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.

So it puzzles me why some spectators at sporting events feel that they are justified in committing these actions, then balk when the sportsperson affected decides to react.

Didier Drogba, the Chelsea striker,  has received a three match ban for throwing a coin into a crowd of Burnley fans last Wednesday night. I’m not defending his actions at all, but the reason for him doing this was that someone from the crowd threw the coin at him in the first place.

Now being a Liverpool fan, I have very little love for Mr Drogba, especially for his abilities to overreact but while criticism came his way for throwing that coin, and rightly so, should that person (a coward would be more apt) that threw the coin in the first place not be held accountable for his/her actions.

Something makes us change when competitiveness is present, mostly it should bring out the best. Although it doesn’t happen anywhere near as much how can a “fan” justify making racist comments, screaming and cursing until their blue in the face and then report any slight gesture or retaliation from their target of abuse?

How can parents (and I have seen it) justify screaming blue murder, embarrassing themselves around others while their children sit beside them and have not only endure but in some cases repeat what they hear?

It seems to me, that some take a sporting event as a free for all and that they can finally let loose and cause all the trouble and aggression that they have been waiting to do for a long time. Or maybe it brings out the real person.

Either way sporting occasions are meant to be entertainment and those who throw objects, physically assault or verbally abuse should be punished. Didier Drogba was today punished, but I can guarantee that it is a lot harder to punish those “fans” who throw coins, beat up officials (many a provincial Gaelic match has been an example of this) and make racist comments.

I am well aware that there are those so called stars who do nothing to deserve their image and barely know the meaning of the phrase role model.

Society should not go down the plughole because of a few idiots. For professional sportsman, they should be just that. For supporters, they should remember to act like human beings.

Professional and respect go a long way.

Now in an ideal world (maybe I’m wrong when I suggest this) but if I couldn’t play for Liverpool Football Club the next option for me would have been , in my father’s mind, accountancy. The fact that I didn’t take that path I know will not have bothered him too much and I believe, much like the thoughts of my mother, that I’m happy with what I am doing and that I challenge myself enough.

At this stage I am at a bit of a crossroads, in that I am wondering what I should be doing. However it was nothing compared to what I witnessed yesterday. Much like every man believes they have the prettiest wife, every parent thinks they have the most talented child.

The singers, the dancers, the performers, the future famous people as they may consider themselves to be where being cheered on by the their own public relations department; their parents.

I don’t discourage it, because I admire in a lot of ways. I think children should have dreams and I think a parent should be there encouraging that dream. It’s better then not being there or involved at all and hey if modern life has shown us anything it is that juggling everything is tough for any parent.

To me though, realism flies out the window when your parents are chasing a dream for you. It’s always the mantra that you want them to have what you never could, but at the same time pushing one direction just for the sake of it can be wrong.

It can expose a frailty in the parent rather then the child and can stir memories of chances lost and roads not taken.

To

Fr. Patrick Duffy, Fr. Gary Donegan, Fr. Thomas Scanlon, Fr. Frank Keevins and Fr. Brian D’Arcy

Respected Clergy,

We, the undersigned, strongly protest your decision to move Fr. Aidan Troy from Holy Cross Retreat at this time. Fr Troy and his colleague Fr Gary Donegan have been exceptional advocates for parishioners in Holy Cross since they took up post in the Parish. Along with Fr Gary, Fr Troy has supported local people to the highest level, particularly during very distressing and difficult times. Fr Troy has also been one of the main instigators for positive change and continues to spearhead many community focussed initiatives so that the lives of local people can be made better. One such initiative is the issue of suicide which continues to blight communities across Ireland such as Ardoyne.

We believe that moving Fr Troy at this time would have a detrimental impact on the Holy Cross Parish and, indeed, right across the wider North Belfast / Belfast community. At present he is one of the main drivers for positive change, not least with issues such as cross community dialogue and the equality and human rights of all individuals. The Ardoyne community continues to rely on his input and experience to engage others to bring about the change our community needs.

We call upon the above listed members of the Provincial to review their decision so that Fr Troy can remain with the parishoners of Holy Cross, a desire he himself has expressed. Whilst we understand that it is necessary to deploy the skills and experience of priests in other areas, we feel that moving Fr Troy at this time is not the right decision for the Parish.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned

Dr Desmond Rice, Andrew Somers, Martin Campbell, Tracy Campbell, Gerry MacManus, Margaret Bright, Sharon Quinn, Tierna Cunningham, Carol Mccartan, Gerard Mccartan, Elaine Mailey, Manus Maguire, Jenny O’Kane, John Fleming, Paul Roberts, Kevin Mclaughlin, Deirdre O’ Neill, Ciara Corr, Bj Mckevitt, Jeanette Mc Kernan, Esther Holmes, Gary McKernan, Siobhan Hilton, Chloe Mc Kernan, George Trainor, Kathleen Mcdonagh, Christine Murphy…….etc,

Reinvigorating the Church as one more accessable to the people.,an open Church ready to engage with the world, is an admirable and holy intention…but there is the danger of creating a Church of the world in place of a Church of God. The theology of the council does reinvigorate this Church of God but once again the problem is interpretation.

An example is a particular sorepoint for me, church architecture. The Church has taken two millenia to develop places of prayer which draw from its theology to create ecclesia Dei. They are places designed to lead us to a communion with God: everything from windows which draw our gaze upwards to the common direction which the congregation faces-one community before God.

Some of the post conciliar churches have integrated this theology well. A perfect example is the ‘Church of the Irish Martyrs’ in Ballycane, Naas, Co. Kildare. I would love to say that the majority are as respectful of the link between pre and post conciliar theology but many seem determined to adopt the axiom of ‘out with the old, in with the new’.

Everything about the Mass calls us to such a communion, which is also the celebration’s focus. When we receive the blessed sacrament we move toward our God in the hope and love of a deeper relationship and bond. He responds with the sacrafice of the Son, moving toward us. The consumption of the body of Christ is the Communion of two wills.

When the Mass was translated into the vernacular languages after the council it was rushed and mistakes were made. The current revision is a more careful and studious attempt to retain the sacred nature of the Mass, which was central to the old rite, while continuing in the spirit of the council by creating a greater understanding of the theology for the people (i.e. the vernacular).

 The current issue is how to reconcile both intentions. Anyone familiar with languages will recognise that direct translations are always a good idea. The goal here, it seems, is to directly translate the spirit of the words but there are instances where phrases are translated verbatim. I have difficulties with a few of these.

In 1969 the words “et cum spiritu tuo” were translated as “and also with you” as a response to “peace be with you”. The literal translation is incorrect but the spirit is captured. The new translation is literal and we will now respond with “and with your spirit”. This is fine really. No big problem.

The words spoken before receiving communion were “Domine, non dum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantem dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea”. In 1969 they became “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You, but only say the word and I shall be healed”. Now they return to the more literal translation: “Lord, I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”. Is this neccessary?

The word “Yahweh” has been removed from hymns. I worry whether this will create a greater rift between the Church and our jewish brothers and sisters. After all, the close relationship between both faiths will no longer be highlighted or even have a place in our celebrations. A friend recently pointed out that most parishioners may not see the significance in the word Yahweh. In that case the informed flock hoped for in Vatican II is yet to be realised.

This point cannot be seperated from the recent Motu Proprio which revised the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews: “Oremus et pro Iudaeis. Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.” = “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illumine their hearts that they might acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Saviour of all.” At least the word “perfidis” is still gone.

Many like the idea of our post Vatican II Church but others see its legacy in this resonse to a blog: “I don’t think that John Paul II “aborted the reform”. The mass is still in English and we are still building ugly churches!” Those of us who love the council must reclaim the spirit of the council before its true legacy is lost. The aim of returning the a sense of the sacred to the Mass is a fine way of moving forward. I wonder whether such a sense is captured in words though.

Hello again,

It’s been a while since I’ve added anything as I’ve been away but I’m back.

I’ve added a category ‘Your Questions’ to hand the topics over to you so I hope you’ll try it out. If there is a topic we haven’t touched in a while or not at all which you are interested in then why not sign up and start the discussion.

            Thanks,                                                                                                                                                          Ronan