On which values should a new Europe be based?

In March, 2007, The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community, COMECE held a conference in Rome to mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Community.

For the occasion, COMECE appointed a committee to produce a report on the values of the EU. The name they gave to their Committee was “The Group of the Wise” and it consisted of 25 prominent Europeans, among them Pat Cox and Peter Sutherland.

The publication of The Group of the Wise’ initial report, brought with it considerable disquiet because, notwithstanding the Report’s title A Europe of Values, it made no reference to issues such as abortion, euthanasia and Gay marriage.

Some of this disquiet found a voice in the President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Angelo Benasco of Genoa. As reported by Vatican Radio (23/3/2007), Archbishop Benasco reminded the Conference that, “The Catholic Church’s main concern is that the dignity of the human person remain the ethical centre of the Union. He said that human life must be protected from conception until natural death. He also said, the family must be respected.”

However, neither the Archbishop’s words nor his sentiments made their way into the final version of the Report which COMECE later presented to the European Commission.

So what does all this mean? It seems clear that there are two competing visions for Europe here, each having its own distinct set of values. One vision seems to involve the belief that “peace” in Europe can be successfully built (without putting too fine a point on it) on euthanised sick and elderly people; on an ‘anything goes’ attitude to marriage and sexual morality and; even, on the bodies of millions of aborted children. The other vision might be represented in the words of Archbishop Benasco, or, to quote the present Pope, in a timely address which he delivered for the 2008 World Day of Peace, “Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman…is an objective attack on peace.” (emphasis added)

The Treaty of Lisbon, if approved by the people of Ireland, would establish for the very first time a new supranational state, a State which would have a working Constitution explicitly based on the shared values of the Member States — values to which we will be giving our approval, if we vote ‘YES’ on October 2nd.

And what values are these? Well, 24 of the Member States effectively treat abortion as a “human right”, for starters. Euthanasia is also practiced.

More explicitly within the Constitution is the requirement that there may be no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (Article 10, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) –the word ‘orientation’ is not here meant to mean a disposition (over which a person may have no say) but rather an openness, for example, to homosexual behaviour.

The requirement that there be no discrimination of this nature would seem to imply that homosexual, bisexual and other harmful behaviour must be valued at least equally with the sexual relationship that is proper to the marriage between a man and a woman.

There is also no right to life for unborn children in the proposed Constitution but, ironically, the fact that a right to life is mentioned at all, as it is in Article 2.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, would seem to preclude the recognition of a right to life for unborn children as this right is recognised in almost none of the Member States.

Article 53, of the Charter, in particular could lock a country irreversibly into its tragic abortion regime and we would be turning the key! It is amazing to think that with our votes here in Ireland we have the power to establish such a potentially monstrous supranational state and consign 500 million Europeans to be citizens of that state, without them having any individual say in the matter. It is as if the people of Britain were being required to vote on setting up the old Soviet Union and on making the people of Ireland its citizens!

In the words of German Constitutional expert Prof. Dr. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, “Ireland is now the most important country in the world.” If the Irish people vote YES on October 2nd they will be voting YES to this Superstate, YES to its Constitution and YES to the values contained in that Constitution.

In effect, they will be giving much more than ‘a nod anda wink’ to the killing of millions of children in the EU every year. No, the Irish people will be signing their names to a Charter which by protecting the false “rights” already being practiced in these countries will strengthen the hold that the culture of death has over our European brothers and sisters. Christian charity demands that we stay our hand!

The Jewish people had it right. After one of their Kings had sacrificed (his) children to the false god Molech, the site of the sacrifice (the valley of Hinnom from which Jesus derived His name for hell, Gehenna) was
effectively turned into a rubbish dump situated outside the City walls. How terrible it would be for us and for the people of Europe if we were to build our city on our very own Gehenna.

In an interview with Cosmopolitan magazine out tomorrow, actress Jennifer Aniston spoke about the “pressure” people felt to have a relationship that will last. “Whoever said that everything has to be forever? That’s unrealistic or hoping for too much. I don’t think it’s worth all that pressure,” Aniston told Cosmo!

Now, hold on a minute there, ‘friend’! Let’s just unpack this awhile! First of all, where is this “pressure” you’re referring to coming from? Surely, these days, to quote Cole Porter, “Heaven knows, anything goes”?

What does a modern western society care about who should be allowed to marry, how long a marriage should last or, if, indeed, anyone should get married, in the first place?

Well, perhaps the answer is, that despite all the noise to the contrary, ’society’, actually, does care about these things and ’society’, actually, cares a lot.

But, why? Why does society care so much? Given the way the ’free love’ commandment (’do unto others and do and do and do’) is regularly genuflected to in our media, why is society resisting the ’slime directive’ and stubbornly putting poor people like Jennifer under this pressure to have a relationship that will last?

Could it be that it is actually written into our nature, and Jennifer’s, too, to seek out lasting relationships? Why? Because, ultimately, we know, deep within our genes — or wherever — that that is what we should do because that is what will make us happy or happi-er, in any case ( I mean, only God can make us truly happy, right? )

Only yesterday, Trinity College’s leading Neuroscientist, Professor Ian Robertson (I hope I haven’t trod on anyone’s toes here) told Newstalk’s Orla Barry that to break the values you hold (in that case, honesty — the discussion was about a taxi driver who had found $32,500 and returned it to its rightful owners) is to damage yourself.

These inconvenient values, along with our requirement to act in accordance with them, are built into our genes or something over millions of years and you can’t just jettison them because you feel like it or because some other psychologist says you should (jettison them, that is).

You see, looking at it again, Jennifer’s call to hopelessness – for that is what it is – seems like the tail of that trojan horse which an old atheist and pseudo-psychologist named Albert Ellis deposited in our lives many years ago. Ellis ‘observed’ (psychologists always say they ‘observe’ when they want to avoid being contradicted) that what makes us mentally ill, in the shape of anxiety and depression, is our beliefs about what we should do when what we do do contradicts those beliefs.

That makes a lot of sense, in a way, I suppose, but instead of suggesting that people change their behaviour and follow their consciences ( the reasonable thing to do, surely ), Ellis proposed that the word ’should’ itself was the problem — Ellis used to speak about his patients ’shoulding’ all over themselves! The word ’should’, according to Ellis, should be taken out of the English language.

I think the first thing one should notice here is that the old Ellis idea which, at one point, enjoyed almost universal approval in pseudo-psychological and, I’m afraid, Church and religious circles too, seems to contradict what Prof Robertson said — it also contradicts the latest scientific research, by the way! You can’t just shake off your ’shoulds’ as if they were some acquired and otherwise inexplicable social ‘construct’. No, they come straight from, wait for it, this is going to hurt, the Natural Law, yes, the old Ten Commandments themselves. Surprise, surprise, there’s no real getting away from your conscience.

Secondly, just think about it for a minute: If you took the word ’should’ out of the English language, how many of the Ten Commandments would you be left with? But that was the whole point, wasn’t it?

Amazing, really: that intelligent, often religious people fell for this ruse from the author of The Case against Religion: the Psychotherapist’s View; that an atheist activist who who liked to refer to Christianity as “an irrational belief system” which he taught was at the core of many mental health problems – particularly among Catholics – was allowed a powerful place in the heart of many a Christian counselor! So much for John Paul II’s exhortation “duc(ere) in altum” ( “put out into the deep”). For goodness sake, forget about the deep, all you have to do is barely scratch the surface and you see this anti Christian / anti monotheistic idea for what it is.

What’s really ironic is that the exhortation to ‘be your best’ seems to have near universal approval in every area other than morality. The one area that offers life ( “the flesh has nothing to offer” –  John 6:63 — after all ) only offers life if we love to the end, to the utmost, with our whole heart, our whole mind, our whole strength — assuming we want to be happy. St Paul (a word for him as we approach the end his year) talked about Christians running in a race looking for an imperishable wreath (1 Corinthians 9: 24-27). So let’s hold out for excellence in the moral life and for one expression of that, the pursuit of permanent lasting relationships. Let’s not be taken in by Jennifer’s and Albert’s ‘call to hopelessness’ because it is “by hope we are saved” (Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007).

And, on the day, more or less, that the Pope visits Mt Nobo where tradition states that God gave Moses a view of the Promised Land from afar, let’s hear it for Moses, let’s hear it for perseverance and let’s hear it for the hope that the word ’should’ should point to!

This blog has been brought to you today by the number 10 and by the word ’should’!

Advent is a season of light, goodness, comfort, peace, and joy. It’s fitting that the American holiday of Thanksgiving comes at the end of the liturgical year and the beginning of the season of Advent. Our practice of “giving thanks” for the blessings we’ve received over the past year opens our hearts to receiving the love of Christ born during this time of waiting and hopeful anticipation. Thanksgiving helps us enter Advent with an “attitude of gratitude” – a thankfulness that comes from being loved by God and witnessing his presence working in our lives. We’re thankful for our families, who support and encourage us through life’s big ups and downs; our friends, who make us laugh and help us relax and have fun; our significant others, who teach us about love and selfless giving; our jobs which provide financial security and hopefully allow us to do good in the world; our health, especially in a time of high health care costs; our safety and security, when much of the world experiences extreme poverty or violence. Whether it’s big or little things, we have a lot to be thankful for this year and every year.

Last night I heard a talk by Claire Noonan, who runs the Siena Center at Dominican University in Chicago. The topic was “being called by our baptism.” She and other responders shared about God’s love being enough. Our baptism calls us to accept that love within ourselves and to share it with others; that is our mission, and that is enough. As we enter Advent, we begin reflecting on Mary’s choice to accept and share God’s love. She was grateful for the blessings of her faith, and she chose to follow God’s call by being mother to Jesus. In turn, Jesus accepted God’s love and shared it with others during his public ministry, to the point of death on the cross, which we celebrate in Lent/Easter.

It’s fitting that the liturgical season starts after Thanksgiving, and that it follows a circle between Christ’s birth and Jesus’ death. During Advent, we are called to reflect on the light of Christ, the love of God, and the call of our birth and baptism – let us do so with open and grateful hearts.

John’s letter continues to say that fear has to do with punishment, so one who fears is not perfect in love.  John hits it right on the nose – we punish ourselves by being afraid.  We paralyze ourselves, and don’t believe in our true goodness and our limitless potential.  We do not trust that God can work miracles, move mountains, and do all manner of great things in and through us by his perfect love.  But humans are flawed.  We try to do so much on our own.  We try to be the strong ones, the brave ones, the intelligent ones, and we try to do this all on our own.  We do not understand that setting high expectations is good, but counting on ourselves alone to achieve them is only going to set us up for failure.  By committing ourselves to follow in God’s footsteps, we will not fail.  We will continually be working for his greater glory, whether there are setbacks or detours or a straight-arrow path!

I didn’t meant to get so philosophical.  I am not the most up-to-date on current events, but I do come across questions and quotes like this that get me thinking about society and how people, especially young adults, live and think and interact.  We’re all about questioning and searching – trying to identify our life’s ambition, trying to figure out what we want to do with our lives and where God fits in.  If we weren’t seekers, we wouldn’t be God’s people, striving to live a life of love.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is the author of “The God Delusion“, in which the atheist scientist attacks God ‘in all his forms’ arguing that belief in a supernatural entity is irrational.  I think it is very difficult to prove such things, on either side of the argument, but it also puts the accuser in a strange position as to whether it is right to come out with as bold a statement as that.

Religion has been around for a long time and the believe that many hold in whatever Lord they choose to believe in is generally a strong one. Yes there are times they are tested but most of the time it is ingrained into a believer’s thought process and something that is hard to convince of otherwise.

Don’t distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation…Our culture is one that deeply praises science, so we assume because someone is a good scientist, they must be a good philosopher. My inner jury is out on that.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams

I think we have become a cynical society and with that comes a massive change in terms of holding onto a believe that will stand by us through rough times and good times. It is not easy for a lot of people to put faith in something like that because most other things that we put faith in we can see.

There will always be room for those who do believe and for those who don’t. In a way it is better that the like of Richard Dawkins are challenging perceptions because it’ll spark the something that may be needed the most: debate and interest.
 

I recently listened to a lecture about the media which was given by a spokesperson for the Rossport Five, Dr Mark Garavan. In it, he spoke about about the pressure to translate people’s motives into categories which ‘the media’ can readily understand.

Instead of trying to ‘put out into’ the depth and complexity of human motivation, the media would

appear to be ‘rowing in the opposite direction’ by trying to ’squeeze’ peoples motives into some pre-existing categories which might have very little to do with what is really driving them.

It would seem to me that this media strategy bears a startling resemblance to one used by children. In Piaget’s understanding of childhood mental development, for example, the immature mind uses organizing mental frameworks for everyday objects, which Piaget referred to as schemata.

A little girl may have one schema for all objects of, say, a certain size which are placed in her cot. Using this schema, she interprets these objects as toy rattles, no mater what they really are. From a crayon to an ipod, in the child’s eyes, it’s a rattle!

But all this obviously prompts the question: Is ‘the media’ at a similar stage developmentally to young children? Are deep concepts such as truth and beauty being ‘dumbed down’ in order that they may be better ‘assimilated’?

This is a serious question, because the work of the media should be to reveal the truth, not run away from it or dress it up as something else. However, instead of going ‘further up and further in’ to reality — as C.S. Lewis would have it — we seem to be satisfying ourselves with mediocrity, a mere Platonic shadow of the real world?

And what could be fuelling our ascent of Mount Mediocrity? Is it our postmodern lack of confidence in the ability to know The Truth or, perhaps more likely, the fear of having to follow that Truth when we find it?

Today, at Mass, I listened to a reading about the rebuilding of the temple in ancient Jerusalem. Perhaps this could be interpreted as a metaphor for a rejection of mediocrity and a re-dedication to The Truth in all it’s depth.

It is an interesting debate and western civilisation has taken it upon itself to make Sunday almost like a normal day anyway. Most shops will be open to cater for those with free time and more then likely they feel that there is a chance to make a lot of money in trade, especially around this time of year, in the run up to Christmas.

On a Sunday morning, most of the 18-34 demographic are busy sleeping, either after a hard week or after a hard day’s night. Sunday can and should also be a time for families to reconnect as an average working week has shown; there is little chance to spend time with those closest to us.

It can be a dog eat dog world and with costs constantly on the rise the need to go and make money to pay the bills stands out as a huge reason to contemplate working on a Sunday.

Businesses are prepared to pay employees double the going rate because they see a window of opportunity to make a serious amount of money. Yes that may bring a serious amount of greed but at the same time some might say you go where the money is.

I believe there can be a place for both, to spend the right amount of time in work and also in worship. However I do not think that people from either side of the argument should be forced into accepting either argument and that there should be a choice.

It is easier said then done I realise.

My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Martin Sheen as President Bartlet in West Wing
 

A Survey by YouGov, in Britain, has found that 42% of the 2,200 people taking part considered religion had a harmful effect. I would argue that there are many things that some could take as simple that anyone  else could claim, until they are blue in the face, would cause us harm in some way.

In my own personal opinion the fight for belief has extended across the centuries in many wars. How many people, regardless of their religion, have died because they thought it was the will of their God?

It is continuing today, because according to a few: only God can judge people and so for the belief that conquering and destroying, killing enemy soldiers and innocent people is the right thing to do, how do we judge if it is the case?

Too many things are dangerous and if we don’t pay careful attention to what we are doing we could get hurt. That applies as much to crossing the road as it does to taking a gun or a bomb in your hand with the sole purpose of intent to harm.

The majority of the time we control our actions and so therefore what we say and do should be edited by us and us alone. I don’t believe that there should be a case of blaming it on someone else i.e. ‘the voice of the Lord commanded me to do this’. However that is just my belief and the situation I find myself in is not that of someone in a war torn environment and I hope that I am lucky enough to never find myself in such a position.

Of those polled only 16% called themselves atheists; 28% believed in God; 26% believed in “something” but were not sure what; and 9% regarded themselves as agnostics. I wouldn’t judge someone for their belief. I would question their methods their reasoning behind their acts and way of life would be ‘because I just feel like that’ without having the common sense to back their beliefs up.

So when people attend mass every week, is what they pray for and believe harmful? I think like everything there can be a good and bad side. The problem with that is there all always people ready to take the extreme of the bad side and use it as an excuse for their actions.

I realise the way I may come off after reading this and my ability now to be calm sitting here typing this is one thing. If it came to a stage where I’d have to defend my beliefs in a physical nature or else it could be cost me my life; then I do not know how I would react.

So it was interesting to read this week of the disagreement that exists between Amnesty and the Catholic church in relation to abortion.

Amnesty reacted to recent reports of rape in war zones such as Darfur and urged governments to provide safe abortions when women conceive after rape or incest or when a pregnant women’s life has been threatened.

At an annual meeting in Mexico Amnesty stated that it would work to:

support the decriminalization of abortion, to ensure women have access to heath care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women’s access to abortion … when their health or human rights are in danger.

Naturally the Catholic Church who have always considered abortion as murder, and never justified, disagree with this view. The Vatican even went as far to state that Amnesty had “betrayed its mission”, while (In July of this year) Bishop William Skylstad, head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated that the group’s decision “undermines Amnesty’s long-standing moral credibility”

I realise Amnesty International was founded by a Catholic layman and therefore should adhere to some basic guidelines that the church have. However is this not just an opinion? Should the Vatican really be so worked up about a group that doesn’t agree with them?

I, like many others, stand on the outside while rape and pillage take place every day. I can read about it, see it on the news but I would never get a genuine understanding for it unless I was there to see the long lasting effects on a culture or for that matter on any one person.

Amnesty International did not make this statement just for the sake of it or just to annoy the Vatican. The work they do for Human Rights is nothing short of incredible and they are constantly working to improve in more countries. China has made promises that they will improve their Human Right record before the start of the Olympics In Beijing and one look at Amnesty’s official site will show that they are closely monitoring the situation.

I wonder should the church be more worried about the suffering that takes place in these countries and less about what the original rules and regulations are? As I’ve discussed before about rape it must be a horrible experience to have to go through, even more so when considered that the person in question might be a victim of incest.

Amnesty has had it’s fair share of criticism; some feel that it chooses to ignore Israel’s Human Rights record. The only thing I can offer for that is that, largely, America tends to ignore Israeli acts when matters against Palestine arise. Amnesty relies on help wherever it can get it so I would suggest that they focus on where best they can get the best backing. They alone cannot save the world.

As for the church, I admire the majority of their beliefs, that’s not to say that everything they do is right, but neither do Amnesty.

There must be a way to meet in the middle about this situation instead of both sides being torn about by stubbornness. Otherwise the suffering will continue when there was a small window of opportunity to change it.
 

There have been many conspiracy theories as to whether the ‘King’ is still alive. In fact at www.elvislives.net they are convinced of this and have come up with a Top Ten list that shows ‘Evidence that Elvis Presley hoaxed his own death’

Two of these include:

The day after his death, a ticket to Buenos Aires was bought at Memphis Airport by someone that, it is claimed, looked like Elvis. The person in question is said to have used the name John Burrows, which was a code name used for hotel reservations while on tour.

Elvis’ Father, Vernon is said to have misspelled the ‘King’s’ Middle name – Aaron     instead of Aron as his Mother named him. Apparently this a sign that ‘Vernon Presley knew that it was not his son in the tomb’

So Elvis could be in your local pub on Karaoke night or perhaps helping out the less fortunate in South America or the like, either way there are enough people who believe that he is indeed alive and well.

A survey conducted by the CBS national television network has shown, in the United States, that some seven percent of the population, or 20 million people, still believe that Elvis is still alive.

There is reason enough to understand why his fans feel like they must apply a kind of religious devotion hen discussing his merits. For a start, both Jesus and Elvis were born under the star sign of Capricorn. There were twelve apostles and Elvis’ entourage, the Memphis Mafia, also had twelve members.

Elvis was a Christian so who knows what he would have made of the constant devotion and the use of his name being used for the numerous sightings since his recorded death.

What is certain that this worship is set to continue; His songs touched many people’s lives and changed them, hopefully for the better? Around 600,000 visit Graceland every year and it is estimated that he has sold over 1 billion records around the world.

For the impact he made in the music world, maybe it is not a surprise as to how he is revered. Treated as a Saint on earth, one can only presume he has been treated the same way in the afterlife.