Sign the Counter Petition! John XXIII Coop leads the way!

Unfortunately they don't have this for online signing. Nevertheless, here is the John XXIII Coop's attempt to organise something to counter "That Petition":

The Australian Bishops need your help ...
Sign The Counter-Petition !

A petition is circulating in response to the current crisis in priestly vocations. It calls on the Australian Bishops to (inter alia):

“encourage a wide-ranging discussion of the role of women in ministry … including the question of women’s ordination.”

This is in open defiance of the Apostolic Letter of the late Pope John Paul II Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which states:

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 judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

A member of the Church’s faithful will thus instantly recognise that the agenda behind this petition is not part of the solution: it is part of the problem!

This petition now has some 9000 signatures. It will be presented to the Australian Bishops Conference at the end of November.

What can I do to respond?

• Pray earnestly in all charity for every signatory to this petition, that “their hearts may regain sanity and return to the unity of truth.” (Good Friday Liturgy, Extraordinary Form)

• Pray for the Australian Bishops. There is a wonderful opportunity afforded to them by this unfortunate event! Pray that they will have the courage to respond as one to this petition with a clear and forceful articulation of Catholic teaching on the priesthood, and on the obligations of Catholics with respect to magisterial teaching.

• Sign our counter-petition. We want to let the Australian Bishops know that there are many Australian Catholics who are loyal to Holy Mother Church, who are obedient to the magisterium, and who deplore the efforts of dissidents to create a counterfeit Church. We wish to encourage the Australian Bishops in their office as true shepherds of the flock and support their decisive steps to protect it from the predations of wolves.

• Copy and spread our counter—petition and letter amongst your Catholic friends Australia-wide. And don’t forget to return it to the address supplied by November 15 so it can be presented to the Australian Bishops at their November Plenary Conference.

Our Lady Help of Christians, pray for us!

And here is their "Counter petition":

A Letter to the Australian Bishops

We, the undersigned Australian Catholics, profess loyalty to our Holy Mother the Church, to the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI and to the Australian episcopacy as it strives to build up the body of Christ.

1. We acknowledge that there is a drastic shortage of priests and religious serving the Catholic Church in Australia.

2. We submit that this stems predominantly from a systemic undermining by dissidents, over several decades, of Catholic principles in the areas of theology, philosophy, spirituality, liturgy and catechetics.

3. We deplore those efforts of dissident or poorly catechised Catholics to suggest the ordination of women as a solution to the current crisis in ministry. Such open defiance of the magisterium is scandalous and demoralising. We request of you at this time a strong reaffirmation that the Church “has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” ( Ordinatio Sacerdotalis )

4. We believe that, rather than resort to superficial and bogus measures, the only effective way to respond to this crisis is to attack its root cause. We urge the prompt removal of dissident
Catholics from positions of influence in Catholic institutions across the nation, and their replacement with suitably qualified men and women of faith.

5. We note as a ‘sign of the times’ that vocations to the priesthood and religious life are languishing in those institutions which have compromised their Catholicity, whereas vocations are flourishing in authentically Catholic institutions in Australia and worldwide.

Sincerely yours,

The Undersigned

Please return this petition by November 15 to:
John XXIII Fellowship Co-op
Box 22 Ormond
Victoria 3204

A little strident, perhaps. I still recommend my "Open Letter to the Catholic Laity of Australia", as it proposes some positive measures other than chucking out all the dissidents (which would leave us with a very small church!).

What is one to make of this? Are Catholicism and Orthodoxy two different religions?

This comment was left by Anastasia Theodoridis recently in the combox:

ISTM the more we Orthodox learn both of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, the more we become convinced that they are not at all the same. They often sound the same. But behind the words is a very, very different way of life, a different spirit, and a different way of doing things that is different intentionally and for a theological reason, rather than because of any historical accident or circumstance. (Those kinds of differences also exist, yes.)

Just for one example, the filioque is a *major* issue, making for a whole different Holy Trinity. And you do not mean the same thing by it that we do without it; if you did you could simply delete the word and end the whole controversy, but that does not and will not happen. It is important to Catholics to keep the filioque.

For another example, the papal claims of supramacy and infallibility are no minor matter. They alter the faith very significantly, from the Orthodox POV. Not only are they, for us, in themselves major changes of the faith, but they have also come, from an Orthodox POV, to color almost every other Catholic doctrine to make the Catholic way of stating it sound strange to our ears.

If we take the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as I have done, and read very attentively and begin underlining parts that are put incorrectly in ways that may seem small but have huge implications, we end up underlining a huge percentage of the book. Another huge percentage of it we put question marks beside because the language is too vague (syncretistic) and/or too contradictory (again, syncretistic)to be able to know for sure whether it agrees with Orthodoxy or not.

Sorry, but the idea that we share the same faith is wishful thinking. I, too, wish it were so and pray it may one day be so. For now, we have a lot of hard work to do, and a lot of honest discussion is required.

What a bleak outlook.

Am I to take it from that that we are really two different religions? That would be the conclusion, if we really believe that the "filioque" clause actually teaches "a whole different Trinity". [I should point out that we can, in fact, delete the filioque in the sense of omit it on occasion, but we cannot delete it in the sense of obliterate it, as it is a part of our liturgy and tradition!]

And parts of the Catechism that are "put incorrectly"? Surely you mean "differently from the way Orthodoxy would put it", but surely not "heretically"? Do not the Orthodox themselves have different ways of putting things within the one tradition? Or is there only ever one way of saying what is true? Of course, Western theology will sound "strange" to Eastern ears--the opposite is also true. Latin and Greek are different languages. Are they to be different religions too?

Is there really a "different spirit" behind Orthodoxy and Catholicism? That is, does one of us have the Holy Spirit, and the other "a different spirit" in the sense of St Paul's "different gospel" or "another Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4)?

Tell me it isn't so!

Annual Jewish Catholic Dinner: Eating, Drinking and Dancing our way to harmony

Sorry there hasn't been much blogging going on lately. And I also apologise for being really behind in reading your blogs too. I have been really busy.

One of the things I have been really busy with was this year's Annual Jewish Catholic Dinner held at the Archdiocesan centre on Sunday night.

I can hear the question marks in the thought bubble above your head. Let me explain.

Three years ago, members of the Jewish and Catholic communities in Melbourne thought it might be a good idea to have a special dinner together to aid our mutual respect and genial relations. The first event was held in 2005 for 50 Catholics and 50 Jews, the Jews playing host. We had speakers from both communties, and a musical item from an all male Jewish choir, mainly singing liturgical music and psalmody.

It was an outstanding success and we did it again in 2006, again on Jewish premises, but this time with a Catholic ensemble providing the music--singing a selection of psalms in various styles.

Three years later and it was our turn to play host. As chief cook and bottle washer of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission, much of the organisation fell to me, so I was pretty busy getting the Kosher caterers, sound system, presentations etc. all organised.

But the night was a hit--the best yet. The Jews provided the music, with a Polish-Jewish folk duo playing keyboard and violin and singing all the old popular Jewish music like "Hava Nagilah" and "If I were a rich man".

There were the usual speeches, but Rabbi Fred Morgan gave us a interactive bible study style reflection on Psalm 150--with Jews and Catholics together contributing to the insights. He then ended by leading us in singing the psalm with a response in Hebrew.

The musos got going again and then the president of the Jewish Community Council honoured us with a song (he's a great singer).

But the interaction didn't stop there. Inspired by the music, the Jewish ladies spontaneously got up and started dancing (in a ring with hands joined in traditional style). A couple of our religious sisters joined them, and then (breaking all orthodox rules) they dragged in a man--one of our priests, who was then joined by one of the progressive Rabbis, and then it was all on for young and old!

I think we can confidently say that Jews and Catholics have never danced together in the Archdiocesan centre before.

Earlier in the day, in a homily based on the Gospel of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee, my parish priest had quoted Chesterton who once said "good religion can always laugh at itself". Well, we always can have a good laugh with our Jewish friends, and we laughed a lot more than usual on Sunday night. I arrived home very tired but feeling that there had been a real meeting of hearts.

The Abbey - Great viewing

I hope that readers here in Australia have taken the time to watch (or at least record) The Abbey.

This is one of the most intelligent and inspired programs that the ABC has produced for Compass in a long while. The Sisters of Jamberoo Abbey are to be applauded for the brave decision to open their enclosed monastery for this "invasion" of the media.

On the first day of the experience, one of the 5 participants remarked:

I still wonder though how you can justify shutting someone [Sister Hilda] with that personality away and just praying most of your day. I still don’t see it as relevant in today’s society.

This program will enable the world to see that such a life and a calling really is relevant--and essential--to the human race today more than ever.

I have been watching it with my daughters. Apart from Sister in the parish here (Presentation nun - no habit), they don't really get to see much in terms of role modelling for the religious life. They watched the film of St Therese of Lisieux with me recently (thanks for the loan of the video, Marco), and that was really the first idea they had of what an enclosed life might be. Now they get to see it in real life. Think about it as an antidote to the Bratz movie they watched last weekend...

After her usual diatribe (upped a couple of decibels because the subject is intensely religious and intensely Catholic at that), Catherine Deveney, the TV critic from Hell (or perhaps going there? Hey, it isn't my call!), had this rather poignant comment:

Watching The Abbey and attempting to immerse myself in the reality of the nuns' lives I found harrowing and stifling. Although the nuns are living far more meaningful lives than most, their sacrifice is phenomenal. And I couldn't help wanting to save them.

My emphasis. I emphasise it because what she is saying is that she wants to rescue these women from lives that are "far more meaningful than most". She would rather they lived the same meaningless "Bratz style" life of indulgence that most of the rest of the western world does. Deveny wants to "save" the nuns because they tell her something doesn't want to hear: that meaning does not come without sacrifice.

The Abbey is a great watch. If you can't watch it, you can read the transcript of the program at the Compass Website. Here is episode one.

The Church, Her Authority, and My Conscience

Everyday I print off a raft of articles and blog entries to read. Sometimes it happens that these end up entering into a conversation with each other in my mind. Here are several that lead in an interesting direction.

First, Pastor Weedon blogged on a revered Lutheran contemporary and colleague of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Herman Sasse. Sasse pointed out (in a book called "Here we stand"--originally Was Heisst Lutherische--that:

Despite its decided rejection of false teachings which prevail in other churches, our church has never denied the presence of the church of Christ in the established churches of England and Scotland, in Holland and Switzerland, in Spain and Italy, in Greece and Russia. It has not tried, therefore, to conduct missions for the Lutheran confessional church in these countries, just as it has avoided the "evanglicalization" of Catholic territories in Germany. Let all those who accuse Lutheranism of intolerant confessionalism reflect on the fact that the Lutheran Church is one of the very few churches in Christendom which has never, under any circumstances, engaged in propaganda for itself or conducted missions among Christians of other persuasions. (Here We Stand, pp. 182, 183)

I remember reading the book twenty years ago and being impressed. I must pull it out again and read that last chapter, entitled "The Lutheran Church and the Una Sancta".

The precise issue is "What is the Church"? We as Catholics recognise the presence of Christ--and thus also "the presence of the church of Christ" (remembering Ireneaus' old statement that the Church is where Jesus Christ is)--in the ecclesial communities of the Protestant reformation. Like Sasses' pre-WWII Lutheran state churches, we do not proselytise our Christian brethren and sistern either (although I suspect that the motivating theologies and impulses behind this similarity were very different). But "the presence of the church of Christ" is not the same thing being the Church of Christ. Understanding herself to "be" the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church is impelled to seek the full visible unity of all who belong, even imperfectly, to her, both within and without her visible borders. What I find conspicuously absent in Sasse's praise of his Lutheran Church is any sense of the compulsion to seek ecumenical unity.

This issue comes up in a second piece I read today by Dr Jeff Mirus entitled "Conscience and Authority: the Protestant Dilema". This is a must read article, as is the article it is reacting too from the November issue of First Things by Lutheran theologian Gilbert Meilaender, "Conscience and Authority" (not yet available online).

Mirus praises Meilaender's work, pointing as it does to three essentials in the equation:

the need for the “Church” to speak with authority in order to preserve and transmit Christianity;
the need for the individual Christian to respect that authority;
and the need for the Christian to form his conscience ultimately through a direct personal relationship with God.

But he goes straight to the core again of what we mean when we say "Church". The Church, in Meilaender's Lutheran theology--similar to Sasse's own idea of "Church" in the quotation above--is ultimately a sociological phenomenon of like minded believers. What sort of "authority" does such a group ultimately have? To be sure, such a "Church" has public teaching, but I am free (if I disagree with that public teaching) to lobby within the church's structures to change that public teaching. As Mirus sums it up:

Whether we can ultimately claim the authority of that organization for our ideas depends solely on whether we win an internal battle for control. We ought not to dishonestly claim any organization’s authority to promote something contrary to its official position, but we are perfectly free to attempt to influence the organization to change its position. If we succeed, we can then claim its authority for promoting what we had all along asserted it should say.

He is quite right about this. I know it from experience. Going to Synod was like going to battle. Each opinion sought to garner support for its own ideas so that, through the democratic majority, the "Truth" would prevail. It was exactly this on the issue of women's ordination which I faced at the 2000 Synod of the LCA (read about my experience of that on my Year of Grace blog).

Mirus asserts that it is only if there is a living Magisterium of the Church which directly exercises the authority of Christ that I can truly (and must truly) give full submission of conscience to the Church's teaching. The only time when a personal "fight" of conscience against what a Church heirarch might teach is acceptable is when that heirarch is teaching against the Magisterium of the Church.

And that leads me to this rather strange interview that the Holy Father gave recently (reported here by John L. Allen Jnr.). The future pope candidly said that after the Council he was "too timid" in defending the teaching of the Church's magisterium against the false claims of some in authority. But how could this happen that there were such false ideas in the first place?

“At that time, the situation was extremely confused and restless, and the doctrinal position of the church was not always clear,” the pope said. “In fact, claims were circulated that seemed to have become suddenly possible, even though in reality they were not consistent with dogma. In that context, the discussions within the doctrinal commission were full of strong positions, and extremely difficult.”

In saying this, it becomes evident that for us to be able to hold, defend and live the true teachings of the Church, there must be CLARITY of teaching--which clarity can only come with a strong exercise of the Church's authority in her Magisterium. I believe that today we do have such clarity--the excellent teaching of Pope John Paul II (and now his successor, Pope Benedict XVI) and especially the gift of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has gone a long way to clearing up this confusion. You can add to that the instant and excellent access we have today to Church teaching through the internet--something undreamed of in the 1970s--and Catholics today cannot claim ignorance to support their free exercise of "conscience" against the teaching of the Church.

Finally I am left with Cardinal Scheffczyk's regret (referred to in Allen's article) that, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,

Pope John Paul II had failed to pronounce the ban on women’s ordination as an infallible dogma in formal, ex cathedra fashion.

That indeed would have given clarity in the face of confusion.

All that brings me back to our discussions we have been having on this blog about papal authority. I have come to see that what Reader (not Father) Christopher Orr has called the "unfettered, unilateral power" of the Pope to pronounce infallibly on matters of faith and morals is a great gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church, for it makes possible the clarity of teaching necessary for the true formation of the Christian conscience.

Aw, come you guys...

Vote for me! (Just click the button!)



(Remember the old saying: Vote early! Vote often!)

Do you know what causes AIDS, children?

That's right. The big nasty authoritarian sex-obsessed Church.


Okay, so I fiddled with the picture. For the original and the story behind this, see: Anti-condom stance fuels AIDS spread: UN.

And in case you want some more laughs, thanks to Sharon in the combox, here is the link to a romantic latin American evening... by Patrick Archibald at the Creative Minority Report.

Another Australian Saint? The more the merrier!

For some reason, most Catholic saints seem to have been born in Italy. God knows why... perhaps its something in the wine.

Well, we have plenty of good wine here in Australia, so I raise my glass to Clara Geoghegan (a regular reader of this blog) and her "Friends of Mrs Chisholm" in their attempts to draw Caroline Chisholm to the attention of the Italians in the Vatican.

Aside from being an Australian, she was (is?) a LAY person. Makes a change from all those founders of religious orders... And you can see why Clara is keen for this to happen--she is the coordinator of the Catherine of Sienna Called and Gifted program in the Melbourne Archdiocese.

Won't it be nice when the Caroline Chisholm Library can be renamed the SAINT Caroline Chisholm Library?

I've ordered my copy: Cardinal Schönborn's new book "Chance or Purpose"

I've just gotten off the phone to the Central Catholic Bookshop (their motto is "faithfully expressing the Catholic Tradition", which I like. I've gone off John Garrett's since they published and promoted +Geoffrey's book) and they have a copy of Cardinal Schönborn's new book "Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith" winging its way to me right now. It promises to a great read.

Regular readers will know that I have been a Schönborn fan for some time. I believe this book is a translation of (or an adaption of) the series of catecheses he gave in St Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna over the last few years. It will be good stuff. Get it while its hot!

"Beware the Jaberwock, my son!..."

"...The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"

Fictitious monsters have always held a fascination--no more so than that fictitious monster, Triumphalist Roman Papalism. I will leave it to historians to argue whether or not there was ever such a monster, but today--believe me when I say this folks--there is no such animal.

Nevertheless, I am amazed at the power this mythology has even to skew modern ecumenical relationships. You can't start a healthy relationship on an "hermeneutic of suspicion" ("you speak with forked tongue!"). Dialogue requires a relationship of trust.

I can partly understand the long ancenstoral memories of those whose fathers' fathers, and whose fathers' fathers' fathers, and whose fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers (you get the idea) remember some atrocity committed by this ancient monster. Yet, even those who have no personal stake in this history (eg. recent converts to Orthodoxy) seem more than eager to adopt the full mythology and paradigm of the world which includes this horrible monster.

Fr Christopher Orr (born and raised Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran and received into Orthodoxy in 2001) is a case in point. In a recent comment on a previous blog, Fr Orr stated:

Whatever positive, inclusive, friendly steps have been taken in the past decades - and they have been honestly taken, I think, in the main - there is a long history of RC abuse and domination that is well-remembered by the Orthodox and Protestants. Time will need to go by to ensure that positive language is not simply a marketing ploy, a bait and switch; until Rome can come to a dogmatic determination that is more in line with your explanation of Vatican I and II, most will simply fear not what this or the most recent Pope's have said or done, but what future ones may do with their dogmatically unfettered power.

Oh, Christopher. That is really unworthy of you. A "marketing ploy"? A "bait and switch"? What future popes "may do with their dogmatically unfettered power"? Good grief. I know (as my Mother-in-law keeps on telling me) that the Pope and bishops of the Catholic Church are "only men", but please--they are are at least men of charity and justice, and of integrity.

Beware the hermeneutic of Suspicion, my friends! It will be the undoing of us all!

A New Entry in my Year of Grace blog (about bloody time too!)

Yes, finally I have gotten around to adding a new entry to my Year of Grace retro-conversion blog--the blogspot where I am steadily putting up the journal of my conversion year (Easter 2000 to Easter 2001). You can check it out at: http://yearofgrace.blogspot.com/

Brother Michael Herry

I had a nice evening last night at my local parish with Marist Brother and liturgical song composer Brother Michael Herry. His music is simple and often "Taize-like". Not all of it will appeal, but I can recommend most of it to all but the purists among you. I had a short discussion with him afterwards on the "voice" of liturgical song. If you are interested, I have posted my thoughts on this matter on my other blog, "Sing Lustily and with Good Courage".

Thank you, Marco!

What are friends for? Quite unknown to me, Mr Marco (we can't call him Fr Marco any more) has done the following good deed:

I have nominated Herr Schutz for the Blogger’s Choice Awards in the category of Best Religion Blog. It is the best Australian Catholic blog and deserves some recognition. He adds to the mix of the discussion rather than sitting on the sidelines throwing stones.

Isn't he nice? You can be nice too, by going to the Blogger Choice Awards website and adding your vote!

By the way, the voting at the moment is for next year (2008). Last year's top three were The Cafeteria is Closed (11 votes), Ask Sister Mary Martha (6 votes), and Stand Firm (1 vote)--so the competition wasn't stiff.

This year will be a little harder. The very deserving Fr Z. is out in front with a whopping 48 votes, followed by The Hermeneutic of Continuity (12 votes), The Cafeteria is Closed again (this time with 11 votes already) tying with Sister Mary Martha (also with 11 votes), and then a heavenly host of follow ups with 2 or 1 vote (including yours truly). So get in there folks! I don't expect to top WDTPRS or Closed Cafeteria, but surely we can get an Australian blog somewhere there near the top?

If ever you needed proof that J.K. Rowling is NOT J.R.R. Tolkien...

it comes with this morning's news that Rowling has "outed" Dumbledore, the venerable headmaster of Hogwarts, as gay.

Great. And here I am about to play that character this afternoon for my daughter's birthday party.

Well, apart from all the moral issues of introducing such a theme into children's literature (something that seems more and more acceptable, if Pullman's "His Dark Materials" is anything to go by), there is a literary critical point that needs to be made.

1. The book series is finished. In that book, there is no indication of Dumbledore's sexuality. His sexuality does not once enter the arena.

2. Rowling is (was?) the author of the Potter series. We are the readers. Her idea about what she meant when she wrote the novels has no bearing at all on our freedom as readers to make our own interpretations. (That's called "reader response theory" folks, and, while we generally reject it in the case of Holy Writ, we are completely free to adopt it if it serves our own selfish purposes in relation to the interpretation of other texts).

So who on earth does Rowling think she is? A painter cannot go back to his painting once it is hanging in a museum and say "I just want to add a bit of paint up in that top corner...".

The novels are finished. Yes. But what about the memory of poor old Richard Harris (R.I.P.) who played Dumbledore in the early films, who was, by all accounts, a red-blooded male?

And what about poor old Michael Gambon who now has to play the "gay" Dumbledore in the final movie with his "lover" Gellert Grindelwald.?

And what about poor old me, who has to go through a whole afternoon as (gulp) a gay man at a children's party? (I just hope the kids haven't read the newspaper this morning...)

Great Joy! St Joseph's Chelsea Reopened

Last night I had the great pleasure of attending the blessing of the restored Church of St Joseph at Chelsea. Fr Greg Pritchard and his parish were devastated when their church was burnt by arsonists last year, but have been working hard at the restoration work. The restored church is very beautiful--simple basilica, with neat clear lines, added sanctuary lamps, two new shrines to Our Lady and St Joseph, prominant central shrine for the reservation of the blessed sacrament. I wish I had thought to take my camera last night so I could have posted a picture or two--because the result is marvellous.

The blessing was done by Bishop Peter Elliot, so it was Novus Ordo at its best. One special surprise for me was to find that Fr Pritchard had included my Asperges hymn which was sung when the walls of the church were being blessed with holy water.

NZ Bishops Fighting over a Woman?

Back in July, we all read this from the Land of the Lond White Cloud:

The Catholic Bishop of Christchurch, Barry Jones, is opposing a visit by a controversial feminist nun from the United States.

He has written to priests saying that next week's visit by Benedictine nun Sister Joan Chittister is unauthorised.

Permission for the event had not been sought or given, and Jones did not want it promoted through Catholic churches.

"The point is that silence generates the misunderstanding that this is all approved, when it's not. I have made my position clear to the priests," he said.

Now we read this from Wel-com, the Catholic Newspaper for the Wellington and Palmerston North Dioceses:

Sophia welcomed Archbishop John Dew’s ‘mature approach’ in sanctioning Sr Joan Chittister’s visit to the diocese. We affirmed his openness to the many contemporary views of church in this post modern world and how they kindle the growth of personal and communal spirituality.

Do I detect some dissension in the ranks of the New Zealand Bishops' Conference?

The article concludes with this tantalising cliff-hanger to get you to read the next exciting edition of Wel-com: "Next month we will look at Joan Chittister’s seven deadly sins." We wait with baited breath...

Jesuits to use university research to "solve the decline of youth involvement"

This report today in Cathnews:

Immaculate Conception Hawthorn parish priest Fr Des Dwyer SJ is leading a research project which hopes to engage more young people in the Church.

The study, which aims to solve the decline of youth involvement, is being conducted in conjunction with the Boroondara Deanery, Australian Catholic University and Monash University.

Fr Dwyer said he hopes to find ways to increase involvement in ministry among young people, Province Express reported.

A university study? Dear Lord, Father Des, is it that hard, really? Is academic research behind the success of St Benedict's Parish at Burwood? Not even BROWN TROUSERS (how uncool is that) can keep them away from the MGL's parish!

Guys, it ain't rocket science. (Have I said that before? Stop me if I am repeating myself). Its about Evangelisation (Preach Christ!), Catechisation (Teach Christ!), and Vocation (Follow Christ!). If you still don't get it, see my reply to "That Petition": An Open Letter to the Catholic Laity of Australia.

We live in hope!

Okay, I'm excited. Most of you will have heard the news already, but it seems that the next encyclical is ready to go (as soon as it is translated into Latin from the original German and then into English and every other language). The title? "Spe Salvi" ("Saved by Hope"). Read all about it here on Rocco Palmo's blog. An encyclical focusing on Christian hope is to be welcomed, especially following the first one on Love.

Those who know me will also know that one of my favourite sayings (usually quoted in conversations relating to the future of the Catholic Church): These three abide: Faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is...HOPE!

Enough about men, what about the women?

This is off topic, but hilarious for all you mum's out there (Louise, are you listening?). This was sent to my wife's email. It is very realistic. Anyone want to try to write a "Dad's" version? Or do we simply not whip ourselves into such a frenzy?

Chaput flexes his muscles...

Speaking of Muscular Christianity (no, not this, THIS), Archbishop Chaput spoke back in September to an Indianapolis men’s conference. Here, among other things, is what he said:

Christian love is not weak or anesthetic. It’s an act of the will. It takes guts. It’s a deliberate submission of our selfishness to the needs of others. There’s nothing “unmanly” about it, and there’s nothing—and I mean nothing—more demanding and rewarding in the world. The heart of medieval knighthood and chivalry was the choice of a fighting man to put himself at the service of others—honoring his lord, respecting the dignity of women, protecting the weak, and defending the faith even at the cost of his own life.

That’s your vocation. That’s what being a Christian man means. We still have those qualities in our hearts. We are not powerless in the face of today’s unbelieving civilization. We can turn this world upside down if only we’re willing to love—the kind of Christian love that is vastly more powerful than just a sugary feeling; the kind of love that converts men into something entirely new; the kind of love that bears fruit in a man’s zeal, courage, justice, mercy, and apostolic action.

So I leave you with this: Be men who love well. Be the Catholic men God intended you to be. Be men of courage and fidelity to your God, your wives, your families, and your Church. Put your belief into practice. Do everything for the glory of God, even the little things you have to do each day. Love those who don’t love you. Love—expecting nothing in return. Love—and those you love will find Jesus, too. Love—and through your actions, God will change this world.

Maybe if we have homilies like that (instead of homilies for Father's mothers/sisters/neices) there might be a few more men in the pews on Sunday...

Historians and Orthodox: Please help!

I would like some help from both the historians and Orthodox among our readership in assessing the accuracy of this (seemlingly useful) Timeline of the East-West Schism
of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. I am teaching a short course on Church History (starting on Monday) and although I can't cover the East West relations in detail, would like something to give my students an overview.

Joint Declarations, the Vatican I anathemas and "Big and Little Issues"

Christopher Orr said in the combox of the previous post regarding points of difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches:

I'm sure the effort would be made to work out these lesser points of difference if the major points were seriously close to being resolved, but they are not [and] so the major and minor points remain a jumble and [are] used to indicate paradigmatic differences that may not be essential. Papal Supremacy, universal jurisdiction and the filioque (I think the first two are the big ones, though many would also argue for the third, too) get mixed up with mandatory clerical celibacy, unleavened bread, shaving, the rosary, the use of imagination in prayer and changes to the traditional Roman Rite.

This is right, and I appreciate the fact that the "big ones" have been identified as these three. However, I would like to suggest that in fact these issues may be resolved if first our Orthodox dialogue partners took us seriously when we say that we believe that our faith is the same.

Note that the recent Catholic/Orthodox meeting which has just concluded in Ravenna was on the topic of "The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority in the Church." Note the way that this topic is worded--in terms of consequences of what is considered an agreed matter, namely "the Sacramental nature of the Church". It is natural that this discussion will be followed at the next meeting with a discussion of "The role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium", since the issue of the primacy is an ecclesiological issue.

Now, if what I have just said is true (about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome being an ecclesiological view) and if we sincerely believe (as I do) that we fundamentally share the same ecclesiology (albeit with strikingly different nuances), then surely there is hope for reconciliation on the matter of the Primacy and Jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

Yes, there were some very blunt anathemas thrown around at the 1st Vatican Council (see here and here and here and here for eg.). However, I believe that these texts, like the 1054 mutual excommunications, need to be treated in the light of the Joint Declaration of Paul VI and Athenagorus I in 1965. Certainly, Pope John Paul II's gesture in "Ut Unim Sint" applies to this situation:

As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware...that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God's faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.

...When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that "for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But...it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry... I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned.

Like the anathemas of Trent, the anathemas of Vatican I are not ignored--but it is clear that today we have a new situation and a new context in which our ancient churches may communicate with one another in a way they previously did not, and thus find a new path to unity that completely sidesteps the anathemas.

Of course, if (like the conservative Lutherans who rejected the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by insisting that Justification and Justification alone is the only way of viewing the work of Christ's paschal mystery in us) we continue to insist that the language and paradigms of the past are the only acceptable language and paridigms of the future, then there is not much hope.

But if our faith is truly the same, then we will find a unified way to express it. A clear example (better even than the JDDJ) that comes to mind is the Christological affirmations with the non-Chalcedonian Churches (see here for the agreement with the Syrian Orthodox and here with the Assyrian Church of the East).

This leads me finally to the matter of the filioque. Catholics can (and do) omit the recitation of the filioque under special conditions (eg. when reciting the Creed in Greek, or in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, or when the Eucharist is celebrated in the presence of Orthodox guests). In otherwords, we do not insist upon these words, but not only that they have a place in our (specifically Latin liturgical) Tradition. Furthermore, we believe that dialogue on this point will strengthen our own understanding of the procession of the Spirit--something about which we do not believe we have all the answers.

However there are a lot of similarities even on this doctrine: We too uphold that the Father, and the Father alone, is the "monarche". We too uphold that the Spirit cannot be separated from the Son. I am intrigued by some things that were said in the Colloquium lectures (eg. That the Spirit does not proceed "beyond" the Father and the Son. I think the issue was that the procession was internal to the Godhead, and that the Spirit proceeded FROM the Father TO the Son, rather than from the Father and the Son into the world. Did I hear and understand that right?). But these are things to be explored within the conviction that we hold (and desire to hold) the one and the same faith. I am also intrigued as to how the rejection of the filioque can be fully squared with the patristic idea (which is both eastern and western) of the Spirit as the fully Personal bond of love between the Father and the Son. Does this Love proceed only one way (ie. from the Father to the Son) or is it not both ways?

In any case, these are areas in which we can find agreement if we work at it and truly believe that fundamentally we do believe the same faith and are simply seeking the words to express it in unity. But in fact, I think the real issues are those other "little ones": "mandatory clerical celibacy, unleavened bread, shaving, the rosary, the use of imagination in prayer and changes to the traditional Roman Rite." These are the things that are really passionately rejected, and finding agreement in the "big issues" may well be feared because it will mean finally recognising that the "little issues" are legitimate areas of variation within the Unity of the One Church

Listening to that Orthodox Colloquium for Lutheran Clergy

After having a go at the very idea of such a colloquium (see here for the report on the Faith of our Fathers Lutheran Colloquium and downloadable lectures, here for my comments, and here for Fr John Fenton's apologia), I must admit that I have been enjoying listening to the resulting podcasts.

There is something refreshing for me, as a once-Lutheran Catholic, in listening to the Orthodox describe and defend themselves to a Lutheran audience and hence with Lutheran sensibilities in mind. It gives another angle on these topics--usually only approached in Lutheran Catholic or Catholic Orthodox dialogues/debates.

What strikes me again and again is that the faith of the Orthodox Churches and the faith of the Catholic Church are one and the same. Again and again, during the Orthodox presentations I hear myself saying "Yes, that is my faith, the faith of my Church".

However, it was then disconcerting for me to hear regular comments disparaging "the West", or "Western Christianity" or "Rome". I heard the Orthodox speaking often of "Roman Errors", sometimes specifically in order to assure the Lutherans present that they were "on the same side" (a bit of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" stuff).

Seriously, and I really don't think you, my dear Orthodox friends, get this: we do share the same faith.

Sure, we have extremely different ways of going about the business of that faith. This can only be supposed as natural, given the long isolation of both our traditions from one another. But now that we are once again face to face and in open conversation, surely now we have the opportunities to enrich our poverty (which is mutual and not simply one way) by learning from one another.

What I often heard in the lectures is "In the West" or "In Rome, such and such is said, done taught" or "not said, done, taught". "Here in the East" or "in Orthodoxy, we say, do teach that", with the explicit statement that the Eastern Orthodox way of doing things is right, and the Western Roman way wrong.

And you know what? I almost always agree that the perspective brought from Eastern Orthodoxy to our faith is one that, far from being contrary to the Catholic faith, would lead us (if the Orthodox were willing to share it) into a much richer experience of what our faith already is.

And you know what else? I think that sometimes if the Orthodox took the time to actually understand why the Roman Church does this, that and the other differently from the East, they would understand new dimensions of their own faith also.

But no. What I heard again and again is: Rome does X. X is Wrong. We Orthodox do Y. Y is Right.

Frankly, I hear that a little too often from the East. Maybe once it was the constant chorus from Rome too. But Rome was serious in 1965 when she retracted the excommunications. We are serious today in wanting to embrace our sister churches in the East--in a dialogue of love, not a stranglehold of suffocation.

Pope John Paul II once wrote (and I think this is the key to our relationship and dialogue if we are to grow together):

A spirituality of communion implies also the ability to see what is positive in others, to welcome it and prize it as a gift from God: not only as a gift for the brother or sister who has recieved it directly but also as a gift for me." (NMI, 43)

"Wall of Separation" - Church State relations in the US

According to an in depth report by John L. Allen Jnr, Bishop Thomas J. Curry of Los Angeles has launched a damning critique of the US's defacto interpretation of their First Amendment to mean that there should be (in Thomas Jefferson's infamous words) a "wall of separation" between "church" (read "religion") and state.

This "separation of church and state" issue has been of some interest to me in my interfaith work--especially in the light of Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. I am interested to see how differently different nations--France, Turkey, Britain, the US, and Australia--have dealt with this issue, which is one of THE issues of our time, especially with the return of religion to a place of importance in world affairs.

Generally, I think we go about it pretty well here in Australia. We don't go stupid about it (as, I think, the French, the Turks, and, yes, the US have), and perhaps we aren't quite as PC about it as Britain is. I like to think that in some sort of lapsidaisical way we have got it fairly right here in Australia. That doesn't stop quite a few anti-religious commentators trying to find a Jeffersonian version of the First Amendment hidden somewhere in our own Australian Constitution (of course, there is no such thing), and we still have our arguments about the place of religion in the public square. One only need remember the furore over publically funded chaplains in schools, not to mention the attacks on Cardinal Pell back during the NSW vote on embryonic stem-cell research.

It is interesting reading through the list of issues in Bishop Curry's speech, and asking ourselves are these issues in Australia? Check this out:

First, as he has in the past, Curry sounded a note of caution about public funding for Catholic schools, such as voucher programs. He noted the irony that at the same time Catholic leaders have clamored for greater public support for church-run schools, they have also expressed growing concern for their Catholic identity. Curry noted that it’s tough to have both at the same time, since “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” “I suppose all of us want to have our cake and eat it too,” he laughed.

Second, Curry pointedly conceded in response to a question from the floor that, given his premises, there’s precious little constitutional justification for having publicly funded Catholic chaplains (or chaplains from any other denominational background) in either the armed forces or the prison system.

But there are also issues that simply have not yet been answered by any democratic nation and which urgently need to be, such as when the States does have to make decisions about the practice of religion (and this will be inevitable especially when "anyon can decide what's religious and then demand that the government protect it") on what grounds will those decisions be made? Curry pointed to:

a Florida case in which a municipality had proposed knocking down headstones in a cemetery to make mowing the grass easier. Both Christians and Jews objected on the grounds that the headstones had religious significance, and the judge actually spent weeks studying the theological and spiritual significance of burial rituals in both faiths. Curry argued that the case should have been decided on other grounds, such as basic fairness or due process, rather than having the court assess specifically religious questions.

That exactly reminds me of all the argument that went on at the VCAT court over the right interpretation of the Koran in the Islamic Council of Victoria vs Catch the Fire Ministries case here in Victoria. In the court of appeal, the appeal judges noted that it simply is not the role of the court to make decisions based on theology.

Finally, I was amused to read this:

“I go to celebrate Mass sometimes in the prisons, and every time I bring a small amount of wine with me, which is completely against the regulations,” Curry said. “Thank God, no one so far has arrested me.”

That happened to me once when I was a Lutheran pastor. I wasn't arrested, but I was given a rough time by the prison guards!

More damned statistics - This time of priests who leave the priesthood (and some who return)

Still catching up with reading from last month, there is this astounding essay from "La Civilta Cattolica" entitled "Priests who desert, priests who come back" (translated on Sandro Magister's site) on the statistics of priests throughout the world who have left the priesthood over the last 40 years or so. According to Magister, the article was apparently commissioned by Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State.

It makes riviting reading (for those of us who like statistics). For instance:

On the basis of indications sent to the Vatican from the dioceses, from 1964 to 2004, 69,063 priests left the ministry. From 1970 to 2004, 11,213 priests have returned to the ministry. This means that there cannot be more than 57,000 married priests [who have left the priesthood]. Probably there are many fewer, because over forty years a number of them have died. So the figures cited by the press and by the associations of married priests, speaking of 80,000-100,000 ex-priests, are unfounded.

Now, 57,000 are still a lot in anyone's book. But I guess it is better to have the right figures than imagined estimates. And all the right figures are given in detail in what follows. One very interesting statistic is this:

Of the 1,076 priests who leave the ministry each year, 554 ask for a dispensation from the obligations imposed by the priestly state: celibacy, and the recitation of the breviary.

So about half of those who left the priesthood are still sufficiently attached to the Church to want to have their situation regularised. Why did they leave?

The reasons for abandoning the priestly ministry, or at least the ones that are given, are highly varied. Most requests for dispensation are due to situations of emotional instability, together with other factors that ultimately make the situation of many priests almost irreversible, but there are also cases of crises of faith, conflicts with superiors or difficulties with the magisterium, depression, and serious limitations of character.

Or compare the numbers of those who requested dispensation from the obligations of ministry before and after 1964:

From 1914 to 1962, 810 requests for dispensations were submitted, of which 315 were approved and 495 rejected. From 1964 to 1988, the requests received totaled 44,890, of which 39,149 were granted and 5,741 denied, for a total of 39,464 dispensations granted and 6,236 rejected out of 45,700 requests received by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

Something obviously went serious wrong in the 1960's... I wonder what?

Finally, I was intrigued by the statistics of convert Anglican married clergy who have been ordained as Catholic priests:

On average there are seven or eight of these each year. There were 12 in 2004, 9 in 2005, and 13 in 2006.

So few? One hears of hundreds of converts "swimming the Tiber", and has the impression that these "hundreds" have been ordained. They are obviously rather very very rare compared to overall numbers. Marco reckons that in fact many Anglican clergy take the plunge actually swim back again when they find that the Catholic Church is not the paradise they imagined it to be.

Church for Men?

A recent Commentator asked what advice I had for getting men back into church life. I did't have much advice (Peter at With a Grain of Salt might have more), but I googled "men in the church" and found David Murrow's companion site to his book "Why Men Hate Going to Church" called "Church for Men". There they have this image:

It is a good image of many protestant congregations. It would be a good image of the Catholic Church in the West too, but for "Men's Ministry" we should replace "Men Ministers", ie. the Clergy.

"Church for Men" proposes a "new model" which--surprise, surprise--looks like this:

Again, this would be a great model for the Catholic Church too (with the slight modification that some of the male figures in the circle would have little white collars on them!)

A "Kazoo in the Orchestra Pit"!

I don't keep up much with Lutheran church developments in the States (although more, I guess. than I keep up with Seventh Day Adventist politics in Norway). But I did read this round up of the recent LCMS synod meeting in Houston from Forum Letter editor Peter Speckhard. There are a few classic comments and perspicacious insights into Missouri Synod Lutheranism from a Catholic point of view. My favourite is this:

Yet social issues are perhaps the only area where the LCMS is growing closer to the Roman Catholic Communion. Evangelical Catholics are increasingly outnumbered by the Just Plain Old Evangelicals in the LCMS. The Ablaze! campaign with all its trappings could easily be adapted for use by Baptists, Assemblies of God, and various independent evangelical megachurches, but would stand out like a kazoo in an orchestra pit in an Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or high-church Anglican or Lutheran setting.

Maybe he hasn't experienced a World Youth Day yet...! Still, one get's his point. Even among us REAL Evangelical Catholics (ie. Not Evangelical Lutherans trying to be Catholic, but Catholic's trying to be Evangelical!) you won't get too much enthusiasm for big rivalistic campaigns. "The New Evangelisation" launched by Paul VI and so much encouraged by John Paul II and now Benedict XVI is not a temporary "campaign" but a total Church orientation toward the missio ad gentes. Not that the total Church has caught on yet...

There are some other interesting things in this roundup. On pro-life issues and moral issues surrounding homosexuality, the democratic voting of the Synod was almost unanimous. This leads Speckhard to comment that:

It seems that on social issues at least, the people of the LCMS believe in the official Roman Catholic position even more univocally than Roman Catholics do.

He's probably right. It might seem, at first glance, to falsify the old adage of Catholic converts that papal infallibilty is more dependable than the voting of democratic assemblies. However, a moment's reflection will explain this near unanimity in LCMS voting. Those who disagree with these positions have a perfectly respectable alternative to remaining in the Missouri Synod: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. And its bigger by far than the LCMS. So while there is near total moral agreement among remaining LCMS Lutherans, most American Lutherans who do not share the official LCMS position on these issues have already voted with their feet and gone to the ELCA.

Which leads me back to a common reflection: Many Catholics--even strongly dissident Catholics--hold communion with the Pope as more important than agreement with the Pope. (Please note: I am using "the Pope" as shorthand for the episcopal magisterium of the Catholic Church here). I'm not saying this is right. It is just the way it is. No group of any significant size calling itself "The Catholic Church" has become established as an "alternative" for those who wish to remain "Catholic" but don't want the Pope. The largest significant split was in the 19th Century, resulting in the "Old Catholic" Church--but this is so tiny, and now so obviously NOT Catholic that it hardly rates a mention.

If the LCMS was to enter into full unity with the ELCA, the first synod of this newly united Lutheran Church in the US would not be nearly as harmonious as was the meeting recently held in Houston. In fact, those who "believe in the official Roman Catholic position" would be the ones sounding like a "kazoo in the orchestra pit"!

Review of Sara Butler's "The Catholic Priesthood and Women"

I have written positively of Sara Butler's "The Catholic Priesthood and Women" and cannot recommend it highly enough for all who truly want to undertand the Catholic Church's stance on this issue.

But there is a good review (with some criticism) by Monica Migliorino Miller on the First Things Blog.

The criticism is mainly over the distinction between "fundamental reasons" and "theological reasons". She does not deny the distinction (which I personally think is one of the strong points of Butler's analysis), but believes that "there is more of an overlap between these two approaches to the doctrine than Butler admits."

Butler brings the focus back to the “fundamental reasons,” which is necessary, considering how they are neglected in the debate. The fact remains, however, that the “fundamental reasons” alone have trouble convincing—and must be followed very quickly by the “theological reasons.”

One extremely good point that Miller makes is that emphasising the "fundamental reasons" without the "theological explanation" of these reasons may lead one to conclude that the will of Christ is "arbitrary".

The “fundamental reasons” in Inter Insigniores begin with a statement that the Church does not believe she has the authority to admit women to the ministerial priesthood. The Church is bound to follow an original gesture of Christ when he established the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is at once a christological and an ecclesiological issue.

When Christ called only men to the company of the Twelve, we are confronted by the will of Christ himself. The apostles themselves were faithful to the expression of Christ’s will. The all-male priesthood begins with Christ, is continued by the apostles and is part of the unbroken tradition of the Church. As the document explains, “The Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the apostles.”

Many who reject these reasons argue that Christ’s manner of acting, his will indeed, was subject to the historical conditions of the times. In other words, Christ was not free to act any differently than he did, as he was under cultural constraints to deny women liturgical leadership in the Church. But now that times have changed, the Church is free to abandon a practice that discriminates against women.

Butler points out that Inter Insigniores and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis both insist on Christ’s sovereign freedom in his choice of male apostles. And this is an enormously important point. Indeed, much of the legitimacy of the “fundamental reasons” is based on the fact that, not only did Christ act in a certain way, thus setting up a permanent norm, but that Christ acted in freedom. History does not constrain him, culture is not a barrier, history is not a force that may dictate to Christ his choices. Christ is the Lord of history, he is the Lord of his Church.

Behind the “fundamental reasons” is a christological one, and while the Church’s documents insist on Christ’s freedom, it is the theologian’s task to explain why this is important. Butler does not provide this much-needed explanation. What is at stake is the very person of Christ—the divine Logos—in a gesture by which the constitution of the entire new covenant depends. If we follow the arguments of the dissenters, we are forced to conclude that in the very founding of the Church Christ (perhaps innocently) was guilty of an act of injustice to half of the human race. This, of course, is untenable.

Point taken. However, one good thing about the distinction between fundamental reasons and theological explanations is that theological explanations (which have varied over the centuries) may be discussed, disputed, newly recognised and even finally rejected (eg. as was the theological arguement that women cannot be priests because they are of a lower order of human being). The fundamental reasons, however, do not change and cannot be disputed or rejected.

Damned Statistics of the Saved...

I subscribe to Philip Hughes Christian Research Association journal "Pointers". For those who like statistics, there are wonderful facts and figures that make you "go figure". This graph above is based on material collected from the 2006 Census and the 2002 Wellbeing and Security Survey.

The original in Pointers only had the first two categories: Percentage of Australians who Identify with a Christian Denomination and Percentage of Australians who attend Christian Worship Monthly or More. I have added in the third category, corelating the two figures, because I noticed a difference in the "trend" of both worshipping and identifying. You will see that there is not a smooth decline in the percentage of identifiers who also attend in the under 65 age groups. Rather, more of those who identify with Christianity in the 25 to 34's and 45 to 54's actually attend regularly than of those who identify in the 15 to 24's and 35 to 44's.

I wonder why? Or is there no meaning to this?

In any case, there are clear declines in the under 65's in all categories. Hughes puts this down to the radical societal changes of the 60's and 70's. He is probably right. Take 40 years of the age group and you will see the correlation. Also, I wonder too whether the higher attendance rate for the +65's isn't as much to do with community as faith? I think of my parents, who were in their mid 20's in the 1960's, and for whom all their social life was around the Church. Nothing has changed, and it still is the centre of their social life now that they are in their mid-60's. For younger folk, there is obviously today many more social opportunities.

Chico the Cat

I want a copy of this book. When is the English coming out?

What do Rosebank, Johannesburg, and Australia got in common? Read on...

When I saw on Cathnews a link to a document from the Rosebank Parish in Johannesberg, I thought "That's a bit far afield, isn't it?". Then I saw that the link was to a paper reproduced in Catholica Australia, entitled: The Crisis in Ministry, and all the pieces began to fit together.

Same old same old, of course. Quick fix solutions that seem great over a glass of chardonnay on a sunny afternoon, but might not seem so great at 3am in the morning having to make an emergency call to anoint a dying person at the local hospital.

Expect no extensive commentary from me, except for a few observations.

The first is that the entire section of their second proposal "Optional Celibacy" is taken from the National Council of Priests in Australia 2004 document "Reflections on the Lineamenta". Nice to know that we are a world leader in this area...

Secondly, their third proposal "Ordained Community Leaders", citing St Paul's letter to Titus, fails to recognise that this very passage is the basis for what they have called (in section one) Proposal 1 - Traditional Vocations. What do the authors think that priests are, if not "ordained community leaders"? Remember too, that St Paul was hardly in the position to set up seminaries for young men with vocations to the priesthood. If he were, I am sure he would have jumped at the chance. But this was the first generation of Christians, and the "ordained community leaders" he is talking about were the first bishops and priests of the Christian Church.

Third, note that there is no proposal about ordaining women or even asking the Church to resume discussion about it (although a footnote shows that it did come up in one of their meetings and 80% were in favour). If only the Australian petitioners could have been so wise.

Fourth, among the websites linked are: http://www.futurechurch.org and www.marriedpriests.org . Great company.

What's up between the Estonian and Russian Orthodox?

It is never a good start to a dialogue meeting when one of the parties walks out. Even worse when the walk out is because of a disagreement between participants on the same side of the table.

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev--yes, our own friend from just a fortnight ago--has withdrawn his Russian delegation from the resumed Catholic-Orthodox dialogue because (get this) the Estonian Orthodox were invited to the party too.

There wasn't much the Vatican delegation could do. The Catholic News Service says a Catholic participant told them that "the Catholic position was that it was an internal Orthodox matter".

Pope Benedict has made it clear what outcome he desires any way:

I ask you to join me in praying that this important meeting will help the journey toward full communion between Catholics and Orthodox and that we could soon share the same chalice of the Lord.

Perhaps we ought to extend our prayers for full communion between the Orthodox and the Orthodox. [Yes, I just know that some of you are going to jump up and say that all the Orthodox ARE in full communion with all the other Orthodox, but, really, are these the sort of shinanigans you would expect from those who are in full communion with each other? It is more what one would expect at a Lambeth Conference...]

I am reminded of a comment Bishop Hilarion (pictured with a nice hat) made while he was here in Australia. He was asked why there has not been a Pan-Orthodox meeting/synod/council. His answer was that there were two reasons: first, the lack of anyone in a position of authority to call such a council, and secondly, the debate that would ensue about the ordering of seating for the various patriarchs according to hierarchy of honour.

Didn't Jesus have some advice on that?

What happened to Bishops under "Pope Luther"--Proof of the Discontinuity

Regular readers will know that one of the three reasons I came to accept the Catholic faith was "Continuity" (the other two were "authenticity" and "authority"--you can see the relation). Of all the "discontinuities" in Lutheranism, the most obvious was the discontinuity in Episcopal Succession, resulting (for German Lutheranism at least, and probably also for Scandinavian Lutheranism--no official judgement has ever been passed on the latter as far as I know, although the negative is assumed) in a loss of apostolic succession.

Of course, as a Confessional Lutheran, I was aware that the Augsburg Confession supported the "right of bishops". I was told by my seminary professors that the only reason Lutherans ended up not having bishops in Germany was because none of the Catholic Bishops in office at the time joined the new "Evangelical" movement.

A recent comment by Dr Tighe in response to my comment that Luther himself often acted as a defacto bishop (nay, pope even!) elicited this bit of history from the good professor:

On the two occasions when a semi-serious effort was made to get an "Evangelical Bishop" in Germany (i.e., not to have a neighbouring Lutheran ruler elected "Administrator" of an ecclesiastical territory ruled by a bishop after the bishop's death, and then have him appoint a General Superintendent to lutheranize the clergy and supervise the new territorial church), in Naumburg in 1543 and Merseberg in 1545 -- cases in which the Elector of Saxony (whose lands surrounded these small ecclesiastical territories) forced the cathedral chapter to elect a Lutheran as bishop (in the case of Naumburg forcing them to revoke their previpus election of the Catholic Johannes Pflug) -- Luther in 1543 brushed aside suggestions that the Catholic-turned-Lutheran Bishop of Brandenburg, Matthias von Jagow (Bishop 1526-1544; he became Lutheran in 1539) be asked to perform the consecration of the Lutheran electus (Nicholas von Amsdorf), and instead acted as consecrator himself, later justfying his action in his tract "On the Installation or Consecration of a True Christian Bishop." By 1545 von Jagow had died (but the two Lutheran bishops in East Prussia, one of them a Catholic bishop who had turned Lutheran in 1525, and the other a colleague whom the former had consecrated in 1528, were still alive and still in office), and so Luther again acted as consecrator of Georg von Anhalt as Bishop of Merseberg.

Come Muhlberg in 1547, the two Lutheran "bishops" were ejected from their sees, and Pflug installed in Naumburg and the 1545 Catholic candidate in Merseberg as well. When these two died in the 1560s, the cathedral chapters of these respective dioceses were forced to elect the Saxon Elector as Administrator, and he incorporated these terrotories into his duchy, and apponted a General Superintendent to lutheranize and superivise them. similar things happened in the 1560s as the last few Catholic bishops (or, rather, bishops-elect, since none of them had bothered to get themselves consecrated) in northern Germany died, and neighboring Lutheran princes took over their territories.

Isn't that astounding? Even faced with the option of having a real bishop--albeit one of "Evangelical" persuasion--available to perform ordinations and consecrations, and regardless of what had been stated in the Augsburg Confession, nevertheless, Pope Martin directed the "Evangelicals" to dispense with such stuff. It makes doing a "Tract 90" on the Augsburg Confession--or holding the "Evangelical Catholic" view of Lutheranism--very difficult to sustain historically. Given this context, to interpret the Lutheran Confessions with anything other than an "Hermeneutic of Rupture" would be downright historically dishonest.

(A little known portrait of Luther by Lucus Cranach the Younger, found hidden away in his attic)

Why I support my daughters' initiation into the Lutheran Church

After the last post (on the difference between Lutheran and Catholic doctrines of absolution), in which I remarked that my daughter recently did her first confession with her Lutheran pastor, following preparation for the Sacrament of Reconciliation at her Catholic primary school, Eulogos left a significant comment which I thought I might address in a separate blog entry. Here are the comments and my replies:

This is a sensitive subject, I am sure, but if you had been a Catholic before you married someone not Catholic, you would have had to promise to do your best to raise your child as a Catholic. (in past days, the non Catholic spouse had to promise, which makes more sense to me, because just to ask the Catholic to promise to try might be an invitation to an ongoing battle...)

In fact, nothing has changed, and yes, I made the promise too at the time of my reception. But the promise for the Catholic party is and always has been to do everything their power to raise their children as Catholic Christians, and the non-Catholic spouse is asked (not required to promise or sign or anything) that they will not obstruct the Catholic partner's resolve to do so. Now, given that my children were already baptised members of the Lutheran Church, I am not morally obliged to forcibly convert my children to the Catholic faith. To do so would be a gross violation of their religious freedom. So what do I see as my moral obligation to them?

1) to ensure that they are raised in the Christian faith in such a way that they will continue to be active Christians in their adult life
2) to ensure that they know, understand and love the Catholic Church and her teachings.

I remain quietly confident that there is a much greater chance of my children growing up to be faithful Catholics if I continue to support their full involvement in their Lutheran parish now. This is simply because the Lutherans have a much better track record (statistically proven in this country) of retaining their young people than the Catholic Church does. Put it down to the fact that Lutheran parishes do a much better job in catechising and including the young than Catholics do. By supporting my daughters' inclusion in their initiation programs, I am (I believe) acting to strengthen her faith in the most effective way possible at this stage of her life.

I don't know how it is with you and your wife and how she feels about this subject. But here is one case where it is clear that not being Catholic is depriving your child of something.

My oldest daughter did in fact ask at one point whether she could become Catholic, and I said to her that nothing would make me happier, but that for the moment it would be wiser if she continued in the life of her own parish. I am not "depriving" her, although I agree that all who are not in communion with the Catholic Church are "deprived". Yet we each have our road to walk, and sometimes the best way of reaching a destination may not be the most direct one.

Because although I am sure God forgives whatever sins your child might have when she confesses to the Lutheran pastor, this is not sacramental confession to a priest.

Yes, I know that. But I encourage her to do it because:

1) It means she develops a practice is essential to the Christian life and which (I pray) she will continue if she becomes a Catholic when she is older (something few of her Catholic class mates are likely to do)
2) It integrates what she is learning about the Catholic faith at home and at school with her Lutheran parish life
3) It teaches her the value of repentance for specific sins and gives her the opportunity to hear a highly personalised proclamation of the gospel.

Yes, we can't limit God, and I think He will be there in Anglican and Lutheran eucharists...and confessions, for those who expect him, (which is much more than many Catholics would say) but still, there isn't that rock solid certainty about this that one can have as a Catholic in the sacraments. In a way I would say that in the sacraments God is there even more than we expect with graces that we didn't even know how to ask for. As she gets older, how can you be content with less than that for your child?

Well, obviously I am not. But as with her practice of receiving holy communion (which she does in her Lutheran Parish), I am not about to tell her "Sorry darling, what you receive there is only bread and not Jesus' body". I want her to know and believe that in the Eucharist Christ is truly present. I am teaching her a Catholic Eucharistic faith, even if she is not receiving Catholic communion. Why? Because I believe this is the best way to strengthen her faith now and to prepare her for the greater reality which it is my prayer that she will come to know in the future.

I understand that an ongoing battle is worse for the child and if that is the only alternative I understand why you wouldn't press the point.

It's not a battle. Quite the contrary. There are difficulties, as in challenges, about integrating Catholic and Lutheran spirituality and prayer life, but this is not a battle, such that one or the other is a winner. If she grows up to be a faithful Lutheran and dies in that faith, well, thanks be to God! If she grows up to be a faithful Catholic and dies in that faith, even greater thanks! But the battle would only be lost if we allowed the evil one to find a chink in the armour of the Spirit by opposing Lutheran and Catholic faiths and playing them off one against the other.

Maybe you will get to that on the other blog. But the way you put it here it came across as something that wasn't even an issue, which was startling. Maybe you discussed this at the earlier post you referred to, which I didn't see. Please don't take this the wrong way.

Well, you see now how we are handling it and why we are. Remember, I was the one who converted, and the best way I can "convert" my family is to be a good witness for the Catholic faith in what is, after all "the domestic Church" of the family. We may be divided at the altar of the Eucharistic table, but we are one at the table of prayer in our house (except for praying the Hail Mary, of course, which my wife doesn't join in on!).

Fundamental difference in Lutheran and Catholic understanding of Absolution?

It is interesting that, as far as I know, "the Sacrament of Reconciliation" (in Catholic parlance) or "Confession and Absolution" (in Lutheran parlance) has never been a subject for official dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics.

You will remember me saying that my daughter recently did her first confession with her Lutheran pastor, following preparation for the Sacrament of Reconciliation at her Catholic primary school (supplemented with a good deal of teaching from her parents).

I didn't make a lot of the differences of understanding between our two communions at that point (not wanting to confuse her at such a tender age), rather we emphasised what we held in common. But I for one was very aware of the differences.

Dr William Tighe recently alerted me to this entry on Paul McCain's blog regarding the Lutheran understanding of Absolution. Among other things, there Pastor McCain says:

The Gospel is never not the Gospel. The Gospel is good news precisely because it is always forgiving sins. The Gospel is absolution. Every pastor is speaking absolution when he communicates the Gospel. And the Gospel is never any less Gospel when it is spoken in general, public settings than when spoken in private settings.

Also, while we are at it, let it be said, clearly, that it is equally wrong, horribly wrong and Gospel-denying, ever, to suggest that the Gospel is more "effective" or somehow of some better forgiving quality when spoken by an ordained pastor. This is nothing more, or less, than heresy.

I can understand where Pastor Paul is coming from. During my time as a Lutheran, I was convinced that the Gospel could in fact be reduced to three words: "I forgive you."

It is also perhaps worth reading what Dr Luther had to say on the matter (thank you, Paul, for the quote):

The preaching of the holy Gospel itself is principally and actually an absolution in which forgiveness of sins is proclaimed in general and in public to many persons, or publicly or privately to one person alone. Therefore absolution may be used in public and in general, and in special cases also in private, just as the sermon may take place publicly or privately, and as one might comfort many people in public or someone individually in private. Even if not all believe [the word of absolution], that is no reason to reject [public] absolution, for each absolution, whether administered publicly or privately, has to be understood as demanding faith and as being an aid to those who believe in it, just as the gospel itself also proclaims forgiveness to all men in the whole world and exempts no one from this universal context. Nevertheless the gospel certainly demands our faith and does not aid those who do not believe it; and yet the universal context of the gospel has to remain [valid]. (LW 50:75)

Regarding Pastor McCain's whole blog, Dr Tighe remarked that he was

not wholly clear on the principal point that is being asserted. Is it that "public absolution" is just as valid as "private confession and absolution?" Or is it that anyone, lay or ordained, can pronounce a sacramental (or semi-sacramental) "absolution" with equal "validity?" And if the latter, would not the same apply to the celebration of the Eucharist?

That final point is important. The speaking of the "Verba" at the consecration actually does something. It is a "performative utterance" to quote my old Seminary Professor, Dr John Kleinig. Surely, in authentic Confessional Lutheran theology (as opposed to Martin Luther's or Paul McCain's opinion), the declaration of absolution is akin to the consecration of the Eucharistic elements: God's Word is spoken and something happens: the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ; the sinner is absolved and all his sins are forgiven.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Catholic and Lutheran understandings of this sacrament is the element of "reconciliation"--and its relationship to the Church. Lutherans (rightly) believe that by the proclamation of the Gospel, sinners are reconciled to God. But Catholics are quick to point out that this reconciliation happens only by the ministry of the Church, and that there cannot be reconciliation with God without reconciliation with his people (sin--particularly mortal sin--sunders fellowship not only with God but also with the assembly of the faithful). The Sacrament of Reconciliation is as much about restoring the sinner to communion with the Church as it is about restoring the sinner to fellowship with God. Indeed the one cannot come about without the other. That is why it is necessary, if one has committed serious sin, to receive absolution before receiving the Eucharist. For this reason, formal absolution (and not simply the precatory form that follows the penitential rite at the beginning of Mass) can only be granted by an ordained priest or bishop--ie. those who can speak, not only for God, but also for the Church.

As for Loehe, he perhaps knew the Tradition of the Church better than the modern Lutherans. For there can be no absolution (reconciliation with God and his Gemeinde) where there is no authentic repentance. It was therefore necessary to add the "conditional" clause to public absolution. In the Lutheran Church of Australia, there are four formulas for public absolution, the first three of which contain either explicit or implicit conditions:

As you believe, let it be done for you. By the authority the Lord has given his church and by his command I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. God forbid that any of you reject his grace and forgiveness by refusing to repent and believe, and your sins therefore remain unforgiven. May he comfort you with his holy absolution, and strengthen you with his sacrament, that your joy may be full.
Amen.
(Supplement, Confession and Absolution, p34, alt. acc. to Church Rites, Maundy Thursday, p273)

Upon your confession, I as a called and ordained servant of the word, announce the grace of God to all of you. On behalf of my Lord Jesus Christ, and by his command, I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. God forbid that any of you reject his grace and forgiveness by refusing to repent and believe, and your sins therefore remain unforgiven.May he comfort you with his holy absolution, and strengthen you with his sacrament, that your joy may be full. Peace be with you.
(Supplement, Service with Communion, p7)

Christ gave to his church the authority to forgive the sins of those who repent, and to declare to those who do not repent that their sins are not forgiven. Therefore, upon your confession, I, as a called and ordained servant of the word, announce the grace of God to all of you, and on behalf of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Peace be with you.
(Supplement, Service with Communion, alternative absolution p7)

There is a fourth form, however, which does not include any semblance of conditionality. I can remember the discussions that took place at the LCA Liturgical Department before this was approved, and it was recognised that something new in Lutheran practice was being proposed. But the arguement in favour of it was precisely that which Pastor McCain proposes in his blog:

As a called and ordained servant of the word, I announce the grace of God to all of you. On behalf of my Lord Jesus Christ, and by his command, I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Peace be with you.
(Supplement, Service--Alternative Form, p58)

A dangerous misunderstanding of Christianity

While doing a little "research" on the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, I came across this review on "The Open Critic" page, from a link on the Wikipedia page for "The Northern Lights".

You have to really wonder. If this critic is correct (and I don't at this point claim that he is) Pullman has fundamentally misunderstood the Christian doctrine of the body. The critic writes:

During the critical expository scene following the near “intercision” of Lyra’s daemon (the removal of her soul), Mrs Coulter, the executrix of the church, explains the process as being “healthy” and a necessary kindness which ensures a child is protected from the “impurity” which adolescence begets.

It’s herein that the conundrum for the conservative 20th century church lies; surely, to remove the agent of original sin is to be lauded; it is after-all what Christ did through his self-sacrifical act. Furthermore, it’s an act played out with each baptism and “born-again” event. Not only that, a soul separate from the body is integral to the church’s idea of spirituality. And in fact, only through the release of the soul from the body is redemption complete.

Wherever the idea that redemption means the "release of the soul from the body" came from, it ain't orthodox Christianity. Perhaps, however, this misunderstanding is a key to understanding where Pullman is coming from.

The other thing is this--and remember that I haven't got to the end of the third book yet where this episode takes place:

It comes as no surprise then, when salvation comes to the universe through an allegorical act of that replicates the act of “original sin.” What Pullman is telling us is that the fall of man was truly an extra-ordinary act of love, and if replicated, it’s that act which will redeem us.

Okay the allegorical act is really thinly veiled sex between two deeply in love, just barely adolescent children.

I can't wait... However, I am eager to see whether Pullman in fact does what the Open Critic claims he does: that is, confuse "the original sin" with the act of sexual intercourse.

If either of these two ideas are really at the core of Pullman's work, we have a deeply disturbing instance of a characterisation of a gross misunderstanding of Christianity. Can it be that Pullman really believes that Christianity teaches either of these essentially gnostic concepts?