Remember: Despair is a deadly sin!

I had the surprising joy today of receiving a visit from one of the readers of “Sentire Cum Ecclesia”. Really, the idea that I might actually have any fans out there in blog-world had never occurred to me!

My visitor admitted to having some doubts about the current state of the Church, especially in her local experience. Well, that’s not surprising. The important thing is not to despair or lose hope for the future (despair is a mortal sin, by the way, and hope is one of the three theological virtues!). Remember what Christ said about the gates of hell not prevailing over the Church.

We are all aware of the difficulties in which the Church currently finds herself throughout the world. But she has always suffered from such difficulties—both within and without. We should not fall into the trap of thinking “I’m the only one left”.

I reminded my visitor of the story of Elijah in 1 Kings 19, how he told God he wanted to die because everyone had gone over to the new fashionable god, Baal. In reply, God took Elijah back to the bit of Rock on which it all began for the Israelites: Mt Horeb (Sinai). There he spoke to Elijah in a “still small voice” and assured him that he was not “the last one left”—in fact, there were 7000 in Israel who had not “bowed the knee” to Baal. Then God sent Elijah back to get on with the job, anointing a successor to the King of Israel and anointing a successor for Elijah himself.

You see, God had plans for the future. He still does. A new generation is on its way, when all this current silliness will be put to bed. Not without a fair bit of angst, and probably not without the Church returning to something of a “mustard seed” in size (I seem to remember Papa Benny saying something like that once). For an indication of where things are going, and for a bit of encouragement, you might like to check out this story about the new bishop in Kansas City.

And in the mean time, here’s a joke.

[Reader: I thought you promised you wouldn’t tell any more jokes after that last one about the Pope’s ears.
Schütz: I lied.]

I saw a card in St Peter’s Bookroom today. It had two dogs on the front. One was saying to the other:

“I used to have a blog site, but I’ve given it up. I’ve decided to go back to meaningless and incessant barking.”

Mmm.

New entry in "Year of Grace"

New entry on my retro-blog conversion journey journal thing at www.yearofgrace.blogspot.com . Check it out if you haven’t been there before. This entry introduces a new character into the story, Peter Holmes. If you don’t know Peter, you can read about him here, or experience him for yourself by enrolling in one of the many great courses he runs with with Fr John Flader in Sydney at the Catholic Adult Education Centre.

Cardinal Arinze heads Bishop Trautman & co. off at the pass

Cardinal Arinze’s onto Bishop Donald Trautman, it would seem, and the rest of the English speaking Catholic Church can rest easy. He’s not going to let the US Bishop’s derail the project for a universally accepted and improved translation of the English liturgy.

You can read the text of his 2 May 2006 letter to Bishop William Skylstad, the President of the US Bishops Conference here, but in the mean time, here are the headlines:

• Both the CDW and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow the directives in Liturgiam authenticam.


• The CDW is not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to these directives


• Since Liturgiam authenticam was issues precisely to guide the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, the argument that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes, is not acceptable.


• Since the CDW has determined that there are good and strong reasons for a change in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum, then the revised text should make the needed changes.


• The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.

The last point is with the implication that if the new translations fail, we know who to blame. Of course, if they do fail (God save us from such evil!), there will always be those who will place the fault on the translation itself rather than the half-hearted support of those priests and bishops who opposed it.

"Chernobyl in the Vatican"?

A few blogs ago, I quoted Joseph Ratzinger from his 1968 classic “Introduction to Christianity”, saying:

“The sharpest critics of the Church in our time secretly live on this dream [ie. that the members of the Church are holy, sinless men]... and, when they find it disappointed, bang the door of the house shut again and denounce it as deceit.”

You won’t find a better example of this assertion than over on the Stephen Crittenden Show (The Religion Report) where they get Jason Berry and Paul Collins in to discuss the “retirement” (for want of a better word) of Fr Marciel Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

As an example of contemporary religious journalism, this really represents something of a low point.

Schütz speaking on the Da Vinci Code next Tuesday night

Without forfeiting my right to belong to the Amateur Catholic Blog squad, I have accepted the invitation of St Paul’s Lutheran Church, Box Hill next Tuesday night (May 30) at 7:30pm on That Bloody Book (aka The Da Vinci Code). The address is 711 Station Street, Box Hill (just a little north up Station Street from Whitehorse Road).

My presentation will be on “Themes and Schemes in the Da Vinci Code”.

I’m not really going to go much into “That Bloody Film”, which I haven’t seen yet, and am not keen to after reading the reviews. If it isn’t even a very good film, what’s the point? As Bishop Anthony Fisher once said to me “What’s the point of sinning if it isn’t even any fun?”

Not even the Pope has "the recipe" to "transform Christianity"

In his Wednesday Audience catechesis on 17th May, the Holy Father finished by saying this:

“Peter tells us: You think you have the recipe and that you have to transform Christianity, but the Lord is the one who knows the way. It is the Lord who says to me, who says to you, "Follow me!" And we must have the courage and humility to follow Jesus, as he is the way, the truth and the life.”

Did you note that? It is quite amazing, no? Am I right in hearing Papa Benny say (inter alia) that even he may occasionally fall into the temptation of saying to himself: “I have the recipe and I am going to transform Christianity”? And that whenever he might do so, he has to listen to the first Bishop of Rome who tells him: “It is the Lord who knows the way: follow him”?

"Muslims, Hindus and so forth" not "fine as they are": Papa Benny

Just today, I got around to reading the Holy Father’s homily for the ordination of 15 new priests in the diocese of Rome on May 22nd. It contains the following interesting comment:

“Jesus' mission concerns all humanity. Therefore, the Church is given responsibility for all humanity, so that it may recognize God, the God who for all of us was made man in Jesus Christ, suffered, died and was raised.

“The Church must never be satisfied with the ranks of those whom she has reached at a certain point or say that others are fine as they are: Muslims, Hindus and so forth. The Church can never retreat comfortably to within the limits of her own environment. She is charged with universal solicitude; she must be concerned with and for one and all.”

Interesting, eh?

I should draw your attention to the outcome of a five day joint WCC/Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sponsored interfaith coversation on the topic of "“Conversion – assessing the reality”" which includes the following affirmation: (:

"Freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and non-negotiable right of every human being in every country in the world. Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.

I am working on a review at the moment of Martin E. Marty's new book "When Faiths Collide". Of course he deals with the (by now) rather tired paradigm that in facing the variety of religions we have to chose between "Exclusivism", "Inclusivism" or "Pluralism".

My thoughts have gone in this direction:

One need not seek refuge in a philosophy of pluralism to find a way for religions with a claim to "absolute truth" of peacefully and fruitfully co-existing--even if one of these religions is somehow the "official" or "public" religion of a given place. What is necessary is that among the absolute truth claims of such religions is the agreed doctrine of the absolute and inviolable dignity of every human being, and, following from this, the defence of freedom of conscience and religion.

This indeed is what the Catholic Church did at Vatican II. It did not abandon its claim to absolute truth, but embraced the doctrines of the dignity of each human being and the freedom of religion as a part of that absolute truth.

This in turn leads to respect for the other who holds conflicting ideas, even if those ideas are not shared, or even rejected.

Forgiveness and Absolution: "two indispensible elements" in Reconciliation

The Age this morning ran a story entitled “Pope calls for an apology”. It is true, Papa Benny pulled no punches, and these comments were central to his address to our Australian Ambassador to the Holy See:

“In regard to the Aboriginal people of your land, there is still much to be achieved. Their social situation is cause for much pain. I encourage you and the government to continue to address with compassion and determination the deep underlying causes of their plight. Commitment to truth opens the way to lasting reconciliation through the healing process of asking for forgiveness and granting forgiveness -- two indispensable elements for peace. In this way our memory is purified, our hearts are made serene, and our future is filled with a well-founded hope in the peace which springs from truth.”

I have highlighted the words “asking for forgiveness and granting forgiveness”, because I think this is a slightly different thing than the usual political demand for “an apology”.

My concern with the general “Sorry” campaign is that it is completely one-sided.

When the Aggressor (all non-aboriginal Australians—that might sound a bit rich, but where do you draw the line and say “They weren’t/aren’t responsible”?) says “Sorry” to the Victim (ie. all Australians of indigenous descent who have ever or will ever live), this is one “indispensable element”. It’s not quite what the Holy Father means though, because he is not just talking about “saying sorry”, but about “asking for forgiveness”.

So, if we (I am including myself in the role of the Aggressor, since I have no indigenous blood to absolve me of this role) not only say “Sorry”, but also “ask for forgiveness”, who is going to reply with the other “indispensable element” of “granting forgiveness”? Who has the authority to say: “I absolve you” in the name of every indigenous Australian who has ever lived, or who will ever live?

Without the second “indispensable element” of absolution, we could go on with annual “Sorry Days”, beating our breasts, paying out continual and continuous compensation to each successive generation of Victims. The result: No closure. No healing of wounds, no peace.

Surely this is not what Pope Benedict means? Asking for forgiveness and granting it are the “two indispensable elements for peace”. Peace will not result if one is given and not the other. Unless there can be a formal absolution, a formal apology will serve no healing purpose.

We can’t change the past. We might even have to face the fact that apologies and absolutions for the past are not possible. But we can change the future. We can speak the truth about both the past and the present, and act with compassion and determination to address “the deep underlying causes” of the plight of our indigenous peoples. Somewhere along this road of reconciliation we might just find that forgiveness has been tacitly asked and granted.

Whatever fantasy you fancy...

There was a letter in The Age today by an ex-pat in China about the impact of the “That Bloody Film” (based on “That Bloody Book”, aka The Da Vinci Code”). He went to see it with his Chinese wife (the film was dubbed into Chinese). The reaction?

“The Chinese audience loved it. My wife even insisted on buying the book (in Chinese). I pointed out that it was a complete fantasy; her reply was that all religion was fantasy, but that sometimes we need a bit of fantasy.”

Ah yes. That’s how insidious This Bloody Book/Film is. In line with its general Gnostic approach, it casts the Christian Faith adrift from any anchorage in history. History is ditched in favour of “a complete fantasy”, but what does that matter? “All religion is fantasy” anyway, s what does it matter which fantasy is chosen by those who “need a bit of fantasy” as a crutch in their life?

[Reader: They’re all looney losers anyway…
Schütz: Yeah, it’s a good thing we’re so bloody rational, isn’t it?]

When a founder is not a saint...

I don’t know the details of the cases and, to be honest, I don’t want to. But finally it looks as if the Vatican has made a decisive move on the long running case of Fr Marciel Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ:

The Vatican Press Office released the following communiqué today, May 19, 2006. This is an English translation of the Italian original.

COMMUNIQUE OF THE PRESS OFFICE OF THE HOLY SEE

In reference to news reports diffused concerning the person of the Founder of the Legionaries of Christ, the Reverend Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Press Office of the Holy See communicates the following:
Beginning in 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith received accusations, already in part made public, against the Reverend Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ, for offenses reserved to the exclusive competence of the dicastery. In 2002, the Reverend Maciel published a declaration for denying the accusations and for expressing his displeasure at the offense provoked by some ex-members of the Legionaries of Christ. In 2005, for reasons of advanced age, the Reverend Maciel withdrew himself from the office of Superior General of the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ.

All these elements were the object of mature examination on the part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and, in accordance with the motu proprio “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela” promulgated April 30, 2001, by the Servant of God John Paul II, the then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, authorized an investigation of the accusations. In the meantime, the death of Pope John Paul II happened and the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as the new Pontiff.

After having submitted the results of the investigation to an attentive study, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the guide of its new Prefect, His Eminence Cardinal William Levada, decided – taking account of the advanced age of the Reverend Maciel and his delicate health – to renounce any canonical process and to invite the Father to a reserved life of prayer and penance, renouncing every public ministry. The Holy Father has approved these decisions.

Independently of the person of the Founder, the worthy apostolate of the Legionaries of Christ and the Regnum Christi Association is recognized with gratitude.

[Original Text: Italian]

Lots more news and reflections can be found on the Websites of the National Catholic Reporter , Amy Welborn, and Sandro Magister.

While noting that the Vatican Communiqué does not (in so many words) declare Fr Maciel guilty of the accusations that have been brought against him, I think the important point in the Vatican Communiqué however is that last: “Independently of the person of the Founder, the worthy apostolate of the Legionaries of Christ and the Regnum Christi Association is recognized with gratitude.”

The point is that too often, religious orders and movements (eg. Legionaries of Christ, Opus Dei) have assumed that their founders must be saints for the simple reason that they did such monumentally excellent and saintly work in founding the order or movement in question.

On the other hand, there are always many others who are ready to point out with glee the moral and personal failings of the founders with the hope that the order/movement itself (eg. Legionaries of Christ, Opus Dei) will be brought into disrepute and rendered ineffectual.

Let us always be clear on this: being a sinner—even a very wicked one—doesn’t mean that God can't use you for a saintly purpose. God can—and does—work with the most amazingly rotten raw-material to build his holy Church. That’s a point that is awfully close to the very heart of the Christian gospel.

Papa Benny, almost 40 years ago, wrote in “Introduction to Christianity” that:

"The Church is not called "holy" in the Creed because her members, collectively and individually, are holy, sinless men... The sharpest critics of the Church in our time secretly live on this dream and, when they find it disappointed, bang the door fo the house shut again and denouce it as deceit... The holiness of the Church consists in that power of sanctification which God exerts in her in spite of human sinfulness."

Shortly after this passage, he goes on:

"God has drawn sin to himself, made it his lot, and so revealed what true "holiness" is: not separation, but union; not judgement, but redeeming love. Is the Church not simply the continuation of God's deliberate plunge into human wretchedness? ...Is there not revealed in the unholy holiness of the Church, as opposed to man's expectation of purity, God's true holiness, which is love, love that does not keep its distance in a sort of aristocratic untouchable purity but mixes with the dirt of the world, in order thus to overcome it?"

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Caroline Chisholm Library Celebrates Library Week with an Open Day

Sorry for the limited blogging in the last few days. I’ve spent a lovely few days down at Philip Island with my family.

Here is some news the Caroline Chisholm Library (3rd Floor  325 Lonsdale Street (Mitchell House)  Melbourne City).

They are holding an open day on Sunday 28th May, 2006, 10.30 am- 5 pm

The library is a real treasure, and deserves our support for its continuing existence. It is home to over 30,000 books and resources with a special focus upon the spiritual classics, philosophy, theology, Church history and Irish studies. The Library was founded in 1924 as the Central Catholic Library and it quickly became a centre for meeting, inspiration and education for many Melbourne Catholics.

There will be refreshments throughout the day, with a Book Sale, Collection Tour, Displays, Short Talks

For more information       Phone: 03 9670 1815
Email: cclibrary@bigpond.com

The Riddle of Jaroslav Pelikan (died 13th May 2006 - RIP)

Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the greatest theological historians of our age, died on Saturday at the age of 82.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord :
and let perpetual light shine upon him. Amen.

The son of a Lutheran pastor, Pelikan was a renowned professor at Yale University before his retirement. Many will have read his 1959 book “The Riddle of Roman Catholicism” (I have it in my brief case right now) in which he forthrightly rejects the path of conversion (to another denomination) as a path of ecumenism. Yet the riddle of Roman Catholicism was destined to became the “Riddle of Jaroslav Pelikan” ) when, in 1998 at the age of 74, he stunned his fellow Lutherans by converting to the Russian Orthodox faith.

I once spoke to the great man on the telephone. Here is the story, from my 26th June 2000 entry in my “Year of Grace” journal:

“So what was the answer to this riddle? I decided to try and get in contact with him and ask. I was looking for his email, but in actual fact, I found his telephone number, and phoned him in New Haven, Connecticut! It was thrilling to be talking to the great man himself, but disappointing in the end, because he declined to talk about his personal journey. He said that he doesn’t do email. I told him my situation, and he declined to go any further with his own comments. He says J. H. Newman converted at the age of 44 years, and wrote a 600 page book; whereas he converted at 74 and would require a 1000 page book to do my query justice. He also said that he had had between 750 and 1000 calls similar to mine. I apologised for interrupting his evening, but he was very gracious about it. I said that if he ever did write that book, I would definitely buy it, and he said, “Yep, I think it will be a best seller!”

Well, the book will never be written. The best we can hope for is that he will have left some unpublished paper somewhere that may solve the riddle, and which may one day see the light of day. In the mean time, as Melanchthon said, he is now in the “heavenly academy” where such questions will no longer matter.

You can read or listen to an interview with Pelikan on this week’s edition of the Religion Report.

New post in "Year of Grace"

For readers of my “conversion retro-blog” Year of Grace, you will be glad to hear that there is finally a new post! For those who have not visited this site, you will find here (in reverse order) a journal that I kept during the year of my conversion in 2000-2001. Folk interested in the nitty-gritty of annulments may also be interested.

Lord of the Rings; Or "Don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing..."

In the web journal “Busted Halo”, Dr Christine B. Whelan reflects on an Anglican wedding which she attended. The bride and the groom were both preparing for ordination to the Anglican priesthood. She refers to the ceremony of the rings:

“When Andrea reaffirmed her vows of Christianity as she started her journey toward the Anglican priesthood, she put a gold band on her ring finger to symbolize her commitment to her faith. Now it's on her right hand, and her wedding band is on her left. These two gold bands signify both vows, both life callings.”

What a graphic illustration of the difficulty of the calling of a married priest! Of all the eight fingers and two thumbs upon which we wear our rings, our culture has determined that the second to last finger on the right hand should be the “ring finger”.

Historians of ritual know that the ring is a potent symbol of authority. The authority has a two-fold character (reflected in the story of the centurion who says to Jesus “I am a man under authority, with [authority over the] soldiers under me” Matt 8:9): The giver of the ring exercises authority over the ring bearer, and the ring bearer exercises that authority over others. Of course, the ring also symbolises commitment and faithfulness, but it is of the servant who is faithful to the master.

Now consider the ring of pastoral authority/religious commitment (traditionally worn by the Bishop, but also by religious and by priests in some traditions) and the ring of marriage. Traditionally, both are worn on the “ring finger” of the right hand. Both represent the total giving of one’s life to a specific calling. And here is the rub: there is only room for one ring such ring on the ring finger. Any other ring must be relegated to second place—eg. The ring finger of the left hand.

On which hand will the married priest wear his wedding ring? Which calling will have the first place in his life? The dilemma is very practical as well as theological. Jesus himself said “No man can serve two masters” (Matt 6:24). St Paul said “the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided” (1 Cor 7: 33,34).

I have never come across any symbol of this tension more graphic than that with which Dr Whelan provides us in this story about the bride who moved the ring of her religious vocation to her left hand in order to make way for the ring of her marriage vocation.

The Lone-Dancer; or "The Curse of Liturgical Hubris"

One of the things that reading “Why Catholics Can’t Sing” (by Thomas Day) impressed upon me is that the quickest way to kill liturgy (and the full participation of the people) is when individuals use the liturgy as a canvas upon which to paint their own individualism. Usually this is in form of what Day calls a “Father Hank” (the chatty, nice, likable priest who hogs the show up front) or a “Mr [or Ms] Caruso” (the “song leader” with the microphone who bellows out his [her] own amplified voice over everyone else).

But today, in the newsletter of a local Catholic theological institution which shall remain nameless (to protect the guilty, as they say), I read this little story. It was meant quite sincerely, and offered as a glowing example of “striking a blow” against the male-dominated Church, but the hubris of it is quite breath-taking. It begins as follows:

“It was just a few years back, Holy Week, Mass of the Oils, the Cathedral church. And so, a large gathering: Bishop, priests, deacons and parishioners from all over the diocese. The mighty organ sounded. The grand entrance was about to begin as the clergy readied themselves for the solemn procession into the Cathedral. Everyone rose.

“I was at the back of the Cathedral and a religious sister and friend next to me said: 'Here comes our male dominated church!' I suggested to her that she might consider walking in behind the priests, making a profound statement by her solemn, silent presence… 'You do it and I'll follow', she said. Heck!! 'OK', I said, secretly aghast, but knowing I would have to commit.  However as the lengthy procession continued, she turned to me and said,' I can't'. 'No problem', whispered I, feeling a wave of relief, but just momentarily.”

And had the bishop and everyone else known what was going through her head at that point, they too would have breathed a sigh of relief. There’s more to come; but first do you notice the sheer anger in the nun’s comment “Here comes our male-dominated church!”? Is this the attitude in which any of us should come into the presence of God? The Bishop, we are taught, is Christ in our midst. A real living presence of Christ. On Judgement day, when this sister comes face to face with her (male) Lord, is she going to say: “Hah! Just goes to show you that Heaven will be male-dominated too!”? Anyway it goes on…

“For the Spirit was stirring. I knew I had to respond.”

Why does the Spirit always get blamed for these things? I will leave it to you, dear Reader, to identify the real source of these stirrings:

“In our best moments, we all respond according to our own particular ways. My way is dance. Heck again!! Here in the Cathedral? Uninvited? Unscripted? Uncensored? But that night I was called to dance for her, and for all the women and men who were experiencing some of the disconnectedness, the disintegration, the distance we can feel at times, from the church we are…

“So I glanced – and now with heart beating wildly – through the Mass booklet. The words of the second communion song were strong.  I'd get myself up to the front of the church during the communion, and if the music was right, I knew nothing could stop me, terrified as I was.

“The music was perfect – and the dance was pretty amazing too, so I heard later. I was up on the sanctuary and to the huge congregation (as well as to the Bishop and clergy around me) I was dancing: We - all together - are church.  The dance for me was not so much a breaking down of the male/female divide, as a bridging between clergy and lay.

“After the Mass, there were many responses: delight, discomfort, questions, gratitude, disapproval, tears… all the stuff of our lives. I just danced.”

Yes, sister, I bet you did. And if I were there, I would have been one of those with tears: of utter rage in reaction to the violence which this egotistical individual had thrust upon the liturgy and upon her brothers and sisters in Christ. Tears of frustration that the “Godward-ness” of the liturgy had been hijacked, and now the spotlight was on her mono-theatrical performance, as she worked out her angst in the presence of the whole assembly.

The liturgy is a corporate act, not an individual act. Everything about it is scripted and carried out according to rules and roles to ensure that the focus is kept on God and the praise is a team-effort. This may seem artificial, and yes, in a sense, it is. Like a game of football, however, it is only possible for everyone to join in the game and remain focused on the goal if the rules are observed. There is no room for lone rangers.

There was a great ad on TV during the winter Olympics for health insurance that had a solo figure skater gate-crashing an ice-hockey game. That image is not far different from the story of this impromptu liturgical dancer.

I sometimes struggle with my own hubris in the liturgy.

[Reader: It takes one to know one.
Schütz: Yes, I know, I admit it freely.]

I love to sing. I struggle to worship and pray if I do not sing. My equivalent to the nun’s reaction above would be when I sit through Sunday Mass accompanied by appalling liturgical sung or—worse—no song at all. Then I think to myself: what if I were to get up and sing? I could make a real difference. I could save the liturgy and it would be all thanks to me! And people would tell me how good a singer I was, and they would have tears in their eyes, and gratitude…

Those who worship regularly at St Patrick’s Cathedral at lunchtime during the week know that sometimes I can’t resist this temptation, and I do get up and sing the psalm. (I even sang the Victimae Paschali sequence during Easter Week). I do it with the Dean’s permission and try to do it in a spirit of service, but somewhere not far below the surface is that old hubris that wants to use the liturgy as a canvas for my own creativity. And not a few of the worshippers (I am sure) wish that I would just shut up and read the psalm like everyone else.

Is there any difference between me and our lone dancer in the story above? No, not really. Not in my soul. But at least I try to play by the rules.

Valuate or Perish!

Another important document to reflect on: “Europe vs. Radical Islam: Alarmist Americans have mostly bad advice for Europeans” by Francis Fukuyama in “The Slate” (Monday, Feb. 27, 2006).

I don’t want to quote slabs of this article here—I just want to draw your attention to it. I found it relevant to our experience here in Melbourne for the following reasons:

1. I have always told people that relations with Muslims differ greatly according to social and geographical context. Melbourne is not Sydney. Australia is not France. And, I might add, we are definitely not America. Something is “working” here, which isn’t working in either Europe or America to quite the same degree (and may be threatening not to work in Sydney either). Fukuyama says it has to do with assimilation—and I think he is quite right. But assimilation depends on what it is that identifies us as Australians.

2. And that leads me to the second point: Fukuyama seems to suggest that assimilation is most successful when national identity isn’t defined so much by a “blood-and-soil” tribal approach, as it is with a non-racial, non-denominational “values” approach to citizenship. That sounds awfully close to what the Howard Government is attempting with its own “values” agenda. I guess the success or otherwise of this depends on what the values are. For instance, Fukuyama cites the German state of Baden-Württemberg which
“recently introduced a test that would require the respondent to support gay marriage as a condition for citizenship, something deliberately designed to exclude Muslims.”
It would also exclude faithful Catholics. Compared to this, signing up for Howard’s “Mateship Values” seems quite desirable!

The Da Vinci Code meets the Kamasutra: Is this Gospel for Modern Women?

In the most recent edition of “The Ark” on ABC Radio National, called “Sex in Hinduism”, Rachel Kohn interviews Wendy Doniger. She has been invited by the Art Gallery of NSW to prepare for their “Goddess Exhibition” commencing in October.

[Reader: Ah, that’s what this is about—Schütz is on the “Goddess” theme again!]

Doniger no dummy. She is Director of the Martin Marty Center and Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. She knows her stuff.

The program is interesting to listen too (no transcript is available, only MP3) for a perspective of sexuality in a non-Abrahamic tradition. At one point, Doniger bemoans the fact that our religions (I guess she means Jewish, Christian and Muslim) don’t celebrate sexuality as do some parts of Hinduism—eg. the part that gave us “The Kamasutra”! But she also points out that on the other hand there were parts of Hinduism that rejected not only lustful sexuality, but marriage and family as well! Even in the Kamasutran tradition, it was fine for the husband to have sexual relations with another woman (provided she didn’t belong to a man—her father or her husband!) but not for the wife (as Rachel remarks “Why am I not surprised!”).

There is a lot of talk about the sexuality of the gods, which leads to this fascinating snippet. Rachel asks Doniger:

“So in this tradition which has God as both male and female, and which is quite free and open in expressing its sexuality, why do women come off as inferior? Why are they the curse?”

To which Doniger replies:

“I am always surprised that feminists in particular and people in general think that a country that worships a female divinity would be good to women. It’s just the opposite. The more powerful women are deemed to be—they have something called “shakti” which is a feminine power—when men think of women being powerful, being the embodiment of a sort of goddess--well, they’re scared of them! You’d better lock them up! What if they also became lawyers or politicians? The world would not be a safe place.

“So it is precisely the recognition of a female divinity or a divine female power which ever way we want to think of it which leads to a totally regressive legal system when it comes to women and the keeping of women down, of keeping them locked up and so forth.

“I’m always surprised that feminists think that goddesses would be good for women. In one of the few countries we know where Goddesses are widely worshipped, women have a very rough time of it to this day.”

This dovetails very well with my reflections on that bloody book by Dan Brown, The DaVinci Code. There he presents Goddess Worship and Karmasutra style “sacred sex” as being the great liberating force of humanity—especially for women—while Christianity and Judaism and even Islam get the big thumbs down for misogynism.

The fact is that historically—as Doniger points out—goddess worship has not led to emancipation of women. Rather it has led to the justification (and even sacralisation) of prostitution and the enclosure of women in the household.

My Muslim friends point out that in the Middle East, Islam brought a degree of emancipation and legal protection to women far in advance of what was culturally traditional—even if in our eyes today it may still appear to fall below the full demands of modern feminism. The latter movement, it must be acknowledged, was the product of a philosophy of the dignity of each human being developed within a Western Judeo-Christian culture.

Whichever way you look at it, there is no historical support for the assertion that the goddess worship is a correlate of the freedom and dignity for women in society.

Benedict XVI and Islam: Is our dialogue to be "interreligious" or "intercultural"?

One of the most significant contributions to the whole direction of Catholic Interfaith dialogue has been made by Egyptian Jesuit Fr Samir Khalil Samir in Asia News (reprinted on Sandro Magister’s site www.chiesa). Called simply “Benedict XVI and Islam”, it describes a complete seachange in the goals and aims of the dialogue in the direction of the “intercultural” rather than the “interreligious” or theological dialogue.

How much does Fr Samir actually know? Probably quite a bit. Here are his credentials:

He is professor of Islamic studies and of the history of Arab culture at the Université Saint-Joseph in Beirut and at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome; he is the founder of the Centre de Recherche Arabes Chrétiennes and president of the International Association for Christian Arabic Studies. As for his direct knowledge of what’s on Papa Benny’s mind in this regard, he participated in the September 2005 closed meeting, at Castel Gandolfo, with Benedict XVI on the concept of God in Islam. This was the same meeting that hit the headlines after Fr Fessio (another participant) gave an interview to Hugh Hewitt.

So, what about it? Is it “not the time” for interreligious theological dialogue? Should we redirect our dialogue on humanist, rational grounds, since this is in the area of the foreseeably achievable?

For a start, one must acknowledge that there is a lot to be said for “cultural” dialogue. Although the thesis of Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” has been widely rejected, the thesis itself described a problem of cultural rather than theological dimensions. For quite some time now, groups directed toward interreligious interaction have often focused more on the humanist goal of peace, social harmony and human rights than any actual theological dialogue (a good example is the Melbourne Turkish Muslim group Australian Intercultural Society—note that they emphasise “intercultural” rather than “interrelgious” or “interfaith”). In addition, some have argued (against the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act) that issues of race and religion are completely separate things. On the contrary, we have seen that the two are intimately connected, and it is far too simplistic to say that “you can’t chose your race/culture, but you can chose your religion”.

I also am quite conscious of the fact that the Melbourne interfaith scene is substantially different from the situation in the rest of the world. Here there is no “clash of cultures”. It isn’t Utopia, but we do not have the problems that Europe, or even Sydney, has. We have not had, and cannot imagine having, riots such as those in Paris or Cronulla. Were those riots religiously or culturally motivated? I think, given the caveat that it is awfully difficult to separate issues of race, culture and religion, we would have to say on the balance of evidence that they were culturally and not theologically motivated. So I can understand the fact that Europeans and New South Welshmen (and women) may want to focus on the cultural issues.

Yet at the same time, I would be very sad to see the theological goals of interreligious dialogue put to one side. We here in Melbourne are about to hold the third “JCMA” (or Jewish Christian and Muslim Association) 4-day live-in conference in July. Our topic is “Seeing others—Seeing us”, which, for the first time, will begin to look at the ways in which our religious regard the other as religions, as well as cultures. We also have to acknowledge that there are a good many converts from “White Australian” backgrounds (and even Aboriginal Australians!) to Isalm and other religious movements present in Australia today (eg. Buddhism and Hinduism). These converts—many of them former Christians at least by culture—are attracted to their new religion for theological reasons. They may also enjoy the culture, but, at least with reference to the Muslim converts, there is often quite a conscious insistence that it is not the culture they are embracing, but the faith.

Again, I emphasise that I am not rejecting “intercultural” dialogue, but I do not wish to see “interreligious” dialogue of a theological nature shelved—especially as our religious communities are only just now starting to find the confidence to attempt serious theological engagement. For instance, the next Catholic Interfaith Committee Annual Interfaith Symposium will be held on Sunday 18th of June at the Thomas Carr Centre (278 Victoria Parade) on the topic of “Judgement-Mercy”. We will have speakers from Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist perspectives. The topic is quite clearly a theological one, and in this discussion, we hope to come to a clearer understanding of these categories in the context of each religion.

As far as Catholics are concerned, “theological” dialogue has a specific goal. This goal, I must warn, has been viewed with suspicion by other faiths, especially Jews and Muslims. But it should not be a worry if properly understood. I am referring to the evangelistic goal of interfaith dialogue. Note that I say “evangelistic”, and not “proselytistic”. Interfaith dialogue is not carried on with the aim of imposing our faith on others. But it does seek, at the very least, to “propose” the faith in all circumstances.

Archbishop Fitzgerald himself once personally explained to me how interfaith dialogue fits within the evangelising mission of the Church. (For more on this topic, see "Dialogue and Proclamation", from the PCID.) Two images, one of train and the other of a courting couple are used. In the first image, the mission of the Church is envisaged as a train with a number of carriages. At the front is the engine—corresponding to the Gospel. The next carriages may be sleeping cars—corresponding to catechesis and baptism. The next car may be the “proclamation” car. There will be a “service and charity” carriage, and so on. Far down the back is the Lounge Car, where people meet to chat with one another and get to know one another. This car, said Archbishop Fitzgerald, is the dialogue car, and it may be that those in this car spend all their time there without ever venturing up to the front.

The second image is that of a young man going courting. He is seeking a wife, but he does not “pop the question” to the first girl he meets (that would kill any relationship dead). Rather, he engages in a number of relationships, first talking about the weather and mutual interests and going to movies. Most relationships that he enters into will stop at this level. They are friends, mutually enjoying each other’s company, but with no matrimonial plans in sight. This relationship is perfectly valid, even if it doesn’t become more intimate.

So what concerns me about reframing interreligious encounter in terms of culture rather than theology is that the opportunity for us to propose our faith clearly to others may be greatly reduced. In the same vein, if we do not open ourselves up to the theological dimensions of the other, we block our minds to a significant part of the identity of the other and are limited in the degree to which we can communicate our faith in a way that the other can comprehend it.

After all, I am engaging in this dialogue as a Catholic, not as a Barrossa-Deutsch South Australian living in Victoria. And I am engaging in the dialogue because I want to talk to (eg.) Muslims, not because I want to engage with the (eg.) Turkish culture.

None of this is to say that the cultural is not an immensely important aspect of the dialogue which is to be welcomed. It is just that I don’t think we would be wasting our time if we were to spend three days talking about our mutual understandings of Jesus and Mohammed as prophets. That is what interfaith dialogue is about in the end.

Media Statements from Cardinal George Pell and the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV)

I have been meaning to blog something about Cardinal Pell’s speech on “Islam and Western Democracies” given last week. Again, I need to be careful, because I don’t want anyone to think I am making a statement on behalf of the Archdiocese. As it is, I don’t have to make any comment at all, as I have come into the possession of two media statements, which, while not entirely in agreement, at least put the whole thing into some perspective.

The first is from the Islamic Council of Victoria, the second is from Cardinal George’s own office:

*********

MEDIA RELEASE

Islamic Council dismisses cardinal’s attack on Islam

Melbourne, 5 May 2005

Victoria’s peak Islamic body has today dismissed as misinformed recent comments by Cardinal George Pell that Islam is an inherently violent religion of threat to Western democracies.

Islamic Council of Victoria President Malcolm Thomas expressed his disappointment.  “We’ve just marked Pope Benedict XVI’s first year and celebrated the new Pope’s wonderful work in Muslim-Catholic relations,” said Mr Thomas.  “It’s a shame Cardinal Pell hasn’t followed the Pope’s lead.

“In any event, Cardinal Pell's own interpretation of the Qur’an is of little social relevance.  If his argument is that Muslims are affected by the Qur'an's teachings, he will be pleased to know that most Muslims don't interpret the Qur'an the way he does.”

ICV executive committee member Waleed Aly took issue with Pell’s analysis: “Cardinal Pell is an intelligent man and undoubtedly an erudite Catholic theologian.  Unfortunately, his Islamic credentials, theologically and historically, are not so strong.

“You only need to scan his references to see this - they’re mostly a who’s who of anti-Islamic ideologues.  Cardinal Pell is right to be concerned over the Islam presented by these people.  The problem is that, to most Muslims, it’s unrecognisable as their faith.  There’s some pretty spectacular revisionism in this.”

ICV executive committee member and interfaith officer Sherene Hassan agreed:  “If Cardinal Pell’s approach to Qur’anic interpretation is to count the verses he thinks incite violence, then it’s no wonder he is misinformed,” she said.

"Such a response is to be expected when any text is read in isolation of its context.  I’m quite sure Cardinal Pell would not take such a simplistic approach to the Bible, or indeed, any other text.”

Nevertheless, Ms Hassan did not think the Cardinal’s comments would harm Muslim-Catholic relations in Australia.

“We have very strong, fruitful relationships with the Catholic church – both clergy and lay people.  Cardinal Pell himself has called for dialogue and understanding.  I don’t think this will all be undone because he made some mistaken comments.  We’re all a bit more robust than that.”


For more information or a comment please contact the ICV on (03) 9328 2067.

*********
MEDIA STATEMENT
Friday 5 May 2006

CARDINAL PELL COMMITTED TO DIALOGUE WITH MUSLIMS


Isolated suggestions that I am uninformed on Islam are clichés, smokescreens to distract, to divert attention rather than address basic issues which need to be discussed.

Islamic terrorists are not a figment of anyone’s imagination and the history of relations with Islam is full of conflict.

I continue to be completely committed to dialogue with Muslims, to supporting moderate forces on all sides.

I recommend that people read the Quran and my article in Quadrant (also on the Sydney Archdiocese website) and judge for themselves.

We need a lot of continuing dialogue, based on truth, history and the current situation.

+ Cardinal George Pell
Archbishop of Sydney


For more information, contact :
Marita Winters
Director, Catholic Communications
Level 11, 133 Liverpool St
Sydney NSW 2000
Ph: (02) 9390 5300
Mob: 0419 243 957

Sacrosanctum Concilium and The Eastern Rites

Now, here’s a thought. Does anyone know to what degree the Constitution on the Liturgy refers to the Eastern Rites of the Church? For in these cases, we have the ancient rites of the Church that have not been rendered into the vernacular, nor have they been “reformed” to remove “useless repetitions” etc. No-one seems to be suggesting that the liturgical life of the Eastern Rites are suffering in any way from a lack of “clarity” and “comprehension”. So why does the Latin Rite have to be sparklingly clear and obvious? Does this perspective altar our interpretation of article 34 of Sacrosanctum Concilium in any way?

When Ritual becomes an Information-Dispensing session

I’m reading that great “classic” on modern Roman Catholic culture called “Why Catholics Can’t Sing : the culture of Catholicism and the triumph of bad taste” by Thomas Day. Published in 1990, it is a little dated now—but only in that it doesn’t cover the full story of the post-Vatican II decline in Catholic liturgical standards. The rise of Post-Modernism (only given slight attention by the author) has now brought to light a whole new bunch of semi-solutions and extra-problems.

I have been especially interested to read his comments about “clarity” and “understanding” in the liturgy (in light of Bishop Donald Trautman’s comments last month).

On page 110, Day says “it may take centuries to fix the wreckage” of the “shining [but naïve] ideals” contained in those “innocent words” in article 34 of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

“The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.”

This, of course, is Bishop’s Trautman’s main plank in his opposition to the new translation of the missal. But as Day points out, “in the real world, things are not necessarily appealing just because they are clear.”

• When ritual is watered down to the point of being comprehensible by “everybody”, they cease to be rituals and become sessions for dispensing information


• Repetitions can be fun, giving words just the right flourish to make them memorable (he points to Churchill’s “We shall fight them…” rhetorical patterns)


• Absolute clarity in language can be a futile quest


• Demands for instant clarity and comprehension destroy poetry


• Clarity can be confused with loudness: artificial electronic over amplification!

On the question of simplicity, Day cites Sir Alec Guinness (a convert to the faith in 1956) who wrote in 1985:

“I find the post-Conciliar Mass simpler and generally better than the Tridentine; but the banality and vulgarity of the translations which have ousted sonorous Latin and [a] little Greek are of supermarket quality which is quite unacceptable… [T]he general tone is rather like a BBC radio broadcast for tiny tots (so however will they learn to put away childish things?).”

I agree with Guinness. The new rite is simpler and, in this sense, better than the Tridentine. To this degree the post-Conciliar reforms have been successful. But the 1970’s ICEL translations never had enduring quality, and we eagerly await (like watchmen for the morning) the arrival of the new translation of the missal.

If you can get a hold of “Why Catholics can’t sing” you will find it an enjoyable and enlightening volume.

Two responses to the article by David Palmer on the RRTA

That the world at large may have something against which to judge the claims of Rev. David Palmer with regard to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (today being amended in the State Parliament of Victoria) herewith the letter to the editor of The Age co-authored by Bishop Peter Stasiuk of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (Chairman of the Victorian Heads of Churches) and Maureen Postma (General Secretary of the Victorian Council of Churches) which appeared in the 2nd of May edition:

Legislation that helps faiths to live in harmony

“WE FIND it quite disgraceful that David Palmer (Opinion, 1/5) continues to misrepresent both the processes undertaken by the Government and church and faith leaders in regards to the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 and the extent of the opposition to the act in the Christian church and leadership. Mr Palmer, while citing cases dealt with by this legislation, fails to acknowledge the role of the court cases in the development of the proposed amendments and is misleading in his contention that no similar legislation exists elsewhere in Australia. He is also wrong when he describes the effect of the act on racial and religious harmony in Victoria.

“In regard to the Multifaith Forum held in September 2005: Premier Steve Bracks hosted this forum and those attending were given an opportunity to ask questions of the representative of the Equal Opportunity Commission (the body mandated to deal with complaints under the act). The statement produced at the conclusion of this process — agreed to but not actually signed by representatives of 31 faith-based organisations — included amendments by Christian leaders, one of whom was the leader of the church of which Mr Palmer is a member. The Premier and the Government have continued to work with the leadership of the Christian churches and other faiths on the agreed "actions" arising from that forum — and these include the proposed amendments, one of which is the explicit allowance of proselytising.

“While there is opposition to this legislation from some sections of Christian communities, it cannot be stated that "the clear majority of Christian leaders" do not support the Premier and the processes undertaken to amend the act. Heads of the Christian churches have taken the trouble to be informed, to discuss among themselves and with the Government their concerns and the proposed amendments. It is the case, however, that those who think that the amendments do not go far enough have sought to promote the divisions that do exist.

“One should note that legislation that deals with human behaviour often has to be "tested" in the courts, and this act is not different. It is as a result of the court cases that the proposed amendments have been developed.

“It is not the case that NSW does not have similar legislation. NSW had a Racial Discrimination Act that was extended to cover ethno- specific religions.

“One should note that while differences of opinion have arisen most specifically over the court action relating to Catch the Fire Ministries and the Islamic Council of Victoria, this same court action brought together people of different faiths and increased dialogues within faith communities.

“It is quite amazing that Mr Palmer, while wanting to be seen to promote racial and religious harmony, seems to cite with approval British legislation that allows insult or abuse not only of other religions but also their adherents. The act in Victoria allows for the freedom of religion, the practice and promotion of one's religion, the freedom to critique another religion. It does not allow for serious vilification of another because of their race or religion — and "vilification" means the incitement of hatred, serious contempt, ridicule or revulsion.

“One would have assumed that all citizens of Victoria would have been encouraged by legislation that allows freedom of religion and includes the inability of others to vilify them. On this basis we could build an harmonious and, at the very least, tolerant society.”

Archbishop Peter Stasiuk, chairman, Heads of Churches Committee; Maureen Postma, general secretary, Victorian Council of Churches

And for another, non-Christian perspective, see today’s article in The Age by Daniel Aghion, entitled “Speech that spreads hate is a concern of the law”. Daniel is a barrister and public relations officer for the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.

The Holy Father in Yoda Mode

I found this picture on the Net from the Pope's Easter ceremonies. That mitre might'a fallen over his eyes if it weren't for his ears.

Which reminds me of a joke. (I don't tell many here, so bear with me).


Three men walk into a pub. They can't help but notice that there is a guy at the other end of the bar with no ears. He's a big, heavy-set, muscley bloke who looks real mean. The barman warns them:

"Don't look at him. He's highly sensitive about those ears. You'll be in trouble if he catches you staring at him."

But they cabn't help themselves, and before long the earless thug says to the first guy:

"Whatcha lookin' at?"

"Oh, nothing," he replies, "I was just admiring your hair. Beautiful hair you've got. You want to look after that hair, because you know the girls really don't like bald guys. See ya!" and he hastily exits the pub.

The man then notices the second bloke looking at him. "Whatcha lookin' at?", he says.

"Oh, nothing," replies the second bloke. "I was just admiring your teeth. You want to look after your teeth, because if you don't, you won't have anything to chew your food with. Bye!" and he dashes out to safety too.

Then the earless hulk notices the third man still staring at him, and he says "Whatcha lookin' at?"

"Oh, oh, nothin', nothin' at all," comes the hapless reply, "Nothin' except your eyes. You've got beautiful eyes, and you know, you want to look after those eyes, because if you ever need glasses, you won't have any ears to hang them on!"



Sorry. I do promise I won't tell any more jokes.
God bless Papa Benny. Goodnight!

Not a good example of Christian charity, Rev. Palmer!

I am, naturally, limited in what I can say on the matter for professional reasons. What little I do say must not be taken in any way as an official statement of my employer. I noted late this evening David Palmer’s Op Ed piece in today’s edition of The Age about Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

What I found very interesting was the amendment to the British anti-vilification Act which reads:

“Nothing in this (Act) shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religious or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

Well. That about wraps it up for any effect the Act (which I believe has been passed) might have to stem the rising tide of religious sectarianism in Britain. One can understand the need to have the freedom to discuss, criticise or express antipathy and dislike for particular religions or the beliefs or religious practices of their adherents, but to defend “ridicule, insult and abuse”? Is that civilised? Is that what the Catholic Church means when she defends the freedom of religion and everyone’s right to follow their own conscience in matters of belief? I suspect not.

Maybe we need to remind ourselves that this was the country in which King Henry martyred Fisher and More, Queen Mary burned Cranmar and hundred of other Protestants, in which Queen Elizabeth and King James hanged, drew and quartered Catholic priests by the score, in which the Puritans beheaded Catholic King Charles I, and Catholic King James II run out of the country, and in which Catholics are still legally disbarred from being either Prime Minister or Monarch.

I don’t think this is a country which has much of a right to try to teach the rest of the world what religious freedom means.

One God and One Christ!

Ah, Monty Python. A quote for every occasion. Here’s today’s, from the (in)famous “Michelangelo and the Pope” skit:

Pope: Now, a last supper I commissioned from you, and a last supper I want! With twelve disciples and one Christ!
Michelangelo: One?!
Pope: Yes one! Now will you please tell me what in God's name possessed you to paint this with three Christs in it?
Michelangelo: It works, mate!
Pope: Works?
Michelangelo: Yeah! It looks great! The fat one balances the two skinny ones.

Python’s Michelangelo fails to convince the Pontiff, who stubbornly insists that there was only one Christ and that artistic licence don’t enter into it. As he says at the end of the skit: “May not know much about art, but I know what I like!”, and what he likes is historical factuality in a depiction of the gospel story.

So why today’s quote? Because of yesterday’s “Faith” section in the Sunday Age (unfortunately not available on line). This week’s offering was from local student of Islam and convert to that faith, Rachel Woodlock, and in a few short paragraphs, she outlines the Muslim picture of Jesus.

Christians need to know a few things about Islam, and one of them is that that “Allah” is just the Arabic word for God, and the God they seek to worship is none other than the God of Abraham, Moses and—yes—Jesus too. Another thing is that they hold Jesus in very high regard as a Prophet of Allah and the Messiah (ie. the Christ).

But while we know that there is only one God of Abraham, one begins to wonder when a comparison is done of the attributes of God revealed in the Koran and the attributes of God revealed through Scripture. God in the Koran is so “entirely other” and separate from creation (just as a carpenter is separate from the table he made, according to one Muslim I recently asked about this), that there can ultimately be no real communication between the two. Were it not for the insistence that Allah is to be identified with the God of Abraham, one would wonder if we were talking about two different Gods rather than the same One.

Likewise, while one knows that there was only “one Christ” (to quote Monty Python’s pope), the attributes and stories of Jesus found in the Koran and the Gospels differ so much that one begins to wonder if we are not talking about “two” Christs which have very little relation to each other.

Here is the first part of Rachel’s account of Jesus:

“A young Jewish woman receives a visit from the angel Gabriel. He tells Mary that she is to give birth to Jesus, the Messiah, a shocking announcement to a virgin who had spent her life in the temple. Mary moves away from her family and society so that she can carry the pregnancy in private. In the throes of labour, she cries out to God in desperation. He gently tells her not to grieve, and provides her, like a thoughtful midwife, with fresh water and sweet dates.
“Miraculous events surround the young lad, who in his infancy declares to society that he is a prophet and bearer of the gospel. Strengthened with the Holy Spirit, he becomes a great healer who can give life to the dead through the will of God. He attracts around him faithful disciples and his followers become known for their compassion and mercy. Jesus then travels the land teaching people about God.
“So far, the story is not hugely different from the biblical one, although there is neither manger nor three wise men.”

Actually the differences are quite profound, even aside from the manger and the three wise men. The comment about Mary living in the temple and miraculous events surrounding the lad (such as making clay birds and bringing them to life) refer to material which is found in later legendary non-canonical “gospels”, not in the Gospels accepted by Apostolic Tradition. The Koran, coming five hundred years afterwards, incorporates these stories as a part of the historical account—the Church never did. But more serious is the absence of Joseph in the infancy narrative—how can a few dates and a glass of water compare to God providing a husband? And we know that Mary did not cut herself off from her family—she even visited her cousin Elizabeth to help her in her own pregnancy.

But the real difference is yet to come, and many Christians will be unaware of this. Rachel goes on:

“According to the Koran, Jesus did not die on the Cross. Only the appearance of his crucifixion occurred, sparing Jesus the ignominy of this cruel Roman punishment. The Koran says little about what happened next to Jesus, except to say that he was taken up to God.”

At some stage or other, this will need to come into open discussion between Muslims and Christians in interfaith dialogue here in Australia. For immediately Christians will raise questions.

One of those questions is this: What about the historical facts of the matter? Monty Python’s pope insisted that there was only one Christ (not three) at the Last Supper, and of course, we all know he was right. How? Because we have at least four separate accounts of the matter preserved in the apostolic tradition of the New Testament. These accounts were first or second-hand accounts of the event. Later artists might like to imagine it differently, but they have no historical basis upon which to do so.

So too, how can a document which appeared 600 years after the event be more accurate than the documents which originate within 40 years of the event which they describe? Even non-Christian sources agree that he was killed, although some early opponents of Christianity suggested that the body was stolen rather than resurrected. Dan Brown may like to suggest that Jesus just “swooned” on the Cross, but it is precisely for this reason that the Gospels record in detail the piercing of Christ’s side with the lance.

On what basis then, other than the authority of the Koran itself, can Islamic rejection of the historicity of the crucifixion be defended?

The other question is this: With such a fundamental difference in the story, is the Jesus of the Koran and the Jesus of the Gospels really the same Jesus? It saddens me to have to ask this question, because I would like to be able to say “Yes”. I don’t doubt our Muslim brothers and sisters in their sincere desire to honour the one whom they regard as a prophet. They rightly acknowledge that a death by crucifixion is unthinkable for “the Holy One of God”, as it carried an explicit curse in from the Hebrew Torah (Deut 21:22-23). Yet that is precisely the point of the story of Christ: in him, God did the unthinkable. He “became sin” for us, that we might share in his holiness (Gal 3:13-14).

The fact that Jesus died by crucifixion was the greatest stumbling block to the proclamation of the Christian message (1 Cor 1:23). Why would the Christians have made it up? And if it only “appeared” happen, why would Allah have prevented Jesus’ disciples from understanding that it was only “an appearance”, so that they would have been able to proclaim the truth about the event? What benefit was there in insisting that Jesus suffered “the ignominy of this cruel Roman punishment”? In fact, it was the greatest theological hurdle for the apostles to overcome in the first years of the Church. Only gradually did they realise how central the crucifixion of Jesus was to the Gospel itself.

This is what is known among Christians as the “Theology of the Cross”. Martin Luther was a great expert in this. So is our current Holy Father, Benedict XVI. Here is what the latter wrote 40 years ago in “Introduction to Christianity”:

“God is the entirely other, invisible, unrecognisable. But when he really did appear upon the scene, so other, so invisible in regard to his divinity, so unrecognisable, it was not the kind of otherness and strangeness that we had foreseen and expected, and he thus remained in fact unrecognised. But should not that in itself prove him to be the really entirely Other, the one who casts overboard our notions of otherness and thereby shows himself to be the only one who genuinely is entirely other?” (p255)

A crucified Messiah. Yep, that is about as “entirely Other” as you can get.