Lutheran Victoria-Tasmania District President writes in Support of Archbishop Hart's Stand against Abortion Bill

The President of the Lutheran Church of Australia - Victorian District (including Tasmania), Rev. Greg Pietsch, has written a letter to the Pastors and People of his District, in which he stands with Archbishop Denis Hart in opposition to the Bill. His letter is as follows:

Lutheran Church
of Australia
VICTORIAN DISTRICT (INCLUDING TASMANIA)
President
Rev Greg Pietsch
23 September 2008

Dear pastors and people of the Victorian District

We meet in District Convention at Wodonga in just over two week's time, and I look forward to being with those who attend in the presence of our Lord and his holy word and sacrament. The District Report Book has been sent out and I encourage you to read it and give response to your delegates to bring to convention.

But another matter presses me to write – the 11 September passing by the Victorian Legislative Assembly of a Bill to legalise abortion. This now goes to the Upper House, and if passed there may become law very quickly. Essentially the legislation provides for abortion-on-demand for up to 24 weeks gestation, and for beyond 24 weeks up to birth as long as two doctors believe it is appropriate. What's more, the legislation requires doctors and nurses who conscientiously object to abortion to refer a woman requesting an abortion to medical practitioners who don't have such an objection, and to perform an abortion in an emergency where it is thought this is necessary to preserve the life of the woman. There are other deficiencies in the proposed law, but clearly it would put some people in an intolerable position in relation to their work as health care professionals. Archbishop Denis Hart has said it may force Roman Catholic hospitals out of maternity and emergency services, and that the Bill is 'an unprecedented attack on the freedom to hold and exercise fundamental religions beliefs.' I agree and have put my name to a letter to parliamentarians expressing this some weeks ago. Now there is even more urgent need for prayer and for concerns to be expressed to Members of the Legislative Council. Details can be found in the attached letter by the archbishop.

In writing this, I remind you, as Denis Hart does, that the church does not condemn women who have abortions, but rather encourages them to find hope, forgiveness and healing in the grace of God in Christ, along with all who are involved in the situation. It is the perverse 'culture of death' which leads to abortion being seen as somehow normal and a 'right', and legalising abortion will only advance that belief rather than teach the truth. In all this the church continues to plead for God's mercy, and holds out the gospel of Christ as God's gift of life to the world.

God's peace to you in Christ,

G P Pietsch

I thank God that our Lutheran brothers and sisters and their President stand fully committed to the fight against this pernicious bill with the Catholic people of Victoria and Tasmania and their Metropolitan Archbishop.

I also understand that Pastor Pietsch has accepted an invitation to join us at St Patrick's Cathedral for the Day of Intercession on October 5 at 12:15pm and that he is encouraging his people to come also.

Let us pray that other Christian community leaders and their people may have the same courage to stand with us in prayer before the Lord for the defeat of the Bill.

A "must read" from Benedict XVI

If you read nothing else from Benedict XVI this week, do take the time to read this. It is something very special, addressed to a gathering of "representatives from the world of culture" (only the French could think up something like that) at the Collège des Bernardins in Paris about a fortnight ago (12 September 2008).

The whole speech gives an insight in the heart of Benedict's thought. He began his speech by announcing the topic he wished to discuss:

I would like to speak with you this evening of the origins of western theology and the roots of European culture.

A modest (!) aim? And even more interesting, can we assume that his audience would be interested in such a reflection? Whether they were or whether they were not, what they got was a speech which was, I think, on the same level as the Regensburg Address in terms of Benedict's "big picture" vision.

Some significant snippets to whet your appetite.

On the search for God:

First and foremost, it must be frankly admitted straight away that it was not their intention to create a culture nor even to preserve a culture from the past. Their motivation was much more basic. Their goal was: quaerere Deum.

...Our present situation differs in many respects from the one that Paul encountered in Athens, yet despite the difference, the two situations also have much in common. Our cities are no longer filled with altars and with images of multiple deities. God has truly become for many the great unknown. But just as in the past, when behind the many images of God the question concerning the unknown God was hidden and present, so too the present absence of God is silently besieged by the question concerning him. Quaerere Deum – to seek God and to let oneself be found by him, that is today no less necessary than in former times. A purely positivistic culture which tried to drive the question concerning God into the subjective realm, as being unscientific, would be the capitulation of reason, the renunciation of its highest possibilities, and hence a disaster for humanity, with very grave consequences. What gave Europe’s culture its foundation – the search for God and the readiness to listen to him – remains today the basis of any genuine culture.

On the importance of Music and Song in liturgical prayer:

For prayer that issues from the word of God, speech is not enough: music is required. Two chants from the Christian liturgy come from biblical texts in which they are placed on the lips of angels: the Gloria, which is sung by the angels at the birth of Jesus, and the Sanctus, which according to Isaiah 6 is the cry of the seraphim who stand directly before God. Christian worship is therefore an invitation to sing with the angels, and thus to lead the word to its highest destination.

...For [St.] Benedict, the words of the Psalm: coram angelis psallam Tibi, Domine – in the presence of the angels, I will sing your praise (cf. 138:1) – are the decisive rule governing the prayer and chant of the monks. What this expresses is the awareness that in communal prayer one is singing in the presence of the entire heavenly court, and is thereby measured according to the very highest standards: that one is praying and singing in such a way as to harmonize with the music of the noble spirits who were considered the originators of the harmony of the cosmos, the music of the spheres. From this perspective one can understand the seriousness of a remark by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, who used an expression from the Platonic tradition handed down by Augustine, to pass judgement on the poor singing of monks, which for him was evidently very far from being a mishap of only minor importance. He describes the confusion resulting from a poorly executed chant as a falling into the “zone of dissimilarity” – the regio dissimilitudinis. Augustine had borrowed this phrase from Platonic philosophy, in order to designate his condition prior to conversion (cf. Confessions, VII, 10.16): man, who is created in God’s likeness, falls in his godforsakenness into the “zone of dissimilarity” – into a remoteness from God, in which he no longer reflects him, and so has become dissimilar not only to God, but to himself, to what being human truly is. Bernard is certainly putting it strongly when he uses this phrase, which indicates man’s falling away from himself, to describe bad singing by monks. But it shows how seriously he viewed the matter. It shows that the culture of singing is also the culture of being, and that the monks have to pray and sing in a manner commensurate with the grandeur of the word handed down to them, with its claim on true beauty.

This intrinsic requirement of speaking with God and singing of him with words he himself has given, is what gave rise to the great tradition of Western music. It was not a form of private “creativity”, in which the individual leaves a memorial to himself and makes self-representation his essential criterion. Rather it is about vigilantly recognizing with the “ears of the heart” the inner laws of the music of creation, the archetypes of music that the Creator built into his world and into men, and thus discovering music that is worthy of God, and at the same time truly worthy of man, music whose worthiness resounds in purity.

On the Hermeneutical Key to Scripture:

The Bible, considered from a purely historical and literary perspective, is not simply a book, but a collection of literary texts which were redacted over the course of more than a thousand years, and in which the inner unity of the individual books is not immediately apparent. On the contrary, there are visible tensions between them. This is already the case within the Bible of Israel, which we Christians call the Old Testament. It is only rectified when we as Christians link the New Testament writings as, so to speak, a hermeneutical key with the Bible of Israel, and so understand the latter as the journey towards Christ. With good reason, the New Testament generally designates the Bible not as “the Scripture” but as “the Scriptures”, which, when taken together, are naturally then regarded as the one word of God to us. But the use of this plural makes it quite clear that the word of God only comes to us through the human word and through human words, that God only speaks to us through the humanity of human agents, through their words and their history.

This means again that the divine element in the word and in the words is not self-evident. To say this in a modern way: the unity of the biblical books and the divine character of their words cannot be grasped by purely historical methods. The historical element is seen in the multiplicity and the humanity. From this perspective one can understand the formulation of a medieval couplet that at first sight appears rather disconcerting: littera gesta docet – quid credas allegoria … (cf. Augustine of Dacia, Rotulus pugillaris, I). The letter indicates the facts; what you have to believe is indicated by allegory, that is to say, by Christological and pneumatological exegesis.

We may put it even more simply: Scripture requires exegesis, and it requires the context of the community in which it came to birth and in which it is lived. This is where its unity is to be found, and here too its unifying meaning is opened up. To put it yet another way: there are dimensions of meaning in the word and in words which only come to light within the living community of this history-generating word. Through the growing realization of the different layers of meaning, the word is not devalued, but in fact appears in its full grandeur and dignity.

Therefore the Catechism of the Catholic Church can rightly say that Christianity does not simply represent a religion of the book in the classical sense (cf. par. 108). It perceives in the words the Word, the Logos itself, which spreads its mystery through this multiplicity and the reality of a human history. This particular structure of the Bible issues a constantly new challenge to every generation. It excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a transcending and a process of understanding, led by the inner movement of the whole and hence it also has to become a process of living. Only within the dynamic unity of the whole are the many books one book. The Word of God and his action in the world are revealed only in the word and history of human beings.

Well. If you have read this far, why not go and read all of it.

"Senator kills Bill"?

Really, The Age needs to be more careful about the quality of its journalism. I wish journalists could learn just report the story, without the need to put their own bias and spin on it.

Today's second main front page story was about the defeat of the Rudd Government's bill in the Senate which was designed to alter the previous government's arrangements whereby singles earning over $50k and couples earning over $75k per annum would be required to pay an extra 1% income tax to the Medicare Levy IF they did not have private health insurance. [For foreigners, our Medicare system is a sort of public health insurance system - costs a lot for the Government and is usually 2% of our income tax, but looks after those who can't afford private health cover.] On top of this, the previous government put a system in place whereby the government subsidises 1/3 of all private health cover costs via a income tax rebate to private health cover holders.

The bill proposed by the Labor Government aimed at upping the threshold for the extra 1% to $75k for singles and double that for couples.

The effect of this would have been

1) fewer households in upper income levels taking out private health insurance
2) Less people in the private health insurance market
3) a corresponding great saving to the Government because of reduced rebate costs
4) and a corresponding hike in the price of private health insurance for those who remianed in the market (including lower income households)

So it is little wonder that Senator Steve Fielding of the Family First Party (pictured, courtesy of news.com.au) voted against the bill - as did the entire opposition. Since the other independants supported the government bill, he held the balance of power, and thus effectively it was his vote that defeated the bill. For the record, I voted for Steve. I like him. I had lunch with him after he was elected and had the chance to grill him on a few issues. He's principled and sticks to his guns. He looks closely at all legislation and votes for those whom he said he would represent: ordinary Australian families.

And here is where the report in The Age today by Leo Shanahan comes in with a story that was headed in the print edition "Senator sinks Medicare bill" (but altered on the online version to read rather more sedately as "Medicare Defeat Wounds PM". My emphasis in bold and my comments in bold italics:

THE health insurance options of up to a million Australians are in limbo after the defeat of one of the Government's central budget measures. In the biggest policy setback for the Government since its election, the budget changes to the Medicare levy surcharge threshold, worth almost $1 billion, were defeated by a single vote from Victorian Family First senator Steve Fielding. [Well, no they were defeated by the majority of the house - the fact that one vote could have made it go either way does not mean that Senator Fielding single handedly defeated it.]

Despite desperate last-minute changes to the proposed legislation by Health Minister Nicola Roxon on Tuesday, altering the new threshold for singles from $100,000 to $75,000, the bill now faces an uncertain future and will have to undergo radical changes if it is to avoid being dumped.

Its defeat in the Senate provides the Government with a possible trigger for a double-dissolution election. [That would be interesting, but I doubt it will come to that.]

...The Government says the average family [The "average family"? On $150k a year? Hardly. I regard our family as "average" on half that. If I had $150k a year, I would certainly feel myself to be "above average"]could save $1500 a year from the change and expected almost half a million Australians to drop their private health insurance [The "saving" would only come if they dumped their health insurance - and the poorer end of the market would have to pick up the tab.].

The Treasury estimates it will save almost $1 billion in no longer having to pay the private health insurance rebate, with the Government set to gain net revenue of $350 million. [You see where the real impetus for this bill comes from]

Further debate on the bill was supported by fellow balance-of-power holders the Greens and independent Nick Xenophon but Senator Fielding chose to kill it [MURDERER! (we "kill bills" and "terminate pregnancies")]at his first opportunity.

Last night Senator Fielding defended his move, saying the Government had done nothing for lower-income earners who could be affected by higher health insurance premiums. [Precisely]

Senator Fielding - who is lobbying for changes to the bill that would see lower-income earners compensated for rising premiums through a higher private health insurance rebate - said the Government ignored his desires by bringing on the vote for the bill too quickly. Altering the bill further is likely to be complicated, with the Government unlikely to agree to the changes proposed by Senator Fielding.

..."At a time when many families are struggling with their household budgets, the Liberals are denying them tax cuts," she said. [The bill would have been a tax cut to the wealthy - not to the strugglers] "I am disappointed that Senator Fielding has refused to even debate our very sensible proposal."

In another article - from AAP - also on The Age website, Senator Fielding gets his say:

Senator Fielding said the government had failed to agree to relief for low income earners who have private health cover, possibly in the form of higher rebates. [precisely the point: it is these families who need the help, not the singles and childless couples earning $75k per annum]

...He said several struggling low income earners and pensioners, some of whom have suffered strokes and rare illnesses, had contacted his office worried they could not afford a hike in private health cover premiums. [Again, this would have been precisely the effect of the Government bill.]

"They have had to give up a lot just to be able to afford it. These are people who I would have thought the Rudd government were interested in helping," Senator Fielding told AAP. "You have got to realise that for every one Australian that gets a tax break under this change, three to four other Australians get an increase in their health premiums."

They're trying to paint Steve as a madman, a religious fundamentalist (which he possibly is) and an anti-democratic "Bill Killer". But Family First will get my vote again at the next election.

The Writing on the Wall? More on the Victorian Abortion Debate

Matthias reminded me of these words from the prophet Daniel in a combox comment below. I will admit that once, when I was particularly upset by a particular decision of a particular authority, I was tempted simply to copy these words onto a blank sheet of paper and send it as an anonymous letter - and to leave it to him to figure out what on earth it meant. I enjoyed the thought of his final discovery of the meaning after going to all the trouble of finding a Hebrew scholar to tell him what the words were.

In any case, the writing could indeed be on the wall for this government if it continues to ignore what even today's editorial in The Age acknowledges to be "the deep divisions in the community" over the issue of abortion.

The Age has made no secret of its support for legalised abortion, but even its editors realise that this bill will either be defeated in the Upper House or rejected in a legal challenge after it is passed due to the "coercion of conscience" clauses:

It is not necessary to coerce conscience in this way in order to decriminalise abortion. Indeed, such coercion may make the goal harder to achieve, because of the deep divisions in the community over abortion. Some argue that to remove the clause from the bill would deny the right of patients to full information, but information about pregnancy termination services is already widely available, and its availability will not diminish when abortion is decriminalised. What would diminish, though, is the respect in which the rights of conscience have hitherto been held — a respect that is an integral part of a flourishing liberal democracy.

It does surprise me, however, that this editorial can speak about "achieving the goal" of legalised abortion while at the same time recognising "the deep divisions in the community". Make no mistake about it, folks, democracy (meaning outright and simple majority) is being used to push through the views of one group of people one side of this "deep division" at the expense of another group of people on the other side. There is no consensus in our community on this issue.

Interestingly, however, the editorial REJECTS Mr Hull's attempt to "explain away" the concerns of Archbishop Hart about the "conscience" issue:

According to Mr Hulls, this section "doesn't mean you refer (the patient) to someone who will perform an abortion. You refer (her) to someone who doesn't have the ethical dilemma that doctor has." ...The Attorney-General apparently maintains that the bill will not effectively change the legal obligations of doctors. A plain reading of the bill, however, does not support that interpretation. On the contrary, the concerns raised by the archbishop, the CEOs of Victoria's 15 Catholic hospitals and the Victorian president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Douglas Travis, appear to be well founded.

In an Op-Ed piece on the same page ("Playing Politics with Lives"), Anne O'Rourke of Liberty Victoria adopts the "Nancy Pelosi" approach to Catholic Doctrine:

The view that a foetus is a human being from conception is very new in Catholic history. It was not until the late 1800s that the Catholic Church adopted the belief that the embryo acquires a soul at conception. There was no previous general consensus on abortion. Many of the church fathers, such as St Augustine and St Jerome, believed that the soul could not enter the body of an unformed foetus, so abortion was not considered wrong until "ensoulment" occurred. Catholic lay opinion or "individual Catholic conscience" also differs markedly from the relatively recent position of the church hierarchy.

We need not comment further on that.

What we will comment on though, is an expression used in one of today's Letters to the Editor, by one Gavin R. Putland of Dandenong. Gavin is writing in opposition to the Bill, but this is how he explains the Church's moral objection to abortion:

The decriminalisation of abortion, while disturbing to many people for many reasons, is at least consistent with secularity. But Victoria's latest abortion bill would go beyond that; it would compel Catholic doctors - and any other doctors who accept the personhood of the foetus as an article of faith [my emphasis]- to act against their consciences.

This seems to be exactly the point that Perry et aliter have been arguing in recent comments: that the issue is not the humanity of the foetus, but the "personhood", and that the moral objection is to the killing of a "person" not a human being.

Now this is a very pernicious turn of the cards, if I may say so. As countless US Bishops pointed out to Senator Biden, the fact that the foetus is an individual human being from the time of conception is NOT "an article of faith", but a scientific fact. But of course, if we change the issue to whether that "clump of cells" (with their own individual human gene code) is a "person" or not, then we come down to something which is not even "an article of faith", but a mere "article of opinion", based not upon reason or objective reality but mere preference for how one personally desires to define "personhood".

For the record, the Church does not have a dogmatic "article of faith" about "personhood" (except in relation to the persons of the Holy Trinity, of course). As far as I know, the Church does not even have an "opinion" on the matter. What it recognises (and this on the basis of the best science available to us today) is that from conception the foetus is A HUMAN BEING. This is not something for your conscience to choose. It is a fact.

Now the Church has always held (in fact, universal human society has always held) that it is wrong to kill another HUMAN BEING. What we are seeing today is a uniquely post-modern take on the fifth commandment, reinterpreting it to say "Thou shalt not kill a person", where every individual gets to determine for him or herself what a "person" is. Once we accept this line of reasoning, we are not far away from defining other extra-utero human beings as non-persons and removing their legal right to life as well.

[In fact, imagine the difficulty that would arise if technology were to advance to the stage that we could grow a baby from a test tube without ever implanting it in a mother's womb. Horrible thought, but it would raise the question of when this child was "born" and became a "person".]

P.S. Yesterday's Poll in The Age eventually turned out like this:

Should Catholic hospitals be forced to comply with the new abortion laws?

Yes - 45% No - 55% Total Votes: 2466

I would say that was a fairly clear indication of division in the community, wouldn't you?

Cathy and David at the Movies: "Wall-E"

Cathy: Earth was abandoned 700 years ago by the human race, leaving behind an army of robots to clean up the rubbish. Wall-E is the sole survivor, and over the centuries has developed a personality along with a deep sense of loneliness.

David: And a very entertaining sense of curiosity.

Cathy: For a movie that has practically no dialogue for the first 40 minutes, I was engaged from the moment the film began.

David: That's because it draws on the best traditions of visual comedy – it’s a little like watching a robotic Mr Bean.

Cathy: No, not at all. Wall-E is a captivating and endearing character. Maddy says "extremely cute"! Along with Wall-E, I was delighted at the arrival of Eva – an exploratory probe from the human "ark", and enchanted by the relationship that develops. As Mia said, it’s a love story "kids-style", but one that adults can thoroughly enjoy as well.

David: The name Eva is suggestive, of course. The abandoned earth is no garden of Eden, but there is a definite "bone of my bones" (or perhaps "cog of my cogs") reaction on Wall-E's part.

Cathy: There are some truly magical and touching moments, such as the "space-dance" with Eva and a fire-extinguisher-propelled Wall-E.

David: And a lot of references to other films too. Wall-E is reminiscent of "Number Five" from the 1986 movie Short Circuit; his cockroach friend is reminder of Pinocchio's Jiminy Cricket; and the ship-board computer (voiced by Sigourney Weaver) deliberately recalls "Hal" from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Cathy: Truly a movie that can be enjoyed by all ages. I loved it. I'm giving it four stars.

David: Well, personally, I think this will end up on every shelf in every living room next to the Shrek DVD's. Pixar has raised digital animation to a new level with this film. Am I allowed to give it FIVE stars, or is that exaggerating?

"You Know My Name": Schütz article in Kairos

Kairos, our local Archdiocesan rag, is running an article I wrote on the use of "Yahweh" for the name of God in the liturgy.

See here.

Where did I get the wrong impression?

I said in a post below that I had been led to believe the new Abortion Law Reform Bill only aimed at allowing abortions up to 24 weeks. Where did I get that impression? From poorly reported media stories, such as this one in The Australian today which says:

The Brumby Government's Bill decriminalising abortion controversially allows it to be performed at up to 24 weeks' gestation.

The fact is, as Archbishop Denis Hart's letter points out, if passed, the legislation would mean that abortion would be easily and legally available in Victoria UP TO THE POINT OF BIRTH ITSELF!

Here are the relevant sections of the Abortion Law Reform Bill.

5 Termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioner after 24 weeks

(1) A registered medical practitioner may perform an abortion on a woman who is more than 24 weeks pregnant only if the medical practitioner—

(a) reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances; and

(b) has consulted at least one other registered medical practitioner who also reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances.

7 Supply or administration of drugs by registered pharmacist or registered nurse—more than 24 weeks

(1) A registered medical practitioner may, in writing, direct a registered pharmacist or registered nurse, who is employed or engaged by a hospital, to administer or supply a drug or drugs to cause an abortion in a woman who is more than 24 weeks pregnant only if the medical practitioner—

(a) reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances; and

(b) has consulted at least one other registered medical practitioner who also reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances.

Media Studies 101: How to Read Headlines

OK, class, here's your task for today. Compare and critique these two headlines for the same story:

1) "Abortion laws threaten Catholic hospitals" (The Australian)

2) "Archbishop in abortion law threat" (The Age)

Questions:

1) Who or what is "under threat"?
2) Who or what is doing the "threatening"?

Essays to be less than 100 words and submitted in the combox, please.

On the saner side of the moon: The Herald Sun Poll on Catholic Hospitals

Compare The Age poll mentioned in the blog below to the poll being run in the Herald Sun:

There the question is somewhat more moderate, although it is asking much the same thing and from the positive angle of the Catholic Church's freedom to act in accordance with her teachings:

"Do you support a Catholic Church review of its hospital maternity services because of abortion law reforms?"

Currently the vote is running in exactly the opposite direction to The Age poll:

Have your vote on this page here.

And yes, Tony, we know they are "only a bit of fun". But (as with the current sport crazed attention to the game involving an inflated red pig's bladder) one man's "fun" is another man's life and death.

"Liberty" Victorian Style: The Age Poll on Catholic Hospitals

Thanks to Jeff (in the combox to the previous post) for alerting me to the poll at The Age.

The question is: "Should Catholic Hospitals be forced to comply with the new abortion laws?" (Please note: The Bill is not yet a "new law" and pray God it never will be!)

Currently it looks like this.



As Louise says in the same combox:

For a bunch of people who claim to be tolerant and embracing of diversity, postmodern Aussies sure are nasty totalitarians.

"Pluralism. Do it my way."

Or: I believe you should be free but I reserve the right tell you what you are free to do or not do. And I guess the people voting "Yes" to this question are the same ones who complain loudest when the Church "interferes" with their idea of freedom.

Go here to lodge your vote.

Archbishop Hart tells Ceasar to...

In the combox to my posting of Archbishop Hart's pastoral letter below, Louise using colourful language suggests that His Grace should "tell Caesar to get %$#@*^ed and threaten to shut down Catholic hospitals."

Well, in effect that is exactly what he has done, and if Caesar isn't listening, the Forum is. It's front page stuff on The Age this morning: Archbishop in abortion law threat.

Quote of the Day

"We should abandon the notion of history as a court eternally in session." - Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, in response to the question whether the Catholic church should posthumously apologize to Darwin, as a senior British prelate has suggested the Church of England might do.

Excel Sheet of addresses of Victorian Upper House Members for Mail Merge

To help you out and to make addressing your letters to Upper House MPs, I have posted this excel sheet of names and addresses on our website here. It makes it much easier to do mail merge!

Dark Days Require Persistent Prayer: + Denis Hart's Pastoral Letter of Day of Prayer for Defeat of the "Abortion Law Reform Bill"

In a pastoral letter to all parishes in the Archdiocese of Melbourne yesterday, our Pastor-in-Chief, Archbishop Denis Hart, has declared October 5th to be a Day of Prayer for the Defeat of the "Abortion Law Reform Bill". I was going to simply put up extracts from his letter with a link to the full text here - but on second thoughts you need to read EVERY WORD of this. In particular the impression has been given that this bill is "just" up to 24 weeks (6 months folks - I have seen and buried a 22 week prem baby - something that has an effect on one, I can say), when in fact it legalises abortion UP TO BIRTH itself.

On top of that, as the Archbishop points out, this so-called "pro-choice" bill tramples the right of health professionals to conscientiously object to abortion. At the very least, this bill will be liable to legal challenge on these grounds alone.

Of course, as you will see from the letter, we do have one stick to hold over the head of parliament. There have been plenty of newspaper reports about the dire state of maternity services in this state's hospitals - basically, there are not enough of them. What effect then will this bill have upon the Catholic hospital sector, which currently provides one third of this city's maternity services? The Archbishop has declared that "Catholic hospitals will not perform abortions and will not provide referrals for the purpose of abortion... Under these circumstances, it is difficult to foresee how Catholic hospitals could continue to operate maternity or emergency departments in this state in their current form." This is something the Legislative Council should consider well before they vote.

I commend the letter to you all, and join the Archbishop in asking for your prayers.

A PASTORAL LETTER OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF MELBOURNE TO THE CATHOLIC PEOPLE OF VICTORIA AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL

19 September 2008

Dear Friends,

Early this year, my brother bishops and I issued a Pastoral Statement on the proposed ‘decriminalisation of abortion’ and made the following key points.

- A human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and all living human individuals are entitled to the equal protection of the law.

- Every living human individual, including those imperfect physically or mentally, is equal to every other individual in respect of the right not to be directly or intentionally killed.

- The Church does not condemn women who have had abortions and encourages them to find hope, forgiveness and healing in the mercy of God. Together with their children, they are the principal victims of this new culture of death. Often women resort to abortion for complex reasons, abandoned or under pressure, or led on by false information.

- The motivation to decriminalise abortion seems to be to remove the “unlawful” stigma currently attached to “medical” abortion in virtue of the fact that it is named as an offence in the Crimes Act. But the Law is a great educator and if the Law approves something then people gradually accept a new understanding of what is right and what is wrong. People begin to think: “Abortion is lawful now, so it’s right.” This would betray the majority view in the community that the incidence of abortion should be reduced.

Recent developments

In late August, when the Abortion Law Reform Bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly, I again spoke out against the proposal in similar terms.

Sadly, the Bill passed the Legislative Assembly on 11 September 2008 without amendment despite courageous attempts by many to have the Bill defeated or to have its effects minimised. It will soon be introduced into the Legislative Council and, if passed, could be become law as early as 15 October 2008.

I write now with a deep sadness for mothers-to-be and children yet to be born, and with a profound sense of anguish at the draconian clauses in the Bill which attack long held religious beliefs and practice.

Make no mistake about it, the Bill goes beyond codifying current clinical practice, as its proponents claim, and will set an unfortunate precedent which other states may follow.

This Bill is a breach of fundamental human rights with some particularly disturbing features.

Abortion Law Reform Bill

The Bill if enacted:

- applies to females of child bearing age;

- allows a female to have an abortion up to 24 weeks gestation performed by any doctor, regardless of their expertise;

- allows a pharmacist or nurse, without involvement of a doctor to supply or administer a drug to cause an abortion to a female up to 24 weeks gestation;

- permits abortions from 24 weeks up to childbirth for a female if two doctors reasonably believe the abortion is appropriate having regard to the woman’s relevant medical and current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances;

- repeals the offence of “child destruction”;

- compels a pharmacist or nurse employed or engaged in a public or private hospital or day-procedure centre, if directed in writing by a doctor, to administer or to supply a drug to cause an abortion to a female who is more than 24 weeks pregnant;

- imposes a legal obligation on doctors, nurses, pharmacists and psychologists who have a conscientious objection to abortion to refer a woman requesting an abortion to another practitioner in the same profession whom the practitioner knows does not have a conscientious objection to abortion; and

- imposes a legal obligation on doctors and nurses, notwithstanding their conscientious objection, to perform an abortion on a female in an emergency where it is deemed that the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.

Protection of mothers and unborn children

The Bill is seriously flawed as much by what it omits as by what it contains.

Notable flaws include:

- the failure to provide any protection for unborn children right up to 40 weeks gestation;

- the failure to ban partial birth abortions;

- the failure to safeguard the health of women by permitting abortions to be performed by doctors who have no qualifications or training in obstetrics; and
the failure to include informed consent provisions.

- Many of the so called “safeguards” in the Bill fail to protect either the expectant mother or the unborn child. For example, an abortion will be possible from 24 weeks up to childbirth provided the doctor consults one other doctor who agrees it is appropriate.

- The Bill does not require a consultation with the woman by the doctor to form a second opinion nor does it specify whether this colleague need have any expertise in the area or any specialist training or qualifications. In this way, it would not be difficult to gain the consent of one other colleague particularly if both worked in an abortion clinic. It would not matter that 5, 10 or more colleagues previously did not concur that the abortion would be appropriate.

- Nor does the Bill offer any provision for professional counselling to women with unplanned or difficult pregnancies, provide them with accurate information about the likely effect of an abortion, protect women in vulnerable positions from coercion, or contain any other provision likely to reduce the number of abortions carried out in this state each year. On the contrary, the Bill is most likely to lead to an increase in the number of abortions, including so-called “social” abortions.

Freedom of religious belief in the 21st century

The Bill is an unprecedented attack on the freedom to hold and exercise fundamental religious beliefs. It makes a mockery of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and the Equal Opportunity Act in that it requires health professionals with a conscientious objection to abortion to refer patients seeking an abortion to other health professionals who do not have such objections. It also requires health professionals with a conscientious objection to abortion to perform an abortion in whatever is deemed an emergency.

The Bill is clearly intended to require Catholic hospitals to permit the referral of women for abortions.

As one commentator has put it, it is an insidious irony that this coercion of conscience is being carried out in the name of choice. Parliamentarians are being afforded the opportunity to exercise their consciences to remove the right of health professionals to exercise theirs.

Nurses are in a particularly vulnerable position, since many would be under a duty to assist in an abortion if a doctor so requires, and determines that it is an “emergency”. I do not believe that our community wants to force nurses, many of whom have a conscientious objection, to assist in late term abortions. I do not believe that the community wants to force them and other health professionals to act contrary to the law, leave their professions or leave Victoria.

Catholic hospitals and the large number of Victorians they serve are also in a vulnerable position. Catholic hospitals will not perform abortions and will not provide referrals for the purpose of abortion. If this provision is passed it will be an outrageous attack on our service to the community and contrary to Catholic ethical codes. It will leave Catholic hospitals and doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion in a position where they will be acting contrary to the law if they act in accordance with their deeply held moral convictions. This Bill poses a real threat to the continued existence of Catholic hospitals. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to foresee how Catholic hospitals could continue to operate maternity or emergency departments in this state in their current form.

This is a significant issue for the community at large having regard to the fact that Catholic hospitals account for approximately one third of all births and are seen by many as their hospitals of choice.

In its report on Abortion Law Reform, the Victorian Law Reform Commission created a false dichotomy in relation to conscientious objections, a dichotomy between “adequate justification” and “mere prejudice”. This was subsequently relied upon in debate in the Legislative Assembly. The position of the Church is postulated as “mere prejudice” and without “adequate justification”.

The Church’s position which it has held ever since the first century is clear. The procurement of and complicity in abortion in every circumstance is a moral evil. It is an affront to logic to suggest that a belief held over the life of the Church’s existence and which has been subject to rigorous examination by theologians over the centuries can be dismissed as a “mere prejudice”. If this argument were to prevail, the beliefs of all religious faiths could be similarly dismissed. The argument itself smacks of prejudice, is a direct attack on religious expression and unworthy of a place in a contemporary mature state which values diversity of thought.

Call to prayer and action

The time has come for all those who support life to rally in prayer and action to defeat the Bill. The challenge is daunting and every effort must be made.

I have declared Sunday 5th October 2008 as a Day of Intercession throughout the Archdiocese dedicated to the defeat of this Bill. I urge as many of you as possible to join me in an hour of prayer at St Patrick’s Cathedral at 12:15 pm on that day immediately following the 11:00 am Mass and stand in solidarity with women and the unborn who are directly at risk from this Bill.

I also urge you, as I have done, to make your concerns known to your representatives in the Legislative Council and when doing so, to act respectfully and argue from a position of reason. The addresses of Members of the Legislative Council are attached. Previous statements can be located on the diocesan web site at http://www.melbourne.catholic.org.au/ together with more comprehensive information on the Bill.

Yours sincerely in Christ

+ Denis J. Hart
ARCHBISHOP OF MELBOURNE

Members and Addresses of Legislative Council. If you are unsure of which electorate you are in, check here.

Defending the Faith - Uniting Church Style

Local religion sleuth, Barney Zwartz, uncovered the story of the "new faith" being peddaled by Rev. Francis Macnab, the "minister for life" of St Michael's Uniting Church here in the city of Melbourne.

This excited some discussion in my circles. Would the Uniting Church react to the proclamation of such an obviously unorthodox message in its name? There is, after all, a fairly active and influential alliance of groups in the Uniting Church - known variously as "The Confessing Movement", the "Reforming Alliance", or the "Evangelical Movement in the Uniting Church" (known by the acronym "EMU") - who would be less than impressed by Macnab's new found faith.

Still hot on the trail, Barney has a follow up article in today's edition of The Age: "Gentle rebuke over ministers new faith". Here's the guts of it:

THE "new faith" launched last week by Uniting Church minister Francis Macnab seems a departure from Christianity, moderator Jason Kioa told the church's state synod yesterday. It is as close as the church leadership can come to calling Dr Macnab a heretic without a disciplinary hearing, for which it first needs a formal complaint.

...Mr Kioa told the synod at La Trobe University: "The views expressed by Dr Macnab in the media last week discard much of what has been accepted for 2000 years as orthodox Christian belief. ...It also concerns me that Dr Macnab's expression of a 'new faith' as reported in the media appears to be outside the teachings of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

But Mr Kioa also obliquely called for restraint by outraged church members, saying it was important to be aware how public statements would be perceived within and beyond the church. "I remind all members that we are called to be a fellowship of reconciliation," he said.

Following St Paul (Col 3:15), the Uniting Church in Australia has adopted "eirenicism" as one of its chief "virtues", and for that they are to be praised. It is a "gift" which perhaps they could offer to Catholics (a famously fractious mob) in the great "exchange of gifts" which John Paul II proposed, and Pope Benedict recently re-proposed to us in his meeting with ecumenical leaders in Sydney in July.

Nevertheless, one suspects that sooner or later someone from the Confessing Movement or the EMU's will bring Barney's "Singular Case of the Heretic in the Uniting Church" to the table for adjudication. Then things will become interesting.

Sentire Cum Ecclesia is a Football Free Zone

Once football starts to appear on both the front and back covers of the newspapers, you know it is time to pull down the shutters, burrow into the bunker and declare your Blog (your office, your car, your home - indeed, the entire universe if the US Supreme court could define reality) a football free zone, and to proudly wear the pin of the only AFL I will ever barrack for: The Anti-Football League.



BTW, nice story about the background of the League in today's Age.

Cathy and David at the Movies

Fraser's blog on Juno reminded me that I haven't said anything about a regular column my wife and I write for her parish newsletter "Inside Story" at St Paul's Lutheran Church Box Hill.

The column is called "Cathy and David at the Movies" which, as some of you will recognise, is based on the approach to movie reviews from Margaret and David's "At the Movies" on ABC1.

Here are some of the reviews we've done in the past (you have to scroll down the reviews page to find them):

Juno

As it is in Heaven

Iron Man

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Mother Teresa

If we seem to be overly generous with the stars, that's because we don't watch movies we don't think we will like! After all, David and Margaret might get paid to do this, but we aren't.

We're going to see "Wall-E" with the girls at a school fundraiser tonight, so that's the next one to be reviewed.

John Cleese "God Gene" video doing the rounds

I've seen it in a number of places, but most lately on Pete's blog and on Louise's blog. So eventually, I decided to waste a bit more time today and click on it. This is what you get:

The Magisterium of the Church is infallible, the Governance of the Church is not.

An important distinction.

I have just had an "ahah!" moment while reading a comment from Tony in a combox to the post below.

As the Holy Father said to the bishops of France just recently, the bishops of the Church are charged to "carry out with fidelity and humility the triple task towards the flock entrusted to [them] of teaching, governing, sanctifying". In return, "the Christian people must regard you with affection and respect" - not because of their own personal qualities, but because, as St Ignatius of Antioch wrote back in the very early years of the Church: "When someone is sent by the master of a house to manage his household for him, it is our duty to give him the same kind of reception as we should give to the sender" (Letter to the Ephesians, 6:1).

Now, the light bulb has finally lit up in my head (which might have something to do with me knocking it hard against the edge of the pool while doing backstroke this morning...)

Brian and Alan and Cliffy et aliter over at Catholica have a problem with obedience to the hierarchy of the Church. Brian characterised this obedience as "the Yes, Sir, no, Sir, three bags full , Sir, game". Many strings on the Catholica discussion board are about the failure in governance of the bishops. To be honest, so are many discussions on the conservative boards - just do a search on for recent blogs on the local ordinary of the archdiocese of Brisbane and you will see what I mean.

The point is that a proper distinction is not being made between the three aspects of the "triple task" which has been committed by Christ to the bishops of his Church.

While every Christian is bound to relate to his bishop with affection and respect "rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men" (as St Paul might have said in this situation also, cf. Eph 6:7), he is not bound to agree that everything his bishop (let alone someone else's bishop) does is right, good or wise.

The charism of infallibility does not adhere to the person of the bishop, and still less to the governing office of the bishop, but only to the teaching office of the bishop, and even then only when he teaches in communion with his brother bishops and (most importantly) the bishop of Rome. No-one in their right minds would suggest that bishops are "infallible" in their governing office, yet that is what it seems is sometimes supposed of those of us who profess loyalty the the magisterium! We are well aware that bishops are just as capable of making big stuff ups when it comes to how they administer a diocese as anyone else.

As regards the sanctifying office of the bishop, even the most morally wicked or adminstratively inept bishop can't really fail to get that one right, in so far as that office depends on the grace promised by Christ ex opere operato through the sacraments (although certainly the wickedness or ineptness of a bishop can hinder the degree to which this aspect of his triple task is effective).

When we cite great examples of saints who opposed their bishop (eg. Bl. Mary McKillop) or even pope (eg. St Catherine), we need to be aware that - with full affection and respect for the office - their criticism was offered in order to hold to account the governing office of the bishop/pope, not the teaching office.

This is an important point - on which many who set themselves against the magisterium are confused. Loyalty to the magisterium does not mean agreeing with everything the bishops do (or any single bishop does). It means assenting to the teaching of the Church.

As Fr Z. said recently in a podcast, we are obliged to obey those in authority over us in the Church, and to give assent to their teaching, but we are not obliged to agree with everything they do. That includes the popes.

Oh, and Tony also said that "the 'church police' remark was lost on me :-( " Allow me to suggest some greater familiarity with Monty Python might lighten life up a little.

Apology from Brian on Catholica

This afternoon, Brian Coyne closed that infamous thread, and posted this apology on the Catholica Forum:

Apology to David Schütz..
posted by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, 17.09.2008, 15:44

Dear all,

The discussion that erupted in this place on David Schütz has been described as a "low point for CA". I agree with that and would like to extend a sincere apology to David for the turn that this discussion took. I also apologise for my own remarks in the string which were, in truth, an attempt to correct the damage but themselves seem to have made the situation worse. I have no criticism of David's decision to convert to Catholicism and I have no criticisms of David as a person. I do have strong differences in perspective to some of his theological views and what it means to be a Catholic — and it has been those issues that I have been seeking to engage David in discussion about from time to time. My own comments concerning David's employment have been seriously misconstrued but I accept responsibility for that happening because of failings in how I expressed my arguments. My criticism was not intended to be of David but of the system and ecclesial leadership that seems to bend over backwards to support the worldview promoted, or held by, people who share the sort of perspectives put forward by David and it is seemingly uncaring of the needs of others who have different worldviews of what Catholicism, spirituality and the search for God, truth and meaning is all about. People who question are not given favourable treatment in employment in the institution today. There are many people, including myself and others who have found a home at Catholica, who can provide eloquent testimony to that. That is the point I was seeking to make. That is a criticism of the institution and its leadership. It is NOT a criticism of David.

Personally I do have respect for David in that I sincerely do believe he is one of the more articulate of the conservative voices in the Church today and he does have the guts to nail his colours to the mast in public cyberspace. I wish there were a lot more people in positions of public accountability and leadership within the institution who had the fortitude, or felt confident enough, to contribute to the public debate on these important issues of what we believe/what we are seeking and the hows and whys.

David, please accept my sincere apologies on how this matter got seriously out of hand. From my growing experience as administrator of discussion forums in cyberspace I am acutely aware of the difficulties in conducting any rational discussion across this divide between those who have a "conservative" or "political" understanding of their faith and the rest of us who approach our faith and beliefs from other perspectives and paradigms. I do hope the discussions might continue in more amicable and mutually respectful ways.

Sincerely,
Brian Coyne
Editor and Publisher

Thank you, Brian. All is forgiven and we are friends still, despite such radical differences of opinion on just about everything!

I should in fact thank all involved for raising the profile of this poor blog a couple of notches.

And let me assure you that I hold no-one in contempt for their comments. I reserve my real wrath and hatred for the Telsta/Bigpond "Help" desk and online billing system (which, I might just note, gives an entirely new meaning to the word "Help"). But that is another story...

"He Ain't Nothing Special"? Cardinal Archbishop of Paris and Creative Minority Report on Clash of Ecclesiologies

The Creative Minority Report ("We laugh because we believe") carry's this AFP report under the heading He Ain't Nothing Special:

Is it any wonder that nobody goes to Church in France anymore?

Check out this obnoxious statement by a Cardinal from a country known for its unpleasantness. From Rorate Caeli:

LOURDES (Hautes-Pyrenees), 14 September 2008 (AFP) - Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, president of the Conference of Bishops of France, stressed that the relationship between the pope and the bishops "is not a servile relationship of subordination".

"The relationship of the pope with the bishops is not a boss/employee relationship. He is not the CEO of a multinational corporation who is coming to visit a branch office," said Cardinal Vingt-Trois during a press briefing held after the meeting between the pope and the bishops.

"We have welcomed him and listened to him as a brother who has come to reinforce the faith of those with whom he works and with whom he is in communion," said the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris.

"We are in a relationship of communion, of affection, and of collaboration. And when we have things to say to him, we say them" said Cardinal Vingt-Trois.

Earlier the pope had spoke before the bishops calling for the steadfastness of the Church in the face of the challenges of the contemporary world – a speech with the tone of a directive which was met by somewhat lukewarm applause.

While it is certainly true that the relationship is not one of CEO to employees, he is also not just merely a visiting dignitary from Luxembourg. Come to think of it, I can't imagine that they would make such an odious statement about a visiting dignitary from Luxembourg.

The hierarchy in France is living up to its deserved reputation for tepid Catholicism and bad manners.

The hierarchy in France should thankful that the relationship is not of CEO to employee for it was, they would have all likely gotten the sack.

Perhaps Pope Benedict should put some of the Bishops to the episcopal guillotine and replace them with some of the more traditional minded in France. You know who I mean. That would get their attention.

Posted by Patrick Archbold at 11:08 AM

It appears that a "clash of ecclesiologies" is taking place here. Catholic ecclesiology understands the Church to be structured "heirarchically" (Lumen Gentium 18ff) while at the same time affirming that the purpose of this hierarchical structure is to preserve the "communio" of the Church. It is possible to play the two aspects off against one another, especially when the place of the Bishop of Rome in this ecclesiology is discussed (as often happens in dialogue between East and West).

As Patrick notes, the Cardinal is quite right in saying that the relationship between the bishops and the pope is not essentially "hierachical" but rather "communal". In other words, while the Bishop of Rome has absolute primacy among the bishops, he is not a "bishop over the bishops". Does this mean that they do not owe "obedience" to the Holy Father? Hardly. Get a load of the "Spirit of Vatican II" in paragraph 22 of Lumen Gentium:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head. This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation.

That's Vatican TWO, folks, not Vatican ONE. It is why the Eastern Orthodox Churches say that nothing has changed in the Catholic Church regarding our understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome.

Of course, they are only partly right in this. What has happened is that the "communal" aspect of the relationship between the bishops and the pope (which Cardinal Vingt-Trois emphasises) has been added to the pre-Conciliar hierarchical understanding of the relationship. But the hierarchical relationship still remains as real and important as ever, and should never be played off against the communal relationship in a sort of "clash of ecclesiologies".

Even MORE Pope! The last few French Fries at the bottom of the pack...

Here are the last morsels to fall from the rich man's table in France. Juicy bits. Yummy.

Pope's Reflection at Lourdes on Eucharist"We Cannot Be Silent About What We Know" [2008-09-15]

Papal Homily at Mass With Sick"Mary Dwells in the Joy and the Glory of the Resurrection" [2008-09-15]

Benedict XVI's Farewell to France"Pope Was Duty-Bound to Come to Lourdes" [2008-09-15]

French Prime Minister's Farewell to Pontiff"Your Visit Was a Moment of Peace and Fraternity" [2008-09-15]

I am slowly working my way through it all, but the best of the list so far is still his address to the French Bishops. It really packs a punch. Cop what Papa Benny quotes from no less a personage than St Ignatius himself (the original 2nd Century Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, that is). It seems that he was already preaching his own version of "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" in the immediately post-apostolic Church:

The Christian people must regard you [bishops] with affection and respect. From its origins, Christian tradition has insisted on this point: "All those who belong to God and Jesus Christ, stand by their Bishop", said Saint Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Philadelphians, 3:2), and he added: "When someone is sent by the master of a house to manage his household for him, it is our duty to give him the same kind of reception as we should give to the sender" (Letter to the Ephesians, 6:1). Your mission as spiritual leaders consists, then, in creating the necessary conditions for the faithful to -- citing Saint Ignatius again -- "sing aloud to the Father with one voice through Jesus Christ" (ibid., 4:2), and in this way to make their lives an offering to God.

A "new faith" with which to dialogue?

We have a good and healthy dialogue relationship with the Uniting Church here in the Glorious See of Melbourne. But I am not sure whether to put this one ("New faith throws out the Ten Commandments") under the category of "ecumenism" or "interfaith" relations? And might it not rather be a case which calls from "constructive dialogue and open listening" within the Uniting Church itself?

What I do wonder is what St Michael's is actually up to. Why go to all this expense to evangelise with this "new gospel" (which infact is actually rather dated and not all that "new" these days - Bishop Spong has been preaching it for decades)? I mean, I can understand the reason for proclaiming the gospel of the sacrificial death and resurrection of the only begotten incarnate Son of God to all nations - but if all truth is relative, what's the point in preaching this one particular take on "truth" so enthusiastically?

"Right to define the Universe"?

Related to my recent blogging on the right to hold your own opinion, true freedom, and the motto of "sentire cum ecclesia", is this statement from the U.S. Supreme Court (PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)):

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

May I humbly submit that the degree to which you believe that statement represents the degree to which you are not yet ready to begin "thinking with the Church"?

And may I further submit that it also represents the degree to which you are unable to come to terms with the sheer objective nature of reality?

Sentire Cum Ecclesia and Subservience in the New Testament

One of the charges laid against me by the editor and commentators over at that other place, is that by adopting the motto "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" (from St Ignatius Loyola meaning "to think with the Church") I have become "subservient". This has become quite abusive at times - in one piece of personal correspondence, I was accused of "sucking up" to the hierarchy.

Lately, through teaching my adult education class on Paul, I have become aware of how pervasive the language of "slavery" and "freedom" is in the New Testament. With this goes a whole category of words - "master/lord", "service", "submit" etc. All these are an original and authentic part of the Christian picture, but which have hardly any "Sitz-im-Leben" today. Cognates of the verb douleuo ("to serve as a slave") and the noun doulos (a "slave") occur about 170 times in the NT, fairly equally spread through out all the books and authors of the NT. In fact the only books in which the words do not occur are 2 Thessalonians and 1-3 John.

Modern translations tend to mask the use of the words "slave" and "slavery" by using cognates of "service" and "minister" - but the latter refer to the word group belonging to diakonos ("servant") and diakonia ("service"). These words are also common in the NT (about 100 times), and are equally spread throughout the NT, being unused in only 1 and 2 Thessalonians, James, 1-3 John, and Jude. Sometimes the two word groups are used as synonyms, but the fact remains that doulos in every instance means "slave", as in "bought and owned by a Master/Lord".

And here is the interesting thing: Paul regularly describes himself as a "slave of Jesus Christ". A word search of the Greek NT for verses which use Christos and doulos/douleuo and its cognates together gives a result of no less than 20 results (16 of these in the Pauline letters)! Among these are:

Rom 1:1 Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ... (compare to Gal 1:10, Phil 1:1, Col 4:12 Titus 1:1, James 1:1, 2 Pet 1:1, Jude 1, Rev 1:1)

1 Cor 7:22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.

2 Cor 4:5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Master (Kyrios = "Lord"), with ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake.

Eph 6:5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ.

From these passages it is fairly clear that Paul regards the relationship of the Christian to Jesus as a akin to that of a slave to his master/lord. In fact, perhaps we have lost what it means even to call Jesus "Lord", because we have lost what it means to be his "slave".

All this is, of course, in the context of the great freedom which a Christian has. In his commentary on Galatians, Betz remarks that freedom is the central characteristic of the relationship of the Christian before God. Paul is emphatic in Gal 5:1 "For FREEDOM, Christ has set you free; therefore do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." The paradox is that Paul regards being in slavery to the Lord Jesus as the TRUE FREEDOM. It brings to mind John Donne's wonderful lines: "Take me to you, imprison me, for I, / Except you'enthrall me, never shall be free, / Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me."

But how about this passage from Paul:

Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be slaves of one another.

My friend Brian Coyne criticises me for an attitude of subservience towards those who are in authority in the Church of Christ. Apparently this is beneath my dignity as a free thinking individual. But having reminded us that we are called by God to FREEDOM, Paul exhort us not to use our FREEDOM to indulge the "flesh" but to submit to one another as slaves .

One could compare this with the infamous passage in Ephesians 5:21ff, where Paul exhorts husbands and wives to "submit themselves to one another in the fear of Christ". Just as it is necessary for unity in the Sacrament of Marriage that husbands and wives do not "lord it over" one another, but willing submit themselves to one another, so it is in the Church. We submit ourselves to those in authority over us. Those in authority also, acting in the place of Christ, msut also do as he did and must take on the form of a slave, to become (in Gregory the Great's immortal phrase) "Servi Servorum Dei", ie. SLAVES of the SLAVES of [the MASTER] God (nb. Latin servus equals Greek doulos, Latin minister equals Greek diakonos).

So much for my reflections on this matter. One cannot begin to understand the attitude of "sentire cum ecclesia" if one has no knowledge of or familiarity with Holy Scripture. May I humbly suggest that this might just be one deficiency in the formation of some of our friends commenting on the forum at that other place?

Not running from a challenge: Two New Posts on Year of Grace

Well, I've thrown down the gauntlet, as Roy and H.G. would say, to Cliffy and Co. and bared all once again in two new entries on my Year of Grace retro-blog from my conversion journal of 2000-2001 (although why anyone would be interested in all this self-centred drivel, I have no idea).

Here are the links:

Recalling the Summit held on March 9th, 2001

Monday, 19th March, 2001: In which I turn 34, have a final interview with the President, check out mass at my new parish, and receive letters

They're still on about me on Catholica...

Imagine what it is like having a group of people you don't know engaging in an entire conversation about you in your hearing without including you in the conversation. It's a bit bizarre, but that's what's going on over on Catholica at the moment. I can't join the conversation because I am not a member of their little "members only" club. Of course, they are welcome to come over here and add a comment to this blog, or even email me on cumecclesia@yahoo.com.au, but I think it is a bit rich. Brian at least usually writes to me when he has something to say about me on his blog to give me right of reply. He hasn't done so on this occasion. I have relied on other readers of this blog to inform me of what is happening over there.

My favourite comment so far (pro-Schutz) comes from George Haydock who writes:

Whoah . . . let's not get carried away here.

David demonstrates plenty of his religious heritage in his blog - like honesty, betraying his feelings, evangelical fervour, a respect for reason. "Catholic" shouldn't mean being snide towards others who don't demonstrate the prevalent Romano-Celtic-Oz cultural traits, or looking down on others because of the friends they might appear to keep.

I have no wish to offend or judge anyone here. Like John Henry Newman, David has probably already learned in quids that the mob he defected to are just as good at punishing him as the mob he defected from.

Let him go with our blessings and good will.

Good on ya, George! And thanks too to Perry for speaking up against "Alan's" attack on my homiletical skills:

I admit to being easily impressed by a good sermon. Based solely on this sermon, I am impressed with this individual's incredibly good judgment. By that, I mean his jumping ship to Rome, where he can deliver such homilies with hardly any fear of being called to task for his poor preaching.

I have to say, Alan, that I’m not overly-impressed with your grasp of facts. David delivered the sermon as a Lutheran minister to a Lutheran congregation. Far from “jumping ship” to a church where he can deliver such homilies with no fear of being called to task, he has jumped ship to a church where he cannot deliver homilies at all. He had to give up priestly ministry in order to become a Catholic and, even if you do not agree with his theological perspectives and don’t like his preaching style, I think you should consider whether showing respect for someone’s honesty, integrity and willingness to make real sacrifices in order to follow his conscience is more important than combining clever but ultimately cheap sneers at David Schutz and the Catholic church.

But I am most surprised - and most offended - that Brian Coyne himself would stoop to this low comment:

Where I have a big problem is that David waltzes into the Catholic Church with his very conservative theology and ideology — and he is given a secure job because of the ideology he expresses. I can count many people who have been faithful Catholics since birth — some of them prominent members of Catholica but many elsewhere who are treated like shit, literally left to starve because they will not play the "yes, Sir, no, Sir, three bags full , Sir, game" that Catholicism has become. I do have a criticism of David in that I think he is a master of that game... I have deep, deep misgivings of David's suitability in the position he holds publicly in the institution. Is he there because of his "loyalty" and willingness to play what I dub "the Nerny, Nerny" game where everybody runs around trying to play this game that Catholics are "king of the castle" and everybody else on earth are heretics, sinners or "the inferior" or does he occupy the position on merit and his experience and qualifications. There is a stench in the Catholic Church in this country today of "jobs for the boys" — people who will not question. People who make archbishop's "look good" in the eyes of Rome and who couldn't give the slightest toss for the real spiritual and social welfare of the vast masses in a modern society like the one we have here in Australia.

I was NOT employed in my current post "because of the ideology [I] express". I was employed by the Commission (not the Archbishop) after due interview process because of my years of previous work in the ecumenical life in this state, in particular on the Victorian Council of Churches (of which I had been an executive member, a long term member of the Faith and Order Commission, and chaired the committee overseeing the revisioning process in the 2000). I obtained this (originally part time) position through interview process over a number of other candidates. I was employed because of my theological qualifications and experience. I was never offered employment as an incentive for conversion, and worked on part time jobs (including parish music director and a state school librarian) for some years before being fully employed by the Archdiocese. In fact, I had fully resigned all my roles in the Lutheran Church and without new employment right up until my final week in Lutheran ministry. The fact of the matter is that I do my job very very well, thank you very much, and have a proven track record of building strong and enduring relationships across the board in numerous communities of Christians and other religions here in Victoria. Only on very few occasions have I ever experienced any negative reaction to the way I approach interfaith and ecumenical relationships. Most people react positively to the fact that at least in me they are given the respect of being treated openly and honestly and always with good humour. May I ask, Cliffy and Brian, whether you think something like the Interfaith Youth Pilgrimage "just happened"? Believe me, Cliffy, you need more than "delicacy" to organise youth from nine different religious groups to act together in this way and come out of it smiling! Interfaith relations is not all tea and biscuits!

AS for Brian's insinuation that I am "subserviant" - I hardly know how to respond to such an amazingly insulting and ridiculous idea. Again Brian implies that I have not replied to his challenge to defend the dictum "Sentire cum ecclesia" because of some inability on my part. All that keeps me from responding immediately is that I wish to do justice to the topic (and the topic is a huge one) - but the task he has set me is not unlike trying to prove to a blind man that there is a mountain in front of him...

And am I alone in finding Brian's scatological language just a little bit demeaning of the conversation? Brian, however anyone else has treated you, I have have never treated you as a "door mat". Please do not treat me like a toilet.

As for Helen's comment:

I checked David's blog and it really does puzzle me why some people think that their every thought and movement is riveting news to the rest of the world

I don't force anyone to read it what I write. But you visited my site and read some of it, didn't you? Believe it or not, but there are many people out there who like to read conversion stories, mainly because they find the evidence of God working in the lives of others an encouragement that he might also work in theirs.

The J.G. Schütz Family Coat of Arms

There is a discussion on the Hermeneutic of Continuity about coats of arms for priests. He has a picture of one on his blog, and a commentator has pointed out that Fr Z has his own crest.

I am no expert in the area, but I did listen to the papal heraldic expert in an interview with Fr Mitch Pacwa a year or so ago which was perfectly fascinating. Apparently everyone and anyone can have a coat of arms made up for themselves and their family, as long as the local civil law does not forbid it. For eg. the legal right to a coat of arms is restricted in the United Kingdom, but not in the US, or, as far as I know, in Australia.

Which leads me to this interesting fact: My family has a coat of arms. Back in 1985, when we were celebrating 130 years since my great great great grandfather Johann Gottfried Schütz came to this country, the attempt was made to find a Schütz coat of arms. Research in "the old country" (aka Der Vaterland) turned up no less than 26 separate Schütz coats of arms. Not being able to lay claim to any of these exclusively, the family (about 5000 of us at the time, must be twice that since) decided to register their own unique coat of arms. And this is it:



The meaning can be explained as follows:

The blue southern cross on the right hand side is obvious enough: it represents Australia. However, the Southern Cross also stands for our family's Christian (read "Lutheran") faith, while the blue stands for peace.

On the other side is an image that occurs in many Schütz crest (naturally enough since "Schütz" means "Archer/Shooter"), the bow an arrow. I can't remember why the bow and arrow are gold, but the red background represents the difficulty, war and trouble which beset the family in Silesia (actually, in one version, the red is said to stand for the religious persecution the Old Lutherans experienced in Prussia, but by 1855 most of the religious trouble which originally forced the emigration of many of my other Silesian ancestors from the years 1838 and following was over). After decades of European warfare, the continual peace experienced in Australia must have seemed a dream. The three arrows represent 1) the laying down of arms (the arrow pointing down), 2) migration to Australia (the arrow pointing to the right), and 3) hope in God (the arrow pointing up to heaven).

Back to the program with Fr Mitch on EWTN, the Heraldic expert even spoke about deacons having coats of arms. He said that the two aspects that appeared on every diaconal shield was the upper half marked with a diagonal stripe representing the deacons stole, and, in place of the hat above the shield, a ciborium draped in the humeral veil.

Thus, I imagine that if I were ever to achieve the exalted rank of deacon in the Church, a coat of arms could look something like this:



Of course, the interesting thing is that in contradistinction to a priest's or a bishop's coat of arms, the deacon's children would be entitled to inherit his.

When Too Much Pope Is Hardly Enough: Benedict in France

What a stack of stuff has eminated from the Holy Father's trip to France for the 150th Celebrations at Lourdes. I haven't had a chance to read any of it yet, but I am putting aside my current reading to churn through it. Looks like there might well be some very good stuff there. Here is Zenit's listing:

Papal Message Ahead of France Trip [2008-09-10]"I Go As a Messenger of Peace and Fraternity"

Pope's Message to Expo on Water [2008-09-10]"An Essential and Indispensable Good"

Pope's Address to French Politicians [2008-09-12]"All of Human Society Needs Hope"

Benedict XVI on the Roots of European Culture [2008-09-12]"Christian Worship Is an Invitation to Sing With the Angels"

Pontiff's Greeting to Jewish Delegation [2008-09-12]"To Be Anti-Semitic Also Meant to Be Anti-Christian"

Pope's Vespers Address at Notre Dame [2008-09-13]"Nothing Can Be Too Beautiful for God"

Benedict XVI's Address to French Youth [2008-09-13]"The Spirit Is Our Indispensable Guide"

Press Conference With the Pope [2008-09-13]"I Am Going to Find the Love of the Mother"

Papal Address at French Institute [2008-09-13]"Science Without Conscience Brings Only Ruin"

Papal Homily at Mass in Paris [2008-09-13]"Never Does God Ask Man to Sacrifice Reason"


Papal Address at End of Torchlight Procession [2008-09-14]"Lourdes Is Chosen by God for His Beauty to Be Reflected"

Benedict XVI's Homily in Lourdes [2008-09-14]"The Church Invites Us Proudly to Lift Up This Glorious Cross"

Pontiff's Address to French Bishops [2008-09-14]"Let Us Strive Always to Be Servants of Unity"

On the Nearness of Our Lady [2008-09-14]"Mary's Purity Makes Her Infinitely Close to Our Hearts"

As Oscar Wilde Said...

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." A perfect expression of the blogger's mentality!

So, I don't mind being talked about on the Catholica discussion board, but, as anyone knows me or who has engaged in conversation with me on this blogsite, "Cliffy" has really got the wrong end of the stick and started hitting himself over the head with it!

He's tracked down my Year of Grace blog, which, as regular readers know, is the diary I kept during the year in which I converted from the Lutheran Church to the Catholic Church. He writes:

Having offended his Lutheran president and blogged private correspondence & the details of his marital circumstances, and told his Lutheran congregation just how wrong they are about the Reformation, David takes flight as a born again Catholic devotee commissioned by Archbishop Hart to work on interfaith communications with his own blogspot? I'm sure he's a charismatic fellow, but is this wise?

Well, every word of my Year of Grace blog is exactly as I wrote it as it happened, Cliffy. [Having just re-read Cliffy's comments, is he under the impression that I blogged this back in 2000? They didn't even have blogs then, did they? "Cliffy", it is a RETRO-blog, OK?] It is the account of how a particlar individual experienced a particular change in life situation - warts and all. Peter Costello's book couldn't be more revealing and honest. The only difference is that I have only ever used the names of the people involved with their permission - only initials or the name of the office (eg. "the president") appear otherwise. I think the inclusion of actual letters in the account is quite revealing - it shows what was actually going on. If you write something, you must always be prepared that one day it will end up on the net...!

I have correspondents who have been in similar conversion and marriage situations to me. They find it very helpful to find that they are not alone, and that others have faced these situations and these hurdles. That is the main reason why I decided to blog my conversion diary from 2000-2001.

As for the wisdom and prudence of doing so? Well, at least I can say I have nothing to hide! When you get David Schütz you know what you are getting. I will say that it has now been eight years since these events, and the officials in office have long moved on. And I have a friendly relationship with the current president of the LCA-Victorian District. In fact, I dropped in for coffee with him in his office just the other morning. They know me, and I know them. You, "Cliffy", don't know either.

So, to take the whole conversion thing as an indication that I am "anti-Lutheran" or "un-ecumenical" is a load of rubbish. I have a picture of Blessed Dr Martin (aka the Arch-heritic) on the wall above me as I write (probably the only office in the Archdiocese which does), and still refer to myself as "a Lutheran in Communion with Rome" and to the church of my wife and family as "my Church-in-Law". I think I have a better understanding of the Lutheran Church than "Cliffy" any way.

My hopes for ecumenical rapprochement are not based on the "lets all just be nice to each other" theory or methodology, but on the idea that we really have to get to know each other and to understand what each one is saying - AND seek the truth of the matter together. I became a Catholic because I thought that it mattered. If I didn't, I wouldn't have. That is in no way a put down of those who remain Lutheran, or Anglican or Maptocostal Angloholic because they think THAT matters. In fact, it is pointless having dialogue with someone who does not think that truth matters at all. And it might surprise you to find that Lutherans in this country appreciate that sort of attitude in a dialogue partner.

Anyway, dear Reader, take a look at "Cliffy's" comments yourself, and tell me what you think of his criticisms. Does the mud stick?