Skip navigation

Tag Archives: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Short Link to Share > > >  http://wp.me/p2jyCr-TQ  

CLICK TO YELLOW TITLES TO SEE PDF DOCUMENTS

THE SOUL OF THE  LIBERAL VILLAGE OF OAK PARK 

 

TOM HOLMES THE SOUL OF THE LIBERAL VILLAGE OF OAK PARK IL

 

 

 

Advertisements

Link 2 Share >  http://wp.me/p2jyCr-Sx

AMAZON y Malvinas, Jeff Bezos, PatAgonica, Juan Pablo 1, Cristobal Lopez y Gaston(Me)

http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201707/196854-cierre-buenos-aires-herald.html

– 31/07/2017 MEDIOS

El Buenos Aires Herald dejará de existir después de casi 141 años de historia

El periódico que es uno de los más antiguos de Buenos Aires cerrará en forma definitiva luego de haber adoptado un formato semanal.

El Buenos Aires Herald, uno de los periódicos más antiguos del país con casi 141 años de historia, cerrará en forma definitiva luego de haber abandonado el formato diario en noviembre para convertirse en un semanario que también se publicaba en Internet, informó el director del medio.”Cierra el Buenos Aires Herald. En septiembre iba a cumplir 141 años”, expresó Sebastián Lacunza, director de la publicación, a través de Twitter.

El Herald, uno de los periódicos más antiguos de Argentina, fue reconocido por haber sido uno de los pocos que, bajo la dirección de Robert Fox, publicaba información sobre las desapariciones y asesinatos durante la última dictadura militar.

La publicación había pasado en febrero de 2015 a manos del grupo Indalo, del empresario Cristóbal López, junto con Ámbito Financiero y El Ciudadano de Rosario. En octubre de 2016 los nuevos dueños echaron a 14 trabajadores y el 4 de noviembre dejó de ser un diario para convertirse en un semanario que también se subía al sitio buenosairesherald.com para que las notas -que no se actualizaban- se pudieran leer en Internet.

 

http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201707/196854-cierre-buenos-aires-herald.html

 

 

 

El titulo amarillo de abajo contiene un link al documento completo en version PDF

El teniente coronel (R) Rodolfo Richter presento su libro: Lucha Armada del PRT-ERP y Las Condiciones Revolucionarias (Dunken)

AASP EX ENEMIGOS QUE DIALOGAN

AASP EX ENEMIGOS QUE DIALOGAN

Link corto para compartir o regresar >  http://wp.me/p2jyCr-Rk

         Algo muy curioso ocurrió el miércoles 19 de 2017 en esta Ciudad. Lo que en principio parecía la anodina presentación de un libro terminó suscitando un debate esclarecedor sobre el pasado violento de nuestro país y sus perspectivas a futuro, a partir de las opiniones de los protagonistas menos pensados.

Todo sucedió en un aula de la Universidad Católica Argentina. El teniente coronel (R) Rodolfo Richter presentaba Lucha armada: el PRT-ERP y las condiciones revolucionarias (Dunken).     Es un volumen que revisa, con criterio desapasionado, los devaneos doctrinarios que a fines de la década de 1960 llevaron al grupo dirigido por Mario Roberto Santucho a tomar las armas en contra de lo que indicaban ciertos preceptos del marxismo-leninismo. El libro es la versión reducida y adaptada de la tesis que Richter defendió para acceder al doctorado en Ciencia Política.

 

Aquí un primer dato llamativo. Richter es paralítico. Perdió la movilidad de las piernas en febrero de 1975, cuando fue herido en el combate inaugural de la Operación Independencia que dispuso el gobierno democrático peronista para derrotar al ERP en el monte tucumano. Entonces tenía 26 años y era teniente de infantería del Ejército con las aptitudes de paracaidista y comando. Después de una trabajosa recuperación, logró rehacer su vida. Estudió y se convirtió en profesor de Ciencia Política. Lo que sufrió a manos de la guerrilla no le impidió estudiarla con seriedad hasta hurgar en las razones de su derrota estrepitosa.

“Quien es piadoso con los crueles acaba por ser cruel con los piadosos”. Talmud

ENLACE CORTO>   http://wp.me/p2hqUO-R5 

FEBO  ASOMA…

BANDERA ARGENTINA 2La noche del domingo los argentinos recuperamos la libertad después de la larga noche kirchnerista. Mucho se ha dicho sobre el fraude que se habría producido en el escrutinio provisorio que, por cierto, carece de efecto legal, ya éste queda reservado al definitivo que se conocerá en pocos días. Las encuestas “boca de urna” que se difundieron durante la jornada electoral, que arrojaban márgenes en favor del candidato de Cambiemos que iban desde 8 hasta 16 puntos, generaron dudas cuando el dato final fue un escasísimo 2,8, producto del éxito de la campaña del miedo oficialista.

Con esa pequeña diferencia y por lo mucho que conozco al kirchnerismo, me formulé una pregunta: ¿por qué Scioli reconoció su derrota tan temprano, a las 21:36, y con sólo 50% de las mesas escrutadas? El viernes, respondió que temía que la situación se saliera de cauce por la agresiva presencia de Quebracho, La Cámpora, Miles, la Tupac Amaru y el Movimiento Evita en la Plaza de Mayo.

Se confirmó ahora que el oficialismo prepara una gigantesca concentración para el 9 y el 10 de diciembre, para despedir a la Presidente e impedir que la ciudadanía acompañe a Macri en la asunción. La machacante recomendación de la imitadora local de Nicolás Maduro a sus militantes “empoderados” para que defiendan “en la calle” las supuestas conquistas y las incitaciones a la violencia de la “soñadora” Hebe Bonafini y Fernando Esteche, a sueldo de la ex-SIDE, pronostican incidentes complicados pero no deberá temblar la mano que ordene la represión de eventuales hechos antidemocráticos.

Por su parte, María Eugenia Vidal, Gobernadora electa de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, alertó sobre la posible generación de saqueos a fin de año, e instó firmemente al kirchnerismo -al cual responsabilizó- a desactivarlos.

Lo descripto, más el vergonzoso trato de la Presidente a Macri y, en especial, la bochornosa sesión en Diputados del jueves, en la cual fueron aprobados casi cien proyectos del Ejecutivo que, de transformarse en leyes, costarán al Estado la friolera de US$ 1.600 millones, justifica el título de esta nota; la esencial e imbécil colaboración de la izquierda para lograr el quorum, me recordó un artículo de José Enrique Miguens, “Darse cuenta”, que está disponible en Internet. El kirchnerismo, siempre canalla, continuará sembrando bombas para intentar, hasta el último día, impedir que la próxima administración tenga éxito y, así, permitirse soñar con retornar al poder.

La Corte Suprema, por su parte, también salió a reafirmar su poder y, después de largos años de injustificado atraso, decretó la inconstitucionalidad de la ampliación del Consejo de la Magistratura, y falló en favor de las provincias en su reclamo por la cesión de coparticipación federal; ambas sentencias, sin dudas, son correctas pero no se puede decir lo mismo del momento elegido para dictarlas. La injustificable demora en la primera cuestión permitió los avances de Cristina contra la Justicia, y las consecuencias de la otra agravarán, aún más, el frágil panorama financiero del Estado.

Mauricio Macri ha designado un gabinete de lujo, quizás -como él mismo ha dicho- uno de los mejores de la historia, y su mejor gesto político fue la ratificación de Lino Barañao como Ministro de Ciencia y Tecnología. Confío en el profesionalismo y en la vocación altruista de todos sus integrantes, muchos de los cuales han resignado importantes cargos en la actividad privada, para superar la grave crisis que, a contramano de las mentiras y de falsedades del discurso agotador de la Presidente, deberemos enfrentar.

Los problemas financieros, que por cierto no son menores, quizás resultarán más simples que los demás por la muy favorable acogida internacional que tuvo el resultado del domingo. Pero la confrontación social, la pobreza, la salud, la educación, el narcotráfico, la inseguridad, los irracionales subsidios, la falta de energía, la obsoleta infraestructura, la insensata ubicación geopolítica regional y mundial, la colonización del Estado en todos sus niveles, la independencia de la Justicia, la revisión de las sentencias írritas, los derechos humanos de todos  y, sobre todo, la implacable persecución a los corruptos de todo linaje, deberán concentrar los mayores esfuerzos de ese grupo de notables.

Por lo demás, confío en que el Frente Renovador y el peronismo federal ejercerán una oposición inteligente y responsable y colaborarán con el Ejecutivo otorgando a sus proyectos el respaldo político y legislativo que nos permita evitar el abismo que estas demenciales conductas intencionalmente han generado; solo así sus nuevos líderes podrán transformarse en una verdadera alternativa a la hora de la indispensable alternancia, ya que habrán atravesado el Jordán y lavado en él sus pecados de juventud.

Nuevos vientos han soplado y los argentinos hemos cambiado, en pocos días, nuestra imagen; hemos dejado atrás la cris-pasión y el pesimismo, y eso se nota en la calle. Pero para eso se convierta en un decidido respaldo a la gestión del Mauricio Macri, éste deberá tratarnos como adultos y, el mismo día de su asunción, hacer el inventario de la real situación del país y convocarnos a todos a poner el hombro, aunque esto implique, como dijo Churchill, sangre, sudor y lágrimas.

Así, el futuro nos pertenecerá. Habremos enderezado el rumbo y recuperado los laureles que. en un pasado lejano, supimos conseguir; entonces, los libres del mundo podrán genuinamente responder “al gran pueblo argentino, salud”.

 Bs.As., 29 Nov 15

ENRIQUE AVOGADRO

Enrique Guillermo Avogadro

Abogado
Tel. (+5411) ò (011) 4807 4401/02
Fax (+5411) o (011) 4801 6819
Cel. en Argentina (+54911) o (15) 4473 4003
Cel. en Brasil (+5521) 8128 7896
E.mail: ega1@avogadro.com.ar
E.mail: ega1avogadro@gmail.com
Site: www.avogadro.com.ar
Blog: http://egavogadro.blogspot.com
Skype: ega1avogadro
Facebook: enrique guillermo avogadro
Twitter: @egavogadro

LOS ISLENOS ARGENTINOS SON CIUDADANOS DE DERECHO PLENO (AUN SER CANDIDATOS a Presidente de La Nacion, ... POR HABER NACIDO EN SUELO PATRIO ... AHORA ... EL MUNDO ESTA ABIERTO A VUESTRS PIES...Presidente Macri.

LOS ISLENOS ARGENTINOS SON CIUDADANOS DE DERECHO PLENO (AUN SER CANDIDATOS a Presidente de La Nacion, … POR el SOLO HECHO DE HABER NACIDO EN SUELO PATRIO … AHORA … EL MUNDO ESTA ABIERTO A VUESTRS PIES…            Presidente Macri.

 

SPLC NEEDS OUR HELP

FIGHTING HATE // TEACHING TOLERANCE // SEEKING JUSTICE

OCTOBER 12, 2015
Morris Dees Photo
Morris Dees
Founder

Very soon there will be no Southern Poverty Law Center, and there will be no Morris Dees. He will be dead soon.”

— Threat to SPLC, August 11, 2015

Dear Gaston,

My colleagues and I are facing serious threats to our lives and hope we can count on you to help keep us safe.

On numerous occasions, the names, pictures, and home addresses of people who work here have been posted on hate websites frequented by violent extremists.

At one point recently, the threat level was so high that staff members and their families actually had to leave their homes.

I’ve long ago accepted the fact that my life’s work puts me in the crosshairs of hate.

But I feel an enormous obligation to do everything I can to protect my colleagues who also put their lives on the line.

Today I ask that you join me today in sending a special gift to help pay for the 24/7 security that we need. It’s an investment not only in the safety of our staff but also in the future of our work.

Help Me Keep My SPLC Colleagues Safe from Violent Extremists

As you know, racist threats are nothing new to us. Klansmen firebombed our first office in retaliation for a lawsuit we filed — and more than two dozen extremists have gone to jail in connection with plots to kill me or attack the SPLC.

A recent threat assessment by a global security analyst said extremists “will never cease to represent a threat” to the SPLC and our staff.

But I can assure you that we won’t be intimidated.

With your help, we’re tracking more than 1,600 far-right extremist groups across America. You play a crucial role in this fight against hate.

Please, if at all possible, make a special gift to help provide the security needed to help keep the SPLC staff safe, and continue our legal and education efforts.

All of us here deeply appreciate your support and your commitment to justice. Together, we can make a real difference in our great country.

Sincerely,
Morris Dees Signature
Morris Dees
Founder, Southern Poverty Law CenterP.S. If your special appeal gift and this email have crossed, please accept my gratitude for your continued commitment to making a difference in our country.

Blessing or Scourge? Capitalism through the Eyes of Pope Francis

 CATO INSTITUTE dorado
http://www.cato.org/events/blessing-or-scourge-capitalism-through-eyes-pope-francis?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=982295987a-upcoming-events&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-982295987a-141820070&goal=0_395878584c-982295987a-141820070&mc_cid=982295987a&mc_eid=37a4448f40

 

Policy Forum

September 15, 2015 12:00PM to 1:30PM

Hayek Auditorium

Featuring John Garvey, President, The Catholic University of America; Michael Sean Winters, Journalist, National Catholic Reporter; and Jay W. Richards, Executive Editor, The Stream, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute’s Centre on Wealth, Poverty and Morality; moderated by Marian L. Tupy, Editor, HumanProgress.org.

By returning the focus of the Catholic Church to the plight of the poor, Pope Francis has become much loved and admired. His prestige and influence is commensurate with his humanity and humility. But is Francis right about capitalism and its consequences? Is it true that capitalism is a form of exploitation that leads to poverty and inequality? Or is it the only proven way of dramatically reducing poverty and, even, achieving unprecedented material abundance? Please join our distinguished panel for a discussion of Pope Francis’s economics, and the Papal interpretation of economic history and the state of the world.

ALSO SEE:   OTRA VEZ! … PAPA FRANCISCO! (Dic/2013)

http://wp.me/p2jyCr-ws 

http://www.cato.org/events/blessing-or-scourge-capitalism-through-eyes-pope-francis?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=982295987a-upcoming-events&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-982295987a-141820070&goal=0_395878584c-982295987a-141820070&mc_cid=982295987a&mc_eid=37a4448f40

DECEMBER 11, 2013 10:37AM

¡OTRA VEZ,  Papa Francisco!

 

By ALBERTO BENEGAS LYNCH, JR.

 

This is not the first time I’ve commented on the socioeconomic ideas of the current Pontiff of the Catholic Church. However, Time’s newly named Person of the Year Pope Francis unfortunately insists once again on statist ideas that go against an open society based on free markets.

No doubt this has a clear moral dimension given that the tradition of classical liberalism (and its modern advocacy) is based on mutual respect and the allocation of property rights as moral support of its philosophical, legal and economic proposals. Hence Adam Smith’s first book in 1759 was titled The Theory of Moral Sentiments – a concern held by the leading exponents of that noble tradition.

I do not want to repeat here arguments that I’ve already stated in my previous pieces. Rather, I will restrict my comments to the most salient socioeconomic aspects of the Pope’s new document.

The heart of the document is in the second chapter. To get an idea of the spirit that prevails, it is necessary to start with a somewhat lengthy quotation:

Just as the commandment ´Thou shalt not kill´ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ´thou shalt not´ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. […] Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

The Pope’s reflections are surprising due to the inaccuracies they contain. First and foremost, it should be clarified that the world is very far from having competition and open markets. To varying degrees, nations have adopted measures in which the Leviathan of government is ever fatter and ever more vehemently tramples the rights of people through multiple absurd regulations, colossal public debts and spending, unbearable taxes, and increasingly aggressive government interventions–none of which are mentioned by the Pope in his new paper.

However, the Pope opposes competition and free markets, which he says “kill” as a result of the survival of the fittest, not realizing that those who accumulate the greatest wealth today are often not the entrepreneurs who most efficiently meet the needs of their neighbors but professional lobbyists who, allied with political power, miserably exploit the needy. It is also worth noting that unemployment is an inevitable consequence of legislation that seeks wages that are higher than those that capitalization rates allow, as if we could get rich by decree. Such market rates are unfortunately undermined by government policies that prevail. Market rates constitute the sole reason for the rise in people’s standard of living. If we realize that the causes do not reside in the prevailing climate conditions or in natural resources (recall that Africa is the continent with the most natural resources while Japan is a wasteland where only 20 percent of the land is habitable), we can conclude that such rates permit higher wages and income in real terms.

If a house painter from Angola moves to Canada, he will see his income increase to four times what he had been earning. But it is not that the Canadian is more generous than the Angolan, rather that he is obligated to pay those wages given the investment rates in his country. That is why in places where the aforementioned rates are high, things such as personal housekeeping services are very rare. For example, it is not that an average American would not like to have these services, but that, with few exceptions, she can not afford it.

It is interesting that the Pope refers to compassion in the way he does, given that the contradiction that is the welfare state has not only penalized the most needy and has led to their increased marginalization, but has degraded the notion of charity. Charity, properly understood, refers to the voluntary surrender of personal resources, not to a third party forcibly taking something from someone else’s labor.

The values and principles of a free society do not kill. What annihilates is the statism that has been in force for a long time now. It is important to cite the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” but one must also remember “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” In this sense, I consider the Pope’s advice, based on a quote from St. John Chrysostom, especially dangerous when the Pope writes, “I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: ‘Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.’”

That is the aggressive advice on property rights that the current Pontiff sends to today’s political leaders? Isn’t the misfortune the world already experiences for disparaging the values of liberty enough? And is this an invitation to confiscate the Vatican’s riches or was he referring only to the riches of those who are outside its walls and have legitimately acquired them?

The Pope continues, “Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. […] This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root.”

First, it must be stated that in a free society income and wealth inequality are the inevitable consequence of purchases–and lack thereof–that people carry out of supermarkets (and their equivalents) and reflect the degree to which customers consider they benefit. The businessman who succeeds profits and the one who errs incurs a loss. On the other hand, the inequalities derived from political privileges are an assault on the fruits of someone else’s labor by robber barons through bailouts and other frauds. With the support of nefarious institutions such as the IMF, government leaders in poor countries steal from taxpayers and open numerous bank accounts in more developed countries with the purpose of safeguarding their ill-gotten wealth accumulated by irresponsible policies that they themselves implemented.

But what is most worrying is that, put into context, the Pope seems to be justifying violence as a reaction to the competitive system, its free markets, and its respect for property rights.

It is also prudent to note that so-called “equal opportunity” is incompatible with equality before the law. If a mediocre tennis player played with a professional and the former is expected to be granted equal opportunity, the latter would have to, for example, be handcuffed, thereby violating his right. The point is to improve everyone’s opportunities but not equalize them, given that everyone is different, unique and inimitable. Equality is beforethe law, not through it.

Our healthy concern about poverty is not resolved by intensifying statist and socialist measures, but rather by promoting the establishment of institutional frameworks by which everyone’s rights are respected. If it is considered a good thing to be poor in the material sense and not in the evangelical spiritual meaning, charity would be out of the question because it would condemn those who received it. And if it is said that the Church is of the poor, it should devote itself to the rich since the poor would already be saved. Moreover, we are all rich or poor depending on whom we compare ourselves to. Of course, it is alarming and shocking to see the misery in which so many live, but it is imperative to understand that such a situation is the consequence of the permanent attacks to progress by governments that, instead of limiting themselves to guaranteeing rights, destroy the possibilities of elevating the condition of so many people whose dignity has been hurt by inflation, unprecedented fiscal pressures, and tremendous obstructions to peaceful contractual arrangements that do not violate the rights of others. In the places where these impoverishing policies have not taken place, things have been allowed to get better in terms of production of food, medicine, education, housing and many other manifestations of progress that lifted our ancestors out of the original condition of living in caves and misery – not achieved by magic but with work, savings, and perseverance in a system of liberty that incentivizes creativity and respect for others.

Along this line of argument, it is very important to keep in mind biblical considerations on poverty and material wealth to find the meaning of these terms in the context of the moral values ​​that should prevail over all other considerations, in accordance with the above two Commandments. Note that they both implicate the importance of private property, which is entirely in harmony with the principles of an open society. As such, in Deuteronomy (8:18), “But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he swore unto thy fathers, as it is this day.” In 1 Timothy (5:8), “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” In Matthew (5:3) “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” lashing out against he who puts the material before love for God, in other words “…he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” Luke (12:21). In Proverbs (11:18), “The wicked worketh a deceitful work: but to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward.” In Psalms (62:10), “Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them.” And in Matthew (6:24), “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

I know that the Pope is infused with the best intentions, but the intentions and kindness of the person – as is the case here – are not relevant; what matter are the policies that are carried out. In this context, finally, it is interesting to keep in mind the provisions of the International Theological Commission that proclaimed in its Human Development and Christian Salvation (June 30, 1977):

Theology, however, cannot deduce concrete political norms sheerly from theological principles, and so the theologian cannot settle profound sociological issues by theology’s specific resources. Theological treatises that strive to build a more human society must take into account the risks that the use of sociological theories involves. In every instance these theories must be tested for their degree of certitude, inasmuch as they are often no more than conjectures and not infrequently harbor explicit or implicit ideological elements that rest on debatable philosophical assumptions or on an erroneous anthropology. This is true, for instance, of significant segments of analyses inspired by Marxism and Leninism. Anyone who employs such theories and analyses should be aware that these do not achieve a greater degree of truth simply because theology introduces them into its expositions.

The fanatics who always say amen to everything are complicit in the problem, as the Pope himself said when referring to courtiers: “they are the lepers of the Church.” If it was up to them – other differences aside – we’d still have the Borgias.

______________________________

 

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CHRISTIAN SALVATION*

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1976_promozione-umana_en.html

 

INTRODUCTION

The problem of the relationship between human development and Christian salvation is of considerable significance everywhere. This is especially evident since the Second Vatican Council, where the Church paid uncommon attention to issues of an appropriate world order within the context of Christian responsibility. Within Latin America and elsewhere, it was different types of liberation theology that increasingly won attention. The International Theological Commission, in its annual meeting, 4-9 October 1976, occupied itself less with individual treatises and individual tendencies, [and] more with basic issues touching the relationship between human development and Christian salvation.

The pages that follow should be regarded as an imperfect abridgment of the principal results. This final report takes account of the difficulties inherent in the issues studied and the current status of theological discussion and research. The theological tendencies in question are many and varied, subject to enormous changes; there is constant self-correction; they are intimately linked with social and economic conditions and the political situation in the world and in different geographical areas. Nor should we overlook the disputes that such theological treatises have occasioned on many sides, because theology risks being translated into politics and hurting the genuine unity of the Church. Given this state of affairs, the International Theological Commission wants to address itself to the discussion for a specific purpose: to search out the potential and the risk in such tendencies.

Karl Lehmann
Chairman of the Subcommittee

 

  1. WORLD POVERTY AND INJUSTICE AS SPRINGBOARD FOR A THEOLOGICAL MOVEMENT

SPLC logo
Donate Button

 
Follow SPLC
      Facebook Icon  Twitter Icon  Youtube Icon
FIGHTING HATE // TEACHING TOLERANCE // SEEKING JUSTICE
AUGUST 29, 2015
Richard Cohen Photo
Richard Cohen
President

Dear Gaston,

Ten years ago today, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, killing nearly 2,000 people and displacing hundreds of thousands.

I’ll never forget the horrifying images of families stranded on rooftops, surrounded by the swirling floodwaters and begging for help – or the thousands of evacuees stuck in New Orleans’ Superdome for days without enough food or water.

Shortly after the storm, we opened a small office in New Orleans. Among our first priorities was ensuring that the city’s most vulnerable children were not left behind as the city rebuilt its school system.

In one of our proudest moments, we successfully litigated a pioneering lawsuit aimed at making the promise of the city’s new charter school system become a reality for all children, not just the privileged.

We also won justice for migrant workers who had come to the city to help rebuild it only to be exploited by employers who cheated them out of their wages.

After a decade, the recovery in New Orleans is still not complete. And neither is our work for the city’s children.

The coming battles won’t be easy. But we’re committed for the long haul.

On behalf of our clients, we thank everyone who has stood with us.

Sincerely,

Richard Cohen Signature
Richard Cohen
President, Southern Poverty Law Center

Attorney-Client Privilege.doc  (http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl5/916/)

What the Attorney-Client Privilege Really Means

Short Link to Share >  http://wp.me/p2jyCr-vg

How can a client feel secure from the potential risk of having sensitive information fall into the wrong hands? In an extremely complex and competitive business climate saturated by consultants, technical advisors and outside experts, the sophisticated business owner might pause to consider one of the fundamental advantages of retaining legal counsel. By its very nature, the attorney-client relationship affords a distinct, invaluable right to have communications protected from compelled disclosure to any third party, including business associates and competitors, government agencies and even criminal justice authorities.

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE: DEFINITION

The attorney-client privilege is the oldest privilege recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence. In fact, the principles of the testimonial privilege may be traced all the way back to the Roman Republic, and its use was firmly established in English law as early as the reign of Elizabeth I in the 16th century. Grounded in the concept of honor, the privilege worked to bar any testimony by the attorney against the client.1

As the privilege has evolved, countless policy justifications have played a role in its development. At its most basic, the privilege ensures “that one who seeks advice or aid from a lawyer should be completely free of any fear that his secrets will be uncovered.”2 Thus, the underlying principle of the privilege is to provide for “sound legal advice [and] advocacy.”3 With the security of the privilege, the client may speak frankly and openly to legal counsel, disclosing all relevant information to the attorney and creating a “zone of privacy.”4 In other words, shielded by the privilege, the client may be more willing to communicate to counsel things that might otherwise be suppressed. In theory, such candor and honesty will assist the attorney in providing more accurate, well-reasoned professional advice, and the client can be secure in the knowledge that his statements to his lawyer will not be taken as an adverse admission or used against his interest.5 Indeed, armed with full knowledge, counselors at law are better equipped to “satisfy all of their professional responsibilities, uphold their duties of good faith and loyalty to the client, and [contribute] to the efficient administration of justice.”6

For all of its policy considerations and justifications, the attorney-client privilege has a very real practical consequence: the attorney may neither be compelled to nor may he or she voluntarily disclose matters conveyed in confidence to him or her by the client for the purpose of seeking legal counsel. Likewise, the client may not be compelled to testify regarding matters communicated to the lawyer for the purpose of seeking legal counsel.7 So, what is the privilege and when does it apply?

Although there is no single authority on the attorney-client privilege, it has been defined as follows: “(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his [or her] capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his [or her] instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by [the client] or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived.”8

One federal judge opined that “[t]he privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.”9

No matter how the attorney-client privilege is articulated, there are four basic elements necessary to establish its existence: (1) a communication; (2) made between privileged persons; (3) in confidence; (4) for the purpose of seeking, obtaining or providing legal assistance to the client.10

WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP?

We begin our analysis of the privilege with the obvious: before the privilege exists, there must be an attorney-client relationship. As elementary as this concept seems, many clients assume the relationship exists and mistakenly rely upon the protection of the privilege, but the privilege does not exist until the relationship is firmly established. Generally speaking, the attorney-client privilege does not take hold until the parties have agreed on the representation of the client.

In the majority of cases, the determination that the attorney-client relationship exists is not a laborious undertaking, for more often than not, the attorney has expressly acknowledged representation of the client. Such an express acknowledgment may be demonstrated by an engagement letter, a fee contract, or even an oral agreement as to the scope of the representation. An attorney-client relationship may also be expressly acknowledged by the “appearance” of the attorney on behalf of the client, including filing pleadings in court for the client, drafting documents on behalf of the client, or appearing in court as the representative of a litigant.11

Unfortunately, it is not always so clear when an attorney-client relationship exists. Suppose Sally Smith contacted David Jones, an attorney, by telephone. During the course of the conversation, Smith explained to Jones that she is involved in a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service concerning a tax savings arrangement devised for certain business objectives. She discloses important facts and highly sensitive information during the conversation, then asks Jones for his legal opinion. Is the content of this conversation privileged? It depends.

An express contract is not necessary to form an attorney-client relationship; the relationship may be implied from the conduct of the parties. However, the relationship cannot exist unilaterally in the mind of the potential client absent a “reasonable belief” that the attorney-client relationship exists. The implied relationship may be evidenced by several factors, including, but not limited to, the circumstances of the conversation, the payment of fees to an attorney, the degree of sophistication of the would-be client, the request for and receipt of legal advice, and the history of legal representation between the alleged client and the practitioner. While this list of factors is illustrative, none of these factors, standing alone, will affirmatively establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship.12

In our example above, without more, a confidential relationship likely does not exist unless there is some history of former representation. Of course, if the conversation continued, and Jones proceeded to dispense legal advice, then Smith might have a reasonable belief that the relationship exists. This reasonable belief would be strengthened by evidence that Smith and Jones discussed payment, potential courses of action, and other details regarding the future handling of the matter.

The waters become more murky when the potential client is a business entity. In the corporate context, the attorney-client privilege exists between outside counsel and the corporation. Necessarily, however, the invocation of this right by a corporation is more complex than when an individual is involved, as a corporation is an artificial “person” created by law and is only able to act through a representative, including officers, directors and employees.

The courts have faced the daunting task of determining when the attorney-client privilege applies when a corporation is the client. For years, courts employed one of two “tests” to make this determination: the subject matter test13 and the control group test.14 The current trend, however, focuses on whether the matters discussed are encompassed by the corporate duties and responsibilities of the employee.

Take, for example, our hypothetical from before. Suppose that Sally Smith called not on her own behalf, but on behalf of her corporation, ABC Company (ABC). Smith is the president or chief financial officer of ABC, and discusses with Jones, the attorney, the tax exposure or potential liability of ABC. Because Smith is the president of the corporation, the privilege clearly extends to these communications. If, however, the call was made by Jane Edwards, the accounting manager, the answer becomes less clear. Based upon the current trend of the courts, Edwards’ conversations with the attorney are privileged so long as the issues she discusses with the attorney are directly related to her responsibilities within the company.

What is the result, however, when an employee such as Smith seeks advice in her individual capacity, as opposed to the corporate one? The courts will extend the attorney-client privilege to corporate officers, even as an individual, as long as there is clear evidence that the corporate officer communicated with counsel in the officer’s individual capacity concerning personal matters such as potential individual liability. Not surprisingly, the showing required of the corporate employee in this regard is a more stringent one. Moreover, even if the requisite showing is made, certain information might create a conflict of interest for the corporate attorney. In that case, the corporate attorney must end the conversation and advise the corporate employee to seek separate counsel.15

One final consideration arises in the context of in-house counsel. A communication relating to corporate legal matters between a corporation’s in-house counsel and the corporation’s outside counsel is normally subject to the privilege.16 However, when the communication is between a representative of the corporation and the in-house counsel, the distinction is less clear. Because in-house counsel often wears several hats, courts have struggled with the application of the privilege.17 The privilege would extend to any legal advice rendered, but it does not protect communications that are strictly business-related.18 Problems arise when the communication contains both legal and business advice, and the courts take different approaches in determining whether or not to apply the privilege. At the very least, it appears that the court will first attempt to determine what role in-house counsel plays within the company — that of a lawyer or that of a corporate executive. From there, many courts will examine the content of the communication, and this examination will yield varying results.19 As such, the in-house lawyer should be careful to separate his legal advice from his business opinions.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS

Assuming that the attorney-client relationship is well-established, is every communication protected? That also depends. The basic attorney-client privilege protects client communications with the attorney. It also extends to responsive communications from the lawyer to the client. However, the communication need not be so overt as an oral or written action. On the contrary, the slightest action or inaction, such as an affirmative nod or complete silence, may constitute a communication. 20

For example, suppose that Smith is speaking with Jones, her attorney, about a matter involving a recent sale of stock that is under investigation by the SEC. Jones asks Smith whether she received any confidential, nonpublic information prior to the sale of her stock, and Smith silently nods her head in the affirmative. Although no words were exchanged, this communication between Smith and her attorney is clearly protected by the privilege.

Nevertheless, a client cannot protect certain facts from disclosure simply by communicating them to her lawyer. If information may be gathered from another source besides the privileged communication, then the underlying information itself is not privileged.21 Stated differently, the attorney-client privilege “protects communications made to obtain legal advice; it does not protect the information communicated.”22 Clients and attorneys alike must bear this important fact in mind: merely conveying something to an attorney will not prevent the underlying facts from compelled disclosure, if they can be discovered from a non-privileged source.23

WHEN THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE MAY BE WAIVED

Since the client, and not the attorney, holds the privilege, the client holds the ultimate authority to assert it or waive it.24 When the client is a corporation, the privilege is commonly viewed as a matter of corporate control. In other words, corporate management or the “control group,” including the officers and directors, decide whether to assert or waive the privilege.25 If and when there is a change in the control of the corporation, ownership of the privilege is a spoil that passes to the successors; it does not remain with the former corporate management.26

The issue of waiver arises most commonly when a communication is witnessed by a third party or where the client does not intend the communication to be confidential. The mere presence of a third party will likely prevent the creation of the attorney-client privilege.

Continuing with our hypothetical characters, suppose that Smith and her stockbroker meet with Jones to discuss the suspect sale of stock. Jones represents Smith in connection with the sale, but not the stockbroker. During the course of the meeting, Smith discloses sensitive information. Under this scenario, the privilege is likely waived and the information conveyed does not enjoy protection from disclosure.

What if the communication is disclosed to a third party after a privileged exchange between attorney and client? Has the privilege been waived? Possibly. Unlike a client’s constitutional rights, which can only be intentionally and knowingly waived, the attorney-client privilege may be waived by a careless, unintentional or inadvertent disclosure.27

EXCEPTIONS TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

There are some public policy exceptions to the application of the attorney-client privilege. Some of the most common exceptions to the privilege include:

  1. Death of a Client.The privilege may be breached upon the death of a testator-client if litigation ensues between the decedent’s heirs, legatees or other parties claiming under the deceased client.
  2. Fiduciary Duty.A corporation’s right to assert the attorney-client privilege is not absolute. An exception to the privilege has been carved out when the corporation’s shareholders wish to pierce the corporation’s attorney-client privilege.
  3. Crime or Fraud Exception.If a client seeks advice from an attorney to assist with the furtherance of a crime or fraud or the post-commission concealment of the crime or fraud, then the communication is not privileged. If, however, the client has completed a crime or fraud and then seeks the advice of legal counsel, such communications are privileged unless the client considers covering up the crime or fraud.
  4. Common Interest Exception.If two parties are represented by the same attorney in a single legal matter, neither client may assert the attorney-client privilege against the other in subsequent litigation if the subsequent litigation pertained to the subject matter of the previous joint representation.

In addition to these more traditional policy exceptions to the application of the privilege, recent events remind us that the privilege is not at all absolute. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, for example, Congress enacted, in swift fashion, the USA Patriot Act, allowing for, among other things, increased authority to conduct searches and monitor activity without judicial intervention.28 The USA Patriot Act led to a number of new rules and executive orders from the Bush Administration, including the widely criticized Bureau of Prisons Rule.29 This rule “authorizes the Attorney General to order the [Bureau of Prisons] Director to monitor or review communications between inmates and lawyers for the purpose of deterring future acts that could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons or property.”30 All that is required before such monitoring can begin is a “reasonable suspicion . . . that a particular inmate may use attorney-client communications to facilitate acts of terrorism.”31 Although the long-term effects of this new rule cannot be known, one is reminded that the privilege itself is not immune from the political climate in which we live.

MATTERS NOT PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

Not all components of the attorney-client relationship are protected by or encompassed within the attorney-client privilege. For example, the existence of the attorney-client relationship or the length of the relationship are not privileged bits of information.32 In fact, the general nature of the services performed by the lawyer, including the terms and conditions of the retention, are generally discoverable.

The factual circumstances surrounding the communications between an attorney and a client, such as the date of the communication and the identity of persons copied on correspondence, are likewise not privileged. Participants in a meeting with an attorney, the length of a consultation and the documents evidencing same (e.g., calendars, appointment books) are not necessarily protected from compelled disclosure.33 As for the fee arrangement between an attorney and a client, these documents are typically discoverable, except where such discovery would produce confidential communications with the client.34

THE PRIVILEGE: CLOSING THOUGHTS

While the attorney-client privilege is firmly established as a legal doctrine that protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, its application is not absolute. The circumstances of the communication, its content and even subsequent actions relating to the privileged communication must be carefully considered to preserve the integrity of the privilege.

ENDNOTES:

  1. Edna Selan Epstein, THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE 2 (4th ed. 2001). 
  2. United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 401 F. Supp. 361, 369 (W.D. Pa. 1975). 
  3. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). 
  4. Cathryn M. Sadler,The Application of the Attorney-Client Privilege to Communications Between Lawyers Within the Same Firm: Evaluating United States v. Rowe, 30 ARIZ. ST. L. J. 859, 859 (1998). 
  5. Paul R. Rice,Attorney-Client Privilege: Continuing Confusion About Attorney Communications, Drafts, Pre-Existing Documents, and the Source of the Facts Communicated, 48 AM. U. L. REV. 967, 969-70 (1999). 
  6. Bufkin Alyse King, Preserving the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Corporate Environment, 53 ALA. L. REV. 621, 622 (2002) (citing Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 391 (quoting Model Code of Prof’l Responsibility EC 4-1 (1980))). 
  7. Selan Epstein,supra note 1, at 3. 
  8. 8 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW § 2292, at 554 (McNaughton 1961 & Supp. 1991). 
  9. United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass. 1950 
  10. RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 118 (Tentative Draft No. 1, 1988). 
  11. For example, the Georgia Code specifically provides that “prima facie, attorneys shall be held authorized to represent properly any case in which they appear.” O.C.G.A. §15-19-7; see alsoNewell v. Brown, 187 Ga. App. 9, 369 S.E.2d 499, 501 (1988) (noting in dicta that “if an attorney signs an acknowledgement of service [on] behalf of an alleged client, the attorney is then estopped to deny his lack of authority to act”). 
  12. Randolph Evans, PRACTICAL GUIDE TO LEGAL MALPRACTICE PREVENTION 45-49 (Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia, 2002). 
  13. The subject matter of the communication was the primary focus of the “subject matter” test. Under this test, courts had to determine (a) whether the purpose of the communication at issue involved seeking and rendering legal advice to the corporation, (b) whether the employee’s superior had insisted that the communication be made by the employee, and (c) whether the subject matter of the communication to the attorney was within the scope of the duties of the employee in question. Thus, under this test, if the subject matter of the communication to the attorney involved the duties of the employee to the corporation, the attorney-client privilege would cover said communication, irrespective of the corporate rank of the employee that made the communication. SeeHarper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker, 423 F.2d 487 (7th Cir. 1970),aff’d by an equally divided court, 400 U.S. 348 (1971). 
  14. The “control group” was defined by courts as including those employees who were in a position of control such that they could play a substantial role in determining what action the corporation would take upon receiving the legal advice. See,g.,City of Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 210 F. Supp. 483, 485-86 (E.D. Pa. 1962). 
  15. Selan Epstein,supranote 1, at 110-13. 
  16. Mary Thompson & Bridget Rienstra,In-House Counsel . . . and the Preservation of Privilege, 35 HOUS. LAW. 21, 22 (1998). 
  17. SeegenerallyThompson & Rienstra, supra note 16; see also Amber Stevens,An Analysis of the Troubling Issues Surrounding In-House Counsel and the Attorney-Client Privilege, 23 HAMLINE L. REV. 289 (1999). 
  18. SeegenerallyStevens, supra note 17, at 303-09. 
  19. Id
  20. See,g.,United States v. Andrus, 775 F.2d 825, 852 (7th Cir. 1895) (holding that in a criminal case, silence may constitute an admission of guilt). 
  21. SeeUpjohn, 449 U.S. at 395-96 (noting that the attorney-client privilege protects only the disclosure of communications from client to attorney, not the disclosure of the underlying facts by those persons who communicated with the attorney). 
  22. Rice,supranote 5, at 979 (citations omitted). 
  23. Id
  24. Id
  25. See,g.,Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 349 & n.5 (1985) (stating that “the power to waive the corporate attorney-client privilege rests with the corporation’s management and is normally exercised by its officers and directors.”) 
  26. See,g.,O’Leary v. Purcell Co., Inc., 108 F.R.D. 641, 644 (M.D.N.C. 1985). 
  27. Id. at 263-65. 
  28. USA Patriot Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. 
  29. SeegenerallyAvidan Y. Cover, A Rule Unfit for All Seasons: Monitoring Attorney-Client Communications Violates Privilege and the Sixth Amendment, 87 CORNELL L. REV.1233 (July 2002). 
  30. Id. at 1235. 
  31. Id
  32. See,g.,Savoy v. Richard A. Carrier Trucking, Inc., 178 F.R.D. 346, 350 (D. Mass. 1998). 
  33. Selan Epstein,supranote 1, at 66-67 (citations omitted.) 
  34. See,g.United States v. Keystone Sanitation Co., 885 F. Supp 672, 675 (M.D. Pa. 1994). 

Mary and the Muslims

By Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Muslimism is the only great post-Christian religion of the world. Because it had its origin in the 7th century under Mohammed, it was possible to unite within it some elements of Christianity and of Judaism, along with particular customs of Arabia . Muslimism takes the doctrine of the unity of God, his majesty and his creative power, and uses it, in part, as a basis for the repudiation of Christ, the Son of God. Misunderstanding the notion of the Trinity, Mohammed made Christ a prophet announcing himself (Mohammed) just as to Christians, Isaiah and John the Baptist are prophets announcing Christ.

The Christian European West barely escaped destruction at the hands of the Muslims. At one point they were stopped near Tours and at another point, later on in time, outside the gates of Vienna . The Church throughout northern Africa was practically destroyed by Muslim power, and at the present hour, the Muslims are beginning to rise again.

If Muslimism is a heresy, as Hilaire Belloc believes it to be, it is the only heresy that has never declined.   Others have had a moment of vigor, then gone into doctrinal decay at the death of the leader, and finally evaporated in a vague social movement. Muslimism, on the contrary, has only had its first phase. There was never a time in which it declined, either in numbers, or in the devotion of its followers.

The missionary effort of the Church toward this group has been, at least on the surface, a failure. For the Muslims are so far almost unconvertible. The reason is that for a follower of Mohammed to become a Christian is much like a Christian becoming a Jew. The Muslims believe that they have the final and definitive revelation of God to the world and that Christ was only a prophet announcing Mohammed, the last of God’s real prophets.

At the present time, the hatred of the Muslim countries against the West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return, and with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power. Muslim writers say, “When the locust swarms darken countries, they bear on their wings these Arabic words: We are God’s host, each of us has ninety-nine eggs, and if we had a hundred, we should lay waste the world, with all that is in it.”
The problem is, how shall we prevent the hatching of the hundredth egg? It is our firm belief that the fears some entertain concerning the Muslims are not to realized, but that Muslimism, instead, will eventually be converted to Christianity–and in a way that even some of our missionaries never suspect. It is our belief that this will happen not through the direct teachings of Christianity, but through a summoning of the Muslims to a veneration of the Mother of God. This is the line of argument:

MARY

LA PIETA - by MIGUELANGEL

LA PIETA – by MIGUELANGEL

The Qu’ran, which is the Bible for the Muslims, has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First of all, the Qu’ran believes in her Immaculate Conception, and also in her Virgin Birth. The third chapter of the Qu’ran places the history of Mary’s family in a genealogy which goes back through Abraham, Noah, and Adam. When one compares the Qu’ran’s description of the birth of Mary with the apocryphal Gospel of the birth of Mary, one is tempted to believe that Mohammed very much depended upon the latter. Both books describe the old age and the definite sterility of the mother

of Mary. When, however, she conceives, the mother of Mary is made to say in the Qu’ran: “O Lord, I vow and I consecrate to you what is already within me. Accept it from me.”
When Mary is born, the mother says: And I consecrate her with all of her posterity under thy protection, O Lord, against Satan!”
The Qu’ran passes over Joseph in the life of Mary, but the Muslim tradition knows his name and has some familiarity with him. In this tradition, Joseph is made to speak to Mary, who is a virgin. As he inquired how she conceived Jesus without a father, Mary answered:
Do you not know that God, when he created the wheat had no need of seed, and that God by his power made the trees grow without the help of rain? All that God had to do was to say, ‘So be it, and it was done.’
The Qu’ran was also verses on the Annunciation, Visitation, and Nativity. Angels are pictured as accompanying the Blessed Mother and saying: “Oh, Mary, God has chosen you and purified you, and elected you above all the women of the earth.” In the nineteenth chapter of the Qu’ran there are 41 verses on Jesus and Mary. There is such a strong defense of the virginity of Mary here that the Qu’ran, in the fourth book, attributed the condemnation of the Jews to their monstrous calumny against the Virgin Mary. 

FATIMA

Mary, then, is for the Muslims the true Sayyida, or Lady. The only possible serious rival to her in their creed would be Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed himself. But after the death of Fatima, Mohammed wrote: “Thou shalt be the most blessed of all women in Paradise , after Mary.” In a variation of the text, Fatima is made to say, “I surpass all the women, except Mary.”
This brings us to our second point: namely, why the Blessed Mother, in the 20th century, should have revealed herself in the significant little village of Fatima , so that to all future generations she would be known as “Our Lady of Fatima.” Since nothing ever happens out of Heaven except with a finesse of all details, I believe that the blessed Virgin chose to be known as “Our Lady of Fatima” as a pledge and a sign of hope to the Muslim people, and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her divine Son too.
Evidence to support these views is found in the historical fact that the Muslims occupied Portugal for centuries. At the time when they were finally driven out, the last Muslim chief had a beautiful daughter by the name of Fatima . A Catholic boy fell in love with her, and for him she not only stayed behind when the Muslims left, but even embraced the faith. The young husband was so much in love with her that he changed the name of the town where he lived to Fatima . Thus, the very place where our lady appeared in 1917 bears a historical connection to Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed.
The final evidence of the relationship of Fatima to the Muslims is the enthusiastic reception which the Muslims in Africa, India , and elsewhere gave to the pilgrim statue of Our Lady of Fatima. Muslims attended the church services in honor of our Lady, they allowed religious processions and even prayers before their mosques; and in Mozambique, the Muslims who were unconverted, began to be Christian as soon as the statue of Our Lady of Fatima was erected.

MISSIONARIES

Missionaries in the future will, more and more, see that their apostolate among the Muslims will be successful in the measure that they preach Our Lady of Fatima. Mary is the advent of Christ, bringing Christ to the people before Christ himself is born. In an apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which people already accept. Because the Muslims have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Muslims the rest of the way to her divine Son. She is forever a “traitor,” in the sense that she will not accept any devotion for herself, but will always bring anyone who is devoted to her to her divine Son. As those who lose devotion to her lose belief in the divinity of Christ, so those who intensify devotion to her gradually acquire that belief.
Many of our great missionaries in Africa have already broken down the bitter hatred and prejudices of the Muslims against the Christians through their acts of charity, their schools and hospitals. It now remains to use another approach, namely, that of taking the 41st chapter of the Quran and showing them that it was taken out of the Gospel of Luke, that Mary could not be, even in their own eyes, the most blessed of all the women of Heaven if she had not also borne One who was the Savior of the world. If Judith and Esther of the Old Testament were pre-figures of Mary, then it may very well be that Fatima herself was a post-figure of Mary! The Muslims should be prepared to acknowledge that, if Fatima must give way in honor to the Blessed Mother, it is because she is different from all the other mothers of the world and that without Christ she would be nothing.
[Excerpt from The World’s First Love, by Fulton Sheen

Read more:

http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/mary-and-the-muslims-by-archbishop-fulton-j-sheen/

Create your own website for free: http://www.webnode.com