Getting a handle on PE's Ecclesiology

In the combox to the previous posting, Past Elder expounds further on his reasons for rejecting the ("Roman") Catholic Church and for criticising what he calls "the new religion", ie. the Post-Vatican II Catholic Church.

We've treated this topic before (eg. here), of course, and you may wonder why I (and he) keep coming back to it. From my point of view it is because a) I am still trying to get a handle on the rationality or logic of his argument, and, more importantly, b) because his accusation is a profound challenge to me personally. He himself has said as much:

But thanks for yet another, as if more were needed, confirmation of why I am not Roman Catholic any more, or rather, why Roman Catholic no longer exists to be any more. If you had headed East, at least you would have found Orthodoxy...

So in nuce, I'm not saying here you ought to drop this crap and resume your call to the Office of Holy Ministry (though as a Lutheran I say you should), I am saying here that, unlike our converts to Orthodoxy who get Orthodoxy when they convert, what a convert to Roman Catholicism gets when they convert, speaking as one who once believed that religion, is nothing but a barge of bilge lying peddled under the same name and while I would now question your decision, nonetheless if Roman Catholicism is what you want then run from this pile of dung precisely because what you want is Roman Catholicism.

So you see, I can't leave this alone. It is not that I have to answer PE. It is that I have to answer myself, and I myself have to take into account what happened in the Catholic Church post-Vatican II.

Another thing to add, of course, is that I did not become a Catholic seeking the "pre-Vatican II" Church. The only Church that I knew then, and indeed, the only Church that I know now, is the Church of Vatican II (and the other 20 ecumenical councils, of course). It was to this Church that I "converted", or rather, it was this Church that drew me. I don't know if things would have been different if there had never been a Vatican II - that isn't the reality. Certainly, as a Lutheran considering the Catholic Church, I was not aware of the existence of a "hermeneutic of rupture" - I saw only the Church which was established by Jesus Christ founded upon the Rock of the Petrine Ministry and which has existed in continuity ever since.

But in any case, here is PE's case "in nuce":

My position on the postconciliar RCC in re the real RCC derives from the faith I was taught by the RCC, which in turn could not be what I thought it was, the true faith and church of Jesus Christ, since it lost to such a monstrous perversion of it at Vatican II, and there being nothing else with any valid claim to being the true faith and church of Jesus Christ, Christianity itself must then have been false all along. Hence twenty years as a Righteous of the Nations.

Of course, we thank God that PE was eventually able again to find his faith in Jesus Christ. But I am trying to get a handle on that original impulse to abandon the Church he founded.

I found today a picture - an analogy - which might help. It is in part suggested by the Orthodox theologian John Zizioulos who has suggested that the Catholic Church would benefit from an ecclesiology that was more consciously eschatological. In other words, the Church (and indeed the Eucharist, which is the basis for this ecclesiology as in most Orthodox reflection on the Church - it realies greatly on the image of the Marriage Feast of the Lamb from the book of Revelation) is a present reality that ultimately gets its real being from the future goal of the eschaton. This contrasts to the rather "backward looking" emphasis of the Catholic Church which usually emphasises the founding of the Church, the apostolicity of the Church, and the Succession of the Petrine ministry (as I did above).

From this point of view, we need a picture that connects the "back then" with the "what will be", ie. the future eschatological fulfillment. And thus came to me the analogy of a BRIDGE.

If we view the historical establishment of the Church as one side of a vast chasm, and the Marriage Feast as the other side, then the Church is the concrete (incarnate) structure that spans the chasm. From one point of view, this chasm is already spanned - the "suspension ropes" are already in place, so to speak, which support the bridge as it is being built, but from an historical point of view, the bridge is still a work in progress. Stone by stone, the permanent structure is being constructed upon which the People of God can journey step by historical step toward the goal of the other side of the chasm.

Now, the curious thing about this Church-Bridge is that the builders use what comes to hand at the time, and build in the style that seems appropriate to the times. (Visually, it would be a very odd structure indeed!). But it is important to stress that it is one single structure heading in one single direction. There have been times in the History of the Church when the bridge is built with shoddy materials and with shoddy workmanship. But it has always been in the nature of the Church (the Bridge Builders) to go back and patch up the dodgy spots, to repair mistakes, and to press on with the task at hand.

One recent "dodgy spot", we would all agree, was the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. In the long history of the Church, 40 years is not a long time, nor is it in the span of this bridge, but the workmanship in this time has definitely been of such shoddiness that many have lost their footing and fallen. Still a great many have maintained the project, and today we are in a period when the shoddy workmanship of the last 40 years is being repaired and strengthened in line with the whole structure from the beginning.

But let us think back to those who, like PE, found themselves on the dodgy work, with planks missing and sometimes deliberately removed. What to do?

The options were limited. You could have tried to start the project all over again from the beginning (sort of like some Reformation sects attempting to "get back to the NT"). You could have tried to start a new bridge in mid air - half way across the Chasm (sort of like the Sedevacantists). Or you could do what PE did. You look back at the Bridge that has brought you safe thus far, and say: what a load of crap this bridge is. It looked so solid, but now it is dodgy and unsafe. It doesn't look as if it will ever reach the other side - and more to the point, I see now that it never was going to. It was always only ever "half a bridge" - which is useless. It has left me hanging in mid air. So I think I will just jump off from here.

Mmm. That's the way it seemeth to me, anyway.

In my case, however, I looked at the whole Bridge. I looked at the people who were working on it now, repairing the past damage and building a sure and certain path into the future. I looked at the suspension ropes that were still in place linking the Bridge-in-progress (the Now but Not Yet Bridge) to the other side (the promises of our Lord, the Eucharist etc.) and I thought: This Bridge is going to get there. In fact, it is the only Bridge that has even a hope of ever reaching the other side. Even if it were just a ricketty suspension bridge of rotting planks and ropes, I would still use it. In short, eschatologically speaking, it is a real Bridge - not because it is a glorious and beautiful structure, but because it is the only Bridge that will ever cover the entire span.

So I stick with it. I never had a head for heights or bungie-jumping. I am sticking with the Bridge Builder. (Which, coincidentally in Latin, is Pontifex).

John Allen publishes the Propositions of the Synod in English

If you have been waiting for all the propositions from the Synod of Bishops on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church in English, you can stop holding your breath, because here they are thanks to the girls and boys at National Catholic Reporter and especially the one bright boy of the pack, John L. Allen Jnr.

"Archaeologists dig up dirt on Luther"?

So proclaims the headline in Cathnews today. Story and comments follow:

German archaeologists have stoked controversy by unearthing evidence that Reformation leader Martin Luther lived well and did not die as a pauper as commonly believed. [Who ever thought that? We all know he lived in a big house (the old Wittenberg Augustinian monastery), had tons of kids (whom he presumably fed well enough), ate well (just look at the portraits of the "young Luther" as a monk compared the "late Luther" after Katie had been feeding him for 20 years!), and enjoyed a beer as much if not better than the next bloke.]

The Taipei Times [Taipei??? You've got to be joking. Wasn't there a source for this story closer to home? Nb. The byline in the Taipei Times says the story comes from the Guardian in London.]reports German scientists have reconstructed a detailed picture of the domestic life of Martin Luther by trawling through his household waste uncovered during archeological digs on sites where he used to live.

Beer tankards, grains of corn, cooking pots, his wife's wedding band and even his toilet are among the finds dug up during the five year project in the three places in Germany he spent his life. [Yep, well, those items would pretty well sum up his domestic and health life... But that all seems pretty normal to me... not evidence of being "flush with cash".]

But the Protestant Church in Wittenberg has called "religiously irrelevant" the evidence that the peace loving family used to throw dead cats into the rubbish bin [what else do you do with a dead cat?] and that the nails Luther used to secure his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg - which led to his excommunication from the Catholic Church and launched the reformation - were in fact drawing pins [Um? They found the NAILS he used to post the 95 Theses? That might just start a Lutheran relic frenzy! Anyway, I guess if the Church door was the local notice board, the "nails" could be called "pins" - but you would still need a hammer to get them into the thick oak!].

"We've been able to reconstruct whole chapters of his life's history," said Harald Meller, one of the main researchers. [Good for them. Not as if we were short on info though.]

Protestants from around the world were expected to flock to an exhibition at the history museum in Halle, where the best of the discoveries are to go on display starting on Friday. [Like I said - the new collection will rival those of the Elector's at the Castle Church on All Saints Day 1517. Listen out for the sound of a Luther's ghost hammering drawing pins into the notice board of the Halle Museum...]

Despite the widespread belief that Luther lived in poverty, evidence suggests he was a well fed man, weighing a hefty 150 kilograms when he died in 1546 at the age of 63. [Have these guys never heard the German saying "As fat as Martin Luther"?]

The most extensive research carried out at the family home in Wittenberg showed that Luther wrote his celebrated texts with goose quills under lamps lit by animal fat, in a heated room, which overlooked the River Elbe. [When he wasn't in the Wartburg Castle throwing inkpots or down at the printers shop correcting providing material as quick as the printer could print it.]

It debunks something of the Luther myth to know he wrote the 95 theses on a stone toilet, which was dug up in 2004. [Que? He wrote them on a stone toilet? It takes some imagination to picture him then using drawing pins to fix the stone toilet to the Wittenberg Church door... I think what they mean is that in 2004 the stone dunny in the Luther home was dug up, and that LUTHER was on this toilet when he wrote the 95 Theses. And to correct even THAT story, we need to point out that Luther said he was on the toilet when he realised his principle of JUSTIFICATION, NOT when he composed the 95 Theses. Good grief, journalists garble stories some times...]

On being a (Scriptural) Theologian

One of the really odd things that struck me when I left the little pond known as the Lutheran Church of Australia for the big ocean of the Catholic Church was how often I came across Scripture scholars teaching in our Catholic institutions who would begin their address by saying "I'm not a theologian, but..."

Que? That didn't compute with my Lutheran theological education. When I did my humble Bachelor's degree in Theology, I did two years each of biblical Hebrew and Greek. This was followed up by at least three exegetical studies in each of Old and New Testament books. Suffice it to say, that "Sola Scriptura" meant that even in Dogmatic (or what was known as Systematic) Theology, the first qualification was to be a Scriptural theologian.

So what gives? Why have Catholic Scripture scholars universally given up the right to call themselves "theologians"? This is the very essence of an issue raised at the current Synod of Bishops on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church - by no less a personage than the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, himself:

Where exegesis is not theology, Scripture cannot be the soul of theology and, vice versa, when theology is not essentially the interpretation of the Scripture in the Church, this theology has no foundation anymore.

Therefore for the life and the mission of the Church, for the future of faith, this dualism between exegesis and theology must be overcome. Biblical theology and systematic theology are two dimensions of the one reality, what we call Theology.

And the bishops have listened! The new propositions have taken this issue very seriously in four of the propositions:

25. Need two levels in research exegetical
26. Enlarging the prospects of the current study exegetical
27. Overcoming dualism between theology and exegesis
28. Dialogue between exegetes, theologians and pastors

As soon as a proper English text is available, I will put up some of this material.

Synod on the Word "Boring"?

Yes, well, His Eminence George Cardinal Pell may have described the Synod of Bishops on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church (which closed on Sunday) as "least interesting" of all the synods he has attended, but that is only judging by the "Crittenden Criteria" that to be interesting religious news has to be controversial.

But things will really become interesting when (and, sad to say, IF) the fruits of the last three weeks find their way into the life of the Church.

I am currently working through the Synod Propositions (currently only available in Italian, but you can use Google Translation to come up with a tolerably readable text). I am only half way through, but there are some very interesting suggestions for liturgy, catechesis and exegetical/theological study.

In particular:

1) The proposal for a CDF study of "inspiration and the truth of the Bible" which highlights the particular Catholic hermeneutic of scripture.

2) The proposal (#14) of giving a special "visible place of honour" to the book of the Scriptures "within the church." Lutheran Churches used to (not so common any more) have an open copy of the Scriptures always upon the altar itself facing the people. I don't think that is a good idea (the altar is the table of the Eucharist, not of the word), but why not in association with the Ambo from which the Word is proclaimed? Of course, it is usually the Lectionary or the Gospel book that usually has pride of place there. But it is something to think about.

3) The proposal for a true "gospel procession" (#14) being reinstituted in the ceremony of the Liturgy of the Word - perhaps along the line of the Eastern rites?

4) The suggestion originally made by Archbishop Mark Coleridge for a "Homiletical Directory" is taken up in proposition #15.

5) The suggestion (#16) for a revision of the Lectionary ditching the forced connection currently existing between the Old Testament reading and the Gospel. This would be very opportune.

6) The suggestion of promoting the ministry of women in the reading of scripture in the liturgy. I haven't seen the latin text, so I don't know if the Synod is actually proposing that ordination to the office of "Lector" should be open to women. I would be surprised by this and even more surprised if the Holy Father actually agrees with this suggestion.

7) Work on the Sunday "celebrations of the word of God" so as to prevent confusion with teh Eucharistic liturgy (#18)

8) An official "simple form of the Liturgy of the Hours" for laity (#19)

9) support for "small ecclesial communities" (#21). This would have to be handled carefully given the history of BEC's in the church, but could be beneficial.

10) I am glad that suggestions for devotional reading of scripture are much broader than the classical "lectio divina" every one talks so much about today. (#22)

11) The emphasis on the connection between Catechesis and Scripture (#23) suggests that there should be a kind of Post-RCIA course following baptism especially deepening the newly baptised adult's connection with scripture and the catechism.

12) A number of propositions directly addressing the catastrophic division between academic scriptural exegetical study and the study of theology (#24-28).

That last mentioned set of propositions could, in the end, be the most significant outcome for the whole Synod. I had started to blog on this but didn't finish the entry. I will get around to it.

I expect that the propositions will be available on Zenit in English by tomorrow.

On Homilies and the Sunday Eucharist: A little reminder of why I am Catholic...

...and the fact that being Catholic doesn't solve everything.

Years ago, one of the catalysts that set me on the road to Rome was the fact that I could not always be certain, when attending a Lutheran Church on Sunday, that I would get the Eucharist. Often, what was served up in place of the ancient liturgy of the Church was some home made didactic "liturgy".

What I could generally be certain of was getting a good sermon which proclaimed the Gospel accompanied by good hymns and music.

On the other hand, as a Catholic, I can always be assured that I will get the Eucharist on Sunday, generally without too much alteration to the set piece.

What I can never be assured of is hearing a homily that actually proclaims the Paschal Mystery of what God has done in Jesus Christ.

This is a real problem, but one that I think could be rectified (it is certainly a major theme at the current Synod of Bishops in Rome - hopefully we will see some improvement in Catholic preaching in years to come as a result). Also, one always hears the readings from scripture proclaimed well, and if one is listening, the Gospel is there. And certainly the Paschal Mystery is truly present in the valid celebration of the Eucharist.

So I generally swallow my concern and console myself with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist if not in the Homily.

But last night I finally realise that perhaps one reason Catholic homilies are so bad is that we rarely give our priests any feedback on how they are doing. So I decided (in the Spirit of the Synod of Bishops) that I am not going to listen to another bad homily (or a good one for that matter) without offering the homilist some constructive but critical feed back.

I made this decision after returning from the Vigil Mass in the town we are currently visiting while on camp with my wife's Lutheran parish. The Gospel (as you will known) was on Matthew 22:34-40, the question of the Greatest Commandment. The message of this pericope, according to the homilist, was simple: if you don't love yourself you can't love others. So, Jesus is telling you to love yourself.

In short, it was pop psychology without an ounce of Gospel in it. About half way through I thought to myself: "If he doesn't say at least once in this sermon something along the lines of St John's epistle (1 Jn 4:19) that we love others because God first loved us, I'm going to have a word with him afterwards." Well, it didn't happen. No where in the entire homily did he say anything about God at all really, let alone Jesus or what God has done through Jesus for us. Very, very sad. I often have protestant friends who say that Catholics just don't get the Gospel, and, while I must affirm that no-one gets the Gospel like the Catholic Church, in the case of a very large number of individual Catholics, they are tragically right.

After the mass, the priest was engaged in conversation with parishioners and I had to get back to camp for tea, so I sent him my comments by email.

But in case I was getting to nostalgic for Lutheranism, I was brought up against the hard reality this morning. Although we have one of the parish pastors with us at the camp, this morning, instead of a Eucharist, they had a children's hour of scripture and song (piloting their new Sunday School program). It was very enjoyable, but it wasn't liturgy let alone Eucharist. Why? I don't know. While the Lutheran Church get's Liturgy and the Lord's Supper, perhaps individual Lutherans just don't get the idea that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith and without the Sunday Eucharist we would die.

So, there you have it. No perfect experience of the Una Sancta this weekend. I am Catholic because their Eucharist is authentic and the Truth may be found there - not because it is a perfect human institution. I stopped being Lutheran because I couldn't find the Eucharist in the Lutheran Church - not because they didn't preach the Gospel clearly and purely.

In any case, in the new year we will receive a new parish priest in my home parish. I will inform him of my new "sermon criticism" apostolate as soon as he arrives.

Rattling the bones - or the potential transplant organs at least...

Have you noticed how rattled the Live Organ Transplant Industry is becoming over the latest questioning of their practices? I say "live organ" because a dead organ is good to no one. Whether the patient to whom those organs belong is dead or not is the matter under discussion...

On Thursday, Dr Nick Tonti-Filippini (of our local John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family fame) had an op-ed piece in The Age "Why I have refused a renal transplant for 20 years". He began this column by saying:

THE claims made by Associate Professor James Tibballs about brain death — reported in The Age this week — are well founded and are not a threat to organ donation as some have claimed.

Yet the Industry is running scared (is that how you spell "scared"? Or is it "scarred"? Perhaps both might be appropriate in this context...). In today's edition of The Age, there is a letter from the members of ANZICS. No, not the boys from Gallipoli, but the Australian & New Zealand Intensive Care Society. The letter is headed "Brain Death Facts". Here is a part of it:

WE WRITE to correct misinformation and vigorously disagree with Nicholas Tonti-Filippini (Comment & Debate, 23/10).

First, the Australian & New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) has clearly stated that when X-rays have shown a devastating brain injury, brain death can be determined by clinical testing with 100% accuracy. ANZICS also provides clarity on those circumstances when brain blood flow imaging is required to diagnose brain death.

Second, the determination of death by clinical testing of brain function does comply with Australian law.

...The public can have full confidence in the determination of brain death. ANZICS believes that it is unethical for others to raise doubt in the public mind regarding the certainty of the determination of death.

So, there you have it. Once again we have the assurance: You know you are dead when the law says you are dead.

Dr Tonti-Filippini, in his article, suggested that:

Death of the brain stem alone is not death. Diagnosis of death requires evidence of the damage to the other parts of the brain such that all function of the brain is destroyed. I advise families to ask for an image showing loss of blood supply to the brain. They can then be confident that death has occurred.

The ANZICS boys respond:

Fifth, it would be unethical and unnecessary to submit every patient to a brain blood flow scan simply to show the patient's family a picture.

Why? Because it would use up precious time when we need to get access to those living organs.

Now will everyone just please shut up about people not being dead when we start chopping them up and just let us get on with the job? Afterall, we ARE the doctors. Not you.

Introducing Martin Johannessen: Budding Journalist

I had a very enjoyable lunch today with a young friend by the name of Martin Johannessen. Martin is a Norwegian Lutheran studing journalism at RMIT and preparing to enter into full communion with the bishop of Rome. As part of his training he maintains a blog on the media called "Media Analysis". Take a look if this sort of thing interests you. You might also want to take a look at this recent article he wrote which was published in Kairos.

Little known fact #136,390: The US version of Douglas Adam's Rory Award

Fans of the late, great (atheist) humourist Douglas Adams will need no explanation when I refer to the "Rory Award", but for the rest of you, I will provide one. The "Rory" is:

a) the Award for the Most Gratuitous Use of the word F--k in a Screenplay
b) the Silver Bail of Peace of the Krikkit Gate

All terribly English - having a lovely poke at the gentility of the English in their love of Cricket and their reluctance to use profanities in polite conversation (as demonstrated by this blog in the fact that I didn't actually use the F word in the phrase above).

I think if I were to award a Rory, it would have to be for the opening lines of the film "Four Weddings and a Funeral", an eminently quotable line if ever there was one.

However, if I were simply awarding an award for the most gratuitous use of any words at all in a review of a play, it would have to go to today's review of the current production of Romeo and Juliet in this morning's edition of The Age by Cameron Woodhead (not online). Cop this sentence:

The style of acting is influenced by Meyerhold, particularly his emphasis on the inextricable entwining of physiology and psychology, with emotion heightened by the mystical impact of gesture.

As Manuel would say: Que?

Oh, and before I forget, little known fact #136,390 is that in the American edition of Adam's "Life, the Universe and Everything", the Rory Award is for the most gratuitous use of the word "Belgium".

I say again: Que?

Junia in Romans 16:7 - Proof that we should ordain women?

Hardly. And there is a great review in Touchstone magazine of a recent book on the subject of Junia, who, according to St Paul, was "well known among the apostles" (Rom 16:7).

I remember when the subject of women's ordination was first debated in the Synod of the Lutheran Church of Australia in 2000, one pastor got up and spoke endlessly trying to prove that "Junias" in Romans was really "Junia" and therefore women should be ordained.

Well, the problem is NOT, as many have often assumed, whether Junia was a woman or not. The universal evidence and agreement, including that of all Catholic tradition, is that she was. The question is what is meant by "outstanding among the apostles", and what consequences (if any) follow upon that fact.

John Hunwicke, in "Junia among the Apostles" spells it all out. It is unlikely that Paul was implying that Junia WAS an apostle, and even if the term could have been applied to her, there is even less logic in the argument that this provides theological support for the ordination of women.

Have a read.

P.S. HT to Dr William Tighe for sending me the original article.

That's telling 'em, Your Excellency! Bishop of Scranton reads the riot act to Catholic forum on Voting

Speaking of organ transplants, you have (surely?) heard the joke about bishops and spinal columns? It seems that Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Scranton in the US got a double transplant at the laying on of hands (which might explain a few things in other dioceses...). (HT to Rocco Palmo for this story)

A bit of back ground. As you probably know (!!!), the yanks are going to the polls in a few days time. The big question Catholics are facing (again, as if you didn't know) is whether Catholics can, with good conscience, vote for the Democrat candidate, Barack Obama - who is "pro-choice" and has a consistent voting record opposed to the Church's "pro-life" stance.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had this to say in their statement "Faithful Citizenship":

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. (my emphasis)

In other words, the Bishops Conference left a loophole for die-hard Democrats to jump through if they really, really wanted to.

The Bishop of Scranton though has other ideas. In a pastoral letter to his diocese (of which he and he alone is pastor and teacher by divine right as bishop) he wrote:

Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”

Well, when he heard that a presidential election forum was being held at St. John’s Catholic Church in his diocese, he decided to attend. Nothing surprising in that - only no-one was expecting him. Nor were they expecting what happened next. Here's a local report on what happened:

Prior to Martino’s arrival, the forum began with four panelists - local businessman Tom Shepstone, University of Scranton professor William Parente, Sister Margaret Gannon of Marywood University and county commissioner Wendell Kay - sharing their views about presidential candidates Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

Shepstone, who supports McCain and focused on abortion, said a vote for Obama will not protect the unborn... Kay, who supports Obama, touched on several national issues, briefly addressing abortion [but pointing out that a vote for the Republicans won't stop abortion]... Parente, who supports McCain, said a vote for Obama “is foolish, although not sinful, for Catholics.”... Sister Gannon, who did not state her candidate preference, cited statements from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) , which say that a political candidate’s position on abortion must be weighed against other moral issues, such as unjust wars or stem-cell research, when it comes time to vote.

And then apparently, copies of "Faithful Citizenship" were distributed - but NOT copies of the Bishop's letter. The story continues:

Martino, who arrived while the panelists were stating their viewpoints, took issue with the USCCB statement, which was handed out to everyone at the meeting, and also that his letter was not mentioned once at the forum.

“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” said Martino. “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.”

“The only relevant document ... is my letter,” he said. “There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”

..."No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people,” he said, nothing that he no longer supports the Democratic Party. “This is madness people.”

Martino also said that he wanted to persuade Father Martin Boylan, of St. John’s, to cancel the forum.

After his comments, most of the audience stood and clapped loudly while some were angry that the bishop usurped the forum.

About a quarter of the audience left after the bishop’s comments, which preceded the last half of the forum, a question and answer session with the panelists. Martino exited shortly after his comments.

For the aftermath, you can see here.

On a similar note, I listened just the other day to a very passionate address (passionate for him, anyway) by Dr Peter Kreeft on the very subject of whether a faithful US Catholic could vote for Obama. The answer? A very simple, very logical, very definite "No". See here for that one.

Kreeft's great quotable quote from the lecture is "I used to be a liberal Democrat. Now I'm a conservative Republican. I haven't changed."

When Democracy cuts its own throat...

To get some sort of handle on what sort of government we, the people of Victoria, have elected, get a load of this story in this morning's edition of The Age: "'Indirect interest' rule slap in face of democracy: Burnside".

There have long been rules prohibiting elected officers in parliaments and local councils from voting on an issue in which they have a "direct" or "indirect" interest. But the "LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (COUNCILLOR CONDUCT AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2008", which was passed in the lower house on October 9th and is now up for review in the Legislative Council, has redefined "indirect interest" to include the following situation:

"A person has an indirect interest in a matter if the person has become an interested party in the matter by--
(a) initiating civil proceedings in relation to the matter or becoming a party to civil proceedings in relation to the matter; or
(b) exercising a right under the common law, an Act or regulation to--
(i) lodge an appeal in relation to the matter; or
(ii) make an objection or submission in relation to the matter.".

Apparently, part A is supposed to relate to civil proceedings at VCAT level (to stop individuals getting elected to local councils to get results which they have failed to achieve in civil litigation) - which may or may not be an infringement of democratic rights - but the second part, part B, relates to just about any issue at all.

Under this proposed law, if you have felt strongly enough about an issue to make a submission on it (as you are entiteld to do as a free citizen under law), and if you then feel so strongly about it that in order to get something done about it you get yourself elected as a councillor, LO AND BEHOLD, you're not allowed to vote on the issue because you have an "indirect interest".

This is Democracy cutting its own throat.

Well, that was boring: What the Religion Report would be like without Stephen Crittenden.

I always assumed that the Religion Report would be improved with the removal of Stephen Crittenden. But this morning's program - completely lacking in any manifestation of the presence of Stephen Crittenden whatsoever - was just plain boring. They just played an edited lecture on "Blasphemy". There was no explanation for Crittenden's absence. And even less explanation of why would would want to hear a lecture on this subject in the car on the way to work in the morning...

So, okay, we all know now that the life of the RR is drawing to a close, and we all know that Crittenden probably deserves to lose his job along with it for the gratuitous remarks that he made about the ABC management last week, but does Aunty need to punish her loyal listeners too?

Have you heard this one: "How do you know when you are dead?"

The Law tells you.

I laughed out loud at the brekkie table this morning when I read this letter from Dr Craig French, director of intensive care, Western Health, Footscray, in The Age (which, for some reason, has been edited in the version on their website - it leaves out the funny bit:

The Victorian community can be reassured that, in our jurisdiction, there is no ambiguity or non-conformity [about when a person is dead]. All organ donors have died - they are not "near dead" or "good as dead". They are dead because section 41 of the Human Tissue Act 1982 provides a clear defintion of death for the purposes of the law in Victoria.

There you are. Isn't that a comfort. Our legislators define what death is and then tell you whether you meet up with their criterion or not so that doctors can start chopping bits out/off of you without fear of prosecution. This would be the same legislative powers that recently claimed to itself the right to define who is and who isn't a person for the sake of protecting doctors from legal prosecution when they decide it is "appropriate" to kill unborn babies.

As they say in the classics, there is a Monty Python skit for everything, and here is today's. Don't click on this if you are easily offended by...well...live organ transplants, I guess.

Some tough questions from Fr Michael Casey OCSO

This morning the employees of the agencies of the Melbourne Archdiocese benefited from a presentation by local Cistercian monk and scholar, Fr Michael Casey, from Tarrawarra Abbey about 60km away from here in the Yarra Valley.

He finished his presentation by posing some reflection questions for us. Here are three of them:

- Have I asked myself recently what are the really important things in my life, my relationships, my work?

- Do I ever reflect on the quality of my time as distinct fromthe quantity available? Does the URGENT displace the IMPORTANT?

- Do I act as though the way I spend my time is totally outside the sphere of personal choice? Am I a slave to perceived or actual obligations?

These are tough questions if we take them seriously. Perhaps slightly related to that is the reaction I had to one of the Catholics Come Home videos I saw this morning (the "Movie" one) which ended with this hope: that at the end of my life God will say to me "Well done, good and faithful servant." It only struck me when I heard that that this is indeed my greatest desire in life. Something to think about.

Some more good stuff - on turning around Religious life

Early this year the general congregation of the Society of Jesus took place in Rome. We all hoped that it might mark a turn around for this once great order and a recommittment to the intention of their founder that they "think with the Church". Alas, despite pleading from Cardinal Rode (prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life) and from the Holy Father himself, they remained determined to continue to head down a path the path of discontinuity and rupture.

Well, there has been a big meeting in the States on "Apostolic Religious Life since Vatican II ... Reclaiming the Treasure: Bishops, Theologians, and Religious in Conversation", and two papers from this meeting are of especial interest.

One is from Sister Sara Butler, she of "The Catholic Priesthood and Women" fame, and also current observer at the Synod of Bishops in the Vatican. Her address was entitled "Apostolic Religious Life: A public, ecclesia vocation". While she is addressing the situation in the Religious Orders since Vatican Two, her paper is in fact applicable to all Catholics. In this sense, the religious communities are akin to the "canary in the coal mine" - but I think we are far beyond the canary stage by now - we can all smell the gas...

Sister Butler gets into the swing about half way through her talk when she discusses the "opposition" that has grown up between "Commitment to Social Justice and the Direct Proclamation of the Gospel". She goes on to address "Competing Ecclesiologies" and "Polarization: Hierarchically-Structured Church vs. Discipleship of Equals". Check this out:

We have no reason to promise obedience to God unless we believe that the person who exercises authority does so in his name. If we accept the authority of the hierarchy we do have reason to do this because we understand that the authority the religious superior exercises "proceeds from the Spirit of the Lord" through the hierarchy, that is, because the Bishop or the Holy See "has granted canonical erection to the institute and authentically approved its specific mission." We accept the authority of the hierarchy -- its teaching authority and jurisdiction -- because we believe that Jesus Christ entrusted his ministry to them. This is part of our faith in the Church as the unique mediator of salvation. This is what justifies our decision to imitate the saving obedience of Jesus by surrendering our wills to another whom we confidently believe mediates God's will to us.

Her best line, one worth remembering, in the whole address is her suggestion that "the crisis of "followership" is just as problematic as the crisis of leadership". As Brian Coyne never tires of pointing out, "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" is precisely about addressing the crisis of "followership".

Once you have finished with Sister Butler's paper, you can go on to read Cardinal Rode's own address "Reforming Religious Life with the Right Hermeneutic" - it is no less to the point than his call to the Jesuits back in January.

CatholicsComeHome.org - Makes you proud to be Catholic!

This is really good stuff. I heard the guys who created this campaign on EWTN with Fr Mitch Pacwa today, and I am really impressed. Apparently the response to the ad campaign and the website of CatholicsComeHome.org has been very good. Can we have this here?


To play this video, click here - NOT ON THE PICTURE, and go down and click on "Epic" (they wouldn't allow embedding from YouTube).

To see more videos and testimonials, go to CatholicsComeHome.org

Are you an organ donor?

Not this little black duck. One reason is that I really think that to take body parts out of the dead is an act of disrespect to the body. Another is that I think it buys into the whole idea of thinking of the human person in their physical aspect as a machine (and the dead body - or the living but unborn body for that matter - as a junk yard for spare parts). But certainly there is also this: the practice of taking organs from donors who are (in the words of Monty Python) NOT DEAD YET.

There was a conference held on this in Rome a few months back, but now this morning's edition of The Age reveals that one Dr James Tibballs has raised the ire of the transplant industry by publishing an article in the Journal of Law and Medicine suggesting that there is often undue haste to remove organs before the donor is strictly speaking "dead".

One of the major issues is, of course, what does "dead" really mean? Is "brain death" just a legal fiction? It was on the matter of "brain death" that the Rome conference reflected. And, of course, organs have to be "alive" (in a sense) to be of any use for transplanting.

What do you think? Are you a donor? Why? If not, why not?

Br. Alois of Taize: "People you did not choose..."

I have just been listening to a Vatican Radio interview of Brother Alois, the Prior of Taize. I was very struck by this comment:

"We don't want to create a movement of young people around Taize but we always tell them "Go to your local church, to your parishes. Why? Because there all generations are together (still) and there you meet people whom you did not choose."

Two points of connection. Sitting in Mass this morning in my local parish where I have been going for the last 5 years, I was struck by a) how very little any of the liturgy was to my personal liking, b) how I knew about half of the people - many of whom formed part of the wider community in which I live, and c) how much at home I was. Odd that.

The other point is Jesus' own saying: "You did not choose me, but I chose you." And I guess being amongst a bunch of people whom I did not choose (and they would reciprocate that they certainly didn't choose to have ME in their midst - perhaps some of them would even choose NOT to have me if it were up to them!) is a reminder of this.

If you don't go to your local parish (through the exercise of "choice" - which I think might be at the root of the word "heresy") you are missing out on something. Not something that you would enjoy, necessarily, but something that God prepared for you and you didn't turn up to receive.

"The Personal is Political" - And Not Just Ecclesiastical...

In an op-ed piece in today's Age, Paul Austin writes:

A few legal niceties also need to be restated if our justice system is to retain its integrity. Theophanous is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to due process. ...He has not been charged with anything. Indeed, he has not yet been interviewed by the police. Like many alleged rapes, this is likely to boil down to his word against hers. The investigators have not even heard his account yet.

Politically, the harsh truth for Theophanous is that he is almost certainly finished. The only conceivable scenario in which he returns to cabinet is if the police determine the allegation has no merit and that Theophanous has no case to answer. But even then he will be soiled goods in public image terms. The political damage done to Theophanous is real, even if the allegation is false. He is 60. Come the next election he will be 62. His long career was nearing its end anyway; now the end has been hastened, fairly or otherwise.

That's the best-case scenario for Theophanous.

Sound familiar? The parallels between this case in the political arena and recent cases in the ecclesiastical field are not just astounding, but EXACT.

I know some of our readers like to say that they are "always on the side of the victims", but once again I ask: who is the victim here? It is frightening how easily personal careers and family lives are destroyed through simple unsubstantiated allegations reported enthusiastically in the media.

When it is such a simple procedure for destroying those in the public eye, is it any wonder that some find the temptation so irresistable?

In Defence of The Religion Report

For all my criticism of Stephen Crittenden's journalistic style (he seems to be under the misapprehension that religion is an observer sport of adversarial politics), I do regret ABC Radio National's decision to axe The Religion Report (see this report in The Age).

Religious issues are as important as ever today in current affairs, and a well rounded radio programming schedule should reflect this. While Encounter and Spirit of Things appear to have escaped the chopping block, those programs are aimed more at religion as a private (personal or communal) experience. The ABC needs to keep the place of religion in the public square in mind.

What do we think of Paul O'Shea's "A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943"?

Well, "we" (meaning me) don't think anything yet of the book, because we haven't read it. All we have done is listen to the author on numerous radio programs, such as The Ark, The Religion Report and Sunday Nights. You can see what Brian Coyne thinks here, for one, and here is another take from the History News Network but I would be interested in hearing from anyone else on the matter.

It seems to me that he isn't quite what the beatification cause is looking for in the way of "defence" of the late Pontiff, yet he certainly heads in that direction. I guess I would like to read it with the results of the Pave the Way Conference recently held in Rome by my side.

But here is the question that a priest put to me this afternoon: "Which is more saintly: to have spoken out with the only result being the deaths of many more people, or to be silent in the face of pressure to speak and to do what one possibly could to save those one possible could?"

Who can say? As Rabbi Cohen said: "God is judge".

N.T. Wright is at the Synod

Something I didn't know, but picked up in this report from Zenit (also listed here in the official listing), is that Anglican bishop and scripture scholar N.T. Wright (often mentioned in these pages) is an ecumenical observer at the Synod of Bishops in Rome.

Isn't that nice? I wonder if he will get to make a short speech as a guest, and what he will say if he does?

"We don't win awards"...

The Amateur Catholic B-Team blog has been inactive for some time, but I always was rather proud of their very accurate slogan: "We don't write books or do speaking tours. In fact, we barely do our jobs."

Actually, I am glad that one of the pre-requisites for membership is not "We don't win awards", because I just did.

Trusting that it is okay to blow one's own trumpet on one's own blog (no-one is forcing you to read this self-serving palava, you know), I will just mention in passing that the editor of Kairos entered my article on Phillip Pullman's Golden Compass ("Some very Dark Materials") for the annual Australasian Religious Press Association (ARPA) (they don't have a website, so I can't link them).

Turns out it won the "Gold Award" in the category "best review of another medium". The review was of the trilogy of Philip Pullmans "Dark Materials" novels. I still haven't seen the film, but perhaps it is time to get it out of the video shop (my daughters - somewhat more up-to-date than I, call it the DVD shop) and take a look.



Here are the Judges comments for this area.

Best review of another medium

Gold Award: The Golden Compass Some very dark materials - David Schutz
Kairos Catholic Journal Nov – Dec 2007
I found this review to be very strong. It contained everything I want to see in a review – background facts as well as the writer’s thoughts – but also some real and intelligent feelings and beliefs. Needless to say, I also found this movie very disturbing!

Silver Award: ‘J K Rowling – a 21st Century CS Lewis?’ – Dean Spalding
The Melbourne Anglican September 2007
I really enjoyed this intelligent take on the much-maligned Harry Potter. The writer brought out two good issues and thoroughly examined them, which was a nice surprise and very thought-provoking. Well done!

Bronze Award: ‘Religion stands accused’ – Jim Stuart
Touchstone July 2007
Another very strong piece – and one that examines the very pertinent issue of ‘anti-Christians’. However, there were too many books reviewed in this one article for it to give such an issue real justice. I would have also liked to have seen more of the writer’s own feelings/opinions on this issue.

Highly Commended: ‘Out of the Blue’ – Steve Taylor
Touchstone February 2007
I thought this piece brought out all the lovely elements of New Zealand – it was quite beautiful! I would have liked to have seen less questions and more answers though. And also more Christian input throughout the piece, instead of only at the end.

Highly Commended: ‘Three Gates to Paradise: Articles and Reflections’ – Marjorie Lewis-Jones
Insights March 2007
I really liked this piece. The wrire clearly had a big attachment to the book, but not so strong that she allowed herself to become too sentimental. Instead, she used some great, stand-out lines and phrases. Well done!

General

All in all, I was impressed with the quality of the reviews – only a few were left in my “very poor” pile and in the end it was very difficult to chose between my top three winners! But these winners stood out because they had something new and intelligent to say and they didn’t simply give the reader a basic rundown of the storyline. Well done to these winners!

"I tremble for my country..."

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson

Matthias aluded to this quotation in a combox - but he got the wrong guy. It was Thomas Jefferson who said it, not Abraham Lincoln. Apparently the "country" he was speaking of was Virginia, and the injustice over which he trembled was slavery. The application to the current abortion debate is worth remembering, as is Pope Benedict's reminder in Spe Salvi:

This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. Yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh. There is justice.

And you can buy the T-Shirt!

Lost opportunity: Stephen Crittenden lets a slippery fish of the hook...

Stephen Crittenden is quite critical in this interview on the Religion Report with Associate Professor Anthony Burke of the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra, but at one point he lets him off the hook entirely:Stephen Crittenden:

Stephen Crittenden: One of the big themes of Critical Terrorism Studies is counter-terrorism. You say counter-terrorism, border protection, deterrence, homeland security, you describe them as 'perverse, violent, exclusivist, ontologising technologies'. And you say, 'counter terrorist strategies actually provoke the very thing they claim to be protecting us from.' Is there any evidence that tough security measures are counter-productive in that way, that they actually provoke terrorism?

Anthony Burke: We don't have evidence yet, but there's a legitimate concern that - oh, you're just trying to push me into a corner and not happy about it.

Stephen Crittenden: Look, let's change the subject and take a look a bit more broadly.

"Let's change the subject"!? Why??? You've got him by the short and curlies just where you want him, and you let him off the hook? He's admitted that "we don't have evidence" (the "yet" is rather hopeful) - and you let him get away with it! What sort of critical interviewing is this?

Cardinal Vanhoye's reply to Rabbi Cohen at the Synod: "On the Jews and Scripture"

VERY, VERY well worth reading is the entire speech by Cardinal Albert Vanhoye at the Synod of Bishops in reply to the address of Rabbi Cohen. His speech is a summary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's great 2001 work "The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible". That document is very large and takes some getting through, so the summary from the Cardinal is very welcome. Above all, we welcome the following comments on the vexed issue of whether it is right or not to call the first half of the Christian bible "the Old Testament":

The Jewish people’s Scriptures are received in the Christian Bible under the name Old Testament. The Document immediately points out that “By “Old Testament” the Christian Church has no wish to suggest that the Jewish Scriptures are outdated or surpassed. On the contrary, it has always affirmed that the Old Testament and the New Testament are inseparable. Their first relationship is precisely that. At the beginning of the second century, when Marcion wished to discard the Old Testament, he met with vehement resistance from the post-apostolic Church.”

“The title “Old Testament” [...] is an expression coined by the apostle Paul to designate the writings attributed to Moses” (cf. 2 Co 3:14-15). There Paul speaks about “reading the Old Testament” and then “when we read Moses”. The meaning of the expression was given, since the end of the 2nd Century, to apply it also to the other Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people found in the Christian Bible. “Today in certain circles there is a tendency to use “First Testament” to avoid any negative connotation attached to “Old Testament.” But “Old Testament” is a biblical and traditional expression which of itself does not have a negative connotation: the Church fully recognizes the importance of the Old Testament” as the Word of God. As for the expression “First Testament”, it can be found in Latin as “prius testamentum” or “primum” in the translation of the Letter to the Hebrews (9:15; “primum” in 9:18), but then this is not the Scriptures. This is the Covenant concluded on the Sinai, and of this “first Covenant” it can be said that God made it “old,” when he announced the “news” and it was since then bound to disappear (Heb 8:13).

Therefore, in the New Testament, the expression “Primum Testamentum” has a negative connotation and “Old Testament” does not.

The polemic text of the Letter to the Hebrews is, generally speaking, consciously or unconsciously, ignored in the soothing declarations on the permanent validity of the first Covenant. The Document does not quote this text, but takes it into account, because it refrains from asserting the permanent validity of the Sinai Covenant. It mentions the permanent validity of the “covenant-promise of God”, which is not a bilateral pact such as the Sinai Covenant, often broken by the Israelites. It is “all merciful” and “cannot be annulled” (No. 41). It “is definitive and cannot be abolished”. In this sense, according to the New Testament, “Israel continues to be in a covenant relationship with God” (No. 42).

All good stuff. Read the whole lot, since there is a whole lot more about the proper relationship between the Jews and Christians in here.

Scott Hahn cited at the Synod

Well, he's come a long way from the his past as a Calvinist preacher - now he is being held up as an authority at the 12th Ordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome. The Apostolic Vicar of Benghazi (Libya) cited Scott Hahn in his intervention at the Synod on the Word according to Zenit:

The complete Christian "canon" or list of the New Testament Scriptures, was attested to by St. Athanasius in 367 A.D., but accepted universally only with the Synod of Rome in 380 and the councils of Hippo and Carthage (A D. 417)."It is the Church which came before the Scriptures; the Church that produced the Scriptures with divine assistance, and that preserved their integrity through the threats of persecution and heresy - it is the Church that gathered the Scriptures together in a book - a book that sustains all who call themselves Christian" (Scott Hahn).

We live in strange times, when an African bishop can cite an American convert from protestantism as an authority at a synod in Rome...

"I don't feel that I am in a position to give judgement": What the Rabbi Really Said about Pius XII

Here is my transcript of a Vatican Radio interview between Phillipa Hitchen and Rabbi Cohen of Haifa. I give more than just what he said aobut Pius XII - you need to get the feel of the context in which he speaks. Note that all along he is conscious of not giving his own opinion, but recognising that he is a representative of the chief rabbinate and people of Israel. What you will not be able to pick up from reading this transcript is the hesitancy with which he spoke - I was very concious of the fact that he did not want to offend his hosts, and at the same time he did not want to misrepresent his people:

Rabbi Cohen: There are those who feel that it is more than a dialogue and are suspicious that it is an attempt in a way to blur the differences. Just another kind of the same religionwhich it is not because of the basic elements in the articles of faith that we believe in the christians believe in and we cannot ignore it; I feel that it's not supposed to change us its supposed to say that you should try to understand eachother and live together for those principles and those ideas which join us.

...Well there is no doubt that the invitation was not only because of what I have to say and to add to the information and the knowledge of what mainly the Christians call the Old Testament but the fact that I represent the chief rabbinate of Israel as chairman of the bilateral commission that was created by the late Pope John Paul II and the I represent the so-called dialogue between the two religions is maybe the main reason I was invited. I believe it was a step to prove to us that the present leadership of the Vatican intends to continue the line of thought and action of his predecessors starting from John XXIII through Paul IV throught John Paul II which I believe was the climax as I would say today in his days and then there was some doubt up until now I believe it is an effort or an attempt by way of demonstrating that here we are to continue the dialogue and the friendship and the association which our predecessors started, which is important. And that is the main reason I came, because it is a very difficult time for me to come. It is the Jewish high holidays and I come for one day and go back tomorrow to be with my community on the holiest day of the Jewish year which is Yom Kippur. But I felt I could not deny the invitation because of what it implies, not because of the subjects which I am going to discuss, but because of the very fact that I am going there to speak before the general leadership of the Catholic religion because most bishops of the world will be there.

Phillipa Hitchen: I imagine that your participation here is not accepted by everybody within the Jewish community. How is it being seen your presence here in Israel and within the broader Jewish community?

Rabbi Cohen: I am here not as an individual representing my own approach I represent the chief rabbinate of Israel which is the official body at least for the Jewish religion in Israel [and] in a way in the Jewish world. So I would say that the majority is with me here. There are those who feel that it's more than a dialogue and are suspicious that it is an attempt to in way to blur the differences - just another kind of the same religion. Which it's not! for that basic elements in the articles of faith that we believe in, that the Christians believe in, and we cannot ignore it. And I feel that it's not meant to change us, it's meant to say that we should try to understand each other and live together for those principles and for those ideas that should join us. And we stem from the same mother or from the same father Abraham the patriach...who was the founder of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And I feel it is important to remember where we come from. We may be able to bring more peace to the world that way and that is important. And I believe the relation has an influence on the lay leaders of all the states in the world. They need to feel that they are only human beings but under the same God. The main reason that I believe in this dialogue is to promote this kind of approach after so much bloodshed and painful events that happened only in recent generations.

Phillipa Hitchen: And yet in a way this focus on the Christian bible as the fulfillment of God's plan can perhaps serve to highlight the differences it can cause in a way more obstacles than it can serve to highlight the points of unity.

Rabbi Cohen: Well, my speach, my lecture will be on the bible which we call the Tanakh the Torah the prophets and the writings which is what we believe in. I will not speak about the Christian part of it the New Testament and it is clear that that is as far as we can go. Christians are free and don't need my permission to promote that part of the bible in which they believe, but the very fact that there is the common background the beginning or what you call the Old - its not old, its new, because of what we believe it has eternal living - and the very fact that in spite of the differences I am here, I take it as a message that we have the right to exist the way we exist and nobody denies our right to feel that we are the people that have the covenant with God brought to the world the entire bible (by the entire bible I mean, of course, the Tanakh in which we believe) but of course you cannot forget that those who created the other parts that the Christians believe in were also Jews. And we may not agree with their ideas but that doesn't make it that we are not Jewish or they were not Jewish and if you remember that you cannot hate the people that come from the same origin. So I don't think it is going to blur or try to erase the differences. It is different but equal.

...Phillipa Hitchen: During the Synod there will also be an important commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the death of Pius XII, the pope who still arouses such strong emotions on both sides about the role that he played in the Second World War. What are your views on this pope right now?

Rabbi Cohen: Being frank, I did not know about it before I came, I only learned about it yesterday. I feel that we should not ignore the pain and the sad memories, so many victims of the holocaust are still around, that is the children survivors have, who feel, maybe rightly so, maybe I don't know, that not enough was done by the church to prevent the holocaust. I understand that the leadership of the church says that the late pope did try to save as much as he could, it should be proved, it should be more public, but there is no doubt that he did not raise his voice in public. Maybe because he was afraid, or because there was a danger that Nazis were against the Christian Church as well, who is to become a judge? God is the judge. But we are very unhappy about it. And we feel that that chapter in our sad history should be set aside and it is a mistake to try to forget it. And I say I was surprised by it, maybe, maybe, I don't know, I cannot say, that our leadership would not have agreed to my participation if they knew about it before, but of course I didn't feel like cancelling my coming because I don't want the leadership of the Church to feel that we are not interested in the dialogue any more, so these are two separate chapters, it so happened by coincidence, and I hope that the leadrship of the church will refrain from anything that will make anybody feel bad and bring pain and sorrow and heartache. Unfortunately the memory of those years does it for us, as Jews. And when there was some discussion about the making him a saint there was strong opposition - Let me just say the feeling is that that chapter in the Christian history and European history should not be forgotten and I say unless those who represent the victims - the children and the families - feel differently, the feeling in Israel is not for sanctifying his name, his memory, so on. It is an internal Christian affair, I can only give advice, I cannot tell them what to do, but there is an very sensitive general feeling among the majority of Jews in this connection because of the unprecendented event of the holocaust. If you go to Jerusalem to Yad Vashem, that is, the memorial for the holocaust, where Pope [John] Paul II went and prayed, there is a whole wall that represents the fact that the European world did not rise up to the challenge to try to fight it stronger than they did, or can we ignore the fact that many individuals have been saved, so it is a very mixed feeling and I don't feel that I am in a position to give judgement.

I think the two most important things that the Rabbi said about Pius XII was "it should be proved, it should be more public" - this is certainly our task. And especially in regard to the claim that "there is no doubt that he did not raise his voice in public" - what else was the 1942 Christmas address? But also, we should remember what the Rabbi said: "Who is to become a judge? God is the judge."

How the TV Media reported the Passing of the Abortion Bill

...and the reaction of the Church:

From the ABC:

From SBS:

And from Channel Ten (Including the Speaker's outburst)

But as for me and my house...

So the Abortion Law Reform Bill has passed. (Yes, I know that this is old news, but I have been away for the weekend, stranded in Mildura with lurgy yesterday, and only just gotten back to my computer).

The bill passed by 23 votes to 17. Here is how they voted (Check this list before you go to the polls at the next election):

FOR 23 Votes
Greg Barber Greens
Candy Broad Labor
Andrea Coote Liberal
Kaye Darveniza Labor
David Davis Liberal
Philip Davis Liberal
Khalil Eideh Labor
Peter Hall Nationals
Colleen Hartland Greens
Gavin Jennings Labor
David Koch Liberal
Shaun Leane Labor
Wendy Lovell Liberal
Justin Madden Labor
Jenny Mikakos Labor
Martin Pakula Labor
Sue Pennicuik Greens
Jaala Pulford Labor
Johan Scheffer Labor
Brian Tee Labor
Evan Thornley Labor
Gayle Tierney Labor
Matthew Viney Labor

AGAINST 17 Votes
Bruce Atkinson Liberal
Richard Dalla-Riva Liberal
Damian Drum Nationals
Nazih Elasmar Labor
Bernie Finn Liberal
Matthew Guy Liberal
Peter Kavanagh Democratic Labor Party
Jan Kronberg Liberal
John Lenders Labor
Ed O'Donohue Liberal
Donna Petrovich Liberal
Inga Peulich Liberal
Gordon Rich-Phillips Liberal
Bob Smith Labor
Adem Somyurek Labor
Theo Theophanous Labor
John Vogels Liberal

This is how Catholics in Melbourne will react.

Legal action can be expected - perhaps one good thing about the fact that none of the amendments were accepted. This makes the new legislation more liable to being thrown out in a legal challenge.

But as Archbishop Hart has said: "For the time being the battle is lost in the legislature. But not in the hearts and minds of good people."

It certainly is not over in the Schütz-Beaton household. It may surprise you that we have discussed this issue long and hard over the dinner table with our 10 and 8 year old daughters. And here is something to think about: They get the issues. Right down to "Its a baby" and "What can we do to help women who are in a situation where they think an abortion is their only choice?".

Before the vote was taken, I made it clear to them that whatever the law decides, we are in the situation of the Israelites before they crossed over the river Jordan into Canaan. We have to decide between life and death. The people in our society around us do not share our values or committments. Therefore "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." And all the children said: "Amen."

PS. We are not impressed with the outburst of Bob Smith, the House President, in response to the disturbance from the gallery at the bill's passing. The Age cited him as saying: "Where is the security? Remove her any way. For God's sake do your job. Jesus. F---ing bananas. Amateur hour up here." SCE wonders whether there would have been hell to pay had he used the same words with the name of Allah.

Pius XII: What do we need to do?

While rejoicing that Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen of Haifa was invited to speak to the Synod of Bishops (read his address here and see pictures here), I must say that I am disappointed that he is still of the opinion that Pius XII in some way betrayed the Jewish people during the dark years of the Shoah.

By a strange twist of fate, today is both Yom Kippur and the 50th anniversary of the late Pontiff's death.

Today I listened to a couple of very good reports on the question of Pius XII's war time record from Vatican Radio. These include:

Interview with Fr Gumpel, relator of the cause for the beatification of Pius XII.
PAVING THE WAY
Comments by Pope Benedict at the end of a symposium on Pius XII, by Pave the Way Foundation

I also have a much longer Vatican Radio program, which unfortunately is no longer on their website, in which they play recordings of his Christmas announcements, including the 1942 message in which he condemned the persecution and near extinction of peoples simply on the basis of their race. He has been criticised for the fact that this pronouncement did not specifically mention the Jews, but his intended audience did not misunderstand him. The Gestapo reported to their master:

"in a manner never known before...the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. It is true, the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for. …Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews."

That is only one example.

It is sad that his name is still maligned today, 50 years after his death, when most of those who so malign him have done no study of the matter at all, but simply listen to the myth. Interestingly, this program points out that very few people have asked for access to the now available archival records for the period leading up to the war itself.

The other Debating Hall - The Synod of Bishops on the Word of God

While the debate on the abortion bill continues here in Victoria, we ought not lose sight of the important event in the Vatican at this time, the 12th Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church.

There, Bernie-Finn-style filibustering is totally out of order - in fact, each bishop gets to make a 5-minute intervention - and his microphone is turned off exactly at the 5 minute mark!

There are some interesting things already coming out of this, such as Rabbi Cohen's comments about Pius XII's WWII record in the memory of the Jewish people (today is both Yom Kippur and the 50th anniversary of the late pontiff's death - a separate blog about this in a minute), but also the fact that (HT to Rocco Palmo at Whispers in the Loggia) this is the first meeting to have a blogging-bishop participant!

Yes, folks, you can get an insider's perspective by going to the World Synod of Bishops blog belonging to Tucson Arizona Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas. Here's a taste:

I found my seat -- section II, row G, seat 14 -- right in the center of the hall. The guidelines for the Synod are most interesting. They state that delegates are expected to be at every session no matter what. If you want to be excused, you need to see the General Secretary and you have to state your excuse. (I think we might have to introduce that note for our priest and vicariate gatherings.) The message was clear: presence matters.

(I have been wondering how many members of the Legislative Council have sat out the full 4.5 hours of Bernie's filibustering!).

Interestingly, he came across our own Bishop Michael Putney:

Bishop Michael Ernest Putney of Townsville in Australia talked with me about the importance of preparing our lectors to proclaim the Word effectively. He told me about a young man who was an actor who proclaimed the Word so eloquently at Mass that people listened more attentively than usual. People thought his eloquence was because of his acting ability, but in talking with him afterward, the young man said that in preparing himself to proclaim God's Word as a lector that he fasts. That is what made his proclamation so engaging. He was living the Word he read.

For those who like their reporting a little more conventional, there is always John L. Allen Jnr.

Also providing an insiders look at the Synod is Basilian Father Thomas Rosica, the Vatican's English-language press attaché for the 2008 world Synod of Bishops. His reports are being covered by Zenit as the "Synod Diary" in their daily issue (the first three can be found here (Day One), here (Day two), and here (Day Three). A funny story about the technology glitches at the beginning:

Yesterday and today the synod fathers tried out the newly installed electronic voting machines, which revealed a number of glitches that need to be ironed out. The malfunctions gave way to much humor in the assembly as the audience was told several times by some unseen voice booming through the sound system: “Those on the left (sinistra) are not voting properly.” Or, “the patriarchs are not registering.”

Even the Pope seemed to enjoy the humorous moments as he watched his brother bishops from throughout the entire world attempt to use the “new technology” that wasn’t delivering!

Well, funny by Synod of Bishop's standard!

What the human mind can rationalise...

Bernie Finn's still going for it in the Legislative Council against the Abortion Law Reform Bill. He just said that he went down to the shops and saw a packet of cigarettes with "Smoking harms unborn babies" written on it. Yes, they do, he said. And by law that warning has to be put on every packet of cigarettes. He went on:

And I know something else that hurts unborn babies. And you know what? WE'RE LEGISLATING FOR IT!

This is good stuff... Pray that someone listening to him is convinced enough to change their vote on this wretched bill.

The other marathon reading...

Bernie is still talking in the Legislative Council [actually, they've taken a breather and gone for lunch, he will resume again at 2pm - no end in sight yet], but we pause to remember that other "marathon reading" - the reading of scripture from begining to end mentioned here.

And here is the video of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, kicking the whole thing off with the reading from Genesis 1 - literally "opening the word"!

Bernie Finn: The Case against Abortion

I would say, "Take a bow, Bernie Finn (Liberal MLC for the Western Metropolitan Region)", but I don't think he's finished yet. I don't know if he ever will be. He resumed speaking this evening at 8pm after having spoken most of the afternoon, and the house has just adjourned at 10pm. I guess so he can give his voice a rest. Seriously, I have heard of cases where, in ancient Rome, speakers held the floor for hours on end to delay a vote from taking place, but I have never heard such a fine demonstration of this tactic in this day and age.

Not that that seems to be his tactic. Rather, given the chance finally to debate the issue of abortion in that democratically elected and representative body which is charged with the duty of making laws for our State, Bernie has taken the opportunity to do a complete "Anatomy of the Case Against Abortion". Truely, if you were to print off his speech from Hansard tomorrow, you would have a compendium - a vade mecum - of every reason why abortion should never ever be removed from the criminal code. Even if you are not a Victorian, or even an Australian, I would urge you tomorrow morning to click on this link and dowload Bernie's speech. Warning: it will be the size of a small book!

For now, Bernie, my suggestion is go home, have a whisky, and rest your throat to resume your speech tomorrow morning at 10:15am.

And the rest of you, if you can, tune into the debate in the Legislative Council at this site here.

Jan Kronberg MLC: Defender of the Unborn (Or: Jan is "not happy")

Go Jan!!! The best speech against the Abortion Law Reform Bill yet is currently being given by Jan Kronburg (Lib), of the Eastern Metropolitan Region. Tomorrow I will give an account of it from Hansard, but if this bill is finally defeated, it will be in large thanks to this speech.

At the same time, Damien Drum MLC (Nat) spoke strongly last night (at the same time employing the ancient Roman tactic of speaking until the session is adjourned...).

So far, my wooden spoon award goes to Jenny Mikakos MLC (Labor). Claiming to be a strong and faithful Greek Orthodox Christian, she goes on to support the bill:

As a practising Christian I could not choose abortion — that is my choice. I believe the potential for life begins at conception. The miracle of human development is something that amazes me, and the births of each baby by family members and friends have been the most joyous moments of my life. However, I am attracted to a quote by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who said: "Compassion is the basis of all morality." I have enormous compassion for those women who find themselves in circumstances where they feel they must make the decision to have an abortion.

Well, yes. Of course. Compassion - and if anything, what we need is MORE compassion for those in this situation. But is offering an abortion to them the truly compassionate solution? Or is it opting out of going the hard miles with them? And how is it compassionate to the child invovled?

She goes on to quote American leader of the "new evangelicalism" Jim Wallis to this effect:

We contend today with both religious and secular fundamentalists, neither of whom must have their way. One group would impose the doctrines of a political theocracy on their fellow citizens, while the other would deprive the public square of needed moral and spiritual values often shaped by faith. In a political and media culture that squeezes everything into only two options of left and right, religious people must refuse the ideological categorisation and actually build bridges between people of goodwill in both liberal and conservative camps. We must insist on the deep connections between church and state that protect religious and non-religious minorities and keep us also from state-controlled religion. We can demonstrate our commitment to pluralistic democracy and support the rightful separation of church and state without segregating moral and spiritual values from our political life.

In otherwords, this is US-speak for "don't make your political involvement a one-issue debate on abortion". And in case you think I am misinterpreting Ms Mikakos, she herself says:

It is that with few exceptions many of the faith groups that have ritten to or contacted me about this bill have not contacted me before about proposed legislation or government policies. I do not mean to sound critical, as I think they have a legitimate role in the political process to express certain points of view. The point I make is that they should lobby MPs not only on so-called moral issues. I hope that Australian politics does not go down the path of American politics and that faith-based groups do not become fixated on issues like abortion and gay rights to the exclusion of all else.

Could it be that religious groups have written to her on this issue because abortion is an issue of an entirely different and more significant order than evironmentalism or economic policy? She has a lot to say about faith and reason, and church and state. But she gets the equation all wrong. It seems that in Ms Mikakos we have an example of what could be called "Cafeteria Orthodoxy". Maybe someone could take pity on her and give her a gift subscription to "First Things"?

But I also want to acknowledge the speech of Edward O'Donohue MLC (Lib) who made the following argument:

I turn to the existing law. Legislators have a natural tendency to believe the solutions to all problems lie with a new law or a new regulation. However, new legislation can create new, sometimes unforeseen, consequences. In two short years in this place I have seen a number of amendment bills that were required to amend failings in a previously passed bill. With a topic as contentious as this one, we need to be absolutely clear and certain that new legislation does not create unforeseen problems. This is particularly the case where the current arrangements have worked, as they have, in my opinion, in a settled and reasonably clear fashion.

Australians instinctively understand this. The reason the 1999 referendum on a republic failed was not because of any overriding loyalty to Britain or the royal family but rather an understanding that our wonderful democracy, whilst not perfect, works effectively and has served Australia well....

I think, as the law currently sits in Victoria, we have a fair balance between respect for the individual and consideration for a potential other person. I do not accept the argument that there is a high degree of uncertainty at the moment with the law in Victoria. I do not accept that if this bill fails we will return to a pre-Menhennitt arrangement of backyard abortions that previous speakers have mentioned. I do not believe abortion law in Victoria, as it stands, is unnecessarily restrictive. It would appear from my investigations that abortions are relatively accessible, particularly in the early stages of a pregnancy, but there is no compulsion on doctors or hospitals to perform such a procedure — to me a reasonable position.

If you accept the proposition I have just put, that the law is reasonably settled, the question to me becomes: if the government wishes to maintain the status quo, why attempt to legislate in an area that is currently settled at law? It is my belief, however, that the bill goes beyond the status quo. In particular, clause 4 causes me concern. It allows terminations to occur up to 24 weeks gestation. As I said previously, while I believe in the right of a woman to choose, that right, in my opinion, should not be unfettered at 23 or 24 weeks. With modern technology some babies are now viable at 23 or 24 weeks gestation. The right to choose should not come without some consideration for what may be a viable baby. The argument made against this is that foetal abnormalities may not be detected until approximately a 20-week scan. I accept the terrible heartache and difficult decisions that women and their partners have to make when confronted with such a position. This should not mean that an abortion for a healthy foetus can take place without question at 24 weeks and six days. While the panel model in Western Australia and other models in other jurisdictions have attracted criticism and are by no means perfect, there must be a way to differentiate between late-term terminations for legitimate medical reasons and early terminations.

In my opinion the law in Victoria is reasonably settled. The common-law doctrine as defined by His Honour Justice Menhennitt has provided the basis for lawful terminations for nearly 40 years. The doctrine has been developed further in other jurisdictions, giving it greater legitimacy if it were ever tested here in Victoria. The
government states that this bill merely codifies current practice. If it merely codifies what already exists, given the way the law has operated it is unnecessary. To me the bill goes beyond Menhennitt, and in my opinion it goes too far. I oppose the bill.

Good on ya, Ed. Good argument.