Family Time Break

Dear Reader,

Thanks for visiting Sentire Cum Ecclesia! It's school holidays here in Victoria, and we have set aside the next week for "family time". So (by command of SWMBO--as Rumpole would say) there will be NO BLOGGING until Monday 8th of October.

And as the yankies say: "You all be coming back then, ya hear?"

David.

The Anti-Football League

The Anti-Football League

Yes folks, I am now sporting one of these rather nifty little lapel badges and doing my bit for the Anti-Football League (AFL for short). For those of you who are "out of town", Melbourne is the home to a rather eccentric form of "football" called "Aussie Rules". Tomorrow is Grand Final Day, which is bigger than "Cup Day" except it doesn't get a public holiday. I am doing my bit. I have organised the Victorian Catholic Ecumenical and Interfaith Conference for the afternoon!

Seriously, I am praying for the Geelong team tomorrow. I am doing this for two reasons:

1) In the interest of interfaith relations (I personally only have one religion)

2) Because it would be really cruel for Geelong to have gotten into the Grand Final for the first time in more than 40 years only to miss out on a premiership.

How is blogging like smoking a pipe?

You do it less when you are really busy.

And I have been busy of late. Early mornings followed by late evenings.

Yesterday began with the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom at 7:30am in the ACU chapel. Fr Lawrence Cross (Russian rite) was the chief celebrant, with Serge Kelleher (Ukrainian), Chris Gardiner (Franciscan) and Columba Stewart (Benedictine) as concelebrators.

A busy day of papers, to many to number, but most appreciated was from Deacon Anthony Gooley of the Brisbane Archdiocese on the Universal and Local Church.

Ended the day with Vespers at the Orthodox Mission in Spring Street. Went with an Orthodox participant in the conference (she is married to a Catholic), and a young Catholic student of St Maximas the Confessor (his thesis was marked by Dr Adam Cooper) from Tassie.

Ended? Well not quite. Then on to hear Dr Alister McGrath speak on the Dawkins' Delusion at St Barnabas' Anglican Church in Glen Waverly. About 500 present for a very good night. He is a clear speaker and I find him most agreeable. He went a little wobbly when one interlocutor asked about the evils that the Catholic Church perpetrates by not allowing condoms (he said he agreed although he understands the Church's objection)--however later he was arguing for more understanding of natural law (saying that if we had had that 100 years ago, perhaps the Nazis wouldn't have had the success they did). All he needs to do is connect the dots.

So it was very late when I arrived home. A busy day, but I did get in a short puff on the pipe between sessions!

And now it is very early and I have managed to get in a short blog too. 7:45 am again, and once again off to the Divine Liturgy and another day of papers! The day will end with Cathy and I attending Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev's "St Matthew's Passion" in St Patrick's Cathedral tonight at 8:30pm. I believe there are still some tickets available.

A "Word Only" evangelical Christianity?

Thanks to Paul Quist for pointing me to the blogsite of Fr Jay Scott Newman, on which there is this excellent reflection given at a recent Aquinas/Luther evening for Catholics and Lutherans (wouldn't you just want to go to one of those?): Is “Word Alone” An Evangelical Possibility?

Failed attempt to upload video of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev!

I have just entirely failed in my attempts to upload a video of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, Russian Orthodox Bishop of Vienna and All Austria (NOT Australia, Dixie and George W.!) speaking briefly about his St Matthew Passion which will be performed in St Patrick's Cathedral on Friday night. I don't know why it didn't work. Some bug in blogger, I suspect...

Anyway, I was telling the good bishop today how young he looks (compared to myself who is the same age, but without so much hair and with glasses...).

He told me the following joke:

Do you know what the difference is between a priest and an archpriest?

The "arch"! [the latter is said, making a round "arch" movement with the hands over the stomach area! The fact that there were several good examples standing nearby made this joke even funnier!]

In case Dixie and George W. should think I am picking on them, Bishop Hilarion said today that he was once billed in a program as the "Bishop of Vienna and all Australia". In fact, our local Russian Bishop is also named "Hilarion" but is well over sixty years old. Bishop Hilarion (Jnr) said that after his appearance at this function, he was approached by several older Russian ladies who wanted to ask him the secret of his youthful visage...

The Joy of Ecumenism!

Yes, it's almost as good as...well, the other thing that comes to mind with that title!

Today, at the Orientale Lumen Conference, among Catholics and Orthodox and Orientals, Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Ukrainian, Antiochian, Coptic, Russian, Uniting Church, Serbian (...did I miss anyone out?) Christians, I heard a wonderful paper on the centrality of the Resurrection to our Christian faith (by Fr Prof. Anthony Kelly), another by Fr Columba Stewart OSB on eastern and western traditions of monastic progress in sanctification, and finally one by Prof. Mary Cunningham, an Orthodox convert and prof. at Nottingham University in England on the Theotokos.

I think the most wonderful individual I met today was an Irish Ukrainian Greek Catholic (yes, get your head around that one!) from Dublin, Archimandrite Serge Keleher.

But joy of great joys for me was a reunion with my one time brothers in the Lutheran ministry, Dr Jeffrey Silcock and Pastor John Henderson. The latter is the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches in Australia, and currently acting president of the Lutheran Church of Australia (he is vice president, but the President is out of the country at the moment). The former is a colleague from my old days on the Lutheran Commission on Worship, and now a lecturer at the Australian Lutheran College (aka The Sem).

Tonight, Cathy has gone with another member of her Lutheran Congregation in to hear Theresa Burke from Rachel's Vineyard on how to assist women with post-abortion grief. Where is this happening? At my work-place, the Cardinal Knox Centre. See how ecumenism works?

And speaking of Russian Orthodox: News of Father Tony Bartel...

The Anglican Bishop of Wangaratta has issued the following missive:

22 September 2007

To the People of the Parish of Rutherglen and Chiltern in the Diocese of Wangaratta

Dear People of Rutherglen and Chiltern Parish,

It is with sadness that I write to you today to let you know that your Rector, Fr Tony Bartel, has offered me his resignation.

Fr Tony, in offering me his resignation, has made it clear that he is very happy in the parish and that the resignation is from the Anglican Church.

Fr Tony has found that the changes made in the Diocese and the wider Anglican Communion make it impossible for him to remain an Anglican.

The ordination of women is a catalyst issue but is only one among a number of theological and ecclesiological issues for him.

Fr Tony and his family will celebrate their last Sunday in the parish on 2 December 2007.

It is Fr Tony’s intention to be received into the Russian Orthodox Church.

For my part, I will miss Fr Tony’s intellectual sharpness and his contribution to the wider Diocese. For that, and the joy of his family’s presence in the Diocese for these few years, I give thanks.

To you all in the parish, I emphasise that this decision is not to do with the parish but entirely to do with Fr Tony’s response to issues in the wider Anglican Church.

I leave it to him to explain this further to you at an appropriate time.

Fr Tony assures me that his love for, and commitment to, the people and Parish of Rutherglen and Chiltern remains undiminished by his decision.

May God bless you all in your Christian lives and ministry.

+ David

You will remember that I posted only a little over a week ago the news of the death of Fr Tony's mother, so this is obviously a time of deep upheaval for the family, and I ask you to keep them all in their prayers.

Tony is living proof of Newman's dictate: "To grow is to change and to grow perfect is to change often." Tony went to school with me at Immanuel College in South Australia, then was at Luther Seminary and Adelaide University at the same time as I was until he graduated from his Bachelor of Theology and went to the States. There he was ordained a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia and met and married his wife, Beth. He returned to Australia some years later to be received into the Anglican Church and ordained first a deacon (I was there for that) and then a priest by Bishop David Silk for the Diocese of Ballarat. He did several years as a lecturer at an Anglo-Catholic Seminary in the highlands of Papua New Guinea before returning to ministry in Australia at Mt Barker in the Adelaide Hills. For the past few years, he has been a priest of the diocese of Wangarratta in the lovely wine district of Rutherglen.

Now he takes one more step along the road to perfection. Tony acknowledges in a personal note that he is "unlikely to ever again have paid employment as a priest" so he will be seeking secular employment. However, I take it from that statement that he does intend to seek ordination as a Russian Orthodox priest.

There is of course one more "change" that lies ahead for Tony to take in his journey to ecclesiastical "perfection", but we pray that he and his wife and family may enjoy a long period of settled and faithful membership in the Russian Orthodox Church before he finally decides to take that step which he has been putting off for almost a life time now...

There might be more of us, but they have youth on their side...

The young chappie in this picture is none other than the eminent Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, Bishop of Vienna and All Austria. I call him a young chappie, for although he was born in exactly the same year as myself--1966--he still has all his hair and has not been reduced to wearing glasses...

Why am I on about him? Well, because I met him yesterday. He is here in Melbourne for the 3rd Australiasian Orientale Lumen Conference. About twenty of us spent two and half hours with him yesterday in a preliminary conversation. (The small group included several Antiochian priests, a couple of Ukrainian Catholics, the Acting President of the Lutheran Church of Australia and General Secretary of the National Council of Churches in Australia Pastor John Henderson, our Russian Catholic host, two eminent leaders of the Uniting Church, an Anglican bishop, Stephen Crittenden of the Religion Report, and numerous staff of the ACU Theology faculty).

He spoke about the situation of the Church in Russia, with booming vocations to both the priesthood and the monastic life. They have gone from 7,000 to 27,000 priests in the last decade. Given that the monastic tradition had almost died out during the years of communism, many of the monasteries have abbots who are 25-30 years of age with communities younger than that. Bishop Hilarion believes it will take a couple of generations to regain the deep grounding in the Russian spiritual tradition, but he seems confident that it will happen.

The young bishop himself appears to have joined the monastery before the fall of communism, which is perhaps why he has been so rapidly advanced--one of the youngest of the old crop.

Most interesting are his ecumenical views. He has a very matter-of-fact attitude toward our own self-understandings:

We humbly acknowledge that we are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and the same humble acknowledgement obviously comes from the Catholic Church!

But his great proposal--made the day Benedict XVI was enthroned as Successor to Peter--is for an "alliance" of Catholic and Orthodox (not a union) against the forces of liberalism and secularism. He is convinced that it is pointless having ecumenical discussions with Christians who have embraced false morality:

As far as the Catholic Church as such is concerned, I hope that it will continue to preserve its traditional social and moral teaching without surrendering to pressures from the ‘progressive’ groups that demand the ordination of women, the approval of the so-called ‘same-sex marriages,’ abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc. There is no doubt that Benedict XVI, who has already made his positions on these issues clear, will continue to oppose such groups, which exist both within the Catholic Church and outside it.

Now, here's the question, my friends: Keeping in mind the fact that the Russian Orthodox are the second largest communion of Christians today, what impact do you think an alliance with this growing, young, vibrant, conservative and traditional Church might have on the Catholic Church?

I score two votes to your one...

In recent correspondence with Brian Coyne, he commented:

I do believe the Church, where Church is understood in the fullness of meaning of "the Body of Christ", can make a claim to infallibility. The Pope and the Bishops certainly have an important role, but it is not an exclusive or singular role, in interpreting what God is saying to humankind through "the Body of Christ". This is, if I interpret him correctly, precisely the point +Robinson is endeavouring to raise as a critical point that needs wide discussion at the moment. I'd fully support him in that.

I was instantly reminded of a comment Fr Richard John Neuhaus made in the June/July edition of First Things about Prof. Daniel Maquire of Marquette University:

In his pamphlets, Maguire explains to the bishops that they are not the authentic teachers of the Church because there is not just one Magisterium but three magisteria—the hierarchy, the theologians, and the wisdom of the laity. Since he is both a theologian and a layman, he gets two votes to their one. Any other questions?

The various elements that act as "authorities" in the Church do not all act in the same way. The "Sensus Fidelium", "Magisterium", "the Scriptures" and "the Tradition" are all authorities in the Church (and thinking with the Church invovles thinking in some manner with all of them), but each is distinct in its nature and in the way in which its authority is exercised in relation to the other authorities. Therefore, the Faithful do not direct their "authority" against the "authority" of the Magisterium, nor is the authority of "The Tradition" to be invoked against the authority of "Scripture".

My first attempt at posting a video...

This is my very first attempt at posting a video. It is a short clip of me and my 8yr old daughter Maddy off on her second bike ride with me.

Leunig and Lewis: Eustace and the Awfulisers...

Every night and every day
The awfulisers work away
Awfulising public places,
Favourite things and little graces
Awfulising lovely treasures
Common joys and simple pleasures
Awfulising far and near
The parts of life we held so dear
Democratic, clean and lawful
Awful, awful, awful, awful.

(Michael Leunig)

It's one of my favourite Leunig poems. "Democratic, clean and lawful". Out with the Monarchy, out with pipe-smoking and motor-cycle riding and bishops, in with Motherhood-statements and rule-by-committee and non-sexist language...

On exactly the same note, there's a character in C.S. Lewis's "Voyage of the Dawn-Treader" (Narnia Chronicles) called Eustace, who was raised by what can only be termed "proto-awfulisers". He learns his lesson, a pity so many in our day and age do not. Eustace was, if you do your dating correctly, in fact a "proto-baby-boomer", a hater of tradition, a lover of the bland and the modern, a dowser and a wowser against all things magical and quaint.

Why has the aging Baby-boomer generation been followed by "the Harry Potter Generation"? +George Pell, who, bless his little red-cotton socks, has actually read a couple of the Harry Potter novels and seen the films (more, I think, than could be said for the legendarily dour and serious +Geoffrey Robinson), says of this generation:

They are encouraged to be curious, provided the curiosity is not costly or demanding and many have an itch for novelty, a fascination with technological marvels, the mysterious and abnormal, especially if they are ignorant of genuine religious traditions. Many of this last group are restless and rootless, seeking limits, yearning for a good cause and more than happy to identify with the victims of injustice, with those who bravely confront evil and loyally stick with one another.

Ah yes, loyalty. Loyalty to a secret, mysterious society, which, though visible is in reality invisible, though known, is yet a unknown, though seeming ordinary is yet the most extraordinary reality in the day-to-day bleakness of what we mistakenly call "the real world".

Sentire Cum Ecclesia, folks. Not for Awfulisers or unreformed-Eustace's.

"Prove it from Scripture!" Pastor Weedon's challenge

There is an extraordinary post on "private judgement" and "scriptural proof" on Weedon's blog, which is followed by an even more extraordinary discussion. I won't repeat it all here. Go and read it on his blog (including all the comments--he really riled the Orthodox readership!).

Pastor Weedon claims that all doctrines should be "proven" from scripture. Fair enough, but what amounts to "proof"? Take for instance, Pastor Weedon's own proffered "proof" for the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, Ezekiel 44:2:

And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut."

That might "prove" it for Pastor Weedon, and for St John Chrysostom, St Gregory of Nyssa and St Cyril of Jerusalem. But it would hardly "prove" it for many of his Lutheran colleagues.

Likewise, Catholics believe that all the teachings of the Church are "scriptural"--but we don't expect you to swallow this proposition easily. Getting you to agree with this assessment is the task of Catholic apologetics.

If we did this, they would call it proselytising!

I am a little bemused at this one: Faith of our Fathers: A Colloquium on Orthodoxy for Lutherans. Fr Fenton (one of the speakers) and Dixie both carry links to the resultant audio lectures which I have downloaded to my mp3 player.

But what to make of it? It was billed as a colloquium:

for Lutheran clergy and their spouses and Lutheran lay leaders from the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada. The colloquium is the second in an ongoing series sponsored by St. Andrew House to present the basic precepts of Orthodox Christianity to clergy and lay leaders of other Christian faiths. St. Andrew House conducted its first colloquium, for Anglicans, in January of this year.

But look at who's on the line up of speakers:

Reader Christopher Orr Born and raised Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran and received into Orthodoxy in 2001. He is an associate at Heidrick and Struggles, an executive search and leadership consulting firm "The Authority of Scripture"
The Rev. Gabriel Rochelle Formerly in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Fr. Gabriel taught most recently at St. Sophia Orthodox Theological Seminary "The Church in Orthodoxy: Scratching the Surface"
The Rev. Gregory Hogg Formerly with Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Fr. Gregory is now the priest at Holy Cross Antiochian Orthodox Mission in Dorr, MI The Virgin Mary and the Saints
Deacon Professor A. Gregory Roeber Professor of early modern history and religious studies at Penn State. Formerly with Lutheran Church Missouri Synod "Will No One Rid Me Of This Troublesome Priest? The Church, Augustinian Anxieties and Lutheran Conclusions"
The Rev. John W. Fenton Holy Incarnation Orthodox Mission (Western Rite), Taylor, MI "Orthodox Confessions of Faith" [I'm not quite sure why they don't mention that he is a Former Lutheran pastor too...?]
The Rev. Basil Aden 25 years with the ELCA, now a priest at Christ the Savior Orthodox Church in Rockford, IL "Justification"

Good Grief! It's as if Holmes and Vervoost and Schütz all got together and offered a seminar for Lutheran Clergy and Wives on the Catholic Church. Apart from the question of "who'd come?", there's the question of "Wouldn't the offer of such an 'information' seminar be a little duplicitous? Wouldn't it be a simply a shameless apologetic for the Catholic Faith over against the Lutheran faith?" (Answer to that question, for those who don't know the three of us, is a resounding "YES"!).

I know how the Lutheran authorities would react to such an offer. And I am absolutely certain how the local Orthodox authorities would act if the Catholic Church was to find a whole bunch of converts from Orthodoxy to Catholicism and offer a "symposium" with them specifically for "Orthodox priests and their wives". The cry would go up to heaven: "PROSELYTISM!!!"

Obsequious and Docile...

Hat tip to Fr Ian Ker, who pointed out that the Second Vatican Council actually used the word "obsequium" (from which we get our word "obsequious") TWICE in the twenty-fifth paragraph of the dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. I highlight these passages in the following English translation:

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent [eique religioso animi obsequio adhaerere debent]. This religious submission of mind and will [Hoc vero religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium] must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra [Nota bene!]; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

There is another word that is worth mentioning, and that is "docility". It is one of Pope Benedict's favourite words. For instance, he uses it four times in Sacramentum Caritatis. Eg.:

23. ...The priest is above all a servant of others, and he must continually work at being a sign pointing to Christ, a docile instrument in the Lord's hands.

33. ...[Mary's] immaculate conception is revealed precisely in her unconditional docility to God's word.

40. ...Attentiveness and fidelity to the specific structure of the rite express both a recognition of the nature of Eucharist as a gift and, on the part of the minister, a docile openness to receiving this ineffable gift.

Of course, "docile" here means "teachable" rather than "slavish". He uses the word most often of Mary, but also recommends it as the attitude most appropriate for all Christians who follow Mary in this virtue. In regard to obedience to the Pope, he used it in exactly this context when addressing a group called "Circolo San Pietro" back in July 2005:

Dear brothers and sisters, this is my first meeting with you since God called me to carry out the Petrine Ministry in the Church. For some time, however, I have been well acquainted with your service, motivated by convinced fidelity and docile attachment to the Successor of Peter.

So, there you have it. Obsequious and docile. That's me folks. That's "Sentire Cum Ecclesia".

I might just say that I have been having a private correspondence with Brian Coyne clarifying our point of contention. This is a necessary preliminary to me preparing anything for Catholica Australia. I might say that I am rather inclined to go with Brian's suggestion of the hypothetical situation in which the Pope, when expressly exercising his charism of infallibility, "calls it wrong". Rather along the lines of St Paul's "if Christ be not raised, we are of all men most miserable"...

In other words, I will try to imagine a world in which the teaching of the Successor of Peter--or for that matter of the Episcopal College or the Church or the Scriptures or the Fathers or Sacred Tradition--is not reliable. Where would that leave us? Only with our own private judgement. And on what would we base such private judgement? See where this leads?

A lesson in Blogging Style from Rocco Palmo

John L. Allen Jr may be my favourite ecclesiastical journalist, but I do admire the all-round style of Rocco Palmo at "Whispers in the Loggia". I chuckled all the way through this "omnium gatherum" post. A lesson in style for all would be Catholic Super-Bloggers...

Come one, come all! Six evenings with Schütz on the History of the Church!

Click on the picture to get the full details!
This is under the auspices of Anima Education, cosponsored by the Catholic Women's League.
To enrol, email info@anima.org.au or phone 0415 357 175

Extraordinary Form at St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne by Archbishop Denis Hart

No, my friends, your eyes do not deceive you. This is a picture of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (Missal of John XXIII) being celebrated by Archbishop Denis Hart in the Cathedral of St Patrick in Melbourne. For more details, read here.

Another wonderful day in the company of Rev. Dr Ian Ker (pronounced "Car")

I mentioned in a previous blog my pleasure at meeting Fr Ian Ker from Oxford University. He is here as guest lecturer of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family, and today he gave a short address at the Caroline Chisholm Library introducing his new book "Mere Catholicism".

Following this enjoyable hour of conversation, eight of us went out to lunch. We were 2 priests (Fr Ker and Fr Greg Pritchard of Chelsea), 2 Krohns (Anna, the hon. librarian at CCL, and her husband Anthony), 2 Lutheran Pastors (Dr Adam Cooper of Geelong and Pastor Fraser Pearce of Bendigo) and 2 Catholic lay-bloggers, myself and (to my great pleasure at making our mutual aquaintance) none other than Athanasius, who comments regularly on this blog and has his own blog, The Regensburg Conspiracy.

Anthony Krohn took us to a very nice little Italian restaurant in the legal quarter of the City (he being a barrister). Fr Ker was as delighted to meet the Lutherans ("I can't stop looking at you both--I've never met a Lutheran pastor before!") as they were to meet him.

I intend to read Fr Ker's book, "Mere Catholicism", and do a review of it for our diocesan rag, The Kairos. So in due time, I will give you the details and the link.

New post on Year of Grace

I want to get my whole conversion journal up in the next few weeks, so I will be trying to update Year of Grace as often as possible. If you are new to SCE, why not take a look at my conversion story and learn a bit more of the grace behind the mystery that brought me to where I am now...

How to reply to Brian Coyne? HELP!

Brian has left a comment in the combox of my blog on Papa Benny below. I admit to being a little confused, but clarity is slowly dawning.

In his comment, Brian says:

Now — and I address this also to those who have commented in response to you prior to me — don't go off on some tangent as some of our friends are inclined to do on the CNDB, the question I have asked there is very specific. You need to address it as it has been asked. Assume for the purposes of the exercise that Benedict has made the wrong call: how will you respond in the situation if the Pope has made a wrong call? [Brian's emphasis] There is another discussion we can have as to what guarantees we have that the Pope is right in everything he thinks and says. That is not the question I have asked above. I'm sure answers to that question may well be addressed in your wider response which you are preparing for Catholica.

My first reaction was: "What you talking about, Brian?" Rereading his original commission, this is what he said there:

I would be very interested in publishing any commentary from you in response to my attack and arguments...

As with all our writers I am happy to publish whatever you submit and do the layouts and presentation in such a way as to enhance your arguments. I don't apply any significant editing to any of our commentators other than the correction of typos. At Catholica we are genuinely seeking to publish a very broad, and "catholic" range of views and I am very happy to publish views that might differ to my own arguments...

If you'd like to respond to this invitation and write a contribution basically explaining, or defending, what seems to be your principal commandment of "to think with the Church" I'd be most happy to publish anything you have to write and if it leads to a higher profile for your blog then I'll be most pleased for you...

Now I haven't read anything in that which implies that Brian wanted me to explain and defend sentire cum ecclesia "in the situation if the Pope has made a wrong call". That is a significant alteration of the discussion. And one hell of a challenge, given that part of the whole basis of the sentire cum ecclesia approach is the presumption, in faith, that what the Church's magisterium (including the Pope) teaches will always be "the right call", so to speak. How on earth am I to defend "sentire cum ecclesia" if I am supposed to presume a situation in which the "ecclesia" in fact proves to be untrustworthy? It is like trying to defend the conclusion that 2+2=4 "in the situation in which 2+2 does not equal 4".

Maybe it would be profitable to ask in what situations the Pope could be wrong. That is easier to answer. The Pope could be wrong, for instance, in this or that exegetical speculation in his book "Jesus of Nazareth". Afterall, he has expressly excluded (as Brian points out) this work from his teaching magisterium. That is indeed unusual for a pope, but it is no more surprising than that he should chose to exclude his preference for cats over dogs, or Mozart over Bob Dylan, from his teaching magisterium. To distinguish between levels of magisterial teaching (from nil to infallible) is nothing new, and I am frankly surprised that Brian can see this as a "change of approach" from JPII (for instance, I don't think JPII ever expected us to regard his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" as a work of his magisterium--although granted, he did not expressly exclude it as such).

Of course, I fully allow that the Pope could "make the wrong call" in regard to matters that do not belong to his teaching magisterium. For instance, I think it would be true to say that John XXIII "made the wrong call" in calling the Second Vatican Council on the cusp of the world-wide revolution that occured in 1968. The Bishops of the Council committed an error of judgement by deliberately chosing to exclude any declarations of "anathema" in the Council text. I think Paul VI "made the wrong call" with "Humanae Vitae", not in the teaching it contained, but rather in the way he allowed folk to "get their hopes up" by assuming that the Church could simply reverse its position and teach as true what it had always declared to be false. And yes, I think John Paul II did err in not giving due attention to the sexual abuse crisis when it first reared its ugly head.

All these are errors of management and judgement, but the Church has never declared Popes to be infallible in regard to such matters--only in regard to their teaching office, and even that only in certain situations. Nevertheless, since the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter, the supreme governor of the Church, we have a duty of obedience toward him--even when, in our judgement, he appears to have made "the wrong call". In this regard, it is not unlike St Paul's exhortation to the Romans (Chapter 13) that they obey all lawful authority--even if that authority is the Emperor Nero.

When Christ gave the Great Commission (hardly "the Great Suggestion" as Brian would seem to allow), he declared that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto me", and he conferred that authority onto the apostles when he commanded them to "go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising and teaching them etc." Indeed it is the apostles and their successors who will be judged on the day of judgement in regard to this commission, not me or you (presuming SCE does not yet have any episcopal readers...), as Christ indicates in the parable of the steward. Our part is to act in humble submission to those whom God has placed in authority over us--even when in our judgement they appear to be wrong. This is a hard discipline--but part of what it means to be a disciple.

I well remember when I announced to my parents-in-law that I was intending to leave the Lutheran Church and become a Catholic, that my honourable mother-in-law declared: "But David, they're only men" (that last word was uttered with the scorn that only a true feminist could maintain). One is reminded of the line in Andrew Lloyd-Webber's "Jesus Christ Superstar" where Mary Magdalene sings of Jesus "He's just a man".

I wonder, Brian, how you would react were I to turn the whole thing around and ask you to defend the phrase "sentire cum Jesu"--assuming that Jesus was in fact not the Messiah at all. After all, he was "just a man"... I can't put the fact any better than Papa Benny himself: I must submit to God. But where is God? In his Son, Jesus. But where is Jesus? In his Church. Therefore I must submit to the Church. And, therefore, the Pope.

Call it the scandal of particularity, if you like. Or the Gospel of the Incarnation.

I like this picture; but then there's the real thing...

I like this picture. I nicked it from the Cooees blog on "That Petition". I presume the monk is supposed to be Martin Luther. It's complete bollocks, of course. Luther never appeared before a council of bishops, only the "parliament" (or Deit) of Worms. Nevertheless, it expresses the contention of the times well...

Ah yes, "That Petition". I am amazed at how it is being likened to the "95 Theses". Again, one must object with "bollocks!" The "95 Theses", despite the fact that they called the practice of selling indulgences into question, were actually quite submissive to the Pope, and did not (as is popularly believed) dismiss the doctrine of Purgatory. Futhermore, they were theses intended for an academic debate in the University of Wittenberg (which never actually took place), and not something that the laity were called upon to sign. It was never included in the Lutheran Confessions (largely for the reasons I have already pointed out: Pope and Purgatory).

It is even supposed that Luther's legendary act of nailing the "95 Theses" to the wall is just that: legend.

Nevertheless, here is one point where at least one priest in at least one diocese in Australia has gone one better than Luther. This PP has actually put "That Petition" at the entrance of his parish church, and (during Sunday mass mind you) called upon all present to sign the bloody thing. And I understand that this has the approval of the authorities that be in that diocese, although the ordinary himself is not currently in situ to answer objections directly.

Keep in mind that one of the things that "That Petition" calls upon the bishops to do is:

4. Encourage a wide-ranging discussion of the role of women in ministry and in the authority structures of the Church, including the question of women’s ordination

And keep in mind too (for those of you whose memories are fuzzy) that John Paul II concluded his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis with the following words:

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate [eg. by the writers and signers of "That petition"], or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Of course, one must remember that most of those signing "That Petition" have even less regard for papal authority in our day than the author of the "95 Theses" had in his.

Anyway, I say no more. Maybe the Cooees blokes (and blokette--sorry, Sr Kumbayah, I meant "blokes" in a non-sexist way) will pick up on this story and give you all the juicy details.

An interesting day in the Archdiocese of Melbourne

An interesting day. I went to the launch of "Common ground? : seeking an Australian consensus on abortion and sex education" edited (and largely written by) Dr/Fr John Fleming, and Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini. The launch was at the coffee shop in the Princess Theatre--nice coffee but a bit crowded.

Whole stack of interesting people there, including, of course, the good Fr John Fleming "and his lovely wife" (as they say of Protestant clergy, but rarely, as in this case, of Catholic priests) Allison. Allison was chatting to a shortish white-haired visiting priest/academic from Oxford, and it wasn't until Fr Pritchard (also in the group) mentioned "your book 'Mere Catholicism'" that I realised I was actually talking to none other than the esteemed and inestimable Dr Ian Ker, the John Henry Newman expert.

I have his rather thick Newman biography sitting on my bedside table waiting to be read. It's been there for some time gathering dust, as it is currently buried under the Pope's Jesus of Nazareth, N.T. Wright's New Testament and the People of God, Bouyer's Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Garuti's Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Ecumenical Dialogue, and my Office book--quite a high pile). He's speaking at the Caroline Chisholm Library this Thursday at Noon.

Later on this evening, as I was pulling out of the carpark headed for home (Dad's night with my eldest daughter at Guides), I was waylaid by Father Fleming himself, and joined by Fr Ker, wandering out of the presbytery (I love working at the Archdiocese!). It is very hard, when running late for getting home, to try to catch up on the last six years (about the length of time since I have had a decent chat with Fr John), but I was glad of the short conversation. I add at this point (somewhat cryptically) that he asked after at least one of you reading this blog right now and wondered what you were up to and when you would finally make "the decision"...

CatholicCulture.org provides links to Pope's Audiences on the Church Fathers

Of course, they are on the Vatican Website for anyone who wants to go looking, but CatholicCulture.org has recently provided an index to the series so far. So here is the list with the links:

Clement of Rome

Ignatius of Antioch

Justin Martyr

Irenaeus of Lyons

Clement of Alexandria

Origin, I

Origin, II

Tertullian

Cyprian

Eusebius

Athanasius

Cyril

Basil

Gregory Nazianzus, I

Gregory Nazianzus, II

Papa Benny offers help for Schütz with "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" defense

Pope Benedict XVI, having heard of the difficulties your humble correspondent has been facing in recent weeks, has come to the defence of his loyal son by offering a few thoughts of his own on the motto "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" ("to think with the Church"), which has been deemed "obsequious" and "idolatrous" by Catholica Australia editor, Brian Coyne. In fact, the Holy Father was so prophetic, that he was able give his views even before this little antipodean squall developed.

Only in these past few days have I gotten around to reading the transcripts of the Holy Father's homilies, addresses and audiences which he gave during his Apostolic Pilgrimage to Austria. On no fewer than three occasions, he made remarks relevant to the current discussion.

He set the tone right from the very beginning in an answer he gave to journalists on the Papal Plane to Austria, 7 Sept 2007 (transcript from John L. Allen, Jr.). It is worth remembering that the sort of "reforms" that Bishop Geoffrey Robinson and Mr Brian Coyne and the "Petitioners" are suggesting have already been suggested by the Austrian group "Wir Sind Kirche" long ago in reaction to the turmoil in their own local churches. The Holy Father said:

I know that the church in Austria has lived through difficult times, and I’m grateful to everyone – laity, religious, priests – who, during all these difficulties, remained faithful to the church, to its witness to Jesus, and who in this church of sinners nevertheless recognized the face of Jesus....I also see today that there’s a new joy in the faith, a new momentum in the church. As much as I can, I want to encourage this willingness to go forward with the Lord, to have faith that the Lord remains present in his church, and thus, that with the faith of the church, we too can arrive at the goal of our lives and contribute to a better world.

Then, during his homily the next day in the square in front of the Basilica of Mariazell, (8 Sept, 2007), Papa Benny expounded further:

So if we Christians call him [Jesus] the one universal Mediator of salvation, valid for everyone and, ultimately, needed by everyone, this does not mean that we despise other religions, nor are we arrogantly absolutizing our own ideas; on the contrary, it means that we are gripped by him who has touched our hearts and lavished gifts upon us, so that we, in turn, can offer gifts to others. In fact, our faith is decisively opposed to the attitude of resignation that considers man incapable of truth – as if this were more than he could cope with.

This comment appears to address directly those (such as Bishop Robinson) who presume that there is any necessary or real tension between being "certain of truth" and being "a seeker of truth":

This attitude of resignation with regard to truth, I am convinced, lies at the heart of the crisis of the West, the crisis of Europe [and Australian Catholicism?]. If truth does not exist for man, then neither can he ultimately distinguish between good and evil. [Good point, Your Holiness.]

Does that mean that the Holy Father is unaware of the sinful way in which the "certainty of truth" has been employed Catholics in the past? Not at all! Read on:

Yet admittedly, in the light of our history we are fearful that faith in the truth might entail intolerance. If we are gripped by this fear, which is historically well grounded [see! he admits it! he knows it as well as we do, Brian/+Geoffrey! Yet he goes on to say:] then it is time to look towards Jesus...as the child in his Mother’s arms...[and] as the Crucified. These two images...tell us this: truth prevails not through external force, but it is humble and it yields itself to man only via the inner force of its veracity. Truth proves itself in love. It is never our property, never our product, just as love can never be produced, but only received and handed on as a gift. We need this inner force of truth. As Christians we trust this force of truth. We are its witnesses. We must hand it on as a gift in the same way as we have received it, as it has given itself to us.

Truth--the certainty of truth--is about God's "power" being "made perfect in the weakness"--the weakness of love. Perhaps what Brian and Bishop Robinson et al have misunderstood--perhaps what we all have too often misunderstood--is that Truth and Love are two sides of the same coin of the Gospel. When one is sacrificed to the other, or when we try to have one without the other, we fail to be true witnesses to the face of Jesus, the face of God.

But the Holy Father is not finished yet. At a special Vespers for priests and men and women of the consecrated life on 8 September, he addressed the virtue of true obedience (which was decidely not obsequious), by holding up Jesus as our model:

Jesus lived his entire life, from the hidden years in Nazareth to the very moment of his death on the Cross in listening to the Father, in obedience to the Father... Christians have always known from experience that, in abandoning themselves to the will of the Father, they lose nothing, but instead discover in this way their deepest identity and interior freedom.

I can identify with that. That completely describes my own experience when I, through no power of my own but trembling with fear, stepped out on the journey in obedience to the truth that led me to the Catholic Church. I have often thought that Abraham must have felt the same when he was told to set out for a place he did not know, but which God assured him he would be shown (Gen 12:1).

The Pope went on to show how this trustful obedience is at the heart of the search for truth:

In Jesus they have discovered that...those who bind themselves in an obedience grounded in God and inspired by the search for God, become free. Listening to God and obeying him has nothing to do with external constraint and the loss of oneself. Only by entering into God’s will do we attain our true identity. Our world today needs the testimony of this experience precisely because of its desire for “self-realization” and “self-determination”.

Not having had the time to read the whole of my conversion journal (cf. Year of Grace), Papa Benny chose to use as his example of someone more familiar to him, the "conversion" of Romano Guardini, who learnt to "lose himself" in order to "find himself". Then comes a series of excellently argued answers to common protests against this attitude of obedience, with a surprising conclusion:

But then the question arose: to what extent it is proper to lose myself? To whom can I give myself? It became clear to him [Guardini] that we can surrender ourselves completely only if by doing so we fall into the hands of God. Only in him, in the end, can we lose ourselves and only in him can we find ourselves.

But then the question arose: Who is God? Where is God? Then he came to understand that the God to whom we can surrender ourselves is alone the God who became tangible and close to us in Jesus Christ.

But once more the question arose: Where do I find Jesus Christ? How can I truly give myself to him? The answer Guardini found after much searching was this: Jesus is concretely present to us only in his Body, the Church.

As a result, obedience to God’s will, obedience to Jesus Christ, must be, really and practically, humble obedience to the Church.

Yes, dear friends, he ends by suggesting that the only way we can find God, we who are all seekers after truth, is to adopt the attitude "Sentire Cum Ecclesia". And in case you don't think this is what Papa Benny had in mind, he immediately goes on to cite the example of the author of that very phrase:

It is all summed up in the prayer of Saint Ignatius of Loyola – a prayer which always seems to me so overwhelming that I am almost afraid to say it, yet one which, for all its difficulty, we should always repeat: “Take O Lord, and receive all my liberty, my memory, my understanding and my entire will. All that I have and all that I possess you have given me: I surrender it all to you; it is all yours, dispose of it according to your will. Give me only your love and your grace; with these I will be rich enough and will desire nothing more”.

John L. Allen Jr summarised this as follows:

The church's claim to exclusive truth, often experienced by world-weary Europeans [/Australians] as a smokescreen for intolerance and power, is in reality an invitation to love.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Papa Benny, for your help. If I can do anything in return, just ask. (Or is that being too "obsequious"?)

Father General Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J. on "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" in the Post-Vatican II Church

Well, well, well. The things you find on the net when you Google... Here is a real rip-snorter from the Superior General of the Jesuits, Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach - none other than the "Black Pope". He's due for replacement, I understand, but I don't think the "White Pope" has named one yet.

It's called "THE RULES FOR THINKING, JUDGING, FEELING IN THE POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH". He ends the essay by saying:

I have tried to suggest that the rules “sentire cum Ecclesia” are as relevant to the life of the Church of the Second Vatican Council as they were to the life of the Church in Ignatius' day, the day of the Council of Trent.

In regards to Brian Coyne's challenge to me, it virtually does the job for me. I cannot think of a single thing with which I disagree in this paper, which was presented in 2004 to the Rome Consultation of the Society of Jesus. Perhaps I will send it to Brian and ask him what there might be in it that he has difficulty with, and then address that.

In the mean time, what do you think of it? What do you think are Fr Kolvenbach's strong points? What do you think he could have said better? What do you have problems with. I'm all ears, folks.

St Gregory of Nyssa on "Progress in Sanctification"

While Pastor Weedon and I were discussing progression in sanctification, the Holy Father was preparing his Wednesday Audience on St Gregory of Nyssa's treatment of exactly the same doctrine. Here it is from September 5. And here is the Pope's summary in English for those of you who don't what the whole translation:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In our catechesis on the teachers of the early Church, we once again consider Saint Gregory of Nyssa, one of the great Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century. At the heart of Saint Gregory's teaching is the innate dignity of every man and woman, made in the image of God and called to grow more fully into his likeness. Human fulfillment is found in a dynamic process of growth towards that perfection which has its fullness in God; daily we "press forward" (cf. Phil 3:13) towards union with God through love, knowledge and the cultivation of the virtues. This ascent to God calls for a process of purification which, by his grace, perfects our human nature and produces fruits of justice, holiness and goodness. In all of this, Jesus Christ, the perfect image of the Father, is our model and teacher. Gregory insists on Christ's presence in the poor, who challenge us to acknowledge our own dependence on God and to imitate his mercy. Finally, Gregory points to the importance of prayer modeled on the Lord's own prayer for the triumph of God's Kingdom. May his teaching inspire us to seek that holiness and purity of heart which will one day enable us to see God face to face!

Given that, I think it would be pretty hard for anyone to deny that the doctrine of progression in sanctification has a strong place in the Christian Tradition.

"The Church of Christ and the Churches: Is the Vatican Retreating from ecumenism?" - Richard R. Gaillardetz

There is an interesting article in the Aug 27 - Sept 3 edition of America Magazine by Richard R. Gaillardetz about the CDF document "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Church".

Apart from being a concise summary of the history of the debate over the word "subsistit" (including reference to Francis Sullivan and Karl Joseph Becker), he points out an important distinction made by Walter Kasper in 2001 after Dominus Iesus came out. The judgement of the Catholic Church that churches without valid orders or Eucharist are not Churches in proper sense "does not refer to subjective holiness but to the sacramental and institutional means of salvation." Or to put it another way (as Kasper did just a few days ago in Sibiu):

The differences have nothing to do with being a Christian or the question of salvation, the differences concern the question of concrete salvific mediation, as well as the visible form of the Church.

Gaillardetz also quotes Francis Sullivan, who in his book The Church We Believe In (pg. 26), wrote:

Of course it must be kept in mind that this is a question of institutional integrity: of fullness of the means of salvation. There is no question of denying that a non-Catholic’ community, perhaps lacking much in the order of means, can achieve a higher degree of communion in the life of Christ in faith, hope and love than many a Catholic community.

I would agree with Sullivan if he qualified the word "communion" with "baptismal communion" . The fullness of the objective "means" of communion--especially the Eucharistic communion between bishops and people--cannot be so easily bypassed. Nevertheless, baptism is a real and objective means of communion and the basis for a life of discipleship in Christ. That's where Gaillardetz suggests the following "thought experiment" which I think you will find instructive:.

Imagine a neighborhood with two churches: Grace Lutheran and St. Bernadette Catholic parish. According to the council’s teaching, the Lutheran congregation would be lacking some specific “means of sanctification and truth” available, in principle, to St. Bernadette’s. Presumably, they do not have access to a universal ministry of unity (the papacy), the sacrament of reconciliation or the full reality of the Eucharist. Yet Grace Lutheran Church might be fostering a community that emphasizes Christian fellowship, hospitality and the dignity of one’s baptismal calling. Church leaders might stress the necessity of being biblically literate and living with fidelity and passion, a biblical vision of discipleship.

On the other hand, St. Bernadette’s might be a community where Christian hospitality is almost completely absent and genuine fellowship minimal, a community in which baptism is simply a christening ritual performed on infants, where the Scriptures are poorly proclaimed and the homilies are filled with arcane, pious references and silly jokes but say little about the concrete demands of discipleship in daily life. In this scenario we must grant the possibility that Grace Lutheran Church, although technically lacking ecclesial “fullness,” might in fact be fostering a form of Christian communal life that more effectively brings them into communion with Christ than does St. Bernadette’s.

He is right--so long as it is remembered that Grace Lutheran Church achieves this level of communal life through intentional use of the graces available through the only true objective means of communion they have (the Scriptures and Baptism), while St Bernadette's has squandered the richness of their inheritance. It is as if Jesus' parable was reversed: Those to whom little was given have invested it for the maximum return and those to whom much was given have gone out and buried it. We know how the parable ends.

League of Warm and Fuzzy Traditionalists

These guys are cool. "Carolina Cannonball" left a message in the Com-box, and I followed her profile links to this blog. Check out the chipmunk's reaction to the Motu Proprio. Carolina's personal blog is The Crescat

Help me contribute to a defence of "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" for Catholica Australia

Okay, dear Reader, we're going to have a go at interactive essay writing.

In this exercise, I stick up ideas for inclusion in my essay to be published in Catholica Australia defending the attitude of "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" and you give me your reactions. I then incorporate these ideas and criticisms into the ongoing compilation of the defence. What do you think? Ready to have a go? Here is the first installment.

God alone knows why I chose the title "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" for my blog. These things are done on a whim and a prayer. But over the years since, I have been very happy with my choice. Sort of like hand me down clothes that I find I actually like...


A quick web search will tell you that "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" is actually a Jesuit motto, from St Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises, "Rules for Thinking with the Church". I never thought of myself as a Jesuit, but maybe there is something in that.

Rule number one is:

Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgement of one's own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy.

Honestly, I couldn't have put it better myself. This is the attitude that Brian Coyne contends is "obsequious". But that only expounds what the phrase "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" means. It is not in itself a defence of the attitude.

A couple of other key rules from St Ignatius:

9. To uphold especially all the precepts of the Church, and not censure them in any manner; but, on the contrary, to defend them promptly, with reasons drawn from all sources, against those who criticize them.

10. To be eager to commend the decrees, mandates, traditions, rites and customs of the Fathers in the Faith or our superiors. As to their conduct; although there may not always be the uprightness of conduct that there ought to be, yet to attack or revile them in private or in public tends to scandal and disorder [Take note, Brian!]. Such attacks set the people against their princes and pastors; we must avoid such reproaches and never attack superiors before inferiors. The best course is to make private approach to those who have power to remedy the evil. [ie. no public petitions...]

And most astonishingly:

13. That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtedly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same;…

I propose that I will embark upon a definition of the term, followed by a explanation of the positive reasons for adopting such a position, and then answering the negative objections that Brian and others have raised. Your contributions will be very welcome.

Did you watch the Chaser tonight?

Well, did you? I was too busy blogging, and then suddenly realised I had missed the big moment. They say that there were expectations that tonight's episode would break ratings records for the show, as it broadcast the video of their APEC stunt and arrest this week.

Which makes Sentire Cum Ecclesia's author wonder what effect getting himself excommunicated at the next ACBC conference might have on his sitemeter...

The Schütz Model for an Elected Australian Constitutional Monarchy

What a strange world cyberspace is. One minute I am raised to the level of defender of magisterial Catholicism in Australia, the next moment, I am hailed as the proposer of a model for a new Australian Constitution! Having blogged on Clive James' comments about our freedom under the Crown some weeks ago, I find that no less a personage than Professor David Flint of the Australians For a Constitutional Monarchy movement has discovered "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" and the "Schütz Model for an Elected Australian Constitution Monarchy". In the vain hope that someone out there may be listening, I have put the "Schütz Model" in the side bar under the "Catholic Blogger's Creed". You never know...

By the way, some time ago, I read Professor Flint's "Twilight of the Elites". He has some good things to say.

Brian Coyne replies to David Schütz

I wondered what sent SCE's readership through the roof yesterday, and went hunting. Seems I have Brian Coyne to thank once more for promoting my site. Cheers Brian!

You will note that Brian has issued me an invitation:

If you'd like to respond to this invitation and write a contribution basically explaining, or defending, what seems to be your principal commandment of "to think with the Church" I'd be most happy to publish anything you have to write and if it leads to a higher profile for your blog then I'll be most pleased for you.

I hereby accept that invitation and will begin penning something just as soon as I have done some work today. Anything to get more hits on my blog (yes, I am vain, I admit it).

Ebenezer Lutheran Church: "Her Church"

Interesting to compare the Holy Father's comments about the invalidity of calling God "Mother" with this promotional video for Ebenezer Lutheran Church ("Her Church") in San Francisco.

Also it is interesting that the Holy Father expressly said that "we can only tentatively seek to understand" why the Scriptures avoid using feminine pronouns, titles and forms of address for God, even while employing feminine imagery; nevertheless "even if we cannot provide any absolutely compelling arguments, the prayer language of the bible remains normative for us".

Here again we find the distinction that Sara Butler makes (in her book about why the Church only ordains men) between "explanations" and "fundamental reasons".

Of course, how we address God has consequences for our whole liturgical and spiritual life. One of the consequences of going wobbly or flakey on this point is that you end up with women priests. Ebenezer Lutheran Church has gone so wobbly that it is a wonder it is still standing...

And yet another addition to Year of Grace

Following the little post yesterday, I have posted another longer section of my conversion journal this evening. Check out "Year of Grace" now!

Benedict XVI corrects John Paul I

That's JPI, folks, not JPII. It is easy, sometimes, to forget that there ever was a John Paul the First, given that in his 33 days as pope, he left us diddlysquat in regards to magisterial teaching (and no, a nice smile doesn't qualify as magisterium). One of the few things he did say--at his weekday Audience on September 10, 1978 (which means it officially belongs to his magisterium)--was: "E' papà; più ancora è madre". Translation? As literally as I can make it out, it is: "(God) is Father, still more (God) is Mother".

There is, of course, some truth to this. But it has also caused great confusion. It has been left to our beloved Papa Benny to set the record straight--unfortunately, in a forum that he himself has declared does not belong to his magisterium. What the heck. It still sets the record straight, and gives us the proper parameters within which to understand Papa Johnny Paulo's magisterially authoritative declaration...

One last question remains: Is God also mother? The bible does compare God's love with the love of a mother... [Here follow several examples, including the used of "the Hebrew word rahamim"] Although this use of language derived from man's bodiliness inscribes motherly love into the image of God, it is nonetheless also true that God is never named or addressed as mother, either in the Old or in the New Testament. "Mother" in the Bible is an image but not a title for god. Why not? We can only tentatively seek to understand. Of course, God is neither a man nor a woman, but simply God, the Creator of man and woman. The mother-deities that completely surrounded the people of Israel and the New Testament Church create a picture of the relation between God and theworld that is completely opposed to the biblical image of God...

But even if we cannot provide any absolutely compelling arguments, the prayer language of the bible remains normative for us, in which, as we have seen, while there are some fine images of maternal love, "mother" is not used as a title or a form of address for God. We make our petitions in the way that Jesus, with Holy Scripture in the background, taught us to pray, and not as we happen to think or want. Only thus do we pray properly.

(Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, on the Our Father p. 139-140).

What are we to make of that in the light of JPI's magisterial teaching? Only that JPI was talking in terms of appropriate images for God, not appropriate titles or terms of address for prayer. Despite his assertion that God is appropriately imaged as "mother" at least if not more than God is imaged as "father", John Paul I did not teach that we should address God as "Mother" in prayer or liturgical rites.

Thus, while it remains valid for us to use "mother" images for God in our prayers and hymnody, it is never appropriate nor valid for us to use "Mother" as a title or form of address to God.

Dr Ian Ker (author of Newman Biography) speaking at Caroline Chisholm Library

12-1 pm - Thursday 20th September

“Mere Catholicism: Some Thoughts”

Dr Ian Ker

With acknowledged debt to to C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”, Fr Ker discusses the origins of his most recent book “Mere Catholicism” which is a lively, accessible and compact introduction to the Catholic faith. He says “ Catholicism is really just mere Christianity drawn to its logical and natural conclusions..”

Ian Ker lectures in theology at Oxford University and is a leading authority on the thought and works of Cardinal John Henry Newman. His book will be available for sale.

For more information phone: 03 9670 1815 or Email: cclibrary@bigpond.com
Check news on library blog : www.carolinechisholmlibrary@blogspace.com

A short addition to Year of Grace

For those of you following my conversion journal, I have just added another short entry to Year of Grace. More updates coming soon, I promise.

Gaudy as a Christmas Tree Decoration...

"Don't laugh, Your Holiness. After I've hung this one on that branch there, you're going up on top..."

Alterative caption: "And now we're just going to stick this on your nose, your Holiness..."

Catholica Australia Editor Brian Coyne condemns "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" as "Obsequious"!

Deary me, I seem to have upset Brian Coyne, the editor of Catholica Australia and a supporter of "that Petition".

In a post on the Cathnews Discussion Board, Brian defines the differences between his "perspective" and that of "Expat [a regular commentator on the CDB], or these girls and boys who put together the Cooees in the Clois[t]er blog or David S[c]hutz and his blog."

I think the difference is this: these guys are "in love" with a culture. They love the music, the liturgical forms, the rubric, even "the laws" but not the laws for what the laws tell us but the language and music of "the laws". And above all they seem to just lerv this idea of certitude and having a fixed point of reference rooted in the here and now in the personage of a pope, magisterium or call it what you will.

You will recall, of course, from my previous blog, that Bishop Geoffrey Robinson has similarly divided the whole world into two types of people, those who are "seekers after truth" and those who are "proclaimers of certainties". Brian seems to agree. In fact, I think he rather nails it when he speculates:

I like a lot of those things too but to me all those things are, as it were, "the decoration" to what is really important. They are all the symbols or pointers which are meant to point us to what is important. They would, of course, absolutely deny that they are being idolatrous and they would deny that they elevate the symbols above what the symbols are meant to be pointing to.

He may have something there. Magisterial Catholics generally do not separate the "symbol" from the "reality symbolised", for eg. we tend to think that it is not idolatry to worship the bread of the Eucharist because it really IS the Body of Christ and not just a symbol of it. Ditto for the Church. Ditto for that stuff about the Pope being the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ and all. I guess we're just funny that way... We never did catch on to this fad for reducing all ecclesial realities to "symbols" for the intangible mystery of the unknowable beyond. But then I remember that years ago during the Council, one Lutheran commentator (Herman Sasse) said prophetically that the Catholic Church had elevated Zwingli as its patron saint.

Brian actually gives a lot of his hand away in this posting. Remember that he is one of these loyal members of the Church who is petitioning the Australian bishops for "reform". Now read what he says here:

I believe the Church has made two massive miscalculations in the last 200 years. They are the two essential ideas it needs to go back and re-examine. One was the whole concept of infallibility. The other was Humanae Vitae — and, in this instance, it is better articulated why it was a mistake by using its English title "on Human Life".

But enough about Brian's opinion on all manner of things--let's get back to the important stuff: his opinion of me and my blog!

Go look at S[c]hutz's blog: what is the most immediate thing that strikes you when you open his website: the highest commandment is loyalty is [to?] what he proposes, isn't it — "to think with the Church"; this almost obsequious sense of obedience to the Pope whatever the Pope might say or think? It's a commandment virtually higher than importance than the first commandment God himself gave us through Moses.

Actually, its "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" not "Cum Papa" but perhaps it amounts to the same thing. John Weidner, in a comment on a post below, cited a book by Joyce Little called "The Church and the Culture Wars". She dedicated that book to her mum who told her that she would always be on safe ground if she stuck with the pope. Little's book is a demonstration of and a witness to that wisdom, and it convinced me to become a Papist. Anyway, I have always thought that "to think with the Church" was the highest ideal for an ecclesial theologian.

Brian is convinced that the Church is just a "cute and comfortable little construct we'd built for ourselves" that takes us away from "the original thrust of Jesus Christ's original message was all about". There's not really much you can say about an attitude like that, except to ask how he has any better information on or insight into Jesus' original message than the rest of us. He is convinced that the Popes of the last two hundred years (with the exception, of course, of John XXIII) have all been guided by "the forces of darkness", which especially today are mounting an "enormous and at times underhand and brutally dishonest campaign to subvert Vatican II". I think we may count that as Brian's vote against the "hermeneutic of continuity", don't you?

Pius IX and Piux X are both written off as "basicall[y] frauds who have done enormous damage to the original and core messages of Jesus Christ". Maybe that should make me feel better!

His [Pius X's] canonisation I think has been part of this whole "cult worship of the institution and the office of the papacy" that a significant part of Catholicism has been reduced to and which you see fairly graphically on these myriad of websites set up around the world these days which begin with their new "first commandment" as does David Shutz's website — above all else, even God himself, I worship the Pope or the Church. I access God through my loyalty and obedience to the Pope or the Church.

Golly. For the record, I don't "worship the Pope or the Church", but Brian is right to the extent that I do regard personal loyalty to the Church and submission to the magisterium "out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5) as a way of "accessing" God--or at least accessing God's Word and will for my life. I guess I take seriously what St Paul said about the Church being the "pillar and bulwark of the Truth" (1 Tim 3:15). I do not see loyalty to the Magisterium as a goal in itself, nor can I share Brian's belief that such loyalty is "subverting us from the true objective of our religious or Catholic spiritual quest". Rather, I see loyalty to the teaching authority of the Church as the path on which to travel to the Goal.

Sorry to be so harsh on the people I have mentioned in this post. [apology accepted. No offence taken, I assure you--although I would like you to spell my name properly.] I sincerely believe they need to sit down and take a serious look at themselves and their beliefs. [Been there, done that. See Year of Grace] I fully appreciate they are unlikely to do that because of anything I write though. ...They will be incapable of believing Jesus, or God the Father, if Jesus or God the Father made an appearance and said to them, "stop a moment, guys, you need to think all this stuff through again!" N-o-t-h-i-n-g will convince them just as nothing in the whole of Creation, or outside it...

Not quite nothing, Brian, old chap. I have always found Truth fairly compelling.

I read what you had to say, Brian. Thanks for taking the time to say it. But you are right. I will be sticking with "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" as my motto for the time being, I think.

"America Magazine" puzzled about Christology

I don't subscribe to America Magazine. I find that giving some people money only encourages them... But I do get emails giving me advanced warning of the content of their upcoming editions, so that I can be on the lookout at the Daniel Mannix Library when a hardcopy finally makes its way over the Big Pond.

I am looking forward to reading the September 17 edition, which includes the following juicy tid-bits:

What Are Theologians Saying About Christology? "Six experts", we are told, will "weigh in on the questions raised by the Vatican's recent notification to Jon Sobrino, S.J." I wonder if the "six experts" will include my favourite Christologians, Joseph Ratzinger and N.T. Wright? Probably not. Remember, these six commentators will not be catholic popes or evangelical expounders of scripture; they will be EXPERTS, which gives them oh-so-much more authority and clout.

The second one might be even more interesting, if only because it is by our own fellow-Aussie, [Sir--or at least he would be "Sir" if Australian gongs still held that title] Fr Gerald O'Collins SJ. The second article is called A Challenge for Theologians, and comes with the description: "Examining three puzzling positions in the Sobrino notification". I wonder what the three puzzling positions might be? At least we can be assured that they don't include either the full divinity or full humanity of Our Lord, as Fr O'Collins himself says at the beginning of the article:

In its notification on two works by Jon Sobrino, S.J., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recalls and re-affirms some utterly basic Christian teachings about Jesus Christ--above all, that Jesus was truly divine and fully human. Such doctrines, embodied in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of A.D. 381, which is accepted by all Christian communities, require a firm assent from any Catholic theologian worthy of the name.

That is at least a heartening start.

As I said, I haven't read any of these yet, and will have to wait for the hardcopy to arrive. But you know me, dear Reader: not having read something never kept me from offering an opinion on it...

Prayers requested for the repose of the soul of Pauline Bartel

I wish to extend deepest sympathies to Father Tony Bartel (with whom I went to school and seminary, and who is a regular reader and commentator on this blog) and to his father Ken (who was my boarding house supervisor at school all those years ago), and to his sisters, on the death of his mother Pauline on Saturday. Her funeral will be at St Paul's Box Hill this Thursday at 2pm.

I ask you all to spare a few moments to pray for the peaceful rest of her soul in the joyful hope of the resurrection of the dead.

Lord Jesus, let your angels come,
when I must die, to bear me home,
my soul to heaven taking.
My resting body safely keep
secure in gentle painless sleep,
till earth's last great awaking.
Then raise me, Lord, that I may be
with you in joy, and always see,
O Son of God, your glorious face,
my Saviour, and my fount of grace.
Lord Jesus Christ,
O grant to me, grant this to me,
I'll sing your praise eternally.

(Martin Shalling, Herzlich Lieb, v.3)

NRSV gets the Nod (Hurrahs from Sentire Cum Ecclesia!)

Having taught scripture for years and years, I still get asked by Catholics which version of the scriptures they should buy for the purposes of bible study. I always tell them: New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (alternatively: New Jerusalem Bible). If you have the old Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, well and good, but the NRSV is standard throughout the English speaking world today. It is a scholarly, comparitively accurate, descendant of the original King James Version, and stands in the same grand literary tradition, so its English is good too.

My friend, Peter, who also teaches scripture to Catholics, will disagree violently, and protest that the Vatican has specifically banned this translation from being read in Mass--not only because of its use of inclusive language for human beings (God remains in the masculine) but because of other "inaccuracies".

NEWSFLASH: The Vatican has approved the NRSV for the Canadian Lectionary.

And another newsflaish: There ARE inaccuracies in the NRSV--but then there are inaccuracies in every translation of the bible, and in general the NRSV has fewer than many of the others. There is no "perfect translation", only better translations and worse translations, and translations more or less suitable to particular uses (eg. Reading at Mass might require a different translation than for personal reading which in turn might require a different translation from the one you use for in depth bible study).

Personally, I cannot stand the translation we use for Mass here in Australia (the original Jerusalem Bible with the "Yahweh's" wisely replaced with "Lord's"). I wonder if it were presented to the Vatican today whether it would pass muster at all. The language is dreaful and inaccuracies abound. Fr Neuhaus has similar gripes about the NAB used by the Churches in the United States.

Here's the story folks: From time to time the Holy See comments on scripture translations in regard to requests from Bishops Conferences for approval of lectionaries. But the Holy See has never ever done a complete systematic comparitive survey of English translations of Holy Scripture with the aim of recommending:

1) those approved for reading in the Liturgy
2) those recommended for devotional reading
3) those recommended for accurate bible study

So occasionally they will reject a certain translation for a certain reason for use in a certain circumstance (ie. in the liturgy). This is not the equivalent and should not be taken as the equivalent of:

1) condeming the translation in question as unsuitable for every purpose
2) saying that the translation in question is worse than other translations upon which they have not commented
3) saying that translations that were approved for use in the liturgy in the past (and still currently used) would actually pass the test of Liturgicam Authenticam if they were resubmitted today.

I for one will be very happy when the NRSV is approved for use in Australia. I will be even happier when the NRSV of the psalms replaces the appalling Grail Version that the English speaking churches have been lumped with for all these years in our liturgy and Divine Office.

What's buggin Geoffrey Robinson?

That's the question I was asking myself when I read through the text of the speech he gave at the launch of his book "Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church" at John Garrett's last month. What makes this guy tick? Or, rather, what's ticking him off?

The answers are all there in the text. First, though, I note that this speech was published in the "Theology" section of Eureka Street. A bit of a worry when this is what passes for "theology". If there is one thing conspicuously lacking in His Lordship's speech, it is theology.

Here is his text with my comments in [bold].

Confront sexual abuse, don't manage it
Eureka Street 30-Aug-2007 By Geoffrey Robinson

The Cardinal Secretary of State at the Vatican is usually thought to hold the second highest office in the Catholic Church. [Wrong from the word go. It is the 2nd highest office in the Vatican State. Secretary of State is not an office of the Catholic Church. Note the way in which, throughout this speech, Bishop Robinson confuses the theological and institutional meanings of "The Church"] The present Secretary, Cardinal Bertone, was a personal appointment by the pope. So it was disheartening when, on a recent visit to the United States, he was asked about sexual abuse and first blamed the media, then greedy lawyers, then said that the Church had “faced this trial with great dignity and courage” and hoped that “other institutions and social agencies will face the same problem with their members with an equal degree of courage and realism as the Catholic Church has done.” I believe that most of the Australian bishops had moved beyond this point more than a decade ago, so it is discouraging to hear that it still prevails at the highest levels. It is a typical example of seeking to manage rather than confront a problem.

As long as the Church seeks to manage rather than confront, the devastating effect the scandal has had on the Church will continue and will cripple other activities. Of what use is it to proclaim a “new evangelization” to others if we are not seen to have confronted the suppurating ulcer on our body? [Of what USE??? Good God, the evangelising mission of the Church is its central reason for existence, higher on the agenda than any other issue] In all our preaching to others, we would lack credibility. Cardinal Bertone does not seem to realize just how much credibility the Church has lost over the last twenty years and how seriously we must act in order to regain it.

Over that time most of the blame has been poured onto the bishops [but who can a bishop blame?]. I am not simply seeking to divert this blame, far less to defend every action of every bishop, if I say that it is important to understand that, within the present structures of the Church, the pope alone has the power to confront this problem in its deepest sources. [There's your answer: the bishop blames the pope. Adam's old excuse: "It wasn't my fault. The woman whom you gave me..."]. One must ask, “Where is the papal statement addressed directly to victims, with the word ‘sorry’ proclaimed clearly? Where is the papal promise to investigate every possible source of abuse and ruthlessly to eradicate it? Where is the request to those institutes especially set up to treat offending priests to present their findings on the causes? Where is the request to the bishops to coordinate the studies in their territory and report to Rome? Where is the document placing everything [EVERYTHING? Robinson makes the sex abuse crisis the be all and end all of EVERYTHING! So his suggested "reforms" are not just about how to deal with sex abuse, but with EVERYTHING! I wonder if he asked the folk in the African Church or the Asian Church if sex abuse is on the top of their list of things to do address in the Church? ] on the table for discussion, including such things as obligatory celibacy [this would be an example of "everything" that is up for discussion] and the selection and training of candidates? [Isn't this the bishop's responsibility?] With power go responsibilities. The pope has many times claimed the power and must accept the corresponding responsibilities. [When were these "many times" that the pope has claimed "power"? On the contrary, I have seen the popes continually dedicating the use of their God-given authority to responsible SERVICE of the Church. Robinson's approach--to blame everything on the pope--is a sort of backhanded "centralism". It gives an importance to the pope's role in the universal Church that is disproportionate to reality. It is as if Bishop Robinson has never heard of the principle of subsidiarity. Why does there need to have been a directive from Rome telling the bishops to do their job?]

If you go to Italy, you will not be there long before you meet the two phrases “far bella figura” and “far brutta figura”. Literally they mean “to make a beautiful figure” and “to make an ugly figure”, but are better translated as “keeping up appearances”. In other words, when something is badly wrong, you still present a beautiful exterior, a beautiful figure to outsiders. This mentality goes all the way back to ancient Rome, so it is deeply entrenched, and it is small wonder that it has been present in a Church that has its centre in Rome. When one adds to this the rise of papal power in the second millennium, culminating in papal infallibility, with its idea that the pope and the Church he rules can never really be wrong [okay, now I get it: papal infallibility is an "idea", a distorted and late development of doctrine], one begins to understand why someone like Cardinal Bertone could still speak in the way he did. The response to abuse was at least as great a scandal as the abuse itself. If we are to overcome it, we must be prepared to put up with a temporary and very brutta figura so that we may eventually create a genuine bella figura.

The danger for bishops today is that they can think that they have done everything that is within their personal power and that the rest is up to the pope [that certainly seems the gist of the previous two paragraphs], over whom they have no control, so they can and must just get on with their job. It seems to me that bishops and, indeed, all members of the Church, still have the most unpleasant, most difficult and most unwelcome task of trying to insist that the pope be the rock a pope is supposed to be in holding the Church together [umm. I'm confused. I hadn't noticed that I had this "most difficult and most unwelcome task". From what I see, the pope is doing his level best as it is]. They have to use whatever means they can to convince him that there is a scandal that will cripple all the Church’s activities unless and until it is confronted. [This assumes: 1) that the pope isn't convinced there is a scandal, and two that the gates of hell can prevail against the Church. First, the Pope has publically recognised the scandal of sex abuse in the Church and secondly the Church (perhaps unlike the other victims) cannot and will not be "crippled" by this crisis.]

This has been the first and major basis for the book that is being launched today [right, that's one ticked off], but as I wrote it I realized that there was a second basis [Here comes the second]. Protestant Churches have always had the weakness that, when controversies arise, there is no authority to hold them together, so they have divided into dozens of Churches and literally thousands of sects [So, he acknowledges that papal authority in the service of unity is a good thing, no?]. Within the Catholic Church, on the other hand, the power [notice how "authority" has morphed into "power" in this sentence] of the rock, the pope, has held the Church together. Its weakness, however, is that all the divisions do not go away, but are contained within the Church [well, that's an interesting observation. Probably true too]. Outsiders frequently have the idea of a monolithic Church, with everyone meekly obeying the pope [if only!], and they can fail completely to understand just how diverse the Church is, just how motley a group of people Catholics really are, and how fierce are the divisions and the struggles for power within the Church [sad, no? This is the real SCANDAL of the Church--that there are divisions and struggles for power, rather than the unity of faithful discipleship. Vatican II (UR 1) actually identified these divisions, not sex abuse, as the real scandal in the Church. Whatever happend to St Paul's exhortation in Eph 5: "Submit yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ].

I believe that the major division is between the proclaimers of certainties and the seekers after truth [I believe it is a division between those faithful to the authority of the magisterium and those who are not. Perhaps that is too simplistic]. Of course we need certainties and of course we need a search for truth, but it is possible to put too heavy an accent on either of these elements [why should these be opposed to one another? Vatican II (Religious Liberty, 2) declared that "It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore bearing personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth." ]. Today the proclaimers of certainties seem to be in the favoured position and to hold the reins of power [power, power, power. Robinson is obsessed by this word. The magisterium has the repsonsibility that comes with authentic authority to teach what has been revealed by God's Word and what follows logically from that revelation.] This has left many people feeling a sense of alienation, of being marginalized, of no longer quite belonging to the Church that had given them much of their sense of belonging, meaning and direction throughout their lives [what? because they don't like what is taught by God's Word? Yes, I can see how that might make one feel alienated in the Church]. This feeling has strengthened sense of needing to search for truth.

In writing the book I became aware that I was writing a book for these people [those who want to seek for truth, but not find it...], that I was trying to tell them that there is a Church for them and that it is fully in accord with the mind of Jesus [I'm sorry, which "Church" is that exactly?]. I was telling them that there are basic certainties, but there is also abundant room for search, for taking personal responsibility and growing through that process to become all we are capable of being, all God wants us to be [Well, of course there is. The magisterium doesn't teach everything! It teaches only what can be known with certainty, and that leaves a lot of room for exploration within those boundaries. To explore outside those boundaries, however, means you will have to move outside the Church--but that is no-one's fault, not even the Romans.]

I became aware that it was important for many people that there should be a bishop saying these things. [Look at me, I'm a bishop! You can trust me, because I am here to teach certainties.] At moments I felt that the needs of these many people were so great that it is perhaps true that I have never been more of a shepherd, I have never been more justified in carrying around a pastoral staff, than I have in this [what sort of shepherd says to his sheep: "Off you go. Be free. Wander where you like. Go out into the big wide world and discover it for yourselves" I thought his job was to protect the sheep from wolves and hirelings]. If the book carries an important message to these people, then I shall be delighted.

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as this, for I feel that the major differences between the proclaimers of certainties and the seekers after truth are not religious or theological, but psychological [ie. you guys out there who go on about the "certainty of Faith" have psychological hangups]. For reasons in their background and upbringing or within their personality, many people need certainties [Vatican II--and Jesus, for that matter--said that all people need to know the Truth to be saved]. In a world in which, as Alvin Toffler [does anyone remember Toffler? He's a bit outdated now for a futurist...] still teaches us, change is the only constant, this need can be profound. I may argue with a person’s theology, but I cannot argue with their psychological needs [so don't you try to trump my psychology with your theology--this book is about psychological needs, mine included, and my needs are as valid as your needs].

Surely the answer has to lie in dialogue and mutual respect, and we have a long way to go. We must get away from the idea that the side with which I disagree must do all the changing and come to me, and see instead that both sides need to reach out. I hope that I have given some indications of the lines the dialogue might follow. [I agree with the sentiment, but having just place the criterion for Truth in the area of psychology rather than theology, I don't know what objective basis there can be for this dialogue.]