LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]Cardinal Brady was right:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#800080]http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1125/1227486545315.html[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]He was quickly shot down, of course, by Ronan McCrea, from the London School of Economics, speaking[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3] at the Institute of International and European Affairs:[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#800080]http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1125/1227486545315.html[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]Mr McCrea used the opportunity to question the Church’s commitment to democracy. And naturally the Church does not consider democracy to be an absolute value. A democratic majority cannot make, for example, murder morally right. But this is another matter and is irrelevant here considering that we are not dealing with a democratic institution in the first place. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]Cardinal Brady raised legitimate concerns, which were also addressed by Dr Gregory Slysz in an article available here: [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#800080]http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2000/features_oct00.html[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]Dr Slysz considers the EU’s concept of human rights to be the root cause of the EU’s threat to Christianity:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[COLOR=black]“The key to the understanding the EU’s threat to Christianity lies in the recognition of the EU’s biased definition of the concept of "rights". The debate over what constitutes a "right" identifies at least two definitions: immunity rights and claim rights. The first, intrinsic to British common law, regards rights as "...protecting the individual from intrusion and guaranteeing him independence". The second regards rights not as freedoms but as claims by one party on another. The latter definition is particularly favoured by socialists, who dismiss the former as a "bourgeois" right of little value to those with no means of utilising it. Socialists insist, therefore, that the only valid concept of rights should focus on claims, which in their view will empower people to live fulfilling lives. Over the years, reflecting the growing international influence and political power of the Left, an entire spectrum of rights has been crafted, forever being augmented by the crusade for tolerance and equality. These "rights" do not constitute freedoms but obligations on some to provide for others. The State, whether in State socialist or liberal democratic societies, is the party burdened with the greatest obligations, which require of it massive interference in peoples' lives... by way of taxation, redistribution and even coercion, in order to secure the massive provision of benefits promised as of 'right'...”[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]Yet Mr McCrea in his critique of the Cardinal’s comments doesn’t even allude to the EU’s controversial concept of rights. He just assumes that it’s correct. Interestingly, McCrea’s institute, [/COLOR]the London School of Economics, is closely associated with socialism generally and the UK Labour Party specifically. It was in fact founded by members of the Fabian Society, an organisation committed to the gradual advance of socialist principles and the implementation of socialist policies by means of the pre-exisiting democratic institutions.
In essence the Catholic Church and the European Union represent values that are fundamentally opposed to each other. The Church’s vision of man, his nature, needs and transcendent destiny, clashes with the EU’s secular humanism, itself ultimately rooted in Marxist ideology. Dr Slysz points out in one place how the EU’s anti-discrimination laws bear a striking resemblance to analogous articles in the Soviet Constitution, Articles 34-35.
[COLOR=black]And these aren’t just hypothetical concerns. A few months back the ECJ was accused of "judicial activism " and exceeding its authority, broadening a directive and extending the right of free movement. Senator Mullen also wrote recently in the Mail, "Earlier this year the ECJ interfered with Germany's legislation on the pension rights available to civil partnerships as opposed to married couples. This was in spite of the plain wording of an employment law directive, which said that the directive was without prejudice to national laws on marriage. Such unexpected interferences in areas thought to be matters for member states to decide is known as 'competence creep.'"[/COLOR]
The difficult question we need to ask ourselves is: have some senior Churchmen, far from being mistaken about the EU’s secular agenda, have many of them actually been absurdly over-enthusiastic in their endorsement of each step of the integration process in the first place? It’s a disturbing phenomenon that we still witness today among those who have a special obligation to give wise and prudent leadership.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Factorem
