Smoky Mountains Sunrise

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Papers Prepped to Disbar Elena Kagan

'She should not be a justice when she's defrauded the Supreme Court'

From WorldNetDaily
By Drew Zahn

One of Washington D.C.'s most feared and fearless corruption watchers has told WND he intends to file an ethics complaint to have Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join – and possibly subjected to criminal prosecution – for her role in an escalating controversy over partial-birth abortion.

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, is bringing the complaint, alleging Kagan altered an official scientific report used as evidence by the Supreme Court to persuade the justices to overturn bans on partial-birth abortion.

Read the rest of this entry >>


Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Leo XIII Decried Socialism, 150 Years Later The USCCB Embraces It

"The socialists wrongly assume the right of property to be of mere human invention . . . and, preaching up the community of goods, declare that ... all may with impunity seize upon the possessions and usurp the rights of the wealthy. More wise and profitably, the Church recognizes the existence of inequality amongst men."

—Leo XIII, Dec. 28, 1878

From Pew Sitter
By Frank Walker


Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, founder of the excellent CatholicCulture.org,
was surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.

This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?

This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.

Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.

Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”

This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.

Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.

The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.

The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.

Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.

The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women. Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, founder of the excellent CatholicCulture.org, was surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.

This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?

This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.

Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.

Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”

This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.

Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.

The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.

The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.

Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.

The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women.


Monday, July 26, 2010

Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege


America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end.

From The Wall Street Journal
By James Webb

T
he NAACP believes the tea party is racist.
The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.

How so?

Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.

The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.

The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."

The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.

In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.

Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.

Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.


Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.



Sunday, July 25, 2010

Lutherans Reaffirm Desire for Shared Eucharist


From Christian Today India
By Audrey Barrick, Christian Post

Talks of a continued commitment toward ecumenism, or church unity, dominated the stage at the Lutheran World Federation's assembly on Wednesday.

The Lutheran commitment to ecumenism will not end until we can share the Eucharist with other churches, said LWF President Bishop Mark S Hanson.

"If Roman Catholics and Lutherans [for example] can feed the hungry together, wouldn’t it be good if they could be fed at the Lord’s Table together?" he posed.

LWF is the world's largest communion of Lutheran churches, representing over 70 million Christians in 79 countries.

This year's meeting assembly in Stuttgart, Germany, is being joined by leaders and representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion, the United Methodist Church and the World Communion of Reformed Churches.

LWF has pursued deeper relations with each of the global church bodies. One of the landmark ecumenical events was the 1999 signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

"To be the Lutheran World Federation: A Communion of Churches is to be ecumenical," said Hanson in his report.


"When a radically inclusive communion is God’s gift to us in Christ and at the centre of our self-understanding we will always define ourselves first in terms of our relatedness to others in the body of Christ.

"We gather in Stuttgart as more than fragments who momentarily put together the semblance of a whole.

"We gather because we are one by God’s grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.


"God’s gift of unity will be experienced and expressed again and again in the midst of our varied diversity and even our differences."

Regarding differences on human sexuality, Hanson encouraged Christians to begin the conversation by identifying what they have in common – such as "we are all sexual beings" – rather than from a position of judgment. His comments come nearly a year after the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, of which he is the presiding bishop, opened the door to allow partnered gays and lesbians to serve as clergy.


He expressed concerns over emerging conversations in some Lutheran churches about what it means to be truly Lutheran.


"I sense that there is a growing desire on the part of some to look at our rich, shared confessions not as a reason for conversation about how we can live in that confessional tradition, but rather as a way of determining who is truly Lutheran and who is not."

Hanson said he desired to see full unity among Lutherans themselves. "That would be an unfortunate breakdown."


Lutherans should not only affirm the theological and confessional foundations they share as Lutherans, but also the notion "that to be Lutheran is to be both evangelical and ecumenical".


LWF General Secretary the Rev Dr Ishmael Noko recalled in his address the statement they adopted in 2007. Rather than see themselves as "the Church", LWF views itself as a movement within the "one Church".


"We are aware that we need other Christians," Noko said.

Interfaith Diapraxis, or practical cooperation across religious borders, has been a special focus of the life of the LWF since 2003. Continuing that commitment, LWF delegates are being asked this year to take an action that would redefine their relations with Mennonites – a group of Christian Anabaptist denominations.

Noko lamented that the two bodies have been estranged for 500 years and that their Lutheran confessions "have very harsh things to say" about the Mennonites.


LWF will consider an action that asks for forgiveness "for the persecution and violence of which our Lutheran forebears were guilty, and of which we are the inheritors", Noko said.

Also present at the LWF assembly is World Council of Churches General Secretary the Rev Dr Olav Fykse Tveit who lauded LWF's ecumenical efforts.


Though there are "several reasons given for why churches are not fully sharing the one bread in the Eucharist", Tveit said, "there are even more important theological and moral reasons why we continue to do anything we can do to come to the same table and have a common sharing of the one bread."


He said: "You are known for your commitment to peace with justice, to mission, diakonia and to ecumenical dialogue and inter-religious cooperation. Let it be so also in the future."


A Homily by Father Franklyn M. McAfee - "Just Tell Me the Truth"



Homily of Reverend Franklyn M. McAfee, D.D.

Pastor Emeritus

St. John the Belov
ed Catholic Church

McLean,
Virginia

July 20, 2008

Morriston Tabernacle, Swansea, Wales "Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer"





Saturday, July 24, 2010

Stephen Langton, the Catholic Cardinal Who Wrote Magna Carta

And organized the Bible into chapters

From Your Dictionary

Stephen Langton (died 1228) served as England's Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastical office in the land. He played an important role in events surrounding the fabled Magna Carta, signed by the English king in 1215. Though the document specified certain rights to England's landed aristocracy, it is sometimes heralded as the first formal declaration of human rights in history.

Little is known about Langton's life outside of his writings on theological matters and his tenure as an emissary between his onetime foe, King John, and the English barons. Not even a portrait of him survives. He was thought to have hailed from Lincolnshire, in the north of England, and was likely born in the mid-1150s. His father, Henry, possessed a small manor home and some property there, where ancestors from Denmark had likely settled some 200 years earlier. Around Lincolnshire at the time of Langton's youth were several famous monasteries and abbeys, and he came of age during a period of strife between the church and monarch in England. Henry II, who ruled from 1154 to 1189, named his chancellor, a layman, as head of the church in England. Thomas a Becket, however, came to oppose Henry's increasing thirst for power, and fled to the Continent for a time. Before he left, he hid in the Lincolnshire area, and was sheltered by the monks of the Gilbertine order. The quarrel was mended for a time, but supporters of the king murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170. All of this occurred during Langton's childhood.

Both Langton and his brother Simon opted to become members of religious orders. He later wrote that his decision to enter a monastery scandalized his father. Langton served as prebendary at York for a time-a member of clergy who receives a stipend-and went to Paris around 1181. He studied there among the loose coalition of masters and pupils at what would become the famed Universite de Paris, then taught there himself until 1206. During his student days he befriended an Italian cleric, Cardinal de Conti, who would later play an important role in his life. At the time, Paris was the Western world's most renowned center of learning, and was especially famed for theologians continuing the work of early Christian scholars, who formulated the principal doctrines of the faith. Paris was a small city at the time, mostly situated on the Ile de Paris, and during the entire 25 years of his stay there, Langton could hear the noises of the workers who built the Notre Dame cathedral. Langton's tutor, Peter the Chanter, wrote critically of the grandiosity and expense of this church.

Contributed to Modern Bible

Langton earned a doctorate in arts and theology from Paris, and began delivering what were termed questiones, or lectures on theological or moral problems. He also wrote extensively on the Bible. An important Vulgate, or common edition, appeared from the Universite de Paris theologians during the thirteenth century, and Langton worked on the project himself. He is credited for dividing the books of the Bible into chapters. The Paris Vulgate served as the standard version for the next two centuries, and the first printed-not hand-copied, as was the method in Langton's day-editions of the bible from Johann Gutenberg's press were based on this revision. The chapter divisions he devised were still in use eight centuries later.

Langton penned theological treatises and discourses on the topics of heaven, hell, transubstantiation, and prayer. Answering the question of whether the devil sins with all his might, Langton wrote: "The devil wishes to be either good or bad. If the former, when he does evil he must feel the sting of a biting conscience, that is to say, synderesis ; and authority says that synderesis is extinct in the devil. If he wishes to be bad, he wishes to deserve punishment and so to be punished. It may well be that the devil is so obstinate that he wishes to be bad and yet does not wish to be punished."

Appointed Archbishop

During the course of his career in Paris, Langton and his questiones, along with extensive commentaries he wrote on books of the Old and New Testaments, brought him such renown that he became known as "Stephen with the Tongue of Thunder." He was summoned to Rome by Pope Innocent III, the former Cardinal de Conti, who recognized in Langton an ally in his battle with the new king of England. The favorite, but youngest son of Henry II, John was given lands in France, the earldom of Gloucester, and the lordship of Ireland, which caused resentment among his brothers. When the eldest succeeded to the throne in 1189 as Richard I (the Lionhearted), John promised to remain in France. But he conspired against his brother, attempting to seize the throne while Richard was away on a Crusade to the Holy Land. In the spring of 1199, Richard died and John ascended to the throne.

During his reign, John became embroiled in a dispute with the church over the throne's right to appoint bishops. It was a dispute that stretched back to the time of Thomas a Becket. John had a formidable foe in Pope Innocent III, who was consolidating the church's political power at this time after a noticeable decline of the Holy Roman Empire. After the death of the archbishop of Canterbury in 1205, the king and the English clergy failed to come to an agreement on an acceptable successor. The Pope favored Langton, and named him a cardinal priest of St. Chrysogonus in 1206. The following spring, he was elected the archbishop of Canterbury by the monks of Christ Church in a vote at which Innocent was present. He was consecrated on June 17, 1207.

Stalemate Kept Him in France

The move deepened the crisis between John and Rome. The king barred the new archbishop from entering England, and then began demanding revenues from churches, monasteries, and other religious institutions. In response, Innocent placed England under an Interdict, which prohibited Mass, marriages, and even church bells from ringing, beginning in March of 1208. The following year, hoping to end the stalemate, Langton sailed to Dover and sent word to the throne that he would negotiate with the king there. John, however, refused to travel farther than Kent, and Innocent then excommunicated the king in November of 1209. Meanwhile, in domestic matters, John was encountering opposition from his barons, who resented the increase in taxation necessary to finance an ongoing war with France. In 1199, 1201, and 1205, John promised his barons certain rights, but continued to ask them for more money.

For several years Langton lived in Pontigny, a Cistercian monastery in Auxerre. Historians know that during this period his father, Henry of Langton, was forced to flee to Scotland, because he feared trouble from the king or his agents. By 1212, John was planning an incursion into France to regain lands he had lost to its king, Philip II, in 1204. Worried that the French would ally with the Pope against him and invade England, John decided to make peace with Innocent. In November, he agreed to recognize Langton as the archbishop of Canterbury. In May of 1213, John symbolically surrendered his crown to Pandulf, the papal legate, who then returned it to him with the church's blessing at Ewell, near Dover.

Told Barons of Historic Precedent

Langton arrived in England in July of 1213. He and the other prelates met with John at Winchester, and absolved him from the order of excommunication. Problems between John and the barons continued, however, and the archbishop soon became involved as well. A 1212 plot to murder or at least desert the king in a battle with the Welsh came to light, and Langton forced John to provide a fair trial for the accused barons. In August of 1213, he delivered a sermon at St. Paul's Cathedral in London before an assemblage of barons and clergy. That same day, he allegedly met in private with some of the barons and revealed that during his studies in Paris, he learned of a charter from the year 1031, written on the occasion of Henry I's coronation. In it, the king granted the barons specific liberties.

With this legal precedent in mind, the barons created a new document, called the Unknown Charter because historians did not know of its existence until 1893. John balked at signing it, and the barons contemplated using force. Langton became the intermediary between the king and barons, and strongly discouraged the use of violence. Meanwhile, John's campaign against France had gone badly, and civil strife arose in England. Outright war erupted in May of 1215, and rebels captured London. After negotiating with them, the king met with the barons at a site called Runnymede, on the Thames River in Surrey, on June 19, 1215. There he signed their Magna Carta, or Great Charter. By this time, Langton had sided with the king against the barons, and was serving as his commissioner. It is thought that Langton, nevertheless, played a key role in the document's original drafting, and likely authored the first clause that granted the church and its bishops fullecclesiastical freedom. His is the first signature of witness on the document.

First Statement of Rights

The Magna Carta formed the basis of English constitutional law by limiting the powers of the crown, enshrining feudal rights, and guaranteeing the freedom of the church. Other clauses formally recognized the customs of the towns, and stated that both subjects and communities had certain rights that the king could not encroach upon. Other areas of the document confirmed the validity of a trial by jury and idea of habeas corpus-that a person must be brought before a court in person to determine if the detention is lawful.

The Magna Carta, despite the historical myth surrounding it, had a short life span. Other barons refused to accept it, and John appealed its terms to the Pope, who was now firmly on his side in the war against the barons. Innocent issued an order of excommunication for the barons, but Langton refused to publish it. His former ally in Rome then suspended him. John died the following year, and his son Henry III, not yet of majority, inherited the throne. Langton was reinstated to his Archbishopric in 1218. His role in forcing the removal of the papal legate in 1221 served to give his office of archbishop at Canterbury even more independence, for the absence of the representative from Rome made Langton legatus natus, or legate in his own right. In 1222, he authored a set of constitutions that formed the basis of English ecclesiastical law, and were still used by the courts seven hundred years later. In 1225, the Magna Carta was reissued, and seventeenth century alterations like the Petition of Right and the Habeas Corpus Act helped make it more than a just a document that confirmed feudal privileges. The U.S. Constitution contains several phrases that are clearly linked to it. Langton died in Sussex in July of 1228. He was buried at the Canterbury Cathedral.