CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Pope Benedict XVI says "humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow." He wants scientists and experts to deal with the problems of global warming.
Britain's Daily Mail has an excerpt of the pontiff's remarks in a message to world leaders, an excerpt that the newspaper spins as showing Benedict does not believe in global warming, or dismisses it as a serious problem. Some conservatives have seized upon the Daily Mail's report to argue that the pope favors people over polar bears. Others believe Benedict's words are far more temperate. He does, however, deliber a clear warning against the use of "ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions" and suggests pro-environmental actions be measured against the well-being of humanity. He wants things weighted -- meaning that the developed world is more responsible for damaging the climate and thus should bear the costs and sacrifices necessary to ease any crisis. He seems to be saying that ideologues should have little say in the debate over global warming.
"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibility on the road to be taken."
The Vatican has been concerned about climate change and says mankind must respect the environment. The pope's remarks released for the United Nation's Bali conference on global warming appear to reinforce his view that all governments have a moral duty to cooperate on conserving the planet.
Showing posts with label Pope Benedict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pope Benedict. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
OH-05 House Race: GOP Begins Arguing Over 2004 Chickenpox Vaccine Vote
BOWLING GREEN (TDB) -- Adding chickenpox to the list of required immunizations for Ohio schoolchildren was opposed by some right-to-lifers when the issue came up three years ago in the Ohio General Assembly. Now the debate has been resurrected, where it has spilled over into the Oh-05 Republican congressional primary to replace the late Paul Gillmor.
Then State Rep. Steve Buehrer voted against the chicken pox vaccinations with 27 others, a group that included the current House Speaker, John Husted, and State Rep. Tom Brinkman, the Cincinnati Republican who has sponsored legislation to outlaw abortion in Ohio. Buehrer's opponent in the OH-o5 GOP primary, Bob Latta, voted for the chicken pox vaccines.
Don't even think for a minute this is trivial. It is huge to the pro-life movement. None other than Cardinal Ratzinger -- the current Pope Benedict -- delved into the moral questions about fetal tissue in vaccine cells lines in 2005. The Vatican issued this lengthy report which said there was a duty among Catholics to try to avoid vaccines that were created in violation of church teachings. The Vatican report explained in part:
"As regards the preparation, distribution and marketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming for foetuses voluntarily abortted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle, morally illicit, because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other volultary abortions, with the purpose of the production of such vaccines. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that, within the chain of production-distribution-marketing, the various cooperating agents can have differing moral responsibilities."
The statement, and the debate starting in OH-05, carries echoes of the arguments over stem cell research, and the pro-life movement's opposition to using tissue from aborted human life to explore and develop promising biomedical technologies for Parkinson's and other diseases.
A blogger called Ohio Farmer brought the vaccine issue back to life today with a post that wondered whose pro-life commitment was stronger: Buehrer or Latta. The anonymous blogger favored Buehrer, citing as one reason the chicken pox vaccine:
"On a third vote that both Latta and Buehrer had a chance to take a stand on was the issue of mandatory chickenpox vaccinations. What do chickenpox vaccinations have to do with pro-life issues? Well, to date every chickenpox vaccination requires aborted fetal tissues in its production. When the bill came up for a vote in the House, Latta voted for the bill. When the bill got to the Senate, Steve Buehrer voted against it. This was not a high-profile bill that got a lot of limelight.
"Frankly, to be pro-life is relatively easy when the vote is about cutting funding for abortion. The true test of being pro-life is how you vote on obscure measures that deal with non-high profile issues like aborted fetal tissue used in production of vaccines."
The Daily Bellwether's research shows that Substitute House Bill No. 463 dealt with mandatory chicken pox immunizations. The House Journal for May 26, 2004 (pdf) shows the official vote, which is reported on page 117. There were 70 yeas, including Latta. Buehrer is listed among the 28 nays, including Brinkman, Husted, Jim Trakas, Tim Grendell and Jean Schmidt, who now represents OH-02 in the U.S. House and is a longtime supporter of the pro-life movement.
Matt Naugle of Right Angle Blog also spotted Ohio Farmer's discussion of chicken pox as a right-to-life issue. Matt says he is going to have more on the topic later today, and promises some inside dish on what went down in the Ohio House.
Then State Rep. Steve Buehrer voted against the chicken pox vaccinations with 27 others, a group that included the current House Speaker, John Husted, and State Rep. Tom Brinkman, the Cincinnati Republican who has sponsored legislation to outlaw abortion in Ohio. Buehrer's opponent in the OH-o5 GOP primary, Bob Latta, voted for the chicken pox vaccines.
Don't even think for a minute this is trivial. It is huge to the pro-life movement. None other than Cardinal Ratzinger -- the current Pope Benedict -- delved into the moral questions about fetal tissue in vaccine cells lines in 2005. The Vatican issued this lengthy report which said there was a duty among Catholics to try to avoid vaccines that were created in violation of church teachings. The Vatican report explained in part:
"As regards the preparation, distribution and marketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming for foetuses voluntarily abortted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle, morally illicit, because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other volultary abortions, with the purpose of the production of such vaccines. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that, within the chain of production-distribution-marketing, the various cooperating agents can have differing moral responsibilities."
The statement, and the debate starting in OH-05, carries echoes of the arguments over stem cell research, and the pro-life movement's opposition to using tissue from aborted human life to explore and develop promising biomedical technologies for Parkinson's and other diseases.
A blogger called Ohio Farmer brought the vaccine issue back to life today with a post that wondered whose pro-life commitment was stronger: Buehrer or Latta. The anonymous blogger favored Buehrer, citing as one reason the chicken pox vaccine:
"On a third vote that both Latta and Buehrer had a chance to take a stand on was the issue of mandatory chickenpox vaccinations. What do chickenpox vaccinations have to do with pro-life issues? Well, to date every chickenpox vaccination requires aborted fetal tissues in its production. When the bill came up for a vote in the House, Latta voted for the bill. When the bill got to the Senate, Steve Buehrer voted against it. This was not a high-profile bill that got a lot of limelight.
"Frankly, to be pro-life is relatively easy when the vote is about cutting funding for abortion. The true test of being pro-life is how you vote on obscure measures that deal with non-high profile issues like aborted fetal tissue used in production of vaccines."
The Daily Bellwether's research shows that Substitute House Bill No. 463 dealt with mandatory chicken pox immunizations. The House Journal for May 26, 2004 (pdf) shows the official vote, which is reported on page 117. There were 70 yeas, including Latta. Buehrer is listed among the 28 nays, including Brinkman, Husted, Jim Trakas, Tim Grendell and Jean Schmidt, who now represents OH-02 in the U.S. House and is a longtime supporter of the pro-life movement.
Matt Naugle of Right Angle Blog also spotted Ohio Farmer's discussion of chicken pox as a right-to-life issue. Matt says he is going to have more on the topic later today, and promises some inside dish on what went down in the Ohio House.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Pope's Lawyers In Ohio: Thou Shalt Not Sue The Holy See
COLUMBUS (TDB) -- A federal appeals court wants lawyers representing the Holy See to file legal briefs next month explaining why the tiny nation headed by Pope Benedict XVI is immune from U.S. lawsuits.
As an independent nation, the the Vatican contends it should not have to defend itself against litigation asserting Roman Catholic clergy molested children. The Holy See says it is beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
The briefs are due April 19 in the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The case is unique because a federal judge in Louisville ruled two months ago that the Vatican could potentially be held accountable for abuse if there were "violations of the customary international law of human rights." Huge amounts of money are at stake. The Vatican has priceless art collectons. And who knows what else? There are rumors of vast wealth accumulated over the centuries.
Lawyers suing the Holy See in a class-action for the sex abuse victims say the church-state violated its international law obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a charter document of the United Nations, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They also say it breached duties to provide safe care, custody and control over children entrusted to Roman Catholic oficials, and it withheld information about known and suspected perpetrators of child sexual abuse.
U.S. District Judge John Heyburn of Lousiville, who said the Vatican is not immune, found that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) conferred jurisdiction.
"For most of our nation's history, it was our national policy to grant foreign states complete immunity from civil suits in United States courts. Beginning in 1952, this view began to change. Gradually, a view evolved that one could sue foreign states in United States courts under certain limited exceptions. the specific determinations were generally left to the State Department until 1976 when Congress enacted FSIA, which sought to codify the existing exceptions," Heyburn said.
He said he would allow claims to go forward for fail to report abuse, failure to warn, outrage and emotional distress and human rights violations under international law. The Pope's lawyers appealed even though Heyburn says he might be persuaded to change his mind if fresh evidence was placed before him.
"The court is open to reconsidering its decision that the United States-based bishops, archbishops, and other clergy of the Roman Catholic Church are employees of the Holy See for purposes of FSIA if further contrary evidence emerges during the litigation," he said.
Now, the appeals court will decide if the Pope is ultimately responsible for the scandal in the U.S. church.
As an independent nation, the the Vatican contends it should not have to defend itself against litigation asserting Roman Catholic clergy molested children. The Holy See says it is beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
The briefs are due April 19 in the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The case is unique because a federal judge in Louisville ruled two months ago that the Vatican could potentially be held accountable for abuse if there were "violations of the customary international law of human rights." Huge amounts of money are at stake. The Vatican has priceless art collectons. And who knows what else? There are rumors of vast wealth accumulated over the centuries.
Lawyers suing the Holy See in a class-action for the sex abuse victims say the church-state violated its international law obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a charter document of the United Nations, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They also say it breached duties to provide safe care, custody and control over children entrusted to Roman Catholic oficials, and it withheld information about known and suspected perpetrators of child sexual abuse.
U.S. District Judge John Heyburn of Lousiville, who said the Vatican is not immune, found that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) conferred jurisdiction.
"For most of our nation's history, it was our national policy to grant foreign states complete immunity from civil suits in United States courts. Beginning in 1952, this view began to change. Gradually, a view evolved that one could sue foreign states in United States courts under certain limited exceptions. the specific determinations were generally left to the State Department until 1976 when Congress enacted FSIA, which sought to codify the existing exceptions," Heyburn said.
He said he would allow claims to go forward for fail to report abuse, failure to warn, outrage and emotional distress and human rights violations under international law. The Pope's lawyers appealed even though Heyburn says he might be persuaded to change his mind if fresh evidence was placed before him.
"The court is open to reconsidering its decision that the United States-based bishops, archbishops, and other clergy of the Roman Catholic Church are employees of the Holy See for purposes of FSIA if further contrary evidence emerges during the litigation," he said.
Now, the appeals court will decide if the Pope is ultimately responsible for the scandal in the U.S. church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)