Christian Unity?

According to an article by The Associated Press, which was published on June 16, 2005, “Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday the search for unity between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christians was ‘irreversible,’ underlining his desire to improve relations and heal the 1,000-year-old rift with the Orthodox Church. Benedict made the comments in a meeting with… Samuel Kobia, the leader of the World Council of Churches, the fellowship of more than 300 churches from nearly all Christian traditions, including Protestants and the Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Church is not a member, but cooperates with the WCC.

“In his remarks, Benedict repeated his pledge that his ‘primary task’ as pope would be to work tirelessly to rebuild unity of all Christians with ‘concrete gestures’ and not just words. ‘The commitment of the Catholic Church to the search for Christian unity is irreversible,’ Benedict said.”

However, it must be asked what this unity will look like. As the article continued to point out:

“In an interview with the AP ahead of the papal audience, Kobia said he was hoping for progress in one area in particular that has vexed some Protestant members of the World Council. The issue stems from a 2000 document from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was headed by the pope when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The document, ‘Dominus Iesus,’ which Ratzinger signed, framed the role of the Catholic Church in human salvation in an exclusive manner. It suggested that non-Catholic ‘ecclesiastical communities’ were ‘not churches in the proper sense.’ ‘There are many Protestant churches that are members of the WCC and are concerned that they are defined as “ecclesiastic communities” and not full churches,’ Kobia said. He said he wasn’t looking for Benedict to renounce the 2000 document, but said he hoped the two sides could ‘move beyond it.'”

Of course, nobody expects that the pope will renounce or repudiate the document, as it sets forth accurately the Catholic teaching on the issue. But what is gained by “moving beyond it”? True peaceful unity could never be achieved with the above-described teaching of the Catholic Church in place, UNLESS the Protestant and Orthodox churches give up their stance on the matter and embrace the Catholic Church and the pope as their spiritual leader and religious authority.

Sunday Laws in Europe

The British Daily Mail reported on June 17, 2005, about attempts in Britain by chain stores and supermarkets to “turn Sunday into ordinary shopping days.” The article erroneously refers to Sunday as “the Sabbath,” and explains that in the UK, stores greater than 280 square meters of shopping space may open for six hours but must remain closed on Christmas and Easter. Smaller stores are allowed to open for as long as they like. Two thirds of retailers are willing to open for longer on Sunday.

According to the article, “the Church of England says the proposal would have devastating consequences and the Keep Sunday Special campaign warns it would destroy a vital family day… The Church of England… says: ‘Sunday is not a normal day, it is a holy day.'”

This is of course untrue, if we look at the teachings of the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible declare that Sunday is holy. Rather, according to God’s Word, it is the Seventh-Day-SABBATH, which God made holy, and which is still holy today! History reveals that it was the Catholic Church that declared Sunday to be holy, and most other Christian churches, including the Church of England, followed the Catholic Church’s lead to declare Sunday holy, while abrogating the worship of the 7th-Day-Sabbath. However, man cannot declare unholy, what God has made holy; nor can he make holy, what God has not decreed to be holy. For more information, please read our free booklets, “Europe in Prophecy,” and “God’s Commanded Holy Days.”

The Daily Mail continued to explain that many European countries have special Sunday laws, or observe Sunday practices and customs. Some of these countries, generally forbidding or not engaging in trade on Sundays, are Germany, France, Spain, Norway, and Italy. The article explained that, for instance, Poland has NO Sunday regulations, “which has led to an influx of German shoppers on a Sunday.”

It can be expected that with the growing influence of the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI, Sunday laws in Catholic countries such as Poland will be enacted soon.

More Earthquakes in California

As The Associated Press reported on Thursday, June 16, 2005, another “moderate earthquake shook most of Northern California Thursday, but there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries. The 1:53 p.m. quake had a preliminary magnitude of 5.3 and was centered three miles northeast of Yucaipa in San Bernardino County east of Los Angeles, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Shaking was reported from Los Angeles to San Diego and in counties to the east.”

Subsequently, additional earthquakes struck Southern California near Eureka. The Associated Press reported on Saturday, June 18:

“A 6.6-magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Northern California, but there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries, authorities said. The quake late Thursday came just days after a larger temblor in the region generated a tsunami warning that sent residents scrambling.”

The Associated Press reported on Monday, June 20, about another earthquake near Eureka:

“A 5.0-magnitude earthquake hit about 120 miles off Northern California early Sunday morning, near the location where a larger temblor prompted a brief tsunami warning last week, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The earthquake struck at 1:27 a.m. and was centered about 130 miles west of Eureka. A Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department dispatcher said there were no immediate reports of damages or injuries.”

The article concluded with these words of uncertainty (emphasis added):

“Californians have had a string of significant earthquakes after several years of relative seismic calm. But seismologists say clusters of earthquakes do not ALWAYS mean the Big One is coming.”

Germany Condemns Mass Murders

According to an article by Reuters, which was published on June 16, 2005, “Germany’s parliament condemned on Thursday the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks 90 years ago, sparking an angry protest from Ankara. Voting shortly after the government and opposition clashed over whether Turkey should join the European Union, all main parties in the Bundestag joined in deploring what many historians say amounted to genocide. The resolution stopped short of calling the killings genocide, a term Turkey rejects, but it will test relations between Ankara and Berlin, a staunch supporter of Turkish EU aspirations.

“‘This resolution is regrettable and we strongly condemn it,’ said the Turkish Foreign Ministry in a statement. It described the resolution as one-sided and ‘provocative’ and said it would hurt Turks’ feelings. It said German lawmakers had been motivated by domestic politics and had ignored repeated warnings of the harm the resolution would do to bilateral ties.

“Turkey denies the claims that 1.5 million Armenians were killed in a systematic genocide between 1915 and 1923 as the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire collapsed. It accepts hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed but says even more Turks died in a partisan conflict in which many Armenians backed invading Russian troops… Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told German reporters this week that the resolution amounted to ‘a huge injustice toward Turkey and Turks living in Germany,’ the German newspaper Rheinische Post reported on Thursday. Teaching in German schools about the ‘destruction’ of Armenians as proposed by the resolution would create hostility against Turks among German youth, the Turkish foreign ministry statement said… Around 2 million Turks live in Germany…

“The resolution [of the German parliament] also condemned the German government of the time for failing to try to stop the killings despite having ‘information about the organized expulsion and extermination of Armenians.’ Germany was an ally of the Ottoman Empire during World War One, when the massacres took place. ‘The German parliament is well aware from its own experience how hard it is for all peoples to deal with the dark side of their past,’ the resolution said in a reference to Germany’s own Nazi regime and its murder of millions of Jews.”

Turkey and the EU

As the San Francisco Chronicle reported on June 17, 2005, “With Europe still reeling over the ‘no” votes in France and the Netherlands on the European constitution, many Turks are also having second thoughts about their 40-year drive to join the European Union… For Turks, the French rejection of the constitution occurred on an ironic day — May 29, the anniversary of the Ottoman Turks’ capture of Constantinople in 1453 and their emergence as a power extending into Europe. To many Frenchmen, the referendum seemed to be a way to repel another Turkish invasion of Europe… One of the central themes of the ‘no’ campaign in France and the Netherlands was opposition to enlargement of the bloc, and especially to the membership of predominantly Muslim Turkey… The prospect of having to make concessions on politically sensitive topics has also made more Turks question the price of membership… Some European politicians, emphatically led by the French, have called on Turkey to recognize the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 as ‘genocide’ — a red line for all Turkish politicians.”

Cohabitation Harmful?

In a recent article of Psychology Today, the publication warned against cohabitation of couples prior to marriage. The article pointed out that “couples who move in together before marriage have up to two times the odds of divorce, as compared with couples who marry before living together. Moreover, married couples who have lived together before exchanging vows tend to have poorer-quality marriages than couples who moved in after the wedding. Those who cohabited first report less satisfaction, more arguing, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment.”

In spite of these observations, the article stated:

“Thirty or 40 years ago, cohabitation was relatively rare, mainly the province of artists and other questionable types, and still thought of as ‘living in sin.’ In 1970 only about 500,000 couples lived together in unwedded bliss. Now, nearly 5 million opposite-sex couples in the United States live together outside of marriage; millions more have done it at some point… Some evidence indicates that women have less control over the progress of the cohabiting relationship. She may assume they’re on the road to marriage, but he may think they’re just saving on rent and enjoying each other’s company… Cohabiting men may carry their uncertainty forward into marriage, with destructive consequences. A 2004 study… found that men who had lived with their spouse premaritally were on average less committed to their marriages than those who hadn’t…

“Cohabiting relationships, by their nature, appear to be less fulfilling than marital relationships. People who cohabit say they are less satisfied and more likely to feel depressed… While the precarious finances of many cohabiters has something to do with it, [another factor is] the inherent lack of stability. Long-term cohabitation is rare: most couples either break up or marry within five years… As a result, cohabitation is not an ideal living arrangement for children. Emotionally or academically, the children of cohabiters just don’t do as well, on average, as those with two married parents, and money doesn’t fully explain the difference… Cohabitation rates may be skyrocketing, but Americans are still entirely enchanted with marriage. That’s a sharp contrast with some Western societies — Sweden, France or the Canadian province of Quebec, for example — where cohabitation is beginning to replace marriage… In the United States, 90 percent of young people are still expected to tie the knot at some point.”

EU Budget Talks Collapse

As The Associated Press reported on June 17, 2005, “Talks on the European Union’s budget collapsed in acrimony Friday, abruptly ending a summit that diplomats had hoped would pull the EU out of its constitutional dilemma. Top European leaders blamed each other for the breakdown but agreed the bloc was ‘in a deep crisis.’ The failure to agree on a budget for 2007-2013 reinforced impressions that the 50-year process of EU integration has lost direction after the French and Dutch referendums in which voters rejected a proposed EU constitution…

“[O]n Friday, Britain refused to surrender its annual rebate and several other nations demanded financial relief. French President Jacque Chirac said he ‘deplored’ Britain’s attitude during the tense negotiations… German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said, ‘We are in one of the worst political crises Europe has ever seen. We could not get an agreement because of the stubbornness of Great Britain and the Netherlands.’ British Prime Minister Tony Blair dismissed suggestions that Britain was the main cause of the summit’s collapse, insisting four other countries also were unable to reach agreement…

“In a sign of how much the EU’s new members were prepared to go to clinch a deal, Poland, the Czech Republic and eight other eastern nations offered funds destined for them to their rich western partners. Chirac praised the 10 nations that joined the EU last year, saying their offer to give up money to get Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland and Britain to agree to a budget deal contrasted with ‘the selfishness of two or three rich states.’… The budget dispute soured the second day of summit negotiations, pitting Britain against France.”

Reuters added the following observations:

“In a welter of recrimination, many leaders blamed Britain for blocking a deal on the 2007-2013 budget… German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder blamed British and Dutch obduracy for what he called ‘one of the worst crises Europe has known.’… The failure means Blair will inherit the EU presidency for six months on July 1 accused of torpedoing the budget talks, even by some in the ‘new Europe’ whose accession he championed.”

Reuters also observed in a related article: “The European Union’s double failure over its budget and constitution at a summit this week will probably have to wait until next year for resolution, EU politicians and analysts said on Saturday… With Britain, which led an assault on the EU budget at the summit, taking over the presidency of the 25-nation bloc, there seemed little chance of resolving the crisis until next year. Gernot Erler, foreign policy expert for Germany’s ruling Social Democrats, said: ‘You cannot expect anything from the next presidency, Britain’s, because (Prime Minister) Tony Blair particularly has contributed to the failure.’ A compromise on the disputed budget would have to wait for the Austrian presidency in the first half of 2006, he said… But London said on Saturday the EU may need a shock to reinvent itself.”

The German Press did not shy away from blaming Tony Blair and Great Britain for the collapse. Bild Online’s headline read: “Great Britain and the Netherlands plunge the EU into chaos.” Der Spiegel Online agreed that the collapse occurred mainly because of Great Britain’s demands. Der Stern Online wrote that Tony Blair was sharply criticized because of his unrelenting attitude.

The AFP added the following perspective in its article, which was published on June 18:

“Open warfare broke out over the future of the European Union after leaders’ attempts to agree to a long-term budget collapsed. The stunning failure of a two-day EU summit heaped new shame on the bloc, which had to place an EU constitutional treaty on ice following twin ballot blows from French and Dutch voters. Britain was arrayed against most of its 24 EU partners, refusing to part with a jealously-guarded budget rebate. The dispute degenerated into an ugly cross-channel skirmish with France… Amid the chaos, the European press on Saturday likened the dispute to the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo, waged 190 years ago this weekend not far from Brussels.”

Although the purported reasons for the present crisis in Europe are many, one paramount cause seems to be the existence of two different philosophies about the future of Europe. The British and especially the French are at serious odds with each other. The EUobserver explained on June 18:

“Following a bitter and failed summit on the future funding of the EU, veteran politician and current head of the EU Jean-Claude Juncker has concluded that Europe is divided into two opposing camps–a free trade camp and a political Europe camp… A large part of the reason that the French voted No was fears of a free-market Anglo-Saxon model of Europe, which they felt would cost jobs and social security… By the time the summit came around, both sides were spoiling for a fight with the British rebate and French farm subsidies taking the foreground but an ideological divide providing the background.”

An interesting perspective was also offered by the publication, “This Is London.” It was reported on June 19:

“Britain has blamed France for the EU budget crisis, accusing it of wanting a Europe ‘trapped in the past.’ France, Germany and Luxembourg turned on Britain after talks to broker a new EU budget collapsed. But Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted Britain had the support of at least four other countries. And he said those attacking Britain were on the wrong side of the divide. French president Jacques Chirac led the recriminations late on Friday night after Tony Blair twice rejected compromise proposals aimed at securing a deal. Mr Blair insisted he had no choice as the proposals would have meant abandoning Britain’s £3 billion-a-year budget rebate without tackling massive farm subsidies. Mr Straw… said the crisis had come about because other member states had failed to face up to the need for major reform. He said the decisive rejection of the EU constitution by the people of France and the Netherlands was a rejection of an ‘old-fashioned’ concept of Europe. He said it has been ‘a sad day for Europe.’ But he said it also represented an opportunity to make the changes vital for the future of the EU.

“Mr Straw conceded there was a serious schism. ‘It is essentially a division between whether you want a European Union that is able to cope with the future or whether you want a European Union that is trapped in the past,’ he said.”

The fact that most European politicians blame Great Britain for the present European chaos is remarkable. Most Britons are against the United States of Europe and Europe’s common currency, the Euro, but Tony Blair was — so far — seen as a supporter of both. Now, in light of most recent developments, Tony Blair might not be perceived to be a supporter for much longer. The Bible strongly indicates that Great Britain will not be a part of the final configuration of the United States of Europe, as foretold in Scripture. For more information, please read our free booklet,“The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

Earthquakes

A strong earthquake struck northern Chile on June 14, 2005, killing ten people, toppling 17 houses and sparking alarm on the country’s border with Peru. According to AFP, “The quake cut power in Iquique, 2,460 kilometers (1,528 miles) north of Santiago, on the Pacific Coast of South America. The United States Geological Survey measured the quake at 7.9 on the Richter scale.”

On Sunday, June 12, 2005, an earthquake with the magnitude of 5.6 struck Southern California, at Anza, near Palm Springs. It was felt from Los Angeles to San Diego.

Subsequently, “a major earthquake struck about 80 miles off the coast of northern California on Tuesday night, briefly prompting a tsunami warning along the Pacific coast,” according to The Associated Press.

The article continued: “The 7.0-magnitude quake [others state that the magnitude was 7.1 or 7.2] struck at about 7:50 p.m. southwest of the coastal community of Crescent City and 300 miles northwest of San Francisco… Witnesses felt buildings shaking along the California coast but there were no immediate reports of damage. A tsunami warning was briefly in effect from the California-Mexico border north to Vancouver Island, British Columbia, but was called off about an hour after the quake hit… Crescent City was the site of the only known tsunami to cause deaths in the continental United States. Eleven people died and 29 city blocks were washed away when a tsunami spawned by a quake hit Crescent City in 1964.”

On Thursday, June 16, 2005, an additional earthquake struck Southern California. As The Associated Press reported:

“A moderate earthquake shook most of Southern California Thursday, but there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries. The 1:53 p.m. quake had a preliminary magnitude of 5.3 and was centered three miles northeast of Yucaipa in San Bernardino County east of Los Angeles… Shaking was reported from Los Angeles to San Diego and in counties to the east.”

HIV on the Rise

According to a report published on June 14, 2005, by www.mtv.com, “More than 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV, the government reported Monday. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has reached epic proportions in the United States, surpassing the 1 million mark for the first time since the 1980s. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that between 1,039,000 and 1,185,000 Americans were living with HIV when the study took place in December 2003, a nearly 25 percent increase since the last report was released in 2002… The report indicates that nearly three-quarters of Americans living with HIV are men, and about 25 percent of individuals who are HIV-positive do not even know it… The new report did find that infection rates for young females have declined over the past 10 years but have increased among males in recent years. Notably, there was a 47 percent increase in diagnoses among young adult men (20 to 24) who have sex with men, the majority of whom were black. And while HIV and AIDS reporting differs from state to state, experts say one out of every four people infected with HIV each year is under 21.”

German TV Show Blames Bush

The Washington Times reported on June 9, 2005, about an incredible German episode of a crime series (“Tatort”), which was broadcast on German public television on Sunday, June 5, 2005. According to the article, “A fictional crime drama based on the premise that the Bush administration ordered the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington aired this week on German state television, prompting the Green Party chairman [Reinhard Buetikofer] to call for an investigation… Sunday night’s episode… revolved around a German woman and a man who was killed in her apartment. According to the plot, which was seen by approximately 7 million Germans, the dead man had been trained to be one of the September 11 pilots but was left behind, only to be tracked down and killed by CIA or FBI assassins. The drama concludes with the German detectives accepting the truth of her story as she eludes the U.S. government hit men and escapes to safety in an unnamed Arab country.”

The article continued to explain:

“As ludicrous as it may sound to most Americans, the tale has resonance in Germany, where fantastic conspiracy theories often are taken as fact. Many Germans think, for example, that the 1969 moon landing was faked, and a poll published in the weekly Die Zeit showed that 31 percent of Germans younger than 30 ‘think that there is a certain possibility that the U.S. government ordered the attacks of 9/11.'”

Sects Danger to Catholic Church?

Zenit reported on June 9, 2005, that a Vatican official, French Cardinal Paul Poupard, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, blamed religious sects in Latin America for religious “indifference.” According to the article, the cardinal explained the conclusions for this rather preposterous claim, as follows: “…religious sects are the penultimate link in a chain that ends in indifference. That chain, he said, ‘begins with the absence of an answer through religious experience to the problem of the meaning of life.'” This phenomenon is due to “a compulsive search for transcendence,” he said, “and rejection of any authority that does not justify itself by being emotionally close.”

The Cardinal blamed, in part, the Catholic clergy for this phenomenon. He said: “Many [Catholics] received only imperatives, rules, programs and commitments to action, but they were ignorant of the proclamation of salvation with convincing force and concrete language… the [Catholic] Church is seen as having inquisitorial and bureaucratic seriousness.”

A New Temple in Jerusalem?

On June 8, 2005, WorldNetDaily reported that “The Israeli rabbinical council involved with re-establishing the Sanhedrin, is calling upon all groups involved in Temple Mount research to prepare detailed architectural plans for the reconstruction of the Jewish Holy Temple. The Sanhedrin was a 71-man assembly of rabbis that convened adjacent to the Holy Temple before its destruction in 70 AD and outside Jerusalem until about 400 AD.

“The move followed the election earlier this week of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz as temporary president of a group aspiring to become Judaism’s highest-ranking legal-religious tribunal… the group will establish a forum of architects and engineers to begin plans for rebuilding the Temple–a move fraught with religious and political volatility… The Sanhedrin was reestablished last October in Tiberias, the place of its last meeting 1,600 years ago. Since then, it has met in Jerusalem on a monthly basis.”

Israel and the USA

Reuters reported on June 14, 2005, that “Israel is trying to defuse a festering dispute over longstanding U.S. opposition to its arms sales to China and faces new U.S. demands for closer oversight of weapons deals with India… The affair has strained security ties between Israel and the United States, its main ally and provider of about $2 billion in annual defense aid, at a time when it seeks U.S. assistance to help implement its planned withdrawal from Gaza this August… Washington torpedoed Israel’s multi-billion dollar sale of Phalcon strategic airborne radar systems to China in 2000, citing concerns it could upset the regional balance of power. The United States now has similar concerns with regard to weapons sales to India… ‘Relations with the U.S. are important and critical to Israel … but at the same time Israel must uphold its independence and there should be some type of reciprocity in (defense) relations,'” according to Yuval Steinitz, head of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Europe’s Future

On June 9, 2005, Der Spiegel Online discussed the potential consequences of the French and Dutch “No”-votes against the EU Constitution. The magazine pointed out:

“So far, every attempt to save the European constitution following its spectacular rejection in France and Holland has failed. More storms are rapidly approaching. The European Union is now –finally — being forced to decide what it wants to be… Now, the constitution, designed as a showpiece for European unity and future guarantee for an expanded Europe, is clinically dead… A dam has been broken, but nobody wants to be the first to admit that the house is under water… In truth, nobody knows how Europe is supposed to find its way out of this impasse… this debate is about more than a controversial draft constitution. The questions go to the very core of the European project.

“Are the entire foundations of European unity up for debate? Will countries leave the euro and return to their national currencies, like the deutsche mark and the Dutch guilder? Will it be full-steam reverse out of Brussels and back to nation-states?

“Experts are now considering, in the event the crisis heightens, scenarios in which countries could leave the EU. And, paradoxically, the very constitution rejected by the Dutch and French would have made exiting the Union possible… A not insignificant group of European citizens are no longer willing to prostrate themselves before the altar of a Europe… Both politically and economically, fundamental decisions must now be made about the future course of the European Union. Should the EU maintain its goal of a strong political union, as desired by Germany and France?… Europe dreams of becoming a super state like the US, a world power… These are times in which extremists and populists are achieving ever-greater success with their anti-Europe slogans, and a boundless debate could greatly damage it or even lead to the collapse of what former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl — one of the great architects of EU unity — called the ‘European House.'”

The Associated Press reported on June 16, 2005:

“In a blow to their ambitions, European Union leaders decided Thursday to put on hold plans to unite their 25 nations under a single constitution, saying they needed to reconnect with their people.”

It was announced that the target date of November 2006 for ratification of the EU constitution will “with certainty” not be met. As the German and Austrian press reported, it is hoped that a special European summit will be arranged in June of 2006, under the Austrian presidency.

EU vs. Germany and France

As Reuters reported on June 14, 2005, “Britain and France failed on Tuesday to resolve major differences over the European Union’s long-term budget, leaving the bloc facing financial deadlock as well as a political crisis over its constitution. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was hard to see how the differences could be bridged after talks with French President Jacques Chirac, dimming hopes of an agreement on the 2007-2013 budget at an EU summit on Thursday and Friday…

“France and other EU member states want Britain to compromise over its annual budget rebate from EU coffers. Blair has signaled he might compromise if France gives ground on the big EU farm subsidies it receives. Paris has rejected this.”

After the first day of the summit, no agreement was reached.

The Catholic Church and the Italians

As AFP reported on June 12, 2005, “Italians voted on whether to relax a tough assisted procreation law in a two-day referendum seen [as] a first test for Pope Benedict XVI after the Roman Catholic Church called on Italians to boycott the vote on moral grounds… But many Italians said they were angered by what they described as the Church’s interference in national politics… Even some practicing Catholics said they were upset by the Church’s campaign.” Nevertheless, most Italians seemed to have followed the Catholic Church’s admonition to boycott the vote. According to Zenit, only about one-quarter of Italians went to the polls on Sunday and Monday to vote on the referendum on experimentation with human embryos. Under Italian law, more than half of the eligible voters must participate, for a referendum to be valid.

The Death of the Euro?

Part of the international press jumped on a statement by Italy’s anti-European minister of labor and social affairs, Roberto Maroni, to reintroduce the Italian lira and allow for both the euro and the lira, and a report by Der Stern Online that discussions were held by some regarding the euro. Some of the articles which were subsequently published grossly exaggerated the facts and even gave the impression that the euro was dying. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Italian press clarified that the minister spoke his own mind which was not shared by the Italian government under president Berlusconi.

As Timesonline explained on June 4, 2005:

“Embattled EU financial leaders spent the day defending the currency, dismissing talk of its break-up as ‘absurd’. One senior EU official said: ‘Euro notes and coins are for ever, like the euro.'”

The EUobserver reported on June 2, 2005, “German analysts have poured cold water on rumours that the European Monetary Union (EMU) might be broken up in the wake of the French and Dutch no votes… ‘It [an EMU break up] is not a realistic scenario’, Commerzbank economist Christoph Balz told EUobserver. ‘But in the current mood of the market, everybody jumped on the news. Even if it was later denied, the market still thought if there is smoke, there is fire’.

“Germany’s Stern magazine published news on Wednesday (1 June) about a recent meeting between German finance minister Hans Eichel, Bundesbank president Axel Weber and private sector analysts which purportedly discussed Germany’s exit from the common currency. Berlin and the national bank both denied the report, while analysts at major German banks indicated that what really happened was that one of the private sector economists at the gathering mentioned a potential EMU crisis and the mere presence of high-ranking officials gave the speculation undue weight.”

The article also pointed out that in light of the French and Dutch “No”-votes to the EU constitution, the euro fell against the U.S. dollar, but it is expected to rise again by the end of the year. “The weaker euro is also set to boost the fortunes of European exporters, the Commerzbank economist indicated… ‘We are probably close to the bottom of the movement. This [the weakening of the euro] is the current mood of the market, but it is not the beginning of a trend’, he said.”

A Core Europe?

The EUobserver wrote on June 2, 2005:

“Reports have already emerged that Berlin is once again looking at the idea of a core Europe. According to Press Association (PA), the British news agency, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder called his Dutch counterpart on Wednesday evening to offer The Hague a chance to take part in an inner circle of EU founding members, who could forge ahead.” The article continued that “Mr Balkenende made it perfectly clear he wasn’t interested. He is well aware that the Netherlands would be a junior partner in such a small grouping alongside Germany and France.”

A Shorter EU Constitution

On June 3, 2005, EUobserver published a thought-provoking commentary by Kimmo Kiljunen, Finnish Member of Parliament and former member of the EU Constitutional Convention. It stated:

“France and Holland have just demonstrated a masterpiece of political bungling. Leading politicians did not know how to tell their citizens what the EU constitution is about. A clear majority of the French and the Dutch said ‘No’ to the new EU constitution. At the same time, they said ‘Yes’ to the present EU. The referendums won’t make the EU go away. It will carry on as before….

“The only way to save the EU constitution is to approve an abbreviated version. Drop the technical and explanatory articles in parts III and IV. The new constitution only needs parts I and II: what the Union is for, how it makes its decisions, and the rights of citizens. This would give the constitution a chance to be approved. It would also offer citizens a more comprehensible document. This abbreviated constitution would have a chance of passing referendums in France and Holland by late 2006.”

Europe Is Here To Stay

The Christian Science Monitor published an insightful article on June 3, 2005, pertaining to the future of Europe. It stated the following:

“The charter’s next steps won’t be decided until an EU summit June 16-17. And some observers say no substantial action will occur until 2007, when Germany and France are expected to have new governments. But as they rouse themselves from this week’s nightmare scenario, proponents of greater European unity say that the EU’s work will go on… Despite reaching an eight-month low against the US dollar this week, the euro will persist as Europe’s common currency. Greater military cooperation, negotiation as a single bloc at the World Trade Organization, and efforts to create a common immigration policy will also continue…. Observers recall that past EU crises have sometimes served as springboards for further progress. At the end of the 1960s, for example, French President Charles de Gaulle’s refusal to allow Britain to join the EU paralyzed the six-member community. Widespread frustration at this led to pressure for new initiatives, which resulted in the Union’s first expansion.”

Europe Without Great Britain?

As news.telegraph.co.uk reported on June 6, 2005, “Tony Blair has given up on Europe as an issue worth fighting for, senior allies of the Prime Minister have told The Sunday Telegraph.” Mr. Blair’s government also very wisely decided to postpone any referendum in Great Britain [which had been scheduled to take place in the spring of 2006], realizing full well that the British people are at this point expected to vote against the EU constitution by a wide margin.

Other member states were not impressed by Mr. Blair’s approach. As the EUobserver reported, “Several member states have continued to stick by their plans to have a referendum on the constitution despite Britain’s decision on Monday to shelve its own plans for a public poll. Speaking just after the British decision, Polish foreign minister Adam Rotfeld said, ‘The French, Dutch or British cannot make the decision for us. We should decide for ourselves … through a referendum. Regardless of what happens to the treaty, an unambiguous “yes” by Poland in favour of European integration given through a referendum will greatly strengthen Poland’s position’, he said…. Ireland and Denmark, the other countries planning to have a referendum, are also staying firm for the time being. According to The Irish Times, Dublin said its position remained exactly as it was before London’s announcement – to continue paving the way for a referendum.”

In a related article, the EUobserver pointed out Britain’s precarious situation, as follows:

“Over the weekend, the French and German leaders also called for votes on the EU charter to continue, and Mr Chirac’s spokesman suggested Britain held ‘great responsibility’ during its half year at the helm of the EU – starting from 1 July – in finding a way out of the current crisis.”

As Der Spiegel Online put it, Britain did not listen to the European message. What will this mean for Britain’s future?

Germans Against the EU Constitution?

Germany’s major parties concluded that the German Constitution did not allow for a referendum of the German people regarding the introduction of the euro and the EU constitution. This very dubious and legally questionable conclusion served as a political avenue to force the euro and the EU constitution on the people of Germany, although a growing number seems to be against both.

According to Bild Online, 96.9 percent are against the EU constitution. The tabloid justifies its conclusions after having polled almost 400,000 readers. According to another, more reliable poll by the more serious magazine, Focus, 44 percent are for the EU Constitution, while 39 percent are against it, and 17 percent are undecided. Before the French and the Dutch “no”-votes, 52 percent had supported the EU constitution. According to the magazine, 62 percent of those under 24 were for the constitution.

Turkey and the EU

Der Stern pointed out, correctly, on May 31, 2005:

“The nice words of the German Chancellor [Gerhard Schroeder, SPD] cannot fool anyone that it is not the EU constitution which reflects European reality, but the question of enlargement. The [CDU] understands this… Europe with 25, 27, 57 member states cannot be easily organized… What has been difficult with 15 member states, is impossible with 25.”

The article pointed out, too, that one EU applicant which would not meet the support of a new Angela Merkel-Edmund Stoiber [CDU/CSU] government, would be Turkey. As Focus pointed out on June 3, Spain has recently changed its position in support of the Merkel-Stoiber position. The Spanish government advocated that the EU reconsider membership conditions of Turkey. Until now, Spain was one of the strongest supporters for a EU membership of Turkey.

Iraq’s Dead

As Focus reported on June 3, 2005, “the [alleged] improvements in Iraq are not supported by the figures… In the last 18 months, 12,000 civilians were killed [in violent attacks by insurgents]… More than 10,500 victims were Shiites… Since the beginning of the US invasion in March of 2003, 1,663 US military personnel were killed.”

Monotheistic Religions and the Family

On June 6, 2005, Zenit published the text of a remarkable address Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sidney, gave to an interreligious conference in defense of family life and marriage. The following are excerpts from his speech:

“One of the great tasks facing us for the 21st century is to build bridges and improve relations among the great religions, especially among all monotheists. Jews, Christians and Moslems should have a special advantage in undertaking this work, because we are all the children of Abraham. We all worship the one true God, reverence the holy city of Jerusalem, believe that our actions in this life will be judged, met with approval or disapproval in the next life. We believe in God as creator of the universe and as the Great Judge after the day of resurrection. We all believe in the importance of prayer… we belong to the same monotheist family… All children of Abraham are called to oppose the excesses of individualism, such as pornography, drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual promiscuity and abortion. We who profess a religious faith have a solemn duty to uphold key moral values and to propose them to society…

“Of particular concern to all Christians, Jews and Muslims is the family. People are foolish if they pretend that the consequences of family breakdown have no social impact. One of the great cleavages that we are beginning to see opening up in our society is between children who come from stable and loving families, and those who do not. Those who are lost to drugs, suicide, violence, and alcoholism, are often those who do not have the personal and family resources and resilience to resist or avoid these perils. Family breakdown and instability are a growing cause of impoverishment. Loving faithful marriage is the true foundation of the family. I suspect that the haves and have-nots of the future will often be divided into those who have had a loving family upbringing and those who have never had this opportunity. The children of Abraham should take the lead in ensuring a better future not only for children and families, but also for our country.”

Europe in Deep Crisis

As many newspapers and magazines reported, the French and Dutch votes against the EU Constitution have created a deep, long-term and serious crisis for Europe. For instance, UPI pointed out on May 29, 2005: “France’s decisive rejection of the draft new constitution for the European Union Sunday by a 55-45 margin on a turnout of over 70 percent of voters plunged France and Europe into a deep political crisis. Other European officials were uncertain whether there was any point now in continuing with the planned referendums in other countries, and particularly in Britain… And other smaller countries, like the Danes and Swedes who voted to stay out of the euro currency, or the Czechs, have their own reasons to question the referendum.”

On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, The Associated Press reported that “Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the European constitution in a referendum Wednesday… in what could be a knockout blow for the charter roundly defeated just days ago by France… The referendum failed by a vote of 63 percent to 37 percent. The turnout was 62 percent, exceeding all expectations… Although the referendum was consultative, the high turnout and the decisive margin left no room for the Dutch parliament to turn its back on the people’s verdict… The constitution was designed to further unify the 25-nation bloc and give it more clout on the world stage. But the draft document needs approval from all the nations to take effect in late 2006, and the ‘no’ vote in both France and the Netherlands– founding members of the bloc–was a clear message European integration has gone awry.”

Reuters added: “Dutch voters rejected the European Union constitution on Wednesday… deepening a crisis in the bloc and possibly dooming the treaty after fellow EU founding member France rejected it on Sunday… The rejection of the charter by the Netherlands, like France one of the six countries that founded the bloc in the 1950s, could deliver a fatal blow to the treaty… It also casts doubt on the EU’s… plans to expand further to the Western Balkans, Turkey and Ukraine… Most EU leaders have said ratification of the charter should continue as planned until late 2006 to allow all countries to have had their say, but diplomats say that is just a holding position until an EU summit on June 16-17.”

USA Concerned Over French “No”

The EUobserver reported on May 27, 2005, just prior to the French vote against the EU constitution on May 29, that “A possible French ‘no’ to the European Constitution referendum is causing some US defence industry chiefs concern… The US needs a stronger EU with which it can share the burden of military operations in the world, said a veteran US lobbyist present at the meeting. ‘We [the US] are too stretched, and, let’s face it, we are going broke’, he added. The European Constitutional text [now rejected by France] paves the way for European countries to increase military cooperation by the means of a ‘Structured Cooperation Procedure.'”

Israel Not Unhappy Over Europe’s Crisis

The Jerusalem Post reported on June 1, 2005, that Israel might be secretly rejoicing over the French and the Dutch votes, rejecting the EU Constitution. The article pointed out:

“Last July, soon after the European Union angered Jerusalem by voting en masse against Israel at the UN on the security fence, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana visited Israel and said the EU cannot be ignored. ‘The European Union is a very important international power and is going to play a role here, whether you like it or not,’ Solana said. A few months later German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer visited with pretty much the same message. In a meeting with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, Fischer said that Europe, with its 450 million people, was a growing political force – and not only a common market – and that Israel would do well to take that fact into consideration. These comments came as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who harbors a real distrust of European designs, was doing everything he could to box the EU out of the diplomatic process, preferring – instead – to deal almost exclusively… with the US. Sharon trusts US President George W. Bush and the US. The same cannot be said of his attitude toward Europe…

“It is likely, therefore, that the stinging rejection of the EU constitution in France on Sunday… is not being lamented this week in the Prime Minister’s Office. Although European politicians and pundits are debating what this means for the future of a united Europe, one thing is certain, it does not strengthen the EU. Another thing for certain is that a weaker EU is perceived in the current corridors of power to be in Israel’s short-term interest – although no one, for obvious reasons, will go on record saying this…

“An EU united by a constitution would – at least politically – mean a strengthened EU, a major force on the world scene that would, in a matter of time, see itself as America’s equal on the international stage. A much-strengthened EU would indeed be able to demand a seat on near-equal footing with the US around the Middle East negotiating table. Sharon doesn’t want this to happen… While Romano Prodi, the former president of the European Commission, may have been exaggerating when he warned recently that a French non to the constitution would mean ‘the end of Europe,’ it does surely mean a weaker Europe. And a weaker Europe, at least in Sharon’s eyes, is nothing to cry about, especially in light of comments like those of Solana that Europe would play a role here ‘whether you like it or not.’ Sharon obviously doesn’t like it, and a weaker Europe means he might not have to tolerate it either.”

A Core Europe?

WorldNetDaily published an interesting article by Hal Lindsey on May 26, 2005, just prior to the French vote. Lindsey speculated what might happen if the French reject the EU Constitution. He wrote:

“The French view the E.U. constitution as an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ document designed to enshrine ‘Thatcherite policies’ they say will devastate the social balance of Europe. The wider implications of a ‘no’ vote are unclear, but there is already some discussion of renegotiating a ‘core Europe’ solution. A ‘core Europe’ model would move forward without Britain and other ‘undesirables’ – such being defined as those European states that supported the U.S. war in Iraq. The idea of a ‘core Europe’ – with France and Germany at the center moving quickly ahead with joint policies, while slower states bring up the rear – was once seen as a spur to closer integration. It has since morphed into a threat: ‘If you’re not ready, we’ll do it on our own.’ German officials privately admit to misgivings about the idea of core Europe, especially one dominated by France. As Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, said at the Brussels summit, the idea is a second-best solution, not Germany’s first choice. But he sees it as a logical move if the draft constitution fails and enlargement paralyzes the European Union.

“A Dec. 18, Economist article noted that, ‘the collapse of the constitutional talks may allow the French to insist that an enlarged E.U. will be unworkable, so that a core Europe is needed.’ The Economist’s story bore the intriguing headline: ‘Who Killed the Constitution – And What Happens to the Beast Now?’… Depending on the decision of the French, and later the Dutch voters, the coming weeks may give some hint to the answer to the Economist’s intriguing question: ‘And What Happens to the Beast Now?'”

Former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt wrote in 2004 in Die Zeit about the concept of a core Europe. He explained that the idea was invented by France to go on with Europe if and when Great Britain should vote against it. Schmidt also stated: “In practice, a core within the EU will develop; it will with certainty include France and Germany and most likely other founding members, such as Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.”

Why the French “No”-Vote?

On May 31, 2005, the Catholic pro-Vatican paper, Zenit, published an interview with Giorgio Salina, vice president of the Convention of Christians for Europe, discussing the perceived reasons as to why the current EU constitution might not survive after the French “No”-vote. The article stated:

“The country that was most opposed to the mention of the continent’s Christian roots in the European Constitution, has seen that charter rejected by its people.”

Salina was quoted as saying: “No one mentions the rejection of the Judeo-Christian roots: Whether we like it or not, it is quite probable that this contributed to form a negative judgment among a substantial number of European citizens.”

Salina was also asked: “Do you really think that there are people who did not vote because of the absence of a reference to Europe’s roots?” He responded: “Yes, I am convinced that it was one of the causes. There was dislike for the ignorance of a historical truth impossible to deny and there certainly was dislike for the arrogant rejection of not even wanting to consider the argument.”

The paper went on to ask: “In fact, this vote seems to be rather a rejection of the policies promoted by the European Union. According to some observers, there is unease over the power of the Brussels bureaucracy, and over a cultural policy that, in the name of tolerance, rejects the Judeo-Christian tradition and cancels the family, promoting homosexual marriages. What is your opinion?” Salina responded: “I agree! Tolerance is, certainly, to ensure the rights of all cultures and identities, but not to ignore the culture shared by the majority.”

According to an article in Bild Online of May 31, 2005, Lord George Weidenfeld, London publisher and one of the most “influential thinkers in the world,” stated that it was a “big mistake not to refer to God in the preamble” of the EU constitution.

Euro Falls

As the Financial Times reported on May 31, 2005, because of the French “No” vote, “The euro tumbled to a fresh seven-month low against the US dollar in European morning trade on Tuesday… The shared currency fell across the board as political uncertainty rose in the wake of Sunday’s French rejection of the proposed European Union constitution by an unexpectedly wide margin of 54.9 per cent to 45.1 per cent. With opinion polls indicating that the French No vote may have hardened opposition to the constitution in the Netherlands, which votes on Wednesday, ‘this has placed more significant doubts on the future direction of the EU with 25 members rather than the initial 15,’ said Derek Halpenny, senior currency economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. President Jacques Chirac’s decision to name Dominique de Villepin as prime minister, following the resignation of Jean-Pierre Raffarin, also appeared to go down badly with the market, sending the euro lower still when the announcement was made.”

Reuters confirmed: “The euro fell to its lowest level against the dollar for more than seven months on Wednesday and has lost almost 10 percent since March when polls turned negative on the treaty…”

According to an article of Der Spiegel Online, which was published on June 1, 2005, a further fall of the Euro is anticipated after the Dutch vote, but economists also expect a rise of the Euro by the end of the year, largely due to the weak US economy.

No Stop For Nuclear Weapons?

The International Herald Tribune and the New York Times reported on May 28, 2005 that “A monthlong conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ended in complete failure Friday… with the nuclear and nonnuclear states so far apart that they never engaged in a detailed discussion [regarding] … a resurgence in the spread of the most dangerous nuclear technologies…. For most of the four weeks of the meeting, nonnuclear states insisted that the United States and other nuclear powers focus on radically reducing their nuclear armaments, while the Bush administration and European powers tried to focus the conference on the question of dealing with North Korea and Iran… In an interview from Vienna, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that ‘absolutely nothing’ had come out of the meeting. He had proposed new mechanisms for international control of nuclear material so that states could not build weapons under the cover of civilian projects.”

More on Sunday

Zenit reported on May 29, 2005, that Pope Benedict XVI emphasized again the absolute need for Catholics to keep Sunday holy. The pope was quoted as saying: “The Sunday precept, therefore, is not a simple duty imposed from outside. To participate in the Sunday celebration and to be nourished with the Eucharistic bread is a need of a Christian, who in this way can find the necessary energy for the journey to be undertaken… We must rediscover the joy of the Christian Sunday… May today’s Christians again become aware of the decisive importance of the Sunday celebration, so that we will be able to draw from participation in the Eucharist the necessary drive for a new commitment to proclaim Christ ‘our peace’ to the world.'” The pope also recalled martyrs who died because of their belief in Sunday Mass. The theme of the congress which the pope attended, had the following motto of the martyrs: “We Cannot Live without Sunday.”

Reactions to the French “No”-Vote

The Financial Times wrote on May 31, 2005: “The European Union is poised to shelve its proposed constitution for several years after French voters rejected the treaty in a referendum on Sunday… Diplomats in Brussels expect the treaty to be put on ice for several years, in the hope that France and… the Netherlands will reverse their votes at a later date.”

The Associated Press added on May 29: “France’s rejection could set the continent’s plans back by years. The nation was a primary architect of European unity… All 25 EU members must ratify the text for it to take effect as planned by Nov. 1, 2006. Nine already have done so: Austria, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.”

Reuters explained on May 29: “If the constitution does not survive, the EU will continue to operate under its current rules. But the system is widely seen as unworkable for a Union intent on enlarging further, and decision-making could soon become paralyzed.”

Bild Online wrote: “This was a black Sunday for France — and for Europe… It is a serious drawback… We are threatened with a standstill that has not happened since the 1950’s, according to EU expert and counselor to the Commission for the Constitution, Andreas Maurer.”

Der Spiegel Online commented: “According to Gunether Verheugen, vice-president of the EU Commission, there is no reason to change the text of the Constitution. The best is to continue with the ratification process, he said. And then those who did not ratify will have to tell us how to continue, he added. He also stated that France’s no was dictated by domestic political concerns that did not address the European question. He said that once the powers in France change, the people might also change their minds regarding the EU constitution, and may want to vote again.”

In a related article, the magazine wrote: “Europe will go on — but where?… Europe is facing difficult times… No one in Brussels knows, how it will continue.”

Der Stern Online stated in its commentary that the French No should not be looked at as a death sentence, but a wake-up call. It said: “The integration was so successful that it lost its goal and purpose. The EU desperately needs a new orientation… Now we can honestly discuss where Europe is supposed to be going, and what purpose it is supposed to have.. Europe needs a new believable goal… as to what dreams are to be realized within, let’s say, the next 20 years [by 2025].” The same magazine had commented earlier, prior to the French vote, that if France should reject the Constitution, the German-French nucleus would be destroyed, and it would be unclear what forces might be set free.

The magazine also commented on May 31, that “the European crisis has arrived, and there is no solution in sight… The German-French engine does not appear to be able to show a safe way… There are no leaders in sight who could convincingly speak for the ‘project Europe.’… Tony Blair will become the next rotating president in June… He is hardly the man who could save Europe.”

Catholics and Anglicans

As the Seattle Post-Intellgencer reported on May 17, 2005, “The historical separation between Roman Catholics and Anglicans has narrowed after both found common ground on the position of Mary, mother of Jesus, according to a document conceived at the highest church levels and released in Seattle yesterday. Anglicans, already close to Catholics because of liturgy and traditions, have moved even closer through their understanding of Mary as outlined in the joint statement, which took five years and an international committee to complete. The document seeks to transcend past controversies on Catholic dogma, including the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary…

“The result might be an elevation, or at least a heightened acknowledgment, of the place of Mary — particularly for Anglicans, the denomination born in England during the Reformation and called the Episcopal Church in the United States. Anglicanism is considered closest to Catholicism because it gives Mary a pre-eminent place among the saints, includes her in Communion prayers and holds six Marian feast days. Among other matters, Catholics and Protestants disagree over the Catholic dogmas of the Immaculate Conception — the assertion that Mary lived a life free from sin from the moment she was conceived — and the Assumption, the belief that her body and soul were taken into heaven when her earthly life ended. Those dogmas have ‘created problems not only for Anglicans but also for other Christians,’ the document said, largely because they are not explicitly supported by Scripture.”

The Catholic Church and Sunday

As Zenit reported on May 22, 2005, “Every parish is called to rediscover the beauty of Sunday, the day of the Lord, says Benedict XVI… ‘in which Christ’s disciples renew, in the Eucharist, communion with the One who gives meaning to their joys and exhaustions of each day.’… The theme of the Italian Eucharistic Congress — ‘We Cannot Live without Sunday’ — repeats the words expressed before their death by the 49 martyrs of Abitene, a city of the Roman province of ‘pro-consular Africa,’ present-day Tunis, in the year 303, at the time of Diocletian’s persecutions. ‘This is what we are called to repeat today,’ said the [pope].”

The Catholic Church and Spain

Zenit reported on May 23, 2005: “Benedict XVI in his message said he is aware that ‘the Catholic Church in Spain is ready to take firm steps in its evangelizing projects’ and added that ‘the transmission of the faith and believers’ religious practice cannot be confined to the purely private realm’…. Cardinal Antonio Rouco of Madrid offered a catechesis in the Church of St. James the Elder affirming: ‘Spain will be Christian and Catholic or it will cease to exist as such. In other words, if it loses its roots, not only will it cease to be Catholic Christian, but it will cease to be Spain.'”

Pope Benedict XVI and the British Press

As Zenit reported on May 23, 2005, Peter Jennings, press secretary to Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, had some strong words about the negative coverage of the British press pertaining to the new pope. In his interview with Zenit, he stated:

“The British media works out of a framework of liberal secularism and does not understand events from the perspective of faith… Attitudes towards the Catholic Church in Britain have changed considerably for the better over the past three decades. Unfortunately there is still a trace of an anti-Roman mentality combined with a general British suspicion of all things ‘foreign.’

“In addition, hostility now is based more on an aggressive secular agenda that dominates the British media… The British media is hostile to the Church of England, too. In fact, for some journalists, there is a respect for the strength and coherence of the Catholic Church… Don’t judge British society by the British press! The press has its own agenda. There was very widespread and positive interest among British society, at every level, in the death and funeral Mass of Pope John Paul II, and the conclave, election and inaugural Mass of Pope Benedict XVI. People who had never been into a Catholic Church attended a special requiem Mass for Pope John Paul II celebrated in St. Chad’s Cathedral, situated in the center of Birmingham, on the day of the funeral Mass in Rome….

“The attitude of the British press to Christianity is generally hostile. Its attitude to Judaism and Islam is completely different because of the potential criticism that would follow hostile and negative reporting of these faiths.”

New Elections in Germany

As The Associated Press reported on May 23, 2005, “[German Chancellor Gerhard] Schroeder shocked the country on Sunday, announcing his high-risk early election plan shortly after his Social Democrats (SPD) were booted out of office in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany’s most populous state, ruled by the party for 39 years. Bringing forward the election by one year to this autumn carries huge risks for Schroeder.”

The article continued to explain:

“The result solidifies the conservative majority [the Christian Democratic Union party, “CDU”] in the Bundesrat [upper house of parliament], although it leaves them just shy of a two-thirds majority that would allow them to block virtually all government legislation, including the budget. The SPD has now seen its support decline in nine consecutive state elections. NRW was the last state ruled by a coalition of the SPD and the leftist-environmentalist Greens, leaving the federal coalition in Berlin as the last ‘Red-Green’ alliance.”

Schroeder’s challenger in new elections will be “Opposition leader Angela Merkel [who] vowed on Monday to oust Gerhard Schroeder — a move that could make her Germany’s first woman chancellor — after he put his job on the line with a shock call for early elections. Merkel grew up in the former East Germany and became a protege of ex-Chancellor Helmut Kohl after the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall. Now she is the favorite to take on Schroeder in a federal election that could come as early as September.”

Better Future Relations Between USA and Germany?

The Associated Press asked the poignant question in its article of May 24, 2005: “With Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder soon to face disgruntled voters, would a different Berlin government improve the tattered U.S.-German relationship?” The article continued: “Angela Merkel, leader of the Christian Democratic Union opposition party, would find it a stretch to restore the relationship to its Cold War heyday – but she’s been far less critical of President Bush and the Iraq war. A Protestant minister’s daughter who grew up under communist rule in East Germany, Merkel is almost certain to be the conservative CDU’s candidate in early elections called for by Schroeder after his party badly lost a local weekend election.”

The article pointed out: “People in Germany remember in particular Merkel’s visit to the United States on Feb. 24-25, 2003, as the [Iraq] war neared. She met with Vice President Dick Cheney, said the danger from Iraq was real and that pressure must be kept on Saddam Hussein. She disputed Schroeder’s refusal to support a war under any circumstances, even with the approval of the United Nations. ‘Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely,’ she wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece ahead of her visit.”

At the same time, according to The Associated Press, “Merkel differs sharply with Bush on one pressing issue: She opposes European Union membership for Turkey, which Bush has supported.” In addition, if people think that a German government under Merkel will become a strong friend of the USA, they might be wrong. The Associated Press stated:

“Thomas Risse, a professor of international politics at Berlin’s Free University, said that if elected, Merkel might bring more a change in style than in substance… ‘As far as the substance of the trans-Atlantic relationship goes, I don’t see much difference,’ he said. Germany is not going to send troops to Iraq no matter who the chancellor is, he said, and Merkel’s party supports a U.N. security council seat for Germany, just as Schroeder does. The U.S. has not taken a public position on a seat for Germany, but it’s unlikely the Bush administration looks with much comfort on the idea. ‘If people in Washington think it’s going to be that much easier with a CDU government,’ Risse said, ‘they’re in for a lot of surprises.'”

Most conservative American journalists have given up on Schroeder and are already celebrating Merkel’s perceived soon-coming victory. As Der Spiegel reported on May 25, 2005, in its article, “Who is Angie?”: “The White House won’t miss Schroeder… But who is Merkel? The American government is pretty unsure about her… The biggest concern is the coming German election campaign. Bush’s government is afraid that the old wounds of the Iraq war will be opened. Schroeder will take every opportunity, it is feared, to remind the Germans that Merkel was a supporter of the US-led war. In light of the present disaster in Iraq, Merkel could be facing difficulties in Germany, according to American commentators. And that would be likewise true for Bush at home.”

In summary, people might be surprised either way: Although not too many give Schroeder a chance to win in the next election, Schroeder might surprise them. And if Merkel wins, she, too, might surprise many people.

Turkey and the EU

As the EUobserver stated on May 24, 2005, “A change of government in Germany in September to favour the Christian Democrats could spell trouble for Turkey’s bid to become a member of the EU. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s decision to seek early elections after his party’s regional election defeat on Sunday (22 May) has already prompted the CDU to let it be known that one of its campaign themes will be its opposition to Turkish EU membership.”

The article continued:

“CDU politician Matthias Wissman, the head of the Europe committee in the Bundestag, told German daily FT Deutschland, ‘We will tell people that the likelihood of full EU membership for Turkey is much much lower under a [CDU] government. Of course, Germany does not decide alone about [Turkey’s] membership,’ he added, ‘but Germany’s weight in the EU means that a German change of position can also lead to a change in the EU’s position.'”

EU Battle Groups

The EUobserver reported on May 23, 2005: “EU defence ministers meeting on Monday in Brussels took some more steps towards the creation of the bloc’s own rapid reaction ‘battle groups’ by deciding to speed up the bloc’s notoriously slow decision-making process… Meanwhile Germany signed itself up to two more battle groups with France and Spain as well as with Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania and Latvia with the first to be ready in the second half of 2008 and the second during the first half of 2010.”

Water Shortage in Middle East?

AFP reported on May 21, 2005, about the possibility of serious water shortage in the Middle East. The article stated:

“The Middle East is faced with the prospect of a serious water crisis that could lead to political tensions and hamper prosperity, experts told a session of a World Economic Forum (WEF)… Hazem Nasser, former Jordanian water and irrigation minister, [told the audience:] ‘In 1950, the Arab population was 75 million. In 2,000, it was 300 million, and is expected to grow to 600 million by 2025.’ He said the deficit of water in the region was 30 billion cubic meters (approximately 7.95 trillion imperial gallons) last year and is expected to grow to 175 billion cubic meters (46 trillion gallons) in 2025. ‘Most of the countries in the region have exhausted their water resources,’ he said.”

Pope Benedict XVI

Bild Online reported last week about the new pope’s first Pentecost mass in Rome. According to the newspaper, the pope stated in his sermon that the “Ten Commandments” do not constitute a diminishment or abrogation of freedom, but that they are the very foundation of freedom.

This is very true. We might ask, however, how the pope can explain the fact that the Catholic Church HAS abrogated two of the Ten Commandments (the second commandment against idols and the fourth commandment, enjoining the keeping of the Seventh-Day-Sabbath)?

Archbishop William Levada the New “Enforcer”

As the Associated Press reported on May 14, 2005, Archbishop William Levada, the “68-year-old leader of the San Francisco Archdiocese was named by longtime friend Pope Benedict XVI as his own replacement leading the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” The article pointed out that Levada “has a track record of upholding Roman Catholic policies while deftly handling controversy. But his appointment as the chief enforcer of church doctrine was sharply criticized by clerical sex abuse victims, who say he’s done a poor job of dealing with the crisis. Levada countered that his experience with the issue is an advantage for the church.”

News on the European Constitution

On Friday, May 13, 2005, the British Daily Mail wrote:

“German MPs [Members of Parliament] overwhelmingly backed the controversial EU Constitution yesterday after Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told them: ‘Don’t bother with the details.’ The German people were denied a referendum… despite mounting pressure in recent months for such a vote to take place… Supporters of the treaty hope that yesterday’s Yes vote in the German lower house and a subsequent vote in the upper house on May 27 will overcome waverers in France, where a tightly-contested referendum takes place on May 29.”

As news.telegraph.co.uk reported on May 12, 2005, “The campaign for a Yes vote in the French referendum on the European Union constitution suffered a setback yesterday when it emerged that the widow of the country’s last socialist president, François Mitterrand, had withdrawn her support.” According to the article, Mrs. Mitterrand explained her change of mind as follows: “‘It is a system which treats man like an economic object and forgets that he can think, and which generates the worst human misery – unemployment and pollution.”’

The EUobserver reported on May 12, 2005 about Germany’s ratification:

“The EU biggest member state and founding member of the bloc has easily passed the European Constitution through its lower parliament… Germany’s Bundestag voted 569 in favour with 23 against and two abstentions… Most of those voting No came from the ranks of the Christian Democrat opposition parties. They are against the Constitution because they believe it will take too much power away from their own national parliament in favour of the EU.”

The article also pointed out: “If approved by all member states the Constitution will introduce an EU foreign minister… It also gives far greater powers to the European Parliament [and] has a mutual defence clause.”

Bild Online stated on May 12, 2005, that the EU Constitution contains “weaknesses” — because it does not refer to God. The newspaper wrote: “It does not have a reference to God, since mainly Great Britain and France opposed it.” Still, it published the following commentary:

“Even though almost nobody noticed it, this was a great day for Germany. With its Yes for the Constitution, the German Parliament has rendered one of its most important decisions since the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany — and one of its most correct ones… It is a gift for all the peoples of Europe… We are allowed to dream today of a peaceful, friendly continent, which might one of these days create something new: The United States of Europe.”

Der Spiegel Online reported on May 12, 2005, that eight countries ratified the EU Constitution, including, among others, Austria, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Hungary. Those which will still have to ratify, via referendum, include, among others, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Portugal.

On May 12, 2005, the EUobserver reported that “The Catholic Church has officially endorsed the EU Constitution but concerns among some groups remain about its possible implications for future decisions on issues such as abortion, euthanasia or women priests… [Pro-life activists complain:] ‘What we’re seeing on the part of religious leaders is not a courageous enough stance, and a sort of terror to say anything which could sound like anti-Europe.'”

The article also pointed out an apparent inconsistency between the Catholic Church’s current endorsement of the EU Constitution and the pope’s earlier position: “The current Pope, Benedict XVI [said] in April… ‘the fact that the Church is convinced of not having the right to confer priestly ordination of women, is now considered by some as irreconcilable with the European Constitution.'”

A wave of a desire for unity is sweeping through much of the European continent. This is clearly directed by a higher power, so that prophecy can be fulfilled. We can expect a strong political and even military United States of Europe, under Catholic influence, to emerge in a few years from now. But it won’t all be good news for Europe and the world. As so often, the people’s desire for peace will be terribly disappointed.

For more information, read our free booklets, “Europe in Prophecy” and “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

Monster Earthquake in Southern California

According to Der Spiegel Online, of May 13, 2005, “geologists warn,” with a 70 percent certainty, that a “terrible earthquake” will strike in Southern California within the next 50 years. According to the article, the earthquake will strike in regions around Los Angeles and San Diego. The magazine stated that that region has not been struck by a major earthquake for 148 years, which is great cause for alarm, as historical and archeological records show that monster quakes occurred in the area every 200 years since the 1600s.

Strong Hurricanes in 2005?

On May 16, 2005, Reuters reported about predictions of U.S. forecasters “that up to 15 tropical storms and hurricanes would form in the Atlantic and Caribbean this year… If the forecasters are right, the 2005 hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, would continue a string of mostly above-average stormy seasons that began a decade ago… The same climate conditions that fed last year’s busy season… are in place this year… Although the 2004 season did not produce a record number of storms, it marked the first time since 1886 that a single state — Florida — was hit by four hurricanes in one season. Nine of the 15 storms reached hurricane strength.”

World War II For Nothing?

Well-known political commentator Pat Buchanan stirred up some furor last week, when he stated, according to www.newsday.com of May 12, 2005, that World War II “was actually not worth the effort.” The article stated: “On the radio and Internet, Buchanan framed his positions as amplification of remarks made over the weekend by President George W. Bush that the pact ending the war brought on a Stalinist domination that was ‘one of the greatest wrongs of history.’… [Buchanan] suggested that because Germans voted Hitler in, they did not need to be liberated, and that Britain and France drew Germany into the wider conflict. He did not mention Jews or the Holocaust… Abraham Foxman, president of the anti-Defamation League, called Buchanan’s comments ‘immoral’ and ‘bordering on Holocaust denial.’… Veterans were also insulted. ‘That is more or less saying they fought for the wrong reasons and the sacrifice was futile,’ said Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Jerry Newberry.”

Germany’s Strong Economy

Der Stern published a remarkable article on May 12, 2005, pointing out that the German economy is much stronger than commonly thought. The article explained: “Even optimists were surprised: The German economy… is stronger today than it has been for many years.” The article pointed out that the growth of the German economy is stronger than the growth of the US economy. It also referred to the fact, however, that risks remain, especially in light of at least 5.2 million people without work.

Reproducing Robots

On May 12, 2005, The Independent ran a frightening article about robots, which could have been the subject of a science fiction movie. The article stated:

“It has been the dream – and nightmare – of science fiction writers for decades. Now a team of engineers has conjured up a robot that can reproduce itself. The robot can self-replicate in much the same way that some living organisms are able to reproduce by cloning themselves. Although the machine in question serves no useful purpose other than to make copies of itself, scientists believe it has set a precedent for a future in which robots will proliferate on their own. In the long term, the scientists envisage a day when armies of self-replicating robots will be able [to] mend themselves when broken, expand their population, explore space and even establish self-sustaining colonies on other planets.”

EU, Russia Sign Co-operation Accord

As www.dw-world.de reported on May 10, 2005,

“Russia and the European Union have signed an agreement to forge closer trade and political ties. The accord was signed at a summit in Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin said he hoped the agreement would help create a Europe without dividing lines. The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso said the accord would provide a new impulse to relations with Moscow. A Russian foreign ministry statement said the two sides had agreed to hold further consultations aimed at easing visa regulations.”

Russia and Germany

Earlier this week, www.dw-world.de reported that “Russian President Vladimir Putin says he supports Germany’s bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. In an interview with the German daily newspaper Bild, Putin said Russia would support a stronger role for Germany at the UN, including a permanent Security Council seat.”

Germany and the Pope

On May 7, 2005, tablet.co.uk published an insightful article about Germany and the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as the new pope. The article was written by Nicholas Boyle, professor of German literary and intellectual history, University of Cambridge, and author of “Goethe: the poet and the age,” published by Oxford University Press. The author stated:

“The first thing the British may be surprised to learn from this election is how Catholic a country Germany is, and not just the Bavaria that provided the rural and small-town folk-religion in which Joseph Ratzinger grew up. The Germany in which he spent his entire clerical career until his translation to Rome… was the Western zone of occupation and the Bonn republic, dominated for 14 crucially formative years by the Rhineland Catholic Konrad Adenauer. It was the first state bearing the name of Germany to be a majority Catholic country… British assumptions that Germans look to a European identity because they are embarrassed about their own touch only a part of the truth. Catholic Germany has always been European in its perspectives… Germany is currently the third largest economy in the world, and it has achieved that position through extraordinary efforts made during the years when Professor, and then Archbishop, Ratzinger was based within it.”

The Uncertain Future of Europe

On Saturday, May 7, 2005, the International Herald Tribune published an article, titled, “Can EU, born from war, survive peace?” In the article, it was pointed out:

“Amid the devastation left by World War II, Europe looked around after 1945 for a way to make sure such a disaster never happened again, and found an answer in the European Union. Over the next 50 years, the EU would become an unprecedented experiment… As a result, Europe’s once-warring nation-states are now so closely knit through the institutions, laws and councils of the EU that war across Western Europe has become unimaginable… The 1957 Treaty of Rome… [set up] the European Economic Community, a customs union…[Subsequently] the EEC [was extended] into new areas, such as the single market, the formal establishment of the EU, and, by 2002, the single currency, the euro… Germans in particular adopted the cause of European integration as a source of a new identity, replacing… traditional German nationalistic identity…The stability has been exported, the EU extending geographically to admit countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain in the 1980s. Nations without robust democratic traditions, they were taken into the West European fold and set on the road to democracy, as, even more dramatically, were the nations of the former East bloc that emerged from decades of Soviet domination and communism to join the EU in 2004. Since that enlargement, the biggest in the Union’s history, the EU now includes more than 450 million people in 25 nations.”

However, the article continued to correctly point out:

“But the EU cannot claim to have brought peace to millions on its own… Nor has the EU banished all the dark shadows from half a century ago.”

Religious Discrimination at the Air Force?

On May 6, 2005, the ABP Washington Bureau reported about possible religious discrimination at the Air Force Academy, referring to “several months of allegations about an atmosphere of religious harassment and discrimination at the Colorado Springs, Colo., institution.” The article, which was posted on www.baptiststandard.com, stated:

“Attorneys for Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force officials the 14-page document which detailed several allegations of constitutional violations by top officials and upper-class cadets at the academy. Among AU’s allegations were that large numbers of top administrators, chaplains and faculty members openly and regularly advocated on behalf of evangelical Protestantism, often using coercive means.”

According to the article, here are some of the report’s allegations:

“Christian cadets who wish to attend off-campus religious services on Sundays are given special allowances to do so that are not extended to members of minority faiths or Christian groups that observe the Sabbath on other days of the week…. Cadets of minority faiths or no faith are regularly harassed, discriminated against and frequently subjected to religious epithets at the hands of Christian cadets.”

The article pointed out, too, that “The Pentagon press release said the allegations ‘are being taken very seriously by the Air Force.'”

Putin and US Democracy

According to an article by the Drudge Report on May 6, 2005, “A combative Vladimir Putin tells Mike Wallace [in his TV show, “60 Minutes”] he should question his own country’s democratic ways before looking for problems with Russia’s. The Russian president also says the U.S. shouldn’t try to export its democracy, as it is trying to do in Iraq.” In his televised interview, Putin also said: “India is called the largest world democracy. But their governors have always been appointed by the central government and nobody disputes that India is not a democracy.”

The article continued: “The Russian leader then points to what he believes are drawbacks to America’s own brand of democracy, including the Electoral College system. ‘In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the president is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic,’ Putin says. ‘And you have other problems in your elections,’ he tells Wallace. ‘Four years ago your presidential election was decided by the court. The judicial system was brought into it. But we’re not going to poke our noses into your democratic system because that’s up to the American people.’ Putin also believes the U.S. democratic system does not travel well and that is precisely why he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. ‘Democracy cannot be exported to some other place. [Democracy] must be a product of internal domestic development in a society,’ says the Russian president.”

The Pope and the Bible

The Associated Press reported about some revealing past comments by Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, which were republished on May 7 by WorldNetDaily. According to the publication, “in a 1988 lecture at a Lutheran church in New York, Ratzinger chided fundamentalism, saying it’s ‘useless to take refuge in an allegedly pure, literal understanding of the Bible.’… A 1993 Pontifical Biblical Commission statement on Bible interpretation [by Ratzinger]… denounced fundamentalism as ‘dangerous’ and ‘a kind of intellectual suicide.’ It said fundamentalists place ‘undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts’ and naively confuse the Gospels as finally edited with ‘the words and deeds of the historical Jesus.'”

Germany and World War II

On May 8, 2005, www.realcities.com reported:

“On a stage under Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, during ceremonies marking VE Day – the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe – German President Horst Koehler Sunday proclaimed that ‘racism and right-wing extremism have no chance’ in a modern Germany. About a mile down Unter den Linden, a path central in Adolf Hilter’s plans for the capital of the Third Reich, as Germany was called under Hitler’s rule, as many as 3,000 neo-Nazis in a fenced in area applauded as a singer noted, ‘Our hearts are with our heroes, like Rudolph Hess,’ Hitler’s deputy. A speaker added: ‘Stop 60 years of liberation lies. Stop the cult of guilt.’ He was referring to Germany’s repeated expression of remorse for German actions during World War II.

“Despite Koehler’s statements, the National Democratic Party (NPD) of Germany and other parties commonly associated with the neo-Nazi movement are gaining support in his country. In the state parliament of Saxony, voters recently elected 12 NPD [party members]. More than 300 local German politicians today are from nationalist parties. In February in Dresden, 5,000 neo-Nazis marched during ceremonies for the 60th anniversary of the allied bombing of that city. ‘The person who hasn’t learned from history is sinning against their own nation,’ Koehler said Sunday. ‘There are still a few un-teachable in this country, but racism and right-wing extremism have no chance here today.'”

However, the article continued to state about the demonstrators:

“…speakers criticized the betrayal of the German people by the 1919 Versailles Treaty that settled World War I – a common theme struck by Hitler during his rise to power – and said the horrors of the Third Reich were exaggerated. That’s a common theme of people who deny the Holocaust, when six million Jews were murdered in Nazi death camps. In a new twist, some in the crowd held signs saying, ‘Liberate the world from the United States,’ and speakers talked of how America had planned World War II to belittle the German people. They said the allies subjected Germans to the worst horrors of the war.”

Russia’s Press Libels President Bush

On May 9, 2005, Russia’s daily newspaper, “Pravda,” published a strong article against President Bush. It described Mr. Bush as “provocative and aggressive instead of conciliatory and diplomatic.” In comparing President Putin of Russia with President Bush, Russia’s pro-government paper stated:

“Let us compare for one instant the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States of America. On one side, we have a President whose policy is directed towards improving relations with the international community in a climate of friendship and peace (principles which guided the foreign policy of the USSR) and in tandem with the norms of international law as stipulated by the UNO. On the other, a roving cowboy, taming the wilderness with his gun and his Bible, with an absence of tact and diplomacy.”

The article continued:

“On the eve of the celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of the victory over Fascism in Europe, instead of being conciliatory to Russia, George Bush waltzes into Latvia, a country with a deplorable human rights record, complete with concentration camps during the Fascist occupation and with a revisionist tendency to glorify its Fascist part in the country’s history and declares that the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe was one of the ‘greatest wrongs of history.’

“So, what was the Soviet Union supposed to do, after 25 million of its citizens had been killed in the most vicious fighting in the war, after a quarter of a million of its citizens had lost their lives killing between 75 and 85% of the Nazi troops in the Second World War? Allow the USA to occupy its resources and install disgusting fast food restaurants before colonizing the country with pornography, filth and depravity?

“The Soviet Union liberated eleven countries from the yoke of evil, just as the Americans and their allies liberated nations in the west. But for George Bush, this liberation, coupled with a commitment of the Union’s resources to develop the three Baltic states and bring them into the front line of development in the areas of education, security, health care, social benefits, to name just a few, was no more than ‘a long vigil of suffering and hope.'”

The New Europeans

On April 26, 2005, the International Herald Tribune published an interesting article about “European feelings.” The article pointed out:

“A year after 10 new members joined the European Union, euroskepticism and doubts about the new European constitution may be dominating headlines. But beyond politics and institutional battles, the everyday reality of Europe’s open borders is quietly forging a EUROPEAN IDENTITY. A growing number of young Europeans… work and date across the Continent. Unlike their parents, who grew up within the confines of nationhood, they are multilingual and multicultural.

“Most of the EU citizens who say they feel ‘European’ still rank their national identity higher than their European one, opinion polls show. But among those aged 21 to 35, almost a third say they feel MORE European than German, French or Italian, according to a survey by Time magazine in 2001… According to a poll conducted by the European Commission in all 25 member states last year, more than two-thirds of respondents say they feel ‘ATTACHED’ to Europe. Fifty-seven percent see their identity as having a ‘European DIMENSION’ in the near future, up five percentage points from 1999, while 41 percent say their identity remains entirely national…

“Perhaps the most striking example of such [European] convergence is the wave of opposition to the Iraq war that swept across the Continent two years ago. Even if a number of governments–notably Britain, Italy, Poland and Spain–backed the United States on Iraq, European public opinion strongly opposed the invasion… Some say trans-Atlantic tensions around the Iraq war may have strengthened a sense of UNITY in Europe… others argue that the expansion of the EU is what is paving the way to a true European IDENTITY.”

Partially Human and Partially Animal?

On April 30, 2005, CNN reported about “mingling human cells with lesser beings.” The article explained that “on a farm about six miles outside this gambling town [of Reno, Nevada, there is] a flock of about 50 smelly sheep, many of them possessing partially human livers, hearts, brains and other organs.”

The article continued:

“In fact, the Academies’ report endorses research that co-mingles human and animal tissue as vital to ensuring that experimental drugs and new tissue replacement therapies are safe for people… Doctors have transplanted pig valves into human hearts for years, and scientists have injected human cells into lab animals for even longer. But the biological co-mingling of animal and human is now evolving into even more exotic and unsettling mixes of species, evoking the Greek myth of the monstrous CHIMERA, which was part lion, part goat and part serpent. “In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk. Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the NIGHTMARE scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep’s head?… In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells.”

Great Britain vs. the Euro

The Daily Mail reported on April 28, 2005: “Mr. Blair conceded last night that his dream of being the Prime Minister who takes Britain into the Euro is all but DEAD. He suggested there was almost NO CHANCE of a referendum on entry into the single currency in the next Parliament. Mr. Blair has often said he would like Britain to join if the conditions for entry can be met. But Gordon Brown [Chancellor] has repeatedly [said] they have not [reached that point].”

Haider in Germany

On April 30, 2005, wienweb.at reported about Austria’s Joerg Haider’s recent visit in Mannheim, Germany. Haider stated that he still wants to become Austrian CHANCELLOR. He also said that the people should be able to decide via referendum, whether to accept the EU constitution, as the EU constitution is a bad document. According to Haider, the proposed Constitution takes away rights from the people and gives them instead to the “colorless” bureaucrats in Brussels.

Doctrinal Decisions by Cardinal Ratzinger

On April 29, 2005, the Catholic News Service published a Timeline of principal doctrinal decisions, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 to 2005 [formerly called, “the Inquisition”], when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was prefect of the office. He was elected Pope Benedict XVI April 19, 2005.

Among the interesting and note-worthy decisions were the following:

— Nov. 26, 1983: “Declaration on Masonic Associations,” saying Masonic principles and rituals “embody a naturalistic” religion incompatible with Christianity. Those who knowingly embrace the principles or attend the rituals are involved in serious sin and may not receive Communion.

— Feb. 22, 1987: “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation,” clarifying the church’s position on assisted fertilization techniques and other biomedical issues, reaffirming teaching that an embryo is human from the moment of conception and that conception is moral only in the context of sexual intercourse within marriage.

— Feb. 16, 1989: Note regarding the moral rule of “Humanae Vitae” and pastoral duty, saying couples who find it difficult to follow church teaching about birth control of any kind “deserve great respect and love,” but the church is firm in teaching that contraception is an “intrinsically disordered act” that is prohibited without exception.

— Oct. 15, 1989: “Letter on Certain Aspects of Christian Meditation,” cautioning Catholics about using Buddhist, Hindu and other meditation techniques that place the focus of prayer on the self rather than on God.

— July 23, 1992: “Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Nondiscrimination of Homosexual Persons,” saying, “It is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account” when making laws concerning “adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches and in military recruitment.”

— Sept. 14, 1994: “Letter to Bishops Regarding the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful,” saying the church cannot ignore Jesus’ clear teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and reaffirming that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Communion.

— Oct. 28, 1995: Response to questions about the doctrine contained in the apostolic letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” saying the church’s teaching that women cannot be ordained priests belongs “to the deposit of faith” and has been taught “infallibly.”

— Aug. 15, 1997: Publication of the final Latin “typical edition” of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” including a stronger condemnation of the death penalty and an acknowledgment that science has not determined the cause of homosexuality.

— Oct. 31, 1998: “Considerations on ‘The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church,'” saying that “the full communion desired by Christ among those who confess to be his disciples requires the common recognition of a universal ecclesial ministry,” and the Catholic faith holds that that ministry belongs to the pope.

— May 31, 1999: Notification regarding School Sister of Notre Dame Jeannine Gramick and Salvatorian Father Robert Nugent, barring the U.S. team from further pastoral ministry to homosexuals, saying they advanced “doctrinally unacceptable” positions “regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination.”

— June 26, 2000: Publication of a 43-page booklet containing the complete “Message of Fatima,” including the so-called “third secret” given to three Portuguese children in 1917. In his commentary, Cardinal Ratzinger said the third part of the message is a symbolic prophecy of the church’s 20th-century struggles with evil political systems and of the church’s ultimate triumph. In that writing, he stressed that only the ministerial hierarchy of the Catholic Church has the right to interpret the meaning of the “Message to Fatima.”

— Aug. 6, 2000: “Dominus Iesus,” a declaration on the “exclusive, universal and absolute” value of Jesus Christ and his church for salvation, that is, the “Catholic Church.”

— Jan. 16, 2003: Doctrinal note on the participation of Catholics in political life saying that while Catholics are free to choose among political parties and strategies for promoting the common good, they cannot claim that freedom allows them to support abortion, euthanasia or other attacks on human life.

— July 31, 2004: “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World,” saying the subjugation of women is the result of original sin and not of God’s original design for creation.

— Feb. 11, 2005: Statement and commentary reaffirming church teaching that only priests can administer the anointing of the sick and saying the doctrine must be “definitively” accepted by Catholics.

Pope Benedict XVI’s Future

On April 25, 2005, The Globalist published an insightful editorial about the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The paper stated the following:

“The new pope is certainly equipped to engage in these [ethical] debates. He has been a leading intellectual on ethics questions for decades. In his previous capacity in Rome, he was a forceful and articulate defender of church doctrine. Now he is challenged to move beyond being an enforcer to being an enabler… The power of religious institutions… remains as much POLITICAL as it is spiritual… The POPE is therefore a very POLITICAL force, as is the CATHOLIC CHURCH ITSELF.. As a WORLD LEADER now, he will need to carry on that dialogue with one billion Catholics and the five billion others who share the world’s future… “HOW LONG Pope Benedict will reign is UNKNOWN. When the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany was sworn in, in 1949, he was only five years younger than the pope is today. And he stayed in office for 14 years, guiding the new republic in its first stages after the war. How Benedict shapes the agenda of his Church will be no less crucial for its future. THE RESULTS MAY BE FAR DIFFERENT THAN ANYONE CAN NOW KNOW FOR CERTAIN.”

Religious Persecution?

As AFP reported on May 5, 2005, “An Italian website that published a photo montage of Pope Benedict XVI dressed in a Nazi uniform was told to suspend its activities on Wednesday for OFFENDING the Roman Catholic religion, court officials said. Rome prosecutors accuse the Indymedia Italia site, which is part of a network of alternative media websites, of causing OFFENSE to the Catholic religion by publishing the photo montage alongside the caption ‘Nazi pope.’ Under Italian law, the offense is punishable by up to ONE YEAR IN JAIL… Italy’s largest press union, FNSI, slammed the decision as an ‘unacceptable attack on critical and satirical freedom.'”

Iran and the Bomb

According to an article by Reuters, dated May 3, 2005, “Iran vowed on Tuesday to press ahead with nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons and accused the United States and Israel of threatening international peace with their own atomic arsenals… In a comment clearly aimed at the European Union’s three biggest powers — France, Britain and Germany — [Foreign Minister Kamal]Kharrazi said ‘no one should be under the illusion’ that abolishing its nuclear fuel enrichment program would provide what he called an objective guarantee Tehran would not pursue the bomb.”

Russian Orthodox Church and Easter

On May 1, 2005, The Associated Press reported about the celebration of Easter by the Russian Orthodox Church. The article stated: “The Russian Orthodox Church, all but banned under the Soviet Union, has experienced a MAJOR RESURGENCE since 1991, with an estimated two-thirds of Russia’s 144 million people believed to be observant… Orthodox churches use a different calendar than the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, which celebrated Easter on March 27… In his Easter greetings, Putin said the country was undergoing a SPIRITUAL REVIVAL. ‘On this festive spring day, I’d like to point to the growing positive influence of the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional Christian confessions on molding the spiritual and moral climate in Russian society,’ the president said.”
The article continued:

“In Ukraine, where the country’s sizable Roman Catholic population marked Easter nearly a month ago, President Viktor Yushchenko sent Easter greetings to Orthodox believers, telling them Ukraine received DIVINE HELP during last year’s pro-democratic ‘Orange Revolution’ that brought him to the presidency. ‘We see our FUTURE TIED with the future of other EUROPEAN NATIONS … I wish that this Easter marks the beginning of a new and better life for everyone,’ Yushchenko said. Almost 90 percent of Ukrainians are members of the Orthodox church….

“In Turkey, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I spoke out against terrorism and killing in the name of religion as Orthodox faithful gathered early Sunday at the seat of the Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul to celebrate Easter. Bartholomew [is] the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians and a longtime advocate of harmony between different religions…”

More on the New Pope

The Bible predicts that the last pope, at the time of Christ’s return, will work closely together with a strong political and military leader of German descent. This will occur at a time, when continental Europe has united (but quite likely without the UK), and when the Jews will have begun to bring sacrifices in Jerusalem — quite possibly at a newly-erected temple. We are told that the final pope will strongly emphasize Catholicism, including the concept that he is ruling “in the place of” God, as God’s representative on earth, and that he will be able to influence people all over the world, through his miracle-working powers, convincing them to follow the political leader.

Could the new pope be the prophesied last one?

We are presenting the readers with the following facts and news reports:

Bild Online reported on April 22 about comments made by Cardinal Ratzinger in the past, before he became the new pope. Ratzinger had stated his clear position against the pill and condoms; and that God was mysterious and distant, even for the pope. Ratzinger defended the inquisition, but voiced his opinion that there had been some wrong judgments in the history of the inquisition. Ratzinger made it clear that Catholic priests must not conduct communion with other denominations. He had also stated that communion must not be granted to divorced and remarried Catholics; but according to La Rupubblica, this position is now being reconsidered by the pope. Ratzinger had stated that there is no time and chance for anyone, so that everything is guided by God and predestined. He made it, of course, very clear that priests are not allowed to marry.

Bild reported on April 23 that a postcard from 2000 surfaced, purportedly written by Ratzinger, stating that the postcard was sent “by the future pope Benedict XVI.” Experts say that they are 99% sure that the card is genuine, while the Vatican says that it is a 100% forgery.

Bild also reported that a painting or a statute of Christ, which is placed in the pope’s domicile, shows the facial figures of Pope John Paul II.

The Guardian pointed out that the parents of Ratzinger are named Joseph and Mary.

The Independent reported on April 23, 2005, that the pope’s “first papal Mass, containing a message of openness and reconciliation, was delivered on April 20, Hitler’s birthday.”

AFP reported on April 23 that “Pope Benedict XVI launched a media charm offensive a day ahead of his solemn inauguration, telling journalists in four languages that thanks to them the ‘entire world’ had been focused on the Roman Catholic Church.”

News Telegraph stated on April 25, 2005:

“Cardinal Ratzinger particularly infuriated Anglicans five years ago with a document, Dominus Jesus, which asserted the superiority of Catholicism over other faiths and described Protestantism as ‘deficient.’ He also angered them in 1998 when he claimed that the Catholic Church’s refusal to accept Anglican priests as validly ordained was effectively an infallible teaching.”

The Independent wrote on April 20, 2005:

“By choosing Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope, the cardinals in the Catholic Church were opting for down-the-line continuity in the harsh doctrine and philosophy for which the Church has become known and against all dissent by Catholics… The cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church have elected as Pope perhaps the most controversial, divisive and reactionary of all the plausible candidates.”

On April 22, 2005, the paper reported: “Ratzinger’s election will also raise questions about the dubious role played by the Catholic Church during the Nazi era. The extent to which leading Catholics felt obliged to reach compromises with the regime is outlined by the stance taken by Ratzinger’s mentor, Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, one of the Pope’s most important early influences. Documented evidence shows that the cardinal visited Hitler’s mountain retreat during the 1930s and was entertained to lunch by the Führer in person. During their meeting, Von Faulhaber is on record as telling Hitler that the Church saw him as an ‘authority chosen by God, to whom we owe respect.'”

The reporting of the English press has angered the Germans — as vividly expressed by the boulevard tabloid Bild (which could be compared with the National Enquirer in the USA). The daily wrote with apparent indignation: “Britain libels German pope,” and, “Shut endlich up” (that is, “Shut up finally.”) The paper, which had formerly strongly criticized Ratzinger, now claimed that the British agitated against “our” pope.

Japan Today.com stated correctly that “national pride reigns in Germany.” It has also been noticed that in recent days, the overall German reporting, which was originally very critical, has become more and more friendly toward the new pope.

The Independent even wondered on April 23, 2005, whether the election of the German pope could influence German politics and the German government. The paper stated:

“Ratzinger is close to the Christian Democrats, particularly former Chancellor Helmut Kohl… His presence… will be felt in the bitterly contested elections next month in North Rhine-Westphalia, where the Christian Democrats hope to wrest control of the state from Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s Social Democratic party. Such a victory could, in turn, threaten the government’s survival. The glow from the Vatican may give the Christian Democrats a decisive boost. That would be interesting. It would also demonstrate that a German pope is a complex issue, in more ways than one.”

According to an article in Hamburger Abendblatt, of April 7, 2005, “bishops and cardinals from the Federal Republic exercise more power than ever in the Vatican… [They are] disproportionately well-represented in important decision-making positions.”

In a related article, the Independent said: “Benedict [XVI], even more than his predecessor, saw the history of Europe through the lens of Catholicism… Like John Paul, Benedict, while he was a cardinal, felt it both his right and duty to intervene in European politics, injecting Christianity into public life because of Europe’s religious past.”

The Times stated on April 23, 2005:

“Rome is gearing up for another huge influx of pilgrims to celebrate the enthronement of Pope Benedict XVI tomorrow… The enthronement ceremony, which dates from medieval times, used to involve a papal tiara, or crown, being placed on the new Pope’s head, but this was sold during Paul VI’s papacy to raise money for the poor on the ground that ‘monarchical’ symbolism was inappropriate to the modern age… [Now he] sits on the papal throne before a plain altar flanked by the Gospels in Latin and Greek.” The paper continued to explain that the new pope is addressed by the Cardinal Deacon, in Latin, as follows: “May you reign gloriously through many years of earthly light.”

The paper also pointed out:

“The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, said the Pope had also invited him to attend the enthronement. He was unable to do so because it coincided with the Jewish Passover, but the invitation had brought ‘surprise, pleasure and hope for the future.’ The Pope had sent him a letter invoking ‘the help of the Almighty’ to ‘strengthen collaboration with the sons and daughters of the Jewish people.'”

Der Spiegel Online stated on April 25, 2005, that the pope arrived late for his first public meeting with German pilgrims. He said, jokingly, that as a German, one must be punctual, but that he had already become Italian. He told the German youth that he was excited about visiting the world youth day in Cologne, Germany — his first trip as pope. He also stated that he has remained Bavarian, even as the bishop of Rome.

The Associated Press reported on April 26, 2005: “Benedict XVI is not just German — he’s Bavarian. ‘Catholicism i
s part of the Bavarian identity and culture,’ said Rainer Kampling, a theologian at Free University in Berlin. ‘It’s not just religion, it’s a part of living, a part of the family.’ Germany as a whole is largely secular and has as many Protestants — 34 percent of the population — as it does Catholics. In Bavaria, however, even for those who aren’t particularly religious, Catholicism sets the tone. All the major holidays are religious holidays, and a crucifix is a typical wall decoration in public schools.”

AFP reported on April 27, 2005: “Pope Benedict XVI stressed Europe’s ‘inalienable’ Christian roots in the first general audience of his pontificate… Speaking to a joyous crowd of 15,000 pilgrims, the new pope revealed he had chosen the name Benedict to follow the ideals of Benedict XV ‘a courageous and authentic prophet of peace’ who led the Catholic Church during the dark years of World War I. He said he also chose the name because Saint Benedict, founder of the Benedictine order, is one of the patron saints of Europe. ‘Saint Benedict is therefore much venerated in Germany and in particular, in Bavaria, my native land; constituting a fundamental point of reference for the unity of Europe, and a strong call to the inalienable Christian roots of its culture and civilization.'”

Haider’s New Party

Der Spiegel Online reported on April 11, 2005:

“By splitting his party from above [that is, from the top — Haider — down], Joerg Haider forestalled his own loss of power and put himself back on the national stage of Austrian politics last week. But now the country’s government once again finds itself at the mercy of the right-wing populist… Haider is now threatening to bring down Schuessel and his entire cabinet in a vacuum of humiliation and disgrace…. In signing the document, the cabinet ministers who are members of Haider’s orange movement, as well as the future party’s members of parliament in the National Council, will be committing themselves to continue to support the coalition and not jeopardize the EU presidency. This isn’t a problem for Joerg Haider, who says he has always supported Europe. In fact, he says, he’s in favor of Turkey joining the EU. But then a more threatening note creeps into the Carinthian native’s voice, as he adds that he has no intention of allowing himself to be muzzled. It’s always been that way, and that’s the way things will stay.”

Another Nuclear Disaster?

Pravda reported this week about the possibility that “A serious catastrophe is likely to occur on the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 2006. The disaster may become even more serious than the world-known blast of the station, which occurred on April 26th 1986. Specialists installed a sarcophagus around the nuclear reactor that year — the sarcophagus was supposed to protect the world from the harmful influence of radiation coming from the remnants of the hazardous production for 20 years. The warranty period has already elapsed: Chernobyl might become the center of another ecological disaster next year. Experts say that the protective housing of the reactor may collapse — the destruction of the nuclear storage might lead to lamentable consequences… No one knows what is happening with 20 tons of nuclear fuel inside the construction. According to the Versia newspaper, the technical condition of the sarcophagus has worsened considerably according to the results of a recent external examination, which specialists of the nuclear power plant conduct on a regular basis. They particularly said that cracks appeared in the walls, whereas the ceiling of the construction slumped.”

Hamas and Jerusalem

According to a report of WorldNetDaily of April 26, 2005, “Hamas warned yesterday against any American attempt to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, saying such a move, currently being debated by the U.S. Congress, would spark immediate violence throughout the Middle East… Hamas also announced yesterday it will ignore calls from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to disarm following legislative elections July 17… The Palestinian chairman gave no indication he would forcefully disarm the group, as both the U.S. and Israel have demanded of him.”

The United States of Europe

The Associated Press reported on April 27, 2005, that “The leaders of France and Germany joined forces Tuesday to try to save Europe’s embattled constitution, warning French voters they could set back European ambitions if they reject the charter in a referendum… Chirac said a ‘no’ would leave France on the sidelines of a Europe it helped to build. ‘France would find itself on the edge of the platform as the train went past,’ he said. ‘If we vote “no,” we will be responsible for interrupting 50 years of European construction.’ Schroeder promised that his government will do everything possible to back French ratification. ‘We will reproach ourselves later if we let this historic opportunity to advance Europe slip by,’ Schroeder said. Germany, the most populous EU member with 82 million people, is submitting the charter to lawmakers for approval and does not plan a referendum.”

On the other hand, even a French “no” would not necessarily mean the end, for the foreseeable future, of a United Europe. As the EUobserver reported on April 22, 2005, “EU member states should press ahead with efforts to ratify the Constitution even if France says ‘no’ in its 29 May referendum, the European Commission has urged…. Brussels pointed out that an appendix to the draft treaty already contains a mechanism for dealing with ratification problems… ‘The declaration [in the appendix] is not legally binding, but it leaves the door open for this Constitution to be approved even if some of the countries reject it,’ EU legal expert, Klaus Heeger, commented. In practise, this would lead to a MULTI-SPEED EU, with the new treaty having a legally binding force in some states but not in others.”

Turmoil at the Temple Mount

As WorldNetDaily reported on April 18, 2005, “A group that led a Jewish protest at the Temple Mount last weekend in hopes of reclaiming the site from its Islamic custodians told WorldNetDaily this morning it will hold monthly protests until Jewish sovereignty is restored, while over 100,000 Indonesian Muslims rallied yesterday for continued Islamic dominance over the Mount. ‘The police blocked most of the people we tried to bring to the Temple Mount last week, so we will continue every month until Jews have a right to pray again at our holiest site,’ said David Ha’ivri, director of Revava, a group with the stated mission of ‘restoring self-esteem to the state of Israel by restoring national pride and values.’

“Revava had announced plans to bring 10,000 Jews to the Mount April 10, prompting Palestinian groups, including Hamas and the Islamic Movement, to threaten violence if a large group of Jews ascended the holy site. Only about 200 Jewish protestors were allowed past intense security, which included over 3,500 Israeli police stationed at checkpoints and entrances throughout the Old City, the walled section of Jerusalem that houses the Temple Mount… Still, over 10,000 Palestinians, including a top Hamas terrorist, made it last week to the Al Aqsa Mosque, where Muslim leaders vowed violent confrontations with any Jews who ascended the Mount. Islamic Jihad issued a press release claiming Jews were planning to ‘attack’ the Mount, which they said would explode the entire region and open an unprecedented confrontation with the ‘Zionist entity.’ … ‘The situation is simply intolerable,’ said Ha’ivri. ‘This is a Jewish state. The Temple Mount is the most holy Jewish site. We’re not going away until Jews can once again pray there unrestricted.”

Haider’s New Party

As the BBC reported on April 17, 2005, “Far-right politician Joerg Haider has launched a new party in Austria after a split in the Freedom Party he once led which threatened the ruling coalition. The new Alliance for Austria’s Future elected Mr Haider as its leader in Salzburg, and it looks set to remain in office with the majority conservatives. All Freedom Party cabinet ministers have defected to the new party…. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, leader of the conservative People’s Party, said he had received sufficient guarantees to work with the new Alliance.”

European Constitution

As the EUobserver reported on April 15, 2005, French president Jacques Chirac is facing opposition to the Constitution from within his own ranks, as well as fighting an uphill battle to win the sympathy of the French people. ‘If this Constitution wins, it is the end of Europe,’ Niclolas Dupont-Aignan, a French MP from Chirac’s own UMP party, declared in Copenhagen on Friday (15 April)…. ‘The system has been built without the will of the people and they will revolt within ten years if this [treaty] is passed. We see it already with the Bolkestein directive and with Turkey’s possible entry into the EU,’ he warned. ‘The EU must adapt to the new world. We don’t want a return to nationalism, but we need a Europe based on democracy.'”

The AFP reported on April 16, 2005, that “The European Union struggled to contain mounting alarm at signs that French voters could reject the EU constitution, in what would be a devastating blow for the expanding bloc… The constitution, which aims to streamline decision-making in the expanded 25-member European Union, must be ratified by all member states. A rejection in France, one of the EU’s largest countries, would effectively kill the treaty. French President Jacques Chirac, alarmed at a series of polls indicating a ‘no’ vote [on May 29], launched a personal effort to persuade voters this week, warning on television that France would be turned into the ‘black sheep’ of Europe.”

In the meantime, Greece ratified the EU Constitution on Wednesday. It was the fifth country to do so (following, for example, Italy and Hungary). Spain was the first country in which the Constitution was accepted via referendum, but the Parliament still has to ratify it. In Germany, the Parliament will vote on May 12, after it was argued that a referendum of the people was “unconstitutional.”

The New Pope

Cardinal Ratzinger (the German “Panzerkardinal,” who was in charge of the office formerly known as the Inquisition) was elected as the new pope. A German paper reportedly stated recently that if Ratzinger was elected, the Inquisition would start again. As reported in this article, Ratzinger talked on Monday about the worst enemies of the Catholic Church, listing “sects” as number 1. Ratzinger recently wrote a paper, stating that one must belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved, and that all the Protestant “daughter” churches must return to the fold of the “mother church.” He also stated that the core issues of orthodox Christianity are the observance of Sunday and Christmas.

It is also noteworthy that Benedict XV was elected just prior to World War I. Ratzinger adopted the name of Benedict XVI. According to the Washington Post, he elected the name to honor “Saint Benedict, the patron saint of Europe, and Benedict XV, the pope who tried to stop the First World War.”

Also, the late pope, John Paul II, had recently stated, that Satan had been cast down from heaven, and that the Great Tribulation was about to begin.

As AFP had already reported, prior to the election, on April 16, 2005, “Vatican intrigue intensifies as conclave looms to elect new pope.” The article continued: “Ratzinger, who turned 78 on Saturday, was John Paul II’s prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — his theological ‘enforcer.’ He has come from behind in the sweepstakes as a potential new pope, despite his age, uncertain health and a bloc of cardinals, including fellow Germans, who consider him too conservative…The identity of the next pope is critical to the Church as it struggles to retain influence in an increasingly secular world. John Paul II took a strongly conservative position on issues ranging from abortion, divorce, contraception and euthanasia to the ordination of women. Many in the Church, however, want his successor to adopt a more liberal stance in line with changing social values, notably on contraception — particularly in the fight against AIDS — and women.”

The Associated Press had added on April 18, 2005: “German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, considered a top contender to be the next pope, lashed out Monday at what he called threats to the fundamental truths of the Roman Catholic Church as he sought to set a conservative tone for the conclave to elect a new pope…. It was a clear message that Ratzinger wanted his fellow 114 cardinal electors to pick a new pope who will hold fast to the strict doctrinal line that John Paul charted and that he upheld as the powerful prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Ratzinger ticked off the threats facing the church and the next pontiff: sects and ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism and agnosticism, collectivism, and what he called ‘radical individualism’ and ‘vague religious mysticism.'”

Finally, on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, it was announced that Joseph Ratzinger had been elected the new pope. The Associated Press reported:

“Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, the Roman Catholic Church’s leading hard-liner, was elected the new pope Tuesday in the first conclave of the new millennium. He chose the name Benedict XVI and called himself ‘a simple, humble worker.’… Benedict XV, who reigned from 1914 to 1922, was a moderate following Pius X, who had implemented a sharp crackdown against doctrinal ‘modernism.’ He reigned during World War I and was credited with settling animosity between traditionalists and modernists, and dreamed of reunion with Orthodox Christians… Ratzinger served John Paul II since 1981 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that position, he has disciplined church dissidents and upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms…It was one of the fastest elections in the past century: Pope Pius XII was elected in 1939 in three ballots on one day, while Pope John Paul I was elected in 1978 in four ballots in one day. The new pope was elected after either four or five ballots over two days. ‘It’s only been 24 hours, surprising how fast he was elected,’ Vatican Radio said.”

The Times on Line wrote on April 19, 2005:

“In 1981 he became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the Inquisition, where he earned the nickname ‘The Enforcer,’ and Dean of the College of Cardinals in 2002. He and the late Pope were referred to as ‘intellectual bedfellows.’ … Pope Benedict XVI is the eighth German pope. His accomplishments are many, he speaks ten languages and likes to play Beethoven on the piano. But it is in his enforcement of Church doctrine that he has made so many enemies around the world. He said it was ‘an enormous mistake’ to allow Turkey to join the European Union, has described rock music as a ‘vehicle of anti-religion’ and believes cloning is a more serious threat to humanity than weapons of mass destruction. He believes the ban on women priests is necessary to safeguard doctrine, is against multiculturalism and believes that the Church of England is not a proper church. Other religions he regards as deficient and homosexuality in his view is an ‘intrinsic moral evil.'”

In a related article of The Associated Press, it was pointed out:

“… opinion about [Ratzinger] remains deeply divided in Germany, a sharp contrast to John Paul, who was revered in his native Poland. A recent poll for Der Spiegel news weekly said Germans opposed to Ratzinger becoming pope outnumbered supporters 36 percent to 29 percent, with 17 percent having no preference… Many blame Ratzinger for decrees from Rome barring Catholic priests from counseling pregnant teens on their options and blocking German Catholics from sharing communion with their Lutheran brethren at a joint gathering in 2003…”

At the same time, as Bild Online reported, German political leaders welcomed the election of Ratzinger. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a Protestant, and Angela Merkel, Protestant leader of the CDU-opposition party, remarked that the fact that a German was elected pope “fills us with honor and pride,” and that it was “a great honor for our country.” The German tabloid Bild Online, originally very critical of Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote on the front page, in big letters: “We Are Pope!” According to Der Spiegel Online, American Catholics are not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the election of Ratzinger (As a CNN report showed, the reasons can be seen in Ratzinger’s conservative position and his remarks of an alleged conspiracy within the US press regarding the recent U.S. sexual child abuse scandal, involving Catholic priests). In Russia, according to the magazine, they don’t like him, either. The magazine added that the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian-Orthodox Church is “chilly,” and that it will remain that way. In addition, the magazine wrote that many British papers are “fuming.”

The Independent in the UK wrote on April 20, 2005:

“… the softly spoken, courteous, Bavarian cardinal is the iron fist in Catholicism’s velvet glove. Nicknamed ‘God’s rottweiler’ and the ‘Panzerkardinal’ he takes the same unyielding stance on issues such as artificial contraception, abortion and homosexuality — which he has personally called ‘intrinsically evil.’ He called for pro-abortion politicians to be denied communion during the US election campaign. He has argued that Europe should be re-Christianized and that Turkey should not be admitted into the European Union.

“In many areas he is more hardline than his predecessor. He undermined Pope John Paul II’s attempts at reconciliation with the Orthodox churches. After the last pope visited Athens to apologize for the Great Schism of the 11th century, Cardinal Ratzinger issued a document insisting that the Catholic Church was the ‘mother’ of other Christian denominations as opposed to a ‘sister,’ the more common description in ecumenical circles. It wa
s typical of his stance as a more rigid outrider to the positions adopted by John Paul II.”

MSNBC stated on April 20: “The line between religion and politics isn’t clear, but the papacy of Benedict XVI could erase it altogether… If the denial of Communion — the central sacrament of Catholicism — was a weapon used only occasionally before,… it will be more widely used now. In his writings and interviews, the former Cardinal Ratzinger declared that politicians who support abortion rights should be turned away — and that it is a sin for Catholic voters to support a pro-choice candidate if their main reason for doing so is the candidate’s abortion views. We are eons away from the days when John Kennedy wanted to assure voters that the Vatican would hold no sway over his actions. Now everyone frankly acknowledges the Holy See’s role in the American public square. The question is: How will the electorate view the advent of a new Church Militant?”

Der Spiegel Online published an interesting article about the German popes — pointing out that none of Ratzinger’s predecessors were too fortunate on the Roman Catholic throne. Gregory V (996-999), the first German pope, had to flee from Rome naked and without financial means. Shortly after he returned, he died of Malaria. Clemens II (1046-1047) died of poisoning within a year. Damasus II (1048) died within 23 days of Malaria. Leo IX (1049-1054) was captured by the Normans, and under his rule, the Catholic Church split into the Eastern and Western Churches. Victor II (1055-1057) was compelled by the emperor to become pope, but he never gave up his office of bishop in Germany. Stephen IX (1057-1058) died within eight months, while traveling. Finally, Hadrian VI (1522-1523) was unable to prevent the Reformation under Martin Luther.

The future will show how close we have now come to the return of Jesus Christ. Surely, tumultuous and frightening times are ahead of us.