N.T. Wright's NT Theolgy

For those who like a challenge, get a hold of N.T. Wright's New Testament theology. It is a five volume job (I'm not sure if it's complete yet), and I am only half-way through the first volume.

Bishop Wright, as opposed to a number of previous Bishops of Durham, believes in the Resurrection of Jesus, and his theology is aimed at showing why you can believe in it too. Its not easy going conceptually (although it reads very well; he has a preacher's facility with language) because he starts at first principals (eg. "How do we know anything at all?") and builds from there. For instance, the second part of his first volume ("The New Testament and the People of God") deals with the following topics:

• Knowledge: Problems and Varieties
• Literature, Story and the Articulation of World Views
• History and the First Century
• Theology, Authority and the New Testament

Read Mark Mattison's review. Are you ready for that? Take the plunge!

N.T. Wright's NT Theolgy

For those who like a challenge, get a hold of N.T. Wright's New Testament theology. It is a five volume job (I'm not sure if it's complete yet), and I am only half-way through the first volume.

Bishop Wright, as opposed to a number of previous Bishops of Durham, believes in the Resurrection of Jesus, and his theology is aimed at showing why you can believe in it too. Its not easy going conceptually (although it reads very well; he has a preacher's facility with language) because he starts at first principals (eg. "How do we know anything at all?") and builds from there. For instance, the second part of his first volume ("The New Testament and the People of God") deals with the following topics:

• Knowledge: Problems and Varieties
• Literature, Story and the Articulation of World Views
• History and the First Century
• Theology, Authority and the New Testament

Read Mark Mattison's review. Are you ready for that? Take the plunge!

Walter Kasper, N.T. Wright, and Bill Bryson

What have these three got in common: Cardinal Walter Kasper, Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright, and Ango-American travel writer Bill Bryson?

They were all at Durham University for the mega-pow-wow of mega-ecumenists last week (read John Allen's report in the National Catholic Reporter or in Word from Rome and another report in the Tablet).

Bill Bryson, who just happens to be the Chancelor of Durham University conferred an honoury doctorate on the good Cardinal, and Bishop Wright (Anglican Bishop of Durham) conferred a blessing upon the same at an Anglican Eucharist. Cardinal Kasper addressed the crowd. I emailed him in Rome today requesting a copy of his address, or alternatively that he may be able to publish it somewhere on the 'net for us all to see, so when I have a reply I will let you know.

(What? Yes, I do regularly correspond with the Vatican. Cardinal Kasper doesn't personally answer his own email, but Archbishop Fitzgerald, President of the Pontifical Council for Interrelgious Dialogue, does. I have had the pleasure of meeting both gentlemen. Please keep them both in your prayers. Cardinal Kasper is working very hard, and he isn't young any more. He is off to Armenia and Georgia next week for the first meeting of the new round of Catholic/Orthodox talks. And I rather hope that Bish Fitz--as he once told me he was known around the office--gets a red hat at the next consistory.)

Walter Kasper, N.T. Wright, and Bill Bryson

What have these three got in common: Cardinal Walter Kasper, Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright, and Ango-American travel writer Bill Bryson?

They were all at Durham University for the mega-pow-wow of mega-ecumenists last week (read John Allen's report in the National Catholic Reporter or in Word from Rome and another report in the Tablet).

Bill Bryson, who just happens to be the Chancelor of Durham University conferred an honoury doctorate on the good Cardinal, and Bishop Wright (Anglican Bishop of Durham) conferred a blessing upon the same at an Anglican Eucharist. Cardinal Kasper addressed the crowd. I emailed him in Rome today requesting a copy of his address, or alternatively that he may be able to publish it somewhere on the 'net for us all to see, so when I have a reply I will let you know.

(What? Yes, I do regularly correspond with the Vatican. Cardinal Kasper doesn't personally answer his own email, but Archbishop Fitzgerald, President of the Pontifical Council for Interrelgious Dialogue, does. I have had the pleasure of meeting both gentlemen. Please keep them both in your prayers. Cardinal Kasper is working very hard, and he isn't young any more. He is off to Armenia and Georgia next week for the first meeting of the new round of Catholic/Orthodox talks. And I rather hope that Bish Fitz--as he once told me he was known around the office--gets a red hat at the next consistory.)

Word and Sacrament...AND Charity!

While we're on the topic of the Encyclical, there's another surprising thing that should not miss our attention. We are used to talking about the Church in terms of the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. But Papa Benny emphatically adds a third essential duty and mark of the Church: Charity!

"The Church cannot neglect the service of charity any more than she can neglect the Sacraments and the Word. " (para. 22)

"the exercise of charity is an action of the Church as such, and that, like the ministry of Word and Sacrament, it too has been an essential part of her mission from the very beginning." (para. 32)

Strong stuff!

Word and Sacrament...AND Charity!

While we're on the topic of the Encyclical, there's another surprising thing that should not miss our attention. We are used to talking about the Church in terms of the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. But Papa Benny emphatically adds a third essential duty and mark of the Church: Charity!

"The Church cannot neglect the service of charity any more than she can neglect the Sacraments and the Word. " (para. 22)

"the exercise of charity is an action of the Church as such, and that, like the ministry of Word and Sacrament, it too has been an essential part of her mission from the very beginning." (para. 32)

Strong stuff!

New Encyclical doesn't mention "sin"

Here is a curious thing that no-one has commented on. In "Deus Caritas Est", the Pope doesn't mention "sin" once. Check it out yourself. Do a search. I've checked the Latin too, so it isn't the fault of the translators. Even "grace" only gets two mentions. What does this mean? Is this the explanation for his rather positive take on eros?

But he does use the word "purify" a lot. Two things come up for "purification" in this encyclical: eros and reason. Both "purifications" indicate that there is something amiss in the human exercise of these passions/faculties. So sin is there after all, lurking just behind the text.

I think this explains some reactions to the "eros" part of the Encyclical:

In the New York Times: "The Encyclical...did not mention abortion, homosexuality, contraception or divorce." Gee, they must have been disappointed!

Dr Janice Crouse, of Beverly LaHaye Institute: "When a pope defines love and sex in terms of a married husband and wife, there's going to be plenty of controversy."

Father Joseph Fessio, SJ: "What is he doing here? He is saying no divorce. He is saying no promiscuity. He is saying no multiple wives. No homosexuality. He's completely positive, but if you accept the teaching, consequences follow."

And what about the "purification of reason"? Lutherans (hullo to you all out there!) have always distrusted human reason--not so much because they doubt the powers of reason, as that they do not underestimate the power of human sin to sully the waters of rationality.

When the pope talks about the need to purify reason in the realms of politics and the media, however, one is tempted to ask "What reason?". Have you noticed how many people today are content to say "That's what I think" or "That's my opinion" without applying any reason or logic to their statements at all? Before we can "purify reason" there has to be some rationality there in the first place...

New Encyclical doesn't mention "sin"

Here is a curious thing that no-one has commented on. In "Deus Caritas Est", the Pope doesn't mention "sin" once. Check it out yourself. Do a search. I've checked the Latin too, so it isn't the fault of the translators. Even "grace" only gets two mentions. What does this mean? Is this the explanation for his rather positive take on eros?

But he does use the word "purify" a lot. Two things come up for "purification" in this encyclical: eros and reason. Both "purifications" indicate that there is something amiss in the human exercise of these passions/faculties. So sin is there after all, lurking just behind the text.

I think this explains some reactions to the "eros" part of the Encyclical:

In the New York Times: "The Encyclical...did not mention abortion, homosexuality, contraception or divorce." Gee, they must have been disappointed!

Dr Janice Crouse, of Beverly LaHaye Institute: "When a pope defines love and sex in terms of a married husband and wife, there's going to be plenty of controversy."

Father Joseph Fessio, SJ: "What is he doing here? He is saying no divorce. He is saying no promiscuity. He is saying no multiple wives. No homosexuality. He's completely positive, but if you accept the teaching, consequences follow."

And what about the "purification of reason"? Lutherans (hullo to you all out there!) have always distrusted human reason--not so much because they doubt the powers of reason, as that they do not underestimate the power of human sin to sully the waters of rationality.

When the pope talks about the need to purify reason in the realms of politics and the media, however, one is tempted to ask "What reason?". Have you noticed how many people today are content to say "That's what I think" or "That's my opinion" without applying any reason or logic to their statements at all? Before we can "purify reason" there has to be some rationality there in the first place...

N.T. Wright's NT Theolgy

For those who like a challenge, get a hold of N.T. Wright's New Testament theology. It is a five volume job (I'm not sure if it's complete yet), and I am only half-way through the first volume.

Bishop Wright, as opposed to a number of previous Bishops of Durham, believes in the Resurrection of Jesus, and his theology is aimed at showing why you can believe in it too. Its not easy going conceptually (although it reads very well; he has a preacher's facility with language) because he starts at first principals (eg. "How do we know anything at all?") and builds from there. For instance, the second part of his first volume ("The New Testament and the People of God") deals with the following topics:

• Knowledge: Problems and Varieties
• Literature, Story and the Articulation of World Views
• History and the First Century
• Theology, Authority and the New Testament

Read Mark Mattison's review. Are you ready for that? Take the plunge!

Walter Kasper, N.T. Wright, and Bill Bryson

What have these three got in common: Cardinal Walter Kasper, Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright, and Ango-American travel writer Bill Bryson?

They were all at Durham University for the mega-pow-wow of mega-ecumenists last week (read John Allen's report in the National Catholic Reporter or in Word from Rome and another report in the Tablet).

Bill Bryson, who just happens to be the Chancelor of Durham University conferred an honoury doctorate on the good Cardinal, and Bishop Wright (Anglican Bishop of Durham) conferred a blessing upon the same at an Anglican Eucharist. Cardinal Kasper addressed the crowd. I emailed him in Rome today requesting a copy of his address, or alternatively that he may be able to publish it somewhere on the 'net for us all to see, so when I have a reply I will let you know.

(What? Yes, I do regularly correspond with the Vatican. Cardinal Kasper doesn't personally answer his own email, but Archbishop Fitzgerald, President of the Pontifical Council for Interrelgious Dialogue, does. I have had the pleasure of meeting both gentlemen. Please keep them both in your prayers. Cardinal Kasper is working very hard, and he isn't young any more. He is off to Armenia and Georgia next week for the first meeting of the new round of Catholic/Orthodox talks. And I rather hope that Bish Fitz--as he once told me he was known around the office--gets a red hat at the next consistory.)

Word and Sacrament...AND Charity!

While we're on the topic of the Encyclical, there's another surprising thing that should not miss our attention. We are used to talking about the Church in terms of the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. But Papa Benny emphatically adds a third essential duty and mark of the Church: Charity!

"The Church cannot neglect the service of charity any more than she can neglect the Sacraments and the Word. " (para. 22)

"the exercise of charity is an action of the Church as such, and that, like the ministry of Word and Sacrament, it too has been an essential part of her mission from the very beginning." (para. 32)

Strong stuff!

New Encyclical doesn't mention "sin"

Here is a curious thing that no-one has commented on. In "Deus Caritas Est", the Pope doesn't mention "sin" once. Check it out yourself. Do a search. I've checked the Latin too, so it isn't the fault of the translators. Even "grace" only gets two mentions. What does this mean? Is this the explanation for his rather positive take on eros?

But he does use the word "purify" a lot. Two things come up for "purification" in this encyclical: eros and reason. Both "purifications" indicate that there is something amiss in the human exercise of these passions/faculties. So sin is there after all, lurking just behind the text.

I think this explains some reactions to the "eros" part of the Encyclical:

In the New York Times: "The Encyclical...did not mention abortion, homosexuality, contraception or divorce." Gee, they must have been disappointed!

Dr Janice Crouse, of Beverly LaHaye Institute: "When a pope defines love and sex in terms of a married husband and wife, there's going to be plenty of controversy."

Father Joseph Fessio, SJ: "What is he doing here? He is saying no divorce. He is saying no promiscuity. He is saying no multiple wives. No homosexuality. He's completely positive, but if you accept the teaching, consequences follow."

And what about the "purification of reason"? Lutherans (hullo to you all out there!) have always distrusted human reason--not so much because they doubt the powers of reason, as that they do not underestimate the power of human sin to sully the waters of rationality.

When the pope talks about the need to purify reason in the realms of politics and the media, however, one is tempted to ask "What reason?". Have you noticed how many people today are content to say "That's what I think" or "That's my opinion" without applying any reason or logic to their statements at all? Before we can "purify reason" there has to be some rationality there in the first place...

Cardinal Schönborn's Creation Catechesis

Cardinal Schönborn's July 7 2005 article in the New York Times caused a stir last year ("Finding Design in Nature") especially in the context of the Intelligent Design debate. While the debate rages across the world (and you can read some very considered Australian essays on the subject in the latest edition of Ethics Education), the editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has begun a series of catechetical lectures on the subject of Creation in his archdiocese of Vienna (that's something you don't see every day, a bishop, ordained to teach, actually teaching!). So far he has produced three such addresses, and they have all been "provisionally" translated into English because there is such a high demand for them. If you can read German, have a look at his other catechetical material on the site. The new Panzer Cardinal? Perhaps not (was there ever an old one?), but if the Church can ever see its way to having two German popes in a row, he could have a great responsibility ahead of him...

Here are the lectures. Read, learn and inwardly digest:
Creation and Evolution: To the Debate as It Stands
"In the Beginning God Created..."
"He created each thing according to its kind"

Cardinal Schönborn's Creation Catechesis

Cardinal Schönborn's July 7 2005 article in the New York Times caused a stir last year ("Finding Design in Nature") especially in the context of the Intelligent Design debate. While the debate rages across the world (and you can read some very considered Australian essays on the subject in the latest edition of Ethics Education), the editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has begun a series of catechetical lectures on the subject of Creation in his archdiocese of Vienna (that's something you don't see every day, a bishop, ordained to teach, actually teaching!). So far he has produced three such addresses, and they have all been "provisionally" translated into English because there is such a high demand for them. If you can read German, have a look at his other catechetical material on the site. The new Panzer Cardinal? Perhaps not (was there ever an old one?), but if the Church can ever see its way to having two German popes in a row, he could have a great responsibility ahead of him...

Here are the lectures. Read, learn and inwardly digest:
Creation and Evolution: To the Debate as It Stands
"In the Beginning God Created..."
"He created each thing according to its kind"

Cardinal Schönborn's Creation Catechesis

Cardinal Schönborn's July 7 2005 article in the New York Times caused a stir last year ("Finding Design in Nature") especially in the context of the Intelligent Design debate. While the debate rages across the world (and you can read some very considered Australian essays on the subject in the latest edition of Ethics Education), the editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has begun a series of catechetical lectures on the subject of Creation in his archdiocese of Vienna (that's something you don't see every day, a bishop, ordained to teach, actually teaching!). So far he has produced three such addresses, and they have all been "provisionally" translated into English because there is such a high demand for them. If you can read German, have a look at his other catechetical material on the site. The new Panzer Cardinal? Perhaps not (was there ever an old one?), but if the Church can ever see its way to having two German popes in a row, he could have a great responsibility ahead of him...

Here are the lectures. Read, learn and inwardly digest:
Creation and Evolution: To the Debate as It Stands
"In the Beginning God Created..."
"He created each thing according to its kind"

Christian Responses to Muslim Questions

One of the recent presenters at Pope Benedict's meeting with his past doctoral students was Dr Christian W. Troll, S.J. The private meeting addressed various aspects of Islam, and raised questions about the pope's own view of the Qu'ran. You can read more about it here and here (and Spengler's view here) if you haven't caught up with this story yet.

In any case, Dr Troll has a really useful site called Muslims Ask, Christians Answer from which you can download a really useful little book called "Christian Responses to Muslim Questions". This excellent book grew directly out of many years of face to face Muslim Christian dialogue. The presentation is very clear, and strives first to understand exactly what the Muslim question or criticism of Christianity is before jumping in with the Christian response. There are lots of Christian apologetics books addressed to Muslims, but none as good as this from the dimension of serious engagement. Christians reading it will learn a great deal about Islam.

I am currently reading a book that faces similar issues, called "No God but God" by A. Christian van Gorder that's also fairly good, from an Evangelical perspective rather than a Catholic one. You can read a review of it on the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue site.

Christian Responses to Muslim Questions

One of the recent presenters at Pope Benedict's meeting with his past doctoral students was Dr Christian W. Troll, S.J. The private meeting addressed various aspects of Islam, and raised questions about the pope's own view of the Qu'ran. You can read more about it here and here (and Spengler's view here) if you haven't caught up with this story yet.

In any case, Dr Troll has a really useful site called Muslims Ask, Christians Answer from which you can download a really useful little book called "Christian Responses to Muslim Questions". This excellent book grew directly out of many years of face to face Muslim Christian dialogue. The presentation is very clear, and strives first to understand exactly what the Muslim question or criticism of Christianity is before jumping in with the Christian response. There are lots of Christian apologetics books addressed to Muslims, but none as good as this from the dimension of serious engagement. Christians reading it will learn a great deal about Islam.

I am currently reading a book that faces similar issues, called "No God but God" by A. Christian van Gorder that's also fairly good, from an Evangelical perspective rather than a Catholic one. You can read a review of it on the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue site.

Paul VI's Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei"

For those who have finished B16's Encyclical and are hungry for more, may I suggest that you dig up Paul VI's encyclical "Mysterium Fidei"? It was written just after the promulgation of Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy in 1965. As the title suggests, it is about the Eucharist. Paul had noticed that the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" was making an early and unwelcome appearance and that some theologians were ditching the traditional teaching of the Eucharist, so he wrote this as sort of "memo" to remind Catholic theologians, priests, bishops and faithful of what its all about. It is a very short encyclical by recent standards, but it is a real corker.

I came across "Mysterium Fidei" while in discussion with a priest who asserted that the "The Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist". I acknowledged that the Church usually prefers to speak of a "substantial", "ontological", "bodily/corporeal" presence, rather than a "physical" presence per se, nevertheless, I wondered whether his assertion was correct. He quoted Aquinas who taught that Christ was not present in the Eucharist "per modum loci"--ie. as if Christ was "located" in the Eucharistic elements, and asserted that Christ was only "physically" present in heaven. That seemed a little close to the old BCP "Black Rubric" for my taste, so I went searching. Here's what I found in PVI:

"Once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species--beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical "reality", corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place." (MF 46)

So, Thomas A. was right, but Father was wrong: The Church does teach that Christ is physically present, but not "per modum loci".

Read the whole thing here: Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei

Paul VI's Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei"

For those who have finished B16's Encyclical and are hungry for more, may I suggest that you dig up Paul VI's encyclical "Mysterium Fidei"? It was written just after the promulgation of Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy in 1965. As the title suggests, it is about the Eucharist. Paul had noticed that the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" was making an early and unwelcome appearance and that some theologians were ditching the traditional teaching of the Eucharist, so he wrote this as sort of "memo" to remind Catholic theologians, priests, bishops and faithful of what its all about. It is a very short encyclical by recent standards, but it is a real corker.

I came across "Mysterium Fidei" while in discussion with a priest who asserted that the "The Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist". I acknowledged that the Church usually prefers to speak of a "substantial", "ontological", "bodily/corporeal" presence, rather than a "physical" presence per se, nevertheless, I wondered whether his assertion was correct. He quoted Aquinas who taught that Christ was not present in the Eucharist "per modum loci"--ie. as if Christ was "located" in the Eucharistic elements, and asserted that Christ was only "physically" present in heaven. That seemed a little close to the old BCP "Black Rubric" for my taste, so I went searching. Here's what I found in PVI:

"Once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species--beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical "reality", corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place." (MF 46)

So, Thomas A. was right, but Father was wrong: The Church does teach that Christ is physically present, but not "per modum loci".

Read the whole thing here: Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei

Christian Responses to Muslim Questions

One of the recent presenters at Pope Benedict's meeting with his past doctoral students was Dr Christian W. Troll, S.J. The private meeting addressed various aspects of Islam, and raised questions about the pope's own view of the Qu'ran. You can read more about it here and here (and Spengler's view here) if you haven't caught up with this story yet.

In any case, Dr Troll has a really useful site called Muslims Ask, Christians Answer from which you can download a really useful little book called "Christian Responses to Muslim Questions". This excellent book grew directly out of many years of face to face Muslim Christian dialogue. The presentation is very clear, and strives first to understand exactly what the Muslim question or criticism of Christianity is before jumping in with the Christian response. There are lots of Christian apologetics books addressed to Muslims, but none as good as this from the dimension of serious engagement. Christians reading it will learn a great deal about Islam.

I am currently reading a book that faces similar issues, called "No God but God" by A. Christian van Gorder that's also fairly good, from an Evangelical perspective rather than a Catholic one. You can read a review of it on the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue site.

Paul VI's Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei"

For those who have finished B16's Encyclical and are hungry for more, may I suggest that you dig up Paul VI's encyclical "Mysterium Fidei"? It was written just after the promulgation of Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy in 1965. As the title suggests, it is about the Eucharist. Paul had noticed that the infamous "Spirit of Vatican II" was making an early and unwelcome appearance and that some theologians were ditching the traditional teaching of the Eucharist, so he wrote this as sort of "memo" to remind Catholic theologians, priests, bishops and faithful of what its all about. It is a very short encyclical by recent standards, but it is a real corker.

I came across "Mysterium Fidei" while in discussion with a priest who asserted that the "The Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist". I acknowledged that the Church usually prefers to speak of a "substantial", "ontological", "bodily/corporeal" presence, rather than a "physical" presence per se, nevertheless, I wondered whether his assertion was correct. He quoted Aquinas who taught that Christ was not present in the Eucharist "per modum loci"--ie. as if Christ was "located" in the Eucharistic elements, and asserted that Christ was only "physically" present in heaven. That seemed a little close to the old BCP "Black Rubric" for my taste, so I went searching. Here's what I found in PVI:

"Once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species--beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical "reality", corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place." (MF 46)

So, Thomas A. was right, but Father was wrong: The Church does teach that Christ is physically present, but not "per modum loci".

Read the whole thing here: Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei

"Anti-Culture of Death"

Has anyone else noticed that Pope Benedict XVI has been using the term "
Anti-culture of death" rather than John Paul II's term "culture of death"?
He has done so repeatedly in his homilies (eg. at the Baptisms in the
Sistine Chapel) and again he has used this term now in the new encyclical.
It seems as if he is slightly adjusting the way we view the relationship
between this and the "Culture of Life"; as if to say, they are not two
opposite but true cultures, but rather that the "anti-culture of death" is
a false culture, destructive of anything that might rightly be called a
"culture" at all.

"Anti-Culture of Death"

Has anyone else noticed that Pope Benedict XVI has been using the term "
Anti-culture of death" rather than John Paul II's term "culture of death"?
He has done so repeatedly in his homilies (eg. at the Baptisms in the
Sistine Chapel) and again he has used this term now in the new encyclical.
It seems as if he is slightly adjusting the way we view the relationship
between this and the "Culture of Life"; as if to say, they are not two
opposite but true cultures, but rather that the "anti-culture of death" is
a false culture, destructive of anything that might rightly be called a
"culture" at all.

The Stephen Crittenden Show is back!

Stephen Crittenden is back on ABC Radio National's "Religion Report". I've
been a great fan of the Religion Report for ages. Although I usually miss
it (unless I am in the car instead of on my motorbike on the way into town
on Wednesday mornings) I always catch up with it on the podcast. To one who
attempts to "think with the Church", Stephen Crittenden can sometimes be
very annoying--too much Stephen and not enough Religion! A friend of mine
calls it "The Stephen Crittenden Show" with good reason. Nevertheless, the
world needs more programs like this that put the religious issues of the
day (which affect a very large percentage of us) up front for all to become
aware of what is at stake. In their own way John Safran and Fr Bob do it
with "Speaking in Tongues".

The Stephen Crittenden Show is back!

Stephen Crittenden is back on ABC Radio National's "Religion Report". I've
been a great fan of the Religion Report for ages. Although I usually miss
it (unless I am in the car instead of on my motorbike on the way into town
on Wednesday mornings) I always catch up with it on the podcast. To one who
attempts to "think with the Church", Stephen Crittenden can sometimes be
very annoying--too much Stephen and not enough Religion! A friend of mine
calls it "The Stephen Crittenden Show" with good reason. Nevertheless, the
world needs more programs like this that put the religious issues of the
day (which affect a very large percentage of us) up front for all to become
aware of what is at stake. In their own way John Safran and Fr Bob do it
with "Speaking in Tongues".

"Anti-Culture of Death"

Has anyone else noticed that Pope Benedict XVI has been using the term "
Anti-culture of death" rather than John Paul II's term "culture of death"?
He has done so repeatedly in his homilies (eg. at the Baptisms in the
Sistine Chapel) and again he has used this term now in the new encyclical.
It seems as if he is slightly adjusting the way we view the relationship
between this and the "Culture of Life"; as if to say, they are not two
opposite but true cultures, but rather that the "anti-culture of death" is
a false culture, destructive of anything that might rightly be called a
"culture" at all.

The Stephen Crittenden Show is back!

Stephen Crittenden is back on ABC Radio National's "Religion Report". I've
been a great fan of the Religion Report for ages. Although I usually miss
it (unless I am in the car instead of on my motorbike on the way into town
on Wednesday mornings) I always catch up with it on the podcast. To one who
attempts to "think with the Church", Stephen Crittenden can sometimes be
very annoying--too much Stephen and not enough Religion! A friend of mine
calls it "The Stephen Crittenden Show" with good reason. Nevertheless, the
world needs more programs like this that put the religious issues of the
day (which affect a very large percentage of us) up front for all to become
aware of what is at stake. In their own way John Safran and Fr Bob do it
with "Speaking in Tongues".

Umberto Eco vs Dan Brown

By the way, a much better novel than “The Da Vinci Code”, but on the same topics, is by Umberto Eco (of “Name of the Rose” fame). It’s called “Foucault’s Pendulum” and it is a ripper. Here are some snippets to give you a taste. Also, you may wish to read Eco’s own take on “that bloody book” in an article called: God isn’t big enough for some people…

“What if, instead, you fed it a few dozen notions taken from the works of the Diabolicals…and threw in a few connective phrases like ‘It’s obvious that’ and ‘This proves that’? We might end up with something…”
“An idea of genius… let’s start straight away.”
“Joseph of Arimathea carries the Grail into France.”
“Excellent… I’ve written it. Go on.”
“According to the Templar Tradition, Godefroy de Bouillon founded the Grand Priory of Zion in Jerusalem. And Debussy was a Rosicrucian.”
“Excuse me, but you have to include some neutral data—for example, the koala lives in Australia.”
“Minnie Mouse is Mickey’s fiancée?”
“We mustn't overdo it.”
“No, we must overdo it. If we admit that in the whole universe there is even a single fact that does not reveal a mystery, then we violate hermetic thought.”
“That’s true. Minnie’s in. And, if you’ll allow me, I’ll add a fundamental axiom: The Templars have something to do with everything.”
“That goes without saying.” (FP, p375)

“But look…do the Rosicrucians exist?”
“Whether you call them Rosicrucians or Templars, they protect themselves through secrecy. And that is why anyone who says he is a master, a Rosicrucian, a Templar, is lying.”
“But what do they want people to know?”
“Only that there is a secret. Otherwise, if everything is as it appears to be, why go on living?”
“And what is the secret?”
“What the revealed religions have been unable to reveal. The secret lies…beyond.” (FP, p208)

A plot, if there is to be one, must be a secret. A secret that, if we only knew it, would dispel our frustration, lead us to salvation. Does such a luminous secret exist? Yes, provided it is never known. Known, it will only disappoint us. …
Yet someone had just arrived and declared himself the Son of God, the Son of God made flesh, to redeem the sin of the world. Was that a run-of-the-mill mystery? And he promised salvation to all: you only had to love your neighbour. Was that a trivial secret? And he bequeathed the idea that whoever uttered the right words at the right time could turn a chunk of bread and a half-glass of wine into the body and blood of the Son of God, and be nourished by it. Was that a paltry riddle? And then he led the Church fathers to ponder and proclaim that God was One and Triune and that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, but that the Son did not proceed from the Father and the Spirit. Was that some easy formula for hylics? And yet they, who now had salvation with their grasp…turned deaf ears. Is that all there is to it? How trite… The mystery of the Trinity? Too simple: there had to be more to it.
Someone—Rubenstein perhaps—once said, when asked if he believed in God: “Oh, no, I believe…in something much bigger.” And someone else—was it Chesterton?—said that when men stop believing in God, it isn’t that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything. (FP, p.620)

Umberto Eco vs Dan Brown

By the way, a much better novel than “The Da Vinci Code”, but on the same topics, is by Umberto Eco (of “Name of the Rose” fame). It’s called “Foucault’s Pendulum” and it is a ripper. Here are some snippets to give you a taste. Also, you may wish to read Eco’s own take on “that bloody book” in an article called: God isn’t big enough for some people…

“What if, instead, you fed it a few dozen notions taken from the works of the Diabolicals…and threw in a few connective phrases like ‘It’s obvious that’ and ‘This proves that’? We might end up with something…”
“An idea of genius… let’s start straight away.”
“Joseph of Arimathea carries the Grail into France.”
“Excellent… I’ve written it. Go on.”
“According to the Templar Tradition, Godefroy de Bouillon founded the Grand Priory of Zion in Jerusalem. And Debussy was a Rosicrucian.”
“Excuse me, but you have to include some neutral data—for example, the koala lives in Australia.”
“Minnie Mouse is Mickey’s fiancée?”
“We mustn't overdo it.”
“No, we must overdo it. If we admit that in the whole universe there is even a single fact that does not reveal a mystery, then we violate hermetic thought.”
“That’s true. Minnie’s in. And, if you’ll allow me, I’ll add a fundamental axiom: The Templars have something to do with everything.”
“That goes without saying.” (FP, p375)

“But look…do the Rosicrucians exist?”
“Whether you call them Rosicrucians or Templars, they protect themselves through secrecy. And that is why anyone who says he is a master, a Rosicrucian, a Templar, is lying.”
“But what do they want people to know?”
“Only that there is a secret. Otherwise, if everything is as it appears to be, why go on living?”
“And what is the secret?”
“What the revealed religions have been unable to reveal. The secret lies…beyond.” (FP, p208)

A plot, if there is to be one, must be a secret. A secret that, if we only knew it, would dispel our frustration, lead us to salvation. Does such a luminous secret exist? Yes, provided it is never known. Known, it will only disappoint us. …
Yet someone had just arrived and declared himself the Son of God, the Son of God made flesh, to redeem the sin of the world. Was that a run-of-the-mill mystery? And he promised salvation to all: you only had to love your neighbour. Was that a trivial secret? And he bequeathed the idea that whoever uttered the right words at the right time could turn a chunk of bread and a half-glass of wine into the body and blood of the Son of God, and be nourished by it. Was that a paltry riddle? And then he led the Church fathers to ponder and proclaim that God was One and Triune and that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, but that the Son did not proceed from the Father and the Spirit. Was that some easy formula for hylics? And yet they, who now had salvation with their grasp…turned deaf ears. Is that all there is to it? How trite… The mystery of the Trinity? Too simple: there had to be more to it.
Someone—Rubenstein perhaps—once said, when asked if he believed in God: “Oh, no, I believe…in something much bigger.” And someone else—was it Chesterton?—said that when men stop believing in God, it isn’t that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything. (FP, p.620)

Pope Benedict's answer to Dan Brown

You could say that today was a typical Australia Day: a hot day (33 degrees--we were expecting 41!--still 30 degrees outside at 7:30pm), spent most of the day at the local pool with family and friends. The big difference: I had an encyclical from the Pope to read.

Many people are perhaps wondering why Benedict would chose the topic "God is love" for his first encyclical. Is this the Pope who was going to "kick ass" as the American's would say? Where is the encyclical condemning the "Tyranny of Relativism"? What's all this wishy washy love stuff?

Well, if you take the time to delve into this encyclical, you will see that it is far from wishy washy. If sex sells (as Dan Brown found out--more about him in a minute) then this ought to be an all time hit as far as encyclicals go. But it is not for the biblically illiterate--you get a lesson in the Hebrew and Greek words for love as you go along. And as you read it, you begin to realise that it makes connections with all kinds of issues current in the Church and in society--western society in particular.

Now, to Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" (aka "that bloody book" as I tend to call it). I only read "that bloody book" because I was asked to do a presentation on it for the local Catholic Youth Ministry last year. I read it in a day (it took me about as long as the new encyclical did to read--guess which was the better experience...), and soon identified the following ideas Brown presents in the novel that anyone who seeks to "think with the Church" would have issues with:

1) Gnosis as the path of redemption
2) Trinity and Christology as constructs of a Constantinian Church
3) The Doctrine of the "Divine Goddess"

I can talk about the first two problems any time, but right now, I want to focus on the last one. Here are a few quotations from DB in TDVC:

• In his “Acknowledgements” at the very beginning of The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that his novel draws “heavily on the sacred femine”.
• “Christian philosophy decided to embezzle the female’s creative power by ignoring biological truth and making man the Creator.” p. 322.
• “The Grail is symbolic of the lost goddess. …The Church…had subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned nonbelievers and forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine.” p 322.
• Langdon strained to hide his emotion, and yet he could not believe what he was hearing. Sophie Neveu had unwittingly witnessed a two-thousand year old sacred ceremony… “It’s called the Hieros Gamos… Egyptian priests and priestesses performed it regularly to celebrate the reproductive power of the female.” p. 409
• “Although what she saw probably looked like a sex ritual, Hieros Gamos had nothing to do with eroticism. It was a spiritual act. Historically, intercourse was the act through which male and female experienced God. The ancients believed that the male was spiritually incomplete until he had carnal knowledge of the sacred feminine. Physical union with the female remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve gnosis—knowledge of the divine. By communing with woman man could achieve a climactic instant when his mind when totally blank and he could see God.” p. 410
• “The ancients view of sex was entirely opposite from ours today. Sex begot new life-the ultimate miracle-and miracles could be performed only by a god. The ability of the woman to produce life from her womb made her sacred. A god. Intercourse was the revered union of the two halves of the human spirit—male and female—through which the male could find spiritual wholeness and communion with God. What you saw was not about sex, it was about spirituality. The Hieros Gamos ritual is not a perversion. It’s a deeply sacrosanct ceremony.” p. 411
• “Early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the temple, no less. Solomon’s Temple housed not only God but also his powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the Temple to visit priestesses—or hierodules—with whom they made love and experience the divine through physical union. The Jewish tertragrammaton YHWH—the sacred name of God—in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.” p. 411
• “For the early Church…mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the Chruch out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed statuds as the sole conduit to God. Fro obvious reasons, they worked hard to demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the same.” p. 411

It goes without saying that most of this is utter nonsense—some of it blasphemous. However, note the following:

• Brown asserts that the “hieros gamos” (ritual sex) is the means by which human beings (specifically male human beings, since females are already “divine”) commune with God. The claim that there were such rituals in the ancient world is quite true. Temple prostitution (to be a priestess was in fact to be subjected to prostitution) was a part of most polytheistic religions. It is also true that the ancient Israelites were affected by this form of religion, which was the native religion of Canaan (cf. 1 Kings 14:22-24).
• "One may question that those ancient enemies of Israel were as evil as the Bible claims that they were, but even a superficial glance at Canaanite religion alone ably demonstrates their iniquity. Base sex worship was prevalent, and religious prostitution even commanded; human sacrifice was common; and it was a frequent practice--in an effort to placate their gods--to kill young children and bury them in the foundations of a house or public building at the time of construction: Joshua 6:26 "In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn..." (Howard E. Vos, "An Introduction To Bible Archaeology" Revised ed. pp. 17-19)
• In polytheistic religions there are male and female gods. Each god has a goddess as a consort. In very primitive polytheism, the male is the sky god and the female is the earth goddess. Rain (which gives fertility to the soil) was interpreted as “insemination” of the female earth by the male sky. Check out the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (the Male Rain God) in 1 Kings 18 and you will see the irony.
• Such gods and goddesses were not interested in human beings. The only way in which human beings could in anyway influence them was by “imitative magic” (magic, in religion, is the use of powers to coerce the gods into action). Therefore the practice of sacred prostitution was believed to encourage rain and ensure fertile crops.
• Monotheism, where (in the words of the Islamic creed) God “has no partner/consort” radically alters the relationship of God to human beings. Firstly it “de-genders” God to a certain extent, deemphasizing his masculine sexuality. On the other hand, it opens up the possibility of a relationship with human beings in terms of a “marriage covenant”, where God is viewed as the husband/bridegroom and his people as wife/bridegroom. Cf. Isaiah 62:1-5 and Hosea 1-3. This theme is taken up by Jesus and the apostolic writers of the New Testament. It also enables a “Father/Son” relationship (and even a “Father/Daughter” relationship in terms of God’s relationship to Jerusalem, “Daughter Zion”).

Now we get to Pope Benedict's new encyclical. He deals directly with the way in which ancient religion and philosophy regarded "eros"--the erotic love between a man and women. Here are some snippets from "Deus Caritas Est":

• §4 "In the religions, ...fertility cults, part of which was the “sacred” prostitution, ...flourished in many temples. Eros was thus celebrated as divine power, as fellowship with the Divine. The Old Testament firmly opposed this form of religion, which represents a powerful temptation against monotheistic faith, combating it as a perversion of religiosity. But it in no way rejected eros as such; rather, it declared war on a warped and destructive form of it, because this counterfeit divinization of eros actually strips it of its dignity and dehumanizes it. Indeed, the prostitutes in the temple, who had to bestow this divine intoxication, were not treated as human beings and persons, but simply used as a means of arousing “divine madness”: far from being goddesses, they were human persons being exploited. An intoxicated and undisciplined eros, then, is not an ascent in “ecstasy” towards the Divine, but a fall, a degradation of man. Evidently, eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, but a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns."
• §5 "Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing."
• §9 "God loves, and his love may certainly be called eros, yet it is also totally agape. The Prophets, particularly Hosea and Ezekiel, described God's passion for his people using boldly erotic images. God's relationship with Israel is described using the metaphors of betrothal and marriage; idolatry is thus adultery and prostitution. Here we find a specific reference—as we have seen—to the fertility cults and their abuse of eros, but also a description of the relationship of fidelity between Israel and her God. The history of the love-relationship between God and Israel consists, at the deepest level, in the fact that he gives her the Torah, thereby opening Israel's eyes to man's true nature and showing her the path leading to true humanism. It consists in the fact that man, through a life of fidelity to the one God, comes to experience himself as loved by God, and discovers joy in truth and in righteousness..."
• §11 "From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature."

So, there you have it. If you have stuck with the argument this far, it should be fairly evident that Benedict answers each one of Dan Brown's silly assertions in The Davinci Code. The sad thing is that they needed to be answered at all. Another theme that Benedict touches on in the encylical is the role of the Church in the "purification of reason", but that's another whole topic...

Pope Benedict's answer to Dan Brown

You could say that today was a typical Australia Day: a hot day (33 degrees--we were expecting 41!--still 30 degrees outside at 7:30pm), spent most of the day at the local pool with family and friends. The big difference: I had an encyclical from the Pope to read.

Many people are perhaps wondering why Benedict would chose the topic "God is love" for his first encyclical. Is this the Pope who was going to "kick ass" as the American's would say? Where is the encyclical condemning the "Tyranny of Relativism"? What's all this wishy washy love stuff?

Well, if you take the time to delve into this encyclical, you will see that it is far from wishy washy. If sex sells (as Dan Brown found out--more about him in a minute) then this ought to be an all time hit as far as encyclicals go. But it is not for the biblically illiterate--you get a lesson in the Hebrew and Greek words for love as you go along. And as you read it, you begin to realise that it makes connections with all kinds of issues current in the Church and in society--western society in particular.

Now, to Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" (aka "that bloody book" as I tend to call it). I only read "that bloody book" because I was asked to do a presentation on it for the local Catholic Youth Ministry last year. I read it in a day (it took me about as long as the new encyclical did to read--guess which was the better experience...), and soon identified the following ideas Brown presents in the novel that anyone who seeks to "think with the Church" would have issues with:

1) Gnosis as the path of redemption
2) Trinity and Christology as constructs of a Constantinian Church
3) The Doctrine of the "Divine Goddess"

I can talk about the first two problems any time, but right now, I want to focus on the last one. Here are a few quotations from DB in TDVC:

• In his “Acknowledgements” at the very beginning of The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that his novel draws “heavily on the sacred femine”.
• “Christian philosophy decided to embezzle the female’s creative power by ignoring biological truth and making man the Creator.” p. 322.
• “The Grail is symbolic of the lost goddess. …The Church…had subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned nonbelievers and forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine.” p 322.
• Langdon strained to hide his emotion, and yet he could not believe what he was hearing. Sophie Neveu had unwittingly witnessed a two-thousand year old sacred ceremony… “It’s called the Hieros Gamos… Egyptian priests and priestesses performed it regularly to celebrate the reproductive power of the female.” p. 409
• “Although what she saw probably looked like a sex ritual, Hieros Gamos had nothing to do with eroticism. It was a spiritual act. Historically, intercourse was the act through which male and female experienced God. The ancients believed that the male was spiritually incomplete until he had carnal knowledge of the sacred feminine. Physical union with the female remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve gnosis—knowledge of the divine. By communing with woman man could achieve a climactic instant when his mind when totally blank and he could see God.” p. 410
• “The ancients view of sex was entirely opposite from ours today. Sex begot new life-the ultimate miracle-and miracles could be performed only by a god. The ability of the woman to produce life from her womb made her sacred. A god. Intercourse was the revered union of the two halves of the human spirit—male and female—through which the male could find spiritual wholeness and communion with God. What you saw was not about sex, it was about spirituality. The Hieros Gamos ritual is not a perversion. It’s a deeply sacrosanct ceremony.” p. 411
• “Early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the temple, no less. Solomon’s Temple housed not only God but also his powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the Temple to visit priestesses—or hierodules—with whom they made love and experience the divine through physical union. The Jewish tertragrammaton YHWH—the sacred name of God—in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.” p. 411
• “For the early Church…mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the Chruch out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed statuds as the sole conduit to God. Fro obvious reasons, they worked hard to demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the same.” p. 411

It goes without saying that most of this is utter nonsense—some of it blasphemous. However, note the following:

• Brown asserts that the “hieros gamos” (ritual sex) is the means by which human beings (specifically male human beings, since females are already “divine”) commune with God. The claim that there were such rituals in the ancient world is quite true. Temple prostitution (to be a priestess was in fact to be subjected to prostitution) was a part of most polytheistic religions. It is also true that the ancient Israelites were affected by this form of religion, which was the native religion of Canaan (cf. 1 Kings 14:22-24).
• "One may question that those ancient enemies of Israel were as evil as the Bible claims that they were, but even a superficial glance at Canaanite religion alone ably demonstrates their iniquity. Base sex worship was prevalent, and religious prostitution even commanded; human sacrifice was common; and it was a frequent practice--in an effort to placate their gods--to kill young children and bury them in the foundations of a house or public building at the time of construction: Joshua 6:26 "In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn..." (Howard E. Vos, "An Introduction To Bible Archaeology" Revised ed. pp. 17-19)
• In polytheistic religions there are male and female gods. Each god has a goddess as a consort. In very primitive polytheism, the male is the sky god and the female is the earth goddess. Rain (which gives fertility to the soil) was interpreted as “insemination” of the female earth by the male sky. Check out the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (the Male Rain God) in 1 Kings 18 and you will see the irony.
• Such gods and goddesses were not interested in human beings. The only way in which human beings could in anyway influence them was by “imitative magic” (magic, in religion, is the use of powers to coerce the gods into action). Therefore the practice of sacred prostitution was believed to encourage rain and ensure fertile crops.
• Monotheism, where (in the words of the Islamic creed) God “has no partner/consort” radically alters the relationship of God to human beings. Firstly it “de-genders” God to a certain extent, deemphasizing his masculine sexuality. On the other hand, it opens up the possibility of a relationship with human beings in terms of a “marriage covenant”, where God is viewed as the husband/bridegroom and his people as wife/bridegroom. Cf. Isaiah 62:1-5 and Hosea 1-3. This theme is taken up by Jesus and the apostolic writers of the New Testament. It also enables a “Father/Son” relationship (and even a “Father/Daughter” relationship in terms of God’s relationship to Jerusalem, “Daughter Zion”).

Now we get to Pope Benedict's new encyclical. He deals directly with the way in which ancient religion and philosophy regarded "eros"--the erotic love between a man and women. Here are some snippets from "Deus Caritas Est":

• §4 "In the religions, ...fertility cults, part of which was the “sacred” prostitution, ...flourished in many temples. Eros was thus celebrated as divine power, as fellowship with the Divine. The Old Testament firmly opposed this form of religion, which represents a powerful temptation against monotheistic faith, combating it as a perversion of religiosity. But it in no way rejected eros as such; rather, it declared war on a warped and destructive form of it, because this counterfeit divinization of eros actually strips it of its dignity and dehumanizes it. Indeed, the prostitutes in the temple, who had to bestow this divine intoxication, were not treated as human beings and persons, but simply used as a means of arousing “divine madness”: far from being goddesses, they were human persons being exploited. An intoxicated and undisciplined eros, then, is not an ascent in “ecstasy” towards the Divine, but a fall, a degradation of man. Evidently, eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, but a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns."
• §5 "Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing."
• §9 "God loves, and his love may certainly be called eros, yet it is also totally agape. The Prophets, particularly Hosea and Ezekiel, described God's passion for his people using boldly erotic images. God's relationship with Israel is described using the metaphors of betrothal and marriage; idolatry is thus adultery and prostitution. Here we find a specific reference—as we have seen—to the fertility cults and their abuse of eros, but also a description of the relationship of fidelity between Israel and her God. The history of the love-relationship between God and Israel consists, at the deepest level, in the fact that he gives her the Torah, thereby opening Israel's eyes to man's true nature and showing her the path leading to true humanism. It consists in the fact that man, through a life of fidelity to the one God, comes to experience himself as loved by God, and discovers joy in truth and in righteousness..."
• §11 "From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature."

So, there you have it. If you have stuck with the argument this far, it should be fairly evident that Benedict answers each one of Dan Brown's silly assertions in The Davinci Code. The sad thing is that they needed to be answered at all. Another theme that Benedict touches on in the encylical is the role of the Church in the "purification of reason", but that's another whole topic...

Umberto Eco vs Dan Brown

By the way, a much better novel than “The Da Vinci Code”, but on the same topics, is by Umberto Eco (of “Name of the Rose” fame). It’s called “Foucault’s Pendulum” and it is a ripper. Here are some snippets to give you a taste. Also, you may wish to read Eco’s own take on “that bloody book” in an article called: God isn’t big enough for some people…

“What if, instead, you fed it a few dozen notions taken from the works of the Diabolicals…and threw in a few connective phrases like ‘It’s obvious that’ and ‘This proves that’? We might end up with something…”
“An idea of genius… let’s start straight away.”
“Joseph of Arimathea carries the Grail into France.”
“Excellent… I’ve written it. Go on.”
“According to the Templar Tradition, Godefroy de Bouillon founded the Grand Priory of Zion in Jerusalem. And Debussy was a Rosicrucian.”
“Excuse me, but you have to include some neutral data—for example, the koala lives in Australia.”
“Minnie Mouse is Mickey’s fiancée?”
“We mustn't overdo it.”
“No, we must overdo it. If we admit that in the whole universe there is even a single fact that does not reveal a mystery, then we violate hermetic thought.”
“That’s true. Minnie’s in. And, if you’ll allow me, I’ll add a fundamental axiom: The Templars have something to do with everything.”
“That goes without saying.” (FP, p375)

“But look…do the Rosicrucians exist?”
“Whether you call them Rosicrucians or Templars, they protect themselves through secrecy. And that is why anyone who says he is a master, a Rosicrucian, a Templar, is lying.”
“But what do they want people to know?”
“Only that there is a secret. Otherwise, if everything is as it appears to be, why go on living?”
“And what is the secret?”
“What the revealed religions have been unable to reveal. The secret lies…beyond.” (FP, p208)

A plot, if there is to be one, must be a secret. A secret that, if we only knew it, would dispel our frustration, lead us to salvation. Does such a luminous secret exist? Yes, provided it is never known. Known, it will only disappoint us. …
Yet someone had just arrived and declared himself the Son of God, the Son of God made flesh, to redeem the sin of the world. Was that a run-of-the-mill mystery? And he promised salvation to all: you only had to love your neighbour. Was that a trivial secret? And he bequeathed the idea that whoever uttered the right words at the right time could turn a chunk of bread and a half-glass of wine into the body and blood of the Son of God, and be nourished by it. Was that a paltry riddle? And then he led the Church fathers to ponder and proclaim that God was One and Triune and that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, but that the Son did not proceed from the Father and the Spirit. Was that some easy formula for hylics? And yet they, who now had salvation with their grasp…turned deaf ears. Is that all there is to it? How trite… The mystery of the Trinity? Too simple: there had to be more to it.
Someone—Rubenstein perhaps—once said, when asked if he believed in God: “Oh, no, I believe…in something much bigger.” And someone else—was it Chesterton?—said that when men stop believing in God, it isn’t that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything. (FP, p.620)

Pope Benedict's answer to Dan Brown

You could say that today was a typical Australia Day: a hot day (33 degrees--we were expecting 41!--still 30 degrees outside at 7:30pm), spent most of the day at the local pool with family and friends. The big difference: I had an encyclical from the Pope to read.

Many people are perhaps wondering why Benedict would chose the topic "God is love" for his first encyclical. Is this the Pope who was going to "kick ass" as the American's would say? Where is the encyclical condemning the "Tyranny of Relativism"? What's all this wishy washy love stuff?

Well, if you take the time to delve into this encyclical, you will see that it is far from wishy washy. If sex sells (as Dan Brown found out--more about him in a minute) then this ought to be an all time hit as far as encyclicals go. But it is not for the biblically illiterate--you get a lesson in the Hebrew and Greek words for love as you go along. And as you read it, you begin to realise that it makes connections with all kinds of issues current in the Church and in society--western society in particular.

Now, to Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" (aka "that bloody book" as I tend to call it). I only read "that bloody book" because I was asked to do a presentation on it for the local Catholic Youth Ministry last year. I read it in a day (it took me about as long as the new encyclical did to read--guess which was the better experience...), and soon identified the following ideas Brown presents in the novel that anyone who seeks to "think with the Church" would have issues with:

1) Gnosis as the path of redemption
2) Trinity and Christology as constructs of a Constantinian Church
3) The Doctrine of the "Divine Goddess"

I can talk about the first two problems any time, but right now, I want to focus on the last one. Here are a few quotations from DB in TDVC:

• In his “Acknowledgements” at the very beginning of The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that his novel draws “heavily on the sacred femine”.
• “Christian philosophy decided to embezzle the female’s creative power by ignoring biological truth and making man the Creator.” p. 322.
• “The Grail is symbolic of the lost goddess. …The Church…had subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned nonbelievers and forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine.” p 322.
• Langdon strained to hide his emotion, and yet he could not believe what he was hearing. Sophie Neveu had unwittingly witnessed a two-thousand year old sacred ceremony… “It’s called the Hieros Gamos… Egyptian priests and priestesses performed it regularly to celebrate the reproductive power of the female.” p. 409
• “Although what she saw probably looked like a sex ritual, Hieros Gamos had nothing to do with eroticism. It was a spiritual act. Historically, intercourse was the act through which male and female experienced God. The ancients believed that the male was spiritually incomplete until he had carnal knowledge of the sacred feminine. Physical union with the female remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve gnosis—knowledge of the divine. By communing with woman man could achieve a climactic instant when his mind when totally blank and he could see God.” p. 410
• “The ancients view of sex was entirely opposite from ours today. Sex begot new life-the ultimate miracle-and miracles could be performed only by a god. The ability of the woman to produce life from her womb made her sacred. A god. Intercourse was the revered union of the two halves of the human spirit—male and female—through which the male could find spiritual wholeness and communion with God. What you saw was not about sex, it was about spirituality. The Hieros Gamos ritual is not a perversion. It’s a deeply sacrosanct ceremony.” p. 411
• “Early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the temple, no less. Solomon’s Temple housed not only God but also his powerful female equal, Shekinah. Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the Temple to visit priestesses—or hierodules—with whom they made love and experience the divine through physical union. The Jewish tertragrammaton YHWH—the sacred name of God—in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.” p. 411
• “For the early Church…mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the Chruch out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed statuds as the sole conduit to God. Fro obvious reasons, they worked hard to demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the same.” p. 411

It goes without saying that most of this is utter nonsense—some of it blasphemous. However, note the following:

• Brown asserts that the “hieros gamos” (ritual sex) is the means by which human beings (specifically male human beings, since females are already “divine”) commune with God. The claim that there were such rituals in the ancient world is quite true. Temple prostitution (to be a priestess was in fact to be subjected to prostitution) was a part of most polytheistic religions. It is also true that the ancient Israelites were affected by this form of religion, which was the native religion of Canaan (cf. 1 Kings 14:22-24).
• "One may question that those ancient enemies of Israel were as evil as the Bible claims that they were, but even a superficial glance at Canaanite religion alone ably demonstrates their iniquity. Base sex worship was prevalent, and religious prostitution even commanded; human sacrifice was common; and it was a frequent practice--in an effort to placate their gods--to kill young children and bury them in the foundations of a house or public building at the time of construction: Joshua 6:26 "In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn..." (Howard E. Vos, "An Introduction To Bible Archaeology" Revised ed. pp. 17-19)
• In polytheistic religions there are male and female gods. Each god has a goddess as a consort. In very primitive polytheism, the male is the sky god and the female is the earth goddess. Rain (which gives fertility to the soil) was interpreted as “insemination” of the female earth by the male sky. Check out the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (the Male Rain God) in 1 Kings 18 and you will see the irony.
• Such gods and goddesses were not interested in human beings. The only way in which human beings could in anyway influence them was by “imitative magic” (magic, in religion, is the use of powers to coerce the gods into action). Therefore the practice of sacred prostitution was believed to encourage rain and ensure fertile crops.
• Monotheism, where (in the words of the Islamic creed) God “has no partner/consort” radically alters the relationship of God to human beings. Firstly it “de-genders” God to a certain extent, deemphasizing his masculine sexuality. On the other hand, it opens up the possibility of a relationship with human beings in terms of a “marriage covenant”, where God is viewed as the husband/bridegroom and his people as wife/bridegroom. Cf. Isaiah 62:1-5 and Hosea 1-3. This theme is taken up by Jesus and the apostolic writers of the New Testament. It also enables a “Father/Son” relationship (and even a “Father/Daughter” relationship in terms of God’s relationship to Jerusalem, “Daughter Zion”).

Now we get to Pope Benedict's new encyclical. He deals directly with the way in which ancient religion and philosophy regarded "eros"--the erotic love between a man and women. Here are some snippets from "Deus Caritas Est":

• §4 "In the religions, ...fertility cults, part of which was the “sacred” prostitution, ...flourished in many temples. Eros was thus celebrated as divine power, as fellowship with the Divine. The Old Testament firmly opposed this form of religion, which represents a powerful temptation against monotheistic faith, combating it as a perversion of religiosity. But it in no way rejected eros as such; rather, it declared war on a warped and destructive form of it, because this counterfeit divinization of eros actually strips it of its dignity and dehumanizes it. Indeed, the prostitutes in the temple, who had to bestow this divine intoxication, were not treated as human beings and persons, but simply used as a means of arousing “divine madness”: far from being goddesses, they were human persons being exploited. An intoxicated and undisciplined eros, then, is not an ascent in “ecstasy” towards the Divine, but a fall, a degradation of man. Evidently, eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, but a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns."
• §5 "Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing."
• §9 "God loves, and his love may certainly be called eros, yet it is also totally agape. The Prophets, particularly Hosea and Ezekiel, described God's passion for his people using boldly erotic images. God's relationship with Israel is described using the metaphors of betrothal and marriage; idolatry is thus adultery and prostitution. Here we find a specific reference—as we have seen—to the fertility cults and their abuse of eros, but also a description of the relationship of fidelity between Israel and her God. The history of the love-relationship between God and Israel consists, at the deepest level, in the fact that he gives her the Torah, thereby opening Israel's eyes to man's true nature and showing her the path leading to true humanism. It consists in the fact that man, through a life of fidelity to the one God, comes to experience himself as loved by God, and discovers joy in truth and in righteousness..."
• §11 "From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God's way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature."

So, there you have it. If you have stuck with the argument this far, it should be fairly evident that Benedict answers each one of Dan Brown's silly assertions in The Davinci Code. The sad thing is that they needed to be answered at all. Another theme that Benedict touches on in the encylical is the role of the Church in the "purification of reason", but that's another whole topic...

Deus Caritas Est

Well, if we are going to "think with the Church", here is a very good place to start: the Holy Father's first encyclical "God is love" was released early this morning (around 2:30am EST, 4:30pm Italian time), so for those of you who have just woken up (and for everyone else) go to Deus Caritas Est, and read it while you have breakfast (it will be better than the newspaper, I promise).

Oh, and happy Australia day to all my fellow citizens and residents and those on temporary visas and visitors etc. etc. who have been blessed by God to be in the best, most peaceful, most prosperous, and most equitable constitutional monarchy in the world!

Deus Caritas Est

Well, if we are going to "think with the Church", here is a very good place to start: the Holy Father's first encyclical "God is love" was released early this morning (around 2:30am EST, 4:30pm Italian time), so for those of you who have just woken up (and for everyone else) go to Deus Caritas Est, and read it while you have breakfast (it will be better than the newspaper, I promise).

Oh, and happy Australia day to all my fellow citizens and residents and those on temporary visas and visitors etc. etc. who have been blessed by God to be in the best, most peaceful, most prosperous, and most equitable constitutional monarchy in the world!

Blog One - Storage space for template photos

Welcome to my blog. I don't know what this will become just yet. A little like the title of the blog--a goal to aim for, rather than something achieved. Thinking with the Church requires discipline, as I suspect writing a blog does. I've never done this before, but we'll see where it goes.

By the way, this is me. I once had a lot more hair than this, but that's what parenthood does to you.


And here is an updated picture of me in 2007!

Blog One - Storage space for template photos

Welcome to my blog. I don't know what this will become just yet. A little like the title of the blog--a goal to aim for, rather than something achieved. Thinking with the Church requires discipline, as I suspect writing a blog does. I've never done this before, but we'll see where it goes.

By the way, this is me. I once had a lot more hair than this, but that's what parenthood does to you.


And here is an updated picture of me in 2007!