By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
Recently, Fox News personality Glen Beck called together a large gathering on the Washington Mall purportedly in celebration of the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream Speech." He was roundly criticized by African American Civil Rights leaders and leading Christians who adhere to the social justice teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a matter of public record that Beck has evinced little if any concern for the least among us arguing for example that Americans who have been receiving extended unemployment benefits are simply lazy and undeserving of assistance. He is unwilling to recognize that many unjust societal structures still exist in the United States which to a significant extent are responsible for the plight of the millions of unemployed citizens and those who have lost their homes.
Beck as Mormon Convert from Catholicism:
Beck was raised a Roman Catholic and at some point apparently converted to Mormonism. He quite frequently discusses religion on his TV show. Beck speaks as though he is knowledgeable about Christian theology, implying that he personally is a Christian despite the fact that as a practicing Mormon he is a member of an anti-Christian cult meaning, whatever he is, it would be incorrect to call himself a Traditional (orthodox) Christian. Not surprisingly perhaps, Glen Beck has been extremely critical of Barack Obama claiming that the President is a racist and practitioner of a bizarre form of Christianity. Of all the President's faults, being a racist is not one of them although Beck's own publicized statements strongly suggest that he personally is a bigot (bigotry is antithetical to Christianity of course).
Beck's Misunderstanding of Social Justice as Liberation Theology:
One of Glen Beck's recent claims is that President Obama embraces a form of "liberation theology" the nature of which is characterized by an overwhelming concern for social justice which he purports is incompatible with Christianity. Beck argues that there is no place in Christianity for the pursuit of social justice. Obviously, he has no knowledge of the many papal encyclicals of multiple Popes written during the 19th and 20th centuries on the topic of social justice, e.g. Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno etc. Perennial Roman Catholic teaching stresses not only the individual and societal need for the Christian/Theological virtue of Charity (love) but the personal pursuit of justice and the establishing of social structures which further rather than impede the attainment of justice--that is the pursuit of social justice.
Glen Beck while being an admittedly engaging entertainer promulgates false teachings which he alleges are compatible with Christianity. These false teachings are very dangerous for persons attempting to preserve their Traditional Roman Catholic Christianity. They in no way should be embraced by persons or groups who claim to accept the fullness of the teachings of Roman Catholicism. In this sense Glen Beck and his false religious teachings should be eshewed as strongly as the Roman Catholic Church of record has repudiated Freemasonry.
Traditional Roman Catholics should be willing/capable of correcting the false teachings of Glen Beck when confronted with them. This is a minimal apologetic duty, I Peter 3: 15 "Always be prepared always to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence."
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says
By Carol Glatz
L'Osservatore Romano, May 5-6, 2008
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While apes evolved naturally into pre-human creatures, it was the will and desire of God that turned them into humans, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.
"The formation of human beings necessitated a particular contribution by God, though it remains that their emergence was brought about by natural causes" of evolution, it said.
The article, published in the May 5-6 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Italian evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini.
The article said that, "when the biological conditions necessary for supporting a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be."
The article posed the question: Does this mean that humans evolved from chimpanzees?
"No, it might be better to say that at some point God willed a spark of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of thought and the ability to decide freely," it said.
So rather than picturing it as humans descending from the apes, it said, humans ascended or rose up from the animal kingdom to a higher level, thanks to the hand of God.
As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 1968 when he was Father Joseph Ratzinger, God wanted to create a being that could know him and be able to turn to him, the article said.
The emergence of the human is neither a casual or accidental event, nor is it something that was "strictly necessary," demanded by God or the evolutionary process, it said.
Evolution could have ended at the pre-human stage, it said, but thanks to "the free choice of God," humans emerged from their pre-human ancestors.
This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion (of theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent design -- but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit" which cannot come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said.
The movement from being a creature of the animal and physical world to also the spiritual was a gift from God "even if it came at the end of a natural process of evolution," it said.
____________
Evolution and First Humans: A rebuttal
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
The article which appeared in L'Osservatore Romano May 5-6, 2008 edition is yet another example of the post-Conciliar confusion which is now apparent in contradistinction to perennial pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching on the special creation of Human Beings. If only the situation was as simple as alleged by evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini. There are multiple theological problems--primarily the constant teaching of Sacred Tradition re: the special creation of the first human couple--with his assertions not simply biological ones.
Prior to Vatican II, Catholic teaching--as documented in Sacred Tradition for almost 2 millennia--was that God specially created (formed) the first human being (Adam) body and soul from the "slime of the earth" meaning from non-living but pre-existent matter. See Humani generis of Pope Pius XII, 1950 no.’s 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 for example:
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] (my emphasis added)
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
Thus, it should be readily apparent that Adam would have had no parents human or animal even of the bi-pedal primate variety. Moreover, the first woman Eve appeared through an act of God's special creation in which physical material was taken from Adam in some way and formed into the first female. The salient point here is that the first woman was directly formed by God from part of the first man. Wo-man means “out of man.”
Thus the first sexually complimentary human couple (Adam and Eve) was created by God with preternatural gifts including a direct relationship with God and both physical and spiritual eternal life.
After failing the test of obedience which God imposed upon them, Adam and Eve lost their direct relationship with God and physical death became a permanent reality for the human race thereafter.
Perennial Catholic teaching demands that all human beings who have ever lived emanate from Adam and Eve by direct physical propagation. There is no way to accept polygenism (multiple first parents or groups of first humans) of any kind and remain faithful to Sacred Tradition (Humani generis no. 37). The sin of disobedience that Adam and Eve committed must be personally attributable to them and them alone in order for original sin to be "passable" to all other human beings except Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
If Adam and Eve were not literally the first human parents specially created by God, the “creation” tenet of Christianity no longer exists. Once that is destroyed, the second tenet (fall from grace) can no longer be imputed to the entire human race and the third tenet (redemption through Christ’s salvific work on the Cross becomes unnecessary and likewise falls. If the tripartite “Creation, Fall, Redemption” is abandoned the entire Creed upon which the Traditional Roman Catholic Faith is based likewise falls of its own weight. Therein we have a completely different religion—another Gospel!
That is precisely what is at risk if it is true that Vatican II adopted the New Theology of Teilhard de Chardin as Atilla Sinke Guimaraes, Wolfgang Smith and others maintain. This is a very profound problem for the so-called New-Theology which eminated from Vatican II. To date it has not been adequately adressed by the current Magisterium.
L'Osservatore Romano, May 5-6, 2008
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While apes evolved naturally into pre-human creatures, it was the will and desire of God that turned them into humans, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.
"The formation of human beings necessitated a particular contribution by God, though it remains that their emergence was brought about by natural causes" of evolution, it said.
The article, published in the May 5-6 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Italian evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini.
The article said that, "when the biological conditions necessary for supporting a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be."
The article posed the question: Does this mean that humans evolved from chimpanzees?
"No, it might be better to say that at some point God willed a spark of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of thought and the ability to decide freely," it said.
So rather than picturing it as humans descending from the apes, it said, humans ascended or rose up from the animal kingdom to a higher level, thanks to the hand of God.
As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 1968 when he was Father Joseph Ratzinger, God wanted to create a being that could know him and be able to turn to him, the article said.
The emergence of the human is neither a casual or accidental event, nor is it something that was "strictly necessary," demanded by God or the evolutionary process, it said.
Evolution could have ended at the pre-human stage, it said, but thanks to "the free choice of God," humans emerged from their pre-human ancestors.
This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion (of theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent design -- but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit" which cannot come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said.
The movement from being a creature of the animal and physical world to also the spiritual was a gift from God "even if it came at the end of a natural process of evolution," it said.
____________
Evolution and First Humans: A rebuttal
By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
The article which appeared in L'Osservatore Romano May 5-6, 2008 edition is yet another example of the post-Conciliar confusion which is now apparent in contradistinction to perennial pre-Vatican II Catholic teaching on the special creation of Human Beings. If only the situation was as simple as alleged by evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini. There are multiple theological problems--primarily the constant teaching of Sacred Tradition re: the special creation of the first human couple--with his assertions not simply biological ones.
Prior to Vatican II, Catholic teaching--as documented in Sacred Tradition for almost 2 millennia--was that God specially created (formed) the first human being (Adam) body and soul from the "slime of the earth" meaning from non-living but pre-existent matter. See Humani generis of Pope Pius XII, 1950 no.’s 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 for example:
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] (my emphasis added)
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
Thus, it should be readily apparent that Adam would have had no parents human or animal even of the bi-pedal primate variety. Moreover, the first woman Eve appeared through an act of God's special creation in which physical material was taken from Adam in some way and formed into the first female. The salient point here is that the first woman was directly formed by God from part of the first man. Wo-man means “out of man.”
Thus the first sexually complimentary human couple (Adam and Eve) was created by God with preternatural gifts including a direct relationship with God and both physical and spiritual eternal life.
After failing the test of obedience which God imposed upon them, Adam and Eve lost their direct relationship with God and physical death became a permanent reality for the human race thereafter.
Perennial Catholic teaching demands that all human beings who have ever lived emanate from Adam and Eve by direct physical propagation. There is no way to accept polygenism (multiple first parents or groups of first humans) of any kind and remain faithful to Sacred Tradition (Humani generis no. 37). The sin of disobedience that Adam and Eve committed must be personally attributable to them and them alone in order for original sin to be "passable" to all other human beings except Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
If Adam and Eve were not literally the first human parents specially created by God, the “creation” tenet of Christianity no longer exists. Once that is destroyed, the second tenet (fall from grace) can no longer be imputed to the entire human race and the third tenet (redemption through Christ’s salvific work on the Cross becomes unnecessary and likewise falls. If the tripartite “Creation, Fall, Redemption” is abandoned the entire Creed upon which the Traditional Roman Catholic Faith is based likewise falls of its own weight. Therein we have a completely different religion—another Gospel!
That is precisely what is at risk if it is true that Vatican II adopted the New Theology of Teilhard de Chardin as Atilla Sinke Guimaraes, Wolfgang Smith and others maintain. This is a very profound problem for the so-called New-Theology which eminated from Vatican II. To date it has not been adequately adressed by the current Magisterium.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
A Catholic Speaks at the Glenn Beck Rally
Editor's Note:
This speech by Philosopher Patrick Lee is outstanding and is completely faithful to Traditional Catholic teaching on the matters adressed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By Patrick Lee
Catholic Advocate HERE...
9/1/10
“For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance . . .”
There is a struggle in our culture today between two visions of the world and our place within the world. On one side of the struggle, many people—especially many in the mainstream media, and in the elite places of government and academia—believe that the supreme good is autonomy or choice, and emphasize this to such an extent that they tend to deny any objective meaning and value in the world.
Each of the speakers tonight selected a text to comment on. I selected Ephesians 2:10: “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance, that we should walk in them.” This text challenges us to rededicate ourselves to basic truths about God and our place in the world.
These people believe—or tend toward believing—that each of us has the right to fashion for himself what will be meaningful and valuable. On this view, there is no inherent meaning and value that we must adhere to. And so, on this view, it is a matter of choice who is and who is not worthy of respect and protection of our laws. It is a matter of choice that we can use or dispose of some human beings for the benefit or convenience of others.
On this view too, it is simply a matter of choice what marriage will be—whether it is between a man and a woman, whether it is between two or three, five or seven—because on this view marriage does not have an objective nature.
And on this view, since autonomy is more important than anything else, and public expressions of religion make some people uncomfortable, we have no actual duty to express gratitude in a public manner to a transcendent Creator.
But there is another vision of the world—and that is the vision that we are here tonight to represent and forthrightly proclaim. This is the vision expressed in the text from St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance, that we should walk in them.”
This text clearly affirms three things: First, God has created the world, we are not the creators—God is the Creator. Second, God has a plan for this world, and so we should try to conform our mind and conduct to God’s plan. And third, God has endowed this world with an objective meaning and value that is inherent within it. Autonomy is a good—but it is good only as a means, it is not the supreme good. (Editor's bold emphasis) We are not the creators of what is truly worthwhile, rather we discover and respond to the objective meaning and value that God has created in the world.
This basic truth is also affirmed in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."
Therefore, since it is God, not us, who is the Creator of meaning and value in the world, we owe to God thanks and reverence for the great blessings he has given to us. And this is true of us not only as individuals but also as a country. This country has been truly blessed in countless ways. Truly, as the song says, America is beautiful, and God has shed his grace on her.
And therefore we have a solemn duty as a community to thank God publicly for his many blessings. Every chance we have we should be able to express publicly and clearly a prayer along the lines of the one that used to be said in public schools at the beginning of each day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” This is not the establishment of religion or of any particular religion—it is simply an acknowledgment of a real communal debt.
Likewise, what marriage is, is not up to our choice—what marriage is, is not up to our whims, preferences or desires. Rather, marriage has an objective nature, and we as a community must respect the true nature of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the sharing of lives bodily as well as emotionally and spiritually, in the kind of union that would be naturally fulfilled by having and raising children together. It is not within the prerogative of our autonomy, of our choice—and it is not within the prerogative of judicial fiat—to attempt to change the objective nature of marriage.
Concerning life: We as a nation, we as a community, must recognize the fundamental and equal inherent dignity possessed by every human being, simply in virtue of being a human being.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights"—all human beings—not just those whose lives are convenient or non-burdensome to us—are endowed by their Creator with equal and inherent dignity and rights.
We must not place choice and autonomy above God-given unalienable rights. The culture that emphasizes autonomy to the exclusion of truth is a denial of the most basic principle upon which our country is founded, namely, all human beings possess an equal and inherent fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill, other innocent human beings for their own purposes.
This was the principle at stake in the 19th century with the issue of slavery and in the 20th century and is also at stake with the civil rights movement. This is the same principle that is at stake, in the central debates of our times about abortion and euthanasia. Just as all human beings, no matter what the color of their skin, deserve equal protection of the law, in the same way, all human beings, no matter what their age or degree of development, deserve equal protection of the law.
Thus, public gratitude to the Creator, the real nature of marriage, and the real basis of the equal dignity of all human beings—these are truths, not choices, these are truths, not optional creations by us. For we are God’s handiwork, and God is the Creator, and it is his plan that we are called on to live out.
Finally, Our Lord tells us that at the end of the world he will ask us what we did for the least of his brethren. Did we stand up for children who are being indoctrinated to think that religion is a mere private matter, and almost always hateful and bigoted?
Did we stand up for women and children who are gravely imperiled by the profound confusion concerning the true nature of marriage? And did we stand up for the defenseless unborn human beings who are being discarded in garbage cans or ripped to shreds in the name of autonomy?
So, let us resolve, with God’s grace, to respond with courage and urgency, to these profound injustices. May we, with God’s grace, and with the fellowship of each other, walk in the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance.
Dr. Lee was invited by Glenn Beck and David as the Catholic speaker at the America’s Divine Destiny event held at the Kennedy Center on August 27 the day before the massive rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. In addition to Beck and Barton, head of Wallbuilders, other speakers included Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition, and Rev. Miles MacPherson, pastor of The Rock Church in San Diego. A sold-out crowd of 2,500 attended the Kennedy center event, which can be viewed here.
Dr. Patrick Lee is John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Institute of Bioethics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is nationally known as a pro-life speaker and debater.
Having taught at Franciscan University since 1984, Lee is the author of numerous articles and reviews as well as several books, including, with Robert P. George, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008 and Abortion and Unborn Human Life, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1996.
This speech by Philosopher Patrick Lee is outstanding and is completely faithful to Traditional Catholic teaching on the matters adressed.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By Patrick Lee
Catholic Advocate HERE...
9/1/10
“For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance . . .”
There is a struggle in our culture today between two visions of the world and our place within the world. On one side of the struggle, many people—especially many in the mainstream media, and in the elite places of government and academia—believe that the supreme good is autonomy or choice, and emphasize this to such an extent that they tend to deny any objective meaning and value in the world.
Each of the speakers tonight selected a text to comment on. I selected Ephesians 2:10: “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance, that we should walk in them.” This text challenges us to rededicate ourselves to basic truths about God and our place in the world.
These people believe—or tend toward believing—that each of us has the right to fashion for himself what will be meaningful and valuable. On this view, there is no inherent meaning and value that we must adhere to. And so, on this view, it is a matter of choice who is and who is not worthy of respect and protection of our laws. It is a matter of choice that we can use or dispose of some human beings for the benefit or convenience of others.
On this view too, it is simply a matter of choice what marriage will be—whether it is between a man and a woman, whether it is between two or three, five or seven—because on this view marriage does not have an objective nature.
And on this view, since autonomy is more important than anything else, and public expressions of religion make some people uncomfortable, we have no actual duty to express gratitude in a public manner to a transcendent Creator.
But there is another vision of the world—and that is the vision that we are here tonight to represent and forthrightly proclaim. This is the vision expressed in the text from St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance, that we should walk in them.”
This text clearly affirms three things: First, God has created the world, we are not the creators—God is the Creator. Second, God has a plan for this world, and so we should try to conform our mind and conduct to God’s plan. And third, God has endowed this world with an objective meaning and value that is inherent within it. Autonomy is a good—but it is good only as a means, it is not the supreme good. (Editor's bold emphasis) We are not the creators of what is truly worthwhile, rather we discover and respond to the objective meaning and value that God has created in the world.
This basic truth is also affirmed in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."
Therefore, since it is God, not us, who is the Creator of meaning and value in the world, we owe to God thanks and reverence for the great blessings he has given to us. And this is true of us not only as individuals but also as a country. This country has been truly blessed in countless ways. Truly, as the song says, America is beautiful, and God has shed his grace on her.
And therefore we have a solemn duty as a community to thank God publicly for his many blessings. Every chance we have we should be able to express publicly and clearly a prayer along the lines of the one that used to be said in public schools at the beginning of each day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” This is not the establishment of religion or of any particular religion—it is simply an acknowledgment of a real communal debt.
Likewise, what marriage is, is not up to our choice—what marriage is, is not up to our whims, preferences or desires. Rather, marriage has an objective nature, and we as a community must respect the true nature of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the sharing of lives bodily as well as emotionally and spiritually, in the kind of union that would be naturally fulfilled by having and raising children together. It is not within the prerogative of our autonomy, of our choice—and it is not within the prerogative of judicial fiat—to attempt to change the objective nature of marriage.
Concerning life: We as a nation, we as a community, must recognize the fundamental and equal inherent dignity possessed by every human being, simply in virtue of being a human being.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights"—all human beings—not just those whose lives are convenient or non-burdensome to us—are endowed by their Creator with equal and inherent dignity and rights.
We must not place choice and autonomy above God-given unalienable rights. The culture that emphasizes autonomy to the exclusion of truth is a denial of the most basic principle upon which our country is founded, namely, all human beings possess an equal and inherent fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill, other innocent human beings for their own purposes.
This was the principle at stake in the 19th century with the issue of slavery and in the 20th century and is also at stake with the civil rights movement. This is the same principle that is at stake, in the central debates of our times about abortion and euthanasia. Just as all human beings, no matter what the color of their skin, deserve equal protection of the law, in the same way, all human beings, no matter what their age or degree of development, deserve equal protection of the law.
Thus, public gratitude to the Creator, the real nature of marriage, and the real basis of the equal dignity of all human beings—these are truths, not choices, these are truths, not optional creations by us. For we are God’s handiwork, and God is the Creator, and it is his plan that we are called on to live out.
Finally, Our Lord tells us that at the end of the world he will ask us what we did for the least of his brethren. Did we stand up for children who are being indoctrinated to think that religion is a mere private matter, and almost always hateful and bigoted?
Did we stand up for women and children who are gravely imperiled by the profound confusion concerning the true nature of marriage? And did we stand up for the defenseless unborn human beings who are being discarded in garbage cans or ripped to shreds in the name of autonomy?
So, let us resolve, with God’s grace, to respond with courage and urgency, to these profound injustices. May we, with God’s grace, and with the fellowship of each other, walk in the life of good deeds that God has prepared in advance.
Dr. Lee was invited by Glenn Beck and David as the Catholic speaker at the America’s Divine Destiny event held at the Kennedy Center on August 27 the day before the massive rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. In addition to Beck and Barton, head of Wallbuilders, other speakers included Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition, and Rev. Miles MacPherson, pastor of The Rock Church in San Diego. A sold-out crowd of 2,500 attended the Kennedy center event, which can be viewed here.
Dr. Patrick Lee is John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Professor of Bioethics and Director of the Institute of Bioethics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is nationally known as a pro-life speaker and debater.
Having taught at Franciscan University since 1984, Lee is the author of numerous articles and reviews as well as several books, including, with Robert P. George, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008 and Abortion and Unborn Human Life, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1996.
Friday, September 3, 2010
What should we think of the Sedevacantists?
SSPX.org HERE...
QUESTION 15
What should we think of the Sedevacantists? NB: Some of the examples are in reference to the late Pope John Paul II
In the face of the scandal of a pope who can sign Dignitatis humanae, radically change the liturgy of the Mass, codify a new ecclesiology, or make himself the protagonist for an aberrant ecumenism, etc., some have concluded that the last popes cannot have been true popes, or else that they have lost the pontificate because of such scandals. They refer to the discussions of the great counter-Reformation theologians on the loss of the pontificate (through abdication, insanity, heresy, etc.) and argue thus:
he who is not a member of the Church can’t be its head.
but a heretic is not a member of the Church,
now, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are heretics,
therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church,
and so all their acts are to be completely ignored.
But then again, the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world’s diocesan bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the Catholic Church must be identified only with those who have not compromised the Faith and who refuse communion with these “popes” or “bishops.” A minority of these will elect their own “pope” (e.g. the communities at Palmar de Troya, Spain, or Saint Jovite, Canada).
The argument’s strength is in the real scandal of the Conciliar authorities’ impetus given to the Church’s “new direction”; its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics. (Editor's NOTE: or in positing a solution which does not demand Divine miraculous intervention)
You are a “material” heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;
you are a “formal” heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway.
Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one’s heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions* to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, §1). But nobody can authoritatively admonish the pope (canon 1556), and the bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.
* To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior (cf., canon 2233). The point is not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious (canon 2195; 2197).
Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven. (Editor's NOTE: Some Traditional Catholics argue that the Pope, Cardinal or Bishop who knowingly advocates or promulgates heresy or apostacy or should by virtue of rank and education know better is, ipso-facto removed from office)
But could pertinacity not be presumed from the insistence of these popes on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially i.e., as regards loss of office, etc., which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse. (Editor's NOTE: while perhaps true, this reason cannot be a sufficient answer for why such a prelate does not in fact lose office since it rests only upon the disastrous consequences not the truth of the prelates condition before Jesus Christ who knows all. Admittedly, this is a troublesome and it would appear debatable issue)
The argument does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider that there are other explanations for the “material heretic” pope [see section a below], and it becomes quite improbable when you consider its dangers [b] or consequences [c].
The liberal mind-set of a Pope Paul VI or a Pope John Paul II can be an explanation of their wanting to be Catholics and their simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism. They accept contradictions; with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.* But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way of authority....
* A little example: "At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture (Editor's NOTE: this is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing in Traditional Catholicism supported the notion of ecumenism, rather, the non-Catholic sects were encouraged to return to the fold of the one true church), thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the 'signs of the times'" (Ut Unum Sint, §3). If it is because of the "signs of the times" that the Conciliar Church has launched herself into ecumenism, how are we to know that the venture will be irrevocable? What does a Pope John Paul II mean by such absolute terms?
The Church is indefectible (PRINCIPLE 3) not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (PRINCIPLE 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors.
Now, we can understand a break in the line of popes from the death of one to the election of the next, and that it may drag on.
But is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such? (Editor's NOTE: this is a very disturbing problem which would appear to have no answer in the natural realm)
The Church is visible (PRINCIPLE 3) and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior bonds (state of grace, same faith,...). A society is recognized and maintained as such by its authority (its efficient cause).
If the Church has not had a pope since the days of Vatican II, then there are no more cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church to get a pope again, as the current discipline grants only to cardinals the power to elect a pope?
The Church could have ordained that non-Cardinal “electors of the pope” be capable of doing it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which ordains that cardinals elect him.
A few sedevacantists hold that he has been or will be directly designated by private revelation from heaven.
There are spiritual consequences of sedevacantism:
sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree;
and invariably it leads to one’s recognizing no spiritual superiors on earth. Each becomes, in practice, his own little “pope,” the rule of faith and orthodoxy, the judge of the validity of sacraments.*
*Consider the arguments from "Bishop" Vezelis, the Schuckardt movement, etc.: It is said that Cardinal Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was Freemason, and so all his ordinations were invalid; and so we must consider invalid all the sacraments of those he ordained, and of those they ordained... In fact, whereas that Lienart was a Freemason is only an unproven allegation of one writer; and Church teaching is that we must accept as valid his sacraments anyway, if he used the correct external rite (unless he revealed a contrary internal intention, which he did not). Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre was consecrated by three bishops in 1947, which sacrament was surely therefore valid. Cf. ON RUMORS AND THEIR SOURCE for more information on this matter.
This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.
QUESTION 15
What should we think of the Sedevacantists? NB: Some of the examples are in reference to the late Pope John Paul II
In the face of the scandal of a pope who can sign Dignitatis humanae, radically change the liturgy of the Mass, codify a new ecclesiology, or make himself the protagonist for an aberrant ecumenism, etc., some have concluded that the last popes cannot have been true popes, or else that they have lost the pontificate because of such scandals. They refer to the discussions of the great counter-Reformation theologians on the loss of the pontificate (through abdication, insanity, heresy, etc.) and argue thus:
he who is not a member of the Church can’t be its head.
but a heretic is not a member of the Church,
now, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are heretics,
therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church,
and so all their acts are to be completely ignored.
But then again, the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world’s diocesan bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the Catholic Church must be identified only with those who have not compromised the Faith and who refuse communion with these “popes” or “bishops.” A minority of these will elect their own “pope” (e.g. the communities at Palmar de Troya, Spain, or Saint Jovite, Canada).
The argument’s strength is in the real scandal of the Conciliar authorities’ impetus given to the Church’s “new direction”; its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics. (Editor's NOTE: or in positing a solution which does not demand Divine miraculous intervention)
You are a “material” heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own;
you are a “formal” heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway.
Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one’s heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions* to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, §1). But nobody can authoritatively admonish the pope (canon 1556), and the bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.
* To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior (cf., canon 2233). The point is not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious (canon 2195; 2197).
Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven. (Editor's NOTE: Some Traditional Catholics argue that the Pope, Cardinal or Bishop who knowingly advocates or promulgates heresy or apostacy or should by virtue of rank and education know better is, ipso-facto removed from office)
But could pertinacity not be presumed from the insistence of these popes on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present-day witnesses? Perhaps; but not socially i.e., as regards loss of office, etc., which must not be presumed but proven, otherwise societies would collapse. (Editor's NOTE: while perhaps true, this reason cannot be a sufficient answer for why such a prelate does not in fact lose office since it rests only upon the disastrous consequences not the truth of the prelates condition before Jesus Christ who knows all. Admittedly, this is a troublesome and it would appear debatable issue)
The argument does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider that there are other explanations for the “material heretic” pope [see section a below], and it becomes quite improbable when you consider its dangers [b] or consequences [c].
The liberal mind-set of a Pope Paul VI or a Pope John Paul II can be an explanation of their wanting to be Catholics and their simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism. They accept contradictions; with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.* But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way of authority....
* A little example: "At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture (Editor's NOTE: this is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing in Traditional Catholicism supported the notion of ecumenism, rather, the non-Catholic sects were encouraged to return to the fold of the one true church), thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the 'signs of the times'" (Ut Unum Sint, §3). If it is because of the "signs of the times" that the Conciliar Church has launched herself into ecumenism, how are we to know that the venture will be irrevocable? What does a Pope John Paul II mean by such absolute terms?
The Church is indefectible (PRINCIPLE 3) not only in her faith and means of sanctification, but also in her monarchical constitution (PRINCIPLE 4), comprising governing power i.e., jurisdiction, hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors.
Now, we can understand a break in the line of popes from the death of one to the election of the next, and that it may drag on.
But is indefectibility preserved if there is no pope since 1962 or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such? (Editor's NOTE: this is a very disturbing problem which would appear to have no answer in the natural realm)
The Church is visible (PRINCIPLE 3) and not just a society composed of those who are joined by interior bonds (state of grace, same faith,...). A society is recognized and maintained as such by its authority (its efficient cause).
If the Church has not had a pope since the days of Vatican II, then there are no more cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church to get a pope again, as the current discipline grants only to cardinals the power to elect a pope?
The Church could have ordained that non-Cardinal “electors of the pope” be capable of doing it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which ordains that cardinals elect him.
A few sedevacantists hold that he has been or will be directly designated by private revelation from heaven.
There are spiritual consequences of sedevacantism:
sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree;
and invariably it leads to one’s recognizing no spiritual superiors on earth. Each becomes, in practice, his own little “pope,” the rule of faith and orthodoxy, the judge of the validity of sacraments.*
*Consider the arguments from "Bishop" Vezelis, the Schuckardt movement, etc.: It is said that Cardinal Lienart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was Freemason, and so all his ordinations were invalid; and so we must consider invalid all the sacraments of those he ordained, and of those they ordained... In fact, whereas that Lienart was a Freemason is only an unproven allegation of one writer; and Church teaching is that we must accept as valid his sacraments anyway, if he used the correct external rite (unless he revealed a contrary internal intention, which he did not). Moreover, Archbishop Lefebvre was consecrated by three bishops in 1947, which sacrament was surely therefore valid. Cf. ON RUMORS AND THEIR SOURCE for more information on this matter.
This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.
The Post-Conciliar Church . . .
A New Religion
A CATHOLIC FAQs ARTICLE
SSPX.orgHERE...
Featured in the Q&A section of the April 2003 issue of The Angelus,
this answer was long enough to warrant itself as an article
Is it possible to say that the post-Conciliar Church is a new religion, and if so, how can it be considered as Catholic?
The answer to this question is found in the final declaration of the International Symposium of Theology organized by the Society of St. Pius X and attended by 62 traditional Catholic theologians in Paris in October 2002. The purpose of the statement was to put together a synthesis of the teaching of Vatican II, and to clarify the main principles upon which it differs from the teaching of the Magisterium. These broad lines can be helpful for us in interpreting the documents of the post-Conciliar Church, and refuting its errors. They demonstrate beyond all doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre was right when he affirmed that the spirit of Vatican II is not just an abuse of some liberal theologians and bishops, but that it is contained in the very texts of the Council itself. If the liberals continually refer to the texts of Vatican II, it is because from these texts themselves emanates, under the sweet appearance of kindness and dialogue, the stench of naturalism, of the corruption of the Faith.
The theologians affirmed that there are eight main, fundamental attitudes that underlie all the post-Conciliar changes, which eight philosophical principles masquerading as religion make of Vatican II the introduction of a new religion, all within the exterior structure, hierarchy, language and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. Allow me to list them for you.
1) Novelty
There is no attempt to hide the desire for newness, that is of a new and different religion, despite the assertion that the Faith has not changed. A transformation is required "too on the religious level," following the "real social and cultural transformation" of our "new age of history" (Gaudium et Spes, §4). Hence the need for an aggiornamento, bringing religion up to date with our times. One of the great means for bringing about this novelty, whilst appearing to profess the same doctrines, is the teaching "that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths" (Unitatis Redintegratio, §11). It is consequently possible, they say, to hold on to only the most fundamental truths, discarding or putting the others aside. This is the basis of the novelty of ecumenism and dialogue, which is truly a new religion, for it requires Catholics to accept the beliefs of other believers. MORE...
A CATHOLIC FAQs ARTICLE
SSPX.orgHERE...
Featured in the Q&A section of the April 2003 issue of The Angelus,
this answer was long enough to warrant itself as an article
Is it possible to say that the post-Conciliar Church is a new religion, and if so, how can it be considered as Catholic?
The answer to this question is found in the final declaration of the International Symposium of Theology organized by the Society of St. Pius X and attended by 62 traditional Catholic theologians in Paris in October 2002. The purpose of the statement was to put together a synthesis of the teaching of Vatican II, and to clarify the main principles upon which it differs from the teaching of the Magisterium. These broad lines can be helpful for us in interpreting the documents of the post-Conciliar Church, and refuting its errors. They demonstrate beyond all doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre was right when he affirmed that the spirit of Vatican II is not just an abuse of some liberal theologians and bishops, but that it is contained in the very texts of the Council itself. If the liberals continually refer to the texts of Vatican II, it is because from these texts themselves emanates, under the sweet appearance of kindness and dialogue, the stench of naturalism, of the corruption of the Faith.
The theologians affirmed that there are eight main, fundamental attitudes that underlie all the post-Conciliar changes, which eight philosophical principles masquerading as religion make of Vatican II the introduction of a new religion, all within the exterior structure, hierarchy, language and ceremonies of the Catholic Church. Allow me to list them for you.
1) Novelty
There is no attempt to hide the desire for newness, that is of a new and different religion, despite the assertion that the Faith has not changed. A transformation is required "too on the religious level," following the "real social and cultural transformation" of our "new age of history" (Gaudium et Spes, §4). Hence the need for an aggiornamento, bringing religion up to date with our times. One of the great means for bringing about this novelty, whilst appearing to profess the same doctrines, is the teaching "that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths" (Unitatis Redintegratio, §11). It is consequently possible, they say, to hold on to only the most fundamental truths, discarding or putting the others aside. This is the basis of the novelty of ecumenism and dialogue, which is truly a new religion, for it requires Catholics to accept the beliefs of other believers. MORE...
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Church blasts gay priests leading 'double life'
By NICOLE WINFIELD
The Associated Press
July 23, 2010, 1:37PM
ROME — The Catholic Church in Italy, still reeling from the clerical sex abuse scandal, lashed out Friday at gay priests who are leading a double life, urging them to come out of the closet and leave the priesthood.
The Diocese of Rome issued the strongly worded statement after the conservative Panorama newsweekly said in a cover story and accompanying video that it had interviewed three gay priests in Rome and accompanied them to gay clubs and bars and to sexual encounters with strangers, including one in a church building.
One of the priests, a Frenchman identified only as Paul, celebrated Mass in the morning before driving the two escorts he had hired to attend a party the night before to the airport, Panorama said.
In a statement Friday, the Rome diocese denounced those priests who were leading a "double life," said they shouldn't have been ordained and promised that the church would rigorously pursue anyone who is behaving in a way that wasn't dignified for a priest.
It insisted that the vast majority of Rome's 1,300 priests were truthful to their vocations and were "models of morality for all."
Those who aren't faithful to their vows "know that no one is forcing them to remain priests, taking advantage of only the benefits," the diocese said. "Coherency would demand that they come forward. We don't wish any ill-will against them, but we cannot accept that because of their behavior the honor of all the others is sullied."
No one knows the exact number of gays in the priesthood. Estimates of the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
Church teaching holds that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," and the Vatican has recently cracked down on gays in the priesthood.
In his first major policy statement as pope, Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 issued an instruction barring actively gay priests from seminaries. The Instruction said men "who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'" cannot be admitted to seminaries. The only exception would be for those with a "transitory problem" that had been overcome for at least three years.
The fact that the document was being worked on came to light in 2002 at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States. A study commissioned by U.S. bishops found that most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys.
Experts on sex offenders say homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that hasn't stifled questions about gay seminarians.
The Rome diocese appeared to link the two, quoting Benedict in denouncing the sins of priests in reference to the Panorama article. The pontiff had used those words to deplore pedophile priests, not gay priests.
One Catholic commentator noted that the problem wasn't that there were "three priests running wild in gay Rome."
"There are plenty of priests — straight and gay — who misbehave sexually with other adults," said Bryan Cones, managing editor of the liberal U.S. Catholic Magazine.
"The problem is that only these gay priests are the news, not all the other gay priests who labor faithfully, honoring their commitments along with their straight brothers as best they can. We don't hear their stories because they can't tell them for fear of expulsion. And that isn't right."
The arrest of a popular Connecticut priest who frequented male escorts and strip bars made international headlines earlier this month after he was arrested and charged with first-degree larceny, accused of stealing $1.3 million over seven years from the church to finance his lavish lifestyle.
The Associated Press
July 23, 2010, 1:37PM
ROME — The Catholic Church in Italy, still reeling from the clerical sex abuse scandal, lashed out Friday at gay priests who are leading a double life, urging them to come out of the closet and leave the priesthood.
The Diocese of Rome issued the strongly worded statement after the conservative Panorama newsweekly said in a cover story and accompanying video that it had interviewed three gay priests in Rome and accompanied them to gay clubs and bars and to sexual encounters with strangers, including one in a church building.
One of the priests, a Frenchman identified only as Paul, celebrated Mass in the morning before driving the two escorts he had hired to attend a party the night before to the airport, Panorama said.
In a statement Friday, the Rome diocese denounced those priests who were leading a "double life," said they shouldn't have been ordained and promised that the church would rigorously pursue anyone who is behaving in a way that wasn't dignified for a priest.
It insisted that the vast majority of Rome's 1,300 priests were truthful to their vocations and were "models of morality for all."
Those who aren't faithful to their vows "know that no one is forcing them to remain priests, taking advantage of only the benefits," the diocese said. "Coherency would demand that they come forward. We don't wish any ill-will against them, but we cannot accept that because of their behavior the honor of all the others is sullied."
No one knows the exact number of gays in the priesthood. Estimates of the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."
Church teaching holds that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," and the Vatican has recently cracked down on gays in the priesthood.
In his first major policy statement as pope, Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 issued an instruction barring actively gay priests from seminaries. The Instruction said men "who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'" cannot be admitted to seminaries. The only exception would be for those with a "transitory problem" that had been overcome for at least three years.
The fact that the document was being worked on came to light in 2002 at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States. A study commissioned by U.S. bishops found that most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys.
Experts on sex offenders say homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that hasn't stifled questions about gay seminarians.
The Rome diocese appeared to link the two, quoting Benedict in denouncing the sins of priests in reference to the Panorama article. The pontiff had used those words to deplore pedophile priests, not gay priests.
One Catholic commentator noted that the problem wasn't that there were "three priests running wild in gay Rome."
"There are plenty of priests — straight and gay — who misbehave sexually with other adults," said Bryan Cones, managing editor of the liberal U.S. Catholic Magazine.
"The problem is that only these gay priests are the news, not all the other gay priests who labor faithfully, honoring their commitments along with their straight brothers as best they can. We don't hear their stories because they can't tell them for fear of expulsion. And that isn't right."
The arrest of a popular Connecticut priest who frequented male escorts and strip bars made international headlines earlier this month after he was arrested and charged with first-degree larceny, accused of stealing $1.3 million over seven years from the church to finance his lavish lifestyle.
Monday, November 30, 2009
New York Times Publishes Piece by "Traditionalist" Roman Catholic
Latin Mass Appeal
By KENNETH J. WOLFE
The New York Times
November 28, 2009
WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.
All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”
Paradoxically, however, it was Pius himself who was largely responsible for the momentous changes of 1969. It was he who appointed the chief architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the Vatican’s liturgical commission in 1948.
Bugnini was born in 1912 and ordained a Vincentian priest in 1936. Though Bugnini had barely a decade of parish work, Pius XII made him secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. In the 1950s, Bugnini led a major revision of the liturgies of Holy Week. As a result, on Good Friday of 1955, congregations for the first time joined the priest in reciting the Pater Noster, and the priest faced the congregation for some of the liturgy.
The next pope, John XXIII, named Bugnini secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of Vatican II, in which position he worked with Catholic clergymen and, surprisingly, some Protestant ministers on liturgical reforms. In 1962 he wrote what would eventually become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document that gave the form of the new Mass.
Many of Bugnini’s reforms were aimed at appeasing non-Catholics, and changes emulating Protestant services were made, including placing altars to face the people instead of a sacrifice toward the liturgical east. As he put it, “We must strip from our ... Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (Paradoxically, the Anglicans who will join the Catholic Church as a result of the current pope’s outreach will use a liturgy that often features the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation.)
How was Bugnini able to make such sweeping changes? In part because none of the popes he served were liturgists. Bugnini changed so many things that John’s successor, Paul VI, sometimes did not know the latest directives. The pope once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told he had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garments for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then witnessed Paul VI break down in tears.
Bugnini fell from grace in the 1970s. Rumors spread in the Italian press that he was a Freemason, which if true would have merited excommunication. The Vatican never denied the claims, and in 1976 Bugnini, by then an archbishop, was exiled to a ceremonial post in Iran. He died, largely forgotten, in 1982.
But his legacy lived on. Pope John Paul II continued the liberalizations of Mass, allowing females to serve in place of altar boys and to permit unordained men and women to distribute communion in the hands of standing recipients. Even conservative organizations like Opus Dei adopted the liberal liturgical reforms.
But Bugnini may have finally met his match in Benedict XVI, a noted liturgist himself who is no fan of the past 40 years of change (Editor's NOTE: Benedict XVI is complicit in the changes of the past 40 years). Chanting Latin, wearing antique vestments and distributing communion only on the tongues (rather than into the hands) of kneeling Catholics, Benedict has slowly reversed the innovations of his predecessors (Editor's NOTE: Nowhere near enough of them but hope springs eternal). And the Latin Mass is back, at least on a limited basis, in places like Arlington, Va., where one in five parishes offer the old liturgy (Editor's NOTE: The Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V which was never to be abrogated per the Council of Trent has not been allowed and instead Benedict has ordered that the Latin Mass of John XXIII [1962] be used).
Benedict understands that his younger priests and seminarians — most born after Vatican II — are helping lead a counterrevolution. They value the beauty of the solemn high Mass and its accompanying chant, incense and ceremony. Priests in cassocks and sisters in habits are again common; traditionalist societies like the Institute of Christ the King are expanding.
At the beginning of this decade, Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) wrote: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.” He was right: 40 years of the new Mass have brought chaos and banality into the most visible and outward sign of the church. Benedict XVI wants a return to order and meaning. So, it seems, does the next generation of Catholics.
By KENNETH J. WOLFE
The New York Times
November 28, 2009
WALKING into church 40 years ago on this first Sunday of Advent, many Roman Catholics might have wondered where they were. The priest not only spoke English rather than Latin, but he faced the congregation instead of the tabernacle; laymen took on duties previously reserved for priests; folk music filled the air. The great changes of Vatican II had hit home.
All this was a radical break from the traditional Latin Mass, codified in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. For centuries, that Mass served as a structured sacrifice with directives, called “rubrics,” that were not optional. This is how it is done, said the book. As recently as 1947, Pope Pius XII had issued an encyclical on liturgy that scoffed at modernization; he said that the idea of changes to the traditional Latin Mass “pained” him “grievously.”
Paradoxically, however, it was Pius himself who was largely responsible for the momentous changes of 1969. It was he who appointed the chief architect of the new Mass, Annibale Bugnini, to the Vatican’s liturgical commission in 1948.
Bugnini was born in 1912 and ordained a Vincentian priest in 1936. Though Bugnini had barely a decade of parish work, Pius XII made him secretary to the Commission for Liturgical Reform. In the 1950s, Bugnini led a major revision of the liturgies of Holy Week. As a result, on Good Friday of 1955, congregations for the first time joined the priest in reciting the Pater Noster, and the priest faced the congregation for some of the liturgy.
The next pope, John XXIII, named Bugnini secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of Vatican II, in which position he worked with Catholic clergymen and, surprisingly, some Protestant ministers on liturgical reforms. In 1962 he wrote what would eventually become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document that gave the form of the new Mass.
Many of Bugnini’s reforms were aimed at appeasing non-Catholics, and changes emulating Protestant services were made, including placing altars to face the people instead of a sacrifice toward the liturgical east. As he put it, “We must strip from our ... Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (Paradoxically, the Anglicans who will join the Catholic Church as a result of the current pope’s outreach will use a liturgy that often features the priest facing in the same direction as the congregation.)
How was Bugnini able to make such sweeping changes? In part because none of the popes he served were liturgists. Bugnini changed so many things that John’s successor, Paul VI, sometimes did not know the latest directives. The pope once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told he had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garments for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then witnessed Paul VI break down in tears.
Bugnini fell from grace in the 1970s. Rumors spread in the Italian press that he was a Freemason, which if true would have merited excommunication. The Vatican never denied the claims, and in 1976 Bugnini, by then an archbishop, was exiled to a ceremonial post in Iran. He died, largely forgotten, in 1982.
But his legacy lived on. Pope John Paul II continued the liberalizations of Mass, allowing females to serve in place of altar boys and to permit unordained men and women to distribute communion in the hands of standing recipients. Even conservative organizations like Opus Dei adopted the liberal liturgical reforms.
But Bugnini may have finally met his match in Benedict XVI, a noted liturgist himself who is no fan of the past 40 years of change (Editor's NOTE: Benedict XVI is complicit in the changes of the past 40 years). Chanting Latin, wearing antique vestments and distributing communion only on the tongues (rather than into the hands) of kneeling Catholics, Benedict has slowly reversed the innovations of his predecessors (Editor's NOTE: Nowhere near enough of them but hope springs eternal). And the Latin Mass is back, at least on a limited basis, in places like Arlington, Va., where one in five parishes offer the old liturgy (Editor's NOTE: The Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V which was never to be abrogated per the Council of Trent has not been allowed and instead Benedict has ordered that the Latin Mass of John XXIII [1962] be used).
Benedict understands that his younger priests and seminarians — most born after Vatican II — are helping lead a counterrevolution. They value the beauty of the solemn high Mass and its accompanying chant, incense and ceremony. Priests in cassocks and sisters in habits are again common; traditionalist societies like the Institute of Christ the King are expanding.
At the beginning of this decade, Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) wrote: “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself.” He was right: 40 years of the new Mass have brought chaos and banality into the most visible and outward sign of the church. Benedict XVI wants a return to order and meaning. So, it seems, does the next generation of Catholics.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals
Many homosexual leaders have admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.
By: Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier
Homiletic and Pastoral Review
The Church has always had a small number of priests and other religious who have taken
advantage of their positions of authority and influence in order to gain sexual favors or to take advantage of the helpless. The problem of clerical child sexual molestation, particularly in the United States, has been widely exposed and publicized over the last several years. The numerous recent revelations have exposed the problem as much deeper and more widespread than most would have previously believed.
During the current crisis, homosexual activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they could to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church. It is particularly the link between homosexuality and child molestation that they seek to deny.
For example, Dignity USA kicked off its “Stop Blaming Gay Priests” campaign during the meeting of the United States Catholic Bishops Conference in Washington, D.C., November 10-13, 2002. The group said, “DigntyUSA [sic] is calling on the U.S. Catholic bishops to stop blaming gay priests for the clergy sexual abuse scandal. All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality.”[1] The situation has become so charged that anyone who even suggests that there may be a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is instantly and reflexively labeled a “homophobe” and a “gay basher.”
The powerful homosexual lobby reacts instinctively to negative publicity and information by, as researcher Laird Wilcox calls it, “ritually defaming” those who dare raise their voices.[2] Organized homosexual groups first attempt to completely ignore the evidence, or, if it simply cannot be ignored, they smear and discredit those who produced it.
Such casual dismissal of documented facts, and the accompanying refusal to even discuss the possibility of a link between an active homosexual lifestyle and child sexual abuse, is a grave disservice not only to the victims, but also to society at large. Obviously, a proven link between homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation would badly damage the carefully crafted public relations image of the homosexual rights movement. Therefore, instead of calmly and rationally discussing the issues, homosexual rights leaders subscribe to the axiom “the best defense is a good [and loud] offense,” and remain in a permanent attack mode.
The only way to solve the problem of priestly child molestation is to proceed methodically: establish the facts, objectively study all facts relating to the situation, and finally, but most importantly, have the courage and faith to respond by taking appropriate steps. If all of this is not done, any such effort, no matter how well intentioned or vigorously pursued, will be utterly squandered. Certainly we owe it to the victims—and to the Catholic Faith itself—to determine the truth behind this volatile topic.
Studies on the frequency of homosexual child molestation
Dignity USA and other homosexual groups strenuously deny any connection whatever between a homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation. They repeatedly claim, as Dignity USA does, that “All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality.”[3]
Yet these groups never cite any of this “credible evidence,” nor do they quote any studies to buttress their claims that there is no such connection. In fact, a number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century— many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers—have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation.
This is not “homophobia” or “hatred,” this is simple scientific fact. MORE...
By: Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier
Homiletic and Pastoral Review
The Church has always had a small number of priests and other religious who have taken
advantage of their positions of authority and influence in order to gain sexual favors or to take advantage of the helpless. The problem of clerical child sexual molestation, particularly in the United States, has been widely exposed and publicized over the last several years. The numerous recent revelations have exposed the problem as much deeper and more widespread than most would have previously believed.
During the current crisis, homosexual activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they could to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church. It is particularly the link between homosexuality and child molestation that they seek to deny.
For example, Dignity USA kicked off its “Stop Blaming Gay Priests” campaign during the meeting of the United States Catholic Bishops Conference in Washington, D.C., November 10-13, 2002. The group said, “DigntyUSA [sic] is calling on the U.S. Catholic bishops to stop blaming gay priests for the clergy sexual abuse scandal. All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality.”[1] The situation has become so charged that anyone who even suggests that there may be a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is instantly and reflexively labeled a “homophobe” and a “gay basher.”
The powerful homosexual lobby reacts instinctively to negative publicity and information by, as researcher Laird Wilcox calls it, “ritually defaming” those who dare raise their voices.[2] Organized homosexual groups first attempt to completely ignore the evidence, or, if it simply cannot be ignored, they smear and discredit those who produced it.
Such casual dismissal of documented facts, and the accompanying refusal to even discuss the possibility of a link between an active homosexual lifestyle and child sexual abuse, is a grave disservice not only to the victims, but also to society at large. Obviously, a proven link between homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation would badly damage the carefully crafted public relations image of the homosexual rights movement. Therefore, instead of calmly and rationally discussing the issues, homosexual rights leaders subscribe to the axiom “the best defense is a good [and loud] offense,” and remain in a permanent attack mode.
The only way to solve the problem of priestly child molestation is to proceed methodically: establish the facts, objectively study all facts relating to the situation, and finally, but most importantly, have the courage and faith to respond by taking appropriate steps. If all of this is not done, any such effort, no matter how well intentioned or vigorously pursued, will be utterly squandered. Certainly we owe it to the victims—and to the Catholic Faith itself—to determine the truth behind this volatile topic.
Studies on the frequency of homosexual child molestation
Dignity USA and other homosexual groups strenuously deny any connection whatever between a homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation. They repeatedly claim, as Dignity USA does, that “All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality.”[3]
Yet these groups never cite any of this “credible evidence,” nor do they quote any studies to buttress their claims that there is no such connection. In fact, a number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century— many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers—have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation.
This is not “homophobia” or “hatred,” this is simple scientific fact. MORE...
Is the Church Militant Back?
by: Patrick J. Buchanan
Human Events.com
11/27/2009
With the House debate on health care at its hottest, the U.S. Catholic bishops issued a stunning ultimatum: Impose an absolute ban on tax funds for abortions, or we call for defeat of the Pelosi bill.
Message received. The Stupak Amendment, named for Bart Stupak of Michigan, was promptly passed, to the delight of pro-life Catholics and the astonished outrage of pro-abortion Democrats.
No member was more upset than Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, son of Edward Kennedy, who proceeded to bash the Church for imperiling the greatest advance for human rights in a generation.
Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin responded, accusing Kennedy of an unprovoked attack and demanding an apology. Kennedy retorted that Tobin had told him not to receive communion at Mass and ordered his diocesan priests not to give him communion.
False! The bishop fired back.
He had sent Kennedy a private letter in February 2007 saying that he ought not receive communion, as he was scandalizing the Church. But he had not told diocesan priests to deny him communion (Editor's emphasis).
As Rhode Island is our most Catholic state, Kennedy went silent and got this parting shot from Tobin: "Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church."
The clash was naturally national news. But Tobin's public chastisement of a Catholic who carries the most famous name in U.S. and Catholic politics is made more significant because it seems to reflect a new militancy in the hierarchy that has been absent for decades (Editor's note: unfortunately, when given the opportunity to defend himself on "Hard Ball" with Chris Matthews, Bishop Tobin appeared ill-prepared for the spiritual battle he should have known was coming. For more see THIS...
Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., just informed the city council that, rather than recognize homosexual marriages and provide gays the rights and benefits of married couples, he will shut down all Catholic social institutions and let the city take them over. Civil disobedience may be in order here.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York sent an op-ed to The New York Times charging the paper with anti-Catholic bigotry and using a moral double standard when judging the Church.
During the "horrible" scandal of priest abuse of children, wrote the archbishop, the Times demanded the "release of names of abusers, rollback of the statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records and total transparency."
But when the Times "exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuses in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish Community ... 40 cases of such abuses in this tiny community last year alone," wrote the archbishop, the district attorney swept the scandal under the rug, and the Times held up the carpet.
Dolan singled out a "scurrilous ... diatribe" by Maureen Dowd "that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish or African-American" faith.
Dowd, wrote Dolan, "digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription ... into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics and his recent welcome to Anglicans."
Dowd, said Dolan, reads like something out of the Menace, the anti-Catholic Know Nothing newspaper of the 1850s.
The Times' refusal to publish the op-ed underscores the archbishop's point.
Nor are these the only signals of a new Church Militant.
The Vatican has reaffirmed that Catholics in interfaith dialogues have a moral right if not a duty to convert Jews, and reaffirmed the doctrine that Christ's covenant with his church canceled out and supersedes the Old Testament covenant with the Jews (Editor's note: despite the conciliar Church having issued on behalf of the Vatican dicastery in charge of ecumenical relations a statement indicating that the Jews need not convert to Catholicism to be saved creating nothing but confusion on a key dogma of the Roman Catholic Faith).
When Abe Foxman, screech owl of the Anti-Defamation League, railed that this marks a Catholic return to such "odious concepts as 'supercessionism,'" he was politely ignored. (Editor's note: he should have been directly refuted not ignored).
The new spirit was first manifest last spring, when scores of bishops denounced Notre Dame for inviting Barack Obama, a NARAL icon, to give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree (Editor's note: the majority of US Catholic Bishops remained silent and President Obama appeared at Notre Dame anyway).
Among the motives behind the new militancy is surely the wilding attack on Pope Benedict for reconciling with the Society of St. Pius X, one of whose bishops had questioned the Holocaust. The pope was unaware of this, and the bishop apologized. To no avail. Rising in viciousness, the attacks went on for weeks. Having turned the other cheek, the church got it smacked (Editor's note: the conciliar church caved to political correctness over the Bishop Williamson affair and missed the opportunity to clarify and defend Catholic orthodoxy instead allowing the Judaizer's to win the battle over terminology through their use of terms such as "Holocaust Denier's").
In his May address to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke said, "In a culture which embraces an agenda of death, Catholics and Catholic institutions are necessarily counter-cultural."
Exactly. Catholicism is necessarily an adversary faith and culture in an America where a triumphant secularism has captured the heights, from Hollywood to the media, the arts and the academy, and relishes nothing more than insults to and blasphemous mockery of the Church of Rome (Editor's note: no, they mock the Traditional Roman Catholic Church and its perennial teachings, while actually supporting the conciliar church without recognizing it).
Our new battling bishops may be surprised to find they have a large cheering section among a heretofore silent and sullen faithful who have been desperate to find a few clerical champions (Editor's note: Pat Buchanan is correct to point out the encouraging actions of a few traditional US Roman Catholic Bishops but totally misses the fact that the current conciliar church is almost completely heterodox in faith and praxis.)
Human Events.com
11/27/2009
With the House debate on health care at its hottest, the U.S. Catholic bishops issued a stunning ultimatum: Impose an absolute ban on tax funds for abortions, or we call for defeat of the Pelosi bill.
Message received. The Stupak Amendment, named for Bart Stupak of Michigan, was promptly passed, to the delight of pro-life Catholics and the astonished outrage of pro-abortion Democrats.
No member was more upset than Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, son of Edward Kennedy, who proceeded to bash the Church for imperiling the greatest advance for human rights in a generation.
Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin responded, accusing Kennedy of an unprovoked attack and demanding an apology. Kennedy retorted that Tobin had told him not to receive communion at Mass and ordered his diocesan priests not to give him communion.
False! The bishop fired back.
He had sent Kennedy a private letter in February 2007 saying that he ought not receive communion, as he was scandalizing the Church. But he had not told diocesan priests to deny him communion (Editor's emphasis).
As Rhode Island is our most Catholic state, Kennedy went silent and got this parting shot from Tobin: "Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church."
The clash was naturally national news. But Tobin's public chastisement of a Catholic who carries the most famous name in U.S. and Catholic politics is made more significant because it seems to reflect a new militancy in the hierarchy that has been absent for decades (Editor's note: unfortunately, when given the opportunity to defend himself on "Hard Ball" with Chris Matthews, Bishop Tobin appeared ill-prepared for the spiritual battle he should have known was coming. For more see THIS...
Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., just informed the city council that, rather than recognize homosexual marriages and provide gays the rights and benefits of married couples, he will shut down all Catholic social institutions and let the city take them over. Civil disobedience may be in order here.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York sent an op-ed to The New York Times charging the paper with anti-Catholic bigotry and using a moral double standard when judging the Church.
During the "horrible" scandal of priest abuse of children, wrote the archbishop, the Times demanded the "release of names of abusers, rollback of the statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records and total transparency."
But when the Times "exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuses in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish Community ... 40 cases of such abuses in this tiny community last year alone," wrote the archbishop, the district attorney swept the scandal under the rug, and the Times held up the carpet.
Dolan singled out a "scurrilous ... diatribe" by Maureen Dowd "that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish or African-American" faith.
Dowd, wrote Dolan, "digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription ... into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics and his recent welcome to Anglicans."
Dowd, said Dolan, reads like something out of the Menace, the anti-Catholic Know Nothing newspaper of the 1850s.
The Times' refusal to publish the op-ed underscores the archbishop's point.
Nor are these the only signals of a new Church Militant.
The Vatican has reaffirmed that Catholics in interfaith dialogues have a moral right if not a duty to convert Jews, and reaffirmed the doctrine that Christ's covenant with his church canceled out and supersedes the Old Testament covenant with the Jews (Editor's note: despite the conciliar Church having issued on behalf of the Vatican dicastery in charge of ecumenical relations a statement indicating that the Jews need not convert to Catholicism to be saved creating nothing but confusion on a key dogma of the Roman Catholic Faith).
When Abe Foxman, screech owl of the Anti-Defamation League, railed that this marks a Catholic return to such "odious concepts as 'supercessionism,'" he was politely ignored. (Editor's note: he should have been directly refuted not ignored).
The new spirit was first manifest last spring, when scores of bishops denounced Notre Dame for inviting Barack Obama, a NARAL icon, to give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree (Editor's note: the majority of US Catholic Bishops remained silent and President Obama appeared at Notre Dame anyway).
Among the motives behind the new militancy is surely the wilding attack on Pope Benedict for reconciling with the Society of St. Pius X, one of whose bishops had questioned the Holocaust. The pope was unaware of this, and the bishop apologized. To no avail. Rising in viciousness, the attacks went on for weeks. Having turned the other cheek, the church got it smacked (Editor's note: the conciliar church caved to political correctness over the Bishop Williamson affair and missed the opportunity to clarify and defend Catholic orthodoxy instead allowing the Judaizer's to win the battle over terminology through their use of terms such as "Holocaust Denier's").
In his May address to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke said, "In a culture which embraces an agenda of death, Catholics and Catholic institutions are necessarily counter-cultural."
Exactly. Catholicism is necessarily an adversary faith and culture in an America where a triumphant secularism has captured the heights, from Hollywood to the media, the arts and the academy, and relishes nothing more than insults to and blasphemous mockery of the Church of Rome (Editor's note: no, they mock the Traditional Roman Catholic Church and its perennial teachings, while actually supporting the conciliar church without recognizing it).
Our new battling bishops may be surprised to find they have a large cheering section among a heretofore silent and sullen faithful who have been desperate to find a few clerical champions (Editor's note: Pat Buchanan is correct to point out the encouraging actions of a few traditional US Roman Catholic Bishops but totally misses the fact that the current conciliar church is almost completely heterodox in faith and praxis.)
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Latest CDC H1N1 Flu Update
Key Flu Indicators
November 20, 2009, 2:30 PM
Centers for Disease Control
Each week CDC analyzes information about influenza disease activity in the United States and publishes findings of key flu indicators in a report called FluView.* During the week of November 8-14, 2009, influenza activity decreased across all key indicators, but overall remained very high for this time of year. Below is a summary of the most recent key indicators:
* Visits to doctors for influenza-like illness (ILI) nationally decreased again this week over last week. This is the third consecutive week of national decreases in ILI after four consecutive weeks of sharp increases. (All regions showed declines in ILI.) While ILI declined overall nationally, visits to doctors for influenza-like illness remain high.
* Influenza hospitalization rates are beginning to decline but remain higher than expected for this time of year. Hospitalization rates continue to be highest in younger populations with the highest hospitalization rate reported in children 0-4 years old.
* The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) based on the 122 Cities Report decreased slightly but is still higher than what is expected for this time of year and has remained elevated for seven weeks now. In addition, 21 flu-related pediatric deaths were reported this week: 15 of these deaths were associated with laboratory confirmed 2009 H1N1; 6 were influenza A viruses, but were not subtyped. Since April 2009, CDC has received reports of 171 laboratory-confirmed pediatric 2009 H1N1 deaths, one influenza B death, and another 28 pediatric deaths that were laboratory confirmed as influenza, but the flu virus subtype was not determined. (Laboratory-confirmed deaths are thought to represent an undercount of the actual number. CDC has provided estimates about the number of 2009 H1N1 cases and related hospitalizations and deaths.
* Forty-three states are reporting widespread influenza activity at this time; a decline of three states from last week. They are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
* Almost all of the influenza viruses identified so far continue to be 2009 H1N1 influenza A viruses. These viruses remain similar to the virus chosen for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, and remain susceptible to the antiviral drugs oseltamivir and zanamivir with rare exception.
*All data are preliminary and may change as more reports are received.
More on th
November 20, 2009, 2:30 PM
Centers for Disease Control
Each week CDC analyzes information about influenza disease activity in the United States and publishes findings of key flu indicators in a report called FluView.* During the week of November 8-14, 2009, influenza activity decreased across all key indicators, but overall remained very high for this time of year. Below is a summary of the most recent key indicators:
* Visits to doctors for influenza-like illness (ILI) nationally decreased again this week over last week. This is the third consecutive week of national decreases in ILI after four consecutive weeks of sharp increases. (All regions showed declines in ILI.) While ILI declined overall nationally, visits to doctors for influenza-like illness remain high.
* Influenza hospitalization rates are beginning to decline but remain higher than expected for this time of year. Hospitalization rates continue to be highest in younger populations with the highest hospitalization rate reported in children 0-4 years old.
* The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) based on the 122 Cities Report decreased slightly but is still higher than what is expected for this time of year and has remained elevated for seven weeks now. In addition, 21 flu-related pediatric deaths were reported this week: 15 of these deaths were associated with laboratory confirmed 2009 H1N1; 6 were influenza A viruses, but were not subtyped. Since April 2009, CDC has received reports of 171 laboratory-confirmed pediatric 2009 H1N1 deaths, one influenza B death, and another 28 pediatric deaths that were laboratory confirmed as influenza, but the flu virus subtype was not determined. (Laboratory-confirmed deaths are thought to represent an undercount of the actual number. CDC has provided estimates about the number of 2009 H1N1 cases and related hospitalizations and deaths.
* Forty-three states are reporting widespread influenza activity at this time; a decline of three states from last week. They are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
* Almost all of the influenza viruses identified so far continue to be 2009 H1N1 influenza A viruses. These viruses remain similar to the virus chosen for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, and remain susceptible to the antiviral drugs oseltamivir and zanamivir with rare exception.
*All data are preliminary and may change as more reports are received.
More on th
How do you explain the Moslem conquest, Orthodox schism, and Protestant revolt?
By: Hutton Gibson
Defending the Faith of our Fathers, HERE...
Argument Corner
Objection—I think Bellarmine must be correct that a heretic ipso facto vanishes into his heresy, but this (ontological) fact is not manifest and notorious until the Church declares it a sorry fact. Bellarmine, while correct, likely did not foresee the consequences of his judgment. Suarez and Cajetan did, though they did not fully grasp Bellarmine’s truth. Thus a heretical Pope remains pope in the juridic sense (though he cannot bind us to error) and Christ supplies for the means of grace (Yes, even for the 1970 missal; only a hireling abandons the flock when the wolf comes) until either the clergy / people of Rome or a Council declares a Pope no longer Catholic. Only in this way is the stability, visibility, and means of grace of the Church maintained, even as we call the heretic back to the Faith a la the Abbe de Nantes, et al.... The Good Shepherd never abandons HIS flock to the wolves but supplies the means of grace during any deviation (Avignon), apostasy, or interregnum.
Reply—How do you explain the Moslem conquest, Orthodox schism, and Protestant revolt?
Can you ignore St. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 2?
It lies in the nature of a hostile takeover from the top that no effective group is left to defend religious doctrine or worship, though without these there can be no true Church. There should have been immediate revolt against change, but few, even of the clergy, realized what was happening (though a hundred thousand resigned). Those who protested applied for redress to those who had deliberately imposed change with the deliberate intention of killing the Church. The innovators ignored all protest. They stood on their “authority” and painted the few who kept tradition insane. They drove wedges between us and encouraged the “loyal opposition” with occasional crumbs that persuaded most that they would eventually return what they had stolen. But mostly they conveyed the notion that they had the right to improve on Jesus Christ, because only one fifth of the world was Catholic.
If we pin our hopes to the people or clergy of Rome, we appeal to those who have blindly accepted massive innovation. We should logically rather seek a declaration from the millions who have refused innovation, who are disgusted with weird worship and wall-to-wall heresy, and who boycott the remaining churches.
Pope Innocent III preceded Bellarmine by three and a half centuries in declaring that a heretic ipso facto vanishes into heresy. Pope Paul IV formulated this into law (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio) when Bellarmine was seventeen years of age.
Even if you were correct that instructed Catholics cannot assess a heresy, the innovators have publicly embraced condemned heresies galore, and this alone establishes that they are condemned heretics, which should be public enough for anyone.
It is impossible that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ has no defense against a hostile takeover, from the top or from the bottom. When taken over from the top there is no possibility of an official statement condemning the takeover, because the entire top is involved in the takeover and will simply not condemn its own actions.
We therefore turn to right reason, and find all the authority we need in the Laws of the Church, specifically Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and the Canon Laws in which it is synthesized, #2314 & #188. These all state with authority that apostates and heretics can hold no office in the Church to which they cannot belong on account of their heresy and/or apostasy. The penalty immediately, automatically, and necessarily follows the fact itself of heresy or apostasy, and requires no declaration from any official source, as the law itself provides. We are all bound by these laws, and by Quo Primum Tempore which standardized our worship against the Protestant revolt, and must refuse recognition to “authorities” which violate them and saddle us with more recent idolatries.
The proof lies in recognition of the fact that the postconciliar “Church” has replaced almost the entire religion in its laws, doctrines, sacraments, and worship. It tries to speak with the authority which it has almost stamped out. It pretends to the authority which Christ conferred on His Church for propagation, which it has criminally discontinued.
Defending the Faith of our Fathers, HERE...
Argument Corner
Objection—I think Bellarmine must be correct that a heretic ipso facto vanishes into his heresy, but this (ontological) fact is not manifest and notorious until the Church declares it a sorry fact. Bellarmine, while correct, likely did not foresee the consequences of his judgment. Suarez and Cajetan did, though they did not fully grasp Bellarmine’s truth. Thus a heretical Pope remains pope in the juridic sense (though he cannot bind us to error) and Christ supplies for the means of grace (Yes, even for the 1970 missal; only a hireling abandons the flock when the wolf comes) until either the clergy / people of Rome or a Council declares a Pope no longer Catholic. Only in this way is the stability, visibility, and means of grace of the Church maintained, even as we call the heretic back to the Faith a la the Abbe de Nantes, et al.... The Good Shepherd never abandons HIS flock to the wolves but supplies the means of grace during any deviation (Avignon), apostasy, or interregnum.
Reply—How do you explain the Moslem conquest, Orthodox schism, and Protestant revolt?
Can you ignore St. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 2?
It lies in the nature of a hostile takeover from the top that no effective group is left to defend religious doctrine or worship, though without these there can be no true Church. There should have been immediate revolt against change, but few, even of the clergy, realized what was happening (though a hundred thousand resigned). Those who protested applied for redress to those who had deliberately imposed change with the deliberate intention of killing the Church. The innovators ignored all protest. They stood on their “authority” and painted the few who kept tradition insane. They drove wedges between us and encouraged the “loyal opposition” with occasional crumbs that persuaded most that they would eventually return what they had stolen. But mostly they conveyed the notion that they had the right to improve on Jesus Christ, because only one fifth of the world was Catholic.
If we pin our hopes to the people or clergy of Rome, we appeal to those who have blindly accepted massive innovation. We should logically rather seek a declaration from the millions who have refused innovation, who are disgusted with weird worship and wall-to-wall heresy, and who boycott the remaining churches.
Pope Innocent III preceded Bellarmine by three and a half centuries in declaring that a heretic ipso facto vanishes into heresy. Pope Paul IV formulated this into law (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio) when Bellarmine was seventeen years of age.
Even if you were correct that instructed Catholics cannot assess a heresy, the innovators have publicly embraced condemned heresies galore, and this alone establishes that they are condemned heretics, which should be public enough for anyone.
It is impossible that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ has no defense against a hostile takeover, from the top or from the bottom. When taken over from the top there is no possibility of an official statement condemning the takeover, because the entire top is involved in the takeover and will simply not condemn its own actions.
We therefore turn to right reason, and find all the authority we need in the Laws of the Church, specifically Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and the Canon Laws in which it is synthesized, #2314 & #188. These all state with authority that apostates and heretics can hold no office in the Church to which they cannot belong on account of their heresy and/or apostasy. The penalty immediately, automatically, and necessarily follows the fact itself of heresy or apostasy, and requires no declaration from any official source, as the law itself provides. We are all bound by these laws, and by Quo Primum Tempore which standardized our worship against the Protestant revolt, and must refuse recognition to “authorities” which violate them and saddle us with more recent idolatries.
The proof lies in recognition of the fact that the postconciliar “Church” has replaced almost the entire religion in its laws, doctrines, sacraments, and worship. It tries to speak with the authority which it has almost stamped out. It pretends to the authority which Christ conferred on His Church for propagation, which it has criminally discontinued.
"And there Hearts will Grow Cold"
November 16, 2009
Missing 5-year-old Shaniya found dead
Posted: 05:06 PM ET
"...and because wickedness is multiplied, most men's love will grow cold." (Matt. 24: 12)
A missing 5-year-old whose mother was accused of offering her for sex was found dead off a heavily wooded road in a rural area Monday, ending a weeklong search.
Searchers found Shaniya Davis' body in central North Carolina but, police will not say how she died. Two people have been charged in her disappearance. Her mother, Antoinette Davis, had been charged with human trafficking and felony child abuse and Mario Andrette McNeill has been charged with first degree kidnapping. Little Shaniya was seen on surveillance being carried through an area hotel by McNeill earlier last week. Three days later, he turned himself in. However, it wasn’t until today that police finally concluded their search for the missing toddler. Unfortunately, she was not found alive as everyone had hoped.
Bradley Lockhart, Shaniya’s father, raised the little girl for years and it wasn’t until recently that he allowed the girl’s mom to take Shaniya to her home. He said that Shaniya’s mom was getting her life on track and he thought he would give her a chance to help at raising Shaniya. He now regrets that decision. Lockhart was hopeful that someone would return his daughter safely. That hope has now passed.
The only question remaining is who is responsible for killing the little girl? That’s what police are looking to find out. It is the next step in resolving this case.
Missing 5-year-old Shaniya found dead
Posted: 05:06 PM ET
"...and because wickedness is multiplied, most men's love will grow cold." (Matt. 24: 12)
A missing 5-year-old whose mother was accused of offering her for sex was found dead off a heavily wooded road in a rural area Monday, ending a weeklong search.
Searchers found Shaniya Davis' body in central North Carolina but, police will not say how she died. Two people have been charged in her disappearance. Her mother, Antoinette Davis, had been charged with human trafficking and felony child abuse and Mario Andrette McNeill has been charged with first degree kidnapping. Little Shaniya was seen on surveillance being carried through an area hotel by McNeill earlier last week. Three days later, he turned himself in. However, it wasn’t until today that police finally concluded their search for the missing toddler. Unfortunately, she was not found alive as everyone had hoped.
Bradley Lockhart, Shaniya’s father, raised the little girl for years and it wasn’t until recently that he allowed the girl’s mom to take Shaniya to her home. He said that Shaniya’s mom was getting her life on track and he thought he would give her a chance to help at raising Shaniya. He now regrets that decision. Lockhart was hopeful that someone would return his daughter safely. That hope has now passed.
The only question remaining is who is responsible for killing the little girl? That’s what police are looking to find out. It is the next step in resolving this case.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
2009 H1N1 Flu: Situation Update
November 6, 2009,
U.S. Situation Update
Centers for Disease Control
Each week CDC analyzes information about influenza disease activity in the United States and publishes findings of key flu indicators in a report called FluView.* During the week of October 25-31, 2009, a review of the key indicators found that influenza activity remained high in the United States. Below is a summary of the most recent key indicators:
* Visits to doctors for influenza-like illness (ILI) nationally decreased very slightly this week over last week after four consecutive weeks of sharp increases. While ILI declined slightly, visits to doctors for influenza-like illness remain at much higher levels than what is expected for this time of the year and parts of the country continue to see sharp increases in activity. It’s possible that nationwide ILI could rise again. ILI continues to be higher than what is seen during the peak of most regular flu seasons.
* Total influenza hospitalization rates for laboratory-confirmed flu are climbing and are higher than expected for this time of year. Hospitalization rates continue to be highest is younger populations with the highest hospitalization rate reported in children 0-4 years old.
* The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) based on the 122 Cities Report continues to increase and has been higher for five weeks now than what is expected at this time of year. In addition, 18 flu-related pediatric deaths were reported this week; 15 of these deaths were confirmed 2009 H1N1, and three were influenza A viruses, but were not sub-typed. Since April 2009, CDC has received reports of 129 laboratory-confirmed pediatric 2009 H1N1 deaths and another 15 pediatric deaths that were laboratory confirmed as influenza, but where the flu virus subtype was not determined. (Editor's Note: It is reasonable to assume that the total number of Pediatric deaths due to Swine Flu [to date] is 144)
* Forty-eight states are reporting widespread influenza activity at this time; a decline of one state over last week. They are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This many reports of widespread activity at this time of year are unprecedented during seasonal flu.
* Almost all of the influenza viruses identified so far continue to be 2009 H1N1 influenza A viruses. These viruses remain similar to the virus chosen for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, and remain susceptible to the antiviral drugs Oseltamivir and Zanamivir with rare exception
U.S. Situation Update
Centers for Disease Control
Each week CDC analyzes information about influenza disease activity in the United States and publishes findings of key flu indicators in a report called FluView.* During the week of October 25-31, 2009, a review of the key indicators found that influenza activity remained high in the United States. Below is a summary of the most recent key indicators:
* Visits to doctors for influenza-like illness (ILI) nationally decreased very slightly this week over last week after four consecutive weeks of sharp increases. While ILI declined slightly, visits to doctors for influenza-like illness remain at much higher levels than what is expected for this time of the year and parts of the country continue to see sharp increases in activity. It’s possible that nationwide ILI could rise again. ILI continues to be higher than what is seen during the peak of most regular flu seasons.
* Total influenza hospitalization rates for laboratory-confirmed flu are climbing and are higher than expected for this time of year. Hospitalization rates continue to be highest is younger populations with the highest hospitalization rate reported in children 0-4 years old.
* The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) based on the 122 Cities Report continues to increase and has been higher for five weeks now than what is expected at this time of year. In addition, 18 flu-related pediatric deaths were reported this week; 15 of these deaths were confirmed 2009 H1N1, and three were influenza A viruses, but were not sub-typed. Since April 2009, CDC has received reports of 129 laboratory-confirmed pediatric 2009 H1N1 deaths and another 15 pediatric deaths that were laboratory confirmed as influenza, but where the flu virus subtype was not determined. (Editor's Note: It is reasonable to assume that the total number of Pediatric deaths due to Swine Flu [to date] is 144)
* Forty-eight states are reporting widespread influenza activity at this time; a decline of one state over last week. They are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This many reports of widespread activity at this time of year are unprecedented during seasonal flu.
* Almost all of the influenza viruses identified so far continue to be 2009 H1N1 influenza A viruses. These viruses remain similar to the virus chosen for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, and remain susceptible to the antiviral drugs Oseltamivir and Zanamivir with rare exception
Thursday, November 5, 2009
2009 H1N1 Flu ("Swine Flu") and You
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
November 3, 2009 11:45 AM ET
In The News
2009 H1N1 Hospitalizations in People with Asthma
What does CDC know about hospitalizations among people with asthma who get 2009 H1N1 flu? (November 3, 2009)
People with asthma are at higher risk for serious complications from influenza (flu), including 2009 H1N1 flu. This can place people with asthma at higher risk of hospitalization when they have 2009 H1N1 flu. CDC monitors 2009-H1N1 related hospitalizations, including among people with asthma, through the Emerging Infections Program (EIP).
What is the Emerging Infections Program (EIP)? (November 3, 2009)
The EIP Influenza Project conducts surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza (flu) related hospitalizations in children (persons younger than 18 years) and adults in 62 counties covering 13 metropolitan areas of 10 states (for more information see the overview of influenza surveillance in the United States). Cases are identified by reviewing hospital laboratory and admission databases and infection control logs for children and adults with a documented positive influenza test* conducted as a part of routine patient care. EIP estimated hospitalization rates are reported every week during the flu season.
*Tests used by EIP to confirm influenza infection include viral culture, direct/indirect fluorescent antibody assay (DFA/IFA), real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), or a commercial rapid antigen test.
What percentage of people hospitalized with 2009 H1N1 flu have asthma? (November 3, 2009)
According to Emerging Infections Program (EIP) data collected from April 15 through October 27, 2009, 32% of people hospitalized with 2009 H1N1 had asthma. Among adults hospitalized with 2009 H1N1, 30% had asthma, whereas 35% of hospitalized children with 2009 H1N1 had asthma.
What percentage of people hospitalized with asthma and 2009 H1N1 are admitted to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU)? (November 3, 2009)
According to Emerging Infections Program (EIP) data collected from April 15 - October 27, 2009, 21% of hospitalized adults with asthma and a 2009 H1N1 infection and 18% of hospitalized children with asthma and a 2009 H1N1 infection were admitted to an ICU. No significant differences in the number of ICU admissions were noted between 2009 H1N1 infected people hospitalized with or without asthma.
What percentage of hospitalizations for 2009 H1N1 flu occur in different age groups in the United States? October 20
The percentage of hospitalizations for 2009 H1N1 flu in the United States varies by age group. From August 30, 2009 through October 10, 2009, states reported 4,958 laboratory-confirmed 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations to CDC. The percentage of 2009 H1N1 related hospitalizations that occurred among those 0 to 4 years old was 19%; among those 5 years to 18 years was 25%; among people 19 years to 24 years was 9%; among those 25 years to 49 years was 24%; among people 50 to 64 years was 15%; and among people 65 years and older was 7%. For a graphical representation of this data, please see the chart below.
What percentage of deaths for 2009 H1N1 flu occur in different age groups in the United States? October 20
The percentage of deaths for 2009 H1N1 flu in the United States varies by age group. From August 30, 2009 through October 10, 2009, states reported 292 laboratory-confirmed 2009 H1N1 deaths to CDC. The percentage of 2009 H1N1 related deaths that occurred among people 0 years to 4 years was 3%; among those 5 years to 18 years was 14%; among people 19 to 24 years was 7%; among people 25 to 49 years was 33%; among people 50-64 years was 32%; and among people 65 years and older was 12%. For a graphical representation of this data, please see the chart below.
2009 H1N1 Flu
What is 2009 H1N1 (swine flu)?
2009 H1N1 (sometimes called “swine flu”) is a new influenza virus causing illness in people. This new virus was first detected in people in the United States in April 2009. This virus is spreading from person-to-person worldwide, probably in much the same way that regular seasonal influenza viruses spread. On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization External Web Site Icon (WHO) signaled that a pandemic of 2009 H1N1 flu was underway.
Why is 2009 H1N1 virus sometimes called “swine flu”?
This virus was originally referred to as “swine flu” because laboratory testing showed that many of the genes in this new virus were very similar to influenza viruses that normally occur in pigs (swine) in North America. But further study has shown that this new virus is very different from what normally circulates in North American pigs. It has two genes from flu viruses that normally circulate in pigs in Europe and Asia and bird (avian) genes and human genes. Scientists call this a "quadruple reassortment" virus.
2009 H1N1 Flu in Humans
Are there human infections with 2009 H1N1 virus in the U.S.?
Yes. Human infections with 2009 H1N1 are ongoing in the United States. Most people who have become ill with this new virus have recovered without requiring medical treatment.
CDC routinely works with states to collect, compile and analyze information about influenza, and has done the same for the new H1N1 virus since the beginning of the outbreak. This information is presented in a weekly report, called FluView.
Is 2009 H1N1 virus contagious?
The 2009 H1N1 virus is contagious and is spreading from human to human.
How does 2009 H1N1 virus spread?
Spread of 2009 H1N1 virus is thought to occur in the same way that seasonal flu spreads. Flu viruses are spread mainly from person to person through coughing or sneezing by people with influenza. Sometimes people may become infected by touching something – such as a surface or object – with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose.
Photo of nurse and child
What are the signs and symptoms of this virus in people?
The symptoms of 2009 H1N1 flu virus in people include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people may have vomiting and diarrhea. People may be infected with the flu, including 2009 H1N1 and have respiratory symptoms without a fever. Severe illnesses and deaths have occurred as a result of illness associated with this virus.
How severe is illness associated with 2009 H1N1 flu virus?
Illness with 2009 H1N1 virus has ranged from mild to severe. While most people who have been sick have recovered without needing medical treatment, hospitalizations and deaths from infection with this virus have occurred.
In seasonal flu, certain people are at “high risk” of serious complications. This includes people 65 years and older, children younger than five years old, pregnant women, and people of any age with certain chronic medical conditions. About 70 percent of people who have been hospitalized with this 2009 H1N1 virus have had one or more medical conditions previously recognized as placing people at “high risk” of serious seasonal flu-related complications. This includes pregnancy, diabetes, heart disease, asthma and kidney disease.
Young children are also at high risk of serious complications from 2009 H1N1, just as they are from seasonal flu. And while people 65 and older are the least likely to be infected with 2009 H1N1 flu, if they get sick, they are also at “high risk” of developing serious complications from their illness. See People at High Risk of Developing Flu-Related Complications for more information about who is more likely to get flu complications that result in being hospitalized and occasionally result in death.
CDC laboratory studies have shown that no children and very few adults younger than 60 years old have existing antibody to 2009 H1N1 flu virus; however, about one-third of adults older than 60 may have antibodies against this virus. It is unknown how much, if any, protection may be afforded against 2009 H1N1 flu by any existing antibody.
How does 2009 H1N1 flu compare to seasonal flu in terms of its severity and infection rates?
With seasonal flu, we know that seasons vary in terms of timing, duration and severity. Seasonal influenza can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death. Each year, in the United States, on average 36,000 people die from flu-related complications and more than 200,000 people are hospitalized from flu-related causes. Of those hospitalized, 20,000 are children younger than 5 years old. Over 90% of deaths and about 60 percent of hospitalization occur in people older than 65.
When the 2009 H1N1 outbreak was first detected in mid-April 2009, CDC began working with states to collect, compile and analyze information regarding the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak, including the numbers of confirmed and probable cases and the ages of these people. The information analyzed by CDC supports the conclusion that 2009 H1N1 flu has caused greater disease burden in people younger than 25 years of age than older people. At this time, there are relatively fewer cases and deaths reported in people 65 years and older, which is unusual when compared with seasonal flu. However, pregnancy and other previously recognized high risk medical conditions from seasonal influenza appear to be associated with increased risk of complications from this 2009 H1N1. These underlying conditions include asthma, diabetes, suppressed immune systems, heart disease, kidney disease, neurocognitive and neuromuscular disorders and pregnancy.
How long can an infected person spread this virus to others?
People infected with seasonal and 2009 H1N1 flu shed virus and may be able to infect others from 1 day before getting sick to 5 to 7 days after. This can be longer in some people, especially children and people with weakened immune systems and in people infected with the new H1N1 virus.
Prevention & Treatment
What can I do to protect myself from getting sick? Oct 8
This season, there is a seasonal flu vaccine to protect against seasonal flu viruses and a 2009 H1N1 vaccine to protect against the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus (sometimes called “swine flu”). A flu vaccine is the first and most important step in protecting against flu infection. For information about the 2009 H1N1 vaccines, visit H1N1 Flu Vaccination Resources. For information about seasonal influenza vaccines, visit Preventing Seasonal Flu With Vaccination.
There are also everyday actions that can help prevent the spread of germs that cause respiratory illnesses like the flu.
Take these everyday steps to protect your health:
Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
* Wash your hands often with soap and water. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub.*
* Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs spread this way.
* Try to avoid close contact with sick people.
* If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.) Keep away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick.
Other important actions that you can take are:
* Follow public health advice regarding school closures, avoiding crowds and other social distancing measures.
* Be prepared in case you get sick and need to stay home for a week or so; a supply of over-the-counter medicines, alcohol-based hand rubs * (for when soap and water are not available), tissues and other related items could help you to avoid the need to make trips out in public while you are sick and contagious.
What is the best way to keep from spreading the virus through coughing or sneezing?
If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.)
Keep away from others as much as possible. Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing. Put your used tissue in the waste basket. Then, clean your hands, and do so every time you cough or sneeze.
If I have a family member at home who is sick with 2009 H1N1 flu, should I go to work?
Employees who are well but who have an ill family member at home with 2009 H1N1 flu can go to work as usual. These employees should monitor their health every day, and take everyday precautions including covering their coughs and sneezes and washing their hands often with soap and water, especially after they cough or sneeze. If soap and water are not available, they should use an alcohol-based hand rub.* If they become ill, they should notify their supervisor and stay home. Employees who have an underlying medical condition or who are pregnant should call their health care provider for advice, because they might need to receive influenza antiviral drugs. For more information please see General Business and Workplace Guidance for the Prevention of Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Flu in Workers.
What is the best technique for washing my hands to avoid getting the flu?
Washing your hands often will help protect you from germs. CDC recommends that when you wash your hands -- with soap and warm water -- that you wash for 15 to 20 seconds. When soap and water are not available, alcohol-based disposable hand wipes or gel sanitizers may be used.* You can find them in most supermarkets and drugstores. If using gel, rub your hands until the gel is dry. The gel doesn't need water to work; the alcohol in it kills the germs on your hands.
What should I do if I get sick?
For information about what to do if you get sick with flu-like symptoms this season, see What To Do If You Get Sick: 2009 H1N1 and Seasonal Flu. A downloadable flyer Adobe PDF file containing this information also is available HERE...
What are “emergency warning signs” that should signal anyone to seek medical care urgently?
In children:
* Fast breathing or trouble breathing
* Bluish skin color
* Not drinking enough fluids
* Not waking up or not interacting
* Being so irritable that the child does not want to be held
* Flu-like symptoms improve but then return with fever and worse cough
* Fever with a rash
In adults:
* Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
* Pain or pressure in the chest or abdomen
* Sudden dizziness
* Confusion
* Severe or persistent vomiting
Are there medicines to treat 2009 H1N1 infection?
Yes. There are drugs your doctor may prescribe for treating both seasonal and 2009 H1N1 called “antiviral drugs.” These drugs can make you better faster and may also prevent serious complications. This flu season, antiviral drugs are being used mainly to treat people who are very sick, such as people who need to be hospitalized, and to treat sick people who are more likely to get serious flu complications. Your health care provider will decide whether antiviral drugs are needed to treat your illness. Remember, most people with 2009 H1N1 have had mild illness and have not needed medical care or antiviral drugs and the same is true of seasonal flu.
What is CDC’s recommendation regarding "swine flu parties"?
"Swine flu parties" are gatherings during which people have close contact with a person who has 2009 H1N1 flu in order to become infected with the virus. The intent of these parties is for a person to become infected with what for many people has been a mild disease, in the hope of having natural immunity 2009 H1N1 flu virus that might circulate later and cause more severe disease.
CDC does not recommend "swine flu parties" as a way to protect against 2009 H1N1 flu in the future. While the disease seen in the current 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak has been mild for many people, it has been severe and even fatal for others. There is no way to predict with certainty what the outcome will be for an individual or, equally important, for others to whom the intentionally infected person may spread the virus.
CDC recommends that people with 2009 H1N1 flu avoid contact with others as much as possible. If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.) Stay away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick.
Contamination & Cleaning
How long can influenza virus remain viable on objects (such as books and doorknobs)?
Studies have shown that influenza virus can survive on environmental surfaces and can infect a person for 2 to 8 hours after being deposited on the surface.
What kills influenza virus?
Influenza virus is destroyed by heat (167-212°F [75-100°C]). In addition, several chemical germicides, including chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, detergents (soap), iodophors (iodine-based antiseptics), and alcohols are effective against human influenza viruses if used in proper concentration for a sufficient length of time.
*What if soap and water are not available and alcohol-based products are not allowed in my facility? Updated on Sept 14
If soap and water are not available and alcohol-based products are not allowed, other hand sanitizers that do not contain alcohol may be useful.
What surfaces are most likely to be sources of contamination?
Germs can be spread when a person touches something that is contaminated with germs and then touches his or her eyes, nose, or mouth. Droplets from a cough or sneeze of an infected person move through the air. Germs can be spread when a person touches respiratory droplets from another person on a surface like a desk, for example, and then touches their own eyes, mouth or nose before washing their hands.
How should waste disposal be handled to prevent the spread of influenza virus?
To prevent the spread of influenza virus, it is recommended that tissues and other disposable items used by an infected person be thrown in the trash. Additionally, persons should wash their hands with soap and water after touching used tissues and similar waste.
What household cleaning should be done to prevent the spread of influenza virus?
To prevent the spread of influenza virus it is important to keep surfaces (especially bedside tables, surfaces in the bathroom, kitchen counters and toys for children) clean by wiping them down with a household disinfectant according to directions on the product label.
How should linens, eating utensils and dishes of persons infected with influenza virus be handled?
Linens, eating utensils, and dishes belonging to those who are sick do not need to be cleaned separately, but importantly these items should not be shared without washing thoroughly first.
Linens (such as bed sheets and towels) should be washed by using household laundry soap and tumbled dry on a hot setting. Individuals should avoid "hugging" laundry prior to washing it to prevent contaminating themselves. Individuals should wash their hands with soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub immediately after handling dirty laundry.
Eating utensils should be washed either in a dishwasher or by hand with water and soap.
Exposures Not Thought to Spread 2009 H1N1 Flu
Can I get infected with 2009 H1N1 virus from eating or preparing pork?
No. 2009 H1N1 viruses are not spread by food. You cannot get infected with novel HIN1 virus from eating pork or pork products. Eating properly handled and cooked pork products is safe.
Is there a risk from drinking water?
Tap water that has been treated by conventional disinfection processes does not likely pose a risk for transmission of influenza viruses. Current drinking water treatment regulations provide a high degree of protection from viruses. No research has been completed on the susceptibility of 2009 H1N1 flu virus to conventional drinking water treatment processes. However, recent studies have demonstrated that free chlorine levels typically used in drinking water treatment are adequate to inactivate highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza. It is likely that other influenza viruses such as 2009 H1N1 would also be similarly inactivated by chlorination. To date, there have been no documented human cases of influenza caused by exposure to influenza-contaminated drinking water.
Can 2009 H1N1 flu virus be spread through water in swimming pools, spas, water parks, interactive fountains, and other treated recreational water venues?
Influenza viruses infect the human upper respiratory tract. There has never been a documented case of influenza virus infection associated with water exposure. Recreational water that has been treated at CDC recommended disinfectant levels does not likely pose a risk for transmission of influenza viruses. No research has been completed on the susceptibility of 2009 H1N1 influenza virus to chlorine and other disinfectants used in swimming pools, spas, water parks, interactive fountains, and other treated recreational venues. However, recent studies have demonstrated that free chlorine levels recommended by CDC (1–3 parts per million [ppm or mg/L] for pools and 2–5 ppm for spas) are adequate to disinfect avian influenza A (H5N1) virus. It is likely that other influenza viruses such as 2009 H1N1 virus would also be similarly disinfected by chlorine.
Can 2009 H1N1 influenza virus be spread at recreational water venues outside of the water?
Yes, recreational water venues are no different than any other group setting. The spread of this 2009 H1N1 flu is thought to be happening in the same way that seasonal flu spreads. Flu viruses are spread mainly from person to person through coughing or sneezing of people with influenza. Sometimes people may become infected by touching something with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose.
Note: Much of the information in this document is based on studies and past experience with seasonal (human) influenza. CDC believes the information applies to 2009 H1N1 (swine) viruses as well, but studies on this virus are ongoing to learn more about its characteristics. This document will be updated as new information becomes available.
November 3, 2009 11:45 AM ET
In The News
2009 H1N1 Hospitalizations in People with Asthma
What does CDC know about hospitalizations among people with asthma who get 2009 H1N1 flu? (November 3, 2009)
People with asthma are at higher risk for serious complications from influenza (flu), including 2009 H1N1 flu. This can place people with asthma at higher risk of hospitalization when they have 2009 H1N1 flu. CDC monitors 2009-H1N1 related hospitalizations, including among people with asthma, through the Emerging Infections Program (EIP).
What is the Emerging Infections Program (EIP)? (November 3, 2009)
The EIP Influenza Project conducts surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza (flu) related hospitalizations in children (persons younger than 18 years) and adults in 62 counties covering 13 metropolitan areas of 10 states (for more information see the overview of influenza surveillance in the United States). Cases are identified by reviewing hospital laboratory and admission databases and infection control logs for children and adults with a documented positive influenza test* conducted as a part of routine patient care. EIP estimated hospitalization rates are reported every week during the flu season.
*Tests used by EIP to confirm influenza infection include viral culture, direct/indirect fluorescent antibody assay (DFA/IFA), real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), or a commercial rapid antigen test.
What percentage of people hospitalized with 2009 H1N1 flu have asthma? (November 3, 2009)
According to Emerging Infections Program (EIP) data collected from April 15 through October 27, 2009, 32% of people hospitalized with 2009 H1N1 had asthma. Among adults hospitalized with 2009 H1N1, 30% had asthma, whereas 35% of hospitalized children with 2009 H1N1 had asthma.
What percentage of people hospitalized with asthma and 2009 H1N1 are admitted to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU)? (November 3, 2009)
According to Emerging Infections Program (EIP) data collected from April 15 - October 27, 2009, 21% of hospitalized adults with asthma and a 2009 H1N1 infection and 18% of hospitalized children with asthma and a 2009 H1N1 infection were admitted to an ICU. No significant differences in the number of ICU admissions were noted between 2009 H1N1 infected people hospitalized with or without asthma.
What percentage of hospitalizations for 2009 H1N1 flu occur in different age groups in the United States? October 20
The percentage of hospitalizations for 2009 H1N1 flu in the United States varies by age group. From August 30, 2009 through October 10, 2009, states reported 4,958 laboratory-confirmed 2009 H1N1 hospitalizations to CDC. The percentage of 2009 H1N1 related hospitalizations that occurred among those 0 to 4 years old was 19%; among those 5 years to 18 years was 25%; among people 19 years to 24 years was 9%; among those 25 years to 49 years was 24%; among people 50 to 64 years was 15%; and among people 65 years and older was 7%. For a graphical representation of this data, please see the chart below.
What percentage of deaths for 2009 H1N1 flu occur in different age groups in the United States? October 20
The percentage of deaths for 2009 H1N1 flu in the United States varies by age group. From August 30, 2009 through October 10, 2009, states reported 292 laboratory-confirmed 2009 H1N1 deaths to CDC. The percentage of 2009 H1N1 related deaths that occurred among people 0 years to 4 years was 3%; among those 5 years to 18 years was 14%; among people 19 to 24 years was 7%; among people 25 to 49 years was 33%; among people 50-64 years was 32%; and among people 65 years and older was 12%. For a graphical representation of this data, please see the chart below.
2009 H1N1 Flu
What is 2009 H1N1 (swine flu)?
2009 H1N1 (sometimes called “swine flu”) is a new influenza virus causing illness in people. This new virus was first detected in people in the United States in April 2009. This virus is spreading from person-to-person worldwide, probably in much the same way that regular seasonal influenza viruses spread. On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization External Web Site Icon (WHO) signaled that a pandemic of 2009 H1N1 flu was underway.
Why is 2009 H1N1 virus sometimes called “swine flu”?
This virus was originally referred to as “swine flu” because laboratory testing showed that many of the genes in this new virus were very similar to influenza viruses that normally occur in pigs (swine) in North America. But further study has shown that this new virus is very different from what normally circulates in North American pigs. It has two genes from flu viruses that normally circulate in pigs in Europe and Asia and bird (avian) genes and human genes. Scientists call this a "quadruple reassortment" virus.
2009 H1N1 Flu in Humans
Are there human infections with 2009 H1N1 virus in the U.S.?
Yes. Human infections with 2009 H1N1 are ongoing in the United States. Most people who have become ill with this new virus have recovered without requiring medical treatment.
CDC routinely works with states to collect, compile and analyze information about influenza, and has done the same for the new H1N1 virus since the beginning of the outbreak. This information is presented in a weekly report, called FluView.
Is 2009 H1N1 virus contagious?
The 2009 H1N1 virus is contagious and is spreading from human to human.
How does 2009 H1N1 virus spread?
Spread of 2009 H1N1 virus is thought to occur in the same way that seasonal flu spreads. Flu viruses are spread mainly from person to person through coughing or sneezing by people with influenza. Sometimes people may become infected by touching something – such as a surface or object – with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose.
Photo of nurse and child
What are the signs and symptoms of this virus in people?
The symptoms of 2009 H1N1 flu virus in people include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people may have vomiting and diarrhea. People may be infected with the flu, including 2009 H1N1 and have respiratory symptoms without a fever. Severe illnesses and deaths have occurred as a result of illness associated with this virus.
How severe is illness associated with 2009 H1N1 flu virus?
Illness with 2009 H1N1 virus has ranged from mild to severe. While most people who have been sick have recovered without needing medical treatment, hospitalizations and deaths from infection with this virus have occurred.
In seasonal flu, certain people are at “high risk” of serious complications. This includes people 65 years and older, children younger than five years old, pregnant women, and people of any age with certain chronic medical conditions. About 70 percent of people who have been hospitalized with this 2009 H1N1 virus have had one or more medical conditions previously recognized as placing people at “high risk” of serious seasonal flu-related complications. This includes pregnancy, diabetes, heart disease, asthma and kidney disease.
Young children are also at high risk of serious complications from 2009 H1N1, just as they are from seasonal flu. And while people 65 and older are the least likely to be infected with 2009 H1N1 flu, if they get sick, they are also at “high risk” of developing serious complications from their illness. See People at High Risk of Developing Flu-Related Complications for more information about who is more likely to get flu complications that result in being hospitalized and occasionally result in death.
CDC laboratory studies have shown that no children and very few adults younger than 60 years old have existing antibody to 2009 H1N1 flu virus; however, about one-third of adults older than 60 may have antibodies against this virus. It is unknown how much, if any, protection may be afforded against 2009 H1N1 flu by any existing antibody.
How does 2009 H1N1 flu compare to seasonal flu in terms of its severity and infection rates?
With seasonal flu, we know that seasons vary in terms of timing, duration and severity. Seasonal influenza can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death. Each year, in the United States, on average 36,000 people die from flu-related complications and more than 200,000 people are hospitalized from flu-related causes. Of those hospitalized, 20,000 are children younger than 5 years old. Over 90% of deaths and about 60 percent of hospitalization occur in people older than 65.
When the 2009 H1N1 outbreak was first detected in mid-April 2009, CDC began working with states to collect, compile and analyze information regarding the 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak, including the numbers of confirmed and probable cases and the ages of these people. The information analyzed by CDC supports the conclusion that 2009 H1N1 flu has caused greater disease burden in people younger than 25 years of age than older people. At this time, there are relatively fewer cases and deaths reported in people 65 years and older, which is unusual when compared with seasonal flu. However, pregnancy and other previously recognized high risk medical conditions from seasonal influenza appear to be associated with increased risk of complications from this 2009 H1N1. These underlying conditions include asthma, diabetes, suppressed immune systems, heart disease, kidney disease, neurocognitive and neuromuscular disorders and pregnancy.
How long can an infected person spread this virus to others?
People infected with seasonal and 2009 H1N1 flu shed virus and may be able to infect others from 1 day before getting sick to 5 to 7 days after. This can be longer in some people, especially children and people with weakened immune systems and in people infected with the new H1N1 virus.
Prevention & Treatment
What can I do to protect myself from getting sick? Oct 8
This season, there is a seasonal flu vaccine to protect against seasonal flu viruses and a 2009 H1N1 vaccine to protect against the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus (sometimes called “swine flu”). A flu vaccine is the first and most important step in protecting against flu infection. For information about the 2009 H1N1 vaccines, visit H1N1 Flu Vaccination Resources. For information about seasonal influenza vaccines, visit Preventing Seasonal Flu With Vaccination.
There are also everyday actions that can help prevent the spread of germs that cause respiratory illnesses like the flu.
Take these everyday steps to protect your health:
Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
* Wash your hands often with soap and water. If soap and water are not available, use an alcohol-based hand rub.*
* Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs spread this way.
* Try to avoid close contact with sick people.
* If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.) Keep away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick.
Other important actions that you can take are:
* Follow public health advice regarding school closures, avoiding crowds and other social distancing measures.
* Be prepared in case you get sick and need to stay home for a week or so; a supply of over-the-counter medicines, alcohol-based hand rubs * (for when soap and water are not available), tissues and other related items could help you to avoid the need to make trips out in public while you are sick and contagious.
What is the best way to keep from spreading the virus through coughing or sneezing?
If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.)
Keep away from others as much as possible. Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when coughing or sneezing. Put your used tissue in the waste basket. Then, clean your hands, and do so every time you cough or sneeze.
If I have a family member at home who is sick with 2009 H1N1 flu, should I go to work?
Employees who are well but who have an ill family member at home with 2009 H1N1 flu can go to work as usual. These employees should monitor their health every day, and take everyday precautions including covering their coughs and sneezes and washing their hands often with soap and water, especially after they cough or sneeze. If soap and water are not available, they should use an alcohol-based hand rub.* If they become ill, they should notify their supervisor and stay home. Employees who have an underlying medical condition or who are pregnant should call their health care provider for advice, because they might need to receive influenza antiviral drugs. For more information please see General Business and Workplace Guidance for the Prevention of Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Flu in Workers.
What is the best technique for washing my hands to avoid getting the flu?
Washing your hands often will help protect you from germs. CDC recommends that when you wash your hands -- with soap and warm water -- that you wash for 15 to 20 seconds. When soap and water are not available, alcohol-based disposable hand wipes or gel sanitizers may be used.* You can find them in most supermarkets and drugstores. If using gel, rub your hands until the gel is dry. The gel doesn't need water to work; the alcohol in it kills the germs on your hands.
What should I do if I get sick?
For information about what to do if you get sick with flu-like symptoms this season, see What To Do If You Get Sick: 2009 H1N1 and Seasonal Flu. A downloadable flyer Adobe PDF file containing this information also is available HERE...
What are “emergency warning signs” that should signal anyone to seek medical care urgently?
In children:
* Fast breathing or trouble breathing
* Bluish skin color
* Not drinking enough fluids
* Not waking up or not interacting
* Being so irritable that the child does not want to be held
* Flu-like symptoms improve but then return with fever and worse cough
* Fever with a rash
In adults:
* Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
* Pain or pressure in the chest or abdomen
* Sudden dizziness
* Confusion
* Severe or persistent vomiting
Are there medicines to treat 2009 H1N1 infection?
Yes. There are drugs your doctor may prescribe for treating both seasonal and 2009 H1N1 called “antiviral drugs.” These drugs can make you better faster and may also prevent serious complications. This flu season, antiviral drugs are being used mainly to treat people who are very sick, such as people who need to be hospitalized, and to treat sick people who are more likely to get serious flu complications. Your health care provider will decide whether antiviral drugs are needed to treat your illness. Remember, most people with 2009 H1N1 have had mild illness and have not needed medical care or antiviral drugs and the same is true of seasonal flu.
What is CDC’s recommendation regarding "swine flu parties"?
"Swine flu parties" are gatherings during which people have close contact with a person who has 2009 H1N1 flu in order to become infected with the virus. The intent of these parties is for a person to become infected with what for many people has been a mild disease, in the hope of having natural immunity 2009 H1N1 flu virus that might circulate later and cause more severe disease.
CDC does not recommend "swine flu parties" as a way to protect against 2009 H1N1 flu in the future. While the disease seen in the current 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak has been mild for many people, it has been severe and even fatal for others. There is no way to predict with certainty what the outcome will be for an individual or, equally important, for others to whom the intentionally infected person may spread the virus.
CDC recommends that people with 2009 H1N1 flu avoid contact with others as much as possible. If you are sick with flu-like illness, CDC recommends that you stay home for at least 24 hours after your fever is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities. (Your fever should be gone without the use of a fever-reducing medicine.) Stay away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick.
Contamination & Cleaning
How long can influenza virus remain viable on objects (such as books and doorknobs)?
Studies have shown that influenza virus can survive on environmental surfaces and can infect a person for 2 to 8 hours after being deposited on the surface.
What kills influenza virus?
Influenza virus is destroyed by heat (167-212°F [75-100°C]). In addition, several chemical germicides, including chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, detergents (soap), iodophors (iodine-based antiseptics), and alcohols are effective against human influenza viruses if used in proper concentration for a sufficient length of time.
*What if soap and water are not available and alcohol-based products are not allowed in my facility? Updated on Sept 14
If soap and water are not available and alcohol-based products are not allowed, other hand sanitizers that do not contain alcohol may be useful.
What surfaces are most likely to be sources of contamination?
Germs can be spread when a person touches something that is contaminated with germs and then touches his or her eyes, nose, or mouth. Droplets from a cough or sneeze of an infected person move through the air. Germs can be spread when a person touches respiratory droplets from another person on a surface like a desk, for example, and then touches their own eyes, mouth or nose before washing their hands.
How should waste disposal be handled to prevent the spread of influenza virus?
To prevent the spread of influenza virus, it is recommended that tissues and other disposable items used by an infected person be thrown in the trash. Additionally, persons should wash their hands with soap and water after touching used tissues and similar waste.
What household cleaning should be done to prevent the spread of influenza virus?
To prevent the spread of influenza virus it is important to keep surfaces (especially bedside tables, surfaces in the bathroom, kitchen counters and toys for children) clean by wiping them down with a household disinfectant according to directions on the product label.
How should linens, eating utensils and dishes of persons infected with influenza virus be handled?
Linens, eating utensils, and dishes belonging to those who are sick do not need to be cleaned separately, but importantly these items should not be shared without washing thoroughly first.
Linens (such as bed sheets and towels) should be washed by using household laundry soap and tumbled dry on a hot setting. Individuals should avoid "hugging" laundry prior to washing it to prevent contaminating themselves. Individuals should wash their hands with soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub immediately after handling dirty laundry.
Eating utensils should be washed either in a dishwasher or by hand with water and soap.
Exposures Not Thought to Spread 2009 H1N1 Flu
Can I get infected with 2009 H1N1 virus from eating or preparing pork?
No. 2009 H1N1 viruses are not spread by food. You cannot get infected with novel HIN1 virus from eating pork or pork products. Eating properly handled and cooked pork products is safe.
Is there a risk from drinking water?
Tap water that has been treated by conventional disinfection processes does not likely pose a risk for transmission of influenza viruses. Current drinking water treatment regulations provide a high degree of protection from viruses. No research has been completed on the susceptibility of 2009 H1N1 flu virus to conventional drinking water treatment processes. However, recent studies have demonstrated that free chlorine levels typically used in drinking water treatment are adequate to inactivate highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza. It is likely that other influenza viruses such as 2009 H1N1 would also be similarly inactivated by chlorination. To date, there have been no documented human cases of influenza caused by exposure to influenza-contaminated drinking water.
Can 2009 H1N1 flu virus be spread through water in swimming pools, spas, water parks, interactive fountains, and other treated recreational water venues?
Influenza viruses infect the human upper respiratory tract. There has never been a documented case of influenza virus infection associated with water exposure. Recreational water that has been treated at CDC recommended disinfectant levels does not likely pose a risk for transmission of influenza viruses. No research has been completed on the susceptibility of 2009 H1N1 influenza virus to chlorine and other disinfectants used in swimming pools, spas, water parks, interactive fountains, and other treated recreational venues. However, recent studies have demonstrated that free chlorine levels recommended by CDC (1–3 parts per million [ppm or mg/L] for pools and 2–5 ppm for spas) are adequate to disinfect avian influenza A (H5N1) virus. It is likely that other influenza viruses such as 2009 H1N1 virus would also be similarly disinfected by chlorine.
Can 2009 H1N1 influenza virus be spread at recreational water venues outside of the water?
Yes, recreational water venues are no different than any other group setting. The spread of this 2009 H1N1 flu is thought to be happening in the same way that seasonal flu spreads. Flu viruses are spread mainly from person to person through coughing or sneezing of people with influenza. Sometimes people may become infected by touching something with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose.
Note: Much of the information in this document is based on studies and past experience with seasonal (human) influenza. CDC believes the information applies to 2009 H1N1 (swine) viruses as well, but studies on this virus are ongoing to learn more about its characteristics. This document will be updated as new information becomes available.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
US rushing swine flu vaccine clinical trials
Editor's NOTE:
This piece is included in way of background to help demonstrate that the timing of the initial "Swine Flu" presentation last year demanded an expedited vaccine development phase and an accelerated vaccine clinical trial phase.
As mentioned in my "Primer" HERE... the data from these clinical trials is incomplete to date and must be carefully monitored. Nevertheless, members of high-risk groups should strongly consider getting the vaccine when it is made available as to date the reported complication rate appears to be acceptably low.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By: Deborah Shlian
July 28, 2009
Miami Health Care Examiner
As the swine flu continues to rapidly move across the globe, the World Health Organization has stopped asking governments to report new cases, claiming the effort is too great now that the disease has become so widespread. Instead, the focus is on developing strategies for preventing what some experts fear will be a new, more serious outbreak of swine flu in the fall and winter months just when seasonal flu arrives.
Pharamceutical companies are rushing to develop a vaccine by early fall. Clinical trials have already started in Australia. Canadian trials will begin by September or early October. Federal health officials announced that the first US clinical trials will begin in August and will be conducted in what Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease described as “a two month compressed time frame” in which about 2400 volunteers will be tested. The initial tests will be of vaccines made by Sanofi-Pasteur, a European company, and CLS Biotherapies, an Australian company that has supplied seasonal flu shots in the US for years. A third company, Novartis, is conducting separate trials for FDA licensing.
Adult volunteers for the clinical trials will be recruited at 8 separate sites including Emory University in Atlanta, the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati, Group Health Cooperative in Seattle, the University Iowa in Iowa City, and St. Louis University.
Initial studies will determine whether one or two 15-microgram doses of A/H1N1 swine flu vaccine are needed to produce an immune response in healthy adult volunteers (18 to 64 years) and elderly people (65 years and older).
The doses will be given 21 days apart. If there are early indications that the vaccines are safe, similar trials in healthy children (six months to 17 years) will begin. According to Fauci, later tests may include pregnant women, who are at higher risk for swine flu complications.
Vaccines will be given to different sets of volunteers before, after or at the same time as the seasonal flu vaccine. Every volunteer will be monitored for negative side effects including allergic reactions to the chicken eggs that the vaccines are grown in.
Researchers will also look out for Guillain-BarrĂ© syndrome , a rare reaction to any vaccine which can cause fever, serious nerve damage and muscle weakness. The 1976 vaccination of 40 million people after a swine flu outbreak in Fort Dix, N. J., was halted after some people developed the syndrome. However, the vaccine was never proved to be the cause. According to a 2009 worldwide literature review, approximately one person in 100,000 develops Guillain-BarrĂ© syndrome for unknown reasons. Unfortunately because the US vaccine trials are so small, it is unlikely to pick up such a rare side effect. “You’d have to vaccinate several hundred thousand or millions of people to do that,” Fauci said.
In addition to checking for adverse reactions, volunteers will have their blood tested about three weeks after the shot to see if antibodies to the virus have developed. Those with high levels of antibodies to the specific strain should be immune to the infection or at the very worst, get only a mild case of the flu if exposed to it.
Once these trials are completed and the vaccine is determined to be safe and effective, health officials can then make specific recommendations as to how to conduct a vaccination program and who should be vaccinated. (Editor's emphasis throughout)
Assuming things go according to schedule, the hope is to have as many as 160 million doses ready in the US by mid October and then 80 million doses a month later. Depending on how much vaccine is available and assuming most individuals will require two shots, it could take until March to vaccinate the full U.S. population of 300 million people.
None of the first trials will test a vaccine containing an adjuvant, which is an additive -generally an oil-water emulsion- that stimulates the immune system to react more strongly and helps to stretch the number of doses of vaccine needed. Adjuvants are common in veterinary vaccines and tend to cause more side effects. They are not now used in flu shots in the United States. But they are “not off the board,” Fauci said. “We’ve developed a mix-and-match protocol for them, but we want to see the data on vaccine safety first.” According to a report from Reuters, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department has contracted for 120 million doses of adjuvant which they might use if the flu mutates into a more dangerous form and the demand for more shots than are available results.
Federal advisers plan a meeting tomorrow to discuss who should receive the vaccination.
This piece is included in way of background to help demonstrate that the timing of the initial "Swine Flu" presentation last year demanded an expedited vaccine development phase and an accelerated vaccine clinical trial phase.
As mentioned in my "Primer" HERE... the data from these clinical trials is incomplete to date and must be carefully monitored. Nevertheless, members of high-risk groups should strongly consider getting the vaccine when it is made available as to date the reported complication rate appears to be acceptably low.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By: Deborah Shlian
July 28, 2009
Miami Health Care Examiner
As the swine flu continues to rapidly move across the globe, the World Health Organization has stopped asking governments to report new cases, claiming the effort is too great now that the disease has become so widespread. Instead, the focus is on developing strategies for preventing what some experts fear will be a new, more serious outbreak of swine flu in the fall and winter months just when seasonal flu arrives.
Pharamceutical companies are rushing to develop a vaccine by early fall. Clinical trials have already started in Australia. Canadian trials will begin by September or early October. Federal health officials announced that the first US clinical trials will begin in August and will be conducted in what Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease described as “a two month compressed time frame” in which about 2400 volunteers will be tested. The initial tests will be of vaccines made by Sanofi-Pasteur, a European company, and CLS Biotherapies, an Australian company that has supplied seasonal flu shots in the US for years. A third company, Novartis, is conducting separate trials for FDA licensing.
Adult volunteers for the clinical trials will be recruited at 8 separate sites including Emory University in Atlanta, the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati, Group Health Cooperative in Seattle, the University Iowa in Iowa City, and St. Louis University.
Initial studies will determine whether one or two 15-microgram doses of A/H1N1 swine flu vaccine are needed to produce an immune response in healthy adult volunteers (18 to 64 years) and elderly people (65 years and older).
The doses will be given 21 days apart. If there are early indications that the vaccines are safe, similar trials in healthy children (six months to 17 years) will begin. According to Fauci, later tests may include pregnant women, who are at higher risk for swine flu complications.
Vaccines will be given to different sets of volunteers before, after or at the same time as the seasonal flu vaccine. Every volunteer will be monitored for negative side effects including allergic reactions to the chicken eggs that the vaccines are grown in.
Researchers will also look out for Guillain-BarrĂ© syndrome , a rare reaction to any vaccine which can cause fever, serious nerve damage and muscle weakness. The 1976 vaccination of 40 million people after a swine flu outbreak in Fort Dix, N. J., was halted after some people developed the syndrome. However, the vaccine was never proved to be the cause. According to a 2009 worldwide literature review, approximately one person in 100,000 develops Guillain-BarrĂ© syndrome for unknown reasons. Unfortunately because the US vaccine trials are so small, it is unlikely to pick up such a rare side effect. “You’d have to vaccinate several hundred thousand or millions of people to do that,” Fauci said.
In addition to checking for adverse reactions, volunteers will have their blood tested about three weeks after the shot to see if antibodies to the virus have developed. Those with high levels of antibodies to the specific strain should be immune to the infection or at the very worst, get only a mild case of the flu if exposed to it.
Once these trials are completed and the vaccine is determined to be safe and effective, health officials can then make specific recommendations as to how to conduct a vaccination program and who should be vaccinated. (Editor's emphasis throughout)
Assuming things go according to schedule, the hope is to have as many as 160 million doses ready in the US by mid October and then 80 million doses a month later. Depending on how much vaccine is available and assuming most individuals will require two shots, it could take until March to vaccinate the full U.S. population of 300 million people.
None of the first trials will test a vaccine containing an adjuvant, which is an additive -generally an oil-water emulsion- that stimulates the immune system to react more strongly and helps to stretch the number of doses of vaccine needed. Adjuvants are common in veterinary vaccines and tend to cause more side effects. They are not now used in flu shots in the United States. But they are “not off the board,” Fauci said. “We’ve developed a mix-and-match protocol for them, but we want to see the data on vaccine safety first.” According to a report from Reuters, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department has contracted for 120 million doses of adjuvant which they might use if the flu mutates into a more dangerous form and the demand for more shots than are available results.
Federal advisers plan a meeting tomorrow to discuss who should receive the vaccination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?
In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)
This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.