New Post on Year of Grace

Yes, and I thought it was about time to update my Year of Grace blog as well. Exciting revelations in this entry

The Benefits of Living under a Constitutional Monarchy?

A royalist aquaintance of mine, George Bougias, draws some interesting conclusions from the recent publication of the United Nations Human Development Index. He writes:

Six of the top ten nations are Constitutional Monarchies. I am happy to live in Australia - number 3 on the list and a Constitutional Monarchy!

1. Iceland R
2. Norway CM
3. Australia CM
4. Canada CM
5. Ireland R
6. Sweden CM
7. Switzerland R
8. Japan CM
9. Netherlands CM
10. France R

All very interesting. Probably proves nothing in particulur, but I like to think he has a point. Actually, there is no reason why he could not have continued the list to the top twenty, as that would have made it 12 out of 20:

11. Finland R
12. United States R
13. Spain CM
14. Denmark CM
15. Austria R
16. United Kingdom CM
17. Belgium CM
18. Luxembourg CM (or CGD strictly speaking)
19. New Zealand CM
20. Italy R

While none of this proves that, as a political system, Constitution Monarchy is necessarily any better than Republicanism (since the real common denominator among all these nations is European-style democracy), at least, I think, it does prove that Constitutional Monarchy as a political system does not have a negative impact upon the well-being of a nation. One would not be able to argue on the basis of these figures that we in Australia would be better off if only we ditched our constitutional monarchy for some kind of republic.

Where was this picture taken?

The picture above was posted by the Cooees crowd in a blog complaining about the shoddy journalism of the Brisbane Catholic Leader. The story relates to Archbishop Denis Hart ("our +Denis") launching the Australian Association of Catholic Bioethicists at a dinner held recently.

However, the picture does not seem to fit. I am fairly sure that the person in the centre of the picture is none other than Melbourne-born-and-based Progressive Rabbi Gershon Zilberman. Here is a picture of the Rabbi which I took myself a year or two ago:

I am not exactly sure what he would be doing at a dinner for Catholic Bioethicists... I would be very interested to know if a) this photo was really taken at the dinner, or b) where and when it actually was taken. Has Cooees been guilty of a little shoddy reporting themselves?

“Let us declare that God is dead…”

… and then we ourselves will be God. (Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p.257)

No, I don’t think he is actually suggesting this as a good idea. He is suggesting that this is “the logic of the modern age, of our age”.

It comes as a part of his reflection on the parable of the vineyard (Mk 12:1-12), in which the “tenants” of “the vineyard” who rejected and killed each messenger the King sent them.

The King had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

“If we open our eyes”, writes Pope Ratzinger, “isn’t what is said in the parable actually a description of our present world?”

How true. Papa Benny, of course, had to endure the great “God is dead” debates in the 1960’s. But today, it’s less of a declaration than a plan of action: “Let’s kill God, and then we will be free.”

We saw this in Pullman’s His Dark Materials series, where a rather pathetic angel-like “god” is put out of his misery so that the Kingdom of Heaven can be replaced by something Pullman styles “The Republic of Heaven”.

I saw it again during my recent break when I borrowed from the library the English TV mini-series The Second Coming.

The blurb on the back says:

What if there was a Second Coming and the Son of God arrived on earth? What would he say? What would you do? Are you ready for Judgement Day?...

Christopher Eccleston [Yep, the same bloke who played the penultimate Dr Who in the new series] plays Steve Baxter, a video shop worker, who is found wandering the Yorkshire Moors after 40 days and nights, mumbling that he is the Son of God.

Steve isn’t mad—he is the Second Coming. He…performs a miracle that brings northern England to a complete standstill. The world’s media kicks into a frenzy. Steve has a simple purpose—mankind must produce a 3rd Testament, or face Judgement Day in five days time.

So. That’s the basic plot. The “Final Solution” (so to speak) is reached by one of his (more reluctant) believers—she offers him a plate of pasta cooked up with a generous helping of rat poison and tells him that it is his destiny—as God incarnate—to kill himself off so that the human race can finally be free from God, take responsibility for itself, and find a peaceful existence without religion. He accepts this, eats the pasta, and dies. Hurrah! Everyone lives more or less happily ever after.

I doubt that Papa Benny has watched this drivel. But his conclusion is fitting:

At last we can do what we please. We get rid of God; there is no measuring rod above us; we ourselves are our only measure. The “vineyard” belongs to us. What happens to man and the world next? We are already beginning to see it…

Louis Bouyer “Spirit and Forms of Protestantism”

Well, I finally finished reading this classic volume, first published over fifty years ago. I’m not going to do a very long blog on it, as to do it justice would not only require several thousand words, but also many more years of reflecting on his ideas.

I was surprised to read here that Bouyer died only very recently. Bouyer was one among the the small spate of conversions of European Protestant clergy to the Catholic faith in the middle of the 20th Century (which, among other things, led to the current practice of the Catholic Church granting dispensation for married clergy converts to enter the priesthood). Bouyer was French, and, from what I can gather, Lutheran, but very well versed in Calvinism also. His book is an attempt to offer a just explanation of the “spirit and forms” of the tradition he left, but also to point out where, in the evaluation of the Catholic Church, that tradition had failed.

He does this in quite a different way from the traditional and common approach of comparing and contrasting specific protestant doctrines with corresponding Catholic positions, and tries to get at the very heart of the matter.

Essentially he identifies four aspects of Protestantism (some Lutheran, some Calvinist): Sola gratia, sola fide, solo Dei gloria (Calvin’s “sovereignty of God”), and sola scriptura. He demonstrates how each of these are thoroughly orthodox, thoroughly Catholic doctrines also, and then proceeds to ask the question “So why did the protestant churches end up not only in schism but actually in heresy?”

In so doing he works his way through Protestant Orthodoxy, Pietism, Methodism, and into the twentieth Century to the theology of Karl Barth.

He draws three main conclusions:

1) That the reformers—both Lutheran and Calvinist—unconsciously adopted as the very basis of their whole theological method the one great anti-Christian corruption of the medieval church which should have been their first priority to eradicate: namely the nominalist philosophy of Duns Scotus and the other late scholastics which held almost universal sway among the theologians—Catholic and Protestant—of the early 16th Century (including folk like Erasmus et aliter).

2) That, unlike the Catholic Church, Protestantism has been unable to purge itself of the effect of this nominalism due to the systematisation of the Reformers insights during the period of Protestant Orthodoxy; nominalism thus became synonymous with the very “system” of Protestantism itself.

3) That the best hope Protestantism has of rediscovering true Christianity is to pay attention to the elements of “revivalism” in its history; and that correspondingly these “revivalist”, “pietistic” and “mystical” elements (which keep cropping up in Protestantism) might also become bridges back to authentic Catholic Christianity. He notes, however, that Neo-Orthodoxy and Neo-Confessionalism always tend to fight against such trends.

It is all very interesting, and I rather think that if I had picked up this volume twenty years ago, it would have accelerated my entrance into the Catholic Church. I see in it a clear validation of those elements of Lutheran spirituality that I still treasure, even as a Catholic, but also a warning of those lingering aspects of nominalism of which I still honestly have to work hard to divest myself!

I have also been a bit surprised to find this book of particular relevance to a lecture I am preparing for our School of Prayer in the Archdiocese on the place of Luther and the Lutheran Pietists in the history of Christian Prayer and Spirituality. More on that later.

Saying for the day...

"It's a whole lot easier to get through life if you don't expect much from it in the first place."

It's an original Schützism, so I give you permission to use it. A little nihilistic, perhaps? Or cynical? I often have regard for the saying of Thoreau, that "Most men live lives of quiet despation".

I have experienced this desparation today just trying to get my latest toy (my work laptop) connected to mobile broadband. After actually buying a 3 Network plan, at a fraction of the price of Telstra, I now returned from my holiday (expecting to be all wireless by the end of the day) to find that 3 Network canceled my order because it doesn't cover my home area. Deep Sigh.

So, I've just trudged in the summer heat down to the Telstra shop, who will now end up with my (or rather, the Archdiocese's) megabucks. And I am trying to get my other new toy (an iPAQ personal organiser) to talk to my Lotus Notes email at work. We're slowly solving that one. Even Deeper Sigh.

Of course, as Papa Benny never tires of pointing out, both in his latest encyclical "Spe Salvi" and in his book "Jesus of Nazareth", man's deepest longing is for life, real life, and life in abundance. He says, of this "eternal life":

We cannot stop reaching out for it, and yet we know that all we can experience or accomplish is not what we yearn for. This unknown “thing” is the true “hope” which drives us, and at the same time the fact that it is unknown is the cause of all forms of despair and also of all efforts, whether positive or destructive, directed towards worldly authenticity and human authenticity.

"All forms of desparation and also of all efforts". Yes, I can identify with that.

Retreating Again (or "Run Away! Run Away!)

It's the last week of January, and here in Australia, that means the last week of the summer school holidays and the last week before everybody starts expecting you to actually start doing something productive while at work, so between now until after the Australia Day Long Weekend (for foreign readers, that's until Jan 29) I will be giving all my attention to my family.

As per usual, that means that I will not be blogging during this time. Check back in again at the end of the month for more insightful commentary and wit.

Go on, now, children. Run away and play.

P.S. The picture above is for the Monty Python congnoscenti among you. Get it?

If the Pope can't go to the Mountain, the Mountain will go to the Pope!

A neat little conclusion to the business about the La Sapienzia University's rudeness to Pope Benedict came at yesterday's general audience.



You can watch the report of the Weekly Audience at Rome Reports here.

"Hermeneutic of suspicion" has no place in Interreligious Dialogue

The story that a NSW priest has criticised the important development in Catholic Muslim relations that has taken place at the Australian Catholic University shows just what damage an "hermeneutic of suspicion" can do to in inter-religious relations.

It also shows how mistaken it can be to interpret a religious movement outside of its context. Fethullah Gulen's movement arose in the anti-religious, ultra-secular, context of 1960's Turkey. It is Islamic in the same sense that (for eg.) Opus Dei is Catholic. (In fact, in very many ways, the Gulen Movement and the Opus Dei movement are similar culturally and religiously, just in different religious and social contexts. Opus Dei has itself often been attacked by its enemies with exactly the same sort of "hermeneutic of suspicion"). As a movement, its intention in Turkey has always been to enable ordinary "lay" folk to live out their Islamic faith in daily life of business and service.

In the original article to which the news story refers, the author quotes from one of Gulen's sermons:

You must move in the arteries of the system, without anyone noticing your existence, until you reach all the power centres, until the conditions are ripe.

This statement in its context clearly relates to the way in which Gulen encouraged his followers to work against the discriminatory anti-religious system of his own country. It has never been the intention of the Gulen movement to move into other countries and "take over", as the author of the article seems to suggest.

Unfortunately, the author of the article attempts to interpret the situation in Turkey vis a vis Islam (and religion in general for that matter, including Christianity) through paradigms that we are familiar with in the Western world. Even on the basis of my very brief experience in Turkey (which you can read about in my diary here), I have come to realise that this is not possible. To understand the Gulen movement in its context it is necessary to be familiar with the specific history of the relations between state and religion in the Turkish republic during the 20th Century.

There is much that dialogue with Muslims can achieve in our world today. The establishment of the Muslim chair at ACU gives us an opportunity to work very closely together, in an open academic context. There is no place for the hermeneutic of suspicion here. Only for generous engagement and rigourous academic investigation.

Well, no skin off the Pope's nose...

There is a classic line in Douglas Adam's "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where the philosophers threaten to go on strike. "And who will that inconvenience?" asks the mega-computer, Deep Thought.

The protest by some students and faculty at the La Sapienza University that caused the Pope to call off his visit falls into the same category. As demonstrations go, all it demonstrated is how small minded some people can be. I'm sure the pope will enjoy having a blank hour or two in his diary.

John Allen puts "Affirmative Orthodoxy" in historical perspective

A good analysis of Pope Benedict's "style" on John Allen's column this week.

First he proposes that there are "three basic psychological possibilities" of response when faced with a challenge:

• rejecting the challenge through a tenacious defense of those convictions;
• recognizing the merits of the challenge, and adjusting one’s ideas and behavior as a result;
• recognizing the merits of the challenge, and rearticulating one’s convictions in an effort to demonstrate that they satisfy the aspirations of the challenger better than the proposed alternatives.

Next he suggests that these correspond to three periods in the last hundred years of Church history:

• The anti-modernist campaign
• The Second Vatican Council and the period following it for several decades
• Pope Benedict's campaign of "affirmative orthodoxy"

"Affirmative Orthodoxy" is about stressing God's "yes" rather than God's "no". As Papa Benny himself has put it:

Firstly it’s important to stress what we want. Secondly, we can also see why we don’t want something. ...But all this is clearer if you say it first in a positive way.

Allen concludes:

How persuasive “affirmative orthodoxy” will prove, or whether it ultimately does justice to the challenge presented by modernity, remains to be seen. Those who believe the Catholic Church needs significant reform in its doctrines and structures obviously won’t find it satisfying. But the concept of “affirmative orthodoxy” at least provides a unifying structure to understand what Benedict seems to be doing in drips and drabs, in ways that can otherwise seem difficult to anticipate or understand.

Check-Out Chick gets into Melbourne's "Arts--New Generation"

The Age today published the tertiary offers for last year's Year 12 students. I was in a supermarket this morning waiting to get served in the "fast lane", while the only girl on the counter was reading the newspaper. Turns out that she was looking up to see if she got into her course.

"Did you?", I asked.
"Yes," she replied, as she scanned my packet of meat pies.
"Congratulations! What course?" I asked, as I handed over my cash.
"Arts-New Generation. Its the American-style course that Melbourne University is offering," she answered as she gave me the receipt.
"Oh? I take it then there will be no philosophy, ancient history, classics, Latin etc?", as I pocketed my change.
"Oh no, nothing earlier than 20th Century."
"Well," I replied, "I guess that might just qualify you to be a check-out girl."

Was I being mean?

I have just looked up the course on the Melbourne Uni website, and perhaps it isn't really as awful as it sounded...

"Law and Gospel"? or "Judgement and Grace"?

While in Bendigo recently, visiting Pastor Fraser Pearce, I happened to pick up his copy of Walther's "Law and Gospel" (the basic theses, without the expanded commentary, are here).

I have ever detested Walther--even as a Lutheran--despite having a convinced Waltherian as a lecturer and Seminary principal (Dr Elvin Janetzki of blessed memory). I let Fraser have the full force of my criticism, and he eloquently defended Walther (although I was not convinced).

My main argument against Walther is that he not merely suggests the "Law/Gospel" paradigm/paradox as a helpful way of interpreting the Scriptures, but rather as the ONLY way of interpreting the scriptures, which he imposes upon the scriptures as a cook imposes a cookie cutter on his pastry. The first two theses allow us no other hermeneutical option:

Thesis I.

The doctrinal contents, of the entire Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament, are made up of two doctrines differing fundamentally from each other, viz., the Law and the Gospel.

Thesis II.

Only he is an orthodox teacher who not only presents all the articles of faith in accordance with Scripture, but also rightly distinguishes from each other the Law and the Gospel.

It is too much! While you could (as Fraser did) defend the Law/Gospel approach as a useful one for understanding the way in which the Word of God is experienced existentially by the one to whom it is addressed (and this would be much more in keeping with Luther's original genius in this regard), Walther insists that it is an objective and exclusive characteristic of the very nature of the Word of God (much as any orthodox theologian would insist upon the two natures of Christ).

One could argue (and I do) that in fact it represents an approach to both the Law and the Gospel that is completely contrary to Scripture. Could Walther have truly said, along with the psalmist, "Oh, how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day" (Ps 119)? Could he have acknowledged a proclamation of "the Gospel" which calls for repentance (Mk 1:14-15)?

Moreover, I believe that Walther misreads St Paul, who certainly could not have spoken of "the Law" without having the Jewish Torah in mind. The real contrast in St Paul is between seeking salvation by "faith in Christ" rather than in "the works of the Law (Torah)". The contrast is clearly between the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ, ie. Law/Christ, not Law/Gospel. (Nb. this approach becomes irredeemably abstract when "works" and "faith" are set loose from "Law" and "Christ" to which they refer).

And above all, if this is the only orthodox way of reading Scripture, is it not rather odd that it has not been employed as such throughout the 2000 year history of Christian scriptural exegesis? Reading today Richard John Neuhaus' piece on Benedict's latest encyclical "Spe Salvi" with this question in mind, I realise that there is a much more accepted and acceptable paradigm in Christian tradition than "Law/Gospel", namely "judgement/grace".

Judgement and Grace have indeed been seen throughout Christian tradition as the two modes in which the Word of God has been addressed to humankind--and one can interpret Walther most charitably when it is assumed that he is speaking about just this (ie. Law=Judgement and Gospel=Grace).

Nevertheless, whereas Walther consistantly views the Gospel as "good news" over against the Law as "bad news", Christian tradition sees "good news" even in God's Judgement, as Benedict writes:

The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).

But then, by Walther's standards, Benedict fails the test as "an orthodox teacher".

An irregular declension: My "faith", your "deeply held belief", his/her "superstition"...

Jeff Tan and LP Cruz are discussing an event non-Filipinos know little about: the Feast of the Black Nazarene.

I thought I would look up what Wikipedia had to say about "superstition" (some would regard the idea that Wikipedia can give you authoritative statements as itself a superstition, but we won't go there).

I discover that in fact, "superstition" appears to be one of those "irregular nouns" that Bernard Woolley was so fond of in "Yes, Minister" (eg.: "That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act."). Here's what Wiki had to say:

Superstition indicates something standing above, or set up above. The earliest English uses of the word in the modern era refer critically to Catholic practices such as censing, rosaries, holy water and other practices that Protestants believed went beyond - or were set up above - their own interpretation of the New Testament practices of Christianity. From there the uses of the term expanded to include non-Christian religious practices, and beliefs that seemed unfounded or primitive in the light of modern knowledge.

So it seems that Lito is using the noun (and its adjective) in the original and purest form: to deride acts of faith that are different from your own.

Eucharistic Presence: "More than physical"--but not less

Poor old Pete's been fighting a battle up north on the issue of whether it is appropriate to descrive the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as "physical". He's got Paul VI on his side, but unfortunately not many others.

So I was interested to read this on the First Things blog the other day, by our dear Father Neuhaus:

Theologians of an orthodox persuasion sometimes say that the Real Presence does not mean physical presence. This is to guard against the debased notion of a cannibalistic consumption of a portion of human flesh and blood. That is indeed a gross distortion of our being encountered by, and receiving body and soul, the living Christ in his humanity and divinity. Yet I have come across people who are deeply troubled when they hear it said that the Real Presence is not a physical presence. They misunderstand that to mean that his presence is less than physical, when the point is that his presence is more than physical. The physical is part of the finitude of space and time, which is both embraced and transcended in the wonder of God become man. Finitum capax infiniti.

That (as RJN himself would say) sounds about right. The Resurrrection is an analogy: to insist on the "physical" resurrection, sounds as if you are talking about a resuscitation. In opposition to this, many (the Spong types) want to talk about a "spiritual" resurrection. But as N.T. Wright and many others point out, a first century Jew could never have spoken of "resurrection" if the body was still lying in the tomb. The resurrection was obviously more than physical (Christ's resurrected body was no longer limited by time or space)--but certainly not less.

The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is surely in the same category. It is odd how people define the real presence in such a way that it seems less, rather than more, real. Physical is real, as any scientist will try to convince you. A Catholic theologian will agree--but he will also point out that there is a reality that is more, not less, real than merely physical. It is that bodily presence that is not limited by time and space. And this is the sort of Presence that we call really Real in the Eucharist. Thus when Paul VI called the Real Presence "physical", he added the same caveat that Aquinas did:

Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place. (Myterium Fidei 46)

Yes, Peter, it is physical. And you are right to oppose those who would try to say it is anything less. But it is also more than physical.

This will have them all a-twitter on the Trad blogs...

No, he isn't celebrating the Extraordinary Form ("Pre-Vatican II Mass")--he's doing the novus ordo versus crucifixum, as he has always recommended in his liturgical writings. Reuters reports

that the Pope used the Sistine Chapel's ancient altar set right against the wall instead of the altar placed on a mobile platform that allowed his predecessor John Paul II to face the faithful. The Vatican's office for liturgical celebrations said it had been decided to use the old altar to respect "the beauty and the harmony of this architectonic jewel."

Fair enough too.

Schütz cantoring on YouTube?

Lucian discovered this. No. It is NOT me. Fraser Pearce thinks it could be though...

Jesuits told: "Sentire Cum Ecclesia"

You will remember the long discussion last year on this blog about the phrase "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" (see here and here and here and here for examples). Of course, the phrase which I use as the title for my blog (and will one day bequeath to my children as the family motto) in fact comes from the founder of the Society of Jesus, St Ignatius Loyola (see here).

Of course, anyone who knows anything of the recent history of the Jesuits will know that there many of those within the order have been doing anything other than "thinking with the Church" and their vow of obedience to the Pope and the Heirarchical Church has been honoured more in breach than in the keeping of it. Most would see that as a result of the leadership of the penultimate Superior General, Fr. Arrupe (see here for the current-retiring Superior General's take on his predecessor--it is enlightening for what it implies as much as for what it says).

Anyway, they "got told" (as my daughters would say) by Cardinal Franc Rode, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Societies of Apostolic Life, as they opened their 35th General Congregation in Rome this week.

It is with sorrow and anxiety that I see that the sentire cum ecclesia of which your founder frequently spoke is diminishing even in some members of religious families. The Church is waiting for a light from you to restore the sensus Ecclesiae. The Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius are your specialty. The rules of sentire cum ecclesiae form an integral and essential part of this masterpiece of Catholic spirituality. They form, as it were, a golden clasp which holds the book of The Spiritual Exercises closed [trans? together?]. You hold in your very hands the elements needed to realize and to deepen this desire, this Ignatian and Ecclesial sentiment.

Love for the Church in every sense of the word, – be it Church people of God be it hierarchical Church – is not a human sentiment which comes and goes according to the people who make it up or according to our conformity with the dispositions emanating from those whom the Lord has placed to direct the Church....

With sadness and anxiety I also see a growing distancing from the Hierarchy. The Ignatian spirituality of apostolic service “under the Roman Pontiff” does not allow for this separation. In the Constitutions which he left you, Ignatius wanted to truly shape your mind and in the book of the Exercises (n 353) he wrote” we must always keep our mind prepared and quick to obey the true Spouse of Christ and our Holy Mother, the Hierarchical Church”. Religious obedience can be understood only as obedience in love. The fundamental nucleus of Ignatian spirituality consists in uniting the love for God with love for the hierarchical Church...

Ignatius placed himself under the orders of the Roman Pontiff “in order to not err in via Domini” (Const 605) in the distribution of his religious throughout the world and to be present wherever the needs of the Church were greater.

Times have changed and the Church must today confront new and urgent necessities, I will mention one, which in my judgment is urgent today and is at the same time complex and I propose it for your consideration. It is the need to present to the faithful and to the world the authentic truth revealed in Scripture and Tradition. The doctrinal diversity of those who at all levels, by vocation and mission are called to announce the Kingdom of truth and love, disorients the faithful and leads to a relativism without limits. There is one truth, even though it can always be more deeply known.

It is the “living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” (DV 10) which is the voucher for revealed truth... May those who, according to your legislation, have to oversee the doctrine of your magazines and publications do so in the light of and according to the “rules for sentire cum ecclesia”, with love and respect...

Recover these avant-garde positions which are so necessary to transmit the eternal truth to today’s world, in today’s language. Do not abandon this challenge. We know the task is difficult, uncomfortable and risky, and at times little appreciated and even misunderstood, but it is a necessary task for the Church.

Especially that last paragraph struck me, in the light of what Fr Kolvenbach said about Fr Arrupe's call for the Jesuits to adopt an "avant-garde" approach:

"We will witness rising up against us those who in the industrial society of today practice injustice, who on the other hand are considered excellent Christians and who have perhaps been able to be our benefactors, our friends and even members of our families,” Kolvenbach said, synthesizing Arrupe’s thought.

“They will accuse us of Marxism and subversion. They will withdraw their friendship from us and with it they will take away their long-standing trust and economic support. Are we willing to assume this responsibility of entering on the path of a heavier cross, of withstanding the incomprehension of the civil and ecclesiastic authorities, and of our best friends? Are we ourselves ready to offer a true witness in our lives, in our work, in our lifestyle?”

Against this, Cardinal Rode suggests that there is something even more important, more avant-garde, more aligned to carrying the cross of Christ, more likely to result in authentic martyrdom than the adoption of elements of Marxist ideology: the spreading of the Gospel.

The temptation to blog...

about the process of entering into the diaconate, which I formally began yesterday by attending an interview with the director of the Office for the Diaconate.

It would be a fascinating story--one to rival my year of grace journal--but I fear it would break several of my "golden rules", the main two being: never blog on really personal stuff and never blog on anything that might adversely affect my future.

Of course, Year of Grace IS really personal stuff, but its stuff in the past, and it turned out all right in the end, so that's why now (six years after the event) I am able to share it with the world.

But with regard to the process of becoming a deacon in the great Archdiocese of Melbourne--that is a road that is fraught with dangers and possible wrong turns and dead ends. It is also a journey that is going to make great demands on my patience--a virtue which, as many will tell you, I have in short supply.

Suffice it to say that at this point I am an applicant to become an aspirant to become a candidate to become a permanent deacon. They are just starting the diaconate program here in Melbourne (the last diocese of Australia to do so) and there has been an enthusiastic response--as many as 58 enquirers. Only a fraction of those will make it through to ordination in four years time (the canonical period of formation). For some the journey could be longer. For a goodly number the journey may lead them in a completely different direction and never reach ordination. For all I know, I could be one of the latter.

So this is one temptation I am going to resist except for small reports on my progress from here on in. But do not despair, dear reader. I intend to keep a diary of my experiences along the way, and one day, ONE day, I will blog it...

A "Person of Information": Amy Welborn on the demands of blogging

I have always shared the opinion of one of Jane Austen's fictional characters that to be "a person of information" is a thing to which one might reasonably aspire.

However, when one achieves this exalted rank, the pressure to always have information on everything can be a little daunting. All true bloggers know this.

Amy Welborn discusses this problem in a recent interview explaining why she stopped blogging. [Well...she didn't completely stop blogging. No true blogger can really ever stop blogging. Rather she dumped her well known "Open Book" blog (which would probably have been more appropriately called the "Instant Catholic Encyclopedia") for the more usual (and common) personal style at her new blog "Charlotte was both". The title says it all (see her explanation here)].

In her interview she said:

The effect of spending time on the Internet for me is that I know a lot, but I don't know if I'm wiser. That really started to eat at me. There's a lot of information out there and I love information, I love passing on information, but it's a time issue.

The feeling is a familiar one, Amy.

A thoughtful piece on the Catholic "Conversion" of Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair

There is a thoughtful piece on the "poping" of ex-prime minister of Britain, Tony Blair on the America website (free registration required for whole article) "From Thames to Tiber". Of all that has been written on this not insignificant event, it is by far the most worthy of reading and is written by a bloke who should know, Austen Ivereigh, a former "advisor" (I wonder exactly what that means?) to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (himself soon to be an "ex" - "ex-cathedra-ed" perhaps?).

Of greatest interest to me was the following:

If a Catholic can only serve a government whose every act chimes with his conscience and with church teaching, he cannot be a politician.

Students of church history will be aware that in the early church it was considered that one could not be a soldier and a practicing Christian--because of the inherant moral dangers of such work--and hence many soldiers put their baptism off until their retirement or deathbed (cf. Emperor Constantine). Perhaps--just perhaps, mind you--in the modern world the career of "politician" should be treated the same?

In any case, lest anyone under estimate the importance of Blair's reception into the Catholic Church (I prefer the word "reception" to "conversion", although in the case of many of us "converts", there was indeed a conversion required before we could freely assent to all that the Catholic Church teaches) here is Rocco Palmo's suggestion for a new Christmas Proclamation for use in Great Britain:

In the fifth century since Henry VIII's break with Rome /
the one hundred fifty-eighth year of the re-establishment of the hierarchy in England and Wales /
the eighty-second Advent from Graham Greene's conversion /
the twenty-fourth hour of Tony Blair's reception /
the whole Anglican Communion (and much of Catholicism) being at conflict...
...Britain has "become a 'Catholic country'.

He is, of course, refering to the news that in Great Britain today, despite the fact that there are (on the books) 25 million Anglicans and only 4.2 million Catholics, nevertheless on any given Sunday you will find 861,000 Catholics in Church compared with 852,000 Anglicans. I thought those figures a little low even for the Catholics and then did the maths: 20% attendance rate. Australia should be so lucky. We have 4.8 million Catholics with a weekly attendance rate of about 15%.

Evangelisation via Liturgy: My Wife's Lutheran Parish

Mike asked in the Combox to the last post:

What is it like at your wife's Lutheran parish? Tell us more! Would her services be fairly liturgical, solemn etc, and if so, how does the evangelisation operate in that framework?

Interestingly, my wife commented only just a couple of days ago that a visiting past pastor of the parish (now long retired after a stint as "bishop" in another district) made a comment along the lines that St Paul's Lutheran Church at Box Hill is one of the only parishes he knows that really does evangelise through liturgy.

Through the efforts of this pastor, and his immediate successors right up to the current pastors, St Paul's has maintained a very high level of fidelity to the best Lutheran liturgical standards. That is also due in large part to a dedicated music team, led by one of Australian Lutheranism's best organists and his equally talented daughter. Together they have guided both the traditional and "contemporary" instrumental and choral groups of the church--which involves about 70 individuals all up.

The previous senior pastor was also an avid student of Evangelical-style church management (eg. Church Growth, Purpose-Driven Church, 12 Steps for Effective Churches etc.) which, although at times seemed to threaten the liturgical emphasis, has, over the years, melded into a situation in which the good from these approaches has been retained while most of the bad (and in some cases actually poisonous) has been rejected.

So today if you visit St Paul's for any of their four services (usually all Eucharists) on Sunday, you will find all those "Baptist-style" welcoming elements Barry Kearney called for in the post below (eg. " better music, choirs, more focussed welcoming, after Mass follow up for visitors and new parishioners"), coupled with unapologetically liturgical (although not always "traditional") worship. The other important element that completes the "evangelical triangle" (so to speak) is very strong preaching and an "all-of-life" parish catechetical program.

Not everything there is to my taste--I am, after all, a Catholic and not a Lutheran! The services are sometimes a little too wordy--a bit of liturgy and then everything stops for an announcement or a children's address or a special focus and then a bit more liturgy etc. This can make the services very long, with communion finally coming after a service of the word that has lasted an hour. (My wife once commented after attending a rural Catholic mass that she sometimes appreciates the no-nonsense approach of Catholics: "you go there, you do the liturgy, you go home"). But it seems to "work".

Lesson for the average Catholic parish?

1) Take the practical suggestions that Barry makes in the post below seriously. A good welcome and open hearted hospitality, clear directions during the liturgy, a clear and legible bulletin, easy access to the parish office and ministry, good follow up for visitors, etc. How hard is it to put up clear signs to the toilets?

2) Avoiding the "baptistification" of the liturgy, but make it the best Catholic liturgy possible. Put real emphasis on the musical side of the liturgy.

3) Undergird everything with strong and faithful preaching and teaching.

"The Australian Catholic Church has never known how to evangelise" - Barry Kearney

I have posted some of Barry Kearney's ideas before. Barry is businessman who is a parishioner at Park Orchards. He is a man with his heart in the right place and ready to think of some ways of doing things in a new way. Here is his latest offering in an open letter which I have decided to post for all to read. Incidentally, many of the suggestions he makes for better parish outreach are employed by my wife's Lutheran parish. It is a parish that is growing leaps and bounds while surrounding Lutheran parishes are struggling. (Although it should be noted that their greatest growth area is not in new Christians but in reviving the active practive of the faith in lapsed or irregularly practicing Christians--still that also seems to be what Barry is addressing here).

Dear Fellow Catholic,

The Australian Catholic Church has never known how to evangelise

Apart from official statements from some Church leaders, "Evangelism" is a dirty word amongst most Catholics. It’s something "born again" Protestants do, and not at all in the Australian Catholic tradition.

If the Apostles had adopted that attitude, there would be no Christian Church anywhere in the world.

In the 1950’s when I was young, the Catholic Church in Australia was composed of mainly Irish, Italian, Polish, Dutch etc immigrants and their descendants. Churches were full. There were plenty of vocations to the priesthood and to the religious orders. Catholic Children went to mainly Catholic Schools, where they were educated every day in their faith. When Catholics married non-Catholics any children were usually brought up as Catholics. And Catholics had big families. Catholics were taught that it was a commandment of the Church to attend Mass weekly and on Holy Days of Obligation. And most Catholics attended Mass and Confession regularly.

It was too easy. There was no apparent need for evangelising. Even though Catholics were only 25 to 30% of the population, there was no attempt to reach out to the "non-Catholics". We had a constant stream of Catholics migrating to Australia from "Catholic" countries.

Our mainly Irish Bishops came from a country where almost everyone was a Catholic. No need to evangelise in Ireland.

In an article I wrote in March last year "Blueprint for the Future Church - Strive to Thrive not just Survive" I said:

"About 27% of Australians profess to be Catholic. A seemingly impressive statistic. And yet only about 10% of Australian Catholics actually practice their faith. This means that only 2.7% of Australians are attending Mass regularly, and the other 97.3% do not. A person who does not attend Mass regularly is rejecting the very essence of what it means to be Catholic.

Despite this, and the almost complete lack of vocations, the Catholic Hierachy and Priests, Parish leaders and Parishioners still cannot conceive of making major changes to the status quo to actively evangelise. With 90% of Catholics not attending Mass regularly we can start by evangelising to our own non-attending Church members, but we do not.

People are campaigning for priests to be married, for women priests. These issues must be considered [One point on which I might disagree with you, Barry!] – but they are not the problem [I take it you mean that that would not be the solution, in which case I heartily agree], and they are outside the power of Parishes, Priests and Bishops [and even, with regard to women priests, the Church] to change. Our major problem is not a shortage of priests, it is a shortage of active Catholics [right you are there, Barry].

At the moment we actually have enough priests. But too many Parishes and Mass centres and too many masses ie not enough people attending to make many Parishes viable. In my own Parish 2 years ago we had our own Parish priest, 2 Mass centres and 3 Masses, with about 180 in total attending every week. Now we have 1 Mass centre, 1 Mass and 100 attending. And we share a PP with a neighbouring parish. Our Parish was not viable 2 years ago. It certainly is not viable now, unless we change our attitude. We could have 500 attending one Mass every week, if only we wanted to ie 25% of local Catholics. (Imagine if we had 100% of Catholics = 2,000 every week. Imagine if we then started evangelising to the 8000 non-Catholics). To do this we have to evangelise. We have about 100 families attending our Parish primary school, but only about 8 of those families attend Mass regularly.

So what can we do? Some Church leaders are looking to World Youth Day in 2008 to bring new life in to the Church. It will certainly help, a tiny bit, but will in no way solve the problem.

The 16 to 25 yo age group is almost non existent in Mass attendance. If they do start attending after WYD, what kind of Church will they find? Will they be welcomed? Listened to? Would they keep attending?

I sometimes try to imagine non-Christians attending a Catholic Mass service for the first time because they are interested in finding out what Catholicism is all about. Eg a 21 yo male non Christian goes to the local Parish Mass. He enters the Church. Nobody welcomes him. He sees a mainly female congregation, mostly over 50 yo. He sees only a handful (or none) of people his own age. He does not know when to stand (at one stage he is standing up – he is at the front to see what is happening – he looks around and everyone else is sitting or kneeling), when to kneel, everyone seems to know the responses and prayers, but he has no idea. The singing is bad. Music is taped. Most people arrive just on time or late. When Communion is offered, everyone gets up in his row. He is not sure what to do. In the end he stays seated, confused. Alone.

After Mass he is ignored as he leaves the Church. He looks for the Church office, it is in another building across the car park. No sign telling him where. He finds it. It is closed. Sign says open 10am-4pm week days. He works week days. He feels completely unwanted, alienated.

The following week he attends a Baptist Church. He is welcomed by 2 young attractive 18 yo girls when he arrives. There are young people everywhere. There are not many prayers, but they are clearly shown on the 2 huge screens. The singing is enthusiastic. The band fantastic. He is given a pamphlet with information about the Church and how to join. He is invited to visit the information kiosk in the same building as he leaves. The person next to him starts chatting to him when the service ends. Encourages him to visit the kiosk and volunteers to take him there. As he leaves he sees there is a canteen with tables. People are sitting around ordering coffee. There is an excited buzz. (I attended a local Baptist service – this is an exact description of my experience).

I am not saying that we should emulate the Baptists in every way. But we must change the way we offer the Mass. There is no point evangelising to young people eg WYD, if the Mass is completely unwelcoming. There is no point advertising and running evangelising courses eg Alpha, RCIA, if the Mass experience is a turn off. Every activity of the Church should be based on evangelising.

But my experience shows that almost all the hard work of Priests and lay people is directed at serving the less than 10% of Catholics who attend mass ie it is directed inwards, not outwards. We are supposed to be a light shining in the community. Not a light shining in a closed community. Whilst we should service the very few that attend Mass, our aim should not be to retain, but to gain! To "Strive to Thrive not just Survive".

Surely that is what Christ told us. When the Holy Spirit came to the Apostles at Pentecost, they went out and evangelised all over the world. They did not stay in their own communities.

To achieve this we cannot tinker at the edges. We need to completely rethink our Parish approach. Every activity should have evangelism as a basis. We need to be radical, at least in the context of Australian Catholic Parish life. We must not be afraid of upsetting the status quo, even feeling unpopular. We must look at the Catholic primary and secondary schools and how we can use them to change attitudes to our Faith.

We must make the Mass more meaningful and welcoming. This does not mean changing the essence of the Mass. No Baptist service can offer anything like Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. We have to examine every part of the Mass and the parish operation, like a movie editor, frame by frame, to ensure that everything from the sign out the front, to the seating, the music, the mass sheets, church office (location and hours of opening), the foyer, how the Eucharist is received, how we greet, meet, seat attendees, how we congregate after Mass, is based on evangelising.

We must invite and welcome all members of our whole community eg using signage, regular letter box drops to every household. We must look at using websites and email to communicate.

The Parish schools are a great strength. Catholics and non-Catholics want to send their children to them. If we based attendance at our Parish Schools as a test of the health of our Church, we would be a huge success. But in a way they are a weakness too. In the old days, every Parish had one or more Parish priests, plus a primary school. So we learnt to think in terms of small local parishes. With most Catholics in those days attending Mass and with strong religious orders to support them, the parishes thrived.

We had multiple Masses all well attended. We even added Saturday evening Masses.
With much smaller numbers of attendees, we are still trying to offer the same number of Mass centres and services. At most Masses Churches are from 10 to 30% full. Yet if Masses are cancelled, or Mass centres closed, there is an outcry.

What can we do? Whatever we do, it must be a radical new approach. It must take us outside our comfort zone. It will probably cause short term upset and resistance with some priests and parishioners.

It must begin by being based on better presenting the Mass, the Eucharist and the Parish as an identity. All of that is evangelizing. But it must then proceed to more focussed outreach.

It needs to look at closing many Mass centres, reducing the number of services until we need more. By having less services, we can provide better services eg better music, choirs, more focussed welcoming, after Mass follow up for visitors, new parishioners. We can have an enquiry desk. It would reduce some costs. Young people attending would be more likely to meet others.

Children’s Liturgy can be provided and be better attended. It is a powerful way of helping primary children enjoy the liturgy, and encouraging their parents to make the sacrifice of getting them and themselves to Mass.

Priests would have less Masses to attend, so there would be a short term solution to the lack of priests. And they would not be under so much pressure every Sunday.
We need our leaders to show strength, courage and real leadership. They need to make the tough decisions, and explain them clearly. This means our Bishops, Priests and Parish Leaders.

There should be a centralised Diocesan body (compromising clergy and laity) monitoring and leading Parish changes eg setting up trials, measuring effectiveness, visiting Parishes to see what help they need, rating them on resources, performance, attendance. There should be a national body meeting at least every 3 months to report and discuss successes and failures.

Our aim should be to evangelise to every Australian. Unless we make that our starting point, we are not following Jesus’ teaching. Unless we do that, vocations will continue to fall.

Or we can just keep doing what we have always done, for an ageing congregation, with even faster ageing priests.

Yours in Christ

Barry Kearney

5-7 Curry Rd Park Orchards VIC 3114
Tel Bus 03 9761 6346 EXT 5
Tel AH 03 9879 9121
Mobile: 0412 379 253

"How does one who is not a professional preacher preach Christ?"

That's a question that Jeff Tan asks on his blog. And it is a good one--one that became acute for me about six and a half years ago...

Jeff's best answer is that of St Josemaria Escriva--which accords very well with the Lutheran theology of vocation. As Jeff puts it, that is "In my ordinary work, lived extraordinarily with Christ at its centre."

There may be opportunities for verbal witness as well as active witness. Family, friends and work colleagues (probably in that order) are the best possibilities--at least statistically.

If you are married and have a family, then the question is a no-brainer. Evangelise your spouse and children. Of course, if they are Christian too, this becomes mutual evangelisation which is really neat and what makes a strong spiritual family.

If you are a member of a parish, evangelise other members of the parish. No, really. We often forget that the best place for witnessing to our faith may be our faith community. Christian communities need to be constantly evangelised (which is why Father preaches homily every week, although he may have forgotten that). What about talking about the homily over coffee after mass instead of sport/weather/the kids etc.? Small groups and fellowship groups and bible studies etc. are great places to offer one another mutual evangelisation. Or get involved in RCIA (they could do with the help!). Hospitality to other members of the parish or to new members or even potential enquirers is another way. Invite them over for a meal and encourage them in the faith. Become a mentor to the young people in the parish. Organise a youth group aimed at strengthening young people in their committment to the faith! The possibilities are endless.

And never discount the blog. Yeah, you might only get a few readers, and most of them might already be Christian (in which case what I said above may apply), but that's a few readers more than you would be witnessing to without the blog! Also it is a very unintrusive method of evangelisation. It is pure "proposition" rather than "imposition".

I'm not keen on door knocking or on pestering your workmates with "do you have a personal relationship with Jesus." But you might find a work mate who is a lapsed Christian who might be open to some encouragement or might (if he/she knows you are Christian) come to you for advice. This happened to me when I was working as a school librarian. Teachers, and even the the headmaster (who was a lapsed Catholic), would drop into the Library every now and again with a personal question relating to religion or faith. You have to be ready for these opportunities.

As for doorknocking, well, this does work if there is a good purpose in it. Eg. If you are door knocking to let people know when service times are for Christmas in the local parish, or when trying to make contact with Catholics in the area who may not have made contact with the parish. But it has to be done as an official program of the parish, be supported by the priest, come with training, and is best done by someone who holds an office in the parish.

Just some ways. But St Escriva is right, your ordinary work done extraordinarily with Christ at the centre is always the base line for "non-professional" preachers!

New Lutheran title on the Ordination of Women (agin it) includes Australian Authors

Dr William Tighe has alerted me to the following title that has just been released:

New Book on Women’s Ordination Includes Essays by Several CTS Faculty

A collection of essays on the ordination of women, Women Pastors? The Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective, edited by Concordia Theological Seminary professor John T. Pless and Matthew Harrison has been published by Concordia Publishing House and is available for $26.99. This anthology of essays includes chapters by CTS professors Charles Gieschen (“Ordained Proclaimers or Quiet Learners?”), Roland Ziegler (“Liberation Theology in the Leading Ladies of Feminist Theology”), William Weinrich (“Women in the History of the Church” and “It Is Not Given a Woman to Teach: A Lex in Search of a Ratio”), and David Scaer (“May Women Be Ordained as Pastors?” and “The Office of Pastor and the Problem of Women’s Ordination”). Other essays are included by North American, European, and Australian theologians Henry Hamann, Bertil Gaertner, Bo Giertz, Reinhard Slenczka, Peter Kriewaldt, David Bryce, Fredrik Sidenvall, Peter Brunner, John Kleinig, Hermann Sasse, Gregory Lockwood, Louis Smith, Louis Brighton, and Robert Schaibley.

CTS President Dean O. Wenthe commented on the significance of the anthology: “It is striking that in the ancient Near East where female deities and priestesses were abundant, Israel was told to have only male priests. Similarly, in the Greco-Roman world, where female gods and priestesses flourished, the church restricted the apostolic office to men. This volume is to be commended for similarly resisting prevailing cultural novelties by supporting in a scholarly and churchly manner the God-given order for the church’s ministry. Women as well as men are blessed when they hear and follow the living, healing voice of Jesus in the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures.”

Marco Vervoorst and I were reflecting today on how one could possibly make a case for not ordaining women from a Lutheran perspective. The Catholic argument assumes that the one who is ordained IS a PRIEST, and not just a "minister". From the blurb about by Wenthe (about the priesthood of ancient Israel) it would seem that he assumes the equation pastor=priest. But is this true of Lutheran theology in general and of these essays in particular?

Incidentally, several of the Australian authors are, were or have been my close associates or teachers: Henry Hamann, Peter Kriewaldt, David Bryce, John Kleinig, Gregory Lockwood, and (in spirit but never in person) the great Hermann Sasse. Also one of the editors, Pastor Matt Harrison, and his wife were my neighbours at Luther Sem for a year when he was studying here in Australia. A good man and mean banjo player (and yes, I say that even though I was living right next door to him in the same building!).

It would be an interesting endeavour to compare the arguments in this book to Sara Butler's "The Catholic Priesthood and Women", which I regard as the best on offer from a Catholic perspective on this question.

You could be forgiven for thinking...

that this picture (altered by me from an AAP picture appearing in The Age today in connection with this story on an anti-whaling protest outside the Japanese consulate in Melbourne yesterday) was about banning abortion.

Or perhaps they would not forgive you for so thinking, whales being so much more important than human beings...

Too much yeast: Tom Knowles' conclusions about the Holy See's approval of Anaphora of Addai and Mari

It is possible to put too much yeast in your bread. You end up with something full of holes. I make this point, because in the Christmas edition of the Yarra Theological Union Newsletter, YTU President Kathleen Williams RSM makes the following statement:

A little yeast: theology is meant to be that, a means for enabling people to become what they can be.

I didn't know that was what theology was meant to be, but Tom Knowles SSS certainly uses too much yeast in his over-blown theological conclusions regarding the Holy See's approval six years ago of the Assyrian Church's Anaphora of Sts Addai and Mari (see his article "A Landmark Decision: Vatican Approval for Addai and Mari" in the same newsletter).

After accurately describing the decision and the reasons for it, he goes to make the following conclusions (my comments in bold italics):

The decision has clear ecumenical implications. As the Roman church moves beyond its medieval pre-occupation with the formula of consecration recited by the priest [you can already see where this is heading, can't you?], it draws closer to the Eastern tradition that upholds the role of the Holy Spirit in transforming the bread and wine.

There are also liturgical implications. The decision invites the presider to see and pray the prayer as a connected whole, without singling out the institution narrative for special emphasis [that is true--which is why the laity may not join in any part of it--including the final doxology].

As a corollary, the presider’s gestures - the taking in hand of the bread and cup plus the elevations and accompanying genuflections (and ringing of the bell still in many places) – could be let go of in favour of the proper elevation of the hallowed gifts at the concluding doxology [why would you want to do this? what purpose would it serve, except to de-emphasise the doctrine of the real presence?].

Shifting the focus away from the institution narrative [ie. away from the words of Christ and the words of scripture that, despite the decision regarding the Anaphora of Addai and Madi, remain the focus of the Roman Eucharistic prayers] would allow the whole assembly not only to maintain a uniform posture throughout the eucharistic prayer [don't they already? or does he mean standing for the whole thing?] but also to recognise the integrity of the whole prayer and to experience it as the prayer of the whole community [Que? you mean, not just the priest's prayer?].

There may well be broader theological implications [but wait! there's more!] consequent on the Vatican’s willingness to go beyond narrow medieval doctrinal positions in favour of the church’s [the Assyrian Church's, not the Roman Church's] tradition of prayer and worship but that’s for others with the proper theological competence to say [Deo Gratias!].

In the meantime there’s much to take heart from in this ‘audacious agreement’ [if you are an Assyrian Catholic. It concerns no one else.].

Is Spam[-alot] Kosher?

In a review of the opening night of "Spamalot" back in 2005, New York theatergoer Genevieve Oparski said: "It's simple humour, there's nothing like simple, funny stuff. It can't not appeal to anyone."

Right you are there, Genevieve. It appealed to me. But I did find myself thinking during one song ("You won't succeed on Broadway"), "Why hasn't there been a ruckus about this?"

The review referred to earlier continues:

Word on the musical hasn't been totally euphoric however. Some commentators have indicated that a few of the lyrics poking fun at the prevalence of Jews in Broadway theatre could cause offence. But if there is any outrage it seems pretty muted.

At the risk of getting bricks thrown through my windows, I reproduce here just a snippet of the lyrics:

ARTHUR:
Have you heard of this "Broadway?"

ROBIN:
Yes sire...and we don't stand a chance there.

ARTHUR:
Why not?

ROBIN:
Because... Well...let me put it like this.

In any great adventure,
that you don't want to lose,
victory depends upon the poeple that you choose.
So, listen, Arthur darling, closely to this news:
We won't succeed on Broadway,
If you don't have any Jews...

For how it goes on, you will have to follow the link above OR click below:
)

But suffice it to say, the Christians on stage don't get it all their way. When finally, after a long and fruitless search for a Jew, Patsy (King Arthur's trusty steed) reveals that he is, on his mother's side, a Jew:

Arthur: Why on earth didn't you mention this earlier?
Patsy: Well, its not the kind of thing you mention in the presence of a heavily armed Christian.

It was the only wise-crack of the show that got applause and not just laughter. I admit that I might have been the one to start the applause...

Religion and Politics: A Sensible Comment

There is an astonishingly sensible comment on the Op-ed page of The Age today, by John Roskam, entitled "Politicians find religion a cross to bear".

It is very interesting to read, especially in the light of criticisms of Tony Blair and the Church in relation to his reception into the Catholic Church (finally) just before Christmas (for interesting comment on that, see here and--even more interestingly--here).

Here are some snippets from Roskam's article:

Tony Blair was right when a few weeks ago, on the eve of his conversion to Catholicism, he said that any British politician who talked about religion ran the risk of being regarded as a "nutter". He drew a comparison with the United States where politicians were not afraid to discuss their faith...

In this country, a politician speaking about religion also faces the risk of something worse than being thought a nutter. It's just as possible that anyone who admits that their religion influences the way they vote in parliament will be accused of being a dangerous theocrat intent on introducing the moral majority into Australia.

The evidence that a politician who talks about religion faces such a threat is widespread. It is obvious in the treatment of Tony Abbott, tagged by the Canberra press gallery as the "mad monk", to the way the ABC has labelled Catholic social groups, such as Opus Dei, as semi-secret organisations.

There are a number of contradictions in the way that religion and politics is treated in Australia. The first is the inability of much of the media to appreciate that a secular viewpoint carries as many moral assumptions as does one determined on religious grounds...

It is impossible for anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, not to approach policy questions without some moral framework. Morality simply cannot be taken out of politics...

Separation of church and state does not mean, and was never intended to mean, that anyone with religious convictions was disqualified from participating in politics.

...So far Kevin Rudd has defied Tony Blair's pronouncement. The new [Australian] Prime Minister has proved to be no less religious than his predecessor — if anything, Rudd has been more willing to talk about religion than was Howard, most notably in his description of himself as a Christian socialist.

Having made much of his Christianity during 2007, it will be interesting to see what effect, if any, religion has on the Prime Minister's policies during 2008.

Yes, it will be interesting. I believe that Rudd is more (or possibly less) than simply religious--he is possibly the first really theologically articulate prime minister Australia has ever had. Check this out, if you want proof.

Australian Fr Leonard SJ on the Golden Compass: "Compass Off Course"

Our Australian Catholic Bishops Conference film reviewer has had a good look at the Golden Compass film (which I still haven't seen). I can't find his review anywhere on-line, so I am giving it here in full. Incidentally, it is interesting to compare this with the reviews the film received in the states, and to have a look at the criticism of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) film reviewer by Fr Thomas J. Euteneuer, the President of Human Life International. Incidentally, the USCCB withdrew the review initially released by its office. See story here.

Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (December 21, 2007)

Compass off course

by Fr Richard Leonard SJ, Director of the Australian Catholic Office for Film and Broadcasting. He is available for media comment on 0409 120 928.

For well-informed Catholics, The Golden Compass can easily be taken as a direct and nasty attack on the mission and ministry of the Catholic Church.

For those who have little or no background with ecclesiastical jargon The Golden Compass can simply be understood as a very complex, expensive but mediocre piece of fantasy entertainment.

Given the sudden shocks, thundering soundtrack and convoluted storyline, this film is certainly not for children under the age of 15. I am amazed the Australian censors have only given it a PG rating.

But should adults see it?

The author of the book upon which this film is based, Philip Pullman, is an avowed atheist. His novel is a much more explicit attack on the role of organised religion and Catholicism in particular in the way he perceives that they promote faith over scientific reason.

It is entirely to director/screenwriter Chris Weitz’s credit that the all-out assault of the book is not replicated in this film. But there is still plenty on the screen from which Catholics can take offence.

The baddie in The Golden Compass is “The Magisterium”. Though Catholicism does not have an exclusive claim on this term, it is usually applied to the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church. It comes from the Latin word “magister” meaning authoritative teacher. The words magisterial and magistrate come from the same source.

In the film, The Magisterium exists because people “need them; they keep things working by telling people what to do”. And in the weakest of concessions it is admitted by the cruel Mrs Coulter (Nicole Kidman) that they give the orders “in a kindly way, to keep them out of danger”.

The Magisterium’s headquarters is a Kremlinesque building with bell towers where clerically and episcopally clad officials, wearing pectoral medallions, are called “My Lord” as they try to suppress the truth. And what’s the truth?

The truth is that people might find out that there are other beings in other worlds who do not need The Magisterium, and that these beings do not have a daemon, Pullman’s archetypal animal equivalent of a Christian soul.

Most contemptible of all, however, is how The Magisterium keeps the poor in line by sending out “gobblers” who abduct poor children and transport them to “experimental stations” in remote places where they “help children grow up” by forcibly performing operations on them to separate their bodies from their souls.

The allusion here, to the tragic and sometimes criminal stories of the abuse of children in Catholic institutions, is as ham-fisted as it is affronting. In Pullman’s world nuns and brothers dehumanised all the children in their care at the behest of The Magisterium.

It is easy, therefore, to see why some Catholics think that in the wake of The Da Vinci Code, The Golden Compass appears to one in a series of attacks on the nature of Christian faith and a further punishment for the very few people who did unspeakably criminal things toward the vulnerable.

This reprehensible assertion provides no concession to the fact that, outside government, the Roman Catholic community is the most significant provider of education, healthcare, welfare and pastoral care in the world.

Given its star power The Golden Compass has had very disappointing returns at the box office in the countries where it has opened. I am unconvinced that those who called for a boycott of the film can take much credit for that. In a free and democratic society adults can see what they like, but, equally, Pullman and Weitz have to take responsibility for the atheistic allegory they present here for public consumption.

I think the main reason The Golden Compass has not done as well as some might expect is that given its reported US$200m budget, it is not anywhere near as good as the many and better examples of the science fantasy genre which are around at present.

These other films explore metaphysics, metaethics, other worlds, other beings and transcendence without resorting to thinly-veiled attacks on Catholicism in particular, which, for all its many shortcomings, does much more good than harm on any given day.

A day late, but better late than never...

Yes, if you have just woken up after your new year's eve celebrations, you haven't missed anything so far--except perhaps the hottest new year's day on record for Melbourne (41.5 degrees Celsius after a new year's eve on which the temperature only sunk below thirty degrees at 5:30am before instantly heating up again...)

I'm off to see Spamalot today with my wife's Lutheran pastor--who also happens to be one of my best and oldest friends. Back when we were young high school students, it was still considered de rigueur for all budding humourists to be able to quote a goodly percentage of the Monty Python corpus off by heart, complete with funny voices. Alas, just one more point on which the modern generation continues to fall under par...