Adopting the Other Side's Argument: UK Education Minister defends gay adoptions

In today's edition of The Age, the UK Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, was reported to have defended the Blair Government's insistance that Catholic adoption agencies comply with the new laws forbidding discrimination against gay couples by saying:

This is the right outcome because it puts the interests of the child first. We reject discrimination in all its forms, particularly when that deprives our most vulnerable children of a stable, loving and secure home.

What??? Say again??? Did I hear/read that right? Isn't that the Church's argument? How much sense does it make for those supporting adoption by gay couples to use it?

Let's look at this. The British Government's arguement has been that:
1) Gay people have the right to be live lives free of discrimination
2) Not letting same sex couples adopt children is discrimination
3) therefore in the interests of gay people, we must let them adopt children.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church's adoption agencies have been saying that
1) "our most vulnerable children" have the right to "a stable, loving, secure home"
2) which is best provided for by a married man and woman who are permenantly committed to each other;
3) so while condemning discrimination against homosexual people, we must say:
4) this is not about what might be in the interests of homosexuals,
5) it's about putting "the interests of the child first".

(As the Yanks would say: "This is SO not about you."

So what on earth can the UK Education minister mean when he says the decision of his government "puts the interests of the child first"?

For an excellent and completely rational approach to the whole issue from the Scottish end of the stick (the Scottish Church seems to be taking a rather more defiant stand than the somewhat resigned and defeatist attitude of Westminster), see this in the Scotsman by Dani Gravelli: "Suffer the Children".

Making predictions...

Over at "Always Yes", Tom Pietsch has been making predictions and scorning them. I guess the new year is a good time for predictions. I note that Fr Neuhaus (in the December edition of First Things) has been talking about predictions too. Here is one from Andrew Greely in 1987:

The power of the pope definitely will shrink. Today we are experiencing the last gasp of a dying order, and in 20 years it will be gone.

. Fr Neuhaus comments: "Which helps explain why we try to keep out of the prediction business."

Ah, but does he follow his own advice? No, for only a few paragraphs later we find him endorsing Robert Jenson's cautious prediction (based largely on Philip Jenkins' theory upon which Tom has also blogged):

If present trends continue, the ecumene of the century now beginning will comprise Orthodoxy, Pentecostalist groups and predominantly the Roman Catholic Church; the Protestant denominations and territorial churches will have sunk into insignificance-but again, present trends of course do not always continue.

The context of this endorsement appears to be Fr Neuhaus' own belief that in the future sometime soon, Robert Jenson will follow the many other Lutheran theologians who have swum the Tiber:

Jens, as he is known, is still a Lutheran. (Why won’t my delete key delete that still?)

I'm not so sure. But I do know that one Sunday on his visit to Melbourne a year or two back, Pastor/Dr Jenson was found worshipping--not in Holy Trinity Lutheran Church--but across the road in St Patrick's Cathedral...

Neuhaus is quoting Jenson from an interview for the Christian Century, in which Jenson also says of ex-Lutheran clergy converts and the Catholic Church:

I think one thing is common to all or most of them: they intend to inhabit the one, historically real church confessed by the creeds, and could no longer recognize this in their Protestant denominations. And indeed, if the church of the creeds does not, as the Second Vatican Council put it, ’subsist in’ the Roman Catholic Church, it is hard to think where it could.

I would be tempted to say that there is a guy on the shores of the Tiber with his toes in the water, if it were not for the fact that I have known others (or at least one other) who has gotten that far and yet never taken the plunge (and does not seem to be likely to take the plunge in the near future).

For those of you who are interested, in the same First Things column, Father Neuhaus deconstructs Pastor/Dr Frank Senn's open letter to members of the Society of the Holy Trinity. At least some Lutheran pastors remained convinced that the Church of the Creeds "subsists" in the Lutheran Church--as well they should if they intend to remain there.

Misunderstanding Invalidity

Magazines tend to lie around our house for a long time before meeting the great Recycling God. And so I happened across a March 2006 edition of "The Lutheran" (my wife subscribes), in which I found a most interesting Letter to the Editor from a Lutheran clergyman. It is on our theme of apostolic succession:

I was part of a group of Lutheran and Anglican ministers exploring the relationship between our churches. One Anglican minister rose and ever so gently explained: 'For Anglicans it's essential that every minister is in direct succession from St Peter himself. You Lutherans don't have apostolic succesion, so I have no choice but to declare your ministry invalid. I am unable to recognise you as brother ministers of Christ.'

I haven't got the space to deal with the details here, but for the moment it is interesting to note how this Lutheran pastor remembered the Anglican's words. Of course we know that no Anglican (or Catholic for that matter) could ever have put the issue exactly as this pastor remembers it. Let's continue though with the letter:

This priest was not trying to put me down or hurt me. But despite his gentle tone, despite my head hearing him simply proclaiming the Anglican tradition, his words cut me deeply. Compared to him, I was nothing, a nobody. My 30 years of ministry, indeed, my life, a complete waste of time. And there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.

You will agree that this is an interesting reaction, and I want to dwell on it a little. But let's hear how the letter ends:

It hurts to be excluded, and that hurt crushes when the person is told that there's absolutely nothing that can be done to make things any different. That's not how Jesus treated people, and its not how we should treat each other.

I will resist for a moment saying that this is just another case of WTFWJD, because I don't want to get sidetracked from addressing this brother's "hurt".

Most importantly, the Lutheran brother heard the Anglican brother to say that "lack of apostolic succession = invalid priesthood = Lutheran pastor is a nothing, a nobody = 30 years of ministry a complete waste of time."

When I became a Catholic, I tried to explain to my brother Lutheran clergy that part of the reason was that I had become convinced that my "priesthood" (such as it was) was invalid. They too took this extremely personally. Was I saying that their ministry was worthless, that it was a "complete waste of time"?

On the one hand, we must point out that to say that an ordination is "invalid" simply means that according to the canons of the Church (the Church's "law") the ordination has not been properly carried out so that the sacrament of holy orders has been committed to the ordinand. There was something "irregular" (ie. against the rules) about the ordination. Thus, according to the canons of the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Churches an ordination carried out by anyone other than a lawful bishop is "invalid". There are many other ways in which an ordination could be invalid. It might be worth pointing out that, here in Australia, Lutherans would regard the following attempts at ordination to be invalid: the "ordination" of a woman, an "ordination" carried out by laypeople, an "ordination" without the permission of the President of the Church. Were anyone to be "ordained" under any of these circumstances, the LCA would cry: "Invalid". So, really, to say that such and such an ordination is "invalid" is simply to say that it does not accord with the canons of a particular Church. Of course, such canons are not arbitrary, but are believed by those who uphold them to be according to the will of God for the right ordering of the ministerial priesthood. Nor should it come as a surprise that different Christian communities have different rules for ordination. This is one of those issues upon which the Christian Church is divided. It means that just because you are an ordained minister of XYZ Church doesn't mean that you are regarded as such by ABC Church.

Okay, second point: Following from this it is also worth pointing out that we are comparing apples and oranges. As a Catholic priest friend of mine pointed out to a Lutheran pastor friend of mine, Catholic (we'll put Anglicanism to one side for the mo) priesthood and Lutheran ministry are completely different sorts of animal. Well, perhaps not completely, but very different. They may look to be the same on the outside, but are not so underneath. Catholic priests are ordained to offer the sacrifice of the mass. Lutherans are not. And Lutherans are quite definite about this. (So for that matter are Anglicans, one reason why Leo XIII decided that Anglican orders were "invalid"). For Catholics (and some Anglicans), Holy Orders is a sacrament. For Lutherans, it is not. A Catholic priest is shares not only in the baptismal priesthood but also in the ministerial priesthood. A Lutheran pastor, on the other hand, is no more a priest than his parishoners. So to say that a Lutheran pastor is an "invalid priest" is a bit like saying an orange is an "invalid apple". The orange need only be offended if indeed he has always been longing to be an apple.

Which brings us to the third point: To say that an orange is an "invalid apple" does not mean to say that the orange is ineffective at being an orange. Or, to bring it to the case in point, the Lutheran pastor who wrote the letter heard the Anglican telling him that his whole ministry was "worthless" because he would be considered "invalid" as an Anglican priest. Which is, of course, nonsense. If the Lutheran pastor had been doing his job as a validly ordained Lutheran minister (ie. preaching the Word of God and baptising and what not), then his ministry would have been most valuable indeed. Many would have come to saving faith through his ministry (even if not to the fulness of faith as a Catholic would regard it). A Lutheran minister should only become concerned about the validity of his ordination in the eyes of ministers of another communion if he has come to believe that the other communion possesses more of the essence of the ministerial priesthood than does his own. Of course, that is what I came to realise--which is why I am now a Catholic layman and not a Lutheran pastor.

So, finally, to the matter of this minister saying he felt his ministry was "worthless" and that there was "absolutley nothing that can be done to make things any different." We know, of course, from personal experience that this is not so. There is something that can be done about it. Just as Jesus did not say to the sinner "Repent" without also offering absolution and full communion with the Father, so too we do not say "Your orders are invalid" without offering a "way out". Only the "way out" remains insufferable to our protestant brethren, because it says: "Come on in! the doors open! Be one with us and we will be one with you!" The way out of an invalid priesthood is to enter a valid one. It is not an easy road to walk, but it is not impossible. It may mean (as it seems to have done in my case) that you were not called to the valid priesthood in the first place, but it certainly does not mean that you do not have a valid vocation in the Church. In fact, how could you ever find your true vocation if you continue in an invalid one?

Ah well. It just goes to show that when we do speak about "invalidity" to our protestant brethren with respect to their ordination, we need to be very careful to make it clear what we are and what we are not saying. Otherwise we will just cause a lot of hurt.

Happy Birthday, Sentire Cum Ecclesia!

(Ta, your Holiness. I hope you've enjoyed reading it over the last 365 days. )

Yes, Dear Devoted Readers, Sentire Cum Ecclesia is 1 year old today. Doesn't time fly when you're having fun? I must confess to being a little disappointed, however. I vainly hoped that I might have cracked the 10,000 visits mark at this stage. (If any kind hearted soul out there would like to log in for a page view 500 times in the next 24 hours, I would be very grateful). Oh well, I will just have to apply for another Papal Blessing for the 10,000th visitor...

Reformation History doomed to repeat itself in Church of England?

There is a saying that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. Very odd therefore that none other than that most excellent historian, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, Dr N.T. Wright, should fall for into this trap.

Having blogged on Authenticity, Authority and Continuity only recently, and then gotten myself into a debate on the US "dia-blogue" "One Apostolic and Catholic Church" about Lutherans and Apostolic Succession, I found it sobering to suddenly read something that wasn't history at all, but right in the here and now, which was bang on the topic.

Here's the nutshell version: A bunch of Church of England Evangelical Clerics have issued a manifesto (misleadingly entitled "A Covenant for the Church of England") to the Archbishop of Canterbury, basically saying: "Do what we demand, or we will take our bat and ball and go and start our own church. But, keep in mind, even if we do leave, we are the real Anglicans, and it is you who will be to blame for kicking us out by your refusal to allow the gospel full reign in the Church of England."

Reading "The Covenant", all one can say is that it has been done before (just short of 500 years ago) and done with a whole lot more substance and style than these bozos are doing it. So it is not surprising that Bishop Wright should weigh in with a finely worded and argued reply: "A Confused Covenant: Initial Comments on 'A Covenant for the Church of England'". What is surprising is that some of the arguements Bishop Wright uses for the "muddle-headedness" of the Covenant's authors are excellent arguments for the whole Anglican Church repenting of the stupidity of Henry VIII and hitching up with Rome again.

1) In effect, he acknowledges the absolutely appalling state of the CofE, but says that you can do much more good by staying within it and working for reform from within, and by following the lawful, episcopal structures of the CofE.

2) Futhermore, he says that by their rebellion this group have betrayed any notion of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" to which they profess to belong, and which includes "something which most who have used that formulation for the last two millenia, including most Anglicans, have insisted upon, namely a...'normal' view of episcopacy". In fact, they are attempting to "subvert and effectively abandon" this normal ecclesiology.

3) He criticizes them for chosing to identify themselves as sharing "with others throughout the world a commitment to the biblical truths on which the Anglican Communion is based", since this can only be taken to mean that "our view of biblical truth is superior to all others, so that we possess an inside track on the real meaning of Anglicanism."

4) Then there is this real doozy:

But the unity in question is there [in Galatians] the very concrete one of a community that eats together, whereas the unity spoken of in this document seems to mean the 'invisible church' beloved of some protestants, which results, as the history of the last four hundred years has shown, in a succession of splits and schisms. It is all very well then to say that 'it is departure from this common faith that is responsible for causing schism'. It will not only be cynics, or those committed on other grounds to disagreeing with the doctrinal and ethical stance of these authors, who will read the rest of the document and declare that these authors are planning schism and are doing so precisely through flawed doctrine, in this case the biblical doctrine of the church.

5) The claim, of course, will be that this is all for the sake of the Gospel. So Bishop Wright remarks: "Quoting the 'great commission' is fine so far as it goes [but] instead, we are projected at once into what appears to be the real agenda of the whole document: a break away from any normal ecclesial practice and into a free-for-all... - in other words, we can't do what we want in the existing structures so we shall go elsewhere."

6) Then comes the "Covenant" authors' claim that "the local congregation", apart from episcopal authority, "is the initial and key seed-bed for recognizing, authorizing, raising up and releasing new leaders." To this, the good Bishop retorts: "Recognising, perhaps. Raising up, quite possibly. Authorizing? Not within any recognizable Anglican polity."

7) But what about the "Covenant" authors' claim that "we can no longer associate with teaching...contrary to...scripture...or church leadership which advocates such teaching"? Dr Wright: "Fine: from now on everyone can and will do that which is right in his own eyes. ...And that way, as we all know, lies split after split, schism upon schism."

I half find myself searching for the signatures of Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, et al. at the bottom of "The Covenant for the Church of England". I wonder if Dr Wright hasn't been reading the script for Cardinal Cajetan. But it is very interesting to see the way in which yesterday's radical anti-authoritarian reformers metamorphosed into today's established episcopal authorities; how what was tolerated and lauded in the reformers of the past is condemned as schismatic by the authorities of the present.

Don't get me wrong. I reckon that Tom Wright is right on the ball here. It's just that he seems to have completely failed to see the historical irony in the whole situation.

Perhaps a cup of tea and a lie down with Monsignor Peter Elliott's address to the February 2006 meeting of "Forward in Faith" at St Kilda might help clarify matters a little.

Abbe Pierre and Sainthood

I have been rather intrigued by the variety of comments that have been published upon the death of "Abbe Pierre".

Abbe Pierre did not really come into the orbit of Australian consciousness, but apparently to the French he was a figure can parable to Mother Teresa. Reading his life story (as related by John Allen), it is easy to understand this.

Normally, upon the death of someone who was so popular and who displayed such heroic virtue we would be hearing shouts of "Santo Subito"/"Sainthood Now".

Instead, we hear people shouting that this man was not a saint. For instance, here is one reaction to John Allen's column:

Calling him France's version of Mother Teresa is a slander against Mother Teresa who was totally faithful to the Church. Preferential love of the poor is an important part of Catholic teaching, but faithfulness means you don't pick and choose what you are faithful for. Blessed Mother Teresa never liked being categorized as just a social worker and a disobedient Catholic who did praiseworthy work, but is otherwise a dissident becomes just a social worker.

Why this ambiguity? Perhaps because Abbe Pierre was identified with the "liberal" or "left" agenda in the Catholic Church. Shortly before his death he published a book in which he confessed that he had several times broken his vow of priestly celibacy:

It happened that every now and then, I fell. ...I never had regular relationships, because I never allowed sexual desire to put down roots. I’ve known the experience of sexual desire and its occasional fulfillment, but this fulfillment was in truth a source of dissatisfaction, because I never felt sincere. … I’ve understood that in order to be fully satisfied, sexual desire needs to express itself in a sentimental relationship, tender, trusting. That kind of relationship was denied to me by my choice of life. I would have only made both the woman and myself unhappy, tormented between two irreconcilable options for my life,” Groues wrote.

He was also a supporter of married priesthood, the ordination of women, and the legalisation of same-sex couples (though distinguished from marriage).

Which leads me simply to reflect on the question of what it means to be a saint. I'm not talking here about that "sainthood" that is given to us as a gift in baptism, although in terms of our innermost identity and eventual salvation, this is surely the most important. No, I mean that working out of our baptismal gift-identity until it becomes synonymous with our lived-identity, that gradual (or in some rare cases, sudden) development by which we are weaned by God's grace from attatchment to sin and drawn toward the Holiness of God. For many of us, this is a process which is not complete at the time of death, and must therefore be completed in Purgatory. But we know from the church's history, that there are some in whose hearts God's grace has been so fruitful that at the time of their death, they're no longer living the double life which Lutherans call "simul justus et peccator", but are solely "justus" (by Christ alone, grace alone, and faith-active-in-love alone, of course!).

Was Abbe Pierre one of these? It would appear not, since obedience to Christ in his Church is surely one of these "perfections" required for a declaration of sainthood. There still appears to have been inner contradictions between his baptismal and lived identity--certainly between his priestly identity and public opinions. Nevertheless, I am certain that at the time of his death Abbe Pierre had progressed a very long way along the road to sainthood indeed, and much further, I think, than I could ever possibly hope to in my life.

Perhaps the last word should be left to the Holy Father:

"Informed of the death of Abbe Pierre, the Holy Father gives thanks for his activity in favor of the poorest, by which he bore witness to the charity that comes from Christ. Entrusting to divine mercy this priest whose whole life was dedicated to fighting poverty, he asks the Lord to welcome him into the peace of His kingdom. By way of comfort and hope, His Holiness sends you a heartfelt apostolic blessing, which he extends to the family of the departed, to members of the communities of Emmaus, and to everyone gathering for the funeral."

On second thoughts, surely it is more correct to say that the last word is left to our "Heavenly Father". Thanks be to God for his infinite mercy!

Leonard Klein on EWTN "Journey Home" next week

Next week on EWTN's "Journey Home" Program, Father Leonard Klein (once Pastor Leonard Klein of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) will be interviewed by Marcus Grodi, to tell the story of his conversion in entry into the Catholic Church. The program airs for the first time on at 12noon on Tuesday 30th of January (Australian EST). You will be able to download it as a podcast during the following week.

The Biggest Schism in the "Western" Church

Whenever I blog on Orthodox issues, my readership always goes through the roof. The division between the eastern and western churches is a tragedy of immense proportions, the healing of which is to be earnestly sought.

But there are also divisions within the Western church. I am not referring to Protestantism, which strictly speaking is not a schism from the Catholic point of view, partly because the two groups do not share the same Catholic faith, but more significantly because it is not a schism at the level of the episcopal hierarchy, which has direct consequences for the ecclesial reality of the communities concerned. Those hierarchical schisms which do exist in the Western are actually few and quite small (the Catholic Church has done a marvellous job of maintaining its unity through a combination of firm adherence to the Truth and diplomacy), but are nevertheless taken very seriously by the Holy See. Among these are the Levebrists (Society of St Pius X) and the more recent schismatic circus created by Archbishop Malingo.

But the greatest schism in the "Western" Church is not in the West at all but in the Far East: the division between the Chinese underground Church loyal to The Holy See and the "Official Church" directed by the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association loyal to the Communist government in Beijing.

The Official Church maintains valid sacraments, and much of the discipline and form of the Catholic faith. In fact, in many cases there may be said to be a kind of communion between the Official Church and the Underground Church. Many of the bishops of the Official Church have expressed desire for closer ties with the Holy See, and the Vatican and the Underground Church continue to regard the people and bishops of the Official Church as brothers and sisters in Christ.

But while the relationship between these two communities was once much sharper than it is now, the division persists -- in ways that sometimes create some confusion. In recent years, The Patriotic Association has tended to seek Vatican approval for the ordination of its bishops. But this tendency is erratic, and recently there has been a spate of episcopal ordinations without Vatican approval.

Asia News reports that there is a "sub secreto" meeting taking place in the Vatican today, in which the Pope is meeting with the number of prelates, including Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong, one of his auxiliaries, the Bishop of Macau, and Cardinal Shan, emeritus Bishop of Kaohsiung in Taiwan. "Sub Secreto" means that what is discussed that the meeting is secret, not the meeting itself. But the topic is clear: the situation of the Church in China and relations between the Holy See and the Chinese government.

And this is the nub of the matter: while the search for unity between the underground Church and the "official" Church in China is truly an ecumenical concern, the issue is really one of diplomacy between one state (the Holy See) and another (the Chinese Goverment). For while the two Churches are almost indistinguishable in matters of faith and order, they answer to two very different authorities, whose respective ideologies are so opposed that it would be hard to imagine a greater contrast.

There are interesting insights in the Asia News article. The writer refers to the Underground and Official Churches as "two branches of the Church...which have, over the past ten years, become ever more reconciled. Certain Catholics and bishops of China have even asked that the Pope issue a letter on the unity of the Church in China." Nevertheless, at the same time, "the Patriotic Association statute forsees the creation of a national and independant Church, separate from Rome."

And so the greatest schism in the Western church, while being an ecumenical concern, continues falls under the category of political diplomacy. Well, the Vatican has had lots of practice at that. But sooner or later, someone has to give way, and I suspect it won’t be the Pope.

More Proof That God Loves Amputees

Thanks to Cooees in the Cloister for another example of a cured amputee!

The "amputee" in this case was St John Damascenewho, according to The Warden, "was accused of being an enemy of the state in which he lived, and as punishment, the Caliph ordered that one of his hands be chopped off. Afterwards, St. John took the severed hand, he prayed in front of an icon of Our Lady (one said to have been written by St. Luke), and then fell asleep, waking to find that his hand was healed."

Actually, technically, I guess this was more of a healing than a regrowth of the limb, but the hand in question was definitely amputated. And if this miracle counts, then we would have to throw in the healing of the soldier whose ear was dropped off by St Peter in the garden of Gethsemane.

Someone should tell the guys at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/. Together with the case of Pellicer, that makes three I know of. Is that enough now, Louise?

New Adult Catholic Education Course for Melbourne

I should have blogged on this ages ago--because it is really exciting news, and you will want to be a part of it.

There is a new adult Catholic education course happening in Melbourne (yes, that's the link, so give it a click). It's a small, private initiative of Anima Catholic Women's Network and the Catholic Women's League of Victoria which is seeking to fill what is perceived to be a gap in currently available formation in Melbourne. Please note that the course if for both MEN and WOMEN, even though sponsored by women's groups!

The course is called "Foundations of the Faith", and yours truly hits off with the first of four units for the year. My unit is called "A Walk through the Scriptures", and we will be doing just that: opening our bibles and letting our eyes, mind and heart do the walking.

For the venture to be successful, we have to make financial ends meet. Thus we need at least twelve enrolments per unit. So I highly recommend it to you if you are a Melbournian. The location is central (Fitzroy), and the times will be from 6pm to 8pm in the evening, so that should be managable too. For more info, click the link above, or contact: ANIMA Education, P O Box 402, Heidelberg, 3084 Email : info@anima.org.au Phone : 0415 357 175

Authenticity, Authority and Continuity: Why I am a Catholic and not a Lutheran

I became involved in a couple of discussions on Pastor Weedon's Blog ("Another Papal Goodie" and A most Interesting Statement), and have realised that ultimately I need to blog on this myself.

I am occasionally asked why I became a Catholic (not often--many Catholics seem to think that conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism is the most natural and self-obvious decision in the world). The question usually arises when one doesn't have the luxury of sitting down for a two-hour conversation, and so my first response is usually that of John Henry Newman's: "It is not something that one can easily explain between the soup and the fish course."

But I do have a short simple answer upon which I could expound at length given time. Three words: Authenticity, Authority and Continuity. Of course I rarely have time to expound as necessary, but, dear Reader, I am going to attempt just that, ever so briefly, here in this blog.
___________________________

Although first attracted to catholicism (small "c", as Lutherans would say) in the 1980's, I only really began to seriously question Lutheranism in the 1990's. Two factors influenced me here: the invasion of "Church Growth" methodologies (for those of you who don't know what the issues are here see this statement from the LCA(PDF)) and the start of the Lutheran Church of Australia's long struggle with the issue of the ordination of women. The first raised the question of authenticity--of the Church and of the Liturgy and of Ministry, and the second raised the question of authority. It was not until my journey began in earnest in Easter 2000 (see my "Year of Grace" blog) that I became aware of the importance of continuity for understanding both authority and authenticity.

To counteract the growing attack upon confessional Lutheranism, the question of authority (or more strictly "authorisation") became accute in the LCA in the 1990's. Not without some controversy, the office of "President" was slowly, by successive synods, redesigned to look more and more like the office of a bishop, although the adoption of title "bishop" never received enough support at Synods to get through. Nevertheless, by the end of the 1990's, Lutheran Presidents in Australia were to all extents and purposes Lutheran bishops, complete with pectoral crosses, but minus mitres. The Presidents exercised an ever growing authority within the life of the Church. The "President of the Church" (national president) took over the role of chief ordinator, and ordinations began to be held in single ceremonies for the whole graduating class presided over by the President.

At the same time, the authority of the Office of Pastor was clearly deliniated. No one could act as a minister of Word and Sacrament without being "rightly called" as the Lutheran Confessions required. The practice of "commissioning" lay people to a ministry of word and sacrament to serve part-time in remote areas was abandoned; from now on even these were to be properly and fully ordained, despite the lack of seminary training. The pastor received his authority from Christ through the public rite of the Church at the hands of the President and other ordained pastors. No lay person was allowed to participate in the ordination ceremony (despite there being a precedent for such things in the history of Australian Lutheranism). Anyone who tried to assume the role of a pastor without ordination was jumped on with big heavy boots from a very great height.

You get the picture. All this emphasis on authority was in order to maintain the authenticity of ministry. Don't get me wrong. Lutheran ministry was not "authoritarian". But Lutheran pastors had a good and healthy sense when they woke up in the morning that they were indeed authorised by Christ for the ministry of word and sacrament. They were as certain about this as they were about their baptism. They were (and still are) certain about this--not because they received a "letter of call" from a congregation--but because they had been ritually authorised for their role through the laying on of hands by those authorised to do so. Whenever a Lutheran pastor absolves someone they do so expressly as a "called and ordained" servant of that Lord. That is their charter.

Continuity of authority provides authenticity of ministry. It is important to understand that anyone bucking this system--anyone presuming, for instance, to take matters into their own hands and to claim the right to either exercise this ministry without being called and ordained to it or who claimed the right to ordain or commission others to it--would be rejected as schismatic by the LCA community.

BUT, and there is a very big BUT, anyone at all sensitive to the history of the Church knew that this was exactly what Luther did when in 1535 he finally buckled to pressure and did what other reformers had already done: he ordained a man to the ministry of Word and Sacrament on his own authority. No one had ever given Luther the authority to do this. Only the fact that Luther was aware that he had not been given this authority by the Church could explain his long hesitation. Nevertheless, in the end he convinced himself that Christ, through God's Word, did in fact authorise him to act in this way.

So there is a radical disjunction between the attitude of the modern Lutheran Church and the actions of their first and foremost teacher, Dr Martin Luther. Actually, probably not that great, since even Luther himself insisted on someone being duly called and authorised. He could not abide the Enthusiasts who claimed authority for themselves. But that is what makes his action even more surprising. He went against his own better judgement in the act of ordination. If only someone called and ordained to the role could preach and administer the sacraments, then surely only someone called and ordained to ordain could ordain. Luther wasn't and deep down he must have known it. He must finally have decided that as a leading pastor (he was never accorded the role of bishop) among the evangelical churches, he must have the same authority as the bishops of the Catholic Church to ordain. That was a very questionable decision. However Luther may have justified it to himself, or however modern day Lutherans may justify Luther's action, it was this act--the act of ordaining a presbyter in 1535--which marks the definitive break between the Church of Rome and the Evangelical Churches, rather than the 1517 nailing of the 95 theses.

Lutherans then and today may like to cite 1 Tim 4:14, or the opinions of St Jerome, or the isolated and obscure examples of presbyteral ordination throughout the history of the Church, but that fact of the matter is that since the second century (when the roles of bishop, presbyter and deacon within the one sacrament of orders reached clear definition), the Church as a whole had decided that presbyters were not authorised to ordain. There is good reason for this. The bishops were regarded as the real "pastors" of the flock and the successors to the apostles. The presbyterate and the diaconate were, in their individually distinct ways, a sharing in that ministry, but not in the fullness of it nor in the fullness of the authority that backed it up.

And so there are two laws at work here. The first is that one cannot give an authority that one has not a) received, and b) been authorised to pass on. This is followed by a second law--a law for which I must thank Pastor Fraser Pearce for bringing it to my attention--authority within the Church is transmitted incarnationally. The meaning of this is simple: Authorisation is not a "spiritualised" gift that arrives through the spiritual ether, like an arrow shot from the bow of Christ/Scripture to land on a distant individual without touching the ground. The authority of Christ is given and received and passed on through and by concrete human beings who give, receive and pass on the ministerial office and mandate.

That mandate and office does not come through some disembodied "Word of God", ie. a passage of scripture that an individual might choose to apply to himself, but from and through the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ authorised his apostles to act in his name and in his stead ("he who hears you hears me" Luke 10:16, "All Authority is given to me, therefore you go..." Matt 28, "As the Father sent me so I send you" John 20, etc.). Having received this authority, the apostles acted in the name of Jesus by authorising others to exercising all (in the case of new presbyter-espiskopoi) or some (as in the case of the diakonoi) aspects of their own ministry. Those to whom they gave a full share of their authority also received the authority to pass this authority onto others, again in full or in part.

This "incarnate" transmission of the authority of God's Word is treated by disdain by many today ("the magic touch"!) but then so is the idea that the physical elements of bread and wine could be capable of bearing the substance of Christ's body and blood, or that a physical washing with water could effect the spiritual washing away of sins. The physical act of laying-on-of-hands is not "magic" but is a clear incarnational act of authorisation by the Word of God. This is why the Church has called it a "sacrament".

Bringing both these threads together, one must say that the continuity of authentic and authorised ministry has been maintained in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, in a way in which it has not been retained by the ecclesial communities of the Reformation. Our local ordinary, Archbishop Denis Hart, was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop, who was ordained by a bishop etc. etc. etc. all the way back to the bishop who was ordained by the apostle who was "ordained" by Christ. In short, Catholic and Orthodox ministry is continuous, therefore authorised, therefore authentic. The ministry of the Lutheran, not to mention all the other Reformation and Post-Reformation communities, is not.

Footnote: Lest Pastor Weedon et al be tempted to weigh in here with some idea that presbyters have an inherant or scriptural right "by virtue of their office" to ordain and thus pass on the authority to exercise the ministry of word and sacrament to others, they should be aware that by the time of the Reformation presbyters were not so authorised (regardless of whether they had or had not been at earlier times). In their rite of ordination, the fullness of the apostolic ministry and authority was not passed on to them. Those to whom it was were called bishops, rather than presbyters! Even if it could be argued that presbyters in the apostolic Church were also authorised to ordain, nevertheless, by the time of the Reformation this authority had long since ceased to be given to them. Luther and the other Reformers therefore acted with an authority which they did not have, could not give, and were not authorised to give.

Back from Retreat

I have just spent the last three days on retreat at Pallotti College in Millgrove. Lovely place. I go there several times a year for various events, and it was nice to be there again.

I was meeting together with nine other men (four came with their wives) who have been a part of an ongoing group here in Melbourne who have been meeting with the intention of discerning whether they have a vocation to the diaconate. Over the three days, we were joined by four men (and their wives in two cases) who were already serving as deacons in other dioceses.

Melbourne must be almost the last diocese in Australia to institute the permanent diaconate (or simply "diaconate", as one of the deacons put it--its the "transitional" deacons who need the qualifying tag), but it seems that this will be happening in the near future. I'm hardly the one to make the "announcement", but it is open knowledge (as far as I know) that the Archbishop has set up a committee headed by Fr Michael McEntee to look into the details, and that the Synod of Priests has accepted the proposal. Fr McEntee and Bishop Hilton Deakin also attended the retreat. Nevertheless, there are as yet no firm details and certainly no time-table, and those of us attending the retreat were mere "hopefuls"--it is far to early to start using the tag "candidates".

Those who were there, though, are keen to thrown their names into this hat of chaos. I am reading "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" to the kids at the moment, and I feel rather like we are dropping our names into the "Diaconate Goblet" without really knowing what the tasks are ahead of us. Whatever is on the cards, it will be along the lines of the ACBC guidelines. That means that there will be a period of formation--the recommended time is four years full time formation, which is quite a bit when you consider that at the moment the canonical office of Deacon in Melbourne is being envisaged as a non-stipendiary, part-time role. However, the Archdiocese is clearly determined to do this "right", and to learn from the mishaps and experiences of other dioceses in Australia. That is encouraging. I don't know how much of the formation program I might have to do--one expects that there will be some "credit" for previous study and experience--nevertheless, I have never been a Catholic deacon before, and it isn't quite the same thing as being a Lutheran pastor, so I expect there will be at least a couple of years' work to be done.

The retreat really focused upon matters of discernment--ie. discernment of vocation. It's very hard, however, to discern whether one has a vocation to a role that is still really being defined. One thing I find quite hopeful is that Fr McEntee's committee has largely accepted the findings of John Collins on these matters (well summarised by Anthony Gooley in the Pastoral Review essay "Deacons and the Servant Myth", so that rather than being envisaged as a sort of "social justice worker", their ministry will be clearly linked to the proclamation of the Word and to evangelisation, both in liturgical and secular contexts. It is also quite clear that they will not be simply ordained pastoral associates, and that their direct relationship with the bishop will be well spelled out.

So we will see where it goes. I expect that some time will be involved. Time, however, can be a grace, and a very long time can be a very great grace. Patience, unfortunately, was never one of my innate virtues.

Incidentally, as far as I know, I am the only convert clergy in Australia to apply for the permanent diaconate rather than the priesthood. There was, on the other hand, a Catholic deacon who some time ago converted to the Lutheran Church, and is now serving as a Lutheran pastor somewhere in Australia. I would like to know, from any Lutheran readers out there, whether or not they ordained him again or whether they accepted his diaconal ordination as sufficient for ordination to the word and sacrament in the Lutheran Church. (It is not the usual practice for Lutherans in Australia to re-ordain convert clergy.)

Another interesting thing is that Mr John Fenton (previously Pastor/Father John Fenton of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) is soon to be ordained as deacon and then priest of the Greek Orthodox Church of America. Obviously no four year formation period there.

Pinged for the Alphabet Meme...

(Thanks for "pinging" me, Shannon. Rather than ping another blogger, I'm going to do something which isn't quite kosher: I'm pinging Peregrinus, a regular visitor to this site. I want to know more about him, and figure that, short of giving us his real name, address and occupation, this is will be a fun way to do it. Just use the comment option, Peregrinus, and you can skip "N is for Name"!)

[A is for age]: 40. 4 decades. Old. Going grey in the beard. "Young" enough to join the junior division in the Ulysses club.

[B is for beer of choice]: Generally Guinness or Kilkenny, or another British brew. But I had a sensational beer over Christmas: Cooper's Vintage, available only in South Australia. It is released in limited amounts around October each year in dated bottles and improves in the bottle. I had one dated 14 October 2000, which (as those of you reading my other blog, Year of Grace, will know) was before the birth of my second daughter. She was quite amused to know that the beer I was drinking was older than her!

[C is for career]: Professional Librarian, Ex-Ordained Lutheran Pastor, Amature Theologian, Executive Officer.

[D is for favorite Drink]: Port. In hot weather, Port with ice.

[E is for Essential item you use everyday]: Coffee maker.

[F is for Favorite song at the moment]: Flanders and Swan's take on Mozart's Horn Concerto. I've memorised it and sing it with my girls.

[G is for favorite Game]: Yahtzee.

[H is for Home town]: Pinnaroo, SA.

[I is for Instruments you play]: Piano (anything with a keyboard), recorder; and I've had a go at the piano accordian, and the guitar. I want a set of bongo drums...

[J is for favorite Juice]: Carrot, with ginger. Great breakfast drink (followed by coffee).

[K is for Kids]: Maddy and Mia. I love 'em to bits. My darling little inkblots.

[L is for last kiss]: My wife this morning when leaving for work.

[M is for marriage]: It takes a lot of work, but then so does anything that is really worth doing.

[N is for full Name]: David Michael Schütz. The umlauts are important.

[O is for Overnight hospital stays]: Only ever once, for an appendectomy (age 17).

[P is for phobias]: Absense of boundaries.

[Q is for quote]: Douglas Adams: "The large yellow flying saucers hung in the air in exactly the same way that bricks don't."

[R is for biggest Regret]: Not becoming a Catholic when the idea first occurred to me in 2nd year Seminary 1985.

[S is for sports]: For what?

[T is for Time you wake up]: Often at dawn. Lately, later. Blame the heat, and staying up late to rewatch the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[U is for color underwear]: The only article of clothing I do not attempt to match with the rest of my outfit.

[V is for Vegetable you love]: I'm a bloke. Potatoes.

[W is for Worst Habit]: Blogging at work.

[X is for X-rays you’ve had]: Teeth, sprained wrist, back.

[Y is for Yummy food you make]: I make a brilliant pork roast, even if I do say so myself.

[Z is for zodiac sign]: In Latin, Schütz translates as Sagittarius, but in fact I am a Pisces. Sort of figures, doesn't it?

What does the inside of a Pro-Abortionist's head look like?

Thanks to to Online Opinion for reprinting this pro-abortion blog from Audrey Apple's blogsite, judged to be one of 2006's best Australian blogs by Club Troppo. Until they invent an x-ray (or should that be a microscope?) for looking inside the heads of the pro-abortionist lobby, this blog will have to do. But it does the job very well, in any case. Some gems:

A couple of days ago, I went to hospital and experienced what some people call “exercising reproductive rights” and others (Abbott, Family First, a nation in archaic denial) refer to as “heartless, evil baby murdering”... Whichever term floats your boat is your business. Personally, I will always be a tad incensed by the latter but that’s my opinion. The most obvious difference between the two is that the first is right and the second is wrong.

Being pregnant was horrific. I don’t recommend it unless you really, really want a baby.

(But I expect the sex was good, and could be recommended even if you don't want a baby, because if you do get pregnant you can get an abortion, right?)

Two days after the fact, I don’t feel remotely depressed about it. It was not a baby. It was a fetus. It had no concept of pain, loss or fear. Not being pregnant anymore is an intense relief. In many ways, it was one of the best things that could have happened to me.

I made the (unquestionable) decision to abort the fetus because, quite simply, a child would be a ridiculous thing for me to have right now. I am not ashamed to say that, despite countless bitter criticisms from the pro-life camp, it would be a gross inconvenience and a hindrance.

Ah yes, children are ridiculous, annoying "things" aren't they? And if you do have one they always seem to expect you to make some sort of self-sacrifice for them, don't they...

As far as I’m concerned, it’s an area in which men shouldn’t DARE to try and dictate the parameters of to women. As long as women are the ones dealing with what is, for all intents and purposes, a parasite (by which I mean it is biologically dependent upon the host to survive) until the moment of birth, it is they who have the sole right to choose if they want to carry said parasite.

Until the moment of birth?! Who are you kidding, lady? They remain parasites for LIFE!

But I do want to have children in the future. I also want to have a career and a life that is comfortable and stable.

And after all that comes this:

My parents are quite simply the best people on this planet, and I can never understand who deemed me lucky enough to be given to them.

Or who deemed you lucky enough to be given to someone who didn't abort you because you were an inconvenience, a hinderance, a parasite, only a foetus etc.

[Reader: Well, that was instructive and rational, wasn't it.
Schütz: Yes, I thought so.]

The phrase "that's not the Christian attitude" is perhaps a little overused, and thus robbed of any real meaning. But I hope that it is clear to all who read this that there is a radical disjunction between the self-sacrificial love of Christ as it is lived out in the Christian marriage and family and the attitude toward reproduction and children that Audrey Apple displays in this blog.

Are Catholics Obligated to Reject the Death Penalty?

The execution of Saddam Hussein (no I haven't watched the video--I caught a glimpse of him going to his execution on the TV news at the end of last year and was struck by the way the executioners' balaclava-masked faces reminded me of the various "executions" carried out by extremists in the Middle East) has generated not a little comment in the Catholic Blogosphere about the proper attitudes of Catholics to capital punishment.

The statement that generated the discussion was from the Vatican Press Office on Dec. 30, by Fr. Federico Lombardi:

Capital punishment is always tragic news, a motive of sadness, even when it's a case of a person guilty of grave crimes. The position of the Catholic church against the death penalty has been confirmed many times. The execution of the guilty party is not a path to reconstruct justice and to reconcile society. Indeed, there is the risk that, on the contrary, it may augment the spirit of revenge and sow seeds of new violence. In this dark time in the life of the Iraqi people, it can only be hoped that all the responsible parties truly will make every effort so that, in this dramatic situation, possibilities of reconciliation and peace may finally be opened.

The relevant passages from the Catechism are as follows:

Capital Punishment
2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender [cf. Lk 23:40-43].

2267 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offence incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessary "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56

(It should be noted that the last paragraph was in fact added to the catechism in the second edition, one of the very few changes to be made to the overall text of the first edition of the catechism.)

On the First Things blogsite on January 4 Robert T. Miller (an assistant professor at the Villanova University School of Law) opines that Lombardi's press statement inexcusably mixes authoritative Catholic teaching with "empirical judgements" in a way which is "highly controversial". He writes:

The claim that executing Hussein will likely lead to more violence in Iraq than otherwise would be the case is, obviously, not a teaching of the Catholic Church on faith or morals. It is, rather, an empirical claim about contingent matters of fact, about what policies are likely to have what consequences in the real world.

. Since only pronouncements by the Catholic magisterium on matters of faith and morals can be binding upon the faithful, he concludes that an empirical judgement such as this is not binding upon Catholics. He points out the clear distinction in the church's teaching between abortion, which is wrong per se, and capital punishment, which is (in some circumstances) permissible. He states that:

Catholics must consider what [the Roman pontiff or the bishops] say with great respect, but they must do so in the process of forming their own judgments on such matters.

Even with regard to the passage from the catechism cited above, he regards the first paragraph of 2267 as binding upon Catholics and the second paragraph as only needing to " be respected and considered in forming one's conscience". His general judgment of the Vatican's pronouncement therefore is negative, and he concludes that "such statements tend to engender more confusion than clarity". My difficulty with Miller's objection is that he seems to say that an empirical judgement cannot be a moral judgment, and therefore cannot be binding upon conscience.

Although he generally agrees with Miller on the doctrinal distinction, John L. Allen Jnr at All Things Catholic takes a more positive, and I think more helpful, attitude to Lombardi's announcement. Allen also compares the church's stance on abortion to the church's stance on capital punishment, but rather than distinguishing between "faith and morals" and "empirical judgements", he distinguishes between

two categories of moral teachings: what we might call "ontic" or "inherent" absolutes, such as abortion, euthanasia, and the destruction of embryos in stem cell research, which are considered always and everywhere immoral because of the nature of the act, and "practical" absolutes, i.e., acts which might be justified in theory, but which under present conditions cannot be accepted.

Capital punishment would be one example of the latter in current Catholic teaching, the just war doctrine would be another. In summing up the commentary that has been made by Catholic prelates in recent days on the death penalty, Allen points out that:

Nowhere in Vatican commentary was there a concession that the church's position on the death penalty is not absolute, nor any indication that it's up to the secular authorities rather than religious leaders to make this sort of decision in concrete circumstances. Instead, the tone was of clear moral condemnation, suggesting that as a practical matter, the execution of Hussein -- or of anyone in this day and age -- is unambiguously wrong.

it is worth reading Allen's commentary in full, and also worth pondering why, among all the Church's theologians, the only ones who seem to oppose the Church's current stand on both war and capital punishment are American.

God DOES love amputees afterall!

In a recent blog, I referred you, dear Reader, to the Website http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/. Louise, of Chicken Voluntary fame commented "Actually, God did heal an amputee. But I'll have to go find the info."

Well, she is right, and I have found the info. I could only vaguely remember reading it somewhere, but thought that perhaps I had dreamt it. But no, I did not dream it, I read it in that repostitory of all things Vaticano, Word from Rome by John L. Allen. Jnr back in June 2004, and here is the story:

Briefly, the story holds that in July 1637, a young peasant from Aragon, Miguel Juan Pellicer, was working as a farmhand at his uncle's house when he fell off a mule and a cart ran over his right leg, fracturing it under the knee. Eventually the leg was amputated. Pellicer became a beggar in front of the huge cathedral of the Virgin of Pilar, leaning on a wooden leg.

In March 1640, Pellicer went home to his village. On the evening of March 29, he went to bed around 9 p.m. (wildly early by Spanish standards, as I discovered on this trip). His mother went in to check on him between 10:30 and 11:00, and was startled to see not one foot sticking out from under the covers, but two. Two years and five months since the amputation, Pellicer, so the story goes, had an intact right leg.

As Messori notes, royal notaries arrived two days later to take down depositions about what had happened. These were officials of the crown, not clergy, and the records they created still exist.

One can of course make of this whatever one likes (Messori, for his part, believes that Calanda is a "great miracle" that almost all by itself demonstrates the authenticity of Christian claims about the miraculous).

What I make of it is that you should never say "never" when it comes to miracles. I guess that is what a miracle is: something that would "never" happen (as they say on the whywontgodhealamputees website):

No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing will happen. The legs will not regenerate. Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. You can electronically search through all the medical journals ever written -- there is no documented case of an amputated leg being restored spontaneously.

Well, perhaps just one. Is that enough?

Benedict XVI: Catholic Church Faced and Embraced Enlightenment at Vatican II--Now it is the turn of Islam!

Here is a startling idea. Contrary to the judgement of many conservative Christians today, the Enlightenment was a "Good Thing". In whose estimation? No one less than Pope Benedict XVI himself. He praised Vatican II precisely for facing up to the challenge of the Enlightenment and embracing it (albeit in a judicious and specific fashion). He said this in his annual ADDRESS TO THE ROMAN CURIA in the Vatican on Friday, 22 December 2006. Furthermore, it is encumbant upon Islam to come to terms with the Enlightenment in a similar manner appropriate to its own beliefs.

Read on (Caution: this is the sort of thing that will make the SSPX guys and the sedevacantists squirm):

In a dialogue to be intensified with Islam, we must bear in mind the fact that the Muslim world today is finding itself faced with an urgent task. This task is very similar to the one that has been imposed upon Christians since the Enlightenment, and to which the Second Vatican Council, as the fruit of long and difficult research, found real solutions for the Catholic Church.

It is a question of the attitude that the community of the faithful must adopt in the face of the convictions and demands that were strengthened in the Enlightenment.

On the one hand, one must counter a dictatorship of positivist reason that excludes God from the life of the community and from public organizations, thereby depriving man of his specific criteria of judgment.

On the other, one must welcome the true conquests of the Enlightenment, human rights and especially the freedom of faith and its practice, and recognize these also as being essential elements for the authenticity of religion.

As in the Christian community, where there has been a long search to find the correct position of faith in relation to such beliefs - a search that will certainly never be concluded once and for all -, so also the Islamic world with its own tradition faces the immense task of finding the appropriate solutions in this regard.

The content of the dialogue between Christians and Muslims will be at this time especially one of meeting each other in this commitment to find the right solutions. We Christians feel in solidarity with all those who, precisely on the basis of their religious conviction as Muslims, work to oppose violence and for the synergy between faith and reason, between religion and freedom. In this sense, the two dialogues of which I have spoken penetrate each other.

The real novelty of what the Pope says here is (in part) the open acknowledgement that the Catholic Church had to struggle toward a realisation of the truths relating to human rights and religious freedom. He seems to be openly acknowledging that the Church does not have an unblemished reputation in this regard. He is not, therefore, holding up a spotless Christianity in contrast to a benighted Islam--rather he is saying: We have had to face the same problems and the same realities about ourselves as you do. The Church has walked (is walking?) a path through this bog/maze, and we are offering to walk alongside you if you are prepared to take the journey with us.

Three Cheers for Stephen Crittenden: "Defender of the Faith"!

No, I'm not being silly or sarcastic. I really mean it this time. Here is a snatch or two from Crittenden's interview with American evangelical-atheist Sam Harris on ABC Radio National's "Religion Report" before Christmas:

Harris: I mean either the Bible and the Qur'an are ordinary books written by human beings, or they are magic books. And if they're magic books, they deserve to be taken very seriously, and when you take them very seriously, you don't wind up with a moderate form of religion, you wind up with something very committed and very mediaeval, because the books themselves are essentially Iron Age philosophy, and they really are at odds with modernity and at odds with our scientific understanding of the world.

Stephen Crittenden: A great portion of the-- certainly of Jews and Christians, don't believe the Bible is a magic book in the way that you're describing it, but they still believe the Bible should be treated seriously.

Sam Harris: Well that's the thing that I think is in some sense dishonest. The moment you admit that it's not a magic book, but simply a book, then the legitimacy of raising children to believe that they're Christians or Muslims or Jews, the legitimacy of founding a tradition that is narrowly focused on this one book to the exclusion really of all other books, all of that erodes, and it makes no sense to - if the Bible is merely -

Stephen Crittenden: It's also not an accurate picture of Rabbinical Judaism and it's not an accurate picture of normative Christianity, it's a kind of Tammy Faye Baker view of Christianity maybe, but Pope Benedict XVI is not someone who lives in a world where all other books except the Bible have been excluded. Jewish tradition is not limited just to the Old Testament.

And a bit later on:

Stephen Crittenden: Sam, you're particularly, and in this interview you've been several times, particularly scornful of religious moderates, who you say betray both faith and reason equally. Now I'm not sure that I quite follow your argument. Explain what you mean.

Sam Harris: Well, admittedly, it's slightly paradoxical, because to speak specifically of the Muslim world for a moment, what we really do need are more moderates. I will be the first to admit that we need Muslim moderates. We're not going to create 1.4-billion Muslim atheists, or even secularists, necessarily.

Stephen Crittenden: But you do seem to be saying all religion is psychotic, Osama bin Laden is psychotic, therefore if I'm not behaving like Osama bin Laden, somehow I'm betraying my religion. It almost seems like you're placing excessive demands on people to behave in a way that will fit your theory.

And later still:

Sam Harris: And so what I'm saying to moderates is, Let's say you don't believe any of these things, and you just think that the Bible is filled with inspiring poetry, you have to recognise that the status quo which you are supporting by your non-criticism, and by your indulgence of your tradition, the status quo in which generation after generation we raise our children to believe that there's some important difference between them and other people on the basis of religion, on the basis of which book their ancestors worshipped as a magic book, that is perpetuating conflict in a world that is now brimming with destructive technology, and we have to just take an honest look at the ramifications of these beliefs.

Stephen Crittenden: You just mentioned the word 'poetry'. I wonder whether the problem with some of you atheists [my emphasis - Schutz] is that you treat religion as a series of scientific facts that can be proved or disproved, when it is in fact more like poetry, that you don't have much of a feel for the cultural aspects of religion; you're the kind of people whose response to the tale of King Arthur is to go out and try and find the archaeological remains of Camelot?

Sam Harris: Well, see again, the reality is that every one of our great religions, great in the sense of having many subscribers, is making specific claims about the way the world is. Take Christianity. Christianity, while there's a lot of poetry in there, and while there are things that can be read in a rather non--

Stephen Crittenden: That's not really my point. My point is that it can't just be whittled down to a few propositions that can be proved or disproved.

Now all that might not sound like strong stuff, but for those of us who listen to the Stephen Crittenden Show every week, that is a comparitively robust defence of faith (especially Jewish and Christian faith--note the reference to the Pope). As Stephen intimated during his interview, he was going to get a lot of reaction to Harris' stupid suggestion that religion is about "magical" books and about whose book is the real "magic" book. Harris is nowhere near as strident as Richard Dawkins, but both share an intolerable ignorance about their chosen foe, ie. Religion. And one sometimes wonders about their own supposed field of expertise: scientific reason. Afterall, neither of them seems to have taken much time to actually study the object of their vilification.

Just so you get the picture, here is Harris's refutation of Crittenden's suggestion that Pope Benedict is a man of reason:

Sam Harris: ...and if you're going to invoke the Pope as a beacon of reasonableness, he is somebody who apparently at every opportunity is willing to subvert what I would call reason in the favour of religious dogmatism. He and his agents still preach the sinfulness of condom use throughout the world and even in places like sub-Saharan Africa where millions of people die each year from AIDS. I mean these are not ideologies that are responsive to a truly open-ended and non-dogmatic discussion about human interest. And so the problem I have with religious faith is not the spiritual experiences of human beings, or the ethical intuitions of human beings, the problem with faith is that it is the permission religious people, of whatever commitment, give one another to believe things strongly for bad reasons.

Unfortunately, Harris hasn't taken the time to learn the reasons why the Church has taken this particular dogmatic stance. Apparently he thinks that the prohibition of condoms is something that is found in our "magic book", rather than a rational "discussion about human interest". I am beginning to think that somewhere the atheists must have their own "magic book" which they are keeping quiet about. It must be a very short book, because it only has two commandments: Commandment one: "thou shalt use contraception", and commandment two: "thou shalt not question commandment one". Any found breaking either commandment is summarily dealt with as irrational or hypocritical or genicidal or all three.

In case you haven't guessed, they don't like us...

From letters to The Age in the last few days:

"Is part of the Centacare employment contract that only hypocrites be engaged?" - Patricia Watkinson, Hawthorn East

"A Catholic friend of mine desirous of joining the Citizens Advice Bureau...was subsequently told that his services would not be required. This was, to my mind, as it should be." - Jim Banks, Yarrawonga.

"Like Eva Cox and many others, I am disgusted that a man with strong Catholic beliefs is in a postion in our Government where his religion could influence the lives of thousands of people. ...The rising number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions will never be curbed while people with these beliefs are in power." - Tess Abbott, Hamilton

"Why would anyone who was pregnant choose to seek advice from an organisation run by celibate men who believe in virgin birth?" - S.A. Malcolm, Cowes

"Catholics...forbid the use of condoms, [thus] killing mothers, fathers, children, whole families." - Julette Alexander, South Yarra

"A church that prohibits the use of condoms and contraceptive pills has forfeited its right to a say in the handling of unwanted pregnancies." - Lewis Winder, Sheffield, Tasmania

"Centacare, a Catholic organisation accepting Government funding and claiming to provide "non-judgemental" pregnancy counselling? Given the church's position on abortion, I wonder whether they are lying or just hypocritical." - Julie Bloom, North Fitzroy.

Well, there you are. So we can all feel quite safe in the knowledge that the secularist ideologues who desire to control Australia's social agenda will maintain a "non-judgemental" stance with regard to all their fellow men and women--except those lying hypocrites like you and me who belong to the Catholic Church.

Strange, isn't it, that the heinous crime Centacare, Tony Abbott, the Catholic Church, and the Australian Government are all being accused of is wanting to offer help and assistance to pregnant women who request it--help that might empower them to be able to make the decision to keep their child, rather than be pressured into an abortion.

Indeed, the pro-abortion ("pro-choice") lobby have a very strange idea of what it means to be free. Not even they could suggest that a woman might, as a celebration of her liberty, chose to become pregnant just to experience the joy of an abortion. Women do not have abortions because they are "free" or "unpressured". The "abortion-option" is only ever chosen precisely because the unborn child is experienced either as an intolerable limitation of the mother's freedom or as an unbearable increase to a situation which already characterised by an intolerable lack of liberty.

I am reminded of the scene in Terry Pratchett's "Going Postal", where the Patrician offers the hapless con-artist von Lipwig the job of Postmaster General in preference to the sentence of death by hanging. (The last eight Postmasters all died horrible and mysterious deaths). Von Lipwig objects "You leave me no choice!", to which the Patrician says "There is always a choice. You can take the job, or hang."

There is one thing that Centacare will do that no pro-abortion counselling service will do. Centacare will offer real physical and emotional ongoing support to the women who come to them, whether they decide to keep their child or decide for an abortion, because the Church has an obligation to love all people in all circumstances.

Two new additions to Year of Grace

For readers of my irregular serial conversion story retro-blog, "Year of Grace", I have posted two more entries:

Tuesday, September 5th, 2000 - In which I mail my annulment application, converse with my Seminary mentor, and hear about Dominus Iesus

and

Wednesday, 4th October, 2000 - In which I read Dominus Iesus, petition for an annulment, meet Fr Anthony Fisher, and prepare for the birth of our baby

"Purcell's Chicken Voluntary" on current row over pregnancy counselling

I've been meaning to blog about the current row over the Government's pregnancy counselling plans, something rational, insightful and convincing, as is my usual practice. But in the meantime, I came across this piece by Louise at Purcell's Chicken Voluntary. It's certainly not what you would call a particularly "rational" contribution to the debate, but given that the "debate" such as it is is totally illogical anyway, who gives a damn? Sometimes only ridicule and invective will do the job.

Mild Colonial Boy on the Papal Anti-Christ

I have, from time to time, gone across to look at the "Mild Colonial Boy's" blog. We share some things in common--eg. a love for the Monarchy--but not much. In the past, I have wondered about his religious affiliation, but it has been a while since I looked at his profile (now updated), and this blog on the Papacy as the Anti-Christ proves it: He is, as he states in his profile "a Sectarian Protestant (Lutheran)", but not your regular kind of Lutheran Church of Australia Lutheran, no, he belongs to the Australian Evangelical Lutheran Church (sorry for those of you who get a bit confused with these things--its a bit like the difference between the Peoples' Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples' Front--the AELC are the "splitters").

Anyway, you have to hand it to these guys, they can spot the anti-christ a mile off, and are quite certain that they have made an accurate identification from their scriptural identikit:

We believe that the antichristian power of our time most closely fitting these descriptions of the antichrist in Scripture is still the Roman papacy, whose blasphemous errors, such as the anathema against justification by faith alone without works of love, the sacrifice of the mass, and the dogma of papal infallibility, represent a fearful “falling away” from the Christian faith.

Etc. Etc.

But the bit I really enjoyed is at the bottom, where he kindly identifies all those poor deluded bloggers who belong to the fold of the Anti-Christ, among whom are all the usual suspects, including yours truly. Hopefully it is to us that the statement of the AELC applies, namely that despite being led by the Anti-Christ, they "believe that there will be many faithful and devoted children of God in its (the Roman Church's) midst"!

And even funnier is the classification given to Fr Marco's blog right at the very bottom!

Good on yer, MCB. You have earned a place in my blog links list.

While we're at it: Another one for the Canon Lawyers

Two events recently led me to wonder.

First: Christmas eve fell on the 4th Sunday of Advent. It is obligatory to attend mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. Christmas is one of the latter. So you have to go to mass at least once on Christmas day--Christmas even counts as Christmas day, as liturgically we work on Jewish time where the day starts at sunset the night before. That's why you can go to mass on Saturday night and have it count for Sunday. But you can also go to mass on Sunday evening (after sunset) and have it count for Sunday. So, here's the question: Could I have gone to mass only on the night of Sunday 24th of December and have it count for both the Sunday in Advent and the Christmas mass?

My guess is no, and for that reason I attended mass twice on the 24th (I went to my wife's Lutheran church on Christmas morning). Does anyone know the exact ruling on this?

The second event was the following Sunday: December 31st, First Sunday after Christmas, Sunday of the Holy Family. But that night was New Year's eve. Now I was up country in Pinnaroo for this, and there isn't a Catholic mass anywhere within cooee (for international readers, that is an Australian canonical term which means too far to travel without considerable inconvenience and having to pack a thermos and a sandwich), so I am free to attend church with my Lutheran family. But lo! and behold! No Sunday morning service anywhere in the three point parish. The pastor took the morning off, and led a "watchnight" service (at little early) at 7pm in Pinnaroo, and next morning (Monday, New Years Day) had a Eucharist for the Name of Jesus 40km away in Murrayville.

Tell me your opinion, but is this not rather lacksadaisacal? Of course, Lutherans have no concept of "mass obligation" (although I think they would come to this conclusion if they stopped and considered the ramifications of the 3rd Commandment). Granted, to have held two services on the same day in Pinnaroo may have affected how many would come to each service--a factor for consideration when in a very sparsely populated area such as the Mallee, but nevertheless, the day of the Lord's resurrection is more important by far than New Year's Eve or the Festival of the Name of Jesus, and to let it go by without the observance proper to it does seem a little odd--even for Lutherans.

Good Stuff from Rowland Croucher at John Mark Ministries (on Philip Yancey and Prayer)

You may have noticed that there is an entry on my "blog links" list in the side bar to "John Mark Ministries", run by the Rev. Dr Rowland Croucher. In his Christmas email, John sent out a number of reflections relating to Philip Yancey's new book: "Prayer: Does It Make any Difference?". Among those reflections are the following which I thought particularly insightful. I will add my comments to those of Dr Croucher:

* Hans Kung's theological tome 'On Being a Christian', 702 pages long, did not include a chapter or even an index entry on prayer... (My response: Why
not?)

And mine: How interesting--I have never noticed this, but now that it has been pointed out, it is rather like pointing out that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, isn't it?

* When a journalist asked Thomas Merton to diagnose the leading spiritual disease of our time, he gave a one-word answer: efficiency. Why? 'From the monastery to the Pentagon, the plant has to run... and there is little time or energy left after that to do anything else...' (How does that apply to the pastoral vocation?)

Ah yes. This is a regular conversation/argument my wife and I have. The pastors of her church have often tended to be "systems" men--they ran their pastoral ministry on a very efficient systematic basis. It gets the job done, often far better than a more dreamy-eyed mystical prayerful spiritual approach might, but I must say I have often wondered what one of Leunig's ducks would make of this sort of pastoral busyness.

* Yancey: 'If I had to answer the question "Why Pray?" in one sentence, it would be "Because Jesus did".' (Reminds me of Jacques Ellul's answer to the same question in 'Prayer and Modern Man': 'Why pray? Because Jesus told us to...' Is that a better answer than Yancey's?)

If memory serves me right, Luther also gave this answer in his Large Catechism. Which makes me wonder if in fact this answer is not even much more ancient in the tradition of the Church.

* A spiritual seeker interrupted a busy life to spend a few days in a monastery. 'I hope your stay is a blessed one,' said the monk who showed the visitor to his cell. 'If you need anything, let us know and we'll teach you how to live without it.' (I took several books to read on my first (eight-day silent) retreat in a monastery).

I really, really like this one.

* Yancey: 'I know of no recorded healing of cystic fibrosis' (nor of pancreatic cancer which has a 100% mortality rate, nor the replacement of an amputated limb). Dr Paul Brand devoted his life to the treatment of leprosy, and never met a single patient who claimed to be cured miraculously of leprosy... and 'No case I have treated personally would meet the rigorous criteria for a supernatural miracle.' (Why not, if Jesus raised the dead and healed someone born blind...? Evangelical leader John Stott gets into trouble with Pentecostals/Charismatics by suggesting we are not meant to expect those sorts of miracles today)

Have a look at the website "http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/". It's one of Richard Dawkin's favourites!

* Someone asked Gandhi, 'If you were given the power to remake the world, what would you do first?' He replied: 'I would pray for power to renounce that power' (now, honest, would that have been my response? Nope!)

Probably not me neither. The Pope was quoting Ghandi the other day in his World Day of Peace message...

It's worth checking out the "new articles" on the John Mark Ministries website regularly. There is a wealth of material there.

An invalid marriage?

Many people are aware that the tribunals of the Catholic Church regularly make judgements regarding the validity of marriages according to Canon (ecclesiastical) law, often reaching a judgement of nullility. This is commonly known as an annulment. It is a judgement that something in the original marriage ceremony did not accord with ecclesiastical law and therefore is, as far as the church is concerned, null and void.

But many are not aware that marriages can be declared null and void by the state also, if something in the way in which the marriage ceremony was carried out does not accord with the law of the land. Marriage celebrants have to be very careful that they observe the norms and requirements of the Registrary of Births, Deaths and Marriages; attempting to contract marriages in a non-valid manner can result in the celebrant losing his licence and the couple being required to be remarried.

Now let me describe a marriage ceremony to you that took place in my family recently. I was not present, so I am going on heresay. I would like you to offer your opinion on the validity of this ceremony.

For a start, both bride and groom are members of the community in which I was raised: the Lutheran Church of Australia. Tragically, their original choice of marriage celebrant could not be present, due to a serious car accident of the intended celebrant's daughter. So another Lutheran clergyman filled in. The event did not take place in a church (which is not a requirement of the Lutheran rite) but in a horse paddock. While thoroughly Christian in its themes and components, the service was not carried out according to the rites of the Lutheran Church but according to an order of service devised by the couple. Friends of the bride and groom acted as "MC"s. The ordained pastor who served as the official celebrant (and who later signed the certificate of marriage for the couple) did not take part in the ceremony in any way, but was a part of the assembled crowd. Witnesses to the event have said that (in effect) the couple "married themselves".

From a theological point of view, there is something in this--the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the couple and not the celebrant--but the witnesses stress that the "celebrant" did not preside over the rite of marriage. Prayers were offered, but there was no blessing of the couple. Theologically speaking, this is the only thing that really concerns me. The essential Christian component of the ceremony (the blessing by the ordained priest) was omitted.

But legally speaking, I am concerned on the following levels:

1) the Celebrant--a religious celebrant only authorised to conduct marriages according to the rites of his church--would have signed the certificate to the effect that the marriage was conducted "according to the rites of the Lutheran Church of Australia". This was not the case.

2) the Celebrant would have signed himself as the one presiding over the marriage--when in fact, he did not.

3) I do not have a copy of the order of service, but, in my experience, home-made orders of service tend to leave out crucial legal parts of the rite: eg. did they make a declaration of intent? did their vows include the crucial promise to be faithful "until death parts us" as required by law? who authoritatively declared them to be husband and wife in the presence of the assembly?

4) Finally, things get really tricky when, at the last moment, there needs to be a change of celebrant. The pastor who was prevented from attending by reason of his daughter's accident would have been the one who had, up till this point, signed all the requisite forms and received the legal declarations. I presume that this "handing over" of the responsibility was conducted properly.

Some years back, a friend was married under the unfortunate circumstances that his chosen celebrant had been removed from the list of marriage celebrants for negligence in posting certificates through to the Registry in a timely manner. To get around this, they still had their chosen celebrant deliver the homily, prayers and blessing, but had to get another clergyman in to preside over the actual exchange of vows. The latter clergyman was the one who signed the documentation. This case illustrates the close connection between the act of presiding and the act of signing the certificate of marraige. The case cited above seems to break that nexus.

What concerns me about the wedding I have described here is that it might not have met the simple but strict requirements of the state for a valid marriage. Of course, that might save a lot of trouble later in the divorce courts or even before the tribunal of the Catholic Church, but surely it is preferable to begin one's married life in the certainty that the knot has indeed been tied and not simple tangled up a bit.

But I would be interested in your comments.

Happy New Year! 2007

Happy New Year to you,
dear Reader of Sentire Cum Ecclesia!

(Photo credit: Giancarlo Giuliani, Famiglia Cristiana).