The Manhattan Declaration

You can sign the above petition by clicking here.

I'm not one to jump on trendy causes. Usually I can be found swimming against the tide. And I'm not a big fan of online petitions, which is mostly what the Manhattan Declaration amounts to at this point. Having said that, I have to say that this document has taken on a life of its own; perhaps through the power and grace of the Holy Spirit.

The Manhattan Declaration is a Christian statement which focuses on three issues: Human Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty. I include below the shorter version of the declaration (the full version is available here). Please take the time to read it. And then afterwards I'll discuss the latest controversy that has recently emerged.

A Summary

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Human Life

The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.

Marriage

The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.

Religious Liberty

Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in antidiscrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities, businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including government itself—on which society depends.

Unjust Laws

As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.

Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.

Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.

Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Personally, when I read this declaration I don't see anything offensive. You can certainly disagree with this statement, but that in itself doesn't make it offensive. We live in a democracy and we don't always agree, but we respect the right of others to hold opinions counter to our own. Right?

Some people believe that the Manhattan Declaration should be banned. A group at Change.org decided that this statement amounts to a "hate fest". So they put together there own online petition demanding that Apple pull the Manhattan Declaration App off of the iTune store. They got 7,700 signatures and Apple banned the app. Here is the Change.org petition. Notice the language. Do you find it to be "tolerant" of others that do not share their opinion?

Targeting: Apple Media Relations and Steve Jobs (Chief Executive Officer)

Started by: Michael Rogers

Last month, The Apple iTunes Store approved and made available an application for the iPhone that invites users to join anti-gay and anti-choice campaigns, Jeremy Hooper of the popular blog GoodAsYou.org reported. As Jeremy explains, social conservatives like Watergate Criminal Chuck Colson created the Manhattan Declaration, a set of anti-choice and anti-LGBT beliefs, to promote restrictions on women's choice and LGBT equality.

Want to join the hate fest? There's an app for that!

Download the app and the Manhattan Declaration's so-called "survey" will invite you to answer questions like: Do you believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman? And, Do you support the right of choice regarding abortion? Once you answer the four questions a screen pops up and you learn that "survey" is actually not a "survey," but a "test." If you answer the questions the way pro-choice, pro-equality folks do, you'll be rewarded with this screen: "SURVEY COMPLETE! 0%, You answered 0 out of 4 questions correct. [sic]"

Users of the application are also asked to sign onto a set right-wing talking points that would make the average MSNBC viewer's head spin. This part of the application helps users support the elimination of choice for women, and stop the march to equality for LGBT people. Not enough? They're also all about the elimination of any separation between church and state.

You can see the web listing for the application here. Apple rates it a 4+. And what exactly is a 4+?"No objectionable material." Huh?

Supporters of equal rights and the right of women to control their own bodies must stand together and say to Apple: "Applications that support hate and division have no place in the iTunes Store." Apple needs to hear from concerned people now! Let's send a strong message to Apple that supporting homophobia and efforts to restrict choice is bad business.


PETITION TEXT
Please remove anti-LGBT, anti-women application from iTunes Store

Mr. Jobs:

I am joining with thousands of others in signing this letter to ask you to remove the Marriage Declaration application from the iTunes Store.

Apple has always been among the most progressive companies and earned a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, and yet, the company has approved application that is offensive to Americans who support equality and free choice.

The Manhattan Declaration application exists to collect signatures on a website which espouses hateful and divisive language, the very kind of language I hope the iTunes Store will not want to help disseminate. Despite the store rating the application 4+ ("no objectionable material), I can assure you that the application does in fact contain lots of objectionable material.

I am writing to ask that you immediately remove the application from the store. Apple's reputation is too important to be associated with this hate filled organization.

[Your name]

Apple came out with this tersely worded official statement explaining their decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration iPhone application from the iTunes store.

"We removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people."

Eager to join in on the Christian-bashing parade, the secular press has chimed in with headlines that say volumes about their inability to maintain a professional, objective stance on this issue.

• Apple removes anti-gay app from App Store (CNET)
• News: Apple Pulls Anti-Gay App from App Store (The Mac Observer)
• 'Anti-Gay' iPhone App Pulled From Apple Store (ABC News)
• Apple Yanks Anti-Gay App (PC Magazine)
• Apple Expunges Antigay App from Store (PC World)
• Apple Removes Anti-Gay iPhone App from iTunes Store (AAPL) (Investor's Business Daily)
• Apple pulls anti-gay app from App Store (msnbc.com)

Despite all the anti-cyberbullying rhetoric from the politically correct press, it seems that when it suits their purpose bullying is good. They seem to believe that it is just fine to bully Christians into accepting their secular dogma of political correctness, even when it is in direct opposition to fundamental Christian beliefs.

This was the whole point of the Manhattan Declaration in the first place. It was a statement encouraging Christians not to be bullied into submission by the "humanist" forces that seek to impose their views on society. And now we can see a very clear example of why such a firm statement of Christian opposition is necessary. It is not just empty rhetoric. It is not a hypothetical theological argument anymore. It is a reality in which we are living, which does not allow Christians to practice their faith in the manner that they have been taught for more than two millennium.

Despite the headlines, this is not an "anti-gay" campaign. We can respect a person who is involved in a homosexual relationship while still condemning his lifestyle choice as wrong. This is what Christ taught us. He did not condemn the woman who engaged in adultery, but he did condemn adultery. Christ teaches us true tolerance – not pretend, politically correct, as-long-as-you-agree-with-me "tolerance".

In this case a petition by 7,700 people at Change.org drowned out a petition by over 478,000 people in favor of the Manhattan Declaration. BTW, I don't know why I keep coming back to the "drowning" analogy. It seems to be an internal vision that I have of the Church being overcome by a flood of water and struggling to stay afloat. Perhaps it is an allusion to the struggles of the Church in Revelation 12:15-17.

The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

And this brings us to where we are now, and a new petition. This one to reinstate the Manhattan Declaration App. Perhaps through their bullying tactics Change.org and Apple will give more needed attention to the urgency of speaking out in defense of our Christian principles, which is the underlying spirit behind this declaration.

Petition to Steve Jobs and Apple

A petition to Steve Jobs, Apple, Inc., to restore the Manhattan Declaration App

We, the undersigned, urge you to reinstate the Manhattan Declaration App to the Apple app store.

The Manhattan Declaration, in a civil, reasoned, and respectful way, promotes the sanctity of every human life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom.

That Apple would deem the Manhattan Declaration as “offensive” is alarming and distressing. Some who are “offended” by the Manhattan Declaration can only be offended by the positions the Manhattan Declaration takes—positions based on biblical Christianity and affirmed by nearly half a million Christians representing dozens of denominations.

Despite the claims of some, the Declaration does not promote hate or homophobia. It is not anti-gay. Rather, it proclaims that all human beings are loved by God and are worthy of respect.

Civil discourse is a hallmark of a civilized and free society. Disagreement is not hate. We urge you and Apple, therefore, to promote communication and civil dialogue on these important social issues by reinstating the Manhattan Declaration App.

Thank you.

You would think that a company that has as its logo an apple with a bite taken out of it would be more sensitive to the Christian worldview; unless Steve Jobs thinks that he is on some sort of satanic mission to tempt mankind. Just to be on the safe side, you might want to have your iPhone exorcised. Is there an App for that?

Seriously, is this going to lead to a Christian boycott of Apple? I'm not sure that the Microsoft alternative is any more appealing to Christians, given the pro-abortion activities of Bill Gates. Should we all have our PCs and Macs blessed by our local priests? It certainly wouldn't hurt to start with a prayer before firing up our laptops and going online, given all the temptations that one is exposed to in the virtual world.

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from Evil." (Matt 6:13)

The attack of the "humanists"

Screenshot of Manhattan Declaration iPhone App

In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished; this is a real threat we face.
 – Pope Benedict XVI in "Light of the World"

The "humanist" agenda marches on at a staggering pace. ("Humanist" is a term that has been appropriated by the atheist community to make their position seem less radical.) This past week brings two new shocking developments.

• An iPhone application that is in support of the Manhattan Declaration was removed from the iTunes Store apparently on the grounds that it promotes “homophobia” and that its supporters are “anti-gay.”
• The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a well known civil rights group, has classified the Family Research Council and several other organizations as a “hate groups” because these groups are “anti-gay.”

The new re-definition of "anti-gay" includes anyone who believes that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman, and also anyone who believes that sex between people of the same gender is morally wrong. This would label most Christians as "anti-gay" and would also label the explicit biblical teachings of St. Paul against homosexuality as "hate speech".

For radical gay activists to make such statements is not really new, but for mainstream organizations such as SPLC and Apple to fully endorse such positions is very significant. Strategically, I think this is a huge mistake for gay activists. They are being egged on by the "humanists", who are just using gays as a sort of shock troop to promote their agenda.

This is another in a series of proxy attacks launched by the "humanists" against the Church. Abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military, the proliferation of pornography... these are the artillery of the "humanist" campaign which seeks to destroy the Church through a constant bombardment.

The "humanists" seek to polarize society. They welcome a popular backlash against gays, since this would only increase the anti-Christian feelings among many gay activists and their "liberal" allies. They seek to drown out in hostile rhetoric the Church's teachings of love towards those who have fallen into the trap of a homosexual life.

The "humanists" seek to create a full-fledged cultural war that pits the Church against secular society. They seek to radicalize the discussion to the point where the Church's merciful voice is drowned out in a sea of accusations and counter-accusations.

It would be a mistake for Christians to engage in argument with the "humanists" on their terms. While we must fully defend the Church against attacks, we should at the same time be very careful not to be provoked into abandoning our Christian principles of love and compassion.

Jesus, I trust in You!

Further reading:

• Pro-family leaders warn that ‘hate group’ label defines Christianity as bigotry
• Apple pulls pro-life iPhone app

Pope Benedict's Vigil for All Nascent Human Life

[These are excerpts from the Vigil for All Nascent Human Life as celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI in St. Peter's Basilica on Saturday, November 27, 2010.]

Lord Jesus,
You who faithfully visit and fulfil with your Presence
the Church and the history of men;
[...]
Reawaken in us respect for every unborn life,
make us capable of seeing in the fruit of the maternal womb
the miraculous work of the Creator...

Man has an unmistakable originality compared to all other living beings that inhabit the earth. He presents himself as a unique and singular entity, endowed with intelligence and free will, as well as being composed of a material reality. He lives simultaneously and inseparably in the spiritual dimension and the corporal dimension.... We are part of this world, tied to the possibilities and limits of our material condition, at the same time we are open to an infinite horizon, able to converse with God and to welcome Him in us.
[...]
The human person is a good in and of himself and his integral development should always be sought. Love for all, if it is sincere, naturally tends to become a preferential attention to the weakest and poorest. In this vein we find the Church’s concern for the unborn, the most fragile, the most threatened by the selfishness of adults and the darkening of consciences. The Church continually reiterates ... “from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care ”.
[...]
With regard to the embryo in the womb... This is not an accumulation of biological material, but a new living being, dynamic and wonderfully ordered, a new unique human being. So was Jesus in Mary’s womb, so it was for all of us in our mother’s womb.
[...]
I urge the protagonists of politics, economic and social communications to do everything in their power to promote a culture which respects human life...
[...]
Ave, verum Corpus, natum de Maria Virgine!

 --------

[The Pope's final words refer to a hymn attributed to Pope Innocent VI (1282-1362). During the Middle Ages it was sung at the elevation of the host during the consecration. Mozart composed this version in 1791 to celebrate the feast of Corpus Christi.]



AVE VERUM Corpus
Natum de Maria Virgine:
Vere passum, immolatum
In cruce pro homine:
Cuius latus perforatum
Fluxit aqua et sanguine:
Esto nobis praegustatum
Mortis in examine.

HAIL, true Body,
truly born Of the Virgin Mary mild
Truly offered, wracked and torn,
On the Cross for all defiled,
From Whose love-pierced, sacred side
Flowed Thy true Blood's saving tide:
Be a foretaste sweet to me
In my death's great agony.

The Church vs. the Culture

Move over Laurie Goodstein, you've got company!

You may have heard of the controversy regarding New York Times "religion" reporter Laurie Goodstein with regards to her coverage of the Catholic Church. It got so bad that Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York had to step in and call out the biased reporting.

Now it's the turn of Associated Press reporter Nicole Winfield. I generally try to ignore these things, because it can be taken for granted that the secular press is not going to give favorable coverage to the Catholic Church. But there does come a time to speak out.

The latest headline by Winfield is: "Pope urges respect for embryos". Seriously? Does she think she's writing for the Onion? How does "vigil for all nascent human life" become "respect for embryos"?

I think the best way to illustrate this is to list some recent headlines by this AP writer.

• Pope defends family as Spanish gays hold 'kiss-in'
• Pope blasts Spain's "aggressive" anti-church ways
• Pope says condoms may reduce infection
• Vatican shifts on condom use
• Vatican explains shift in stance on condoms

Each one of these headlines is a deliberate distortion of the truth. And the worst thing is that these AP stories get picked up by papers around the world which mindlessly repeat these mistruths. This just goes to show how difficult it is for the Catholic Church to deliver its message to the general public.

This has not gone unnoticed by Pope Benedict XVI. Within the new book "Light of theWorld" – which the media has tried to turn into a new Church controversy – there is a very relevant exchange between the Pope and the interviewer Peter Seewald.

Peter Seewald: In a world that has become relativistic, a new paganism has gained more and more dominion over people’s thoughts and actions. It has long since become clear not only that there is a blank space, a vacuum, alongside the Church, but also that something Dictatorship of Relativism like an anti-church has been established. The Pope in Rome, one German newspaper wrote, should be condemned for the sole reason that by his positions he has “transgressed against the religion” that today “is valid in this country”, namely, the “civil religion”. Has a new Kulturkampf started here, as Marcello Pera has analyzed it? The former president of the Italian Senate speaks about a “large-scale battle of secularism against Christianity”.

Pope Benedict: A new intolerance is spreading, that is quite obvious. There are well-established standards of thinking that are supposed to be imposed on everyone. These are then announced in terms of so-called “negative tolerance”. For instance, when people say that for the sake of negative tolerance [i.e. “not offending anyone”] there must be no crucifix in public buildings. With that we are basically experiencing the abolition of tolerance, for it means, after all, that religion, that the Christian faith is no longer allowed to express itself visibly.

When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that, instead, an abstract, negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow. That is then seemingly freedom—for the sole reason that it is liberation from the previous situation.

In reality, however, this development increasingly leads to an intolerant claim of a new religion, which pretends to be generally valid because it is reasonable, indeed, because it is reason itself, which knows all and, therefore, defines the frame of reference that is now supposed to apply to everyone.

In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished; this is a real threat we face. The danger is that reason— so-called Western reason—claims that it has now really recognized what is right and thus makes a claim to totality that is inimical to freedom. I believe that we must very emphatically delineate this danger. No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the “new religion” as though it alone were definitive and obligatory for all mankind.

The aggressiveness with which this new religion appears was described by the weekly news magazine Der Spiegel as a “crusade of the atheists”. It is a crusade that mocks Christianity as the “God delusion” and classifies religion as a curse that is also to blame for all wars. You yourself have already spoken about a “subtle or even not so subtle aggression against the Church”. Even without a totalitarian regime, you say that there is pressure today to think the way everybody thinks, that attacks against the Church show “how this conformity can really be a genuine dictatorship”. Harsh words.

But the reality is in fact such that certain forms of behavior and thinking are being presented as the only reasonable ones and, therefore, as the only appropriately human ones. Christianity finds itself exposed now to an intolerant pressure that at first ridicules it—as belonging to a perverse, false way of thinking—and then tries to deprive it of breathing space in the name of an ostensible rationality.

Vigil for All Nascent Human Life

You may have noticed that the "slogan" at the top of the webpage has changed. It used to contain a "warning" and now says "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray." These words come from Jesus Christ. It was what he said to his disciples on the night before he was arrested and handed over to the Roman authorities to be tried and eventually crucified.

Christ asked his followers to maintain a prayerful vigil through the night. They claimed to be full of zeal, but at the hour of truth they were overcome by sleep.

This coming Sunday, November 28, marks the beginning of Advent in the Catholic Church liturgical calendar. In fact this marks the beginning of a new liturgical year.

On Saturday, November 27, the eve of the new liturgical year, Pope Benedict XVI has called for a worldwide "Vigil for All Nascent Human Life". Boston Archdiocesan Pro Life Office Director, Marianne Luthin, explained the purpose of the worldwide Vigil this way.

“The fact that the Holy Father has requested every diocesan bishop to celebrate this Vigil for Nascent Life at the start of Advent is unprecedented.  “Nascent” is a word we don’t frequently use anymore. While it clearly refers to unborn human life, its other meanings include “promising”, “growing”, and “hopeful”. As we enter into Advent, our thoughts naturally focus on the hope and expectation of the coming of Christ. Christ came to us first as an unborn child, tiny, vulnerable and needing the protection and care of his mother. By calling for this worldwide prayer vigil as we begin the season of Advent, I think the Holy Father is calling us to focus both on the hope and promise of new life in Christ that we celebrate at Christmas but also to acknowledge the sad fact that world-wide there are an estimated 50 million abortions performed each year.  We need a renewal of hope about the meaning of life as the reflection of God. Here in the US, the Vigil falls on Thanksgiving weekend when families traditionally come together. The timing is a happy coincidence that reminds us of the great gift from God that each and every human life represents.”

Non-Catholics are invited to participate by joining us in prayer for the unborn. Here is some artwork I have collected from various dioceses that are taking part in this unprecedented vigil.

The Pope understands that the enemy in the battle for the lives of the unborn is not a political enemy. This is a spiritual battle and requires a spiritual response. There is no more powerful spiritual weapon than prayer.

Jesus spent the night before his arrest in prayer. We have a chance to reach out to God as a unified body in imitation of Christ, and let Him know that we have not forgotten these least among us.

Then going out he went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. When he arrived at the place he said to them, "Pray that you may not undergo the test."

After withdrawing about a stone's throw from them and kneeling, he prayed, saying, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done." (And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.)

When he rose from prayer and returned to his disciples, he found them sleeping from grief. He said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not undergo the test."

While he was still speaking, a crowd approached and in front was one of the Twelve, a man named Judas. He went up to Jesus to kiss him.

Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"

 – Luke 22:39-48

In defense of Benedict XVI

EWTN coverage of the visit in 2008 to the US by Pope Benedict XVI

I have a bone to pick with EWTN. In case you don't know, they are a Catholic TV station that is widely available on cable. They are unabashedly orthodox in their viewpoint, which is fine with me.

The problem that I have is that it's been more than five years since Benedict XVI became the Pope. And yet EWTN seems to have barely noticed. They still feature prominently Pope John Paul II. When the recent condom controversy emerged, EWTN commentators couldn't resist asking "what would John Paul II do?"

At some point this begins to undermine the current Pope. And what about the habit of EWTN hosts of referring to the former Pope as John Paul the Great? There seems to be more to this than just promoting the sainthood of John Paul II. It feels to me like there are some among the EWTN staff that are advocating a sort of cult of personality devoted to the former Pope.

This is not intended to in any way disparage Pope John Paul II. He was definitely a great Pope. But to then refer to him as John Paul the Great is no small step. Only three Popes in history have appended to their names "the Great": Pope St. Leo I (440–61), Pope St. Gregory I (590–604), and Pope St. Nicholas I (858–67). Does a modern Pope really fall into the same category as these fathers of Christianity? And to refer to John Paul as "the Great" seems to be saying something about Pope Benedict in comparison. I don't think it is an intentional slight, but it still leaves that lingering impression.

It's true that Benedict is not as charismatic as John Paul. He is not as youthful and energetic. But should that even matter when we are talking about the head of the Catholic Church? There's nothing wrong with a charismatic Pope and this quality garnered quite a bit of sympathy for John Paul from the secular press. In contrast the press seems to smell blood whenever Pope Benedict XVI makes a slightly controversial statement.

This is all the more reason that we should rally around the current Pontiff and support him in our prayers. Benedict has a wonderful grandfatherly quality about him. He emanates a kind of quiet holiness that is his unique charisma. He does not have a powerful speaking voice, but his words and writings are profound and full of spiritual wisdom.

What EWTN is doing is really not fair to either John Paul or Benedict. There is no reason that the network should continue to cling so tightly to the memory of John Paul II after so many years. For example, how about a show to discuss the encyclicals of Pope Benedict instead of the "Threshold of Hope" show which continues to highlight the encyclicals of John Paul?

I know that for me personally John Paul II had become the very face of the Church, and it was hard for me to accept a new Pope. But we must remember that the true face of the Church is, and will always be, Jesus Christ.

Christian persecution in Pakistan

Children of Asia Bibi holding a picture of their mother

The chief priests and the entire Sanhedrin kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order to put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward who stated, "This man said, 'I can destroy the temple of God and within three days rebuild it.'"

The high priest rose and addressed him, "Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?" But Jesus was silent.

Then the high priest said to him, "I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God."

Jesus said to him in reply, "You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see 'the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power' and 'coming on the clouds of heaven.'"

Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; what is your opinion?" They said in reply, "He deserves to die!"

Then they spat in his face and struck him, while some slapped him, saying, "Prophesy for us, Messiah: who is it that struck you?"

 – Matthew 26:59-68

On November 17 Pope Benedict XVI personally appealed for the life of a Pakistani woman that was condemned to death on November 8 for the crime of blasphemy. Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of five, is a Christian in predominantly Muslim Pakistan. In his statement the Pope said he felt a “spiritual closeness” to Bibi and her family. Her crime is described in this account from a Pakistani newspaper.

Ms Asia’s case dates back to June 2009 when she was asked to fetch water while out working in the fields. But a group of Muslim women labourers objected, saying that as a non-Muslim she should not touch the water bowl.

A few days later the women went to a local cleric and alleged that Ms Asia made derogatory remarks about the Prophet (peace be upon him). The cleric went to police, who opened an investigation.

Ms Asia was arrested in Ittanwalai village and prosecuted under Section 295-C of the PPC, which carries the death penalty.

The "derogatory remarks" that Mrs. Aisa is accused of having made apparently amount to nothing more than defending her Christian beliefs. This account is from the Pakistan Christian Post.

While working in farms with other Muslim women, Asia Bibi was dragged in religious dialogues on June 19, 2009, when Muslim women termed her an “Infidel” and Christianity a “Religion of infidels” and pressed her to embrace Islam.

Asia Bibi who is married and have two children, defended Christianity with her little knowledge and told Muslim women that Christianity is only True religion on which Muslim women made a roar and accused her defiling Prophet Mohammad.

The Muslim men working in nearby fields also gathered and attacked Asia Bibi on which she fled to village in her home. The angry Muslims followed her and took her out of home and started beating her. They tortured her children also but meanwhile some one informed police.

The police took Asia Bibi to police Station and filed FIR against her under section 295-B and C of Pakistan Penal Code but showed it a protective custody to other Christians of Ittanwali village.

Section 295 B and C PPC are subject to life in prison or death sentence but it is first judgment in history of Pakistan when a woman is sentenced to death.

And here is another account which offers some more details. This one is from a group called Release International, the "voice of persecuted Christians". They have an online petition here.

Asia, who is from Ittanwali in Punjab province, laboured in the fields for a Muslim landlord. She was arrested after a heated discussion about religion with her fellow farmworkers. Hers was one of only three Christian families in the village.

Some of the women workers had been putting her under pressure to renounce her Christian faith and accept Islam. She responded by sharing with them about her faith in Christ.

Asia spoke of how Jesus Christ had died on the cross for their sins and then asked them what Mohammed had done for them.

On hearing this response the Muslim women became very angry and began to beat her. Some men took Asia by force and locked her in a room. They used the PA system of a local mosque to broadcast plans to punish Asia by blackening her face and parading her through the village on a donkey.

According to Release partners, a mob formed and Asia was violently abused by Muslim villagers and clerics. Her children were also beaten.

However, some Christians informed the police and Asia was taken into protective custody. Pressure to charge her was brought to bear by Muslim leaders. Sentence was passed yesterday.

Asia was also fined £728 – the equivalent of two-and-a half years’ salary for an unskilled worker.

Release partners in Pakistan say the sentence is a crushing blow for Asia, who was hoping to be acquitted and return to her husband and children. They say: ‘Although Asia has great courage, her dreams of release have vanished now. Please pray for her encouragement, strength and protection.’

Mrs. Asia has been condemned to death for the same crime which Jesus was condemned to death some 2000 years ago. The crime of blasphemy.

Pakistan is a partner with the United States in its "war against terror" in Afghanistan. And yet I couldn't find a single statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that even mentioned Asia Bibi.

Amnesty International which was originally founded by a Jewish convert to Christianity, Peter Benenson, has absolutely nothing to say about Asia Bibi. Apparently protecting the freedoms of Christians to practice their faith is not on the AI agenda, while pro-abortion activity has recently become a new campaign. CORRECTION: After some pleading from the British Pakistani Christian Association, AI finally came out with a statement on November 19 asking for the release of Asia (Aasia) Bibi. But don't try to find this statement on the AI website without a direct link.

Human Rights Watch has done a much better job of campaigning to free Asia Bibi. They have launched a high profile campaign to repeal the Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan as a direct result of her case.  I would however offer a note of caution regarding the stance of HRW. It may be that they are so eagerly pursuing the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws because they see in it a chance to attack organized religion – in this case Islam. This case should not be taken as an opportunity to attack Muslims in general. While Christians have many differences with Muslims, we also share many of the same beliefs rising from our shared heritage rooted in Abraham.

You should also be aware that like Amnesty International, HRW has become a pro-abortion advocacy group. In fact it appears that they actually preceded AI in declaring abortion to be a "human right". HRW appears to have gone pro-abortion in 2005, while AI turned pro-abortion in 2007. It shouldn't even need to be said that by declaring abortion to be a fundamental "human right" these organizations have declared that unborn children are not human.

Consider then the response of Asia Bibi when her coworkers refused to drink the water she had touched because they claimed that she was unclean. She said, “are we not human?”

And for that she was condemned to death.

----

UPDATE: There are some conflicting news reports that Asia Bibi has been released or pardoned. These seem to be mostly rumors at this point, but hopefully they will soon become reality.