To all my Readers and Friends in Blog-world:

I wish you all a peace filled, rest filled, trust filled, joy filled, and above all Christ filled Christmas.

As usual, I will take a break from blogging during this holiday period to give my attention completely to my family. Don't do anything controversial or newsworthy for the next week and a bit, will you? I wouldn't want to miss it.

And for your Christmas meditation, two poems from our local Melbourne somewhat Catholic poet and cartoonist, Michael Luenig (that's his Mr Curly Angel up above there with the teapot):

What did you get on your Christmas morn?
On the Christmas morn when you were born.
Did you get some milk, did you get some pain,
did you get some hurt that you can't explain?
Did you get a star from high above?
Did you get the gaze of a mother's love?
The spark that leaps from eye to eye
and twinkles 'til the day you die?
Oh what did we get on our Christmas morn
on the Christmas morn when we were born...?

-----------

Love is born
with a dark and troubled face
when hope is dead
and in the most unlikely place
love is born.
Love is always born.

Could Past Elder be the Anti-Christ?

Well, I bet that got the attention of at least one reader of this blog...

Seriously, Past Elder--a welcome guest of this blog for the past two years--is really beginning to drive me nuts. And I know I am not the only one. Try as I might, I have not been able to make sense of where he is coming from (or going to, for that matter). Lucian makes more sense in his less sane moments than Past Elder does in his most lucid.

Here is his comment in answer to a query from Joshua in one of the com-boxes below:

Hi Joshua! I take no offence at all that you do not find my actual position in my comment. It isn't there. I do not come here to advocate for my actual position, I come here to advocate for my former position, Roman Catholicism, which is an entirely different thing than what travels under the name now. [You've got to follow him on this one--it is crucial to coming to grips with PE's discourse]

And there is nothing to be forgiven in your questions; I'm happy to address them. I am not now nor have I ever been associated with SSPX. I am a member of a parish of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. I came to that last year after professing confessional Lutheranism in the Wisconsin Synod, and having served as an elder there, hence my posting name. [PE's real name is Terry. (HT to Christine).]

I did not convert from Catholicism to Lutheranism. There was 23 years between leaving the former and converting to the latter, for most of which Lutheranism struck me as a well-intended but misguided effort to be Catholic without being Catholic. [Which sounds about right to me.]

I left the Roman Catholic Church because it became impossible to deny any longer that what it preached since Vatican II was no longer the Catholic Faith [a double negative there--he means that it was impossible to maintain any longer that what it preached was the Catholic faith; I guess I would ask whose preaching is he talking about?]; I left the Roman Catholic faith because if it were the true faith this could not have happened [Ah--I think there is a point here that we could engage], and, despite many efforts to convince myself otherwise over those 23 years, each time I came away clearer than before that it had.

I would not know of this blog except that its author from time to time visits one of the Lutheran blogs I visit regularly. Some months back, I made a point on that blog to clarify a matter of Catholic theology [this is why PE sometimes sounds as if he is still Catholic]. When I do that, I always add a caveat that this may no longer be the position of the RCC, since nearly everything they taught me has been stood on its head [cheap shot; it is a simple matter to determine what the Catholic Church teaches--that's what the Catechism is for]. Our host appeared and verified what I said as valid [by which he seems to mean that I recognised whatever argument he happened to have been making at that point as the true Catholic faith both before and after Vatican II], and in turn I checked out his blog, and it turned out he had been a Lutheran pastor who converted to the post-conciliar church.

While I can understand the desire of a Lutheran for there to be something like the RCC holds itself to be, it is a flight into the absurd to think the RCC now is that church, or even to think it is any longer the RCC. [Now if you can follow that statement, you are doing really well. He seems to be saying: It is understandable that a Lutheran might desire the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church to exist as a visible society upon the earth, but it is a flight of fancy to think that the institution which calls itself the Catholic Church is actually that church, and anyone who thinks it is is deluded, including the Lutheran who converted to it.]

At least Lutherans who convert to Orthodoxy get Orthodoxy, but to get the pious fraud that is the RCC is really tragic. [Do I understand him rightly? Is he saying that those who convert to Orthodoxy because they want to be in full communion with the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church on earth and in heaven actually DO get what they were seeking when they become Orthodox? That would raise the question of why PE does not become Orthodox?].

Ironically, these conversions themselves reinforce my point: they would not have happened to the RCC that once existed [so I would not have become Catholic if it wasn't for Vatican II?], and these converts do not sound anything like converts did [Is this a case of "They don't make 'em like they used to"?], which fits since what they have found is neither the RCC nor Roman Catholicism [Neither the "Roman Catholic Church" nor "Roman Catholicism"? He's really lost me there. Its like saying an strawberry isn't a strawberry because it doesn't taste as good as I remember it tasting when I was a kid. No, its more than that, he is actually saying that strawberries--real ones--don't even exist anymore and anyone who thinks they may be eating them is deluded. And even worse, strawberries never in fact ever existed, because if they did, they wouldn't have let themselves go downhill to the point of tastelessness that they have now achieved.].

He went on then to have a go at poor old Christine, who knows enough of both Catholicism and Lutheranism to have a valid opinion on this matter:

Christine, for God's sake ...Say the First Mass of Christmas at midnight or any time you wish, it will remain what any Mass of the novus ordo is -- a rejection of the Catholic Mass, to assist at which is for a person who believes the Catholic faith a venial sin [Do you get his sleight of hand there? It would be a venial sin, if the Catholic ideas about venial sin were true, which it isn't, because the Catholic Church and its mass are not the Catholic Church and its mass, which doesn't matter anyway, because... Oh, I give up. He goes on:].

Now: my "actual" position, what I believe now. I will step out of my usual role and say it -- what a person occupying an office bearing the marks of Anti-Christ does for the Nativity of Jesus is beyond irrelevant to the faith of Christ or his Church, which is the best possible construction to put on it. ["The best construction"? Is that what Luther meant when he used that expression in his catechism for the 8th Commandment? That the Catholic Church and its pope are "Anti-Christ"? I know Luther believed that of Alexander VI and Leo X, but Pope Benedict? Pope John Paul II? Pope Paul VI? I could keep going back, but these are guys who have proclaimed Christ and his gospel more clearly and to more people than any other human beings upon earth. Not even the Lutheran Church of Australia maintains any longer that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Does Missouri? If it does, then what Richard John Neuhaus quotes Pastor John Hannah as saying is really true: LCMS is a fundamentalist sect.]

Over time, I have read some really good fictional characterisations of the devil doing his temptation thing on Eve-like characters. Anne Rice's "Memnoch the Devil" comes to mind, as does C.S. Lewis's "Perelandra" (Philip Pullmann is his own fictional tempter). But there are times when Past Elder takes the cake for torturous, convoluted, circular, and finally incomprehensible reasoning that has just enough ring of truth about it to convince the wavering. But I will say this, like Old Nick himself, he is consistent and persistent.

None of this is intended as abuse, PE, and I hope that this will not stop you from visiting this blog, but I do plead with you for once to make your reason for not being Catholic perfectly clear. You have stated it many times, but something is missing in the logic of your argument. Let me see if I have it clear:

1) I used to be a Roman Catholic.
2) I believed what my Roman Catholic teachers taught me to believe.
3) After the Council my Roman Catholic teachers were teaching me to believe things that sounded like the complete opposite of what I had been taught before the Council.
4) I thoroughly investigated it for myself, and realised that it wasn't just my teachers but the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which had done a complete reversal.
5) I therefore concluded that the institution calling itself the "Catholic Church" wasn't "the Catholic Church" because it wasn't the Church I knew before the Council
6) I was taught that the teachings of the true Catholic Church could never change.
7) The teachings of the institution calling itself the Catholic Church had changed, therefore it was not the Catholic Church now.
8) Nor had it ever been the Catholic Church, for if it had been, its teachings would not have changed.
9) So I left the insitution called the Catholic Church.
10) 23 Years later I became a member of the Lutheran Church - Wisconsin Synod.
11) They were wrong too, so I became a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod which is the true Church because it holds to the Lutheran Confessions which are true.

Now, forgive me, but I think there are a few links missing in the chain of logic there.

First: What are the particular instances that convinced you that in fact the teaching of the Catholic Church had changed in such a way as to negate what it had taught prior to the Council? (I assume you do not reject the possibility of any change at all in the teaching of the Church?)

Second: Do you believe that the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church exists and if so what do you understand it to be?

Third: Why do you assume that just because there exist in its midst wicked and evil people who distort the teachings of the Church that the Catholic church cannot be what she claims to be?

Fourth: Does not the Church affirm that she is "ecclesia semper purificanda"? Or, in Lutheran parlance, "semper reformanda"? Therefore, far from being the occassion for denying the ecclesiological verity of the Church (something not even Luther did), are not abuses in the Church something we should work actively to correct, rather than reject the Church herself?

Fifth: By what logic have you adopted Lutheranism, and why does Lutheranism seem to answer your questions in a way that Catholicism does not?

Sixth: Has not the teaching and practice of the Lutheran Church changed over time? Does this not, by your reasoning, invalidate it?

Seventh: If those converting to Orthodoxy get Orthodoxy, and those converting to Lutheranism get Lutheranism (as long as they join the LCMS), is the purpose of converting to get the kind of Church you personally would like be in or is the purpose to find the true Church and seek communion with her?

Go, on, PE, you old devil. Tempt me with an answer to these questions.

Novus Ordo Latin Solemn Mass on the Feast of the Holy Family

I can't go (because I am cantoring for 9:30am and 11am Masses in the Cathedral and then going to Anglesea to contribute to a session of the Lutheran Student Fellowship annual conference), but you might be able to (if you live in Melbourne):

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 the Holy Family, Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 6pm.

What: On the last Sunday of each month, St Brigid’s Parish offers Mass 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 ninth of these Masses will be offered on the Feast of the Holy Family, on Sunday, 30 December 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.

In case you felt inclined to become a fantasy writer...

I sometimes fantasize about being a writer. I don't know if that's the same thing as being a "fantasy writer". Probably not. In my fantasy world, I am living in a little Tasmanian Georgian hamlet on the earnings of lucrative royalties while typing up my next blockbuster fantasy novel which will put the Christian story into a mythical narrative that will be irrestible to todays atheistic secularist materialist teenager...

In any case, reading "The End of Magic" by Sarah E. Hinlicky has finally convinced me to give up on this ambition and stick with the version of Lewis' "true myth" that we have in the Gospels. You simply can't improve on the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection for mythic impact.

Devastation in my hometown!

Pictures from news.com.au by KYLIE CARRICK, STEVE WILLIAMS, and CALUM ROBERTSON
And you can watch video here.

Well, its been anything BUT a quite week in Pinnaroo, my home town (as Garrison Keillor might have said had he been born in Pinnaroo rather than Lake Woebegone).

These pictures above are of a storm (at first dubbed a "tornado", but we don't get those here in Australia - in Pinnaroo they always call anything that is a big wind a "tornado" - they have done ever since I was a boy - but it never is, according to the experts at the Weather Bureau - but they keep hoping) that hit Pinnaroo at 2:40pm yesterday afternoon. My parents were in Adelaide at the time, but my older brother, Ken, got himself into the newspapers (the Adelaide Advertiser and The Australian:

CFS volunteer association president Ken Shultz [they never get it right], who manages an olive grove 40km north of Pinnaroo, said the area was a mess. "We've got 80,000 olive trees and we've probably lost over half of this year's crop," he said.

Thankfully he is just the manager and not the owner of those 80,000 trees, although I am sure that it will have an impact. I hope there was some sort of insurance. (BTW I have a barrel of his olive oil in my shed--very nice it is too!).

Apparently they received about an inch of rain in twenty minutes accompanied by gale force winds and hail. Mum and Dad are half way through building a new home in the town (retiring off the farm) and so returned from the big smoke with some trepidation to see what state their building site might be in, but thankfully, even in its half-built state, the place stood up to the wild weather. Other residents were not so lucky. A few homes are beyond repair and will need to be demolished.

A few tiles were blown of the roof of the Lutheran Church, but the whole roof was blown of the Catholic Church hall. Now there is a story worthy of Lake Woebegone!

Bishop Anthony Fisher in Rome for WYD talks

You can see a video news report of Bishop Anthony Fisher in Rome for World Youth Day talks at Rome Reports.

Why am I not Orthodox?

On his blog Conversi Ad Dominum, Fr Fenton asks the question "Why are you not Orthodox?"

I've given my reasons before, but I will do so again in the simplest possible manner. I should split this into two sections: A. Why, when I left the Lutheran Church, did I not become Orthodox? B. Why, now that I am Catholic, do I not become Orthodox?

A.1. I am a westerner, not an easterner. I belong to the Latin tradition, not the Greek. When you have run away from home, you need to go back to your home, not back to someone elses!

A.2. I wanted to be Catholic. I couldn't think of any watertight definition of "Catholic" that did not include communion with the Bishop of Rome.

B.1. The Orthodox Churches simply do not exhibit that universal character which is evident in the Catholic Church. Until I read the comments on Fr Fenton's blog, I had never heard of the word "phyletism". But that sums it up. I don't want to belong to a nationalistic Church.

B.2. I value communion with the Bishop of Rome even more now than I did before. While I have every respect for the Orthodox tradition, I believe this communion to be imperitative for me (and everyone else if they realise it!).

Someone in Rome got a Round Tuit for Christmas...

Everyone needs a round Tuit. They are useful for getting things done (nb. square ones are useless). Everything gets done once you get a round Tuit.

Seems like someone in the CDF has gotten one for Christmas. They have finally gotten around to putting the full text of the Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization on their website. Ta. This makes it so much easier. In the mean time, a big thank you to the Bishops Conference of England and Wales for their help while we were waiting.

Bow, bow to the GIRM-Oz

Where's John L. Allen Jnr when you need him, eh? While the Yanks got a blow by blow account on the net of the goings on at the USCBC meeting in October complete with interviews, background discussion and general gossip, we had to wait for a rather less than inspiring three page roundup of the November 2007 Plenary Meeting of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, completely sans any interesting commentary.

For instance, I would have liked to have been in the press gallery when "that petition" was tabled. I know that at least one Australian bishop had threatened to walk out if that happened. I wonder if he did? And if anyone else joined him in this protest? Alas, until we get something akin to a press gallery at the plenaries, we will never know such juicy details.

But in any case, the report does have some interesting details.

For eg., at Pentecost, the new GIRM (General Instruction on the Roman Missal)--Australian version--will come into force. We are told that this will result in a mere two changes for the Australian layman (and woman etc):

The first change relates to posture. At present when the priest invites the people to pray at the Preparation of the Gifts the congregation remains seated until...the Prayer over the Gifts.

From Pentecost Sunday next year the congregation will be asked to STAND when the priest invites the congregation to pray, “Pray brethren...”.

The second change relates to a Gesture. The Australian edition of the GIRM says: “When approaching to receive Holy Communion, the faithful bow in reverence of the Mystery that they are to receive” (GIRM 160).

The communicant might [might?? Do you mean there is a choice on how we interpret this instruction?] bow just before receiving Holy Communion or perhaps while the person in front of them is receiving Holy Communion. Such a bow can be done simply, without disrupting the flow of the Communion Procession which is a most important ritual act in the celebration of the Mass.

The first change is uncontroversial, but I can see an absolute mine-field of problems involved in the second "change". That "might" in the commentary says it all. Exactly how "might" one observe the bow and how might one not?

For instance, the US version of GIRM has at this point the following:

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister.

From the comment above, it appears that the Australian bishops envisage something more in line with a "profound bow", ie. stopping still, and bending at the waist toward the Eucharist. A mere "bow of the head" could not be expected to "disrupt the flow of the Communion procession."

I can just see Elizabeth Harrington having a field day with this one. What about those who "might" decide to genuflect to the sacrament? Is this forbidden? or is it a licit interpretation of how one "might" observe the instruction to "bow"? Or what if one actually "might" want to kneel to receive communion. Will they be chastised for "disrupting the flow of the Communion procession"?

The US version of GIRM actually includes a note to the effect that:

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

Hmm. While on the one hand, this protects the right of the kneelers to receive communion, it actually seems to deny them the right to kneel. I don't know what Papa Benny would think of this. A little too reminiscent of the "Black Rubric", me thinks. And I don't know if I would like to be on the receiving end of that "pastoral catechesis" solution. Seems like a job for Elizabeth...

Nevertheless, the Australian version of this paragraph is perhaps even a little more worrying, as it goes to the bother of including the "pastoral catechesis" in the GIRM-Oz itself:

In Australia standing is the most common posture for receiving Holy Communion. The customary manner of reception is recommended to be followed by all, [and here comes the "pastoral catechesis":] so that Communion may truly be a sign of unity among those who share in the same table of the Lord. When approaching to receive Holy Communion, the faithful bow in reverence of the Mystery that they are to receive.

One could point out that communion is "a sign of unity among those who share in the same table of the Lord" precisely because they ARE all sharing in the same table of the Lord, and NOT because they all do the same thing in the communion line like a bunch of robots. That little addition has the fingerprints of Dr Erlich and co. all over it. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that standing is simply acknowledged as "the most common posture" for reception and that the GIRM simply recommends this be followed by all. Well, we are happy with that. Let it be a recommendation, and not a law for the Liturgy Police to get their knickers in a knot over (sometimes I wonder who the real ritualists are in this arguement).

But why all this hoo-hah? The simple thing is to take a look at the original Latin of the GIRM which should clear the whole matter up. Paragraph 160 carries the simple instruction:

Fideles communicant genuflexi vel stantes, prout Conferentia Episcoporum statuerit. Cum autem stantes communicant, commendatur ut debitam reverentiam, ab iisdem normis statuendam, ante susceptionem Sacramenti faciant.

I make that to mean that the Holy See approves either standing or kneeling to receive communion, according to the statutes determined by the Bishops Conference, but if communion is received standing a "debitum reverentiam" (a "reverance which is due to the sacrament by right") is made before the reception according to the same norms.

Note that no "debitum reverentiam" is required of those who receive communion kneeling--for the simply reason that kneeling to receive is precisely such an act of reverance. So in fact, the "bow" that is required in the new Australian norms should be interpreted as something that is required of those who receive the Eucharist standing (since without such an act of reverence, standing would be an unacceptable posture for reception of communion). Precisely because their action IS a "debitum reverentiam", those whose practice it is to make a a genuflection before reception or to receive the Eucharist kneeling should not be regarded as failing to observe the instruction of the GIRM-Oz.

Good News to all (Australian) Men (and Women): ABC to televise Pope Benedict XVI’s celebration of Midnight Mass on Christmas Day

The Australian Catholic Bishop's Conference announced in a Media Release on Monday that

Pope Benedict XVI’s celebration of Midnight Mass will once again be beamed into homes, hospitals and nursing homes across Australia via an ABC telecast this Christmas Day.

The Mass, from St Peter’s Basilica, will air at 11am (eastern summer time) on ABC Television.

The Holy Father will preside at the Mass which will, as usual, feature the participation of children from around the world.

The ABC’s telecast will feature English-language commentary.

Hurrah! (Note to self: Go to early Mass on Christmas day or set the DVD-recorder!)

Ethics and law in a democracy: Cardinal Ruini proposes a solution

In the combox of a recent entry, Perigrinus pointed out the natural tension for a Catholic in a democratic society between "community consensus" and "objective moral law" as the foundation for determining what is lawful.

Cardinal Ruini recently made the following proposal to the priests of the diocese of Rome addressing this dilema which, I think, is in fact the way to go:

I would like to advance a proposal that may sound rather obvious, but has the merit of overcoming, on the practical level, the stalemate generated by the opposition between the supporters and opponents of the relativistic approach in the matter of public ethics, without obliging either side to withdraw from acting according to its convictions.

This proposal is for the reliance, in these areas as well, on the free exchange of ideas, respecting the democratic results of this even when we cannot agree with them.

In essence, this is fortunately what happens already in a democratic country like Italy, but it would be good for all of us to become more keenly aware of this, in order to defuse the atmosphere of confrontation that is likely to endure for a fairly long time, continually fostered by new issues.

The proponents of relativism will continue to think that in certain cases the 'rights of liberty' have been violated, while the proponents of an approach linked to the nature of man will continue to maintain that in other cases the rights founded upon nature, which therefore take precedence over any human decision, have been violated, but there will be no reason to accuse each other of anti-democratic extremism.

So, is it a truce then?

Sandro Magister grasps the Doctrinal Note on Evangelisation by the short and curlies...

Sandro Magister of www.chiesa has a much better grasp of the recent Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelisation than Martin Teulan.

He accurately identifies the four main reasons for the CDF to issue the statement:

Above all, there is the idea that every religion is a way of salvation as valid as all the rest.

Then there is the conviction that proposing Christian truth to others is an attack on their freedom.

Then there is a conception of the Kingdom of God that is not identified in the person of Jesus Christ, but in "a generic reality that overarches all the religious experiences or traditions, toward which these should incline as toward a universal and indistinct communion of all those who seek God."

Then again there is the idea that "the pretense of having received as a gift the fullness of God's Revelation conceals an attitude of intolerance and a threat to peace."

Magister recognises (as any reader must) that part of the document addresses the situation of the Church in Orthodox Russia, and another part addresses the situation in Muslim countries.

(Incidentally, no-one has yet commented upon the absense of any mention of evangelisation to the Jews, given the controversy stirred up several years ago by a USCBC committee which declared that the Church did not have a mandate to evangelise the Jews. While diplomatically not mentioning the Jews by name, it is quite clear that both Jews and Gentiles are included in the document's insistence that the Gospel be preached to ALL people).

But it seems that many out there have a vested interest in downplaying the radical call to faithfulness in the new Note as much as possible. I blogged on Martin Teulan's statement below, but I have also found the Gerald O'Collins article in the Tablet to which he referred.

O'Collins, like Teulan but unlike Magister, fails to see that this latest "Note" is fully in line with the previous "notes", "Dominus Iesus" and "Responses on the Doctrine of the Church". O'Collins titled his article "Softly, Softly"--a clear indication that he too wishes to pull the teeth from this document. How about this rather snide aside:

While honouring the non-negotiable claims of truth (how could the CDF do otherwise?)...

O'Collins also inverts the emphasis of the Note by commenting upon its emphasis on imporance the witness of life, but completely ignoring the even more strident emphasis upon witness of Word:

St Francis of Assisi...is remembered as saying to his followers: "Preach the Gospel and sometimes use words." The CDF follows suit: "The witness of holiness is necessary, if the light of truth is to reach all human beings" (n. 11).

Indeed, but the Note also quotes Pope Paul VI who said that even the most exemplary witness of holiness will be useless if it is not accompanied with the clear and forthright proclamation of Christ.

At every turn, O'Collins, like Teulan, tries to soften the harsh words that the CDF has to say about the failure of Catholics to fulfill our duty of evangelisation. Try this paragraph on for size:

Secondly, this theme of sharing the benefits of Christian faith is repeatedly specified as a sharing in fullness. Those who have not yet heard and accepted the Gospel already enjoy some grasp of truth and some means of salvation. What they have not yet received is "the fullness of the gift of truth" and the "fullness of [the means of] salvation" (n. 10).

Do you see how subtley the emphasis is changed? O'Collins would like to divert our attention away from the fact that the Note emphasises that Christ has gifted his Church alone with the truth of the Gospel, towards that favourite old assertion of the last forty years that there is already truth and salvation in the lives of the people Christ wants us to evangelise. Note especially the sneaky way that he puts in "the means of" into the above quote. Do you think that changes its meaning? I do.

[As an aside, I also discovered this note from Mgr Keith Barltrop of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales which gives this most bizarre interpretation of the Note's teaching on the Kingdom of God:

Any sense that the Kingdom of God is somehow above or beyond particular religious traditions must be resisted.

Que? "Particular religious traditions"? The Note insists that the Kingdom of God is linked to one and only one "particular religious tradition", namely the Catholic Church!]

Finally, one must take issue with the way O'Collins takes issue with the July document, "Responses on the Doctrine of the Church". His objection is that the word "fully" (as in "the Church of Christ exists fully only in the Catholic Church") was omitted in that document. Do you see where he is going? Salvation is available through other religions. Salvation is available through other Churches. They only need the Catholic Church if they want the "fullness" of the means of salvation. But they can get along fine enough as they are without us interfering. In other words, he has not heard what the CDF is saying at all.

It takes some nerve to reduce the roar of the Holy Inquisition to the soft squeak of a mouse.

Theological dialogue with Muslims impossible?

It is an odd thing which has caused some consternation in the circles in which I move. High ranking European Church officials, from whom other things have been expected, have been declaring that "theological dialogue" with Muslims is "impossible".

To name just three:

1) Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican diplomat and new president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue:

The newspaper, La Croix, asked the cardinal if theological dialogue was possible with members of other religions.

"With some religions, yes," he said. "But with Islam, no, not at this time. Muslims do not accept the possibility of discussing the Quran, because it is written, they say, as dictated by God.

"With such a strict interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the content of faith," he said in the interview published Oct. 18. (from CNS)

2) Fr Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, outgoing Father General of the Jesuits:

On the strictly religious and theological level, is dialogue with Islam possible?

I’m afraid that at a theological and dogmatic level, dialogue with Islam is impossible. Often in Beirut, Muslims would ask me: ‘How is it possible that an educated person, a professor, believes in three gods?’ Obviously, they were referring to the Christian dogma of the Trinity. That’s an example of the difficulties of dialogue. Some who are favorable to theological dialogue with Muslims forget that at a certain point, you have to choose. For Muslims, it’s very clear: God is one. They chant it five times every day. (John L. Allen Jnr. NCR)

Not to be outdone, there is, of course, the Grandaddy of them all, Pope Benedict XVI (he said this some time ago and reported second hand by Fr Fessio on a radio program):

HH: And what did the pope say?

JF: Well, the thesis that was proposed by Father Troll was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there's a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition God has given his word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word...

Now what is going on here? Because I have dialogue almost every day with Muslims on matters of theology.

I think that two things are happening.

First, the Europeans, when they say "theological dialogue" mean something like the dialogue we have with our separated Christian brethren and sistern; that is, dialogue aimed at achieving dogmatic consensus. Of course, that sort of dialogue with Muslims is impossible, and we should say so at the outset, or we will be disappointed. We are not going to convince Muslims that God is Triune. If we do, by definition, they will not be Muslim any longer.

Secondly, by "theological", it seems that these men mean "about specific dogmas". But theology is wider than that. It is asking the "God question" of all aspects of experience. Everything we could find to talk about with our Muslim friends has a theological aspect, in so far as everything could be examined from the point of view of what this tells us about God.

But really to limit "theological dialogue" in either of these ways (or both) leads to a superficial understanding of both dialogue and of theology. In fact, as I have just said, it is possible to reflect together on the different ways in which we approach theologically the issues of our religion, world and daily life. I have always found such reflection immensely positive. For instance, recently at a JCMA planning committee meeting, we fell into a discussion of "holiness" in Jewish, Muslim and Christian theology. This was very enlightening, as we realised that holiness is not a concept that has a large place in Muslim theology, and certainly is not something that God communicates to human beings or to the world.

Please note: This was real dialogue. It was theological dialogue. It did not produce consensus, but then we didn't expect it too. We just expected to learn from one another about our theological perspectives. And to that extent it was a roaring success.

Joshua's blog

Just to let you all know that Joshua, a regular visitor to this blog who likes to live life "on the edge" (he is a native of Tasmania and is currently living in Western Australia--you get what I mean), has his own blog, called Psallite Sapienter.

There is a rather amusing entry giving information on the Canons Regular of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary (O.Dorm.). Their particular charism seems particularly appealing, especially late at night...

Pulling the teeth out of the CDF Doctrinal Note on Evangelisation

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's latest edict, Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelisation has teeth. But you wouldn't know that from reading Martin Teulan's "summary" featured on Cathnews this morning.

Martin is the National Director Catholic Mission, a chap whom you would expect to know a thing or two about evangelisation. But one wonders if he actually gets what the Doctrinal Note was all about. He softens the whole statement to such a point that he seems to conclude "business as usual then".

At one point he completely denies what the problem that the CDF is attempting to address, saying:

Though the Note claims that many people believe that to evangelize is to limit the freedom of others, this is, as Gerald O’Collins has noted*, a rather doubtful perception.

More seriously he completely subverts what the document says by posing the question about evangelisation in the following manner:

Understanding that salvation is possible through other faiths and through other churches does not prevent us from taking up evangelisation. ...A very reasonable question to ask is: if someone belongs to another religion and through it can gain eternal life, why would the Church seek to evangelize that person? ...

It seems that Teulan has completely failed to read this latest Doctrinal Note in conjunction with its two older sisters, "Dominus Iesus" and "Responses on the doctrine of the Church". Both these documents make it abundantly clear that one CANNOT be saved "through other faiths" OR "through other churches".

Here we have to speak very slowly for fear of being misheard yet again. Vatican II stressed (and the Doctrinal Note quotes it on this) that "non-Christians can be saved through the grace which God bestows in “ways known to him”". The Council never said that other religions are valid pathways to salvation. To put it clearly, when non-Christians are saved, they are saved through God's Grace in Christ, NOT through their particular religion.

Something similar--but essentially different--could be said of other Christian communities. The Responses earlier this year made it clear that indeed the other Christian communities can be instruments of salvation, but precisely to the degree that the elements of the one Church of Christ (ie. the Catholic Church) are found in them. Thus, the sacraments, prayer, Scriptures etc., which are found in these groups (which cannot properly be called "Churches" in the sense that the Catholic Church understands the term) belong by their nature to the Catholic Church. Thus it is through sharing by faith in Christ in the patrimony of the Catholic Church that Christians in these communities are saved.

Evangelisation--whether of non-Christians, other Christians, or indeed of Catholics themselves (which is always necessary)--is always a matter of offering the fullness of the gift that we have been given in Christ to others who, like us, are in need of that saving gift.

There is a great deal about dialogue in the Doctrinal Note, as Teulan rightly notes. But he stops short of what the Note actually says about "proposing not imposing". We not only want to "share" our faith in case anyone might be interested to learn more about it, we really and truly desire their conversion to the Catholic faith. The Doctrinal Note rejects the idea that in evangelisation:

it would only be legitmate to present one's own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences without aiming at their conversion to Christ and the Catholic faith.

In this respect, Teulen makes the common mistake of thinking that evangelisation is simply offering "the truth about Christ" to others. In fact the task is much greater. Evangelisation is not offering a "truth about Christ", it is not simply a "message", it is, rather it is a perfomative act, as Pope Benedict makes clear in Spe Salvi:

In our language we would say: the Christian message was not only “informative” but “performative”. That means: the Gospel is not merely a communication of things that can be known—it is one that makes things happen and is life-changing.

The Doctrinal note itself says much the same thing:

To evangelise does not mean simply to teach a doctrine, but to proclaim Jesus Christ by one's word and actions... (par.2)

Likewise, Teulan gets the wrong emphasis when he says that:

There can be no doubt that witness, the living of a life of goodness and of service to others, is the most effective form of evangelization, and the Note draws on Paul VI’s wonderful Evangelii nuntiandi to express this.

In fact, it is precisely this old and oft repeated idea that the Doctrinal Note wants to correct. It is true that "word and witness of life go together" (par. 11), but the essential form of evangelisation and the most effective will always be the witness of the Word. It is the witness of the Word that gives the reason for the witness of life. Without a witness of life, the witness of the Word's "acceptance will be difficult" (par. 11), but

even the finest witness [of life] will prove ineffective in the long run, if it is not explained, justified...and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus. (Pope Paul VI, cited. par 11)

Finally, over the last forty years or so, given that many have thought evangelism unneccesary (since it was thought that faith in Christ was uneccesary to salvation) there has always been the fallback position of "We do it because Christ told us too." Cathnews' headline for Teulan's item ("Christ told us to evangelise") repeats this idea. Teulan himself fails to do justice to the full reason for evangelisation which the Note put forward. What is novel about the Note is that it argues that others have a right to the truth of the Gospel, and that we therefore have a corresponding duty to evangelise arising out of this human right. That is the real novelty of the new document. It is an abuse of human rights--an INJUSTICE--to remain silent about the great gift that we have been given in Jesus Christ!

(* I have no idea what his source is for the O'Collins reference--if you can help me I would be very interested.)

The logic of Pro-Abortion "Liberty"...

...is laid out for all to see in an op-ed piece in today's Age "Abortion must always be about choice."

How would you react to the following statement:

Those with moral objections to murder should not commit murder. Neither should they be allowed--in a free and democratic society--to impose their particular moral beliefs on others, nor have those beliefs imposed through the law.

Well, okay, that isn't exactly how Anne O'Rourke begins her piece. What she actually says is "Those with moral objections to abortions should not have abortions..." and so on as above.

But what sort of basis is this for any system of ethics or law? Even if you don't want to accept that there are immutable laws that have independant existence apart from those who think them (something that few people in this rights-ridden day and age would be willing to argue), surely community consensus has something to do with the matter of determining right and wrong, and surely the community has not only the duty but the right to impose these standards on all members of the community?

Sometimes I wish that pro-abortionists would just listen to their own rhetoric for a bit.

Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization

Well, you won't find it on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith website, and only a summary was issued by VIS yesterday and included in Zenit, EWTN etc., BUT a bit of a google has found a PDF photocopy of the full 14 page document on the Website of the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales. Cheers, Chaps. Jolly good show.

Now I can sit down, have my breakfast, unwrap The Age AND read the latest infallible pronouncement... (W.G. Ward eat your heart out.)

Giving Elizabeth Harrington her due...

It was a little unfortunate that in the week in which our +Denis gave Elizabeth a well deserved hiding for her comments on liturgical translations, she should publish one of her occasionally excellent pieces, this time on distinguishing between bona fide liturgical holy days and other "observances". Credit where credit is due, Elizabeth. Well said.

You want to know what I have been doing all year? Read this!

I have just completed the annual Ecumenical and Interfaith Bulletin and published it on the Commission Webpage. If you want to know what I have been doing all year when I wasn't blogging, this is what.

You can view the 2007 Bulletin by clicking here, and past Bulletins by clicking here.

What bally rot! If Lachlan de Crespigny thinks this will get him our sympathy...

Then he has another think coming.

I missed reading The Age yesterday morning. I saw it this morning. Front page headlines:

"It took over my life": Abortion Case that brought years of pain

Poor Prof. de Crespigny. Here's what he had to say for himself:

If we didn't do it and the woman died we would have potentially been charged with manslaughter.

Let's investigate that claim, shall we?

The Facts (at least acc. to The Age):

• Woman 32 weeks pregnant
• Unborn baby diagnosed with dwarfism
• Woman was "distressed to the point of being suicidal"
• Doctros (incl. Prof. de Cespigny) injected pottassium chloride into the "foetus's" heart, thereby killing it.

The crucial questions are:

1. Was the action taken by the Drs "life-saving"?
2. Could the Drs have been charged with manslaughter had they not carried out the abortion?

If either of these is found to be false, then Prof. de Crespigny's claim on our sympathy is forfeit.

In fact, the answer to both these questions is a resounding NO.

1. The Woman was threatening suicide. She was in danger from herself, not from her unborn child. The doctors chose to act according to the woman's own self-diagnosis, rather than treat her for the psychological and emotional disorder of distress. They failed in their duty of care.
2. The child in the womb was 32 weeks old. It is illegal in Australia to abort a 3rd Trimester pregnancy. Thus, in fact, the law forbade rather than obliged the doctors to act as they did.

Prof. de Crespigny pleads "Not Guilty". The Facts say: "Guilty as charged".

(And in case you want to see just how sympathetic everyone was to his case, have a look at some of the letters to the editor and at Nick Tonti-Filippini's op-ed article in today's edition of The Age.)

Unicity of Christ? Tick. Church? Tick. Evangelisation?

Tick. Or at least "Tick" later this evening.

John L. Allen, reporting the USCBC Doctrinal Committee's verdict on the theology of Peter Phan, added this little throw away note:

This Friday, a new Vatican document, "Doctrinal Notes on Some Aspects of Evangelization," will be presented in a Rome news conference. It is expected to confirm the committment to explicit conversion as the core of the church's missionary efforts.

This will complete a trilogy of "Doctrinal Notes" from the CDF, which began with "Dominus Iesus" in 2000 and continued with the "Responses on the doctrine of the Church" earlier this year. If this new document continues in the same vien as the previous two, that about winds it up for universalist pluralism in Catholic theology.

(Yay!)

Melbourne Catholic Bloggers

I had lunch today with Jeff Tan, another Melbourne Catholic Blogger whose website is One Bread, One Body. It is great to touch base with eachother like this--and a bit of a luxury, given that many visitors to this blog are from much further afield.

Other Melbourne Catholic bloggers are Marco Vervoost (aka Bob Catholic) and Athanasius. One day we will all get together for the long awaited Bloggers Supper.

Bit of surprising news that I hadn't realised before: Jeff works in the same office as the infamous L.P. Cruz. Perhaps he might join our little supper to liven things up a bit?

The Gift of Wonder: "Carl Sagan's Gospel of Scientism"

America, the US Jesuit Catholic weekly, has brought to light an piece that was written more than 25 years ago in response to Carl Sagan's classic "scientist" TV series/book "Cosmos". Entitled "Carl Sagan's Gospel of Scientism", the author, William J. O'Malley, was a priest and English and Religious Studies teacher, and it is a remarkably intelligent and thoughtful piece.

Keep in mind that when O'Malley wrote this review article, the phrase "Intelligent Design" was still respectable in theological circles. Discovery Channel had not yet emptied it of all usefulness by misapplying it to creationism masquerading as a quasi-scientific theory.

O'Malley's beautifully expressed sense of wonder at the amazing universe which Sagan describes in such mind-blowing detail impels him to respond in praise of the "Designer".

And surely this is what both the Carl Sagan's and the Michael Behe's of the world miss. Neither science nor scripture are at the core of religious faith in a "Creator". The central--perhaps the only--plank in the universal and primeval belief in a divine "Designer" is the sheer wonder whenever we contemplate the Cosmos.

Golden Compass gets "M" Rating

Ie. not suitable for anyone under 15years old. Good on the Australian Censors for that one. Mind you, it puts it in the category of the more recent Harry Potter films, and that didn't stop kids from going to see it.

Our Communications office sent me Fr Peter Malone's review today. Fr Malone is the director of the film desk at SIGNIS: The World Association of Catholic Communicators. His review can be read online here, and obviously this review has been reissued for the Australian context as well. But given the "M" rating, that does mean that Fr Malone's suggestion that "the film should appeal to its boys and girls target audience - and the adults will probably enjoy it too" is a bit off.

The version of the review I received (which I expect is the version that will be reprinted here in Australian Catholic magazines) is actually an abbreviated version of the full on-line review. The review on-line begins with the disclaimer that this "is a statement on the film and the film itself, not the novel Northern Lights on which the film is based, or other Pullman novels - which I have not read." One can't help but wonder what Fr Malone's reaction to the film would have been if he had read them.

Given that he hasn't read the books, his credulity can perhaps be forgiven. He is concerned that a movie is being condemned before it has been seen. Fair enough. But we have never said the movie was the problem. The problem is that when kids see a movie, they often want to read the books (which have already begun to reappear on the shelves of Australian bookshops) -- and the books ARE a problem.

Here are some of Fr Malone's more naive questions:

Allowing that Pullman is critical of religion [understatement of the year] and professes atheism, is the faith of the ordinary Catholic, the ordinary reader and cinemagoer so slight that it can be rocked or undermined by The Golden Compass? [This is like asking: could Eve have been tempted to disobey God by a snake over an apple?]

Do books and films like Harry Potter or The Golden Compass actually provide opportunities for parents and teachers to communicate with their children on a different level from teaching and doctrine and raise key questions about the nature of God, the nature of faith, the need for redemption? [Harry Potter is not in the same league as The Golden Compass; but in answer to the question, yes, of course--as long as you engage them in the conversation]

Is Pullman’s creating of The Magisterium a critique (as he claims) of authoritarian religion and his ’death of God’ rather a critique that should mean the death of false images of God (like the stern allegedly Old Testament God of vengeance) which we could all agree with? [Naive, Fr Malone. Read the books]

Is Pullman advocating some kind of ’authoritative’ religion which is marked by integrity, responsibility and adult interaction and compassion? [What? Again, read the books, Fr Malone]

I take his point about not criticising a film unseen, but it seems a little disingenuous to defend a story that one hasn't read.

"I've got a little list...": Our +Denis Leads the Way!

Regular readers of SCM will be aware that we have a "little list" of ecclesiastical offenders which includes "THAT peition", "THAT book by THAT bishop" and "THAT liturgical 'expert'".

Well, it appears that our +Denis (Archbishop of Melbourne and Metropolitan of the dioceses of Ballarat, Sale and Sandhurst) has a very similar list. In his address to the Council of Priests of the Archdiocese of Melbourne yesterday, Archbishop Hart said:

Recently we have heard a number of discordant voices pleading for a vision of the Church, which is not that of Jesus Christ and not that of our Holy Father and the Bishops. In our Diocese and its constituent parishes I believe you need to be one with me in promoting only those things, which are consonant with the teaching and discipline of the Church, not allowing to be promoted in anyway in parishes or in bulletins anything which is contrary to that. [my emphasis here and in all that follows]

At "THAT Meeting" in Camberwell, Paul Collins especially thanked the priests of the Melbourne and Ballarat dioceses for being so supportive of the Petition. Let's just say that +Denis has now given notice to any priests in Melbourne who wish to publically continue that support.

"That Petition" is, not surprisingly, the first in +Denis' "little list" of things that "surely won't be missed":

Recently the Collins/Purcell petition has been seeking to present to the Australian Bishops a request concerning the criteria for ordination to the priesthood. None of these matters are the competency of the bishops, but pertain to the Holy See. Some of them are directly contrary to the declaration of Pope John Paul II that the Catholic Church does not have the capacity to ordain women to the priesthood...

We will continue vigorous promotion of vocations and accept the assistance of priests from other countries in our time of need. We remain totally committed to celibate priesthood as the norm for the Latin Rite.

Having dispensed with "That Petition" he proceeds to the next item on the list of things that "will surely not be missed":

Secondly, a number of the assertions in Bishop Geoffrey Robinson’s recent book concerning Original Sin, Ordination, Divorce and Remarriage, the Papacy and Sexual Morality, will in due time, I am sure, be judged by the Church [we presume he means negatively]. Grave harm is caused if an impression is created among the faithful that the Church teaching in these serious matters is in a state of flux or under review. Our mission is to teach and live constantly what the Magisterium teaches. [Do you get that, Geoffrey?]

And then, perhaps a little surprisingly (but then again, perhaps not), our liturgical 'expert' friend up north comes in for criticism:

Thirdly, in a recent issue of the Catholic Leader, Elizabeth Harrington in response to Redemptionis Sacramentum and the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal...argues the outdated 70s proposition that all that is needed in liturgy is acting according to principles established not by the Church but by the liturgical intelligentsia of the time.

Faithfulness on the other hand requires that...we celebrate the liturgy according to the liturgical books and their General Instructions without variations, except in cases which the books provide. The general rule of “say the black and do the red” with clarity and fervour obtains within these parameters.

How refreshing to hear that old saying from our Local Ordinary! Maybe he could have added the other old saying: "Save the Liturgy--Save the World!"

This is the riot act, guys. And just to make sure that everyone is listening, the Archbishop's office has sent it out by email this morning to all the parishes and agencies of the Archdiocese.

The revolution has begun. And our +Denis is leading the way.

Another "radical suggestion" for solving the priest shortage...

For those who think the only solutions for the current priest shortage are summed up in the "radical" suggestions of "that petition", here is yet another truly radical suggestion, this time from the Congregation for Clergy.

John Allen reports that

As part of a broad initiative to promote Eucharistic adoration, the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy is proposing that religious women “spiritually adopt priests” through prayer before the Eucharist, and, more generally, that Catholics from every corner of the world spend time before the Eucharist to pray for vocations to the priesthood in an era of priest shortages.

Concretely, the Congregation for Clergy is proposing that each diocese appoint a priest whose full-time job would be to promote Eucharistic adoration, and that special “Eucharistic shrines” be created that would resemble the well-known Marian shrines that dot the Catholic world.

Moreover, these proposals are made in "a letter to all the bishops of the world, along with an accompanying leaflet outlining the project".

In his letter, Hummes describes the aim of the new initiative as stimulating “a movement of prayer, placing 24-hour continuous Eucharistic adoration at the center, so that a prayer of adoration, thanksgiving, praise, petition and reparation will be raised to God, incessantly and from every corner of the earth, with the primary intention of awakening a sufficient number of holy vocations to the priestly state,” as well as promoting spiritual unity among those already ordained.

This is really getting "radical", as the younger generation might say.

(The Letter from the Congregation for the Clergy may be found here and an "explanatory note" here)

"A festive humour" in the face of "unvarnished truth": John Allen on Ecumenism

There is a nice piece by John Allen on why it looks like I will have a job for life in the ecumenism business. In it, he suggests that we ecumenists should be in a "festive humo[u]r" for this reason alone:

The ecumenical movement is actually among the most phenomenally successful currents in global Christianity in at least the last 100 years. It may not have achieved full, visible communion, but it has swept away centuries of prejudice and broken down denominational ghettoes in what can only seem historically like the blink of an eye.

He is right about that. He is also right about this:Here's the unvarnished ecumenical truth:

Pluralism is an almost immutable fact of life in a globalized world, akin to the law of gravity. In that context, and given the weight of history, it's deeply unlikely that we'll see full, visible communion among all the branches of Christianity anytime before the Second Coming. The Orthodox are not going to accept papal jurisdiction, Catholics are not going to tolerate the kind of doctrinal and ecclesiological flexibility one finds in the Anglican Communion, and so on. That doesn't mean renouncing full communion as a dream, but it implies not broadcasting it as the primary motive for ecumenical work, because doing so is a sure prescription for heartbreak.

Well. I don't agree with him completely there. The goal of full visible unity and a united eucharist among all Christians will always be my motivation, even though--perhaps especially because of the fact that--it remains an eschatological hope.

As Papa Benny points out in his latest encyclical, the eschatological hope is the only hope which has the power to keep us going on every small step of our journey.

He's not the Messiah, he's just our new PM...

News this morning seems to follow in a general sort of pattern that has been emerging over the last two weeks:

An appeal by Australia’s Catholic Religious has sought the ear of newly elected Prime Minster Kevin Rudd to lead the nation into more just relationships, helping all Australians become better people and forging a better nation.

Its really quite touching when you think about it. I experienced the same thing at a family party last night. A pure and pristine faith in the goodness and justice of the new Labor Government and especially its parliamentary leader, Kevin Rudd.

Despite the fact that Kevin is proving to be less than decisive on matters like saying "Sorry" to the indigenous population of Australia or on committing Australia to any reduction in carbon emissions that would make any sort of difference, and despite the fact that one of the first acts of his new immigration minister has been to send home those boat people featured on the front page of The Age during the election, the hopes of these new "true believers" a surely commendable.

Nevertheless, if, like "Australia's Catholic Religious", these new faithful really do believe that it is in the power of our new PM to make Australians "better people", then I really wonder if they aren't setting themselves up for an almighty disappointment.

Jake the Peg

My kids love this song. But, of course, they have never seen Rolf perform it. So I found this rather recent version done by the old Board Wobbler and Dobbler himself for them. Unfortunately, it is also a rather abbreviated version--it doesn't have him counting up to 24 on it. They like that bit.

Sorry, that should be 25.

A Radical suggestion from the Black Pope for improving Vocations

Peregrinus, in the combox to an earlier post, opines that the authors of "that petition" included the call for discussion of women's ordination because they "wanted a petition with something difficult, something challenging, something radical."

Well, here's a REALLY radical suggestion, from none other than the retiring "black pope", Fr Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, Father General of the Jesuits.

I think about something Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts and a man who wasn’t himself particularly religious, once said: ‘I like my religion the same way I like my tea – boiling.” If the parish, ecclesial life, isn’t strong, fervent, and warm, it won’t generate vocations to the religious life or the priesthood.

For the whole interview, see John Allen's column here.

The best review of Pullman's "His Dark Materials" I have yet read

And I've read a few, as they say in the classics...

In the first half of Alan Jacob's review, published back when "The Amber Spyglass" was first published (and republished now on the First Things blog), does full justice to Pullman's creativity, and then, in the second half, kicks Pullman's lousy anti-theist polemic and blatant dishonesty in story-telling so far and so hard that after all these years it must be leaving the outer limits of the solar system by now...

The Limits of the Competance of Bishops (and of the Authority of the Universal Church)

So the news is in that "That Petition" did receive attention at the recent meeting of the Bishops' Conference. And we have a formal response, which can be viewed in facsimile on the Catholica Australia website here.

The significant clause is at the very end (as it often is in communications of this nature), namely that "those aspects of Church life that are within our competancy as a Conference of Bishops in the Universal Church" will continue to be discussed at future plenary meetings.

Catholica reports that

Dr Collins said that "from the outset the organisers appreciated that the issues the petition was asking the bishops to discuss were not all necessarily within the competency of the Bishops' Conference to make decisions about. Nevertheless," he said, "we believed it might be within the competency of the bishops either collectively or individually to convey their opinions on some of these issues to the authorities in the institutional Church which do have the competency to take the matters further".

We believe that Dr Collins has missed something here. It is not the Bishops only who are limited in their "competance" to take some of the actions for which the Petition calls, but the Universal Church (what Dr Collins calls "the insitutional Church") is also limited. It is repeated so often that you think Dr Collins would have it by heart now:

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

(A penny for your thoughts, Archbishop Wilson...)

New Mission Initiative: Cinema Campaign

Cathnews carries a story about a new cinema-advertising campaign to be used this Christmas throughout Australia:

Archbishop Bathersby said the cinema ad is brief and non-intrusive, showing a montage of images of Catholic life while asking, Have you ever wanted to know what Catholics believe?”

“Boxing Day is the biggest movie-going day of the year and we are excited about this new method of taking the message of Christ and the Church out to the broader Australian community,” he said.

“Similarly, the New Year period can be a time when people reassess where their life is heading and often look for what is missing in their life.

“Perhaps, in the quiet darkness of a movie theatre, they will be prompted to find out more about how the Catholic faith can help them find the peace they are searching for.”

The ads will be shown during Jerry Seinfeld’s debut animated movie, The Bee Movie from December 6-19 and also during Atonement, showing between 26 December and 9 January.

And before "The Golden Compass" perhaps?

L'Osservatore Romano Daily Edition to become UBIQUITOUS!

This has to be the best news ever for the Catholic Blogging world. Forget Cathnews. Forget The Tablet. Forget the National Catholic Reporter. The Grand-daddy of them all is about to appear on the Internet for the very first time: the one, the only, L'Osservatore Romano coming to a computer near you.

Sandro Magister reports:

But the true turning point will come with the internet, from which "L'Osservatore Romano" is practically absent today. When, in a few months, everything will be available immediately online, in multiple languages, this very special newspaper will make the leap of its life, from Rome to the world.

Now, at last, we can all finally have an infallible pronouncement each morning along with our coffee and The Times/The Age/The Financial Review...

Kasper's Address on Ecumenism to the Cardinals

No, it still isn't up on the Vatican website in English yet, although if you go to this page it is now available in the original Italian, Portuguese, German and Spanish. Given that it was only there in Italian and Portuguese yesterday, it can't be long before it appears in English as well.

In the meantime, Sandro Magister (or rather his translator Matthew Sherry who is a real God-send to the English speaking ecclesiastical world -- Thanks Matt!) has provided the complete text in English on his website at this address.

New addition to Year of Grace and On Conversion Stories

An entry on Peter's blog about conversion stories reminded me that I haven't put up a new episode of "Year of Grace" for a while (I have just done so).

"Greatest Hits of Ratzinger Ideas" - John Allen on Spe Salvi

Seems I wasn't the only person to note that Ratzinger is repeating himself (perhaps he thinks we haven't been listening? ...Perhaps some of us haven't...).

John Allen has dubbed "Spe Salvi" a "Greatest Hits collection of core Ratzinger ideas". See his analysis here.

More on Christ as a Human-Divine Person

The discussion was getting bogged down on the post below, and Andrew pointed me to Gerald O'Collins "Christology", which I have just retrieved from the library.

By the way, that link that I have just given is to a review of O'Collin's book by a chap from St Olaf's in Minnesota whom I assume is a Lutheran. His comment is:

The chief difficulty with O'Collins's position is its uneven relationship to modernity. O'Collins opens faith to historical confirmation but finds only good news there; he embraces modern autonomy but saves his program with an ancient notion of freedom; he claims the benefits of historical consciousness but retreats into an eternalizing, static doctrine of "person" and a Christ without a "human" personhood; he affirms many modern moral complaints but ignores the context of theology; he wants to avoid supernaturalism, yet persuade us of the traditional doctrine of sinlessness and virgin conception. This is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too Christology.

Interesting in the light of the current discussion.

Here is some of the relevant section from O'Collins' book (page 244 ff) and my comments:

It is one thing, to expound a contemporary version of the Chalcedonian doctrine about Jesus Christ as one (eternally pre-existent, divine) person in two natures. It is another thing, however, to deal with spin-off questions which inevitably arise here. Christ was/is not a human person. [A bold statement] What kind of a human nature is his if it lacks human personhood? [But this is the wrong question: the right question is "How can you say that Christ's person has a human nature if Christ's person is not also human?"] It would seem to be an essentially deficient humanity [or rather no humanity at all--since it makes humanity a thing or a substance rather than something that cannot exist apart from a human person--in fact that raises dangerous precedents: something or someone being truly human without being a human person...eek!]...

First, a reluctance to ascribe to Christ a humanity without human personhood, because it would seem radically deficient, leads some to speak of him as a divine-human person [This is what I am saying] or even to state that he was simply a human person [This is something completely different--it would make him deficient in his divine nature]....

The former view could, in principle, be understood as shorthand for ‘one person with divine and human natures’, just as the traditional phrase about Jesus as ‘God-man’ pointed to one subject (Jesus) who was/is both divine and human by nature [Yes, that is how I mean it]. However, those who champion a ‘divine-human personhood’ probably intend by this a double personhood through which Christ ‘has’ both human and divine personhood [Well, maybe, but that is not the argument of this little black duck.]. This position, so far from advancing the discussion, rests on a confusion between nature (which one ‘has’) and person (which one does not ‘have’ but ‘is’) [Yes, I agree. It is wrong to say Christ "has" a human person or that he "has" a divine person. I am saying that he IS a person, and that by nature his person is simultaneously both divine and human.].

No one has laid his finger better on the confusion than Daniel Helminiak:
"Current insistence that Christ was a human person generally does not appreciate the classical meaning of the term, person, and as a result does not really appreciate the change in that term’s meaning. To suggest that without being a human person Christ would not be fully human is to misunderstand the distinction between nature and person. Nature is what makes one human or not. Christ has a completely human nature. Therefore, Christ is completely human. [Okay. But if we follow Helminiak's thinking to its conclusion we get: Christ is completely human. Christ is a Person. Thus the Person who is Christ is completely human.] One indication of the misunderstanding is reference to person, hypostasis, as something we have: ‘Did Christ have a human hypostasis? We do. [No. I do not "have" a human person any more than Christ "has" a divine person. I AM a human person. Christ IS a divine Person. AND a human person.] Then, if he did not, how can we ‘claim he is fully human?’ But hypostasis is not something someone has. The hypostasis is the someone who has whatever is had [Thought game: Imagine Jesus saying to himself: "I HAVE a human nature therefore I am human." Would not the "I" who makes this statement be Jesus' "person", and therefore would not his "person" be human?] . If the divine hypostasis, the Word, has all the qualities that constitute someone as human—a human nature—then the Word, a divine hypostasis, is ‘a human being, and fully so, period." [But if you say this divine hypostasis is "fully" human then are you not agreeing that the hypostasis of the Word is "human"?.].

Perhaps some of the trouble in accepting Christ as only divine person stems from the unarticulated sense that this would be to deny him a genuine human personality, if we agree to distinguish personality from personhood and person...

Well, we will leave him there, because that isn't my problem. I know the difference between person and personality. But does everyone now see what I am getting at, and why to boldly state that the hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos was Divine and not human does not make sense of the claim that in Christ there was One Person with two natures?

Start your Advent Reflections with Cooees and St Bede's Studio

I was cantoring at Mass this morning in the Cathedral of St Patrick, and musing during the sermon on the colour of the Dean's vestments. This led me to reflect on the old chestnut of "Blue/Violet/Purple" as the proper liturgical colour for Advent, which led me further to consider the question of the penitential nature of the season.

Happily there are blogs to solve all these little problems of life.

Hardman Window has a reflection on the penitential nature of the season here at Cooees.

And from there, I found a link to a fascinating blogsite for purveyors of vestments St Bede's Studios. There is a deeply informative and well researched discussion by Michael Sternbeck on the liturgical colour of "violet" and its history. It is in two parts: Part One and Part Two.

AND (yes, wait, there's more) theres this adorable picture of our saintly auxiliary, +Peter:



(Can you guess where it was taken? Clues in the picture if you don't already know)

Theosis and Hypostasis of the Son

I am still working through the Holy Father's latest Encyclical, Spe Salvi. There's some really good stuff in the second half. I read a bit to my wife and she commented that the Pope has a way with language.

But meanwhile, back at the ranch, I am listening to an audio file about the doctrine of Theosis (Divinization) from the Sonitus Sanctus blog.

A comment is made by the speaker, one Phil Krill (whose Greek is pretty dodgy for someone teaching on this topic...) something to the effect that Christ did not have a human hypostasis/person, but was solely a divine hypostasis/person (the Second Person of the Trinity) who assumed humanity. This is used as the explanation for Maximus' assertion (I don't have the exact quote) that in Theosis, man becomes God to the same extent that God became man in Christ. Thus, says Phil, just as the Son of God became man without becoming a human person, so man becomes divine without becoming a divine person.

Now, I am perfectly happy with the assertion that in Theosis we become "divine" without becoming divine persons, but I feel there is something dodgy about the assertion that the hypostasis of Christ was not both fully divine AND fully human. I mean, if Christ had a human nature, a human body, a human soul, and a human will (as Orthodox Chalcedonian Christology asserts), how could we say that he was not a "human person"? And if he did not assume human personhood, how could my human personhood be redeemed?

It seems in fact that in this I have stumbled onto the old Antiochene vs Alexandrian argument between the doctrines of "anhypostasia" and "enhypostasia", although I am not quite sure if either of these quite get what I (in my simplistic Latin mind) would like to say about the Person of Jesus Christ. (For more on this, see question no. 3 in this discussion here). My humble understanding is that the Divine Second Person of the Holy Trinity--the Logos--became a fully human person while remaining a fully Divine person, yet remaining one person and not by becoming two persons. This is how I understand the declaration of faith from Chalcedon. Of course, the problem may well stem from Chalcedon itself, in using parallel language about Christ being "consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity".

But if I am right--that in fact, Christ became man to a more complete extent than we will ever "become God", then where does that leave the doctrines of Maximus et al, along the (sometimes--I think--too neat) slogan: "God became Man that Man might become God"? Is the problem with the language of Theosis itself? Indeed it is intended to express man's glorious destiny of full participation in and communion with God--but, while a beautiful expression, does it not perhaps try to say too much?

Any thoughts?