Vatican standoff with France tests pope’s ‘Who am I to judge?’ stance

Laurent Stefanini is seen at the Elysee Palace in Paris April 22, 2015. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer. *Editors: This photo can only be used with RNS-STEFANINI-VATICAN and RNS-FRANCE-VATICAN, transmitted April 24, 2015.

PARIS (RNS) Pope Francis has been hailed for his forward thinking, but — at least according to French news reports — the pontiff has put on the brakes when it comes to a gay French ambassador at the Vatican.

In January, French President Francois Hollande nominated his protocol chief Laurent Stefanini as Vatican envoy to replace outgoing ambassador Bruno Joubert. The pick seemed ideal: 55-year-old Stefanini is described as brilliant and a devout Roman Catholic, who secured support for his candidacy from Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, the archbishop of Paris. He is also a known quantity at the Vatican, having served as a top official at the French embassy to the Holy See a decade ago.

But so far, his nomination has gone nowhere. On Wednesday (April 22), France’s investigative weekly “Le Canard Enchaine” reported Pope Francis met with Stefanini last weekend. The message: The pontiff did not appreciate France’s 2013 same-sex marriage law, nor being pressured into accepting Stefanini’s candidacy.

French media report the standoff is due to Stefanini’s sexual orientation; France’s foreign ministry has only said his private life should be respected.

The pope’s reaction, as reported in the media, appears to contrast starkly with his remarks two years ago in which he said, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?”

Another French media report said that the unusual meeting between Stefanini and Francis — a pope rarely gets directly involved in the appointment of an ambassador — was friendly and lasted 40 minutes, and ended with the two men praying together.

The French government has said little about the matter, except to confirm the meeting between the pope and the Vatican nominee took place.

“Nothing has changed,” government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters. “France has proposed a candidate and for the time being we are waiting for the Vatican’s reply, after the usual discussions and review of his candidacy.”

Bernard Kouchner, France’s former foreign minister, has been more outspoken.

“The Vatican seems badly placed to refuse homosexuals,” Kouchner told RTL Radio this week, adding, “but apart from that, I adore Pope Francis.”

YS/AMB END BRYANT

View the original article here

Pakistani judge grants bail to Christian girl

ISLAMABAD (AP) — In a rare move, a Pakistani judge granted bail of $10,500 Friday to a young, mentally challenged Christian girl accused of insulting Islam by burning pages of the religion's holy book.

The case has focused attention on Pakistan's harsh blasphemy laws, which activists claim are used to persecute minorities and settle personal vendettas.

The girl, who medical officials say is 14 years old, was arrested after an angry mob surrounded her house in the capital, Islamabad, and accused her of burning pages from the Quran, an act punishable by life in prison. Her lawyer has denied the allegation.

Bail is rarely granted in blasphemy cases, which carry a stiff penalty of life in prison or death. The bail decision came after a cleric was accused of planting evidence to incriminate the girl and could signal that the case will be thrown out entirely.

Rights activists, who have been calling for the girl's release, welcomed the decision.

Judge Mohammed Azam Khan set bail at 1 million Pakistani rupees, or about $10,500, a significant sum in a country where many families live on only a few dollars a day. A Pakistani group that represents minorities said it would pay the bail.

"We feel that this is the real victory of truth and law," said Robinson Asghar, an aide to the Pakistani minister for national harmony who has been closely following the case.

Tahir Naveed Chaudhry, a lawyer representing the girl, said the bail would be paid Saturday, then she would be freed. The girl, who is being held in a prison in Rawalpindi, near the capital, Islamabad, has Down Syndrome, according to her lawyers.

Chaudhry said the defense team would next move to have the entire case dismissed.

In an unusual twist, police arrested a Muslim cleric from her neighborhood a week ago after a follower from his mosque accused him of stashing pages of a Quran in the girl's bag to make it seem as if she burned them. He allegedly planted the evidence to push Christians out of the neighborhood and is now being investigated for blasphemy himself. He has denied the allegation.

The judge gave no reason for granting bail. During the lengthy hearing in an Islamabad courtroom, attorneys for the young girl argued that the accusations against the cleric had raised reasonable doubt about her culpability in the case.

"No evidence has been brought up against her for willfully committing this crime," said one of her lawyers, Pervez Khan.

Khan said people in the neighborhood where she lived wanted to evict the Christians.

"To achieve this nefarious design, they have framed a minor girl in this case," he said.

A lawyer for Malik Ammad, the man who brought the complaint against the girl, said the judge felt she was better able to defend herself outside prison but cautioned that the case would continue.

"This doesn't mean the allegations against her were wrong," Rao Abdur Raheem said.

The Associated Press does not generally identify juveniles under 18 who are accused of crimes and is withholding her name.

While Friday's hearing was only to determine whether the girl should get bail, the judge's decision signaled a degree of sympathy for the girl.

Previous blasphemy cases have inspired widespread condemnation of the defendants by a Pakistani public that generally supports the laws. But few Muslim clerics or political leaders are pushing for her prosecution, likely due to the girl's age and mental state. In fact, a Pakistani association of Muslim clerics have been advocating on her behalf.

The head of Human Rights Watch in Pakistan, Ali Dayan Hasan, praised the judge's decision to grant the young girl bail.

"All charges against her should be dropped," Hasan said. "Human Rights Watch hopes that the blatant abuse that has come to light in this case will lead to a considered re-examination of the law, and all stakeholders in Pakistan will actively seek to end frequent abuses perpetrated under cover of blasphemy allegations."

Whether the case will lead to any changes in the blasphemy laws remains to be seen.

One of the key questions is whether she and her family will be safe once the girl is out from behind bars. People accused of blasphemy have often been victims of vigilante justice by angry mobs.

Last year two prominent politicians were gunned down in Pakistan for suggesting that the blasphemy laws should be amended so that they cannot be misused. The killer of one of the politicians was later lauded by supporters who threw rose petals whenever he appeared at court.

One of the girl's lawyers, speaking before the bail decision was announced, said it would be the responsibility of the government to protect her and her family if she's released but that he was confident they would be able to do it.

"We are really worried about her security," said Raja Ikram Ameen Minhas.

__

Rebecca Santana can be reached at http://twitter.com/@ruskygal

View the original article here

Ky. judge to review Christian health care case

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — A judge will consider whether a Christians-only health care plan should be held in contempt of court more than a year after the Kentucky Supreme Court subjected it to stricter regulations that could have meant its demise in the state.

Franklin County Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate set a hearing for Aug. 30 in the case that pits the Kentucky Department of Insurance against Medi-Share, a Florida-based cost-sharing ministry that helps pay medical bills for churchgoers.

The legal battle involves how tightly the state can regulate Medi-Share, which serves nearly 40,000 people in 49 states, including more than 700 in Kentucky.

Justices found in 2010 that Medi-Share is insurance and should be subject to the same regulations as secular health care plans, a move that could have forced the organization to serve non-Christians and to provide costly coverage of pre-existing conditions. Medi-Share says its members aren't buying insurance, but taking part in a charitable endeavor to help cover medical bills of fellow Christians and potentially have their own costs covered should the need arise.

Department of Insurance spokeswoman Ronda Sloan said she expects the judge to consider the state's motion to hold Medi-Share in contempt for disobeying a permanent injunction barring it from doing business in Kentucky.

"Medi-Share agreed to the injunction on March 1, 2011, but continues to operate in the state," Sloan said Monday.

The judge may also hear a motion to reconsider the injunction because of changes Medi-Share has made over the past year that could bring it into compliance with state insurance regulations.

Tea party activist David Adams, who has filed complaints with the Department of Insurance about Medi-Share and similar ministries, said he believes Kentucky's Christian community is closely watching the case.

"The more they look at this issue the clearer it will become to Kentucky's two million active Christians that their rights to save money on one of their biggest bills is being unconstitutionally inhibited by their state government," Adams said.

Medi-Share continues to recruit new members in Kentucky by running ads on Christian radio stations, despite the injunction.

Tony Meggs, president of Medi-Share's parent organization, Christian Care Ministry, has said he's confident that the health plan, as it operates now, is in full compliance with state regulations.

Medi-Share members affirm a statement of Christian beliefs and pledge to follow a code that includes no tobacco or illegal drugs, no sex outside of marriage, and no abuse of alcohol or legal medications. Every month, members pay a fixed "share" to cover the medical expenses of members in need. The cost usually is less than private insurance.

The organization says it helps Christians pay medical bills based on a Bible verse that urges people to "carry each other's burdens."

View the original article here

Man Who Wrote Controversial Prayer Banner Lashes Out Against Atheist, Judge

U.S.

The Muslim population in the U.S. is steadily rising, and with the rise, more ...

Column

Have you wondered what the Devil would look like if he took human form? And if ...

Opinion

As the toll of Christians murdered in the Muslim world grows, so does the ...

Church & Ministries

If you could ask God any question and you knew He would give you an answer, ...

David A. Bradley from Stonington, Conn., recently wrote a letter to the editor at The Hartford Courant condemning the online news publication for writing an article "dignifying" a scholarship given to the 16-year-old student by fellow atheists and other supporters.

Blogger Hemant Mehta started the campaign on his Friendly Atheist website to raise money for Ahlquist whom he believed stood up for her beliefs with "class and style" despite opposition and threats from critics. The group collected more than $40,000.

After reading an article about the fundraising campaign on the Connecticut news site, Bradley, the writer of the prayer banner gifted to the school in 1963 by the graduating class, said, "I can't believe The Courant would dignify such an award by such a group and to such a person with a piece on its pages."

Ahlquist made headlines in 2010 when she challenged the prayer banner on display at her school's auditorium, calling it unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The prayer began with the words "Our Heavenly Father" and ended with "Amen." Like us on Facebook

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of Ahlquist and her father in April 2011, eventually winning the case. The school was ordered to remove the banner and pay legal fees amounting to more than $150,000.

"The R.I. judge's ruling in this case and the subsequent headlines fly in the face of all that is decent and moral about the United States and its Constitution," Bradley said.

"Jessica was duped by her ACLU-leaning father and uncle into bringing suit against the city of Cranston over the display of a school prayer that I wrote in 1960."

The writer of the banner claimed that Ahlquist was not "old enough to know the meaning of atheism" and that she was "used and permanently injured by powers and ideologies in the name of secular liberal progressivism," which she couldn't possibly understand at her "tender age."

Mehta, however, responded saying that Ahlquist was not duped by anyone nor was she a pawn of the ACLU.

"This was a decision she brought to their attention, not the other way around," he wrote on his blog.

Ahlquist stated on her own website that she became an atheist at a very young age and that even someone as young as herself had seen "frequent and flagrant disregard for our state's history and even the law."

Bradley argued that as the author of the "moral and upstanding school prayer in question," he should be entitled to "ten or a hundred times as much money as Jessica has been awarded for having torn it down and repudiated the decency and morality in our schools."

"Where are my donors?" he concluded.

But the only money Mehta believed Bradley should be concerned about was the large amount of legal fees owed by the district, which decided not to pursue an appeal due to their "fiscal condition."

"If he wants to help pay the $150,000+ in legal fees ... I'm sure they'd appreciate his help, considering he's part of the reason they got into this mess in the first place."

School officials confirmed last week that the controversial prayer banner was taken down on March 3 and placed in an undisclosed location to the outrage of many in the community who cherished the prayer's history and significance.

View the original article here

Homosexual Federal Judge the Center of 'Unprecidented' Legal Challenge

At issue is Judge Walker’s 10-year, same-sex relationship while he was presiding over the Proposition 8 case in California. Proposition 8 was approved by California voters in November of 2008 and says, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The measure passed with 52.5 percent of the popular vote.

In August of 2010, then Chief U.S. District Judge Walker overturned Proposition 8, declaring the state’s ban on homosexual marriage “unconstitutional.”

Walker stepped down in February of this year after a 20-year career on the bench. Soon after he announced his retirement he confirmed that he was gay. Reports of his relationship with a same-sex partner then surfaced.

Attorneys representing the sponsors of California’s gay marriage ban are asking the chief federal judge in San Francisco to vacate Walker’s decision. However, the more intriguing part of today’s case will be Walker’s same-sex relationship.

While considered a “stretch,” the argument Walker should have revealed his homosexual relationship and excused himself from the case may not set legal precedent as much as bring further contention to an already volatile issue. Like us on Facebook

In an editorial published today in the Sacramento Bee, California attorney Courtney Powers argues Walker, or any other judge, should not have to reveal their private lives when hearing court cases.

“Requiring judges to reveal the details of their private lives and opine about their future would compromise their privacy, autonomy, dignity and ability to control their personal relationships with others – all values Americans expert from one another and their government,” argued Powers.

University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter said in an interview with the Silicon Valley Mercury News, “I don’t think recusal is justified. I think the holding (on Proposition 8) is wrong on the law … but the holding is not wrong because the judge himself is gay or because he lives with another man. That is irrelevant.”

Proposition 8 supporters are taking a different approach in presenting their arguments in court papers. “Such a personal interest in his own marriage would place Chief Justice Walker in precisely the same shoes as the two couples who brought the case,” they wrote in court papers.

“In this case, Judge Walker’s actions have violated timeless rules for judges. His decision not to recuse himself from this case is in conflict with what federal law demands of a judge who has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks.

Walker, who is 67 years old now, declined to issue a statement on the hearing. He did state in a prior interview that he never felt his same-sex relationship was relevant to the Proposition 8 case or that he had any obligation to disclose it to attorneys on either side of the case.

Regardless, legal scholars and parties on both sides of the issue will be watching today’s proceedings with great interest.

View the original article here