Bishop Tom Wright answers Kasper on Women Bishops

Here’s one that has probably slipped under the radar of many Catholics. Most who have been paying attention to things ecumenical and the continued woes of the Anglican Communion will be aware of Cardinal Kasper’s frank but ultimately futile plea to the Church of England house of bishops not to go down the path of admitting women to the episcopate—although even he acknowledged that if you have already taken the step of ordaining women to the priesthood, consecration as bishops is logically the next step.

But what you may not be aware of is that a reply to Cardinal Kasper has been penned by no less a personage than the superlative historian of the New Testament and Anglican Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright (in partnership with Bishop Stancliffe of Salisbury).

Taken together, these two papers could form the basis of a week long seminar on the future direction of Catholic/Anglican relations. As it is, I intend, over the coming weeks, to make some comments on Dr Wright’s paper. I have a huge respect for his work—although I share some of the frustration that our Anglican brethren and Sistern in Sydney have with him: namely, that while he is generally a conservative and evangelical defender of orthodoxy (for eg. he opposes the ordination of practicing homosexuals), he is very much in favour of the ordination (and hence consecration) of women.

Lutherans who take the time to read his arguments set forth in this reply to Kasper will note with some amusement that the arguments he puts forward for the ordination of women differ in no way from the arguments of the pro-WO camp in the LCA. This does not stop him from accusing Catholics of opposing the ordination of women because they interpret scripture through tradition, rather than taking scripture at face value. Lutherans—who do attempt to take scripture at face value quite apart from any sort of authoritative tradition—are still far from agreed that the pro-WO position is “scriptural”.

A New Way of Viewing the Question of Communion for Those who are Divorced and Remarried?

Worth a very close look is the proposal of Alberto Bonandi regarding communion for divorced and remarried persons, which Sandro Magister has translated and posted on his website “www.chiesa”. This is really ground breaking stuff, however I don’t feel that it will be the solution we are looking for.

In its favour, it takes seriously the meaning of conversion while at the same time paying much greater attention to the issues of personal responsibility. In the past, there has seemed to be some discrepancy in both areas in the Church’s practice in this area. I am especially interested in the question, but it would also seem to point to a way of dealing with the situation of the divorced and remarried baptised person who converts to the Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, it could be a very difficult to apply Bonandi’s suggestions in practice. How would a pastor deal with a person who at the time he divorced his (her) spouse and entered a new relationship with a new partner actually calculated that the Church would be liable to show lenience towards his actions at some point in the future? How would a pastor deal with a situation in which a person who had been admitted back to communion (under the circumstances Bonandi proposes) left his second relationship for a third relationship? Would such a person be given the benefit of the doubt a second time?

Protestant churches such as the Church of England (as in the case of Prince Charles) and the Lutheran Church of Australia (as in my own case) have for many decades viewed divorce as a sin for which absolution could be granted in such a way as to annul the previous marriage and thus enable them to bless a new relationship as a marriage. This is emphatically not what Bonandi proposes, but his proposal does share some procedural similarities.

In any case, read Bonandi’s proposal for yourself and see what you think.

Is the Creator's Excess "Unintelligent"? Reflection on Robyn Williams "Unitelligent Design"

The Faith and Order Commission of the Victorian Council of Churches currently has its attention focused on the matter of “Intelligent Design”. I rather fear that, like the ship-board computer in Douglas Adam’s Hitchhikers Guide which has all its memory circuits tied up in trying to work out what a “nice cup of tea” is for Arthur Dent when it should be working out some way of diverting the missiles that have been fired upon the space ship, this will be a time-consuming and, in the end, a rather inconclusive exercise when we could be focusing on something a little more to the point.

Nevertheless, it has meant that we have been doing some interesting reading. After reading this morning’s edition of The Age, we might want to put Robyn Williams new book “Unintelligent Design” on our reading list. The Age has published an extract from this book, and I quote a few lines below:

“If God s intention was to put man on Earth, made in his own image, surrounded by parkland, creatures and, eventually, a spouse, why make such a large planet? The Garden of Eden could not have been much larger than Central Park — enough to enable Adam and Eve to have an amusing existence — so why all those big continents, deserts and expanses of ice larger even than the whole of Australia? And why a vast solar system with planets enough to make our own look puny? And why a galaxy within which distances are so huge that the sermon on the mount travelling at the speed of light would barely leave the neighbourhood and could reach the galaxy's boundary only after unimaginable eons. And then there are the billions of stars other than our sun in the galaxy and then ... trillions of other galaxies extending as far as one can imagine. And beyond that too. This is over-engineering, surely. Intelligent design it isn't.”

He continues:

“To sum up: once the universe is given the physical settings it possesses, then its size and age arise accordingly. If God's prime focus was to produce human beings, he has certainly gone a very long way around. If he were all-powerful and deter- mined, he could have chosen one of the infinite alternatives Rees has on offer. Maybe God wasn't fussed about time passing or materials wasted. However, it does appear to be an almighty diversion. Unless he happens to be awfully keen on astronomy, that is.”

That sent me back to Ratzinger (aka Papa Benny), in his classic work “Introduction to Christianity” (Memo to reader: buy this book and read it now if you haven’t yet done so).

In the section “Excursus: Christian Structures”, Prof. Ratzinger listed six “structures” which “summarise the basic content of Christianity in a few easily graspable statements.” No. 4 in this list is “The Law of Excess or Superfluity”. Ratzinger writes:

“Christ is the infinite self-expenditure of God … [which points back] … to the structural law of creation, in which life squanders a million seeds in order to save one living one; in which a whole universe is squandered in order to prepare at one point a place for spirit, for man. Excess is God’s trademark in his creation; as the Fathers put it, “God does not reckon his gifts by measure.” At the same time, excess is also the real foundation and form of salvation history, which in the last analysis is nothing other than the truly breathtaking fact that God, in an incredible outpouring of himself, expends not only a universe but his own self in order to lead man, a speck of dust, to salvation. So excess or superfluity—let us repeat—is the real definition or mark of the history of salvation. The purely calculating mind will always find it absurd that for man God himself should be expended. Only the lover can understand the folly of a love to which prodigality is a law and excess alone is sufficient.”

In the mean time, with regard to the question of “Intelligent Design”, I am drawn to the idea, not so much of “Intelligent Design” as a scientific method (because that seems to posit a divine “Designer” right from the beginning which seems to me to go beyond what science can say as science) but “intelligible” design. In other words, there is something intrinsic in the world which matches, pairs or is correlated to something intrinsic in my own thinking processes, that is, it is “intelligible”. Is it not a marvellous fact that I can look at the world around me and make sense of it (even if limited)? This “intelligibility” is itself something that can be scientifically noted and reflected upon, even it in the end, it might lead us beyond science to philosophy, and yes, even theology.

This is surely what Schönborn was getting at in his First Things essay “The Designs of Science”

“Instead, my argument was based on the natural ability of the human intellect to grasp the intelligible realities that populate the natural world, including most clearly and evidently the world of living substances, living beings. Nothing is intelligible—nothing can be grasped in its essence by our intellects—without first being ordered by a creative intellect. The possibility of modern science is fundamentally grounded on the reality of an underlying creative intellect that makes the natural world what it is. The natural world is nothing less than a mediation between minds: the unlimited mind of the Creator and our limited human minds. Res ergo naturalis inter duos intellectus constituta—“The natural thing is constituted between two intellects,” in the words of St. Thomas. In short, my argument was based on careful examination of the evidence of everyday experience; in other words, on philosophy.”

So what's human anyway?

In today's letters to The Age, Dirk Baltzley, School of Philosophy and Bioethics (Monash University) counters the claims of Professor John Martin (Letters, 25/7) that, "if it is human, it is wrong to destroy it", with a declaration that "human in the moral context means the kind of being, that is wrong to harm because it is self-conscious and desires to keep on living."

Baltzley then decides, having defined human in this way, that "it is clearer to call such beings persons, to avoid confusion between moral standing and biological specieshood".

This should give us some cause for concern for at least the following reasons:

1.     Graham Harvey believes even rocks and cars are "people" (see previous blog)
2.     Baltzley seems to work under the Alice in Wonderland misapprehension that a word can mean whatever he wants it to mean.
3.     That this applies even more if what we are discussing is the moral meaning of the word.

I have no argument re the fact that a foetus is not a self-conscious being.  Just so, Baltzley can have no argument that a foetus is -- in any objective scientific sense -- human.

I do not believe and I don't think Professor Martin argued that it is wrong to destroy something that is human, just because it is human in its DNA.  In fact, something may be part of a human and still described as human, for instance, my toe nail clippings.  But to say that something is a human being is to say that it is, in its essence and in all its parts, and in its entirety, human.  And it is a false limitation upon the meaning of the word human to ascribe it simply to those kind of beings that are self-conscious and desire to keep on living.

By Baltzley's definition, I would cease not only to be a person, but indeed to be a human being, should I at any point cease to be self-conscious or lose my desire to continue living.  Such a definition therefore is not only dangerous but patently absurd.  One assumes that when Baltzley identifies himself as being from the Monash University School of Philosophy and Bioethics, he means he is just enrolled in Philosophy 101.

Its Pius's all the way down

Here’s a good blogsite that I encountered by flicking through the list of the B-Team (Amateur Catholic Blogsites): Totus Pius. At first I wondered if it might not be one of the schismatic or sede vacantes mob, but he’s kosher (if that’s the right word in this context). The papal authorship conceit is rather clever. Check out the personal details of the contributing “bloggers”.

Why an exclusive return to Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony is not solution to the woes of Catholic Church music

Sandro Magister makes available to the English speaking world the interview with Domenico Bartolucci, the reinstated capelmeister of the Sistine Chapel, first published in L’espresso.

Regular readers of this column will know that I would be the first to blow the whistle on the current mess which is Catholic liturgical music (if it were not for the fact that there have been literally thousands before me who have done so, not the least of whom is Thomas Day, the author of the excellent book “Why Catholics Can’t Sing”).

But the solution cannot be that which Mons. Bartolucci seems to propse, ie. the restriction of Catholic liturgical music to Gregorian Chant and Polyphony. It is true that Pope Benedict himself, after a concert conducted by Bartolucci on 24th June, declared sacred polyphony “a legacy to be carefully preserved, kept alive and propagated, for the benefit not only of scholars and enthusiasts, but of all the ecclesial community”. Nevertheless, it cannot have been Papa Benny’s intention to abolish all other forms of music. What he said was that “a true aggiornamento of sacred music cannot be achieved except by following the great traditions of the past, of Gregorian chants and sacred polyphony” (my emphasis).

Indeed, polyphony was a development in the history of western liturgical music which ‘followed’ the tradition of Gregorian Chant, rather than slavishly reproduced it. More to the point, we do not today know how the music of St Gregory the Great actually sounded. The tradition of chant in the Church has always been one of development and fluidity as much as preservation and antiquity.

The interview with Bartolucci runs through a whole list of Western composers: Verdi, Palestrina, Beethoven, Puccini, Mozart, Brückner, Mahler, Bach, Lasso, Victoria—but the works of all these men were never the music of the masses, let alone “The Holy Mass”, as it was performed in the parish church by parish priest, choir and congregation. Is it ridiculous to suggest that one of the reasons why Catholic liturgical music has fallen into such a hole while music in Protestant churches continues to thrive is precisely this “professionalisation” of liturgical music? Bartolucci speaks of liturgical music as “art” at the end of the interview, but our parishes are not made up of artists. Our organists and choirs, even when we have them, are not artists. They are ordinary little old ladies, and earnest young folk who enjoy singing.

Don’t get me wrong. I am in full support of Gregorian Chant and sacred polyphony where it can be managed. Dr Geoffrey Cox, the capelmeister at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne, has demonstrated very well what a local Church is capable of given the right resources. But we cannot believe that what works in the Cathedral will work in the parish except in very exceptional circumstances.

I am also all in favour of parishes learning to sing the liturgy of the Mass to simple and dignified Gregorian tones. I grew up chanting the liturgy in the Lutheran Church. It was strong and robust (even “manly”), but it was simple and unchanging. The Catholic Church needs again a standard Gregorian setting for the mass which all its people throughout the world can sing. If you want an idea of the sort of thing I mean, just listen to the Lord’s Prayer as it is sung in Latin, English, German, Spanish and just about every other language. For goodness sake, the version used by the Romans is only a little different from that which I grew up with in the Lutheran Church.

But we should not kid ourselves that our parishes are going to be able to perform Palestrina or Lasso, or even that they will be capable of more than one ferial and one festival Gregorian setting of the ordo of the mass. In the meantime, we cannot banish other forms of music that have come to serve us well, most particularly “the hymn” form which has, since the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, become a central part of the Christian repertoire. We also need to be open to new forms of liturgical music, such as that developed by the Taize community.

So what do we need in terms of liturgical music for the 3rd millenium? Let’s make a few suggestions:

1) Music that “follows” the tradition of Gregorian chant. Our liturgy was, for about 1500 years, synonymous with the chant. The Chant formed the liturgy and vice versa. We need to respect this symbiotic relationship.
2) Music that can be learned and sung, not by artists, but by ordinary worshippers. This does not mean that the music need not be skilful, nor that it should be effortless to learn, but it must be within the reach of bulk of the people.
3) Music that can be owned by the community and, to a certain extent, define the community in much the same way that the Gregorian Chant once did. It should be the “sound” of the community’s heart beat.
4) Music that is bi-lingual, ie. that uses both Latin and the vernacular and can switch between both. I am sick to death of hearing that Gregorian chant can only be used with Latin. I know from experience that this is nonsense. It is the opinion of “experts” who have never seriously attempted otherwise. It is this insistence that killed the Chant when the English liturgy was adopted. Lutherans went from Latin to German to English with the same unchanging tunes. They still sing the liturgy. Catholics don’t. Go figure.
5) Music that can be sung unaccompanied, and is strong enough to be memorable. Such music will be able to be used anywhere and will sing deep into the hearts of the people.

So, that’s the sort of music we need. Will the new St Gregory please stand up and invent it? You don’t have to start from scratch. The old Chant will do nicely as a launching pad. But unless we want to retreat into a situation where the liturgy is a museum piece, we can’t go back. We can only go forward.

"You're Loony!" Neo-Animism on the ABC

Sometimes the only sane response one can make to someone’s deeply held and most sincere beliefs is (in the words of the immortal “Goodies”): “You’re loony!”

Such is my response to the ramblings of (neo-)animist Graham Harvey, featured recently on “The Spirit of Things” on ABC Radio National.

For a saner view of primitive culture, see Spengler’s column, “The Fraud of Primitive Authenticity”.

Key elements of Benedict XVI’s principles for inter-faith dialogue

Colin Patterson is a student at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family. As part of his course work, he completed an excellent and very readable assessment of the key elements of interfaith dialogue according to Benedict XVI, now available on the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission website.

To be perfectly honest, it is more an assessment of Joseph Ratzinger’s approach to interfaith dialogue, based as it is largely on the works of Ratzinger collected in the volume “Truth and Tolerance”. As such, it is an very good summary, and worthy reading for all Catholics trying to get their heads around the way interfaith dialogue fits into orthodox Catholic teaching.

The next step (Colin and all other B16 watchers out there) would be to synthesise Benedict’s approach to interfaith issues since his election in April 2005. There is enough material there for us already to form an idea, but it would be interesting to “join the dots” with the theology of the man who was once Cardinal Ratzinger.

Hope for Dreamy Ecu-maniacs: Methodists come in on Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)

Yes, some of us still remain “slightly dreamy” in the hope of “full, structural unity among all Christians as anything other than an end-time objective”. John Allen has this to say in this week’s “All Things Catholic” column (the rebadged “Word from Rome”):

“Sometimes professional ecumenists, whose life’s work is reconciliation among the divided branches of the Christian family, are jokingly referred to as “ecu-maniacs.” The quip is usually one part satire, and one part grudging respect.

“In fact, given the experience of recent years -- including ongoing tensions with the Orthodox over Ukraine and accusations of proselytism, and with the Anglicans and other Western churches over women’s ordination and homosexuality -- perhaps one does have to be just slightly dreamy to cling to the vision of full, structural unity among all Christians as anything other than an end-time objective.

“Yet the ecumenists continue to plug away, exhibiting a rather remarkable confidence that everything will sort itself out in God’s time.”

He goes on to report that the Seoul convention of World Methodism has voted to enter into partnership in the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”.

The centre-piece to this statement is, as he points out, the following paragraph:

“By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping us and calling us to good works.”

Of course, not everyone is completely happy with the formulation. But its there on paper, and now has the agreement of a sizable chunk of Western Christendom. In a way, the JDDJ seems to be forming its own “Basis of Union” for an international “Uniting Church”.

Which leaves one to wonder what effect the decision of the World Methodist Conference will be locally. One assumes that the Uniting Church in Australia has some sort of connection to this group (info anyone?). Could there be some sort of future activity here in Australia in which the Catholic, Lutheran and Uniting churches all together recognise a joint position on the doctrine of Justification?

If so, this would give at least one dreamy ecu-maniac (moi) some cause for hope…

The Effeminate Community vs the Bride of Christ

The first time I even became aware of this question was when a Catholic priest attended one of our Lutheran Synodical meetings and expressed his surprise at the robust male voices that dominated the singing. Not so in his own fold, he told us (and I have come to know only too well).

For some reason (or reasons) the Lutheran Church of Australia is a “blokey” church. That could be for any of the following reasons:
1) it has a strong patriarchal tradition
2) it is good at retaining its youngsters—male and female
3) it is a rural (ie. farmer) dominated church
4) it has robust theology, liturgy and music.

I would be interested in hearing from Lutherans out there what they think.

In any case, it is not the general experience of the rest of our Christian community, and Robin Russell, the managing editor of the US “United Methodist Reporter” believes she has some insight into the reasons why, in an article entitled “Are churches 'too feminized' for men?”. The article focuses on another work, by David Murrow, called Why Men Hate Going to Church. (You can read Murrow’s basic thesis in an article here)

Murrow believes the churches have actively followed an agenda that will drive men away while attracting women. He writes:

“Most churches offer a safe, nurturing community, an oasis of stability and predictability. Studies show that women and seniors are the groups most likely to seek these things. Our comforting congregations provide women with what they long for, so naturally they show up in large numbers.

“On the other hand, men and young adults are drawn to risk, challenge, and daring. While our official mission is one of adventure, the actual mission of most congregations is making people feel comfortable and safe… Church insiders routinely block anything challenging or innovative because it might make people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. This caution keeps the peace in the short term, but it drives men and young adults away over the long term.”

Or put it another way:

"Every Muslim man knows that he is locked in a great battle between good and evil… But most Christians today, he said, see their faith more in terms of "having an unconditional love relationship" with Jesus. And if that's the punch line of the Gospel, then you're going to have a lot more women than men taking you up on your offer, because women are interested in a personal relationship with a man who loves you unconditionally. Men, generally, are not."

All this should be ringing bells with us Catholics too. How often have you heard your parish leaders tell you that they are trying to make the parish “community” a “safe place”, a “place of nurture”, a place where people “can experience unconditional love”, and where “they can feel free to open up and share their inner selves”?

I am also interested to note that in my “mass community”, all the leaders are women. I go to a pastoral meeting, and I am the only bloke there if Father doesn’t show. Sister, the Pastoral Associate, leads the meetings. Where are the guys? Even if the meeting is held in the home of a leading family, the husband doesn’t join the group. It’s a “women’s group” doing “women’s business”.

We need to ask ourselves too what the effect on the Christian message in the west has been of the push to ordain women as priests and ministers. Has this only contributed to the fluffiness of the Church? Mind you, some of our priests could do with a few courses about getting in touch with their masculine side…

Nevertheless, I am a little wary, because further down in her article, Robin Russell cites the work of Leon J. Podles in “The Church Impotent: The feminization of Christianity”. (There is a review of that work here). On the basis of his work, she writes:

“After all, churches didn't become "feminized" overnight… Dr. Podles traces a feminine characteristic of the church back to the 12th century, when medieval female orders began to rise and mystic Bernard of Clairvaux popularized the metaphor of the Church as the Bride of Christ.”

I think there is a difference between being theologically, liturgically and typologically “feminine before God”, and actually being “effeminate” as a social community. The Church can be the Bride of Christ without being a community suitable for women only.

In any case, Murrow, Russell and Podles all give us food for thought. Especially in this day and age when we are scrambling like lemmings to toss out all masculine imagery in favour or de-sexed or feminine imagery in the Church. Take for instance the following two suggestions by Murrow for countering the feminisation process:

“Principle three: Present Christ's masculine side. Pastors often focus on Jesus' tenderness and empathy. This is a good thing, but presenting soft Jesus week after week runs the risk of turning men off. What man wants to follow Mr. Rogers? Even more bewildering are today's praise songs – many of which feature lovey-dovey lyrics set to a romantic tune. Guys may feel unnatural singing romantic words to another man. Men want a leader, not a love object.

“Principle four: Avoid feminine terminology. Christian men use terms such as precious, share, and relationship -- words you'd never hear on the lips of a typical man. We talk a lot about the saved and the lost; men don't want to be either. And here's a term that puzzles a lot of guys: a personal relationship with Jesus. Christ's bold, masculine command, "Follow Me!" is now, "Have a relationship with Me." We've recast Jesus' offer in feminine terms.”

That’s strong stuff. Are we up to the challenge?

Imagination, Faith, and Harry Potter

My kids have an amazing imagination. At the moment, their entire central imagination processor is taken up with one project: the world of Harry Potter. And while it is exciting to see my seven-year old daughter ploughing through volume after volume in this series, and enchanting (?) to see her and her five-year old sister role playing new developments in the HP plot that even J.K. Rowland had never thought of, it’s just a little scary to see how addicted they are to the whole thing. So far they have only seen movies one and two—the nice ones that Chris Columbas directed. How do we protect them from the next two, which they are currently much to young to see?

All is not that bleak. We have read the Hobbit together (after which I had to explain that LOTR was just a little bit too adult for going on with straight away), and have listened to an audio book of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (but again, not seen the movie—it is a little confronting for littlies), as well as the usual Hans Christian Anderson stories and what not. So they are building up a bit of an imaginative canon.

And the fixation with one character has happened before. They were mad keen on the story of Joseph for years, gobbling up picture books, role playing (taking it in turns to be Potiphar and Pharaoh) and learning Andrew Lloyd-Webber’s lyrics off by heart.

What am I getting at? The importance of imagination for religious faith. Ron Rolheiser has a very interesting take on this in his recent column “Faith, Doubt and Imagination”. There he suggests that our limited imagination can be a hindrance for faith. I think he is right (I love his suggestion that we do not believe with either our heads or our hearts, but with our bums!), but I also believe that the antidote can sometimes be a better developed imagination, rather than discounting imagination altogether as an element in faith.

What I mean is this: If someone said to me that they were unable to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus because they were unable to imagine it, I would suggest that they had lost something essential to the “childlike faith” that Jesus commends in the Gospels. I sometimes think that the “childlike” are able to believe so effortlessly precisely because they are able to imagine without effort.

None of this is to discount the necessary balance with the other function of “the head” in faith, namely, to reason. Some people imagine the most ridiculous things but fail to bring the necessary objectivity of rational thought to bear in relation to these imaginings.

Yes, perhaps Rolheiser is right in the end. It’s the objectivity of Truth that matters for faith in the end, like the seat my bum is sitting on right now. And seats generally don’t present too much challenge to either reason or the imagination.

Shock! Horror! Amazement! Rainbow Sash Wearers in Minnesota Cathedral

It’s amazing what some people will take as a “news” story. The good folks over at the National Catholic Reporter office thought this was worthy of a paragraph or two in their rag:

Sash trouble at cathedral (Nb. You will need to be a subscriber to read the whole article, but you will get most of it in the “Off the Record” section of CWN if you don’t fall into that category)
Emotions ran high among some participants in the Pentecost noon Mass at the Cathedral of St. Paul in Minnesota last month. There were tears, a break in the orderly queue to receive Communion, and allies on different sides of the Communion rail.
Brigid McDonald, a Sister of St. Joseph for 53 years, was shocked when she, along with others wearing rainbow-colored sashes in solidarity with Dignity Twin Cities, Catholic Rainbow Parents, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, and Rainbow Sash Alliance, were denied Communion. “It was extremely scandalous,” said McDonald, a retired schoolteacher who volunteers to teach immigrants and visit nursing home residents. “I was never rejected before at Communion.”

Well, what would you expect, really? You might as well wear a sign around your neck saying “I’m not properly disposed to receive communion” or “I’ve committed a mortal sin and haven’t been to confession yet”.

It is true that priests and extraordinary ministers of communion don’t pry into your heart before they give you communion. As one of the sash-wearing group said afterwards:

“The doors are open to everybody. Nobody says, ‘When was your last confession?’ or ‘Are you in a state of sin?’ You are supposed to assume that it’s between the person and God if they approach to receive Communion.”

But if you rock up wearing your heart on your sleave and proclaiming “I dissent from the teaching of the Church”, you can hardly expect the one giving communion to ignore your public statement.

As an aside, after reading this story, I noticed that one of our archdiocesan employees was sporting a South American scarf that looked rather “rainbow coloured”. I suggested to her she might want to take it off before going to mass today…

Being “judgmental” about sin…

Jesus said that those without sin can ‘throw the first stone’. I am not without sin (that’s why I go to confession) and my attempts to amend my way of life have been singularly unsuccessful (which is why I keep going back to confession). In the confessional, I experience the love of God. God loves me by forgiving me—not by excusing me. The most loving thing God does for me is to expose my sin to my conscience and to drive me back to the confessional, where, through the ministry of the priest, he reconciles me to himself.

So what I am about to say isn’t about ‘stone throwing’. It is about forgiveness and welcoming through real love and real acceptance.

A reader of the Email News asked whether I might make the following article available to other Email News readers. In fact, as it didn’t really suit that forum (not being about ecumenism or interfaith relations), I thought it better to address it in this forum.

The article is in Online Opinion. I had noticed it on the website last week, but passed over it. It is called “Let's watch our judgmental language” by Richard Prendergast, a priest at the parish of St. Josephat on the north side of Chicago, USA.

In effect (for those who don’t want to read the whole article), Fr Prendergast says that the Church must learn to be more accepting of homosexuals and not to use language which is “hostile” or “judgmental” in relation to homosexuals.  In particular, he refers to the Vatican document “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”, and to the case of a lesbian couple who came to him to have their adopted daughter baptised.

When I was a protestant, I commonly came across a saying that went like this “Hate the sin but love the sinner”. As far as I can tell, the same attitude to sin and sinners prevails in the Catholic Church. It is sin which is condemned, not the sinner. The sinner is always welcomed, always loved, always accepted. But sin can never be loved, welcomed or accepted.

Again, as far as I can tell, Fr Prendergast is not only asking us to love, welcome and accept the sinner, but also to love, welcome and accept the sin.

As far as I can tell, Fr Prendergast is criticising the Church for being judgmental for something which the Church regards as sin but which Fr Prendergast himself does not.

And that is why the Vatican document “Considerations etc.” seems so horrific to Fr Prendergast. If homosexual acts are not intrinsically sinful, and if it indeed it is healthy and right for a child to be taken from her own culture (“half way around the world”) and brought up in another culture and in an homosexual environment, then it would indeed be wicked of the Church to condemn such sincere and loving actions.

But if it is a sin to do this, how could it be truly loving, welcoming or accepting for the Church to act as if it were not?

None of which makes Fr Prendergast’s situation an easy one. Certainly he must be loving toward the couple. Certainly he must be loving toward their adopted daughter. Absolutely certainly he should accept to baptise the girl. Absolutely he should welcome the couple into the community of the parish. The Church, after all, is the most healthy place for sinners to hang out. But it is (or at least should be) a very unhealthy environment for sin itself.

“Hate the sin and love the sinner”. Its very difficult to make the distinction but we have to learn to do it. And without throwing stones.

Do we worship the same God: Another "expert" muddying the waters...

You have to ask yourself: What makes an “expert”. Forget the old joke about drips under pressure, and have a look at this example.

Rev. Mark Durie has just published a book called “Revelation? Do we worship the same god?” Here’s the publisher’s flyer:


New Release for 2006
REVELATION?
Do we worship the same god?
Guidance for the perplexed

Today many are asking do Muslims and
Christians worship the same god.
It may seem like a simple question, but it is not. Muslims will insist that they do worship the same god, and indeed the witness of the Quran demands that they believe this. In Revelation? Durie demonstrates that Christians have good reasons to challenge this Islamic position. Revelation? compares the LORD (YHWH) of the Bible with Allah of the Quran and clearly shows from careful study of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity that the LORD God of the Bible and Allah of the Quran are different in many respects. They have such different personalities and different capacities that they cannot be said to be the same.


Well, you get the idea. Now, I think the discussion is an important one, but I don’t know if Dr Durie’s discussion will really help us get very far beyond first base. It is my personal belief that—at the level on intention—Muslims seek to worship the same God as Christians. They name their God as the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Well, there’s only one of those, and that’s the same God that I worship.

It is a different question then to ask if they have the same concept or understanding of this God as we do, or if they do in fact worship him in a way in which he would find acceptable.

Indeed, we Christians claim to worship the same God as the Jews, but the Jews would contend that “YHWH” of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Triune God of the New Testament are “different in many respects.” Jews could even say that “they have such different personalities and different capacities that they cannot be said to be the same.”

A small example. Imagine that there was a great war hero who died in battle. Let’s call him “Captain Bob”. Well, the people back home make a statue of Captain Bob and then invite one of his old soldier mates to attend the dedication ceremony. This mate comes along and sits through long speeches about the valiant “Captain Bob” and all his qualities. When it comes to his turn to speak, the mate says: “Well, that’s not the Bob that I knew.” And proceeds to describe quite a different character from the one immortalised by the townsfolk. Was it or was it not the same “Captain Bob” they were talking about, and would “Captain Bob” have been happy with the new persona the townsfolk had given him?

So back to the question of experts. On the flyer, Dr Durie is described as:

Dr Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992. Dr Durie is one of the keynote speakers with the Australian Mosques & Miracles conference team who have toured nationally and internationally over the past 3 years.

A human rights activist I know in Melbourne said that his jaw dropped to hear Mark Durie described as such. Durie was a principal witness against the Islamic Council of Victoria in the Catch The Fire case last year. Here’s how the judge summed up our erstwhile “expert”:

"Dr Durie said he was a Minister at St Mary's Church in Caulfield. He has not completed any independent formal study of the Arabic language. He cannot read Arabic. He could not read or understand classical Arabic. He has no formal qualifications in Islamic theology, but has studied it privately for three years. ...in reality, he has done no more than read a large number of books and articles on Islam, and even then, only to follow a plain bias in thinking about Islam and Muslims. In this sense, Dr Durie is obviously an intelligent person who has pursued a particular interest..."
(Justice Michael Higgins, transcript of VCAT hearing CTF vs. ICV, Reference No. A392/2002)

Ah yes. You have to ask yourself.

JCMA 2006: Jews, Christians and Muslims playing together...

I have become guilty of the blogger’s cardinal sin: failing to make a regular posting! Mea culpa and all that, but I do have an excuse (he said, trying to justify himself): I have been very busy doing interfaith things.

Yesterday, I took the opportunity of going out to the Thomastown Mosque, where the Australian Intercultural Society was holding a Mosque Open Day. The best bit (besides the warm welcome and excellent food) was watching my daughters play with two young Muslim children. As Orhan said afterwards, there is a universal language of play between children. Pity we loose it as life goes on.

Actually, perhaps we do not entirely lose it. Last week was the superlative JCMA conference (Jewish Christian Muslim Association of Australia). 20 of us, 20 of them, and 20 of the other all together for four days at Pallotti College in Warburton. If you have not been on a JCMA conference yet, this is by far the best way to get into interfaith dialogue (ie. jumping in the deep end). The best bit is actually the fun and the laughter we have together.

JCMA is, in the end, a bit like a grown-up version of playing together. You become friends first, and then face your differences in this new atmosphere of full-hearted friendship and trust. The dates for the 2007 conference are July 2nd to 5th. Plan to come!

Our Blessed Mother: Jesus. (The Gospel acc. to Katharine Jefferts Schori)

Thank you, Fr Marco, for this great link to the ECUSA Presiding Bishop Elect’s first sermon after her election. The theological gymnastics required to make the following statement are worthy of an Olympic Gold Medal.

“Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation -- and you and I are His children.”

One only wonders what apparatus she is employing…

Fr Bob. RIP. And Tessa too...

It seems that in the midst of life, we continue to be in death. After the death of Fr Peter Cross, and the tragic accident which resulted in the loss of two young SVD students (one a newly ordained deacon), comes the death of Fr Bob Drake. Fr Bob—a priest of the Sandhurst Diocese—was a faithful teacher at the Provincial Seminary of Corpus Christi. I had the pleasure to meet him several times, once while visiting my friend Fraser, the Lutheran Pastor of Bendigo. Fraser and I went to a vigil mass at Fr Bob’s parish, where he made us both very welcome. I was saddened to hear of his illness, and even more saddened to hear his passing announced today at Mass. Rest in peace, Father Bob.

In the mean time, my kids are in tears because their uncle had to have Tessa, one of his labrador dogs, put down due to illness. An important opportunity to explain the fundamental difference between animals and human beings, and that we don't treat human beings like animals when it comes to terminal illnesses.

The way we learn history now...

I have just watched “Murder in Rome” on the ABC. It was a dramatisation of Cicero’s first case: the defence of Sextus Roscius against the charge of patricide in 81BC. I have read Steven Saylor’s “Roman Blood”, the first in the Subura Series with the world’s first detective, Gordianus the Finder, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Timewatch’s production is quite good, and certainly brought forth the facts of the case, although perhaps the scale was a little diminished—in the size of the crowd in the forum, the intimidation of Chyrsogonus’ forces, in the length of the advocate’s speeches, and in the need to project the voice (many comments were almost “sotto voce” rather than pitched in such a way to carry to the back of the crowd). Still, Cathy sat through all of it and watched it with me, and anyone who had never heard of the case before will have come away with the basic facts. Proof once again that we all learn our history on the telly—or in the historical novel (eg. Saylor) or in the cinema (eg. Da Vinci Code). One day, I might even read Cicero’s actual account of it, but I was rather put off Cicero in reading the Catiline Orations in second year Latin at Adelaide Uni…

New entry in my other blog...

I have made a new entry in my Year of Grace conversion story blog.

The Fuellenbach Focus: a solution to the polarisations within the Church?

I went to hear Fr Fuellenbach (see here for an example of his work) last night at the Cardinal Knox Centre. He has been visiting Australia in recent days and is due to speak at the Geelong Ecumenical Conference next week (while I am at the JCMA conference—otherwise I would be in Geelong myself).

His message was simple and evangelical. It was about focusing on God’s love for us, his forgiveness and his constant presence with us. Very Trinitarian as well.

But I was particularly struck by this idea of “focus”. He didn’t elaborate on it, but his basic approach was to acknowledge the broad spectrum and sheer catholicity of the Church’s theology, tradition and practice, and then to say that we can’t take it all in at the same time, or communicate it at the same time. We need to “focus”.

Now of course, the focus that he presented was the focus on God’s love and forgiveness. He opposed this to the very common focus on personal sinfulness and the wrath of God. Not to deny the latter, he pointed out, but to get the focus that is most healthy for the mission of the Church.

This has led me to reflect on whether there might not be a solution here (quite and amazingly simple one when you think about it) to the perennial “Left/Right”, “Liberal/Conservative”, “Kingdom/Communion” (to use Radcliffe’s categories) split in the Catholic Church.

We have generally approached these divisions as a case of denying the interpretation of the faith held by the “other side”. We say this, but they say that. We have spoken of a “cafeteria” approach to Catholic doctrine, where we take what we like.

Let’s change the paradigm. (Warning: This will pose a challenge for some, because some really do want a selective approach to the teachings of the faith.) We need to acknowledge that it is inevitable and in fact quite natural for each individual Catholic to have their particular “focus”. It might be liturgy for some, social justice for others. It might be (to use Radcliffe’s terminology again) a focus on the Kingdom of God, it might be a focus on the Communion of the Church.

Such focuses (I am authoritatively told that we can use “focuses” for the plural of “focus” although the more correct Latin would be “foci”) are perfectly legitimate. In fact, it is impossible to take in the whole Catholic Tradition in one glance in any case. Focus becomes a necessity for comprehending the faith and putting it into practice in our lives. But this rule must be observed: our individually chosen focus can not deny any particular aspect of the whole Catholic Faith upon which another may have chosen to focus.

Within these parameters there need be no conflict within the Church.

As a footnote: Last night, Fr Fuellenbach suggested the main focus of Catholic theology and faith should be on Christ. Amen to that—Lutherans would agree! But I wonder if in fact, Christ is not the “spotlight” which we use to focus on whatever particular aspect of the Catholic faith most touches our hearts. Christ after all is the Light that illuminates our whole faith, and not a particular item or point amongst others in our faith.