"Spe Salvi": Time of Release

For those of you sitting at your computers this evening eagerly awaiting a proclamation from on high, the time will be 11:30am Roman time, which translates into 9:30pm Melbourne time. I can't predict whether it will be released immediately upon the net. We can but hope.

Paul Collins paper from the "Catholics For Ministry" meeting

This is the first of a series of comments on the papers of "that meeting" last week run by "Catholics for Ministry". I thank the website managers for putting the full papers up. It is good that these opinions expressed are now a matter of public record.

Paul Collins titled his address "Is Australia headed toward a Catholic Church without the Mass and Sacraments?"

It is worth noting that historically, the Australian Church has been without the Mass and priests before. For almost ten years, between 1808 and 1817, between the time when convict priest Fr Dixon returned to Ireland and Fr O'Flynn was appointed Prefect Apostolic of New Holland, there was no mass or sacraments. Then, between the time when Fr O'Flynn was sent packing by the Governor and Frs Conolly and Therry arrived in 1820, all the infant Church had to sustain their faith was the Blessed Sacrament reserved at the home of one Mr Davis where Catholics gathered in secret for prayer. I wonder what these faithful Catholics would have thought of today's petitioners demanding "the right of the community to the Eucharist"?

Mr Collins told several stories—true stories about parishes in need in Australia and about priests stretched to breaking point in their ministries. In the old days, such stories would have been told as a part of a vocations drive, and would have been followed by calls to young men to give their lives to the service of the Lord in the Holy Priesthood. In fact, just such stories inspired generations of young men to become priests to serve in the mission fields. Some of these young men were the Irish priests who came to serve Australia in her colonial days. Foreign priests, every one of them… But not today. Today, such stories are used as leverage for Mr Collins radical demands that would in fact change completely the nature of the priesthood.

The stories Mr Collins tells of priestly dedication are, in the main, inspiring. But not his reference to the situation in Toowoomba. Because we all know what the situation is in Toowoomba and why. When bishops entertain "solutions" that involve

ordaining married men endorsed by their local parish community, welcoming former priests back to active ministry, ordaining women and recognizing Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting church orders

we know that they are no longer serious about promoting true vocations. I do not believe in a God who would leave any part of his church without the gift of priestly vocation. But I do believe that priestly vocations cannot develop where the Gospel is no longer taught with its concomitant radical demand for self-sacrifice. If priests do grow on trees, as Bishop Morris seems to expect, they won't be found growing on "Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting" trees—they will be found growing on the Catholic tree.

Next Mr Collins points to the research of his friend Fr Eric Hodgens. He says that

The simple reality is that many parts of world Catholicism are facing a sacramental and ministerial crisis due to the catastrophic drop in the number of priests and in the numbers presenting themselves for training to the priesthood.

This, he notes, "is not true of every country". It is mainly true of "the developed Western world" and parts of South America. It is an odd thing, but the decline in the number of young men presenting themselves for the priesthood has coincided with the drop in Catholic reproduction rates due to Catholics having smaller families which, in turn might be linked to the radical and unprecedented rejection of Papal teach in Humanae Vitae. Just an idea. Mr Collins could have encouraged Catholics to have larger families. "One for the Church", to paraphrase our former Federal Treasurer.

Mr Collins and Fr Hodgens also complain of "an absolute refusal by church authorities to confront the issue" of the priest shortage. Absolute? Hardly. Several bishops—not those with whom Mr Collins or Fr Hodgens would have much sympathy or vice versa—have been pro-active in encouraging a noticeable turn around in the figures of new vocations. Mr Collins acknowledged this in the question and answer time at the meeting. Moreover, there are many young men reporting being turned away from the seminaries by those whom Mr Collins/Fr Hodgens speak well of. Again, Mr Collins acknowledged this in the question time. Why? Because they are "not the right sort". Tell you something?

Mr Collins and Fr Hodgens say that

recruitment is down to an all-time-low

and

there is no significant sign of it increasing, despite claims of increased numbers in the Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and Neo-Catechuminate seminaries.

What gall! Each of these Seminaries has recorded a sustained rise in the number of vocations since the "dark ages" of the eighties. Not enough, of course, but a rise nevertheless. One would think that the responsible thing would be to acknowledge this and then encourage more vocations yet. But no, that would not support the ultimate purpose of Collins/Hodgens, which is to see married men and women ordained in preference to the "wrong sort" of young celibate males.

The comment that "the age of ordination has risen" should surprise noone. This is the case in every Christian church in Australia. Put it down to the voice of God being particular audible when the hearer is going through midlife crisis, I guess.

Catholics in countries like Brazil (where there is one priest to every 7000 or so Catholics) would be scandalized at Mr Collins' horror that there is only "one priest for every 2000 Catholics" in Australia. The real horror is that about ¾ of those 2000 are non-practicing (non-believing?) Catholics, and so the number to whom Father has to minister is around 500 rather than 2000. That number is not much different from Lutherans in Australia. The census tells us that there are about 350,000 Australian Lutherans, but Lutherans themselves count only about half that many. They have about 350 pastors. That's about 1 to 500 again. By the way, Lutherans ordain married priests. AND, they have been experiencing a troubling shortage of vocations lately. No solution there, it would seem.

Mr Collins concludes that "It was in this kind of context that Frank Purcell, Anne O'Brien and I decided someone had to take the initiative. So we drew up the petition. Essentially what we are trying to do is to get the bishops to respond to and assume responsibility for their dioceses - and the needs of their diocese rather than looking over their shoulders to Rome all the time."

My perception is that what Messrs Collins, Purcell and O'Brien (each of them laicised from their original vows) are really "essential trying to do" is get the bishops to accept, not responsibility, but the IRRESPONSIBILITY of the measures which they suggest as the only possible alternatives to the low vocation-rate: an end to clerical celibacy and the ordination of women. And yes, if you were a bishop intending to go in this direction, you really would want to be "looking over your shoulders to Rome", because your tenure as bishop would likely be nearing to an end.

If their real concern was simply the increase of priestly vocations, they would be going about it in an entirely different way.

A classic example of the "Hermeneutic of Rupture"

A new terminology has entered the Liberal/Conservative split among Catholics, that of the "hermeneutics of Rupture/Continuity". As is well known, Papa Benny himself introduced this new paradigm almost 2 years ago in reference to the interpretation of Vatican II in his Christmas address to the Roman Curia. Thanks, your Holiness. Very neat. Very useful.

I hope I am not spoiling anyone's fun when I point out that the Pope never used the expression "Hermeneutic of Continuity". What he said was:

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

So the fact that Benedict XVI repudiates the idea that Vatican II was not a "rupture" doesn't mean that he thinks the Council mandated "more of the same". Of course there was change. There was "reform". But this "reform" was not a "revolution" (as Past Elder wants you to think). It was a "renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church". So, changes yes, but change of the subject, no.

A good example, if you really need one, of the "hermeneutic of rupture" is the latest diatribe by Professor Swindler on the Catholica website. According to Catholica Dr Swindler is "Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue at Temple Univierty, Philadephia. He is also one of the founders of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC) and its current president." That sounds like a nice group. Maybe we should start one called "The Duties of the Faithful in the Church" or something of that ilk...

Anyway, Dr Swindler claims that there were "five Copernican Revolutions" that came with Vatican II:

The Turn Toward Freedom,
The Turn Toward the Historic-Dynamic,
The Turn Toward This World,
The Turn Toward Inner Church Reform,
The Turn Toward Dialogue.

The funny thing is, as you read through his "analysis" which Catholica tells us is "packed with information and insight", he barely quotes from the council documents themselves to support his thesis. In general, I do think that a case can be made to say the Council Fathers did think along these lines. But Swindler doesn't make such a case, he just asserts it; and then he insists that these represent "Copernican Revolutions" (by which I take it means a complete change) from what went before.

I think if he really took the time to examine the Council documents he would find more evidence of continuity (albeit in line with reform) than of the rupture he suggests.

This one is for Peregrinus

Peregrinus has begun a new series on Catholica on Religion and Science. I am generally with him on this one. I thought I might help out by pointing to several rather interesting mp3 audio files on Sonitus Sanctus on this topic. There is a good one by Francis Collins of the Human Genome project and Fr Ken Miller being interviewed in a rather intelligent radio program. Any way, check them out for yourself. Sonitus Sanctus is a great site for Catholic/Christian audio, by the way. Many thanks to Marco (who has changed the name of his blog yet again) for putting me onto this site.

News just in

I have heard on the grapevine that the Australian Bishops have decided to place "that petition" on their agenda. This ought to be interesting...

The Papers from the "Catholics for Ministry" forum

The four presentations that were given at the "Catholics For Ministry" forum held last Thursday in Camberwell Town Hall (by Paul Collins, Marilyn Hatton, Terry Curtin, and Anne O'Brien) are now on the "Catholics for Ministry" Website. You can read them for yourself. If so inclined.

And the greatest of these is...

Yes, I know you all know that Pope Benedict’s second encyclical Spe Salvi will be released on Friday (actually, probably that means late Friday night early Saturday for us here in the Antipodes), but I couldn't let the next few hours pass without letting you know how excited we are at the very prospect of a second encyclical from the Niveous Doctor.

His choice of theme, on the virtue of hope, conincides well with our motto here at Sentire Cum Ecclesia: "Maior autem his est spes".

We are told that "Vatican sources are indicating another papal document is still to come". But of course. The trilogy would not be complete without an encyclical on "Faith"!

New Ceremony in Rite for Installation of a Cardinal

In a revision of the ancient rite, instead of the Holy Father placing the red zucchetto directly on the head of the new cardinal, a small rock is placed inside the zucchetto which is then hurled down onto the candidate's head by the Holy Father from the open window of his apartment. The rite is intended to symbolise (on the one hand) the descent into hell and (on a more practical level) the headaches that the new cardinals can expect to face in their role.

Rebellious Students Demonstrate Faith

What can you say? Students. Never did know their place. Always bucking against the status quo. Always claiming to know better than their elders. What has changed in the last 40 years?

A lot. Here is the latest media release from the Australian Catholic Students Association:

CATHOLIC STUDENTS LOYAL TO POPE BENEDICT AND SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE PRIESTHOOD
23 November 2007

The Australian Catholic Students Association (ACSA) President Camillus O’Kane said Catholic students were disappointed that some groups continued to push for the ‘ordination’ of women, despite it being declared a non-issue for the Church.

“Ever since Christ established the Church over 2000 years ago and assigned His Apostles the task of sanctifying, teaching and governing the faithful, the office of the priesthood has been has been reserved for men only,” Mr O’Kane said.

In his 1994 Encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II affirmed the Church’s position on the issue of the priesthood:

(I)n 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.


Public Relations Officer Claire Anthony added, “We are thankful for the good work of our priests, and the tireless efforts they put in to their parishes and the wider community: offering Mass and the Sacraments, teaching the Faith, serving the sick and the poor, and upholding the dignity of human life from conception through to natural death.”

“We are also encouraged to see increasing numbers of young men, who fully uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church and are loyal to Pope Benedict XVI, entering seminaries across the country,” Ms Anthony said.

“As young Catholics, we are optimistic about the future of the Catholic Church in Australia.”

For further information or comment
Australian Catholic Students Association:

Camillus O’Kane (President) 0407 538 044
Claire Anthony (Public Relations Officer) 0401 559 765

Two excellent programs on ABC Radio Counterpoint

Yesterday there were two excellent sessions on ABC Radio National's "Counterpoint" program: Climate change and Kyoto and Rights and social justice in Australia. The second of these is with Jim Franklin, the editor of the new collection of essays on Catholic Social Justice doctrine, "Life to the Full" published by Connor Court.

Have yourself a pagan little Christmas?

Cheryl Lawrie, in Saturday's Age ("Away with the Manger"), drags up that old furphy:

Historians largely agree that the celebration of Christmas came about just after Constantine had made Christianity a recognised and privileged religion within the Roman Empire. Religious leaders were looking for a way to make Christianity more widely accepted among the populace, so they adopted an existing mid-winter festival and layered it with Christian meanings.

Yes, its the old "ancient-pagan-festival-masquerading-as-pious-Christian devotion" myth mixed with the "Constantine-created-Catholicism" myth.

In fact, Cheryl, "historians largely agree" that the impetus toward celebrating Christmas in the 4th-6th Centuries depended, not upon Constantine, but upon the definitions of Christological dogma from the first four ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon). The Council of Ephesus, which approved the designation "Mother of God" for Mary likewise saw an increase in Marian devotion.

Of course, there are plenty who will point out that Christmas is just the pagan winter solstice festival and that Marian devotion looks suspiciously like the devotion to Athena (which was also popular at Ephesus in pre-Christian days). And here is the only thing that Cheryl and the historians largely agree on: the early Christian missionaries were canny evangelisers. Long before the word "inculturation" was invented, they were doing it.

And for those of you scandalised at the "pagan" history of Christmas, I challenge you to find something from Christianity (other than the Gospel itself) that was entirely invented by Christianity alone. The Gospel has the remarkable effect of "baptising" the things of this world, causing a rebirth and renewal into a new reality. Finitum capax infinitum. And that, to be sure, is at least one aspect of Christmas, is it not?

We're revvin' with Kevin in 07!

Just to show that We at Sentire Cum Ecclesia can be as gracious in matters of politics as we are in matters ecclesial, We extend our congratulations to the new primus inter pares of the Australian Parliament, Mr Kevin Rudd.

And just to show the Cooees blokes and blokess that two can play at that game, here is a contender for our new PM's doppleganger. The only question is, will he lead us forward or back in time--or will he stop time altogether?

Everyone loves a Barney...

Barney Zwartz has a version of Thursday night's meeting in this morning's paper (Catholics At War over Priest Crisis). War, Barney? That's a bit strong, even for a journo trying to beat up a reason for getting a story on religion published on page four of the Saturday Age.

Well, if it is a war, then I am glad to report that there are no casualities yet--except, of course, the usual "first casualty" of war--Truth in reporting.

And you, Barney, appear to be partly responsible for this. I say this because I have serious doubts as to whether or not you were actually there. In other words, whose version IS this story?

I base my suspicions on two points:

1) the story appeared in today's paper, and not yesterday's, indicating that it took some time for Barney's source to get the story to him; and

2) the fact that statements one would normally expect to be reported as the result of first hand experience have "Mr Collins said" appended to them, such as this:

Organiser Paul Collins said the busiest of the 700 people who went to Camberwell Civic Centre on Thursday night were the two security guards.

More than 20 protesters waving placards with slogans such as "we obey the pope" heckled and shouted, preventing most of the discussion, Mr Collins said.

"Mr Collins said", Barney? Why, weren't you there? Is this the level of reporting to which The Age has stooped, reporting events on the say so of the organiser of the event? There is no indication anywhere in the story that Barney took the trouble to speak to anyone else present at the meeting other than Mr Collins. Is this balanced reporting?

And what about this:

Both sides agree that the church in Australia is in crisis over the shortage of priests. Where they differ is the solution. Progressives want to reverse the 1000-year-old celibacy condition and to discuss women priests.

Conservatives believe importing priests from Asia and Africa is the solution until the number of Australian vocations grows.

Is that your opinion, Barney, or the opinion of Mr Collins? It suits Mr Collins to have you think that we "conservatives" believe in any such damn fool idea as "the solution", when in fact "the solution" advocated by the "conservatives" is nothing so simple (or simplistic). The only "solution" which "conservatives" truly believe in is prolonged and faithful committment to evangelisation and catechisation in harmony with the teachings of the Church.

And who told you, Barney, that "both sides agree there is no theological reason why married men cannot be ordained"? Was that Mr Collins too? Or is that the result of your own discussion with "both sides"? For the record, while it is strictly true that priestly ordination can, according to the faith of the Church, be conferred upon married men, yet if Barney had bothered to consult "both sides" (and not just the one who acted as his source) he would have heard the many sound theological reasons why the Western Church has judged celibacy of priests and bishops to be most fitting.

So contrary to any information that Mr Collins may have fed you, Barney, the 1600 year old (NOT 1000 year old) tradition of celibate clergy in the West cannot simply be changed "with the stroke of the Pope's pen". It simply amazes me how much power the dissidents continually ascribe to popes and bishops. They make them virutually omnipotent when it comes to the power to change "at the stroke of a pen" (or a vote at the local bishops conference) the faith and tradition of the Holy Church.

Really, Barney. Next time try writing your own piece, based on your first hand eye-witness account, rather than letting Mr "Priest-forever" Collins write it for you.

"An older, more sober Catholic" reflects on "That Meeting"

This was posted by Ray on the Cathnews in relation to the "Working for a Renewed Priestly Ministry" meeting on Thursday at the Camberwell Civic Centre. I thought it was worth sharing with a wider audience, so I've nicked it and put it here.

I was at the meeting too and have the following comments.

While I wondered if the young objectors were at times strategically inept in their expression of disagreement, I can readily agree with their frustration. I honestly think the group organising this meeting must talk too much among themselves without reflecting on what their ideas might sound like to a wider group of ordinary Catholics. They don’t seem to realise that some of their comments are deeply offensive to many – akin to saying something like “you’re mother is a dog”. No: by “offensive” I don’t mean something weasely like “challenging” or “confronting”. I mean just plain bloody offensive. You can do it with a smile, you can do it as a woman. But it’s offensive all the same. There were several times in the night when I, an older, more sober Catholic, felt like getting up and smashing a chair against the wall on hearing the rubbish that was being served up.

Paul Collins gave a useful summary of the dire straits some parish priests are in. He went on to make an emphatic statement about the bishop having primary responsibility to his diocese, not to the universal church. A false dichotomy, surely. The bishop as shepherd must as part of his “primary” (if you like) responsibility, feed his flock. But if he feeds his flock poisonous doctrine, they will, spiritually, die. The only way he can guarantee that he is not feeding his flock poison is to ensure that he is doctrinally ( and THEREFORE PASTORALLY ) in line with Peter (and ergo Christ). Thus, when the rubber hits the road, there is no “primacy” of the bishop’s responsibilities. Well, that’s what Catholics hold anyway. Is the suggestion here that a bishop can say “O heck, we’re short of priests here, so even though Rome in its solemn pronouncements says emphatically and consistently says we can’t ordain women priests because it’s a matter of doctrine, I’m going to go ahead and do it anyway”? Lunacy. One chair down.

Marilyn Hatton. With all due respect: if the dear lady is a Catholic, then I’m not. (Actually there were times in each of the talks when I made analogous remarks to myself. But more so in hers.) She can have the title ‘Catholic’. I’ll keep the beliefs of my parents, grandparents, St Thomas Aquinas, all ecumenical councils including Vat II, the Fathers, and the New Testament, thank you very much. We are of different religions, and I’m not having what she’s having. Obviously the God she worships was mean enough to tolerate a vicious patriarchy in the religion of the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Church right up until the oh-so-enlightened times of our post Vatican II era – right up to the life and times of …. well, Marilyn Hatton, actually. There’s a word for this: “hubris”. Enough said. Two chairs down.

Terry Curtin actually made me sit up. He made some sensible remarks, borne of experience, about what it’s like being a married man trying to function as a parish leader. I’m sure much of what he said, positively and negatively, would resonate with any married priest in the Eastern Rites.
So why did he have to spoil it all by this nonsense that we have to “throw out dogmas” and refer to the Holy Spirit as “she”? Sheer, gratuitous offense to any Catholic that actually thinks about the creed they say every Sunday. Perhaps he utters it mindlessly. Or maybe they just don’t recite the creed in his local church. More fool him. Or them. Bang. The third chair.

Anne O’Brien. A climax of illogicaltiy and non sequitur. We need to get away from our old ideas of God. God is beyond our words. Yes – that’s standard theology, actually, Anne. Nothing brave or new there – Aquinas and others have actually thought about this and I daresay at greater depth than you or I. “God is not omniscient or infinite”. Er, Anne, if God is “beyond our words”, how the hell can you pontificate that He is not omniscient or infinite?

We need a “new language” The arcane words like “salvation” and “redemption” need replacing. Why Anne? Feel free to write your own catechism in your “new language” by all means, which doesn’t dumb down like just about every modern catechetical text, but captures all the rich nuances of words like “salvation” and “redemption”. Oh, and you can do the same with Shakespeare as a warm-up exercise. But I’ll lay some money down now as to how many copies your efforts will sell. In the meantime, excuse me while I dispose of this fourth chair.

O Lord, deliver us from the hand of our foes.

Amen, Ray. Amen.

Young People and "That Petition"

On the Cathnews DB, Craig asks the following questions:

Why were there so few young people in attendance [at last night's meeting re problem of the priest shortage]? If change is to be effected, it stands to reason that a critical mass of young people should be represented. If there are no, or very few such young people then why is this the case?

How will it be possible to engage and energise young Catholics who identify with the Catholic tradition, but also wish to agitate the kind of change contemplated by the petition.

These are intelligent questions and deserve an answer.

I do believe that there are many young people who have at least been baptised and confirmed as Catholics who would support the aims of the petition--including the bit about Women's Ordination--but who were neither at the meeting, nor have they signed the petition, because they are in fact no longer active in their faith. Mainly this is because they were never properly evangelised or catechised in the first place. In other words, while there are many young people who would support the petition, they are past caring and past taking any action to get any change.

On the other hand, there are other baptised and confirmed young people (admittedly, a distinct minority compared to the first category) who are still active in the Church precisely because they have been properly evangelised and catechised. But also precisely for this reason, they do not support the endeavours of the petition and in fact make up its most vocal opponents. Ironically, some of these young people are in fact the only ones doing anything positive about the priest shortage situation: they are answering the call to the priesthood and entering the seminary.

Of course these young people would not have been at last night's meeting.

Gentlemen, GENTLEmen, ... and LADIES... Please...

Thanks for the comments on the last posting. In particular, thank you to Peregrinus and Samuel for providing two links, the first to the discussion on the Cathnews DB at http://members4.boardhost.com/cathtelecom/msg/1195800341.html and the second to an audio file of the meeting at http://www.mediafire.com/?e7tx3pe0zys

Now, to less pleasant matters. I was at another major interfaith event in Melbourne this evening, where I sat next to two very genial friends who attended last night's event in support of "that petition", and they tell me that the "disruptors" were not only disruptive, but also rude.

This might be a good spot to take a leaf from Fr. John's Zuhlsdorf's blog and his 5 Rules for Engagement. Modifying some of his ideas to fit the situation for engaging with those whose views and actions are in dissent from the teaching and practice of the Church:

1) Do not be rude. Be gracious to those who have in the past may not have been gracious to you.

2) Don't get into a game of "winners and losers". We all win when the Church's life is enriched. We all lose when it is impoverished.

3) Show genuine Christian joy. If you want to attract people to what gives you so much consolation and happiness, be inviting and be joyful. Avoid the sourness some of the more extreme traditionalists and progressives have sadly worn for so long.

4) Show gratitude, gratitude, gratitude for what God gives us.

5) Don't pontificate. Don't bitch. Don't whine. And did I mention don't be rude?

About that meeting...(thanks to Andrew Rabel)

This is just FYI. You remember that I referred to a public meeting coming up for supporters of "that petition". It was held last night while I was at an important ecumenical meeting.

I add no comments to this piece, since I wasn't there, but Andrew Rabel (who was) has written what appears to be a very good summary of the event. I do put this up with some trepidation, as I know it will be fuel to the fire of some who see such actions of dissent as proof to the apostacy of the Catholic Church. I simply point to the fact that

1) the teachings of the Church are quite clear even if there are many who do not want to hear them, and

2) the "disruptors" were a group of young people while the presenters were generally from the ranks of the over 60's.

DISSENTERS MEETING DISRUPTED:
Special Report by Andrew Rabel

On the evening of November 22, 2007 in Melbourne, Australia a well organized public meeting of dissenters to the Catholic faith, was disrupted by a group of mainly young persons, who protested their loyalty to the Holy Father and the Magisterium.

Held under the auspices of a newly named organization called Catholics for Ministry, the group in conjunction with a previously long established organization subversive of church teaching known as Catalyst for Renewal has this last few weeks been organizing a nation wide petition to the upcoming meeting of the Australian Bishops Conference later in the month, asking for the ordination of married men to the priesthood, the employment of ex-priests in church ministry, and for discussion on the ordination of women. The petition has received 11,000 signatures according to organizers.

At one point, the organizers threatened to extricate the vocal group from the auditorium seated in the front who held up copies of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, rosary beads, and placards with signs like "Women Priests. Don’t you understand the word no" and "We profess loyalty to the Holy Father", as the speakers gave their presentations. There were several hundred persons assembled in the Camberwell Civic Centre (the location of the conference) mainly of middle aged and elderly persons.

One young member of the vocal group who was being shouted down was threatened with assault by one of the organizers, "I will hit you if you keep on doing this", creating a situation of near pandemonium and a threat from the floor to end the meeting, but eventually tempers cooled.

At least where Australia is concerned, there is little doubt the tensions that followed in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, are alive and well and are evidence of the existence of parallel church structures that profess to be Catholic. Mrs Veronica Sidhu, a well known Catholic laywoman in Melbourne, an organizer of the counter protest said, "Catholic people are just sick and tired of the dissent to church teaching that appears to be tolerated in official circles."

The keynote speaker to the address was Mr Paul Collins, religious broadcaster and former Catholic priest who left his ministry in 2001 in the middle of an investigation by the Vatican of his then published book Papal Power which indicated the papacy as practiced in the contemporary church is an anachronism, and should embrace democratic structures.

When someone referred to the fact that the then Cardinal Ratzinger who was conducting the investigation was now the pope, Collins referred to his record of defense of the former head of the CDF, a very hollow claim in light of his published book, and his previous work, Mixed Blessings.

In his paper he drew attention to the tremendous shortage of priests in the country, and how the present situation is unsustainable for church ministry, despite the fact that Australia has one of the best parishioner-to-priest ratios in the world.

Dr Anne O’Brien, educator and former official of the Catholic Education Office in Melbourne indicated that the Church must adapt to present day viewpoints and perceptions, and that notions like salvation and redemption were outmoded. Looking at the young people in the front she commented that she had taught many youngsters like this over the years.

Ms Marilyn Hatton, (now the wife of Mr Collins) co-convener of a group called the Ordination of Catholic Women, said in light of the drastic shortage of priests, it was the time the Church appreciated the scriptural evidence that there were no barriers to women’s ordination, despite the definitive judgment of Pope John Paul in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that the Church is not authorized to ordain women as clergy.

Mr Terry Curtin, a former leader of a parish in Aspendale, that was part of an experiment conducted by the Archdiocese of Melbourne in the early 1990s to have a parish run by a layperson, referred to the positive aspects of his ministry that was later discontinued, making a very strong plug for the ordination of married men. He said the then Archbishop George Pell didn’t have an ideological problem with married priests, but feared the departure of celibate men from the priesthood, in discontinuing the experiment. More likely, it would have been for his strong defense of the Catholic priesthood and much repeated notion that "I will not have my priests deprived of their ministry" when heading the archdioceses of both Melbourne and Sydney.

Critics of the young people in the audience accused them of being discourteous, calling out and not letting the speakers be heard, but they said it was the Catholic position that was silenced at this meeting.

Batman, Bathersby and the God of Islam

I like to chose titles to my blog that whet your curiosity...

In discussing the question "Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?", I personally like to use the example of the way two different people, a progressive and a traditionalist, may talk about (just for eg.) the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane. They may claim to be talking about the same person, but by the way they describe that person (from their point of view) they might well be talking about two completely different people.

However, Jimmy Akin, on the This Rock website, has a much better illustration:

Suppose that you and I both knew millionaire Bruce Wayne. I might know, because he revealed it to me, that he is also Batman. You may hear this claim and reject it, in which case you adopt the false corollary belief "Batman is not Bruce Wayne." That does not mean that you don’t know and relate to either Bruce or Batman, it means only that you misunderstand the relationship between them.

In the same way, one may worship God and honor Jesus as a prophet (which he was) without understanding that Jesus is God. Indeed, many people in his own day did that: They knew the historical Jesus but had a false understanding of his identity.

Not only does this apply to Christain and Muslim disagreement over the identity of Jesus, but it also applies to the question about whether or not God is Triune or radically Monadic. And here comes the question of knowledge on the basis of reason and knowledge on the basis of revelation.

I cannot deduce that Bruce Wayne is Batman from reason alone. Yet although I cannot know that Bruce Wayne is Batman without this fact being revealed to me, nevertheless this fact cannot be said to be against reason, precisely because Bruce Wayne really IS Batman. Just so, I cannot know that God is Triune from the use of reason alone--such knowledge requires revelation. But given the truth that God's nature is Triune, it cannot be said to be against reason, because that is the reality.

Moreover, you and I both know Bruce Wayne. But you think he is a playboy millionaire and I know (from revelation) that he is Batman. We both know the same man, but we have radically different ideas about his true identity. Nevertheless, your understanding of him is not unreasonable, given the limits of your knowledge. Even if I tell you "Bruce Wayne is Batman", it would not be unreasonable for you to disbelieve me, because (on the basis of your experience) Bruce Wayne is a playboy millionaire.

I think you can really go somewhere with this example. Perhaps even further than using the example of the Archbishop of Brisbane. Unless, of course, HE is Batman. Now there's a thought...

Hear, hear, Elizabeth Harrington!

We have been critical of Elizabeth Harrington's columns in the past, but as I said even then, she often has good points in her column. This week's column on the respect and sacred significance of the altar is in fact entirely and completely good. Well done, Elizabeth!

Bishop Elliott on the new (and old) translations of the Novus Ordo

There is a terrific essay by Bishop Peter Elliot on the Adoremus website called "Liturgical Translation: a Question of Truth", that is well worth reading.

I note only one point where he speaks of the way in which the modernist ideology of the 60's and 70's tried to tear down the "iconastasis" of mystery from the liturgy in order to reveal the mass in full "comprehensibility".

It would have been possible to translate the Mass into our vernacular while retaining much of that gracious sense of linguistic mystery, as may already be seen in the unfolding work of the Vox Clara Committee and of the newly reconfigured ICEL, which seeks to reclaim the truth of the mystery. But that was not the prevailing mentality in the 1960s. The reasons for this attitude may be discerned by beginning with the obvious didacticism of the translations.

The didacticism of the current ICEL texts embodies a stage in history when communication was the key to everything — the era of Marshall McLuhan and the “global village”, when mankind reached for the stars and we could hear men talking from the moon. Clarity, comprehensibility, access to data and information, and the triumph of the Enlightenment were also marked by the jostling of ideologies, each claiming to carry the light and future whether of “modern man”, “secular man”, or “socialist man”, to use the language of the pre-feminist vocabulary of those times.

I simply reflected, perhaps a little profanely, that a woman's body is always that little more alluring when "hidden" in beautiful clothing than when completely stripped down to pure nakedness. And when I do enjoy the complete nakedness of woman (yes, singular, ie. my wife) I do that in a "mysterious" hiddenness from the eyes of the world also!

In a similar way, the language of the eucharistic liturgy acts as "beautiful clothing" that reveals the true mystery of the Eucharistic reality which it enfolds.

The Ochlophobist on the Ravenna document

Thank you for those who contributed to the discussion in the post below on the Ravenna Document. Thank you too to those who pointed to the Ochlophobist's blog on the matter (drinking wine together is never a bad thing in ecumenical circles so at least he acknowledges that there is something positive about these meetings).

Of all that he had to say, I found most interesting the statement:

I will remind you, dear reader, of your Ochlophobist's first rule of Orthodox/Catholic "dialogue" - that for reunion to take place one of the two communions will have to cease to be who she is now.

There is a sense in which this is true and two senses in which it is false.

The sense in which it is true is that any future full communion between the Orthodox Churches and Catholic Church (I abhore the description "Roman" Catholic, which applies only to the diocese of Rome--I am a Melbourne Catholic in communion with the See of Rome, and my Ukrainian friends are Ukraininan Catholic in communion with the See of Rome, etc.) will require each of us to "die to ourselves" in some way in order to "rise with Christ" as a new creation. So yes. There will be a "ceasing to be what we are now" required. This involves the whole tension between identity and unity which may (indeed) never be fully solved this side of the eschaton.

However, in another sense, keeping the mystery of the Resurrection in mind and St Paul's way of phrasing it, that which is sown is one thing, and that which is raised is still that same thing (continuity of identity) but radically transformed by the grace of God. Full communion between all the true particular Churches of God will mean that, by dying to ourselves, God will raise us to be like Christ (as we should be): a new existence, but an existence more perfectly conformed to the Risen Christ than we are now. So yes, the change required would mean that we are no longer what we are now (a discontinuity, if you like, with the past), but the nature of the new reality will be in radical continuity with the reality that we now have. Nothing will be lost except our sinfulness and what will be gained will be greater grace and holiness.

The second sense in which the Ochlophobist's "rule" is false is that the required change will not be and cannot be on only one side. Coming together into full communion will mean that in a whole range of aspects we will both have to change in order to embrace one another. Ochlophobist only points to a few of these many aspects. Unfortunately he seems to think that "reunion" will only be possible if one or the other shifts from where they are now and moves entirely to where the other is now. This is not true to truly Christian ecumenism. The only true ecumenism--true as in "acceptable to God"--is that in which both dialogue partners understand that they are on pilgrimage from where they are now to where Christ is calling them to be, ie. to Himself, to be one in Him alone and in his Truth and Holiness. Unless there is a willingness to enter into this pilgrimage--which will indeed be a Way of the Cross, a taking up of our Cross and following him to the point of death in order that we too may rise with him--there never will be and never can be a return to full communion.

But no Christian who truly believes in the paschal mystery can deny that this transformation can and must happen. In this lies all my hope for the future union of all Churches, East and West. I hope you do not think I am being naive in harbouring this hope, for it is not a hope in human beings, but a hope in God and in his Son Christ Jesus and in the power of his Holy Spirit.

A curious thing: The Ravenna Document (Catholic and Orthodox)

I have just finished working through the latest document to issue from the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, the so-called "Ravenna Document", on the topic of "Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity, and Authority" (you can see why they nick-name these documents after the town in which the dialogue was held!)

It is not a long document. But it does hold a few surprises--at least for a Catholic reader like myself. Here are some notable points. I would be interested in Orthodox feedback:

1) The document shows remarkable openness on the part of the Catholics to accept the ecclesiological understanding of the East--even though the crucial elements of this ecclesiology have not traditionally been emphasised in the West. It is as if the Catholics are saying to the Orthodox: "We know that your ecclesiology is essential for you; we have no inherant difficulty with that ecclesiology; therefore we will adopt it as the framework for our statements".

2) The (basically) Eastern "eucharistic ecclesiology" had already been adopted in an earlier agreement. It is built upon here by adding the emphasis of "conciliar ecclesiology", to which no objection is raised by the Catholic side.

3) The statement adopts an understanding that there are three (rather than the traditional Western two) levels at which the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found: local, regional, and universal. The newcomer on the block (as far as the West is concerned) is the "regional" category. In the famous exchange between Walter Kasper and Joseph Ratzinger, the arguement only ever considered the local church and the universal church, which, in usual Catholic understanding, are the only two levels upon which "Church" can properly be understood. (see, for instance, the Commentary on the CDF document on the Church, which speaks of "a renewed understanding of the individual Churches within the universal Church"). In this Western understanding, each local Church is immediately related to the Universal. The significance of the regional relationships between local Churches (as expressed in the cooperation of neighbouring bishops in ordaining a new bishop or in the concelebration of the Eucharist or in the local synod) is simply that it is the practical (rather than merely theoretical) expression of that communio which is properly universal. The Ravenna Document, on the other hand, views this middle "regional" category (which may be "a province, a metropolitanate, or a patriarchate") a distinct ecclesiological reality. One can, perhaps, see why.

4) One reason why is the huge significance given to the "canons" of the Church in this document. The word "canon" (or canonical) appears 25 times in a document of 46 paragraphs. Apostolic Canon 34 (for instance) is quoted three times. It treats (surprise, surprise) the "relationship between the local Churches of a region". It is, of course, on the matter of the significance, interpretation and application of the ancient canons that so much hangs in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

5) Regarding ecumenical councils, there is this curious statement that could seem to play into the hands of some dissenters on the Roman side of things:

37. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole – by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians.

6) Perhaps most surprising of all is a rather unprecedented statement of agreement on the primacy of the Roman see:

41. Both sides agree that this canonical taxis [the order of precedance of the patriarchates] was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church. Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.

42. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them [a significant point most Catholics are not aware of!], he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.

44. In the history of the East and of the West, at least until the ninth century, a series of prerogatives was recognised, always in the context of conciliarity, according to the conditions of the times, for the protos or kephale at each of the established ecclesiastical levels: locally, for the bishop as protos of his diocese with regard to his presbyters and people; regionally, for the protos of each metropolis with regard to the bishops of his province, and for the protos of each of the five patriarchates, with regard to the metropolitans of each circumscription; and universally, for the bishop of Rome as protos among the patriarchs. This distinction of levels does not diminish the sacramental equality of every bishop or the catholicity of each local Church.

The Conclusion seems to point to the fact that finally we have reached the point where the real bone of contention can be discussed:

45. It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

7) Nevertheless, given this comment about the position of the Roman See as the protos in the universal church, it is hard to understand quite how either side means the footnote at the very end of the document to be understood:

Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church “subsists in the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

If the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of which the Nicene Creed speaks" is the Universal Church of which the Bishop of Rome is the protos (whatever the exact meaning of that term may be), how can the Universal Church be identified with the Orthodox Church of which the Roman Pontiff is not counted as a communicant member?

We wait with bated breath for the next exciting round of talks--perhaps this time WITH the Russians?

I wish I could be there...

Promoting Reverence, the Sacred and Beauty in Catholic Liturgy


Solemn Mass in the Modern Form/Use of the Roman Rite (Novus Ordo)
“ad orientem”, in Latin with Gregorian Chant
at St Brigid's Catholic Church, Fitzroy North
On the last Sunday of each month.

Next Mass: Feast of Christ the King, Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 6pm

What: A new initiative has been launched to offer Mass celebrated in a way that more closely follows the teachings of the Second Vatican Council in its document Sacrosanctum Concilium. Solemn Mass in the Modern Form/Use of the one Roman Rite (the Novus Ordo) is celebrated in Latin, with Gregorian chant and in an "ad orientem" posture for the Liturgy of the Eucharist: where Priest and Congregation together face liturgical east toward the Tabernacle.

Why: Many people think that the Second Vatican Council mandated the removal of Latin and Gregorian chant in the Mass and required the Priest to face the people when saying Mass. However, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) mandated none of these things. It actually required that Latin and Gregorian Chant remain an essential part of the Mass and envisaged no change to the venerable tradition of the Priest and Congregation together facing the Tabernacle (“Liturgical East” or "ad orientem").

This initiative of the Parish of St Brigid’s in conjunction with the Glorificamus Society seeks to answer the call of Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, for a return to a greater sense of reverence, mystery, beauty and sacredness in the celebration of Holy Mass, by recovering these traditions of Latin, Gregorian chant and ad orientem posture.

When: These Masses are celebrated at 6pm on the last Sunday of each month. The eighth of these Masses will be offered on the Feast of Christ the King, on Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 6pm.

Where: St Brigid's Catholic Church, 378 Nicholson Street, Fitzroy North (Melways Map 2C Ref A4). All are most welcome to attend. Mass booklets with full Latin/English translations will be available for those without their own missals for this Form of the Roman Rite.

For more information: This initiative is supported by the Glorificamus Society for the renewal of Catholic Liturgy. Contact us at glorificamus@gmail.com for more information. You can keep up to date with Mass times and this initiative by visiting the Glorificamus webpage: http://glorificamus.blogspot.com/

We invite you pass on this notice to as many people as you can.
We look forward to welcoming you, your family and friends to these Masses.

Fr Frank Brennan better have his answer ready...

Local Jesuit agitator, Fr Frank Brennan, thinks that the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference got it wrong when they made a "blanket determination, in the absence of any published reasoning [???!!!] distinguishing both formal and material cooperation and permissible and impermissible material cooperation" declaring that Australian Catholics should "seek other avenues of defending human rights" than through financial support of the now officially pro-abortion Amnesty International.

In an article in Eureka Street entitled "Don't Boycott pro-choice Amnesty" he argues that "within the framework of Catholic moral reflection...the issue does not permit such a blanket determination" because of all the other worthy things Amnesty does. Or more or less that anyway. He imagines a fictional situation in which a conscientious Catholic financially supporting Amnesty "could ask that Amnesty establish bookkeeping practices which would quarantine flagged payments from abortion activities." Ha! Amnesty officials have already made it quite clear that they will do no such thing--even if it were possible!

And then he has the gall to quote Bishop Anthony Fisher's excellent article in his defence. I don't think the good bishop would agree with Fr Brennan on the way he applies the principles outlined in his paper. (Is this a backhanded revival of the old animosity between the Dominicans and the Jesuits?)

Yet it should be noted that this is not a "Jesuit vs Church" issue, as the leading exponent for ceasing support of Amnesty Internation in the Catholic Church in Australia is also a Jesuit, Fr Chris Middleton, Principal of St Aloysius College in Sydney. You can read what he had to say here.

All I can say is, taking up the idea of Archbishop Chaput quoted in an earlier blog: Fr Brennan better be confident of explaining his rationale for continuing to support Amnesty International to Jesus and the victims of abortion when he meets them.

What a laugh! A hopeful dissenter gets discouragement from Helder Camara Lecturer

Encounter did a full program on the recently held annual Helder Camara Lecture here in the Archdiocese. The speaker was Archbishop Roland Minnerath, a former Vatican diplomat and former Professor of History at the University of Strasbourg, who (as Archbishop of Dijon) also acted as an adviser to the French Government. His topic was "Caesar's Coin: How should Church and State interact?", and mainly concerned freedom of religion rather than the "other side of the coin", religion in the public square.

The Encounter website just gives the full text of the speech, not the actual transcript of the program as such, and therefore leaves off the questions at the end. Which is a pity, because the program ended with the following exchange (which I have transcribed for your personal benefit, dear Reader):

Question from the floor: Your grace, one of the architects of the declaration on religious liberty was John Courtney Murray. Towards the end of his life he was interested in exploring the implications of religious freedom within the church. I wonder if you can speak briefly to that issue.

Archbishop Roland Minnerath: Well, I think as a matter of concept it doesn't fit. Religious liberty is liberty in society and towards the State. This does not mean that there should be no liberty in the church, because God created us free, so it cannot be against liberty. Hm? But it's not the same topic, you know? You cannot say "In the church you have freedom of religion". You have freedom of religion to quit! To change your religion! Okay?

But once you say, "I am committed to the Catholic faith", you accept it as a whole. As I do. If you really do not agree, you change. This is religious liberty. It's the liberty to change one's religion. For instance, if you would say, "Well I want to be in the church and I want to claim my right to say there is no Trinity", right? You have this right to say that, that there is no Trinity, but you are probably wrong! But you cannot say that and say at the same time, "I want to be a Catholic Christian". It is impossible.

So the idea of religious liberty has to be taken as it is, an individual liberty to adhere or not to a religion, or not to have in religion, or to be against all religions. This is your liberty. But once you say, you are in the church, you have decided to commit yourself to Christ, and to what the church teaches about Christ. And this is true in my case and your case.

Just in time for the election

We Australians are not usually too excited about the things that go on at the US Catholic Bishops Conference. However, this statement--"Faithful Citizenship" is a "how to vote" guide from the recently completed session of the USCBC just in time for our election next week. It was prepared for their upcoming 2008 Presidential election, but in general it is applicable here as well.

John Allen says that the text "was approved by an overwhelming 97.8 vote in favor, and the result drew a standing ovation from the bishops." That's quite something for the Americans, as far as I understand. It is notable for its "seamless garment" approach to Catholic Social doctrine which nevertheless strongly favours the "non-negotiables" of the protection of human life.

Regarding voting for a pro-choice candidate, it says:

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

When asked what a "truly grave reason" might be, Archbishop Chaput opined:

A reason that you could confidently explain to Jesus and the victims of abortion when you meet them at the Judgment. That’s the only criterion.

Fair enough.

Dreaming of living in a Dream World

I'm going to make an off-the-cuff, barely-thought-out statement here, just to get some of you excited about the upcoming election. Sorry, I should rephrase that, I hope to get some of you excited over the statement I am about to make, not over the election next Saturday. There is nothing that could get anyone excited about the election itself...

There are a number of "how to vote" guidelines appearing from church sources. One of them is from the Sisters of Charity and is called "Voting for our Values". My wife was fairly impressed by this. In fact, I think that what is impressive is the way in which Catholics are able to talk about social doctrine as something that is a core part of the Church. Pope Benedict, in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, in which he pointed to three (rather than two) marks of the Church: Word, Sacrament, and Charity. There is also a rather impressive little volume just out from Connor Court Publishing called "Life to the Full". If you are looking for wishy, washy unionist left-wing social gospel stuff, you won't find it here. "Life to the Full" shows how hard hitting Catholic Social teaching can be.

But back to the subject of "how to vote" guidelines. My wife also then expressed the regret that she had not had time to canvas all our candidates on their values. I note that Peter Holmes is busy doing just that, and he points to another "how to vote" guideline from the Life Office of the Sydney Archdiocese.

It is interesting to compare the Sisters of Charity guidelines to the Life Office guidelines. There is no overlap at all. Yes, folks, the good Sisters completely omitted any issues to do with abortion, RU486, euthanasia, stem cells, cloning, marriage, same-sex "marriage", family, drugs, or religious education in schools... Oh well. They hit on some other important topics like "Democracy and Dissent", "Climate Change and Development" and "Trade Justice", which for some reason the Life Office overlooked...

The one good thing that the Life Office gives us is Papa Benny's "Three Non-Negotiables Common to All Humanity". On 30th of March 2006 he told the European People's Party:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously
drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable:
• protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
• recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union;
• the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.

I think we do have a duty to ask ourselves whether the people we are voting for, and the party to which they belong, support these non-negotiable pillars of Catholic social doctrine.

You need to do this for the sake of your own ethical integrity.

BUT (and I can't put that BUT in big enough letters to make my point) your vote will still probably have diddlysquat effect on the social/ethical direction of this country's elected government. I'm sorry if that sounds cynical, but there it is.

If there is one thing I have learned in my short 23 years of political involvement, it is that politicians will say anything to get elected, and governments will do anything to remain in power. As Janette Howard said recently of her husband (and I deeply admire her realism and honesty):

You talk about a whole lot of things when you're trying to convince people to do things. But you don't go back and honour every single one of those unless you have made a firm commitment about it and John wasn't into making firm commitments.

And even if they ARE being honest, the chances are that the party you support will have values that are 50% in line with Catholic values and 50% not. Or even 95% in line with Catholic values and 5% not--especially in the case of the Greens where their policies seem to shape up pretty well against the Sisters of Charity guidelines (the 95%) but fail miserably on the Life Office's guidelines (the crucial non-negotiable 5%).

How about this conversation with Green's Senator Christine Milne on a recent episode of the Stephen Crittenden Show:

Christine Milne: Well, on the contrary, the Greens don't have obvious disdain for Christian values. ...there are many Christians who are members of the Greens and by our actions in the parliament... And they recognise just how strongly Greens adhere to principles of social justice, human dignity, respect for life...

Stephen Crittenden: Nonetheless, Christine Milne, isn't it also true that there are certain elements that go to making up the Green party -- and I'm thinking of the hard left types on one hand, perhaps the tree-hugging libertarian dope-smoking types on the other -- who are always going to prevent the greens from appealing to the Australian mainstream? Groups which have always been anti-religious? I'm even thinking of Senator Kerry Nettle and her 'Get your rosaries off my ovaries' T-shirt that offended so many people a year or so back.

Christine Milne: Well, I certainly wouldn't have used that language myself, but what Kerry was trying to express was a strong position on a woman's right to control their own reproduction and access to legal, safe and affordable and confidential reproductive health services, including where appropriate, termination of pregnancy. I mean, basically, providing access to unbiased counselling is really very important in Australia. We do not want to go back to the old days of backyard abortions. But the critical thing is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Any way, you get my point. I've gone on long enough. By this time next week, it will almost all be over any way.

Here's my election prediction: Contrary to Peter Garrett's "leak", nothing, I repeat, nothing, will change--no matter whether those Kevin07 T-shirts turn out to be real value for money this summer or next weeks bargain at the op-shop.

An Interfaith picture

One of the things I enjoy about my job is getting to meet interesting people.

I had the pleasure of chairing a meeting of the Boroondara Interfaith Network on Tuesday 13th November, at the Hawthorn Town Hall.

The theme of the discussion was "Celebrations and Observances", and the speakers were (left to right in the picture above) Vera Link (Jewish), Balam Lakshmanan (Hindu) and Gurdarshan Singh Gill (Sikh).

A thought from Rowland Croucher...

A local protestant minister, Dr Rowland Croucher, has a great little site called "John Mark Ministries" where you will find all sorts of stuff. In his latest email to subscribers, there was this little thought, which I thought was quite good.

Fundamentalism is "believing you have nothing to learn from an 'other' while believing the other has a lot to learn from you". So there are Islamic fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, Evangelical fundamentalists, and Liberal fundamentalists (eg. Jack Spong)etc.

You forgot Catholic fundamentalists, Rowland!

Prophetic Pope Predicts Petitition!

Thanks to Arabella for alerting me to a section of the third chapter in Joseph Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology.

Entitled "The Community's Right to the Eucharist? The 'Community' and the Catholicity of the Church", the man who would be Pope wrote this over twenty years ago. Yet it is as if he had just been faxed a copy of "that petition" and decided to write out a little reflection to help the members of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference know how to respond to it.

There is some of it on the web at Google Books (starting page 285), but you will have to buy, borrow or beg a copy for the whole thing. But I will give you a summary of the basic argument.

The first thing that is obvious it that the Collins/Purcell argument (which lobbies for changes to the priestly office out of a claimed concern about "maintain[ing] our Mass-centred, Eucharistic spirituality") is not new. Ratzinger begins his chapter with this statement of the issue as it was put in his day:

In recent years, the discussion about the priestly office that has been energetically pursued in the Catholic Church since the end of Vatican Council II has acquired a new label: it is now subsumed in large part under the heading: "the community's right to the Eucharist."

This slogan, he says,

has many levels of meaning and contains implications that are not so self-evident as they may at first seem to be. It must be admitted that the formula harbours a variety of perspectives.

Of course, we see some of the more radical of these "perspectives" in the Dutch Dominican's propositions, which actually use the phrase that Ratzinger was writing about (they charge that "official church authority in principle opts for a protection of the priesthood in its present form over against the right of church communities to the Eucharist").

Ratzinger's over all thesis is that:

Where the Eucharist is claimed as the right of the community, there quickly follows the notion that the community can, in fact, confer it on itself, in which case it no longer needs a priesthood that can be bestowed only by ordination in the successio apostolica, that is, from within the "Catholic" context, the Church as a whole and her sacramental power.

In other words, the Eucharist AND the priesthood are both "gifts" to the Church, that can only come from Christ. Hence the reliance on the full catholicity of the universal church, from which both eucharist and priesthood are given as gifts to the local church.

Ratzinger spends some time discussing the notion of "community" (in German: Gemeinde). He shows that "the community" was not a predominate idea in the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II (in which "the episcopal church [the eucharistic assembly with its bishop] is the lowest entity to be given a clear terminological and theological identity"), and tracing its roots to Luther's anti-institutional ecclesiology and "ideas of base democracy" in "the utopias of modern social criticism".

With regard to Luther, however, he has some sympathy. Luther's concept of the Word as that which addresses the Gemeinde from extra nos has concurrance in the Catholic idea of Eucharist as a gift from the universal communion of the Church.

The community cannot bestow [the eucharistic mystery] on itself. the Lord does not arise, as it were, from the midst of the communal assembly. He can come to it only from "without"--as one who bestows himself... To receive him means, therefore, to be united with all others. Where this does not take place, the door is closed to the Lord himself....

We see that the structure of the word and the structure of the Eucharist are identical, the one Catholic structure without which neither the Church nor the community can exist in a theological sense. We understand thus...that a community does not set itself up in opposition to the office (in order then to create offices or to demand that there be such); ecclesia becomes real at every level only when she is sacramental in structure, when she is woven into the context of the apostolic succession.

With regard to the "right to the Eucharist", he points out that Canon Law speaks of the "right" of individuals to receive the sacraments, not the "right" of communities. He acknowledges what could be seen as an individualising tendancy here, but also points out that there can be "romantic interpretations of community", whereas saving faith is always a personal matter. A realistic view of the Christian "community" therefore would be to see it as the "homeland of the soul"--a rather nice idea, methinks.

Then he comes to the question that the Petition and the Dutch Dominicans and their ilk are asking when they speak of the "right of the community to the Eucharist" in relation to the shortage of priests:

What must the Church--those who bear office and the laity, each in his own fashion--do to respond to the right every inidividual has to the signs of salvation and to enable every individual actually to experience the universal community of the Church as a supporting community, as the homeland of his soul?

The first answer is about the responsibility of bishops:

The ecclesial office must so form and equip the episcopal communities (ecclesiae particulares) that they are able, in their sphere, to build the life of faith in the Church with the necessary adaptability and openness, to create believing communities and to meet the individual's right to word and sacrament.

In other words, evangelisation and catechisation, as I said in my open letter. That, after all, is what "builds the life of faith in the Church."

But wait! There's more:

But that is only one side of the picture. A solution that comes only from the "top" will not suffice here[isn't that what I said in the open letter?]--certainly not if, to reach its goal, it requires a lessening of belief in the Eucharist and in the sacramental context of the Church--that is, a diminution or falsification of God's Word. Spiritual fruitfulness cannot be manufactured. But where the Church is insufficiently able to generate priestly vocations or to inspire individuals to an undivided, even celibate, service of God's kingdom, there cannot fail to be doubts also about her eucharistic efficacy... Indeed, the celibacy of the priest is the historical way, anchored in the gospel, in which the Church reminds herself of the fact that she cannot manipulate spiritual vocations and binds herself in a way that makes it impossible for her to meet spiritual crises by organisational manipulation.

You might just want to read that again. It is an extremely important point.

So what is the answer? Will petitions to the bishops do the job? Obviously not. No attempts by the Bishops of the particular Churches in Australia to unilaterally "manufacture" or "manipulate" the sacramental gift of the priesthood will answer the crisis that the Church is facing with regard to the priesthood and the availability of the Eucharist. Here is Ratzinger's closing sentences. The authors and signers of "that petition" need only look here for their answer and expect no other:

But the way to the joy of the gospel and to its great fruit leads only through the door of conversion. The greatness of the gift is always in proportion to the greatness of the gift of self.

Elizabeth Harrington cooks the liturgical books...

Over at Cooees from the Cloister, Hardman Window takes Elizabeth Harrington to task about her latest (apparently rehashed) article in Brisbane's Catholic Leader: "Rules alone won't do it". Now, Elizabeth often has good points in her column. But she is somewhat affected by the weltanschauung of the Liturgy Commission. Hardman Window brings this out in his commentary on this particularly problematic example of her writing.

I would like to add just a couple of observations to HW's critique.

Elizabeth says:

Celebrating liturgy well is not simply a matter of saying the words and doing the prescribed gestures exactly as set out in the ritual book.

Which is right--but it certainly isn't less than this. As Fr Z's slogan has it: Speak the black, do the red. The art of celebrating the liturgy well (the ars celebrandi as it is called) doesn't end here, but it surely must start here.

Elizabeth says:

Australian clergy had had experience of adapting the Roman liturgy to the extraordinary conditions of the Australian setting since the days when our pioneer priests travelled overland on pastoral visitation...

My fear is that this practice of "adapting" the Roman Rite will not end but will increase when the new translations are introduced. I will blog separately on this.

Elizabeth says:

But it is always necessary to ask how we turn the liturgical text into an evocative liturgical event for this particular group on this particular occasion. It is here that real creativity comes in.

And that is what worries us. This penchant for "creativity" is precisely what the Holy Father was talking about in his accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum:

In many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear.

Isn't that just what Elizabeth is saying? That to be "meaningful", "evocative", "appropriate", "intelligible", etc. creativity needs to be added to the rite? That "doing the red and speaking the black" won't do on its own? Yes. That is exactly what Elizabeth is saying. She writes:

Intelligence and creativity in using the liturgical books are essential if the rites are to be celebrated in such a way that the sacred mysteries shine out in the particular situation in which the Church has gathered.

Finally she describes this creative process in the following way:

While the rites we celebrate are set out in ritual books, it requires creative people to bring to life these words on a page – much like a good cook who can turn a recipe into a delicious dish.

A kind of ritualistic "cooking the books", perhaps?

Liturgy is not "play acting"

I'm going to be blogging a bit about liturgy and priesthood etc. in the next few days, but to be getting on with, there is a marvellous article out of the Sydney Liturgical Office by Fr Tim Deeter entitled: "Not a case of play-acting, but praying". This is the first time that I have seen a diocesan official affirm the following:

This is the reason why the priest faces “away from” the people when celebrating the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, and why it is not inappropriate nor forbidden for him to do so even in the Novus Ordo. When facing the people, many priests feel the need to “engage” the people throughout the Mass, even during prayers that are obviously directed to the Father, or to Christ Himself upon the altar. Thus the “play-acting” that sometimes occurs during the Consecration.

Bravo, Fr Deeter! Now, all you priests out there: who's going to brave enough to do this on Sunday morning in the Parish?

Warning, Warning!!

As the Robot used to say to Will Robinson...

This appeared in the parish bulletin on Sunday:

Working for a Renewed Priestly Ministry
PUBLIC FORUM
Sponsored by Catholics for Ministry and Catalyst for Renewal

The purpose of the Public Forum is to encourage the Australian Catholic Bishops to broaden the possibility for ministry in order to address the current crisis.

The second purpose is to support priests in praishes who are currently overburdened as they strive to provide Eucharistic and Pastoral Ministry.

Date: Thursday 22nd November.
Venue: Camberwell Civic Centre.
Time: 8:00pm
Speakers - Dr. Paul Collins, Terry Curtin, Marilyn Hatton, Dr. Anne O'Brien.

Okay, I think we can see where this is coming from. Unfortunately I can't go, because we have an important ecumenical meeting on that night.

But two questions: How are the Bishops of Australia supposed to "broaden the possibility for ministry"? What type of ministry are they talking about? The heading says "Working for a renewed priestly ministry". By "broaden" do they mean admitting married men? Women? Part-timers? Non-seminary training? Aside from the question whether it is licit or desirable to "broaden" the priestly ministry in these ways, I don't think there is much that the Bishops of Australia can do unilaterally apart from the universal Church. Of course, if lay ministry is the topic, then there are plenty of ways in which this can be "broadened"--but we don't need the bishops to do it. We can do it ourselves by starting where we are.

And what do them mean by "to support priests...currently overburdened"? Really, the answer to that is very simple. First, be a friend to your parish priest. Second, volunteer to help in the parish somehow. Third, encourage young single men to the vocation of priesthood (or, if you are a young single man, take up the calling yourself) so our "overburdened" priests will have some colleagues to call upon for real support.

I don't know why we need a meeting for this. But methinks I can guess.

Keneally attempts to revive interest in the Republic

As if it were not enough for me to lock swords with authors who write about the "Republic of Heaven", Thomas Keneally (Australian Irish author and amateur pope) has decided it is time to revive interest in that old furphy, the Australian Republic in today's edition of The Age.

Seems as if he is still under the illusion that we Aussies are "subjects of Britain", just because Britian and Australia happen to have the same monarch. Although he complains that "at embassies Canberra, foreign diplomats quite correctly toast the Queen of Australia", he seems to interpret those toasts as toasting the Queen of Great Britain. Our allegiance is to the former, not to the latter. So we are subjects of the monarch of Australia, not of Great Britain. There is an important distinction here, methinks. Being subject to the Monarch of Australia is hardly being "subjects of Britain".

I don't think I am being pedantic here. There is simply nothing in our law that in any sense indicates that we are subject to the nation of Britain.

He pontificates that "the very last of the avowed Queen's men, John Winston Howard, will soon be passing from power by electoral defeat or party handover." I am sure that Kevin and Peter will hope that Keneally is right, but surely this is a somewhat premature declaration?

More than that, although he concedes that neither Peter Costello nor Kevin Rudd is likely to agree to bringing the option of a directly elected president to a referendum, he remains hopeful that this model will succeed. True to his Irish nature (what IS it about the Irish? -- I put that in for you, Peregrinus!), he not only wishes to be free of the authority of the Monarch, but he also wants to be free of the authority of Parliament. Keneally is not just a democrat, he is a a demagogue. He declares that

The president would be elected to exercise the reserve powers only. He or she would be above politics and thus would often attract a larger endorsement from the people.

Who IS he trying to kid? How can a popularly elected president EVER be "above politics"?

The one thing he is right about is that there will be "a bit of a barney" when and if the issue of a republic is ever raised again. The republican party will never be united in the model they wish to be adopted. In the meantime, the status quo will continue to exist. We will have a Monarch of Australia for some time to come. I predict that the Monarch will even one day be a king.

Living in Communion as opposed to living "in statu confessionis"

Pope Benedict has been continuing his series of weekday audiences on the Fathers of the Church, this time with St Jerome. In this, he stressed (in regard to the message of scripture) that:

Despite the fact that it is always a personal word, it is also a word that builds community, and that builds the Church itself. Therefore, we should read it in communion with the living Church.

That reminds me of something Orthodox blogger Dixie wrote recently about Kallistos Ware's conversion to the Orthodox Church:I thought to myself:

Yes, indeed, as an Anglican I am at liberty to hold the Apostolic Tradition of Orthodoxy as my own private opinion. But can I honestly say that this Apostolic Tradition is taught unanimously by the Anglican bishops with whom I am in communion? Orthodoxy, so I recognized in a sudden flash of insight, is not merely a matter of personal belief; it also presupposes outward and visible communion in the sacraments with the bishops who are the divinely-commissioned witnesses to the truth. The question could not be avoided: If Orthodoxy means communion, was it possible for me to be truly Orthodox so long as I still remained an Anglican?

That statement could be ditto for me if you substitute the word Catholic for Orthodox and Lutheran for Anglican. Which in turn puts me in mind of something Marco wrote some time ago about the funny Lutheran idea of "in statu confessionis". He says:

My understanding of the concept is that one can remain within an ecclesial structure while theologically disagreeing with it. The point is that unity is more important than the finer points of theology. The reasoning is something like this: God has called the individual into a particular ecclesial context and they are called to proclaim his Truth within that context. One can withdraw from the life of the community while still remaining within it in some sense. In other words, one need not participate in activities which are against ones conscience. (NB: I never really understood the whole idea so I am only going by my limited knowledge and reasoning.)

Funny enough, I was myself challenged by this very idea before I made the final decision to become a Catholic. My district president at the time suggested that I invoke this time-honoured Lutheran strategy to enable me to remain in the Lutheran Church as a Lutheran pastor while personally holding to Catholic ideas (see these blogs). I considered it for a while and finally gave it up as an idea that was not only unworkable but also dishonest.

Which makes me wonder how many of my Lutheran readers are still knocking around the Lutheran Church, recognising how out-of-joint their ideas are with mainstream majority modern Lutheran opinion, justifying their situation by holding to a (defacto) "in status confessionis" position.

To return to the Holy Father's audience, does the idea of "sola Scriptura" tend toward a "solus Christianus" existence?

Links for further reading on Philip Pullman and "His Dark Materials"

Here are some helpful links for those of you who want to follow up on the the whole Philip Pullman and Golden Compass thing:

The Golden Compass Agenda Unmasked
A full analysis available for a small fee from the Catholic League in the US

Dr. Perry Glanzer: Picking the Wrong Fight

Peter Hitchens, "This is the Most Dangerous Author in Britain"
(Peter--a Christian--is brother to atheist author Christopher Hitchens)

Why Philip Pullman wants to teach children about atheism (The Independant, 2 March 2006)

"Far From Narnia: Philip Pullman’s secular fantasy for children". by Laura Miller

Gene Edward Veith: "Atheism for Kids"
Gene is a Lutheran author whom some of you will know

How Hollywood saved God
On changes to the film to make it less "anti-religious"

And by the man himself:
Philip Pullman "The Republic of Heaven"
This is essential reading

And Pullman in an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury

John XXIII Petition online for signing

Thanks to Andrew for sending me the address for the online copy of the John XXIII petition for you to sign. You might not agree with the tone of the letter and you might think there are better explanations for our shortage of priests than simply blaming "dissidents" in the Church, but I would recommend you sign it for no other reason than that it asks the bishops to make:

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 )

and to ensure:

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.

Both actions would be a step in the right direction. They are up to 981 signatures as of the current moment. I don't think there is a prize for being the 1000th signature, nor do I think there is much hope that they will get as many signatures as "that other petition", but the other one had a head start!