But is it true?

"Is it true that God created the world in six days?"

That was the question rather bluntly put to me the other night at the Intelligent Design meeting. They asked me whether I believed that Genesis 1 was true. I said, of course (because I believe the whole bible to be God's true and inerrant word), but not in the sense of modern historical or scientific textbooks. Rather more in the sense that a poem is true. In fact, I tried to tell them, sometimes a poem is more deeply true than any forensic description of "the facts". But they didn't buy it. Truth, pointed out the young pastor, according to St Thomas Aquinas and to Aristotle before him, is defined of "That which IS the case". So then the question: "Do you think it is true that God created the world in six days?" Is it the case that God created the world in six days or not?

Well, they had me in a corner, because I wanted to say that Genesis 1 was true, but not true in such a way that I could say (historically and scientifically speaking) that the world came into being in 6 days.

Now, today, it came to me in a flash. What is Genesis 1 (and Genesis 2-Revelation 22, for that matter) about? Is it about what "was"? Or what "is"? If that which is true is THAT WHICH IS, then indeed the whole bible, all its stories, all its poems, yes, evening its histories, ARE TRUE, because they tell us the way that things ARE. The story in Genesis 1 (and, for that matter, the whole book of Revelation which is a different but related topic) are not about what WAS (or, in Revs case, what WILL BE) but what IS, right now. It is more true to say that the world IS created in six days than to say that it WAS created in six days. That is what the rhythm of the week is about. Even more, that is the meaning of the week in the light of Christ's resurrection. The new creation is a seven day (actually, an eight-day--and again there are links with Revelation) creation. We are living in the present Creation. There is no past or future to God, but in him everything IS. He is the Great I AM. He is the "Right Now". He is "The case as it is now".

Do you get it? Yes, Genesis 1 (and especially 2-3) is TRUE because it speaks truly about the CASE AS IT IS right now. And that is more true than getting hung up about how it happened billions (or 6000) years ago.

Joint Declaration follows Divine Liturgy at the Phanar

Well, I just finished watching EWTN's coverage of the Divine Liturgy for the Festival of St Andrew (and the Translation of the relics of St John Chrysostom and St Gregory the Theologian) at the Cathedral Church of St George at the Phanar in Istanbul has just finished with the signing of the joint declaration between the Patriarch and the Pope.

I cannot find the text on the Internet yet, but I heard it read twice, and caught what will probably hit Turkey's media in about a minute or two, namely that the Holy Father may not be quite as enthusiastic about the entry of Turkey into the EU as PM Erdrogan tries to make out. I am refering to that paragraph of the text that reiterates that all members of the European community must be committed to full religious freedom, and secondly that "while remaining open to other religions" the Christian identity of Europe must not be compromised. Now, nothing there explicitly, but you would have to be stupid not to understand what they are saying.

There always was speculation about how the Pope would raise the issue of rights for the Christian minorities in Turkey, and now we have seen it in no uncertain terms. It remains to be seen now whether there is a change in evaluation of the Apostolic Journey in the Turkish Newspapers. Up until now they have been rather positive because the Pope has seemed to endorse Turkey and all she stands for. Well, that endorsement just received a big qualification. I wonder how it will go down?

PS. As a footnote, after watching the entire divine liturgy, I couldn't help but think "I know now why I am a Catholic--sometimes I like the liturgy just to last 20 minutes!" There were a few closeups of the Holy Father at times looking like he might drop off. My children said "Turn it down, Dad"--I don't think they like Greek chanting. And it does seem to be something of a spectator sport. Compared to the somewhat homespun liturgy at the House of Mary in Ephesus yesterday (with Taize Chants, Hymns sung to Old One Hundredth, "Seek Ye First" Alleluias, and "Nearer My God to Thee" in Turkish--or was it Greek?), the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom really is for the experts. I was rather thrilled though to be able to follow the chanting of gospel in my Greek New Testament!

PPS. Top moments: The Kiss of Peace between the Holy Father and the Patriarch, and the Balcony appearance where the Patriarch lifted the Holy Father's hand into the air in a sort of "victory" sign!

My turn for a funny pope picture, Marco!

"Hey, this is fun, isn't it?"

What Gives? Archbishop of Canterbury Celebrates Eucharist in Catholic Basilica

When Anglican Rowan Williams was visiting Rome last week, the Vatican Information Service announced that "On the afternoon of Sunday, November 26, prior to his departure, Archbishop Williams will preside at an Anglican liturgy in the Basilica of Santa Sabina on Rome's Aventine Hill." The event duly went ahead and was reported by Rocco Palmo on his website. Among other things, he reports that:

Representing the Holy See was Kasper's #2, Bishop Brian Farrell, LC, vested in choir dress. Canadian Fr Donald Bolen, an official at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity with responsibility for the Reformed churches, proclaimed the Gospel at the Mass after having received the archbishop's blessing.

Now comes the aftermath. One priest commented: "Of course, the Dominicans would have to be involved. I cannot imagine that the Pope would have allowed this. What is to stop any layman going in there and performing some ritual at the altar after this disgrace?!" A layman writes: "How can it be that an Anglican clergyman – with access to his own Anglican church building in Rome – can so publicly use a Catholic altar dressed in a chasuble and carrying a crosier? And what of the reportedly extraordinary participation of Catholic curial officials?"

What does it all mean? Has a sacrilegious crime been committed? or is this now the new policy of "eucharistic hospitality" in the Catholic Church?

There are two issues here. I won't address the issue of the Archbishop of Canterbury, wearing vestments and carrying his crosier--what does one expect him to do in a liturgical celebration? Wear suit and tie? Nor will I address the accusation against the Dominicans--the letters "LC" after Bishop Farrell's name stands for "Legionaries of Christ", and when I last checked there was nothing liberal or unorthodox about them. Nor will I suggest the Holy Father didn't know this was going to happen (is there anything in the Vatican, which he doesn't know about?).

The first real issue is whether or not a Catholic Church should be used for a Protestant Eucharist. Here the "Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism" (PCPCU, 1993) is to be consulted:

137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services.

Note the highlighted section. There is an Anglican Church in Rome. Possibly not a very large one, and since this was a public occasion, maybe the number of worshippers was larger than could possibly have fitted into the Anglican Centre. Let us be charitable, and presume that the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity was not unaware of this paragraph in their own directory.

The second issue is the question of whether or not Catholic clergy should have been involved in the Anglican liturgy. The Directory on Ecumenism says this in regard to participating in the sacramental liturgies of the Eastern churches:

126. Catholics may read lessons at a sacramental liturgical celebration in the Eastern Churches if they are invited to do so. An Eastern Christian may be invited to read the lessons at similar services in Catholic churches.

The first edition of the ecumenical directory in 1967 expressly forbade both the involvement of Protestants in a Catholic eucharistic liturgy and the involvement of Catholics in a Protestant eucharistic liturgy. The 1993 directory on the other hand, says the following:

133. The reading of Scripture during a Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church is to be done by members of that Church. On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader.

However, unlike the reciprocal ruling with regard to the Eastern churches, there is no ruling in the directory as to whether
Catholics can be involved in a similar way in Protestant eucharistic liturgies.

Our local ordinary here in Melbourne, takes the view that unless an earlier prohibition is expressly abrogated, it remains in force. For this reason, in 2004, when the Lutheran and Catholic students of Melbourne, met to mark the fifth anniversary of the Joint Declaration On the Doctrine of Justification, we marked the occasion with Lutheran vespers rather than holy Communion, so that the Catholic visitors could also participate in the readings and prayers.

However, it is quite clear that this is not the universal interpretation of this instance. Cardinal Kasper himself has often been involved in Protestant eucharistic liturgies by reading the Scriptures. There are many instances here in this country and in others, where bishops have authorised clergy to be involved in (or have themselves personally been involved in) Protestant Eucharists. Of course, whenever this happens, the Catholic clergy usually retire from the sanctuary for the eucharistic section of the liturgy.

So there it is. That's the law of the Church in this regard. I think there are still questions to be asked, but it seems to me to be a matter of interpretation for episcopal authority.

The only other thing I might mention is that there has been some discussion on 1) whether the Protestant Eucharist, lacking the certainty of the real presence due to the lack of validity of holy orders, is not a form of idolatry or sacrilege, and 2) what it can possibly mean for a Catholic to receive a blessing from an invalidly ordained bishop, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In both cases, I would counsel charity. While Eucharistic liturgies celebrated and blessings given by Protestant clergy lack certainty and validity, they are not empty acts or acts of sacrilege. They are "not nothing". Often a true and correct form and intention are present (they may even be celebrated with much more dignity than our own liturgies); all that is lacking is validity of orders.

Get over to Ecumenical and Interfaith Newsblog to follow Papal Journey to Turkey

If you are trying to follow the Holy Father's trip to Turkey, you can't do better than get over to www.einews.blogspot.com, the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission's new Newsblog. Here you will find all the commentary and the news (almost) as soon as it happens all in one spot. Click on the category "Turkey" to get just Turkey stuff, although honestly, there won't be much else there for a day or two.

Of greatest interest will be the various live webcasts and podcasts of the liturgical events.
See: http://einews.blogspot.com/2006/11/ewtn-to-broadcast-live-from-ecumenical.html
and: http://einews.blogspot.com/2006/11/live-internet-broadcasts-of-visit-of.html

"Intelligent Design": A strategic wrong turn...

Was it Bugs Bunny who used to say "I must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque"? Well, Intelligent Design is a theological Alberquerque if ever there was one.

I have just returned from a presentation on ID made to a parish group (not Catholic). I don't think there was anyone there who didn't believe that the world was created by God, or that the Bible wasn't true, but there were a fair number who were quite happy to continue through life accepting that there was no contradiction between this faith and an acceptance of the scientific validity of the theory of evolution.

But the speakers told us there was. You can't believe in evolution, because evolution is atheistic and "doesn't leave room for God". If you "believe in evolution" (note how this phrase puts acceptance of evolutionary theory into the same category as faith in God) you can't believe that the Bible is God's word, because the teachings of evolution contradict the teachings of the Bible. Thousands have lost their faith because they think evolution has shown that "there is no need for God". But wait: we can scientifically prove that there must have been an "Intelligent Designer", and therefore faith in God is possible because evolution is false.

How wrong-footed is this strategy? I would have thought that the truly responsible way of handling the situation (although it requires a degree of philosophical sophistication) would have been to show that there is no theological contradiction between faith in God as Creator and in the claims of evolutionary theory (whether Darwin was correct or not). By taking the line that evolution really is by necessity atheistic, you play right into the hands of Dawkins and co. You buy into their argument, you accept the "tiny God" who tinkers with his creation on weekends like we tinker with our car engines.

What worries me even more is that you buy into a theology of revelation which downplays the incarnation, the paschal mystery and the sacraments, and beats up the Scriptures until they look like the perfect book that came down from heaven. I have never lost my Lutheran emphasis (indeed, as a Catholic, I find this emphasis enhanced) which sees an analogy between the Incarnate Christ, the Eucharist, and the Scriptures. Luther used to say that the scriptures are like the "swaddling clothes" that Christ was wrapped in. I always took this to mean that, just as Christ was 100% human and 100% divine, and just as the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the true body and blood of Christ (this analogy works rather better in the Lutheran consubstantiation than in Catholic transubstantiation), so too the Scriptures are 100% human (with a fully human history and development and fragility and limitations) and yet 100% divine Word of God (thus the doctrines of inerrancy and plenary-inspiration).

When you begin to do some study into the ancient hebrew texts, you begin to realise just how intertwined the sacred text is with the very human history of the Jewish people. Nevertheless, it is the "Word of the Lord", as we say after every reading in the liturgy. In a sense, the words of the Lord to St Paul sums up everything about the way in which God chose to reveal himself: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor 12:9). In the weakness of the scriptures, in the weakness of the babe of Bethlehem and the crucified one, in the weakness of the bread and wine of the Eucharist--there God reveals himself. That's the God for me. That's the God I believe in. And evolution? Well, that's pretty messy as well, but even that I believe was 100% God's creation.

A Papal Visual Joke on Marco's site

I have to hand it to Marco, this one is really funny.

Looks like we've got a visitor, Holy Father.

My grandparents lived in an isolated farmhouse in the middle of a large holding in Northern Victoria, far from any main roads. Whenever, therefore, they heard the sound of a vehicle (a rather infrequent event), my Grandmother would call out to my Grandfather: "Looks like we've got a visitor, Dad!"

In some ways, the patriarchs of our various churches have been even more isolated than my grandparents were, but in these closing months of 2006 it looks like everyone is calling out: "Looks like we've got a visitor, Holy Father!"

The Archbishop of Canterbury is first cab off the ranks, on his first official visit to the Vatican. The statement released by the Pope and the Archbishop doesn't hold out much hope for full visible unity between the Catholic and Anglican churches in the near, or indeed the far, future, but what it does state is that in this age of secularism, there is much that we can be getting on with together despite our differences. And to read what the Archbishop of Canterbury said with the Pope on life issues--including "promoting respect for life from conception until natural death"--that could be quite a bit.

Next it's the Pope's turn to go visiting. This week he has his first official visit with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholemew I, in Istanbul. Meetings between the Patriarch and the Pope are more common these days than they have been in the past. The first meeting following the Schism of 1054 was between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1964 in Jerusalem; the last meeting was in 2001 when Bartholemew I visited JPII in Rome.) Nevertheless, this is a BIG THING.

Perhaps, on the scale of things, an even bigger thing (because he has jurisdiction over about three times as many people) is the expected visit of the head of the Greek Orthodox Church (yes, that's right--the Greek Church is headed by the Archbishop of Athens, not the Patriarch of Constantinople), Arcbishop Christodoulos. whereJohn Paul II was the first Pope to meet with the Archbishop since the Schism in Athens in 2001, but this is the very first time that the Archbishop of Athens has made an official visit to the Pope in the Vatican since the Schism (not counting the fact that he was there for JPII's funeral, which was not an "official visit").

Of course, one visit that isn't happening in the near future is the long hoped for visit of the Pope to the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II. The old pope died waiting for the invitation, and perhaps Papa Benny will too. But in the "on again, off again" relationship between Rome and Moscow, things seem to be moving in the direction of reconciliation, with both Metropolitan Kirill and Bishop Hilarion calling for some sort of alliance between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. As with the Anglicans, here too it is a recognition that despite the differences between Rome and Moscow, what we have in common is far greater and far more urgent in the face of the threat of secularism. Nevertheless, even on this front there has been a "visit", namely of the local Catholic Archbishop in Moscow, who had an audience with the Patriarch for the very first time on the 8th of November. Today the Archbishop, tomorrow the pope? Well, let's hope so.

Breathing with both lungs...

Ah, the way it should be. Psalm 133:1 "How very good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity." See this website: www.patriarchate.org

The importance of Seminaries: Three different ways of reading the situation

Three news items caught my attention last month, and I have hesitated about blogging on them, because I don't really want to cast nastertiums on anyone. I was just interested in the way the stories played off against each other.

First was the report of Michael Gilchrist's new book launched by Mike Willesee called "Lost!". According to the report, the author "lashed out at a culture he says creates "lukewarm" Catholics, singling out Queensland as by far the worst Australian state in attracting students for its seminary." Apparently, "Only seven students for the whole of Queensland are currently studying at Brisbane's Holy Spirit Seminary, including one man in his 60s."

Archbishop Bathersby rose to the challenge and replied publicly in a letter to the local Brisbane rag, "The Courier Mail", in which he said: "Once people grasp the excitement of the Jesus, Communion, and Mission emphasis of the Archdiocese, vocations to priesthood and religious life will flow again."

The third item on the list that flowed in the same theme (even if not exactly in the direction of either of these points of view) was Pope Benedict's sermon at the canonisation of the Mexican saint, Bishop Rafael Guízar y Valencia, in which he quoted the saint as saying: "A Bishop can do without the mitre, the crosier and even without the cathedral, but he cannot do without the seminary, since the future of his Diocese depends on it".

Condoms and AIDS...

Barney Zwartz, our local erstwhile Religious News reporter for The Age, has cobbled together a report on the latest rumours about the next BIG THING to come out of Rome, this time on the old "Condoms and AIDS" chestnut, in an article called: "Pope's small step on condoms".

You, like me, are probably well and truly sick and tired of hearing that the Catholic Church's is to blame for millions of AIDS deaths in Africa and elsewhere because of her stance on contraception. There is something really odd about the logic that says that African men (the majority of whom are not Catholic) are catching the AIDS virus through extramarital sex (something which the Catholic Church condemns even more insistantly than contraception) and passing it on to their wives when they have "unprotected" sex with them (because the Catholic Church tells them they aren't allowed to wear a condom). The fact that such an argument is totally illogical won't convince many people who believe it that it isn't true, but still, it has to be said.

So condoms and AIDS are big news in the West. Why? Because everyone wants AIDS in Africa to be stopped? No, of course not. Otherwise they would be donating in huge amounts to allow the Catholic aid agencies in those countries to distribute the vaccines free (why is the Catholic Church and not the Drug Companies the big bogey man in this debate?). Its because everyman in the West wants to wear one when they have sex with their partner (male or female) without any twinge of conscience about the fact that the celibate guy in white in the Vatican's Ivory Tower tells them not to. If only we can get that self-righteous SOB to admit that condoms are GOD'S WILL in just one small, tiny loophole of an instance, then: WE'VE GOT HIM! It'll be condoms for everyone by tomorrow morning.

So, Barney is right about this much. It "would open other contested areas of sexual morality for debate and re-examination". Or as the "Australian lay leader who did not want to be named" said: "It might provide the chink in the wall people have been searching for to get the church to have a fresh look at sexuality."

Of course, the proposed (supposed?) relaxation would apply "only to married couples". One should not forget that the Protestant Churches in the 1930's said exactly the same thing when they reversed the Church's 1900 year old tradition of opposition to contraception. Look at where they are now on the matter!

So, what can we expect? I don't for a moment believe that the Holy Father is going to do a turn around and say: "In the instance of married couples where one is infected by the AIDS virus, the use of a condom during intercourse is a holy and sanctified act." How could he, when it has been clearly taught up to this point that the use of such a barrier objectively negates the uniative (and not just the procreative) nature of intercourse between a husband and wife?

What could be stated, and in fact, current teaching implies, is that in the situation in which an HIV positive man insists of forcing himself sexually upon another (be she or he his wife or otherwise), the partner has a right to demand that the man wear a condom. This is to invoke the doctrine of the lesser of two evils (it is less evil to use a condom in intercourse than it is to commit murder), and the doctrine of the right to self-protection.

The unwilling partner (presuming he or she is unwilling), by demanding such protection, would not be sinning. The HIV positive man would be sinning, a) by failing to refrain from sexual relations when his condition poses a threat to his partner, and b) by using a condom; although his greatest sin would be the former, not the latter. Were he to have sex with his partner without a condom, he would be guilty of even greater moral evil, ie. of almost certain murder.

If a clear ruling was given in this regard, it would not alter the Church's witness and teaching with regard to human sexuality one jot. But then, I doubt that it would satisfy those want to see the Church come a cropper on this rubbery issue.

And another blog...

Speaking of "other" blogs, you might want to take a peek at the new "Ecumenical and Interfaith Newsblog". This is a trial to replace something I have been doing at work now for several years, called the Email News (you can read about it by clicking on that link). If it proves popular, I will give up the Word Document newssheet and just go with the blog. Have a look and tell me what you think by emailing me at the office on ecum@melbourne.catholic.org.au. And, if you want to be on our regular mailing list at the Commission, fill in the subscription page on our website at the same link above (or just tell me in your email to me).

New posts at "Year of Grace"

I have finally updated my Year of Grace retro-conversion blog with two new posts. For those of you who have not visited my "other blog", "Year of Grace" is where I am slowly publishing the diary that I kept for 12 months following Easter 2000, from the very first recognition that I was incurably Catholic to the first time I was able to join in worship as a Catholic (even if not yet confirmed) at the Easter Vigil in Easter 2001.

To read it, you have to consider that you are reading a blog that was being written now, even if it was written six years ago. The upshot is that, like most blogs, the earliest entries are now at the end of the list--you have to read it backwards to get the story chronologically. I use pseudonyms for people whose confidence I do not wish to reveal, never the less, its all there as I wrote it six years ago.

This is conversion blow-by-blow; two steps forward and one step back along the way. I am not proud of all of it, and some of my thoughts then I recognise were short of the mark and sometimes even (yes, folks, I admit it) WRONG. Still, God got me there in the end.

Or should that be "He's getting me there"?

Capturing The Imagination: GK Chesterton & Culture Seminar & Anniversary Dinner

The Caroline Chisholm Library Presents
70th Anniversary
Capturing The Imagination:
GK Chesterton & Culture Seminar & Anniversary Dinner
Saturday 2nd December, 2006

To mark the 70th Anniversary of Chesterton’s death, to promote the Library’s Chesterton collection and to remind ourselves of the importance of evangelizing the imagination of our own age, the Caroline Chisholm Library is hosting what will be an absorbing and lively Seminar and Dinner .

The Library particularly flourished as a cultural center during a high point in Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s publishing life and the Catholic literary revival. Both the Library and Chesterton’s legacy are devoted to the apostolate of nourishing people’s imaginations and lives with the deep truths of common sense and the Faith.

Venue: St Francis’ Hall – Entrance off the St Francis’ Church Car Park (cnr Little Lonsdale Street & Elizabeth Street, Melbourne City) 2pm- 5pm (Including Afternoon Tea)
Topics: Capturing the Images- Paul Gray - Journalist, Author & Broadcaster
Chesterton’s Vision of Education- Karl Schmude, Vice-President of Australian Chesterton Society.
Forum of Speakers: Chesterton Capturing Imaginations Today

Chesterton Dinner
(Bookings Essential RSVP no later than 30th November, 2006 Venue: Dining Room - Medley Hall 46-56 Drummond Street, Carlton )
6.30pm- Late 2-Course Dinner (drinks incl.)
Guest Speaker: Robert Denahy
"Chesterton & Friends"

Costs
Seminar Only $15 Concession & Current Library Members $10
Dinner Only $42
Dinner & Seminar Package $50

Inquiries : Caroline Chisholm Library
3rd Floor, 358 Lonsdale Street Melbourne 3000
Postal Address: PO Box 13176 Melbourne Vic 8010
Phone 03 9670 1815 Email: cclibrary@bigpond.com

Where do you stand on God? The limit of respect for religious beliefs

"My friends, I must ask you an important question today: where do you stand on God?" This is how Gary Wolf begins his lead article at www.wired.com called "The Church of the Nonbelievers". His basic position is that the "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Bennett, are making it almost impossible these days to be a sit-on-the-fence, tolerant, don't-rock-the-boat, and above all polite agnostic.

It is a highly entertaining read, and one of the most thoughtful pieces on religion that I've read by a nonbeliever for some time.

One thing he brought to my attention is that, were Richard Dawkins to come to Melbourne and sprout his stuff here, there is every possibility that he could be prosecuted under Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance laws--not just by Christians, but by every religion in the State. In fact, I think of good case could be mounted for the fact that there are many passages in "The God Delusion" that are pure vilification and incitement to hatred. He would probably get off, however, on the grounds that he is writing "In good faith" and for an academic purpose.

Here is one quote that Wolf pulls out of "the God Delusion" that really got me thinking. Dawkins writes: "As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected, simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden, and the suicide bombers."

Well, try this argument on for size.

Respect for religious beliefs and religious freedom belongs to respect for others in general and to the golden rule of not doing harm to others. This respect is itself based upon the recognition of the dignity of every individual human being. A person's beliefs form a part of their identity, and therefore should be, under normal circumstances, respected. Some of these beliefs will almost certainly be religious. Therefore, we respect religious beliefs, because we respect others, and do not wish to harm them.

Now some religious beliefs do, as Dawkins delights to point out, inspire some people to do harm to other people. The question is, do such harmful beliefs require respect, simply because they are religious beliefs? The answer is "no" and for this reason:

Respect for religious beliefs is based upon respect for human dignity. To respect religious beliefs that are harmful or destructive of others therefore undermines the very basis of this respect. Such beliefs cannot therefore be respected.

Therefore, to conclude, respect for religious faith cannot extend to respect for the destructive beliefs of Osama Bin Laden (and his ilk).

For that matter, one wonders how much respect one should give Richard Dawkins' religious beliefs (his "atheism" has, as many reviewers have pointed out, many qualities in common with fundamentalistic faith), since they are, quite obviously aimed at removing the right of individuals to hold any religious belief at all. This would be a serious harm to individual identity and to human dignity and freedom.

The Christian religion is not a rational construct

I often think that if we were to sit down and try to construct a religion, taking as our first base simply that there is one God and working into it generally accepted religious practices, we would come up with something very similar to Islam.

Christianity on the other hand, notwithstanding its own claims to be a rational religion, is not one which could perhaps have been formulated simply by starting from rational first principles. Spengler, writing in the Asia Times, in his September 19 article "Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life", points out that there is nothing remotely rational in the belief that a piece of bread and a cup of wine could become the body and blood of an individual who lived and died 2000 years ago just by having certain people say certain words. Likewise, as Islamic scholar Aref Ali Nayed has written, the ideas that God could become man or that one God could be three persons, are perhaps not ideas that commend themselves as being the most reasonable.

Christianity acknowledges that its primary source for articles of faith and morals is revelation. Nevertheless, Christianity has always defended (on the basis that truth is one) that these faith and morals are not contradictory to reason, that is, they are reasonable even if they do not primarily a rise from rational reflection. Moreover, given the "deposit of faith", revealed truths may be developed through rational reflection in new situations. This is done for instance, in the Catholic doctrines of sexuality and the dignity of human life.

Therefore if one is to argue about the rationality of the Christian religion, it is necessary to establish that it is rational to believe that God (given the fact of his existence) should be able to, desire to, and actually reveal himself to his creatures.

In arguing with somebody like Richard Dawkins this is of primary importance. I have read several reviews of "The God Delusion", but the only one that I have read that has made a major point of the revelation of God through the incarnation of Jesus Christ is by Terry Eagleton, the (Anglican?) professor of English literature at Manchester University (whose latest book is "How to Read a Poem" -- from the reading of which Professor Dawkins could perhaps benefit!).

Here are some snippets:

Dawkins holds that the existence or nonexistence of God is a scientific hypothesis, which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that the claimed that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. ... This is not to say that religious people believe in a black hole, because they also consider that God has revealed himself: not, as Dawkins thinks, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer even smarter than Dawkins himself (the New Testament has next to nothing to say about God as creator), but for Christians at least, in the form of a reviled and murdered political criminal.

Dawkins [does not] understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us. Dawkin's God, by contrast, is Satanic. Satan... is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and Dawkin's God is precisely such a repulsive superego. This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge.

Orthodox Theologian: The Universal Church requires a Universal Primacy

Over on Marco's blog he puts up a quotation from Stephen Ray’s book Upon this Rock about the ecclesial necessity of a universal primate for the universal Church.

Well, don't take a Catholic's word for it, Marco. I have just finished reading "The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in dialogue", the outcome of a 2003 symposium between Catholics and Orthodox held under the auspices of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

The final paper was given by an orthodox theologian Ioannis Zizioulas, who is Metropolitan of Pergamon, and Orthodox president of the Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church as a Whole.

He cites the orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann as saying:

A local church cut from the universal koinonia is indeed a contradictio in adjecto, for this koinonia is the very essence of the church. And it has, therefore, its form and expression: primacy. Primacy is the necessary expression of the unity and faith and life of all local churches, of their living and efficient koinonia.

He cites yet another orthodox theologian, John Meyendorff:

The very idea of the primacy was very much a part of ecclesiology itself: the provisional Episcopal Synod is needed a president, without who sanction no decision was valid. ...I would venture to affirm here that the universal primacy of one bishop...was not simply an historical accident, reflecting pragmatic requirements ... The function of the one bishop is to serve that unity on the world scale, just as the function of a regional primate is to be agent of unity on a regional scale.

Zizioulas himself says that the 34th "Canon of the Apostles" "requires that the protos is a sine qua non conditio for the synodical institution, hence an ecclesialogical necessity, and that the Synod is equally a pre-requisite for the exercise of primacy". He adds that "synods without primates never existed in the Orthodox Church" and "primacy in the church has never been exercised by rotation". He concludes:

The fact that all synods have a primate as an ecclesialogical necessity means that Ecumenical synods should also have a primus. This automatically implies universal primacy. The logic of synodality leads to primacy, and the logic of the ecumenical Council to universal primacy.

An upside down tree for an upside down world

No, do not adjust your computer screen. Believe it or not, but Kmart is actually flogging off these "upside down" trees as the latest in Christmas decorating fashion. One has to wonder.

What one finds oneself wondering is: is this just another case of our modern insatiable desire for "new things" and the Kmart marketing guys thinking this is a "good idea" or is it a little more sinsister than that?

Is it not perhaps a very "in your face" example of an anarchism which seeks to destroy the power of traditional symbols by (in this case literally) inverting them? When a symbol of deep meaning (such as the Christmas tree) is tampered with in this fashion, does it not in fact make the symbol as whole meaningless?

Catholics have a strong "symbolic" understanding of the sacraments--which should not for a moment be confused with Zwinglian "mere symbolism". Part of that understanding is that the symbol is so essential to the sacrament itself that to alter the symbol (for instance, by using cake rather than bread for the Eucharist) is to alter (or completely invalidate) the reality of the sacrament itself?

Some years back the pastor of the church I was attending (not Catholic) decided it would be a good idea to celebrate the Eucharist by having the Liturgy of Word follow rather than precede the Liturgy of the Eucharist. To me, the result was not unlike this Christmas tree.

This is one reason--a major reason--why no priest, congregation or local bishop is authorised to make any alteration to the liturgy of the Church. Such alterations, for whatever seemingly sound pastoral reason, risk altering the or even eradicating the reality of what is taking place in the liturgy.

More on Mr Dawkins...

It seems like everyone wants to have a go at Mr Dawkin's new book "The God Dellusion". On Nov 4, ABC Radio National had a go with "The Science Show versus God". (One wonders who would win in a real show down...)

This time Mr Dawkins is up against Professors Paul Davies and John Barrow, and guess who comes out looking like the biggest dill? Davies and Barrow aren't exactly card carrying believers, but they have an approach to science that is a little more open minded than Mr Dawkins'. Dawkins thinks that religion is "like a computer virus".

The child nervous system is programmed to believe what its parents tell it, and that means it cannot have any method of discriminating the good instructions, like don't go near the cliff edge, don't eat the red berries, from bad instructions like do a rain dance in order to make the rains come or something of that sort.

Robyn Williams (our host) thinks "that's understandable". Yes, I agree, but in the sense that we say to someone "I understand, now just lie down and take your tablet".

Of course, our host wants to be helpful to his interviewee, and so he throws in the old chestnut:

The thing that I find extraordinary is that so many aspects of religion are just so cruel; they create wars and mayhem, and the history that you allude to...you say, well, if you do not have God then you would not have, perhaps, the Crusades, or the Inquisition.

Yes, wonders Mr Dawkins, why do we believe in "any old rubbish" like religion?

I think you can build up a kind of Darwinian story, not just for why arbitrary rubbish survives but why particular kinds of rubbish survive, because they actually take steps (rather like genes do) to survive by killing the opposition, in some cases by being positively attractive...like the idea that you survive your own death, it's easy to see why that might survive.

To which our host replies:

I often wonder about this question of the negative because if you think about religions, many of them have got harsh rules and people fall into line; they give up music, they give up wine, they give up sex, a number of things. And many of the religions which involve having a frolic and having a jolly nice time with sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, like the Orange People and so on, don't last.

Lets pass on the fact that Catholics haven't given up music, wine, sex (what used to be known as "wine, women and song"). He does however have a point about the "sex, drugs and rock'n'roll" religions. Not only do the religions not last, but the people who practice them don't last either. Which perhaps suggests that there might be something in Dawkins "Darwinian-survival-of-the-fittest" theory in religious belief after all...

The Good and the Bad in Catholic America

I read a rather depressing piece by Joseph Bottum in the October edition of First Things called "When the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano: Catholic Culture in America". It is an immensely long but immensely detailed account of what happened to Catholic Culture in the US over the last four decades or so. Not happy reading. There is "light at the end of the tunnel", but you have to have real faith to discern it. Perhaps this is why our brothers like Fr Fenton are going to the Orthodox Church rather than the Catholic Church (however, I rather think this is simply because we know about the horrors in the Catholic Church, and the horrors in the Orthodox Church are rather better concealed--although the scandals in the Church of Greece and the Church of Jerusalem would be a good place to start one's investigations).

Then I read this piece in Time Magazine: Today's Nun Has A Veil--And A Blog and felt so much better.

And while we're at it, here's what he said to the Swiss Bishops

While we're at it (as they say over at First Things), Sandro Magister also has snippets from Pope Benedict's address to the Swiss Bishops. Here he has something really interesting to say about what has come to be called the "seamless robe" of Catholic social doctrine:

I often hear it said that people today have a nostalgia for God, for spirituality, for religion, and that the Church, too, is again beginning to be seen as [...] a great repository of spiritual experience: it is like a tree in which birds can build their nests, even if they want to fly away again later [...].

But what turns out to be very difficult for people is the morality that the Church proclaims. I have reflected upon this – I had already been reflecting upon it for some time – and I see with increasing clarity that, in our time, it is as if morality has been divided into two parts.

Modern society is not simply without morality, but it has, so to speak, “discovered” and professes a part of morality that, in the Church’s proclamation over the past few decades and even farther back than that, perhaps hasn’t been presented sufficiently. These are the great themes of peace, non-violence, justice for all, concern for the poor, and respect for creation.

...This morality exists, and also fascinates young people, who engage themselves on behalf of peace, non-violence, justice, the poor, creation. And these are truly great moral themes, which moreover belong to the tradition of the Church as well. Now, the methods that are advanced to solve these are often very one-sided and are not always credible, but we shouldn’t dwell upon this for now. [...]

The other part of morality, which is not rarely viewed in a fairly controversial light by politics, concerns life. Part of this is the commitment on behalf of life, from conception to death; that is, its defense against abortion, against euthanasia, against manipulation, and against man’s self-conferred authorization to dispose of life.... The morality of marriage and the family is also situated in this context.

...I think that we should exert ourselves in reconnecting these two parts of morality and making it clear that these must be inseparably united. It is only if human life is respected from conception to death that the ethics of peace is also possible and credible; it is only then that non-violence can express itself in every direction; only then that we truly welcome creation, and only then that we can arrive at true justice.

I think that we are facing a great task here: on the one hand, we must not make Christianity appear as mere moralism, but as a gift in which is given to us the love that sustains us and provides us with the strength necessary to be able to “lose one’s life”; on the other hand, in this context of the gift of love, we must also progress toward concretization, the foundations of which are still provided for us by the Decalogue, which, with Christ and with the Church, we should interpret in a new and progressive way at this time.

Perhaps this gives us another way of viewing the "People/Christ or Gaia" dilema? Concern for life issues are in fact a kind of "environmentalism" or "ecology" of the human being, where the human being is allowed a true place in God's creation. By raising its voice in support of the dignity of all human beings at every stage of life and in defense of marriage and family, the Church is seeking to ward off a disaster every bit as cataclysmic as that which we may face from the threat of climate change.

The Pope said WHAT?

The Pope said this to the German Bishops:

In this regard [ie. in regard to the Seminaries], Vatican Council II, in its decree ‘Optatam Totius’, established important norms that, unfortunately, have not yet been completely implemented. This is particularly true of the institution of what is called the introductory course before the beginning of real and proper study. This should not only transmit a solid understanding of the classical languages, which is expressly required for the study of philosophy and theology, but also familiarity with the catechism, together with the religious, liturgical, and sacramental practice of the Church. ...[T]he so-called role-playing games with a group dynamic, the groups of self-exploration, and other psychological experiments are less adapted for this purpose, and can create confusion and uncertainty instead.

And in case you were wondering if this applies to Religious Education in Catholic Schools as well, he also said:

In the past, it was not rare for the content of catechesis to be put in second place with respect to the teaching methods. The complete and comprehensible presentation of the contents of the faith is a decisive aspect for the approval of textbooks for religious instruction. No less important is the teachers’ fidelity to the Church’s faith, and their participation in the liturgical and pastoral life of the parishes or the ecclesial communities in the area where they work. In the Catholic schools, moreover, it is important that the introduction to the Catholic vision of the world and of the practice of the faith, as also the overall Catholic formation of the personality, be transmitted in a convincing way not only during the hour of religious instruction, but also throughout the entire school day – and not in the last place through the personal testimony of the teachers.

Okay. I take it that the Holy Father doesn't expect that to apply just to Germany?

Christ or Gaia?

Over at "Always Yes", Tom has asked the question "People or Gaia?". Curiously, this links in with some of my own thoughts over the last week or so.

Last weekend, the Victorian Council of Churches held its rural conference in Bendigo. The topic for these conferences is always chosen by the locals, so it is no surprise that during this seemingly eternal drought 3 or the last 5 rural conferences have been about water--including this one, which also looked at other rural environmental issues.

The Keynote address on Friday night was given by a retired Christian Brother scientist, who ended his presentation with the statement that "Ecology must be at the heart of the Christian faith". Well, that got me, because as far as I am concerned the place "at the heart of the faith" is already occupied: by Jesus Christ. So I raised the question of how ecological concerns could find a place at the heart of the Church without dethroning Christ and instituting the very religion that the Old Testament prophets railed against. In particular, I noted the rather unhappy instance of the "Creation Season" displacing the paschal mystery as the focus and hinge of the liturgical year. At first the speaker misunderstood me and said that we should work for a synthesis of Christological and Ecological teaching. No, I insisted, for this would be syncretism of the worst kind. Rather, if a case were to be made for ecology being a truly vital concern of the Church, then it must be shown how this concern emerges directly and necessarily from orthodox Christology itself.

This led, the next day, to a very fruitful discussion between half a dozen of the more theologically inclined participants. After a lot of beating around the theological forest (which involved first sorting out whether or not ecology belonged to the area of Christian Ethics or Christology proper), we hit upon the fact that through the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery, Christ is mediator not only between us and God, nor only between me, God and my fellow human beings, but indeed between us humans and the rest of God's creation. He is the lense not only through which God sees us, but indeed through which we see God's creation around us. Of course, there is the ethical/moral element (we discovered that there was quite a bit about the land in the decalogue--eg. the Sabbath Commandment and the Honouring your Father and Mother promise), but we were glad to come to such a point where we had broad agreement on the fact that ecological concerns could be seen through orthodox Christology. Liturgically, we noted that the most natural focus for ecology in the Church year occurs at its very centre, in the Readings of the Easter Vigil. Here again, it is vitally connected with the Paschal Mystery. Of course, from there you can head off down the Eucharistic theology road, but we will leave that for the moment.

Anyway, besides Tom's write up, I then found a piece in The Catholic Herald called "Beware of people who whorship Mother Earth" by Ed West. Unfortunately, the CH neither puts the whole of its articles on their website, nor do they archive all their articles, so this one has disappeared from the cyber-ether. No matter, trust me, it was good. Here are a few snippets:

What are the tenets of this new green creed? That nature is good and humans wicked; that primitive man was in harmony with nature, while modern, Western man is myopic and selfish; and that Mather Nature will soon wreak a dreadful vengeance that even the Old Testament God would find excessive--and that we probably deserve.
At the core of earth-worship is hostility to civilisation, and in that sense it shares much with paganism...

He goes on to point out that Christianity has been, since its inception, a "city religion", while paganism held fast in the rural areas (Lutherans in Australia might not believe this, their experience being somewhat the opposite!).

A "No-Brainer": Richard Rohr and Dean Hoge on the Stephen Crittenden Show

The problem with listening to your radio programs on MP3 is that you end up hopelessly out of date. The benefit is that sometimes you listen to stuff back to back and get to draw conclusions. This is the case with both today's edition of the Religion Report (aka "The Stephen Crittenden Show") starring Franciscan Richard Rohr and the edition from October 18 featuring non-Catholic expert on things Catholic Dean Hoge.

Listening to both would give an impression about the contemporary Catholic Church which is, I believe, completely erroneous. For a start, they are both Yankees, but don't lets hold that against them. More concerning is that they both seem to define Catholicism and the Gospel without any reference at all to Christ or to the Paschal Mystery (for the sake of comparison, read/listen to these two interviews and then read Pope Benedict's Homily at Verona last month). They talk about mysticism, and about deep moral values, but both downplay the importance of the institutional Church. I always get a little suspicious about that, because to me, if you are looking for the Incarnate Christ, you have to start with his visible body in the world, ie. the Church.

In any case, I found that the interview with Dean Hoge contained a real "no-brainer". Cop this:

Dean Hoge: We have to distinguish between priests and laity, Let's first talk about laity: there's not a strong trend toward a more conservative type of young adult. Some of the young adults are not very church-oriented, and don't care that much about church matters because they say 'Religion is between me and God, I don't really need the church.' Now the priesthood is a little bit different. For some reason which is not so clear, the younger priests today are more conservative in some matters.

Well, I can give you a clue. Those who "are not very church-orientated" don't become priests. Those who are do. Hence, those who do are more conservative than those who don't. How hard was that?

Leunig and the Mufti

We got a bit of a clue when our beloved and behated Melbourne cartoonist-prophet, Michael Leunig, came up with this cartoon, but then we got the full picture (so to speak) with his article in last Saturday's A2 "The Message of the Mufti".

Leunig's writing is the verbal equivalent of his cartooning, so don't expect a completely logical argument about the pros and cons of Al-Hilali's comments. I am a passionate supporter of Victoria's Racial and Religious Vilification laws, and I recognise that it is possible to read Leunig in a way that seems to support anyone saying anything no matter who gets hurt.

Nevertheless, I have a great deal of sympathy for what he has written (especially in the light of the Regensburg Affair). I agree with him in that I happen to like my religious leaders to be a bit "crunchy", or, as Leunig puts it:

I like my swamis, muftis and bishops to use rip-roaring colourful language, to be full-flavoured, overproof and offensive - crucifiably so; it's what I expect from prophets and artists, and would like to see more of it in our modern spiritual executives, who in the main have become polite, insipid and mealy-mouthed, for fear they will cause offence and ruin their prospects - it's all very disappointing. Muftis and bishops should be like ripe camembert cheeses - a bit on the nose and not for the faint-hearted, but memorable!

Not many share his taste these in days, where the bible that really counts is the "Political Correctness Handbook". We live in times that require believers to really believe, and to do so unashamedly. I am not denying that being nice to one another is a virtue--just not one very high on the scale. Higher up are prudence (which includes knowing what to say, when to say it and how to say it) and fortitude (which means being able to say and do what you know to be right).

Sometimes a little earthiness doesn't hurt. Let's have more "terroirists"!

Liturgy of St Pius V "Set in Stone"?

A very useful column by Fr Edward McNamara in the Liturgy Questions section on the Zenit site. A reader asks why, when Pope St. Pius V "set in stone for all time the exactness of the holy sacrifice of the Mass to be said in the mother tongue of the Church", future Popes (eg. Paul VI) could dare to make changes. Fr McNamara makes good sense of this difficult question, defending the authority of the Bishop of Rome to make changes to the Liturgy.

For a start, he shows that changes were made to the liturgy even by St Pius V himself after the promulgation of his bull Quo Primum. He says:

Likewise, legal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.

If it were otherwise, then Pope St. Pius V would have excommunicated himself a couple of years after publishing "Quo Primum" when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal.

Among the many other Popes who would have thus incurred "the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" would have been St. Pius X for reforming the calendar, Pius XI who added the first new preface in centuries for the feast of Christ the King, Pius XII for completely revamping the rites of Holy Week as well as simplifying the rubrics, and Blessed John XXIII for adding St. Joseph's name to the Roman Canon.

Certainly, the reform undertaken under the Servant of God Pope Paul VI ranged more widely than anything done under earlier Popes since St. Pius V. But Paul VI acted with the same papal authority as all of them.

Fr McNamara's final comment is:

It is for this reason that, except in matters of faith and morals, a pope's disciplinary decrees in matters such as the non-essential elements of liturgical rites are never "set in stone" and can be changed by a subsequent Supreme Pontiff whenever he believes that the duty of feeding Christ's flock requires it.

CWNews looks forward to Pope's November

If you are not already praying for the Holy Father for his trip to Turkey at the end of the month, start now. As the CWN wrap up for the Pope's November says, "this will be the first time that a Pontiff has travelled to a country in which a best-selling novel depicts his assassination."

The same column reflects on the Pope's Curial appointments over the last 18 months, including the most recent one, Cardinal Hummes as head of the Congregation for the Clergy. None of these are "party" or "ideological" affiliates of the Holy Father (eg. Hummes has been on the side of the liberation theologians in South America, and Levada was not the first pick of the conservatives for Ratzinger's replacement at the Holy Office) but they are all people he has worked with at some time and (in the words of CWN) Papa Benny "has the measure of these men and values their opinions".

Then they offer an interesting insight into Joseph Ratzinger's psychology. "If you disagree with him, he sees you not as an enemy (since you have crossed him) but as a friend (since you have helped him to refine his thinking)." May we all be blessed with such an attitude in our disputations and dialogues!

The Pope On All Saints

I'm a bit behind in my reading, but I read the Holy Father's All Saints Day sermon today, and thought I would blog it for the benefit of the Lutherans out there. See what you think:

Holiness demands a constant effort but it is possible for all since it is not just the work of man but is above all a gift of God, who is thrice holy (cf. Isaiah 6:3). In the second reading the Apostle John observes: "See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet so we are" (1 John 3:1)...
In truth, the blessed par excellence is only him, Jesus. Indeed, he is the truly poor in spirit, the afflicted, the meek one, the one hungering and thirsting for justice, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemaker; he is the one persecuted for the sake of justice....
In the measure that we accept his proposal and follow him -- everyone according to his own circumstances -- we too can participate in his beatitude. With him the impossible becomes possible and in the end the camel passes through the eye of needle (cf. Mark 10:25); with his help, only with his help, we are able to become perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect (cf. Matthew 5:48).

There's no doubt about it. Pope Benedict is a beautiful theologian and pastor. We are so blessed.

Russian Orthodox Prelate proposes "World Alliance of Traditional Churches" (or some such)

In all our discussions of the relative merits of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, we must not lose sight of the fact that we belong together as (what Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion of Vienna has called) "Churches of Tradition". He is suggesting, in fact, that we form a strategic alliance "in the defense of traditional Christain values".

Personally, I believe that it is quite premature and unrealistic to expect restoration of full Eucharistic communion between East and West in the foreseeable future. Nothing, however, prevents us, both Catholics and Orthodox, from witnessing Christ and his Gospel together to the modern world. We may not be united administratively or ecclesiastically, but we must learn to be partners and allies in the face of common challenges: militant secularism, relativism, atheism, or a militant Islam.

He goes on to say:

For me, it is not words that matter but rather the connotation behind them. I used the word "alliance" not in the sense of a "Holy Alliance," but rather as it is employed for "The World Alliance of Reformed Churches," i.e., as a term designating collaboration and partnership without full administrative or ecclesial unity.

And most pointedly:

Our churches are on their way to unity, but one has to be pragmatic and recognize that it will probably take decades, if not centuries, before unity is restored. In the meantime we desperately need to address the world with a united voice. Without being one Church, could we not act as one Church? Could we not present ourselves to secular society as a unified body?

Or, as Papa Benny might say: Cannot we not live "veluti si unitatis daretur"?

A short summary of Papal Themes

Papa Benny has been visiting a lot of Uni's lately. He must like the environment!

This time it was at the Lateran University in Rome, where he made a speach that resembled a series of "sound bites" summarising his favourite themes rather than a completely new topic. In this short piece I identified the following themes that reoccur regularly in his teaching:

1) "the theme of the crisis of culture and identity, which in these decades dramatically places itself before our eyes"
2) "The contemporary context seems to give primacy to an artificial intelligence that becomes ever more dominated by experimental techniques, and in this way forgets that all science must always safeguard man and promote his aspiration for the authentic good."
3) "To overrate "doing", obscuring "being", does not help to recompose the fundamental balance that everyone needs in order to give their own existence a solid foundation and valid goal."
4) The illusion (and accompanying hybris) of freedom (illustrated by the myth of Icarus)
5) "To make the theme of truth central is...a vital question in order to give a more profound identity to personal life and to heighten responsibility in social relations"
6) "God is the ultimate truth to whom all reason naturally tends"
7) "To live in the world "veluti si Deus daretur""
8) "this God has a Face and that once for all, with Jesus Christ, he has drawn near to each man."

Each of these is a re-occuring theme in Benedict XVI's writing. Nice of him to put it all in one place for us.

"The Cross and the Crescent": Reflections from John Allen

On his NCRcafe blog, John Allen has given us a piece entitled "The Cross and the Crescent" (Nov 6). Its a summary of an address he gave in Dallas about the relationship between the Church and Islam under Benedict XVI. It is stimulating reading, and seems to be spot on from what I can tell. He lists the following as central to the new relationship:

1) the issue of religious violence
2) the issue of reciprocity
3) the essential commitment to dialogue under all circumstances

Then he mentions the importance of the upcoming trip to Turkey ("The trip merits your careful attention and, if I might dare to suggest, your prayerful support"), and the place of the United States in the equation. What he says about the latter (namely, that "Muslims in America may be going through a transition analoguous to that of American Catholics...prior to the Second Vatican Council") also applies (mutatis mutandis) to the scene in Australia.

But I must quote what he says under point three above, ie. the essential commitment to dialogue:

...I believe Benedict XVI is the last, best hope of the West for a serious dialogue with Islam. Benedict is the lone figure of global standing in the West who speaks from within the same thought world that Muslims who are sympathetic to the strong religious identity of the jihadists themselves inhabit. Thus when he challenges Islam to reject violence and to embrace a healthy form of pluralism and the lay state, at least potentially he does so from within a common space of traditional moral values and deep religious commitment. He lays down his gauntlets as a concerned friend, pushing Islam to realize the best version of itself.
...While Joseph Ratzinger is certainly a reality, and while he harbors his doubts about the capacity of Islam to develop a culture of rational theological reflection given the basic commitment to a literal reading of the Qu’ran, he nevertheless also believes the stakes are too high, and the potential contribution of enlightened Muslims to the global debate are too important, to succumb to a zero/sum dynamic of permanent conflict. What Benedict XVI hopes to stimulate, in other words, is an Islamic reform, not a new Crusade.

Amen, brother.

Deacons and the Servant Myth

A few of you may know that it my hope to one day be ordained as a Deacon in the Church of Melbourne. The limiting factor at the moment is that the Melbourne Archdiocese does not yet have permanent deacons, and there is a lot of ground work to be done before the order is properly restored.

One of the abiding disputes is in regard to the actual role of a deacon. While deacons were purely transitionary, not much attention was given to this. But when we look at having people who will spend their entire ministry in this order, we had better be certain what we are ordaining them into.

A paper by Anthony Gooley called "Deacons and the Servant Myth" (based largely on the work of Australian J.N. Collins) published in the Pastoral Review is very helpful in this regard. The task of Deacons will be much clearer and much more easily distinguished from that of the laity when it is realised that theirs is primarily a Ministry of the Word, and thus a liturgical, teaching and preaching ministry, rather than primarily a social justice or charitable ministry.

In essence he argues that a) the word "diakonia" is mistranslated in Acts 6 as "serving at tables", b) Acts 6 has dubious connections with the sacramental order of the diaconate anyway. "The one essential reference point" for a proper understanding of the Office of Deacon, he says, "must be the recovery of the meaning of diakonia and diakonos fromthe Scriptures and the early documents of the Church."

He concludes:

The creative possibilities for diaconal ministry are opened for the Church when we move away from restrictive notions of the deacon as being primarily defined by service as the minister of charity or social justice. Deacons are primarily those who proclaim the Gospel, in the name of their bishop, to the assembled community and those dispersed. Like the bishop, whom they serve, they have a diakonia to build up the community of faith and reach out to dispersed Christians and to those who have yet to hear the gospel. Restricting our understanding of deacons as principally servants of charity and justice not only reveals a disregard for the Scriptural witness but leads to sterile debates about the identity of deacons and closes our eyes to new possibilities for the new evangelisation to which deacons are called to contribute (Basic Norms and Directory, Joint Declaration). When we look to the Scriptures and the early tradition of the Church, we see those who are described as diakonos/deacons engaged in a vast array of activities. Only some of their activities would include what we call charity or justice. We need to let go of the servant myth in order to receive fruitfully the gift of the Spirit which is the ministry of deacons. (my emphasis)

The "Ugh" Factor

A friend of mine, who is now working for the World Youth Day team in Sydney, once formulated what she called the "Ugh" factor in ethics. I think it is a bit rubbery (so much of our "ugh" reactions really are based on cultural factors--hence racism etc.), nevertheless there does appear to be something to her theory.

I subscribed to a trial period of Crikey.com.au, and there read an interesting entry called "The Secular Argument Against Stem Cell Research". The author, Guy Rundle, attempts to form an argument against Stem Cell Research which is not based on "the religious idea that a distinct stem cell is somehow wronged by its creation and destruction", an idea which he regards as "silly". Nevertheless, he does worry about "the effect on the culture overall, of making life an industrial product", something which he believes is "quite capable of undermining the ground on which meaning is built." He says:

Culture--the framework within which life has meaning--only survives if we accord to the human a special status, including phenomena, like embryonic stem cells, that are not beings or persons, but are "of-the-human" nevertheless. ... People sense this when they think about something like the genetic modification of future children, the sale of kidneys for live organ transplant, or the creation of a new child as a marrow donor for a very ill older sibling. ...It's worth listening to the deep disquiet one feels about these things and then imagine a future where that is general. A world divided between the genetically designed perfect specimens and living organ banks, made in the pursuit of "transcending" our human limits, may lead us to build a hell in heaven's despite.

Use of words like "sense" and "feel" and "disquiet" seem to me to point to my friends "Ugh" factor. Somethings are just "Ugh", not on the basis of cultural conditioning, but on the basis of our cross-cultural shared humanity. It is a sense of "ugh" which even crosses the line between the religious and the secular.

Finding the True Church

Okay, this post is going to deal with a question that has been swanning around on this blogsite for few days--ever since I blogged on Fr Fenton's conversion to Orthodoxy. The topic is: "How do I find the True Church?"

Now, I know that there are plenty of Christians out there for whom this is not an issue. After all, faith is between them and God, and the Church is only incidental to that relationship. Moreover, for these same folk, the True Church of God is an invisible and spiritual entity, indeed, it is an article of faith and not sight, and thus it is folly to seek the True Church in any visible society upon earth.

Well, we aren't going to argue those points. We are going to just take it for granted that folk who think this way are wrong. That's because I largely assume that I am speaking to an audience of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglo-Catholics. (Hullo to any of you reading who don't fall into any of the categories--please excuse me for making such unfounded assumptions).

The Augsburg Confession was pretty right when it said that the One True Church of God "is the assembly of saints in which the Gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly". For a given value of "purely" and "rightly", of course.

In fact, Luther was himself pretty spot on with his seven marks of the Church:
the Word, Baptism, Sacrament of the Altar, Office of the Keys, Office of Ministry, Discipleship/Public Worship, and "the cross" (as in the Sign of the Cross and the Theologia Crucis). (There is an interesting book edited by Braaten and Jenson called "Marks of the Body of Christ" which addresses these "seven marks" from an ecumenical point of view. I haven't read it. Perhaps I should).

The classical Catholic "marks of the Church" are the four Nicene "marks"--ie. Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity--however, these are more "characteristics" of the True Church than marks by which the Church can be identified (cf. Catechism p. 811).

What I find interesting about the phrase in the Augsburg Confession is that 1) it assumes a visible, congregated community, 2) it defines this community by the "event" of the proclamation of the word and the celebration of the sacraments.

Actually, the first time the question of the "True Church" arose was during the Gnostic controversies in the post-apostolic Church. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Smyrnaeans taught that

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid."

There are a number of ideas operating here at once, including the following:

a) The Church is present where Christ is present
b) Jesus Christ is personally present in the Bishop who acts with Christ's authority
c) the lawful bishop validates the sacramental ministry of the church

Catholic theology has tended to stress Christ's personal presence in the bishop--but Christ is also present in what the bishop does: ie. preaching the word and celebrating the sacraments. Here, I believe, there is a real meeting point of Catholic and Lutheran theology.

[I notice however that an additional "mark" of the Church has come to be identified in Catholic theology, namely the ministry of charity, as Benedict XVI says in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est:

"Recently, however, the Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops explored more specifically the duty of charity as a responsibility incumbent upon the whole Church and upon each Bishop in his Diocese, and it emphasized that the exercise of charity is an action of the Church as such, and that, like the ministry of Word and Sacrament, it too has been an essential part of her mission from the very beginning."]

Orthodox theology, of course, places its stress on the teaching of the True Orthodox Faith as a mark of the True Church, but once again we come back to Ignatius, who stressed that the True Faith is that which is taught by a True Bishop (and vice versa). They also emphasise the Eucharistic aspect of ecclesial communion. Again reflecting Ignatius, they stress that where the true Eucharist is celebrated (by a valid bishop or valid episcopally ordained priest of course), Christ is present, and therefore the Church is present.

So, how does this help us? Well, it helps because we are all looking for the same thing when we are looking for "The True Church", ie. the place where we will hear the Word of God proclaimed in accordance with the True, Catholic and Orthodox Faith, and place where we will receive God's grace through valid and efficacious sacraments.

Where non-episcopal protestants part company with Catholics and Orthodox (and Traditional Anglicanism and St Ignatius too) is that they do not accept that the "pure" preaching of the Word and the "right" administration of the sacraments depends upon the True Apostolic Ministry of the Bishop--although, as I have pointed out, I think this is implicit in the Augsburg formula and also in Luther's insistance that the Office of the Ministry (the rightly called and ordained pastor) is a true mark fo the Church.

Where some non-Romans get it wrong is that they think that we teach that communion with the Bishop of Rome is a mark of the True Church. It is not, and cannot be, for the simple fact that anything which is said to be a mark of the Church must necessarily have been there from the beginning, ie. Pentecost, and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome is a later development. (Nb. I say nothing here of the Petrine ministry, which obviously was an institution of Christ himself, but simply of the exercise of that ministry from the Roman see). An example of this mistake may be found in the address of Frank Senn to the 2006 gathering of the Society of the Holy Trinity.

There are True local Churches, Churches which have the fullness of the Word, true and valid sacraments of baptism, the Eucharist, and Holy Orders, which are not in communion with the Church of Rome. This lack of communion does not make them any less "true churches".

In this respect, there has been some argument ever since Dominus Iesus came out, declaring:

With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Non-Catholics should note that we do not teach that the True Church of Christ subsists in something called "the Roman Catholic Church". I have no personal difficulty with the saying that "The Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ" because I do not understand the word "Catholic" in the narrow sense of "Roman". There are many True local Churches which are part of the universal Catholic Church, of which the Church of Rome (with their bishop Benedict) is just one. The Church of Melbourne, with their bishop Denis, is another. The Ukrainian Eparchy in Australia with their bishop Peter is yet another. The Greek Orthodox Church in Australia with their bishop Stylianos is yet another--although unlike the Church of Melbourne and the Ukrainian Church, they are not in communion with the Church of Rome.

The issue of communion is important because the issue of unity is important. Christ founded one church, not many, and the many local churches--which are the local manifestations of the fullness of the universal church--are impelled by their very nature to be in communion with one another. Ignatius and others located this communion between true churches in the communion or collegium of true bishops. (It is upon this that Eastern Conciliar models of the Church are also built).

The Second Vatican Council, in its decree Unitatis Redintegratio (the Decree on Ecumenism) stated:

"It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."

Here we see that "all the blessings of the New Covenant" for the establishing on earth of "the one Body of Christ" was given to the apostolic college--of whom all validly ordained bishops are the successors. Note that the Petrine ministry is central to that statement above, but not in a "defining" way, ie. not in such a way to define the validity of membership in the apostolic college in terms of the acceptance of the headship of the Peterine minister.

In other words, I want to make two distinctions:

1) between the Church of Rome and the Catholic Church (the term "Roman Catholic" occurs nowhere in my catechism)
2) between that which is of the esse of the Church (valid ministries of word and sacrament and charity) and that which belongs to the absolute imperative of unity of the Church (ie. communion with the See of Peter).

I don't want to downplay the importance of communion with the Bishop of Rome. For me, it is imperative. But such communion can be broken without depriving the schismed group of its character as a "True Local Church". In the end we find ourselves back with Ignatius: The true Church of Jesus Christ is where the True Bishop is to found with his people gathered around him in charity as he preaches the word and celebrates the sacraments.

And there we are not too far away from the Lutheran idea either.

Eugene asked what kind of bike I ride...

This kind. Its a Yamaha XJ 900, 1997 model. Otherwise known as a "Diversion", which it can be, at times. It is a shaft driven bike, which means I don't have to mess around with chain lubrication and tensions and stuff. Its been going now for almost ten years, and has about 56,000 on the clock, which isn't much, as you will agree. I used to belong to a Baptist motorcycle group (Kilsyth South Baptist Motorcycle Club), which was the only club I could find that did its rides on Saturday rather than Sunday. Ah, those were the days...

But these days, with family and all to give attention to on weekends, I find myself just riding the ol' bus to and from work. Which is pleasant enough, but the heart yearns for more...

Actually, the back yearns to be better again so I can get back on my trusty steed.

The photo was taken on the Philip Island Grand Prix track about 8 years ago. No, I wasn't racing. Quite the contrary. I think I was the slowest bike on the track.

A Scriptural Version of "Here I am, Lord": With no apologies to Dan Schutte

I am indebted for this idea to Fraser Pearce who suggested to me about 10 years ago that Dan Schutte was far less than faithful to the original meaning of Isaiah's vision in Isaiah 6 when he wrote "Here I am, Lord." It is worth looking this chapter up in your copy of the scriptures and comparing it to the text of Schutte's song. Had he been paying attention to the actual words of scripture, his song would have turned out something rather more like this:

Here I am, Lord,
is it I, Lord?
I have heard you calling in the night.
I shall go, Lord, where you lead me.
I will hold your people in my heart.

“To this people, go and say:
look and listen, hear and see,
but you will not comprehend,
or understand.
Stop their ears and dull their mind,
shut their eyes and make them blind,
so that they can’t turn to me,
turn to be healed.”

How long shall I preach this word?
“Preach until you have been heard!
‘Til I send them far away,
‘til end of days,
‘til the cities lie in waste,
burned down once, and once again,
like the stumps of fallen trees,
a holy seed.”

However, I rather suspect that such a song would not have been the overnight hit that Schutte's rather more saccharin version was. I often think poor ol' Isaiah was like the kid in school who puts his hand up eagerly to volunteer for a job before he knows that he is volunteering to take the trash out...

Towards a Common Repertoire of Liturgical Music: Paul Taylor's Suggestions...

Paul Taylor is an Assistant Director of the Melbourne Archbishop's Office for Evangelisation. His specific area of responsibility is "Worship Resources and Formation". In the latest edition of the Archdiocesan Liturgical magazine, "The Summit" (Vol 33, no. 3) of which he is the editor, he has reprinted an article which he first published in the Brisbane Liturgical Commission's "Liturgy News". The article is called "Towards a Common Repertoire of Liturgical Music", and it includes a list of almost 120 musical pieces which he judges to be central to an ideal common repertoire in any Australian diocese. I reproduce this list below--I would be interested in your reactions.

Personally, I could happily work as a music director in a parish where the pastor determined to follow this list. I might quibble with about half a dozen or so, but that's only a 5% disagreement. More importantly, I could happily worship in a parish where these songs were commonly used.

I was particularly interested in his selection criteria, which included:

1) Reflection of a variety of styles
2) Sufficient seasonal and ritual material to cover most parts of the liturgy and the Church year
3) conformance to the requirements of 1967 Musicam Sacram
4) the importance of "traditional" music for high festivals
5) the "commonality" of pieces across a number of published compilations
6) surveys of popular hymns

In fact, I agree with these criteria to a greater extent. What I notice is lacking however, is any criteria which would judge the inclusion or exclusion of a piece on doctrinal, literary, or musical grounds--the first of these (the doctrinal) being the most important.

Elsewhere I have published my own set of criteria--my "ten commandments" for the formation of a parish repertoire. These differ only slightly from Paul's. In fact, we have discussed these issues together on a number of occasions (his point in the article about Musicam Sacram placing the highest importance on chanting the priest/people responses is one that arose out of these discussions). My own requirements for a Parish repertoire would include the following rules for judging the merits for inclusion of any given piece:

1) Is it focused on God? Is it a song about or addressed to God rather than a song about us or addressed to ourselves? Songs that are addressed to or which focus upon ourselves are a type of idolatry. Songs that put God’s/Christ’s words to us in our mouths as songs to him are liturgically dysfunctional

2) Is it true? ie, Does it express the true Catholic faith? Is what it says about God true? Is what it says about us (and others) true? Does it name God correctly?

3) Is it singable? ie,Can it be sung without accompaniment? Does it avoid difficult timing? Does it avoid difficult changes in tone or pitch?

4) If the text is not a scriptural or liturgical text, does it have dignity as poetry apart from the music? ie,Avoid trite or clichéd language, bad English.

Two footnotes before deciding to introduce or encourage the use of a song

1) Does the song have lasting merit? ie, Has it been in continual use and does it show every indication that it will continue to be used? Will teaching the song be a lasting investment?

2) Is the song widely known? ie, Widely = in Catholic circles, ecumenically, nationally or internationally. Will teaching the song equip them for worshipping elsewhere other than in our local Parish and School? Will it bind them in unity with other Catholics/Christians?

In any case, here is Paul's suggested list. I wonder if you can pick the one's I would have left out? I wonder if there are others that you would have included? (nb. You have to nominate which one it should replace in this list, so that it remains at about 120 in number).

Wake, 0 Wake
On Jordan's Bank
Prepare the Way of the Lord
Creator of the Stars of Night
Come 0 Jesus, Come
0 Come, 0 Come, Emmanuel
0 Come, All Ye Faithful
Joy to the World
Silent Night
Angels We Have Heard on High
Hark! The Herald Angels Sing
Once in Royal David's City
The First Nowell
From Ashes to the Living Font
May this Lenten Discipline
Grant to Us 0 Lord
Lord Who Throughout These 40 Days
I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say
Hear Us Almighty Lord
Hosanna to the Son of David
The Children of Jerusalem
All Glory, Praise and Honour
Jesus Remember Me
The Spirit of God
Priestly People
Father, Lord of Earth and Heaven
A New Commandment
Ubi caritas
Where there is Charity and Love
An Upper Room
Pange lingua
At the Cross Her Vigil Keeping
General Intercessions
This is the Wood of the Cross
My People (or equivalent)
Keep in Mind
0 Jesus Crucified
0 Sacred Head
Were You There
When I Survey the Wondrous Cross
Easter Proclamation: Exultet
Litany of the Saints
Springs of Water
This is Our Faith
Go in the Peace of Christ
By Your Kingly Power
Christ is Alive
Psalm 117: This is the Day
O Flock of Christ
Jesus Christ is Risen Today
0 Sons and Daughters
Alleluia Sing to Jesus
Holy Spirit, God of Liqht
Come Down, 0 Love Divine
0 Breathe on Me
Veni, Sancte Spiritus
Sing Forth, 0 Sion
Taste and See
Gift of Finest Wheat
I am the Bread of Life
Eat this Bread
Jesus in Your Heart We Find
Firmly I Believe
Holy God, We Praise Thy Name
For All the Saints
Hail Redeemer
Hail Queen of Heaven
Magnificat (Taize)
Immaculate Mary
Hail Mary, Gentle Woman
Salve Regina
All People that On Earth Do Dwell
Praise to the Lord
In Faith and Hope and Love
All the Earth
Gather Us In
With a Joyful Heart
Taste and See
Eat this Bread
Father, We Thank Thee Who Hast Planted
Gift of Finest Wheat
I am the Bread of Life
0 Lord, at Your First Eucharist You Prayed
Now Thank We All Our God
Holy Father, God of Might
All Creatures of Our God and King
Christ Be Our Light
Glory and Praise to Our God
Here I am Lord
How Great Thou Art
Make Me a Channel of Your Peace
On Eagles' Wings
Praise My Soul
Song of Cosmic Praise
Strong and Constant
Godhead Here in Hiding
Sing My Tongue
Down in Adoration Falling
Soul of My Saviour
Jesus My Lord, My God My All
This Day God Gives Me
Morning Psalm 63
Benedictus (English translations)
0 Radiant Light
The Day Thou Gavest Lord is Ended
Evening Psalm 141
Magnifcat (English translations)
This is a Joyous Happy Day
Baptised in Water
Amazing Grace
Church of God
Come Holy Ghost
Veni Sancte Spiritus (Taize)
Love Divine
When Love is Found
Lord, You Give the Great Commission
Psalm 22: The Lord's My Shepherd
Song of Farewell: Saints of God
Song of Farewell: May the Angels