AIDS patients in Africa but more out of a fear of religious conservatism which argues that not all sexual activity is permissible. If you doubt this theory, I suggest you read comments on articles concerning the pope on condoms. Nearly all of them are personal attacks on the pope and refer to his age or position and say he has no authority on sexual matters. Rarely do these comments reflect a concern for the people of Africa unless they are accusing the pope of somehow indirectly killing them.

The world needs a strong moral voice instead of more condoms. I hope the pope continues to speak up for what is right despite voices of opposition.

Pope will visit the United Kingdom next year, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI will be visiting the United Kingdom next year, marking the first time in over 25 years a pontiff will make this trip. This comes after an invitation by Gordon Brown, the prime minister of England, and is being looked forward to by the Catholic bishops of the country, as well as the Anglican's top man, the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

I read this article on the BBC, and the response seems rather upbeat and positive. Usually when British mainstream media, including the BBC, report on issues related to the Catholic Church it's 10% positive and 90% negative. Even if the article is on a good topic, they find some way to screw it up. For example, they may write an article that goes along the lines of "Catholic Church donates millions to orphanages, so why are they not paying enough for sex abuse cases?" or "Pope condemns all violence and leads vigil for victims of the Holocaust, BUT there are hundreds of critics who say the Vatican didn't do enough to defeat Hitler". The only place you hear this is with the Catholic Church and/or the Vatican. Can you imagine this article: "Brad Pitt donates to UN, but many say he is a poor moral voice because he committed adultery with his first wife!" or how about "The German Chancellor says violence is not the answer and we must renew our commitment to peace. However, many critics say this is too little, too late, given Germany's role in the Holocaust." It's not acceptable in those cases, so it shouldn't be with the Catholic Church.

In this particular article about the pope's visit to England, the response was very good from the user comments. One user said he would schedule his vacation around the pope's visit. Others praised this action. The article did however make clear that there would be protests surrounding his visit by certain groups. Of course, you'll get your typical protest groups at such events. I do not think it's bad for the media to report on opposition to things, but I think everything should be put into perspective. The same standards should apply in all cases. If opposition is shown, it should be relevant and timely. For example, to protest something from this pope because Pope Pius XII alledgely didn't "do enough" during the Holocaust is ridiculous.

To go back to the topic, I think it's really wonderful that the Pope will be visiting the UK next year. I think this is a very good time for this visit given the current affairs of the Anglican church. Many in that church are disillusioned by moral liberalization taking place. The Anglican church has historically been seen as one of the closest relatives of the Catholic Church, save perhaps the Orthodox, in terms of liturgy and beliefs. That started to change in 1930 when the Anglican church became the first to advocate the possibility for couples to use contraception. Then around fifteen years ago, the Anglican church started to ordain women. This caused a major rift between Catholic - Anglican relations. Then a few years ago, Anglicans accepted an openly gay bishop. And most recently, the Anglican church has said it will perform marriage for gay couples. Beyond a miracle, this rift has become an insurmoutable chasm. The Church sees this as a new opportunity for evangelization. Many Anglicans are seeking true Christian teaching, and the Catholic Church is in a great position to receive many members. Indeed, Anglicans are already converting to Catholicism at a great rate.

With the Pope's visit to England, there will be a great opportunity for evangelization. This may be the first time many Britons have heard the pope unfiltered. Usually they hear about the pope from the mainstream media, but hearing his words directly may have a great effect. I read an article recently about 10 Agnlican nuns coming over to the Church. Also, another story says there are around 40,000 Anglicans who may be welcomed into the Church en masse soon. The Catholic Church already has an Anglican-style liturgy designed for those who are familiar with Anglican services. The only difference is that it is done according to liturgical rules and by a validly ordained priest.

We should all be very grateful for Gordon Brown's invitation. Perhaps he is listening to the pope's message more and more like Tony Blair has (he is now a Catholic convert). My suggestion for the church in the UK is to have lots of priests on hand who can lead people through the conversion process to Christ's Holy Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict thinks swimming is awesome

I just found this interesting video of Pope Benedict talking to world class swimmers about to participate in Swimming World Championships. Pope Benedict reminds us that everything we do in life can be for the greater glory of God. Therefore, as St. Francis said, we must pray often, and when necessary, use words. Check it out:

Before you criticize Bush too much, listen to these words...

People have been very fond of criticizing President Bush, but before you do that, please listen to his words here. They are very powerful. Notice he also defends life, without saying doing so is above his pay-grade.

Anti-catholicism once again rears its ugly head

I just had to post this great article by Michael Coren. I saw it in The Interim, Canada's pro-life newspaper. I searched for it online and found it on The National Post website. I am posting it from there onto my blog. Here it is:

Michael Coren: Anti-papal hypocrisy spreads faster than AIDS
Posted: March 31, 2009, 7:30 AM by NP Editor

Michael Coren, Full Comment

The attacks upon the Roman Catholic Church in the last two weeks following the Pope’s comments about the dangers of condom use in Africa in the attempt to prevent AIDS have been an extraordinary lesson in applied ignorance and the survival of prejudice. Talk-radio hosts who have long callously and naively blamed Africans for all of Africa’s sufferings suddenly become champions of the continent. Doctors and academics who have shown no previous concern for the plight of Africa are instantly transformed into experts and partisans. It is enough to make one weep. The weeping, however, should be for Africa rather than a bunch of anti-Catholic hypocrites.

Some context first. AIDS had smashed its way through Africa for almost two generations before many people in Europe or North America had even heard of it. It was killing poor black people many miles away and nobody matters less to the wealthy whites than poor blacks many miles away. It was only when the disease was brought into the male homosexual community of the United States that the likes of Elizabeth Taylor became so emotional on television and numerous actors, politicians and public figures made AIDS one of the most fashionable causes in modern times.

Indeed, AIDS is a fascinating case-study in itself in that, while politicized statistics and agenda-driven activists try to tell us otherwise, AIDS in the West is still largely a concern for gay men and intravenous drug-users. Remember the dramatic announcement from Canadian health officials that the AIDS rate had doubled in the mainstream community in one particular area? It had. From one person to two. But it is the suffering itself rather than the nature of the sufferer that should motivate us. Problem is, this philosophy was not applied when it was Africans rather than Californians in need.

That, at least, was the attitude of the Western elites — the very people now condemning the Roman Catholic Church. Yet it was the Church that was in Africa caring for people with AIDS when Hollywood and the Western media were more concerned with puppies and kittens. Even today, almost half of all Africans with AIDS are nursed by people working for the Roman Catholic Church. A Church, by the way, that has also called for all African debt to be forgiven and for a radical redistribution of wealth from north to south.

None of this is mentioned when Pope Benedict is attacked for his condemnation of the condom fetish. If we read the man’s statements, however, what we see is a sophisticated deconstruction of Western double-standards and a thoughtful critique of the failed attempt to control AIDS.
First, it’s not working. In countries where condoms are state-distributed, free and ubiquitous AIDS has not been controlled and is often spreading. Second, even where AIDS is less of an issue, such as in North America, the increased availability and use of condoms has coincided with an annual increase in STDs and so-called unwanted pregnancies. Third, one failure of a condom to work — and the failure rate is significant if not overwhelming — is not a mere mistake but a death sentence. Fourth, condoms enable promiscuity rather than encourage abstinence. And sexual activity is about more than mere intercourse; a cut finger or a small body wound can allow infection to occur.

Fifth, how dare we treat black people as if they were children. They are capable of self-control and all over Africa, most successfully but not exclusively in Uganda, there are elaborate, empathetic and extraordinarily successful abstinence programs that emphasize humanity rather than lust — a philosophy that runs directly contrary to the sexual gratification cult so favoured by some of the people in the West now so apoplectic at Pope Benedict’s comments.

Of course, there is more to this anti-papal neurosis than television comedians making jokes about celibate clergy and commentators assuming that they know far more about reality than a priest who has worked in an African city slum for forty years. Conventional wisdom has it that Africa has a population problem and that Africans can become “more civilized” if they have fewer children. It’s an organized and sometimes quite sinister campaign. Africa is, if anything, underpopulated and the problems of the continent have far more to do with Western greed, colonization, resources exploitation and arms sales than with family size. The Church has spoken out on these issues for decades and was, for example, one of the leading voices at the United Nations that persuaded the multinational pharmaceutical companies to make their anti-AIDS drugs generic and thus affordable in the Third World.

Paradox and lack of understanding rules the day. We applaud an obscenely wealthy American actress when she takes a black baby from Africa, but forget that the Hollywood values she epitomizes encourage loveless sex and treating one another as sexual objects rather than distinct individuals — the precise phenomenon that encourages the spread of AIDS. More than this, the solution to children living in poverty in Africa is not to remove the children but to remove the poverty. But there is never a camera crew around for that sort of thing.

It appears these days to be open season on Pope Benedict XVI. In that he leads an organization that is supposed to be a mirror held up to the world to reflect society’s failures and absurdities, the man must be doing a great deal right.

National Post

Michael Coren is an author and broadcaster.

It's easy being green, when you follow Pope John Paul II

As readers of my blog have discovered, sometimes I like to post titles which contain puns or statements whose meanings are not overt. This title will have to be broken down a little. In the Catholic Church, various liturgical seasons and holy days are celebrated. Each one has a particular color and the priest at mass will wear vestments to reflect this. For example, Pentecost is red, Lent is violet, and Easter is white. The liturgical colour for ordinary time is green. Ordinary time is as the name implies, a time where we worship Christ and his sacrifice but where there is not a particular feast. My title is reflective of this.

Pope Benedict XVI came after a very great pope. John Paul II did things that no other pope had ever done, such as being born in Poland. John Paul's nationality was to foreshadow his trailblazing papacy. He is known for his firsts. He dialogued with non-Christians more than any other pope. He visited synagogues and mosques. He became a truly universal pontiff. He traveled more than any other pope, canonized probably more saints than any pope before him, and got young people involved more than ever. He wrote on the Theology of the Body, he was the pope of the new media age, etc. Pope John Paul II will truly go down in history as a trailblazing pope, during his 26 years in the seat of Peter. Oh, and did I mention that he helped bring down Communism in Europe?

Following this, Pope Benedict's actions may not stand out as much as they should. It is not hard for Benedict's actions as pope to appear "ordinary" in the shadow of John Paul the Great. Benedict, or as some like to call him B16, has done many trailblazing things himself, even in his short 4 years as pontiff. Benedict has traveled extensively, he has visited Muslim and Jewish leaders, he has taken on world issues, and has embraced the media age. Pope Benedict even has his own youtube page.

Perhaps if Benedict had been elected after the death of Pope John Paul I, instead of Karol Wojtyla, he would now be regarded as just as much of a trailblazer. This would have been possible, although perhaps unlikely. Benedict was at the conclave of JPII, one the few who was still alive after John Paul's record setting pontificate which lasted over 26 years. John Paul II actually selected nearly all the cardinals who were present at the time of his death, except a couple, one of which was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now B16.

As the world continues to love Pope Benedict more and more each day, let us say a prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father.

Hitler's Pope: The Media gets it wrong again and again

I just read an article by the BBC. As a mainstream media outlet, they are not concerned about the facts or presenting something as it really is, but rather to cause controversy where none exists. This happened in their latest article concerning Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Israel, which began today. There is a major bias in the media that says Pope Pius XII did nothing to save the Jews during the Holocaust and that he actually helped Hitler in what he was doing. I think people really need to sit down and weigh the evidence. I'm not telling you you have to believe what I say. I'm saying, look at the evidence for yourself. Do research. And see what conclusion you come to.

A Rabbi named David G. Dalin published a book in 2005 called "The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis". In it, he notes that the Pope saved more Jews than Schindler, of movie fame. He points out that many famous Jews attested to Pius's help during WWII. These include Israeli Prime Ministers Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett, and Israel's first president Chaim Weizmann.

Why would the Pope like Hitler anyway? Thousands of priests and nuns were executed in the gas chambers of the Holocaust. Hitler hated the Catholic Church and a plot has been revealed that Hitler planned on killing the Pope himself if he became too much of a trouble-maker for
Hitler's regime.

The chief Rabbi of Rome actually converted to Catholicism after what Pius XII did, and he took as his new name Eugene, after Pope Pius XII's pre-pontifical name of Eugenio Pacelli.

Sources now believe the Pope saved anywhere from 500,000 to 860,000 Jews during the Holocaust by his actions, which included issuing fake baptismal certificates, and housing Jews in churches and monasteries.

Probably the most well-known Jewish figure of this century, Albert Einstein, said: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."

The myth of Hitler's Pope has been thoroughly debunked, but some want to keep rehashing this old canard. Why? Perhaps the author of the Myth of Hitler's Pope says it best:

"anti-papal polemics of ex-seminarians like Garry Wills and John Cornwell (author of Hitler's Pope), of ex-priests like James Carroll, and or other lapsed or angry liberal Catholics exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today."

Let us pray for the Pope's visit to the Holy Land, and that people's hearts will be opened up to the light of Christ.

Can you name an environmental group? How about the Vatican?

When you think environmental activism, the first group you think of is probably not the Vatican and the Catholic Church. However, the Pope and tbhe Vatican have been promoting environmental causes for quite some time. Most recently, the Vatican announced plans to build the world's largest solar plant. A solar plant is a large collection of solar panels to capture energy. This plant will produce enough energy for 40,000 homes. This is simply incredible. For years, the Vatican has been promoting our proper response to the environment. Our Catholic faith teaches us that we are stewards of the environment and that we must protect it.

Some people believe the Vatican is behind the times, but this once again proves the opposite. In promoting renewable energy, the Vatican is sending a message to the world. But why do so many people insist that the Vatican and the Catholic Church are outdated? The reason does not come from the evidence, but rather from peoples' desires to be free from any moral code. But this is shortsighted, because ultimately the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ almost 2,000 years ago, is looking out for people's best interest.

Right from the start, the Church has told people to be good stewards of the Earth and to protect it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Respect for the integrity of creation 2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

The Pope has spoken out against pollution, destruction of the environment, and more. Catholic groups such as Development and Peace have been at the forefront of ensuring that water companies do not exploit everyone's God-given rights to clean water.

As you see, protecting the environment is what we are called to do as Catholics.

Will the US have an ambassador to the Vatican?

It seems the United States is having some trouble picking an ambassador to the Vatican. This has not usually been a big issue, but with Obama in the White House, it's proving to be a conundrum. Obama is the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to lead the US, and his policies on life issues put him at distinct odds with the Catholic Church. To that end, he is having extraordinary difficulty selecting a new ambassador to the Vatican. One reason is that he wants to pick a pro-abortion person to do the job. Right away, this sets this person up for dismissal by the Holy See. As a country, the Holy See has the right to reject any candidate put forward as a potential ambassador.

Since 1984, the US has had diplomatic relations with the Vatican in the form of an ambassador. In all events, the person selected has been pro-life regardless of party affiliation. The Vatican does not exclude candidates based on their viewpoints, so theoretically the Vatican could allow an ambassador from any religion, however there are certain issues which the Vatican is so adamant about that selecting someone who differs on those points would prove completely useless for diplomatic relations.

It's not hard to imagine why it is so difficult for Obama to pick someone for this post. He surrounds himself with people who promote the culture of death. Any issue that is classified as advancing this culture, you can be sure Obama is for it.

Let us pray that the US wakes up and smells the roses and selects a worthy representative to be an ambassador to the Vatican. In the history of salvation, the United States is a blip on the radar. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church established by Christ has been here for almost 2,000 years and will be with us forever. All in all, the Vatican would like to have diplomatic relations with the US, but it certainly is not desperate for them.

Easter Vigil with Pope Benedict

This is a great little video about Pope Benedict at the Vigil Mass in St. Peter's Basilica on Saturday. Five catecumens were baptized. Praise the Lord for all those who receive the waters of new life from Christ our Lord!

You want the truth? The WORLD cannot handle the TRUTH!

Pope Benedict XVI made his first pontifical visit to Africa this week. During his visit, he made the comment that condoms are not the solution to Africa's AIDS problem. Of course he is right, and that is rather obvious. The Pope did many other things, of a spiritual nature, but of course the media only picked up on his comments about condoms. I believe people are bent on maintaining their sexual promiscuity and anyone who challenges their ability to do anything they want sexually will provoke their unbridled anger. Christ's message said a lot about sexual purity, and while many would like to be considered Christian, they refuse to accept the Church's teachings on sexuality.

The Pope is right about condom use not being the solution, but rather contributing to the problem. In Uganda, they did an experiment where they placed Abstinence as a top priority, followed by "Being faithful" and third if necessary use Condoms. It was called the ABC program. People soon stopped using condoms and focused on abstinence. The AIDS rate decreased dramatically. The Catholic Magazine "This Rock" did a great article on this. Instead of paraphrasing it, I will post it in its entirety here. Enjoy:

Uganda: The Real ABC’s of an Epidemic
The first documented case of HIV/AIDS in Uganda occurred in 1982. From that small but ominous beginning, the curse of AIDS soon engulfed the country of Uganda, much as it swept across the African continent through the 1980s and into the 1990s. For Uganda, the epidemic was especially tragic given the nation’s desperate efforts to recover from the dark years of the dictator Idi Amin from 1971 to 1979 and subsequent years of political instability. By the early 1990s, the infection rate in Uganda of HIV reached 30 percent, and there was widespread agreement that if action were not taken quickly, the very survival of the country would be jeopardized.

President Yoweri Museveni, who came to power in 1986, settled on an aggressive government-sponsored plan that involved posters, radio messages, training, education, and public rallies and that called on the support of community leaders, local churches, and general public. The message was said to be as simple as the "ABCs": "Abstinence, Be Faithful, and if necessary, use Condoms."

Character over Condoms
A funny thing happened in Uganda, however. While condoms were suggested for those who refused to abstain, the greater focus of the campaign was not on the "C" but on the "A" and the "B": abstinence and faithfulness. Ugandans, especially young Ugandans, were urged to wait until marriage before having sex, or to return to abstinence if they were not virgins. Wives and especially husbands were asked to remain faithful to their spouses. And when the "C" was stressed, it did not mean condoms but the embrace of the Catholic Church in Uganda and the suggestion that the proper meaning of "C" should be "character formation."

The mantra of changing behavior rather than perpetuating a condom culture resulted in startling developments. In the late 1980s, 50 percent of females 15 to 17 years old had engaged in sex; this was down to 34 percent by 2000. Uganda’s Demographic and Health Survey of 2000-2004 indicated that 93 percent of Ugandans had altered their sexual behavior to avoid HIV/AIDS.
The results were immediately apparent when Uganda’s infection rate began declining. Adult HIV rates dropped from about 30 percent in the early 1990s to 8 percent in 2002. Today, the infection rate hovers at 4.1 percent. President Museveni spoke at a World AIDS Conference in Bangkok in 2004 and declared forcefully that condoms should not be the definitive public health intervention against HIV/AIDS. He was joined in this call to reality by the Kenyan first lady Lucy Kibaki, who regularly teaches school girls that they should delay sex until after marriage and forget about condoms. (See "Why the ABC Message Worked," page 22.) Uganda’s success made it a model for other African countries and also played a major influence in the current AIDS relief program undertaken by the Bush administration.

Uganda’s progress against AIDS is a story of promoting the culture of life. Everywhere in Africa the Church’s stand on the real ABCs—abstinence, be faithful, and character formation rather than condoms—has been adopted, the HIV/AIDS rates are substantially lower. The 2003 World Factbook of the Central Intelligence Agency reported, for example, Burundi had a 62% Catholic population and a 6% AIDS infection rate; Angola had a 38% Roman Catholic population and a 3.9% AIDS rate; Ghana was 63% Christian with a Catholic population of 12% (in some regions it is as high as 33%) and a 3.1% AIDS rate. In stark contrast, those countries that have steadfastly clung to the myth of condom use as the primary means of preventing the epidemic also have the highest rates of HIV/AIDS. In Botswana, where only 5% of the population is Catholic, 37% of the overall population is infected with HIV/AIDS. In South Africa, with a 7% Catholic population, 22% of the total population is infected.

The UN’s Failure
Undeterred by the success of the Ugandan methods and enraged by an approach that challenges the assumptions of the Western sexual revolution, the UN and other nongovernmental organizations (including UNICEF, the UNFPA, the World Health Organization, and Centers for Disease Control) are placing pressure on Uganda and other countries to offer only condoms as a solution to their problem. In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan AIDS activist, denounced the obdurate position of the United Nations and its UNAIDS program, noting, "UNAIDS has no success story. UNAIDS cannot point at any country where they have given advice and that country has brought HIV down" (LifeSiteNews, October 25, 2007). The situation is an ironic one. The Martyrs of Uganda gave their lives by refusing to engage in lurid sexual activities and to surrender their faith. Uganda today is being offered a similar choice by the Western culture of death. Only this time, by adhering to the faith and doing what is right, the Ugandans, along with the rest of Africa, will actually be saving their lives. In both cases, moral courage remains the key to a future of hope.

Matthew E. Bunson is a contributing editor to This Rock and the author of We Have a Pope: Benedict XVI (Our Sunday Visitor, 2005) and more than 30 other books. He was a consultant for USA Today during the funeral of John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict. He is the general editor of Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac, a senior fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, and a moderator of EWTN’s online Church history forum.

Pope opposed Bob Dylan singing to John Paul in 1997

This article is from Reuters

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict was opposed to Bob Dylan appearing at a youth event with the late Pope John Paul in 1997 because he considered the pop star the wrong kind of "prophet," Benedict writes in a new book issued on Thursday.

Benedict, who was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the time of the concert in Bologna, Italy, makes the disclosure in a new book of memoirs about his predecessor, who died in 2005.

"There was reason to be skeptical, -- I was, and in a certain sense I still am, -- to doubt if it was really right to let these types of prophets intervene," Benedict writes, only mentioning Dylan among the stars who appeared.

At the 1997 concert, Dylan, the anti-conformist troubadour of the 1960s and one of the 20th century's greatest influences on popular music, sang three songs before the Pope as part of a concert that included a number of other, mostly Italian artists.

Dylan sang "Knockin' on Heaven's Door," his 1960s anti-war classic "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall," and "Forever Young," a song of hope and courage.

In his new book, Pope Benedict does not explain why he does not like Bob Dylan or why he considers him a false "prophet."

Benedict is a lover of classical and sacred music, and an accomplished classical pianist. Last year, he canceled the Vatican's traditional fund-raising Christmas concert, which was a magnet for pop stars.

Dylan, born Robert Zimmerman into a middle-class Jewish family in Minnesota, has been at times agnostic, Jewish and a born-again Christian during his musical career.

At the 1997 concert, John Paul referred to what is perhaps Dylan's most famous song, "Blowing in the Wind," which became an anthem for young people seeking meaning in life in the 1960s.

John Paul told the crowd of some 300,000 young Italian Catholics that the answer was indeed "in the wind" -- but not in the wind that blew things away, rather "in the wind of the spirit" that would lead them to Christ.

After Dylan sang, he took off his beige cowboy hat and went up to a podium to greet John Paul.

Benedict's new book, called "John Paul II, My Beloved Predecessor," is mostly a reflection on John Paul's personality and his religious writings.

Pope to restore mass in Latin

This article is from The Times Online

John Follain, Milan

POPE BENEDICT XVI plans to bring back the celebration of mass in Latin, overriding a rare show of protest from senior cardinals.

With a papal decree said to be imminent, Catholic publishers in Rome are preparing new editions of the Latin missal. They have sent proofs to Vatican authorities for approval, the Rome newspaper La Repubblica reported yesterday.

Vatican sources said Benedict, who is fluent in Latin, is considering publication of a papal “motu proprio” (literally, on his own initiative), which does not require the approval of church bodies. This would enable Benedict to ignore opposition from several cardinals.

The decree would officially declare the Latin, or Tridentine, mass an “extraordinary universal rite”, and the vernacular mass, with which most Catholics are familiar, an “ordinary universal rite”.

The late French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated for opposing changes in the church agreed by the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, including the replacement of the Tridentine mass with updated liturgy in local languages. The pope’s proposal will be cheered by Lefebvre’s traditionalist followers, said to number about 1m. A special Vatican commission, appointed to examine the demands of traditionalists, met in December to help draft the decree.

Today celebration of the Tridentine rite is limited. Bishops can allow it, but only on the condition that the celebration is deemed a sign of “affection for the ancient tradition” and not a criticism of the reforms.

Benedict wrote in his memoirs, My Life: Memories 1927-1977, published when he was still a cardinal: “I was stunned by the ban on the ancient missal.”

Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before the papal conclave gathered to elect a new pope, made a speech about the Catholic Church and the world. He said we as citizens must seek to avoid the "dictatorship of relativism". I have been reading a book called A Refutation of Moral Relativism, put together by Peter Kreeft. The following is a short essay of mine of why moral relativism is untenable.

Slavery is wrong, as is murder. Most people accept these. But, how do these people know these things are true? Someone told them, but who told the tellers? Eventually it comes from reason. Each person possesses reason; each has a conscience. How can an action be judged as right or wrong? We must appeal to an authority, and that authority is natural law.

Natural law is as strong and binding as physical laws such as gravity and energy. They do not depend on our interpretation or feelings, they exist independently. Murder is wrong regardless. It doesn’t matter how angry we are, how much higher our status is than the victim’s, it makes no difference how much the person “deserves” it, because it is inherently wrong. Sometimes however, this distinction is hard to make, and we cannot determine ourselves right from wrong.

Most people nowadays accept that slavery is wrong and an affront to each person’s dignity as a human being. It cannot be accepted. But what if you were to speak to someone from 300 years ago who owned slaves. You two could argue about whether or not owning a slave is right or wrong. But the truth cannot have it both ways, truth can only be one. Truth never has and never will change. Your opinion is not the truth, your status does not give you the truth, the truth is the truth, and exists independently. If morals are not based on an absolute truth, what are they based on? The only alternative is a relative truth. This, by definition, is a truth which one person accepts, but someone else may reject. It comes down to opinions. In one person’s opinion, slavery is right, in another’s, it is wrong. So who’s right? According to relative morality, either could be or simple is correct. This makes no sense. You have an opinion, but an opinion cannot be an opinion about an opinion, an opinion is an opinion about the truth. Therefore, you must discover the truth in order to determine if your opinion is right. Your opinion could be wrong.

You cannot simply say something is wrong, especially if you admit you do not know. You just have to sit back and watch things happen and hope they turn out for the best. The only model which you sanction is anarchy. You can accept your own opinions, but you must then also accept everyone else’s, no matter how much they offend you. Otherwise, you are saying that a relative morality applies to you, but that an absolute morality applies to everyone else’s. In other words, you have to accept that a person owns a slave, because in their opinion or their own “personal” morals, that is alright. If you say they should not own a slave, you are overriding their moral perspective, and appealing to a superseding value which surpasses this person’s belief. Therefore you are appealing to something greater than personal relative morality; you are appealing to an objective, transcendent morality. You have two options: you can admit there is an absolute morality, or you can maintain a relative morality, but by doing so you must accept everyone else’s behavior and morals. Law enforcement cannot stop them from doing something, because that would be saying your morals are more worthy than the other person’s morals. You could only do something personally to rectify the situation. Saying something is right or wrong would not be valid either, because you would have to admit that you did not know, and you could not impose your personal morals on anyone else. You could at most say, “I do not personally believe that is right”. Only when you admit that there is a natural law, one which is above personal opinion and beliefs, one which is unchanging, can you claim that an action is morally right or wrong.