"Generous Spirit" shown by Rabbi Jacob Neusner

Readers of Pope Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth" will find that the name of Rabbi Jacob Neusner has a familiar ring. He is, of course, the author of the book "A Rabbi Talks with Jesus", with which Papa B. entered into dialogue in his aforementioned book about Jesus. You can read more about that fascinating relationship in this article from Haaretz, although it should be known that at least one Jewish writer has complained that Neusner in fact holds a position that is impossible for Jews, ie. rejecting his claim to be the divine Son of God and still maintaining real respect for him as an individual spiritual teacher.

Nevertheless, Neusner seems to be leading the way in demonstrating exactly what he calls for--that is, a "generous spirit"--in the debate about the Good Friday prayer. A Zenit article quotes him as saying:

Israel prays for the gentiles, so the other monotheists -- the Catholic church included -- have the right to do the same, and no one should feel offended. Any other policy toward the gentiles would deny gentiles access to the one God whom Israel knows in the Torah...

And the Catholic prayer expresses the same generous spirit that characterizes Judaism at worship. God’s kingdom opens its gates to all humanity and when at worship the Israelites ask for the speedy advent of God’s kingdom, they express the same liberality of spirit that characterizes the Pope’s text for the prayer for the Jews -- better ‘holy Israel’ -- on Good Friday...

Both ‘It is our duty’ and ‘Let us also pray for the Jews’ realize the logic of monotheism and its eschatological hope.

He may not speak for all Jews, or even a majority of Jews, but I must say that this "generous spirit" does indeed characterise the relationship between Christians and Jews of which I have been privileged to be a part.

The Zenit article also quotes Cardinal Kasper as saying that the prayer "leaves everything in the hands of God, not in ours" and that it "does not speak of missionary activity". Quite.

However, we need to clarify that we do not simply pray for the spread of the gospel but do ourselves actively participate in this mission. The point to be made is that in this mission we do not target anyone according to race or creed (eg. "as Jews" or "as Buddhists" or as "Pakistanis" or as "Koreans"), but simply as human beings. For God's salvation in Jesus Christ is for all races and tribes and nations and toungues, without distinction.

And from whom did we learn such a universal vision of salvation? That's right, my friends. As Rabbi Neusner says (and John 4 confirms): "From the Jews".

"That Catholic Show" - On Confession

Okay, it takes me a little while to catch on to some things. "That Catholic Show" is probably old hat for most of you, but I just discovered it today following the link from Zenit. And they had this little number on Confession. It's quite neat. Especially the bloopers at the end!

(And see if you can find what I found funniest about the whole video--clue: it has something to do with "spiritual direction")



(okay, another clue: look for the arrows!)

Dear Bishop Malone: Deacons are different from Priests, not "better"

Here is an idea we don't want to encourage:

A deacon is one who serves, listens with diaconal heart, and is able to do this better because he is married.

According to this local report, it comes from the homily of Bishop Michael Malone of Maitland-Newcastle given at the ordination of a permanent deacon.

It should be remembered that all priests are ordained deacons also (as are all bishops), and that the charism of marriage and the charism of celibacy are different gifts that are used to serve God and his people in different--not "better"--ways.

I very strongly doubt the good bishop's judgement that one is a better "listener" simply "because he is married". Maybe the bishop's own lack of personal experience of the state of marriage is showing through in his wishful thinking.

"Priests" and the Seal of the Confessional

There is a very confused article in today's Herald Sun (not a rag I read regularly--thank you Cathnews for alerting me) regarding whether the responsibility for reporting crimes such as child abuse extends to the priest who hears confession of such a crime in the confessional.

For a start it is entirely inappropriate for the journalist responsible to describe either the minister in question or the context for the "confession" in terms of Catholic priesthood and the Catholic sacrament of penance, since no minister of what the article describes as "a small evangelistic Christian church in the eastern suburbs" could be regarded as a priest "in the true sense" (as Rome would put it!) nor could any practice of "confession" in that church be regarded as the sacrament of penance (which sacrament and which power to forgive such "evangelical" churches strenuously deny).

The Catholic Church forbids (Canon 983.1) her priests to disclose any information received in the confessional or in any way to make use of the information received there. The Catechism states (p. 2490) that "It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason".

The reason for this should be patently obvious. No-one would ever make auricular confession to a priest if he thought that in any way what was confessed would go anywhere beyond that forum. Removing the seal of the confessional for any reason would utterly destroy any confidence the faithful have in their priests or in this sacrament overnight.

For eg. Last Saturday night I went to mass in the Cathedral. I wanted to make my confession, and sat in the line for twenty minutes, only to be told (when I was two away from entering the box) that no more confessions would be heard since Father had to prepare to say mass in ten minutes time. I went to communion anyway after making an act of contrition, but also recognised that this obligated me to make my confession at the earliest possible opportunity. That opportunity came after mass in the sacristry where I confessed to the priest face to face. I know this priest and he knows me and we work together regularly. I have confessed to him through the grill before, but never face to face. If I thought that there was any way in which what I had to confess would leave that face to face encounter and affect either my work or my personal relationship with this priest I never would have had the confidence to do this. As it was, I know that he will not even allow what he heard in that confession to affect our personal relationship, let alone any relationships beyond this. I confessed to him as to the Lord, and as with the Lord, he doesn't go babbling about it to anyone.

Now ask yourself if I would have had the confidence to do that without the guarentee of the seal of the confessional. I can tell you now that I would not have.

Making exceptions for the seal of the confessional will not lead to the uncovering of these crimes and to justice. It will lead to people never confessing mortal sins to their priest and never receiving forgiveness for it. At least in the current situation, the priest is able to use what influence he has in that personal pastoral relationship to see that repentance is sincere, justice is done and future harm averted.

New Post on Sing Lustily

I have blogged a bit on Sing Lustily, my music blog, and was getting ready to add another entry on a recent reference Benedict made to Taize music. I could have sworn that the reference was in his Q&A session with the Roman priests, but I can't find it there. Can anyone help me out?

Today I attended a prayer session at Wesley Uniting Church with Br Ghislain from Taize. He is on one of his regular visits to our part of the world, and will be back again for WYD in Sydney. We had a hour or so for Taize prayer accompanied by some very bad recorder playing (I'm allowed to say that without offending anyone since I was the offender).

Br Ghislain included a reading of Br Alois' most recent letter. It is worth reading. I think there has been something of a swing to the Catholic and a swing to the theological in emphasis since Br Alouis took over writing these letters from his venerable predecessor.

Tracey Rowland's "Ratzinger's Faith"

Forgive me for not having blogged much in the past week or so. Blame it entirely upon Tracey Rowland's latest book "Ratzinger's Faith" which she has kindly given to me to review for the Kairos (stay tuned for the full review). I have had my nose buried in this book since it arrived, and it has given me great joy and spiritual consolation.

So I have missed all the excitement surrounding the "great debate" between the Cooees boys (and girls, sorry Sister K) and Brian Coyne of Catholica.

But I catch up with most things eventually, and so to with this "gem" that they quote from Brian's jottings:

Every public action of this man [Pope Benedict XVI] seems totally designed to appease the nutters, the insecure, and those who see "salvation" not being secured by the Cross of Jesus but by rules, bells and smells and some quaint "culture" of Catholicism that is rooted not in the time, and life of Christ, but in some kind of European feudalism or monarchism where some believed in the "Divine Right of Kings". None of that "shit" has anything whatsoever to do with our salvation, resurrection or finding the "peace of Christ" in our lives that surpasses all human understanding.

Reading such a diatribe amidst reading "Ratzinger's Faith" almost makes me physically sick. It is patently obvious that Brian knows not what he does, and perhaps he may therefore have recourse to the prayer of our Lord on the Cross for those who were crucifying him.

That he can accuse Benedict of seeing salvation as being secured by anything other than the Cross of Christ, or of trying to appease those who might think this to be the case, and that he can sum up the faith which Benedict expounds for the faithful as being only about "rules, bells and smells" indicates to me that he has not read a word of Benedict's teaching.

Let me put up just two quotations from Tracey's book, the first from Ratzinger himself (which I think I have already cited) and the second from the author herself:

If the Church were to accomodate herself to the world in any way that would entail a turning away from the Cross, this would not lead to a renewal of the Church, but only to her death. (page 39)

Raztinger wishes, however, to distinguish between the teaching authority of the Church and the practice of enlightened despotism. The Church, he says, is not in the business of leading in the same sense of the enlightened ruler who knows that he is in possession of better reason, translates it into regulations, and counts on the obedience of his subjects who have to accept his reason and its articulation as their divinely willed standard. Rather, it is a case of there being certain teachings which have been withdrawn from any possibility of majority judgement, by the bishops or by anyone else, because they are things which of themselves human reason has not discovered. They are gifts of Revelation. (page 89)

The Strelan Article on the Theology of the Cross

Here is the full article on by John G. Strelan, Theologia Crucis Theologia Gloriae.

Just quickly summarising, while broadly agreeing with the basic distinction between a Theology of Glory and a Theology of the Cross, there are two points on which I have some doubts about the application:

1) I do not believe that it is a 'Theology of Glory' to affirm the certainty of faith which we may place in the means by which God has chosen to preserve and transmit his revelation to the world, ie. through the Church and the apostolic ministry. For just as it is precisely in the 'hiddenness' of God's revelation in the crib and on the cross that made it possible for his revelation to be grasped by human hearts and minds and hands in the first place, so the means by which God chose to preserve and transmit that revelation (ie. through the writings and teachings of the human apostles and the continual tradition of the human society we call the Church) are equally and correspondingly incarnate and thus 'hidden'. If it is not contrary to the Theology of the Cross to affirm the certainty of faith in the actual revelation itself, surely it is not contrary to the 'Theology of the Cross' to maintain certainty of faith in the means God chose to preserve and transmit it.

2) I do not believe that the 'Theology of the Cross' requires the rejection of the use of human reason, despite the fact that human reason alone could not discover the truth of God. For although there are many ways of thinking which, because of human sin, lead to idolatry and falsehood, yet it is to the human faculties of sight, hearing, touch and thought that God has made himself comprehensible. And while his Reason is far beyond ours and expressed predominantly as Love rather than pure rationality, nevertheless the God who is Love is also the God who is Logos/Word/Reason, and to say that God would act irrationally is itself irrational. Rejecting all human reason and philosophy from theological discourse and reflection would in fact be to rob God's revelation of any conceivable or conveyable human meaning. God's revelation may be 'hidden' but it is not meaningless.

John G. Strelan on the "Theology of the Cross"

There is an article that was published some time ago in the Lutheran Theological Journal (unfortunately not on line--I will try to fix that tomorrow at work) by John G. Strelan, one time professor at Luther Seminary and Vice-President of the Lutheran Church of Australia. The article concerns the "Theology of the Cross" and at the time I first read it, it impressed me no end. Today, not surprisingly, I am less convinced.

It is still an impressive article, however. It begins as follows:

The theology of the cross and the theology of glory are not complementary theologies which we must keep in proper balance and tension. They are, rather, mutually exclusive, opposing, antithetical theologies. You are either a theologus crucis, that is, a true theologian, or you are a theologus gloriae, that is, no theologian at all.

It goes on:

What is the theology of the cross? It is that theology which speaks of God in theological terms (Deus theologicus), and therefore also speaks of human beings in theological terms (homo theologicus). Furthermore, when the theology of the cross speaks of God, it speaks of him as Deus crucifixus and absconditus (crucified and hidden). The concept of absconditus sub contrario is an essential feature of the theology of the cross. God’s righteousness, his glory, his wisdom, his strength, and his salvation are all revealed ‘hidden under their opposites’ — revealed and yet hidden under the opposites: the injustice, the shame, the weakness, the folly, and the condemnation of the cross. The theology of the cross insists that God always comes to us in ways which we do not expect and which to reason and the senses are disappointing, inappropriate, and unrecognisable. So the theology of the cross has to do with God, the crucified Christ, revelation in hiddenness, appearances under opposites, faith not sight, faith not reason, the Word of Scripture, not philosophy.

Today, I must confess, I am with him right up till that last sentence. And then he loses me. Lutherans today are not good philosophers. Name me one good Lutheran philosopher. I am not one, that's for sure. But why should the theology of the cross be completely against reason? Why should it be completely against philosophy? To be sure, it would be against a great many philosophies--but how can one even express such a notion as the Deus revelatus who is nevertheless still absconditus without a philosophical language in which to express such a notion? And while it may be against a great deal of human reason, is human reason thus unable to grasp the theology of the cross? Really? What does Dr Strelan think he is using when he writes such an article? Is he writing only from faith? Or is he not using his noggin like he told us to when we were students in his seminary class?

The article goes on to enunciate five different points of the theologia crucis:

1. The thoologia crucis is a theology of revelation. Its antithesis is speculation on the created order, for example, or God’s being in itself. God has revealed himself in the crucified Christ; it is the task of theology to concern itself with God as he has chosen to reveal himself. All attempts to know God by way of philosophical speculation are doomed to failure.

2. God’s revelation of himself is indirect and concealed. This is a paradox: how can we speak of concealed revelation? Luther’s allusion to Exodus 33:23 is the key for grasping this point: God does indeed reveal himself in the passion and death of Christ, but he is not immediately recognisable as God. What he makes visible is not his face, but his posteriora, his rearward parts.

In that it is God who is made known in the passion and cross of Christ, it is revelation; in that this revelation can only be discerned by the eye of faith, it is concealed. The ‘friends of the cross’ know that beneath the humility and shame of the cross lie concealed the power and glory of God — but to others, this insight is denied (McGrath: 149,150).

3. This revelation is to be recognised in the sufferings and cross of Christ, not in human moral activity nor in the created order. Thus both the moralist’s and the rationalist’s search for God is to be rejected. True theology and true knowledge of God is found only in Christ crucified. The cross shatters human illusions concerning the capacity of reason to discern God by intelligent reflection upon the nature of human moral sense, or the pattern of created orders.

4. Revelation of the rearward parts of God is addressed to faith, which alone recognises it as a revelation of God. Through faith the theologian of the cross discerns the presence of the hidden God in his revelation in Christ, his passion and cross. This concept of the hidden God lies at the centre of the theology of the cross. Any theology which attempts to find God apart from the suffering and crucified Christ is a theology of glory.

5. God is particularly known through suffering — both of Christ and of the Christian — and it is through suffering that God makes himself known. Notice: God is active in this matter, rather than passive, inasmuch as suffering and Anfechtungen are seen as means by which a person is brought to God...

In summary, then: the theology of the cross means that the cross conceals God and thus signals the end of all speculation about God on the part of the rationalist. The cross is the symbol of judgment over human beings, and so marks the end of all achieving of fellowship with God on the part of the moralist. The cross in the sense of Christ’s cross and our cross which we bear on account of him, is received and grasped only in faith (Althaus: 28).

Well, there is a lot there that one can assent to. And if you look through my presentation on the spirituality of Luther, you will see that there is much there that I have highlighted as being just so.

But again, there is the characteristic rejection of all things to do with reason and philosophy. I am quite ready to admit that most philosophical approaches to theology are skew-wiff, as we say, but nevertheless, it is hard to know how one can do any sort of theology without the use of the ol' noggin in some form or other. Let us say that reason can be led by faith, and leave it at that. Of course the cross is folly to all conventional reason, but to those who have received the cross in faith, surely we can reasonably speak of it?

The article is a long one, and there is much to be critiqued, but what really draws my attention is the characteristic thumbing of the nose at Rome for her "theology of glory" in claiming an inerrant teaching magisterium. Strelan remarks:

The theology of glory says that reason is a trustworthy guide: by it we can find God apart from the cross. It says that Christian experience can be untainted by sin, and so by it we gain a certain knowledge of God and we can be assured of our standing before him. It says that since the church or a group of people in the church has declared that a passage of Scripture must be interpreted in such-and-such a way, therefore that interpretation is right, a priori, and cannot be questioned. It forgets that while we ascribe inerrancy to the Scriptures, we do not ascribe inerrancy to the interpreters of Scripture — at least, the theologian of the cross does not.

Well, a theology of glory may say these things. But a theology of the cross does not discount the possibility that if God could have endowned a written collection of scriptures with inerrancy then he could have easily endowed (and most certainly has) his Church with infallible teaching authority also. Here I believe Newman has a word or two to say (and this comes from Edward T. Oakes recent excellent blog on the First Things site entitled "Newman on Conversion":

A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given... If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties, between latitudinarian and sectarian error. You may be tolerant or intolerant of contrarieties of thought, but contrarieties you will have. By the Church of England a hollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the sects of England an interminable division. Germany and Geneva began with persecution and have ended in scepticism. The doctrine of infallibility is a less violent hypothesis than this sacrifice either of faith or of charity. It secures the object, while it gives definiteness and force to the matter, of the Revelation.

You see, sometimes it is necessary to use a bit of reason. Strelan concludes his paper by applying his "anti-reasonable" use of the theologia crucis to the question of the ordination of women. The result is that he elevates to the level of virtuousness what is in reality the plain and simple impossibility of Lutherans ever to come to a conclusive decision on this point. For those who claim that the teaching of scripture is "plain" are accused of being theologians of glory, just as are those who claim the "best proof" of the validity of female pastors is their efficacy in ministry. So Dr Strelan finds himself in a "cloud of unknowing", revelling in the "hiddenness" at the expence of ever really being certain of the "revelatus". For in his scheme certainty--even the certainty of faith--belongs always with a theology of glory, and only uncertainty deserves the name of "true theology".

That way, my friends, lies ruin indeed.

New Entry on Year of Grace

There is a new posting on my Year of Grace blog. For those of you following the story of my entry into the Catholic Church.

Benedict's Theologia Crucis

One of the aspects of Luther's theology I value the most is his insight into what he called the "Theologia Crucis", the Theology of the Cross. It is important to understand that when he contrasted this with a "Theologia Gloriae" (a "theology of glory") he was not suggesting that one should have a balance between "glory" and "cross", but rather that the Theologia Crucis was a true theology and the Theologia Gloriae was a false theology.

I have never given up this belief and hold it dear to this day. I do, however, reject a common Lutheran application of this doctrine which talks about the "triumphalism of Rome"--which seems to assume that the notion of the infallible teaching magisterium of the bishops of the Church is somehow a "theology of glory" rather than a "theology of the cross".

I rather think that just as it was an essential element of the theology of the cross that God should reveal himself in the human flesh of Jesus of Nazareth, so it is also a part of the theology of the cross that the Body of Christ should be found in the concrete and visible human society of the Church and his authority should be exercised by a group of people who are, when all is said and done, "only men" (to repeat the words of my mother-in-law once again).

Anyway, here's something Papa Benny said on the matter when he was a much younger man. Rumour has it that he still believes this:

If the Church were to accomodate herself to the world in any way that would entail a turning away from the Cross, this would not lead to a renewal of the church, but only to her death. (Ratzinger, Das Neue Volk Gottess, 1969)

A wake up call: Schütz on the CDF on Evangelisation in the Kairos

I have an article in the current edition of the Archdiocesan rag, the Kairos, on the CDF document "Doctrinal Note on some aspects of Evangelisation" entitled "A Wake Up Call".

I wrote it in reaction to rather lame reports regarding the "Doctrinal Note" which tended to "pull the teeth" from the document. It has teeth, and its bite must be felt. Since Christmas, the Pope has continued to refer to this document. He believes that it is important. So do I.

Yes, LP Cruz, I am still a "Lutheran"

In the combox to a post below, LP Cruz writes:

You confirm my observation of people who convert from one denom to another and btw I am no exception to that.

But really, you may have left Lutheranism but Lutheranism has not left you.

This is exactly what I observe others leaving EO/RCC and becoming Lutheran. They might have left Rome but Rome has not left them.

So since I am also an ex-Penty, I am too aware too that my Pentecostlaism might have not left me yet.

It takes time.

Well, LP, you are right. I do not deny that I remain very Lutheran in my theology and spirituality. I have never denied it, but joyfully confess it! Moreover, I am not really expecting that I will become less Lutheran over time, because I am actually cultivating my appreciation for the spirituality of Martin Luther rather than trying to rid myself of it.

You see, while I am certainly not "Lutheran" in the only sense that Pastor Weedon would allow--ie. full subscription to the doctrines contained in the Book of Concord--I am "Lutheran" in the sense that I am inspired by Luther's spiritual insights and continue to use some of the paradigms which he laid laid out in my theological thinking.

However, I am also Catholic in the two-fold sense that I am in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and that I fully subscribe to all that the Catholic Church teaches.

In other words, I am living proof that it is possible to be both a faithful and loyal Catholic and still spiritually remain a Lutheran. This is much the same for those who are Catholic, but Augustinian, or Thomist, or Franciscan, or Ignatian, or Carmelite or whatever in their spirituality.

It is also proof that the Catholic Church does not propose a "one size fits all" spirituality. There are as many different ways of being Catholic as there are Catholics.

The point is not so much that I "converted" to Catholicism, as that I sought to be in full communion with the Bishop of Rome (as universal primate of the Church) and accepted the responsibilities that come with that full communion.

And what I say to you, I say to all non-Catholics who visit this blog: Be not afraid! You lose nothing when you enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, but gain everything that is good, true and beautiful. Above all you gain the fullness of the gifts of Christ which now you have only in part.

As Benedict said in his sermon when he was inaugurated as Bishop of Rome:

If we let Christ enter fully into our lives, if we open ourselves totally to him, are we not afraid that He might take something away from us? ...Pope [John Paul II] said: No! If we let Christ into our lives, we lose nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great. No! Only in this friendship are the doors of life opened wide. Only in this friendship is the great potential of human existence truly revealed. Only in this friendship do we experience beauty and liberation. And so, today, with great strength and great conviction, on the basis of long personal experience of life, I say to you, dear young people: Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything.

The Pope on Evangelisation and Interfaith Dialogue

He says it better than I ever could. Here in full is the Zenit translation of his question and answer session on this matter.

On Sharing the Gift of the Gospel

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 18, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Following a Lenten tradition, Benedict XVI met Feb. 7 with parish priests and clergy of the Diocese of Rome. During the meeting, the participants asked the Pope questions. Here is a translation of one of the questions and the Holy Father's answer.

ZENIT began this series of questions-and-answers Feb. 11.

* * *

[Father Paul Chungat, Parochial Vicar at the Parish of San Giuseppe Cottolengo:]

My name is Father Chungat. I am from India and I am currently the parochial vicar at the Parish of San Giuseppe in Valle Aurelia. I would like to thank you for the opportunity that you have given me to serve for three years in the Diocese of Rome. This has been a great help for me, for my studies, as I believe that it has been for all the priests who are studying in Rome.

The time has come to return to my diocese in India, where Catholics are only one percent of the population and the other 99%is non-Christian. The situation of evangelization in my homeland has been something I have been thinking a lot about in recent days. In the recent note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith there are some words that are difficult to understand in the field of interreligious dialogue. For example in section 10 of the document the words "fullness of salvation" are written, and in the introduction one reads of the necessity of "formal incorporation in the Church."

These are things that it will be difficult to explain when I bring them to India and I must speak to my Hindu friends and to the faithful of other religions. My question is: Is "fullness of salvation" to be understood in a qualitative or in a quantitative sense? If it is to be understood in a quantitative sense, there is a bit of a difficulty. The Second Vatican Council says that there is a glimmer of light in other faiths. If in a qualitative sense, other than the historicity and the fullness of the faith, what are the other things that show the unicity of our faith in regard to interreligious dialogue?

[Benedict XVI:]

Thank you for this intervention. You know well that your questions are big ones and an entire semester of theology would be necessary! I will try to be brief. You know theology; there are great masters and many books. First of all, thank you for your testimony -- you say that you are happy to be able to work in Rome even if you are Indian. For me this is a marvelous phenomenon of catholicity.

At present it is not only the case that missionaries travel from the West to other continents, but there is an exchange of gifts: Indians, Africans, South Americans work among us and we travel to other continents. It is a giving and a receiving on all sides; this is precisely the vitality of catholicity, where we are all debtors of the gifts of the Lord, and then we can give to each other. It is in this reciprocity of gifts, of giving and receiving, that the Catholic Church lives. You can learn from these Western environments and experiences and we no less from you. I see that this spirit of religiosity that exists in Asia, as in Africa, surprises Europeans, who are often a little cold in faith. And thus this vivacity, at least of the religious spirit that exists on these continents, is a great gift for all of us, above all for us bishops of the Western world and in particular in those countries in which the phenomenon of immigration is most apparent, from the Philippines, from India, etc. Our cold Catholicism is revived by this fervor that comes from you. Catholicity, then, is a great gift.

Let us come to the questions that you posed to me. I do not have the exact words of the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before me at this moment; but in any case, I would like to say two things. On one hand, dialogue, getting to know each other, respecting each other and trying to cooperate in every possible way for the great purposes of humanity, or for its great needs, to overcome fanaticisms and to create a spirit of peace and of love -- all of this is absolutely necessary. And this is also in the spirit of the Gospel, whose meaning is precisely that the spirit of love that we have learned from Jesus, the peace of Jesus that he has given us through the cross, become universally present in the world. In this sense dialogue must be true dialogue, in respecting the other and in the acceptance of his alterity; but it must also be evangelical, in the sense that its fundamental purpose is to help men to live in love and to make it the case that this love expand throughout the world.

But this dimension of dialogue, which is so necessary, that is, the respect of the other, of tolerance, of cooperation, does not exclude the other dimension, that is that the Gospel is a great gift, the gift of great love, of great truth, that we cannot only keep for ourselves, but that we must offer to others, considering that God gives them the necessary freedom and light to find the truth. This is the truth. And this, then, is also my road. Mission is not imposition, but an offering of the gift of God, letting his goodness enlighten people so that the gift of concrete friendship with God be extended and acquire a human face. For this reason we want and we must always bear witness to this faith and the love that lives in our faith. We will have neglected a true human and divine duty if we have left others to their own devices and kept the faith we have only for ourselves. We would be unfaithful even to ourselves if we were not to offer this faith to the world, while always respecting the freedom of others. The presence of faith in the world is a positive element, even if no one is converted; it is a point of reference.

Exponents of non-Christian religions have told me: The presence of Christianity is a point of reference that helps us, even if we do not convert. Let us think of the great figure of Mahatma Gandhi: Despite being firmly committed to his religion, for him the Sermon on the Mount was a fundamental point of reference that formed his whole life. And thus the ferment of the faith, although it did not convert him to Christianity, entered into his life. And it seems to me that this ferment of Christian love that shows through the Gospel is -- beyond the missionary work that seeks to enlarge the spaces of faith -- a service that we render to humanity.

Let us think about St. Paul. A short time ago I reflected again on his missionary motivation. I also spoke about it to the Curia on the occasion of the end of the year meeting. He was moved by the word of the Lord in his eschatological sermon. Before every event, before the return of the Son of Man, the Gospel must be preached to all nations. The condition for the world reaching its perfection, the condition for its opening up to paradise, is that the Gospel be proclaimed to all. All of his missionary zeal is directed at bringing the Gospel to all, possibly in his own time, to respond to the Lord's command "that it be proclaimed to all nations." His desire was not so much to baptize all nations, as it was that the Gospel [be] present in the world and thus the completion of history as such [also be present in the world].

It seems to me that today, seeing how history has gone, one can better understand that this presence of the word of God, that this proclamation that comes to all as a ferment, is necessary for the world to truly arrive at its purpose. In this sense, indeed we desire the conversion of all, but let us allow the Lord to be the one who acts. It is important that those who wish to convert have the possibility of doing so and that there appear in the world for all this light of the Lord as a point of reference and as a light that helps, without which the world cannot find itself. I do not know if I have made myself clear: dialogue and mission not only do not exclude each other, but the one requires the other.

I agree with Catherine Deveny!

After you have picked yourself up from the floor, dear reader, you may wish to pick up today's edition of The Age and read this article by the archpriestess of indecent invective, Catherine Deveny: "Gambling revenue is a tax society can do without".

Either someone has kidnapped the real Catherine Deveny and put an imposter in her place (quite possibily one of the senior editors at The Age, fearing the inevitable defamation law suit on her account), or Catherine has found a conscience--AND discovered that she can actually make a reasoned and logical case instead of relying on insult and crudity to make her point. (For an example of her lowest ebb, you might want to fish out her column in the A2 a couple of weeks ago, or refresh your memory about this one).

But today she is all reason and logic and conscience and social responsibility as she makes a very good case for getting rid of poker machines from our society (or rather, exposes the very poor case for having any in the first place). Which leads one to wonder exactly what our dear Deveny finds herself wondering:

I have trouble reconciling my strong sense of civil liberty with the overwhelming feeling that all poker machines should be piled up and detonated. We humans are weak and some people need to be protected from themselves. We're pleasure-seeking machines programmed to a certain level and type of risk that gambling exploits. We think "It won't happen to me", despite the fact that sometimes it does.

If indeed she is right, and that the blanket cry of civil libertarians ("We're all adults and should be allowed to do whatever we like") is not, in fact, the golden rule of the moral life, then why should she draw a line at pokies? Are there not a dozen other acts of questionable morality which she has casually defended over the years that are just as dangerous (if not more) to the lives of individuals, their loved ones and society as a whole? What might this crack in her civil libertarian armour portend?

It is interestin that the editorial in today's edition is about exactly the same thing (and makes an insightful comparison between Daleks and Poker Machines). There might just be something to my theory that the real Deveny has been kidnapped by an editor...

Lucian--another of our favourites

While we are on about favourite visitors to this blog, Lucian gets a gong. In his usual style he has gone off on a real tangent in the combox of my "Welcome home Past Elder" blog. Pastor Weedon falls for it and takes the bait...

But I do agree with this:

1) The art of interpreting the extremely complex thoughts of Martin Luther is severely stifled (if not trampled upon) by Lutheran theology and theologians. Always has been and always will be. In that sense, Lucian is right when he asserts that "Lutheranism is Lutheranism and Luther is Luther". They are not the same thing.

2) Pastor Weedon asserts (quoting my old teacher Henry Hamann in support) that "What is Lutheran is the faith confessed in the Book of Concord; Lutheranism these days is at all points of tension with that". He is certainly right with regard to the second thesis, but there are and have been many who call themselves "Lutheran" who would debate the prior thesis. In this context, Herman Sasses's famous "Was Heisst Lutherisch?" is probably the equivalent of Pilate's "What is truth?".

Welcome back, Past Elder

Past Elder has finally broken his new year's resolution, and revisited Sentire Cum Ecclesia to leave a comment on this post. Same old, same old, of course, but that's what we love about him. It's good to know some things don't change! Honestly, Terry, welcome back. This one's for you:

Luther Lecture in course on Christian Mysticism

I was delighted when asked recently to give a two hour lecture on "Luther and the Pietists" as part of a course run by our Archdiocesan School of Prayer called "Christian Mysticism". The course gives an overview of Eastern, Latin, Protestant, Counter Reformation and contemporary Christian mysticism and prayer traditions.

If you click here, you can download the power point presentation I gave. I really do love Luther still very much (I describe myself as a Lutheran in communion with the bishop of Rome) and mainly for his his understanding that God truly reveals himself in hidden ways.

Weedon on the Fathers on the Lutheran "Solas"

I meant to post about this a while back, but didn't get to it. Last week, Pastor Weedon posted a selection of passages from the Church Fathers attesting to the Reformation "solas" (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia) and several other doctrines supposed to be distinctively Lutheran in the Patristic Tradition of the Church. He says of these:

Many times, Lutherans are challenged with: “Well, where was Lutheranism before Luther?” The implication is that Rome or the Eastern Orthodox have some sort of “corner” on the great church Fathers. But Lutherans have never believed this to be true. The Fathers repeatedly present the same or quite similar approaches to doctrine as the Lutheran Confessions do. Here are some citations from the Fathers that may be of help in dispelling the notion that “Lutheranism” is a johnny-come-lately to the Church scene.

He adds that "I don't believe at any place I've ignored context".

Well, Pastor Weedon, I beg to differ. I think that in fact you are taking the writings of these men out of context. Not in respect to what they teach, but in respect to who they are as teachers. Each of the Church Fathers you quote were members of the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Each of them would have been horrified to have what they teach here used in anyway against the authentic tradition of the Church. None of them would have for a moment considered that any of these doctrines required schism from Holy Mother Church. In other words, they taught these doctrines, but they were not Lutherans.

I suggest, Pastor Weedon, a good hard look at Louis Bouyer's "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism". There he confessed, he did not deny, but he confessed that the key insights of the Reformers with regard to sola fide, sola Gratia, sola Scriptura are indeed authentic Catholic doctrines. It is not the doctrines themselves, but the way in which they are applied and the way in which they were pitted against the Church herself that was specifically Lutheran.

So nothing is proved re the "pre-existence" of Lutheranism prior to Luther. It is pure anachronism to try to read the Fathers in the light of the Lutheran reformation. What you are hearing them teach and say, Pastor Weedon, is, I think you will find, pure and holy Catholic doctrine, not some kind of proto-Lutheranism. And what you have proved is that the Fathers give no-one an excuse to remain outside of communion with the Catholic Church simply on account of the doctrines of sola fide, sola gratia and sola scriptura. In other words, you can (and should) hold these doctrines (in the proper sense) as a Christian in full communion with the Holy See.

The men who taught these things were Catholics, not Lutherans, Pastor Weedon. I challenge you that God is calling you also to enter the Catholic Church and to come to know the true meaning of these teachings in the context of the fullness of the Faith.

Left, Right, Left, Right...

Caption choice: Matthew 20:23 OR Matthew 27:38? (Photo by Glen Mccurtayne from this morning's edition of The Age)

BTW, is it just coincidence that Brendan is sitting on the right and Kevin on the left or is a political statement being made?

And while these gentlemen do indeed make a fine picture, surely the real focus of the day should have been the cross and icon--or has The Age finally gone all the way and banned to depiction of religious items in its pages?

A "Footloose Footnote"; or "A Step Out of TIME"?

In my postings from the TIME magazine article "Catholic Freedom vs Heirarchy" (Nov 22, 1968), I inadvertantly omitted the following footnote. There are some things that just have to be read to be believed, and then there are others that are even unbelievable when you read them. This is one of the latter.

The prestige of the papacy reached its peak during the lengthy reign of the learned, ascetic Pius XII, who issued the only ex cathedra statement of the century that was clearly labeled infallible: his 1950 decree that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven after her death.*

* Although it is still an article of faith, the dogma has little bearing on the lives of Catholics; many theologians take for granted that it will wither away, especially since it remains a strong barrier to ecumenism.

Of all the predictions in this astounding article, this one perhaps takes the cake for being the most wide of the mark.

THE ANGUISH OF TWO DISSENTERS

The following is also from the November 22nd 1968 edition of TIME magazine, where it was included as an insert in the article "Catholic Freedom vs Heirarchy"
_________________________________

FRED N., 35, is a regional sales representative in California. He was educated at Roman Catholic schools from first grade through college. He and his wife Cathy, 31, are regular worshipers at their parish church; their three daughters attend its parochial school; one young son is still at horne. Convinced that they cannot afford to have more children, Fred and Cathy for the past few years have practiced birth control. Otherwise, they are loyal Catholics and typical in their disaffection from what they feel are the church's outdated ways, in their hopes for further renewal.

"At one time," Fred told TIME'S Mayo Mohs, "it was enough that I memorized my catechism lessons so I could go home on time. I engaged in no serious questioning of the system until my junior year of college. It would be peaceful to go back to the time when I accepted all the planned out answers. But I, like hundreds of thousands of Catholics, can never go back. That is why there is a crisis in the church today. I wonder how long the Catholic church that I have known will survive. When this generation of hierarchy passes away (old cardinals don't really live forever, they just seem to), it will have to be replaced by a group of men who can sell their ideas. If the bark of Peter is to be a living vessel rather than a historical oddity, direction from the top .must give way to a 'reasoning together.'

"I suppose that I haven't dropped out of the church because of two main facts: first, after hearing so many people say the same thing so many times, I can't quite shake the feeling that they just might be right. No one has ever proved it, but maybe there is a fire on the other side. I feel that I've got to keep up the premiums, just in case. Second, I still feel that the church has a tremendous capacity to do good, if it can only orient itself to this era of history. It could be a positive factor in mankind's quest for survival. That's why I'm a little more patient with what seems at times to be a 13th century operation.

"I'm sorry that the church isn't in the 20th century, but then, who knows precisely what to do with the 20th century anyway? We live in a time when men may be standing on the surface of the moon and other men may be transplanting human brains. You've got to look for equilibrium somewhere. The Catholic church could stand a million improvements, and it's going to have to have them, but it is better than the great foggy unknown."

"My parents," says Cathy, "were loyal immigrant Irish-Americans, completely subject to the Pope and to all of his edicts. I am not; as long as the Pope is unable to relate his teaching to the needs of all the people, I consider him fallible. Papal infallibility will never be restored until all Christians are returned to the subservient classes or until the Pope advances to a sympathy for the 'real Christian.' I am not convinced that Christ would ever condemn anyone who practiced contraception to save his family from disaster--disaster can come in many forms--or to save his fellow man from the problems of overpopulation.

"As for fears, I am fearful! I fear the loss of grace (which I do believe in), not because I use birth control but because the church denies me the grace-giving sacraments. I miss Communion most of all, and I cry when my daughters receive the sacrament. Why do I not receive Communion? I suppose it's because I cannot fully tear myself from the early years of teaching. I don't feel that I am wrong, but where will I find absolution if my own church says I am wrong?

"For better or worse--perhaps worse--just now I believe in the Catholic church. I really do believe that Jesus founded this church, and I really do not want my children to grow up in any other. After all, if we can somehow come to the true teachings of Jesus, we'll find more than Camelot we'll find heaven. The teachings of Holy Mother Church may be the only force that can keep our children from the evils that surround them today. That, to a mother, can be the greatest force on earth."

For the Last TIME: Saintly Reformers or Angry Heresiarchs?

I have one more installment of the TIME magazine article from November 22, 1968 ("Catholic Freedom vs Heirarchy"; see here for Part One, Part Two, Part Three and Part Four) to post which will consist of an "insert" box article called "The Anguish of Two Dissenters", but in the mean time I have discovered that I left off the closing paragraph of the article in the last post. Here is how the article ends.
________________

Nothing for Everything. Serious questions are raised by the Protestant-like diversity suggested for the church by some reformers. A certain monolithic uniformity in ritual and belief has been the unique glory of Catholicism--at times, even, its salvation as a definable entity. Even Protestants dissatisfied with what often seems to be the spiritless confusion of their own churches would contend that Catholicism should profit by the Reformation but not use it as an example. For better or worse, millions of Catholics like the church the way it is. They want to be told what to believe and how to act. And they share the suspicion of Cardinal O'Boyle, who told a group of his priests recently: "You new people, you want to tear down everything and put nothing in its place."

Whether the "new people" turn out to be saintly reformers whom future Catholicism will revere or angry heresiarchs who will leave the fold in discouragement and dismay depends in large measure on the skill and sensitivity of Pope Paul. An accomplished ecclesiastical diplomat, he has successfully weathered one potential crisis by bringing Vatican II to a peaceful conclusion after the death of John XXIII. Some Catholic voices calling for reform he may rightly ignore as imprudent or irresponsible. Others he would probably do well to heed. If not, the "silent schism" of Catholicism may turn out to be very much noisier than it already is.

Is it just me, or are the Pope's mitres getting bigger?

The Cooees guys usually look after this sort of thing, but it has occured to me that the papal mitres are getting bigger. Not since the days of Paul VI















(and the 33 days of John Paul I) have mitres of these dimensions been seen on the papal noggin.

But now here comes a completely new look, the "Reform of the Reform" look--mixing the plain style in vogue since Vatican II with the gigantic proportions in vogue previously.

(Don't forget to smile, your Holiness)

Back in TIME...

Here is part four of "Catholic Freedom vs Authority" from TIME magazine, November 22, 1968...
__________________________

Vulgar Objects. Like Maritain, the Pope firmly believes that the tradition of scholastic philosophy is a timeless mode of expressing the truths of the Christian faith. His encyclical on the Eucharist contended that the late-medieval word transubstantiation was the only way of expressing the mystery of the consecration, when the bread and wine at Mass become Christ's body and blood. His new creed, promulgated last July, was a disappointingly unimaginative restatement of doctrinal orthodoxy that differed only in minor details from the language of the Council of Trent. His argument against contraception in Humanae Vitae rested on a traditional understanding of natural law--the theory that the function of human organs is defined by their nature. This particular interpretation has been abandoned by most Catholic philosophers as crude and mechanistic.

Despite Paul's admirably progressive reform of the Curia, the men who administer it are still for the most part conservative. The Secretary of State is the venerable Amleto Cardinal Cicognani, 83, and his chief assistant is the equally reactionary Archbishop Giovanni Benelli, 47. A brilliant administrator, Benelli is gradually emerging as one of the most important men in the Vatican--largely because he is considered the principal pipeline for information from the outside world to the Pope. At the same time, some liberal prelates named by Paul to the Curia have found themselves stymied by conservative peers.

"Pope Paul has tried liberalism," says one official in the Curia, "and found it wanting." In terms of the men he trusts and consults, that is unquestionably true. During the council, Paul frequently relied upon the advice of such progressive non-Italian prelates as Leo-Joseph Cardinal Suenens of Belgium, Julius Cardinal Dopfner of Munich, Franziskus Cardinal Konig of Vienna. Apparently, all three have been dismissed from favor as unsympathetic. Today, the Pope's most trusted adviser is Bishop Carlo Colombo, 59, who is a knowledgeable master of standard textbook theology. Another confidant is Dominican Father Luigi Ciappi, the Pope's official theologian. Both Colombo and Ciappi advised Paul during the writing of Humanae Vitae.

The querulous tone of his public statements tends to obscure the rare personal qualities of Pope Paul, which have been amply visible on his pilgrim voyages. Even his critics concede that Paul displayed considerable courage in issuing a birth-control decision that ran counter to the wishes of most of the faithful. Although he lacks the obvious warmth of John XXIII, Paul is an impressive and sympathetic figure before small audiences. "He is a man of anguish who communicates his anguish to others," says one Chicago priest. Unlike the aloof Pius XII, Paul almost never dines alone; unlike even John, who affected a quaint Renaissance mode of dress, Paul seldom wears anything more elaborate than a simple white cassock. On busy days he may meet aides with his collar open; sometimes, with cassock doffed, he is in shirtsleeves. Like Pius XII, he often pecks out short memos and private letters on a battered Olivetti portable.

It appears to be Paul's view that the Second Vatican Council marked the limits of possible reform. For many Catholic progressives, the conciliar decrees were just a starting point. Vatican II, for example, established the principle of collegiality-meaning that bishops share ruling power over the church with the Pope. Many theologians argue that Paul's unilateral decision on birth control makes a mockery of this principle. And they further argue that collegiality ought to be extended downward to encompass the entire church.

The Catholic crisis has led some thinkers to wonder whether the church is not ripe for the convening of Vatican III. "So much has happened that the fathers of Vatican II could not have anticipated," says Publisher Dan Herr of Chicago's bimonthly Critic, "that another council cannot be delayed." One obvious topic for the agenda would be a new ruling on contraception to reflect the consensus of the faithful. Another, suggests Theologian Gregory Baum of Toronto, would be a definition "of the limits of papal authority and the freedom to be given local churches." It is taken for granted by those who dream of Vatican III that priests and laymen would be represented, as well as bishops. Philosopher Novak half-seriously proposes that the proper setting would be the catacombs, rather than the baroquely splendid nave of St. Peter's. Unfortunately, Pope Paul will almost certainly not call another council in his lifetime, although Vatican sources hint that he will summon a second Synod of Bishops next year.

Chairman of the Board. Not even the most far-out Catholic radical favors replacing the Pope with, say, a committee of theologians. On the other hand, there is widespread feeling in the church that the office of the papacy must be stripped of most of its monarchic pretensions and its right to govern all aspects of the church's life. Thomas Schick, 28, of Cincinnati, an ex-seminarian turned journalist, suggests that the Pope in the future should be regarded as a kind of board chairman--a primus inter pares who would be a symbol of faith rather in the manner of an Eastern Orthodox patriarch.

"Recent Popes have acted as if they were entitled to behave in an autocratic manner," says Leslie Dewart. "But it is an ancient tradition that the faith is the faith of a community." In his view, it is impossible today for the hierarchy to order what people should believe.

"You can't teach people by telling them what's true." Callahan argues that the pronouncements of church authority do not exist outside and apart from the community. They are binding only insofar as the community accepts them as binding." He adds that "it used to be that if the authority said it was true, then it was true. It is legitimate to say today: 'The authority has spoken. Now is it true?'" In the church of the future, as envisioned by many reformers, authority would speak out only in consultation with all the faithful and only to articulate a dogmatic stance that was a felt need ofthe universal church.

Toying with Heresy. By issuing an encyclical that is simply not acceptable to a large segment of the Catholic community, Pope Paul has inadvertently raised the question of papal authority for open debate. He has done so, warns one Roman observer, at a time when the church was already suffering from an unhealthy polarization of its progressive and conservative wings. And there is a danger that both sides are overreacting to the crisis. Already, many Dutch Catholic thinkers are suggesting that their national church might have to become as autonomous as Anglicanism in order to preserve its soul. A creative renewal movement within the church is not likely to be encouraged by Roman efforts to silence dissident theologians like Dominican Father Edward Schillebeeckx (TIME, Oct. 4).

Perhaps because it involves so personal a question as birth control, the present dissension in the church has a disturbingly visceral quality. The Pope has been criticized in abusive bumper-sticker slogans, and Bishop Donohoe correctly notes that some comments on Humanae Vitae were expressed in a tone of dogmatic certainty that would have been too majestic for even an ex cathedra decree. "They seem to have infallibly decreed," he says, "that their views will not be put aside." Millions of Catholics, who never practiced birth control during their lives, would have found it hard to accept an encyclical decreeing that contraception was no longer a sin. For some, birth control is a symbol of the inerrancy of the church. If previous Popes have been wrong on this question, they could have been wrong on everything else. And where would the church be then?
____________________

Mmm, yes indeed. Well, the Church was there then and it's here now. Did it strike you as bizzare when you were reading that, that there were folk who seriously expected a "Vatican III" even before the ink was dry on the decrees of Vatican II. Weird. Tune in again soon for episode 5!

"5th Marian Dogma"? Would this help?

I read in Zenit's 11th of Feb dispatch that five cardinals have opened a petition to the Holy Father "to declare a fifth Marian dogma they said would "proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary." (Their letter to the bishops of the world may be read here).

Here is the full text of the petition:

Your Holiness, Benedict XVI,

In an effort to enhance the ecumenical mission of the Church, and to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its fullness, we, the undersigned cardinals and bishops who have convened in the favored Marian Shrine of Fatima (May 3-7, 2005), wish to express to you, Most Holy Father, our united hope and desire for the solemn papal definition of the doctrine of the Church regarding Mary Most Holy as the Spiritual Mother of all humanity, the Co-redemptrix with Jesus the Redeemer, Mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one Mediator, and Advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.

In a time of significant confusion amidst the many diverse ecclesial bodies of Christianity, and as well among non-Christian peoples concerning this Marian doctrine, we believe the time opportune for a solemn definition of clarification regarding the constant teaching of the Church concerning the Mother of the Redeemer and her unique cooperation (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 61) in the work of Redemption, as well as her subsequent roles in the distribution of grace and intercession for the human family.

It is of great importance, Holy Father, that peoples of other religious traditions receive the clarification on the highest level of authentic doctrinal certainty that we can provide, that the Catholic Church essentially distinguishes between the sole role of Jesus Christ, divine and human Redeemer of the world, and the unique though secondary and dependent human participation of the Mother of Christ in the great work of Redemption.

Therefore, Your Holiness, with filial obedience and respect, we wish to present you with this votum of our solidarity of hope for the papal definition of the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God as the spiritual Mother of all peoples in her three maternal roles as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate, as the ultimate expression of doctrinal clarity at the service of our Christian and non-Christian brothers and sisters who are not in communion with Rome, and as well as for the greater understanding and appreciation of this revealed doctrine concerning the Mother of the Redeemer by the People of God at the outset of this third millennium of Christianity.

We thereby submit this votum accompanied by one possible formulation of the Marian doctrine which we, please God, pray may be solemnly defined by your Holiness:

Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of man, gave to humanity from the Cross his mother Mary to be the spiritual Mother of all peoples, the Co-redemptrix, who under and with her Son cooperated in the Redemption of all people; the Mediatrix of all graces, who as Mother brings us the gifts of eternal life; and the Advocate, who presents our prayers to her Son.

I do not disagree that such a statement would be "to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its fullness", but, knowing my protestant brothers and sisters as I do, I do wonder if a new papal definition of a Marian dogma would "enhance the ecumenical mission of the Church." In other words, I agree with the sentiment, but not the chosen means, of the five cardinals.

A Marian Encyclical (for example), with an eye deliberately focused upon addressing Protestant concerns, "regarding the constant teaching of the Church concerning the Mother of the Redeemer and her unique cooperation in the work of Redemption, as well as her subsequent roles in the distribution of grace and intercession for the human family" would be very useful. But is there really a need to "define" this doctrine which is well attested in the Magesterium as it stands?

Red rag to a bull, I reckon. Papal Marian definitions are not the way to advance ecumenism.

Let's stand to sing the opening song as we welcome Father...

Elizabeth Harrington has a point in her latest column about the Media Release concerning the WYD Mass Setting:

My other concern with the wording of the WYD08 Mass Setting media release is the suggestion that the music will be “performed for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI” and that it will “celebrate the arrival of the Pope”.

Surely, the purpose and centre of all our worship is God!

The use of the word "perform" in reference to the liturgical setting is indeed more than a little unfortunate. It tends to recall the idea that Guy Sebastian will "perform" the World Youth Day Song. (I don't think anyone else will actually be able to sing it--my comments on that subject here).

But my guess is that the media release was written by someone who had no idea what liturgy was about, and who quite possibly never even attends mass. Many of the people who have been employed by the WYD offices across Australia have been hired because they are experts at organising major events, not theologians or liturgists (or even Catholic in many cases). The press release should not be taken as a reflection on the good work done by the composer George Palmer or Fr Williams the liturgy director.

And while we are at it, that little quip about the "purpose and centre of all our worship" being God rather than the pope, how many times have you been welcomed to mass at your local parish church with the words: "Let's stand to sing our first song as we welcome Father for mass today..."

TIME and TIME again...

(Cartoon from TIME, November 22, 1968)

Continuing the serialised article from the 1968 copy of TIME magazine I found in an antique store (see here for Part One and Part Two), I am going to skip just a bit where the un-named journo gives a potted history of the Church, and pick it up with the Counter Reformation... Here, then, is Part Three of "Catholic Freedom vs Authority":
____________________________

From Secular to Spiritual. With the breakup of Christendom, the Popes lost much of their secular power. The watershed was the Reformation, which cost the papacy nearly half of its faithful subjects. Increasingly, bishops of Rome concentrated on purely spiritual matters, as a way of reasserting their authority. The Counter Reformation Council of Trent, which was closely directed by three strong-minded Popes, marked the beginning of the modern era of "papal maximalism." Theoretically at least, the question of papal prerogative seemed to have been settled by the First Vatican Council of 1870, which declared that the Pope, when he speaks ex cathedra for the church on matters of faith and morals, is infallible. The decree was opposed by more than one-fourth of the assembled bishops--several of them quit the council rather than have to vote on it--but psychologically the decision made a certain amount of sense. It came at a time when the church was under strong attack from the secular forces of the Enlightenment. The papacy, for many Catholics, seemed like the only anchor of faith in a dark and hostile world.

The prestige of the papacy reached its peak during the lengthy reign of the learned, ascetic Pius XII, who issued the only ex cathedra statement of the century that was clearly labeled infallible: his 1950 decree that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven after her death. John XXIII, although a humble man who thought of himself as the servant of the church rather than as its overlord, possessed an undeniable charisma that delighted Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Paul VI was a friend and protégé of Pius; by temperament and training, Paul believes in the necessity of a strong papacy as the church's defense against the threat of anarchy. Inevitably, he has been compared with his immediate predecessors, and not always favorably. Paul often suggests a not-so-brilliant version of Pius XII trying hard to live up to the image of John XXIII. More recently, Vatican clerics have begun to compare him with Pius IX, who reigned from 1846 to 1878. Rather as Paul did, Pius entered the papacy with a reputation for being a liberal. But after an abortive revolution in Rome forced him into exile from 1848 to 1850, he turned implacably conservative. His Syllabus of Errors in 1864 denounced almost every trend in modern secular thought as anti-Christian. He virtually demanded that Vatican I proclaim his infallibility. After Garibaldi's troops took Rome in 1870, Pio Nono became the self-styled "prisoner of the Vatican," uttering impotent fulminations against a godless world.

Pilgrim Pope. Paul, however, is much too complex a figure to be dismissed as a reactionary. Certainly he is no Vatican prisoner. His ambitious trips to Jerusalem, New York, India, Turkey, Portugal and Colombia are dramatic evidence of his desire to be a "pilgrim Pope." Time and again he has expressed his dedication to the cause of world peace--in Viet Nam, Nigeria and elsewhere. Paul has introduced a subtle new diplomatic policy of negotiation with Communism that has improved the lot of his church in Eastern Europe and may lead to a more fruitful Christian-Marxist dialogue. His encyclical, Populorum Progressio, boldly amplified the writings of John XXIII in expressing sympathy for the economic ambitions of underdeveloped nations.

On many churchly affairs Paul has taken a moderately progressive path. He has expressed a genuine desire for ecumenical encounter, particularly with the Orthodox Church. He has continued to inaugurate a series of modest reforms in Catholic life. Last week, for example, the Vatican approved translations of three new alternative canons, or rites of consecration for the Mass--the first major change in that section of the liturgy in 1,300 years.

Paul has streamlined many of the baroque papal ceremonies and abolished the archaic privileges of Rome's Black Nobility. He has not only internationalized the Curia but also has brought about the most sweeping reform in that musty bureaucracy since 1588, by abolishing a number of useless offices, limiting appointments to five-year terms and providing the church with a kind of executive prime minister in the form of the Vatican's Secretary of State.

"On matters of structure," says one official of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Paul is willing to modernize. But not on matters of faith and morals." Theologically, the Pope is not a progressive thinker. He has repeatedly referred to himself as a student of Jacques Maritain, the gentle French philosopher whose "integral humanism" was a sensitive rethinking of the insights of Thomas Aquinas. Maritain was a fresh and life-giving force within Catholicism during the '30s and '40s, most notably in his defense of political democracy against the charms of fascism (Paul, in his years of service with the Vatican Secretariat of State, strongly opposed Mussolini). Since the Second Vatican Council, however, Maritain has turned his back on any kind of theological or philosophical progress. So has Paul. Some Vatican officials date the increasingly negative tone of Paul's speeches from the publication two years ago of The Peasant of the Garonne, in which Maritain railed against the errors of theologians who would abandon the "perennial philosophy" for the seductive lure of existentialism or other modern "fads."
___________________________

Next installment soon...

Sorry? Get real.

Leunig has it exactly right in today's edition of The Age. So does Noel Pearson, who comments on page 13 of the print edition:

Most white Australians will be able to move on (with the warm inner glow that will come from having said sorry), but I doubt indigenous Australians will. Those people stolen from their families who feel entitled to compensation will never be able to move on... Blackfellas will get the words, the whitefellas will keep the money. And by Thursday the stolen generations and their apology will be over as a political issue.

Some observations about today's apology:

1) The Prime Minister should have had a theological advisor on his committee when writing this apology. The word "Sorry" needs to be backed up by reparation and penance. It needs to be received by the person hurt or someone with the authority to represent that person. And it isn't over until the apology has been received and forgiveness extended.

2) The apology is for a very specific wrong done to some indigenous people during one part of our history. There is much, much more in the history of our relationship with the indigenous peoples of this land that still needs an apology and reparation. Today's apology specifically does not apologise for the incident that took place 220 years ago as depicted in Leunig's cartoon above.

3) The best way for the Australian Government and people to make reparation for past wrongs towards our indigenous peoples is to work at improving their quality of life to the point where they are equal citizens with equal opportunities with all other citizens. The apology for a specific wrong requires reparation to those specifically affected by what is apologised for. Much more needs apology and the true compensation must reach a much broader percentage of our indigenous population.

And just as an aside, I heard a little of yesterday's "indigenous" opening of parliament in Canberra on the radio. A little sacarine for my taste. A nice gesture, but that's really all it was. The words used sounded like so many home made "contemporary liturgies" that I have had to sit through in my time. In fact, that was exactly what the aboriginal woman being interviewed on the radio said--how she was so proud to have had "something I made up" used for the opening of parliament.

In addressing indigenous issues in this country, neither our Aboriginal nor our non-indigenous population should be satisfied with weasal words or motherhood statements or new age waffle. Let's use words wisely and back it up with actions. Let's say what we mean, and mean what we say. Let's get real about "Sorry".

TIME again....

And here is the next installment from "Catholic Freedom vs Authority", TIME, November 22, 1968. See the previous post below for the first section.

Just one word of comment. It is worth reading, against this article, John L. Allen's assertion that Benedict XVI is practicing "affirmative orthodoxy"--ie. not issuing "new warnings almost daily against imprudence, rebellion, disobedience and the dangers of heresy" as this journalist described Paul VI, but rather proposing the positive reasons for faith and Christian ethics. In other words, Benedict has been proposing a truly orthodox and Christian approach to "Love over negatives".

______________

Love over Negatives. Almost all the stern "thou shalt nots" of Catholic morality are being similarly reinterpreted via a person centered ethic based on the imperatives of love rather than on categorical negatives. Recently, Msgr. Stephen J. Kelleher of New York's archdiocesan rota openly proposed that the church allow divorce and remarriage in certain "intolerable marriages." (Kelleher was promptly transferred to a suburban parish.) Jesuit Lawyer Robert Drinan has proposed that abortion should be a matter for private decision. Some Catholic college chaplains will concede that where a boy-girl. relationship is truly loving, premarital sex no longer need be considered a sin.

Catholic dissent, however, is not basically a question of objecting to specific strictures. Far more often it involves unhappiness with an unwieldy, outdated organization that demands obedience to dogmas that no longer make sense or to rules that restrict Christian liberty. Moreover, obedience is compelled frequently not by scriptural testimony but by threats of punishment in hell--an eschatological scare increasingly rejected by Catholic theologians. Despite their commitment by solemn vow to this ecclesiastical machinery, priests have been among the most vociferous rebels. This year alone, at least 463 Catholic clerics in the U.S. have left the priesthood, many of them to marry. Rome's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has on file more than 3,000 requests for laicization, or approval of a priest's return to lay life. (Church officials customarily sit on these applications for months without taking action; many priests have discovered that when they marry illegally, their petitions are more quickly acted upon.)

Traditionally, docility has been considered the supreme virtue of the Catholic laity; today, laymen are less and less docile. Cardinal O'Boyle's stern treatment of his dissident priests has moved thousands of laymen to anger. Eugene McCarthy and Mrs. Philip Hart, wife of the Michigan Senator, are among several prominent Catholics in the capital who have lent their support to a new church center where several of the censured priests live. The five resident priests have set up a kind of campaign headquarters for local Catholic protesters in a three story row house. In San Antonio, 4,700 laymen have signed a petition in support of the 68 priests who had publicly requested the Pope to retire Archbishop Robert E. Lucey.

Liberated Cathedral. Catholic rebellion also involves a new critical attitude toward secular society that frequently puts bishops and their flocks at odds--despite the generally progressive attitude of the church toward social problems in recent years. In Santiago, .. Chile, 214 priests, nuns and laymen "liberated" the National Cathedral for 15 hours in a demonstration against the Pope's visit to Bogota, which they said would only reaffirm "the alliance of the church with military and economic power." Milwaukee's Father James E. Groppi, a civil rights advocate of Black Power, is a symbol of courage to many U.S. Catholics. So is the pacifist Jesuit poet Daniel Berrigan, who, with his brother Philip and seven others, was sentenced to a federal prison term two weeks ago for burning draft files at a Selective Service office in Maryland. Says Berrigan of many of today's Christians: "They pay lip service to Christ and military service to the powers of death." Quite a few Catholics would agree with Philosopher Michael Novak that "the quest for human values in our society has moved outside the churches" and that the heroes of the present are secular saints.

A decade ago, a priest or layman who found himself at odds with an accepted teaching of the church or an order from the hierarchy would have been forced by conscience to separate formally from the church. In his book, A Question of Conscience, British Theologian Charles Davis argues that Catholicism is a seamless whole and that those who cannot accept the decisions of authority should leave, as Davis did two years ago. Yet the most striking fact of the contemporary Catholic rebellion is that the vast majority of dissenters--except for priests whose marriages entail automatic excommunication--feel free to create and define their own faith and still consider themselves within the church. "Fewer are leaving than ever before," says Bishop Hugh Donohoe of Stockton, Calif. "Their attitude is 'We're not going to be thrown out of the church. We are going to fashion it to our own liking.' "

Historic Community. Many Catholic liberals regard Davis' all-or-nothing approach as curiously old-fashioned and unsophisticated. To be a Catholic, they argue, does not mean formally subscribing to a consistent body of dogma but belonging to a historic community, the self-proclaimed people of God. Liberals further argue that a true spirit of Christian freedom in this community should and even must allow for a diversity of opinion on spiritual issues. Says Philosopher Leslie Dewart (The Future 0/ Belief): "I understand membership in the church not to depend at all on agreement with the Pope. or with any particular authority." Adds philosopher-Journalist Daniel Callahan: "Even if a bishop should judge me heretical, I don't grant him the right to judge what is heretical and what is what is not. I consider myself a Catholic, first of all, because I'm not anything else. This is the tradition out of which I work. This is the tradition in which I was born. If I'm going to remake any tradition, it might as well be my own."

Millions of Catholics simply cannot and will not, accept Callahan's attitude toward tradition. There is a powerful spirit of conservatism in the church, and it is embodied in urbane archbishops and middleclass managers as well as devout but uneducated peasants. The dissenters are strongest in the U.S. and Western Europe, and except perhaps in The Netherlands, they constitute a minority of the faithful. Father Greeley estimates that no more than 1,000,000 of the 35 million churchgoing U.S. Catholics could be considered rebels. The pastoral problem for the bishops, however, is that the dissenters influence a great many concerned, educated lay. men who take their faith seriously as a commitment rather than as a social club held together by ritual, dogma and Friday night bingo. Their numbers are likely to grow. "I don't know a well· educated young lay person who has religious concerns who's not a dissenter," says Greeley. Among Catholic college students, alienation from the church as an institution is almost a badge of maturity.

Journalist John Cogley, a staff member of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, argues that the present crisis in Catholicism stems from a disparity between theology and structure. "We have the structures which fit a theology that is no longer accepted," he says, "but we don't have the structures to fit the emerging theology." The new understanding of the church as an organic spiritual community implies a spirit of democracy; of shared authority. Yet it is the firm view of Pope Paul--backed overwhelmingly by the bishops--that the church was founded by Jesus Christ as an absolute monarchy, and cannot be changed without doing violence to God's intentions.

Michael Novak has defined this attitude toward church structure as "non-historical orthodoxy." It is not supported by an analysis of Christian origins. The papal claim to monarchic supremacy is based, in part, upon Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Today, the majority of New Testament scholars agree with the view of Bishop Francis Simons of India, who notes in his new book, Infallibility and the Evidence (TIME, Nov. 1) that the sentence simply singles out Peter as first among the Apostles and says nothing at all about the rights and privileges of his successors.
__________________

Next installment in the near future...

Which is it?

In the combox to the last post, Peregrinus wrote (quoting me):

It didn't happen gradually over the last forty years--it didn't even take 10 years. It happened virtually overnight

. . .These dissidents couldn't possibily have simply sprung up like weeds. There must have been decades behind this rise in liberalism.

Well, which is it?

Both, Peregrinus. Let me give you an illustration that might explain it.

I have just finished listening to a marvellous audio book called "Krakatoa: the day the world exploded", read by the author, Simon Winchester. In it, he explains how the famous volcano was really a kind of geological time bomb, with immense pressures building up under the sea bed that eventually exploded in the most violent eruption in recorded history.

I believe that what the TIME journalist was describing was just such an "eruption" of built up pressure. In other words, although the visible and recorded rise in the level of rebellion and dissedence in the Church was literally a sudden explosion, the explosion had a long history. To be over simplistic, in Vatican II the Church Fathers opened a valve, in Humanae Vitae Paul VI tried to put the lid back on. But the pressure was too great. It blew itself to pieces.

That might be over dramatic. In any case, to continue the metaphor, today we have only the smouldering ruins of the great volcano of 1960's dissent. It's still active, and can be dangerous, but is probably on its way to extinction. Nevertheless, as Winchester describes in his books, volcanoes have a way of being reborn, not always in the same location, but always due to the shifting tectonic plates of the earth. Nothing is fixed in concrete, and every age will have its "Krakatoa's".

I'm not sure where this analogy is leading me, so I think I will leave it there...

The Difference between knowing and KNOWING

In response to my posting of the article from TIME magazine, Joshua said in the combox:

Didn't you know all this before? This has been the reality in the Church for the past 40 years.

Of course I "knew" this, Joshua, but it is one thing to know your history (eg. to know that in 1492 Columbas sailed the ocean blue, or that in 1066 William the Conquer won the battle of Hastings, or that in 1770 Captain Cook sailed into Botony Bay) but it is ANOTHER THING altogether to actually find a magazine article from the time reporting these events.

And what really stuns me is that even before the release of Humanae Vitae, in the two and half short years between the close of Vatican II and July 1968, the Church had already slid almost all the way down the dissenting slope that we so lament today. It didn't happen gradually over the last forty years--it didn't even take 10 years. It happened virtually overnight.

This leads me to ask two questions:

1) exactly how good were those pre-Vatican II years in terms of fidelity, catechesis, evangelisation etc.? These dissidents couldn't possibily have simply sprung up like weeds. There must have been decades behind this rise in liberalism.

2) What on earth was Pope Paul VI thinking when he unleashed the new vernacular liturgy into this mess? So often we think the liturgy is where it all went wrong, but whatever "went wrong" had gone wrong already, before the "reform" was put into action.

Let's do the TIME warp again!

I couldn't believe it. I had taken my oldest daughter Maddy for a ride on the back of the motorcycle up to Healesville yesterday, where I found an original copy of TIME magazine dated November 22nd 1968. On the cover was Paul VI. The lead article was headed: "Catholic Freedom v. Authority". The topic? Human Vitae and the revolt against the birth control decision. And the scary thing? I had no idea that at that time, only 4 months after the encyclical was released, there was already such a huge groundswell of dissent. The article lays it all on the table as it was happening "on the ground" at the time. I'm going to post almost all of it in a series of (lengthy) posts. Watch out for the names that pop up--all the usual suspects still making noises today!

Here for your enjoyment is: TIME, NOVEMBER 22, 1968 "Catholic Freedom v. Authority":
_________________

JULY 29, 1968, may prove to be a major landmark in the long history of the Roman Catholic Church as significant, perhaps, as the moment when Martin Luther decided to post his theses on indulgences at Wittenberg Castle Church. On that day last summer, Pope Paul VI promulgated his seventh encyclical, Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), which condemned all methods of contraception as against God's natural law. Since it reflected the views of a distinct minority of Catholic theologians and moralists, the encyclical created an unprecedented storm of protest and dissent within the church. Millions of laymen, priests and even bishops made it clear that they simply could not accept, without qualification, the teaching of Humanae Vitae. At the same time, many contended that their dissent in no way affected their standing as Catholics. By so doing, they raised much larger and more troubling questions about the rights of freedom v. authority in Catholicism and the limitations on the Pope's right to speak as teacher for the church.

It would be too much to hope or fear that the church is on the verge of a second Reformation. There is little question, however, that it is suffering from an internal rebellion of critical proportions. Priest Sociologist Andrew Greeley of Chicago, in a recent column for U.S. diocesan newspapers, quoted a bishop as saying that there are two Catholicisms an "official church" belonging to the Pope and hierarchy, and an undefined "free church," which is attracting a growing number of laymen and priests. Similarly, Paulist Father Thomas Stransky, an official of Rome's Secretariat for Christian Unity, suggests that the church is suffering from a "silent schism" of rebels who are remaining Catholic in name but are "hanging loose" from the institutional church.

Corrosive Criticism. No man is more aware of this dissension than Pope Paul VI, who issues new warnings almost daily against imprudence, rebellion, disobedience and the dangers of heresy. Last week he cautioned Catholics against tampering with "indispensable structures of the church" and partaking in intercommunion services with Protestants. "A spirit of corrosive criticism has become fashionable in certain sectors of Catholic life," he told an audience at Castel Gandolfo last September in a typical peroration. "Some want to go beyond what the solemn assemblies of the church have authorized, envisaging not only reforms but upheavals, which they think they themselves can authorize and which they consider all the more clever the less they are faithful to tradition. Where is the consistency and dignity which belong to true Christians:

Where is love for the church?" Paul is not the only Catholic bishop to be worried by this restlessness and turmoil. A dramatic illustration of the hierarchy's concern and of some of the reasons for it took place last week in Washington. At their regular semiannual conference, the 235 Catholic bishops of the U.S. found themselves the target of a bizarre series of demonstrations by dissident priests and laymen. On the day before the bishops met, 3,500 laymen rallied at the Mayflower hotel in support of 41 local priests who had been disciplined by Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle for criticizing Humanae Vitae. The keynote speaker was one of the nation's best known Catholic laymen, Senator Eugene McCarthy, a onetime novice in a Benedictine monastery.

Lobby Sit In. Later, 130 priests burst into the lobby of the Washington Hilton hotel, where the bishops met, to stage a sitin in support of the censured clerics. On another night, 120 laymen demonstrated in the Hilton lobby for two hours. They sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic and Impossible Dream, prayed for the disciplined priests to be granted due process and for "the proper use of authority in the church."

Beset by their own internal divisions, the bishops labored in marathon sessions lasting as late as 4 a.m., trying to compose a pastoral letter on birth control that might ease the storm of dissent against Humanae Vitae among U.S. Catholics while not contradicting the Pope. They finally issued a statement which, while urging faithfulness to the Pope's teaching, made clear that U.S. Catholics who practice contraception will not be barred from the sacraments. "No one following the teaching of the church can deny the objective evil of contraception itself," the bishops said. "With pastoral solicitude we urge those who have resorted to artificial contraception never to lose heart but to continue to take full advantage of the strength which comes from the sacrament of penance and the grace, healing, and peace in the Eucharist." The American statement was similar to the stand taken by other hierarchies. It did not, however, go nearly so far as the declaration last week by the bishops of France who emphasized more strongly that couples who conscientiously feel the need to practice birth control should do so; they choose the "lesser evil" in disobeying the Pope's decrees.

Unquestionably, Pope Paul was thoroughly unprepared for the reaction to his encyclical. Perhaps the most dramatic repudiation of its teaching in the U.S. was a statement, prepared by the Rev. Charles E. Curran and other theologians from the Catholic University of America, insisting that couples had the right to practice contraception if their consciences dictated; so far, more than 600 priests, theologians and laymen have subscribed to the declaration. In West Germany, 5,000 laymen at the church's annual Katholikentag (Catholic Day) gave their voice vote to a resolution warning the Pope that they simply could not accept the encyclical's teachings. Swiss Theologian Hans Kling, among many individual thinkers voicing their protests, declared that "the encyclical is not an infallible teaching. I fear it creates a second Galileo case."

"Birth control," says one American scholar in Rome, "is the Pope's Viet Nam." But he has other battles to fight as well. Today there is hardly a dogma of the church that has not been either denied or redefined beyond recognition by some theologians. Any number of Biblical scholars concede, at least privately, that the virginity of Mary is a symbolic rather than a biological truth. Theologians prefer to emphasize the humanity of Jesus rather than his divinity, veiling the fact that some of them cannot subscribe to the traditional formulations of Christ as God's incarnate Son. The sacraments are seen not as quasi-magical dispensing machines for divine grace but as signs of spiritual commitment created by the religious community rather than God.
_____________________

Stay tuned for more as this exciting story unravels...