Another Victim of the New Inquisition!

Deary me. Another one sent to the stake by the New Inquisition of the New Orthodoxy. This time it's poor old Rolf Harris - yes, he of the wobble-board and paintbrush fame. His crime? Questioning the New Orthodoxy on Indigenous Issues. The news of his heritical statement broke yesterday (see "Time to get off your arses: Rolf's advice to aborigines"), and today the sentence was pronounced (see "Harris remarks spark outrage" and The Age editorial).

I'm not saying whether what Rolf said was right or wrong, although I do think that he might have said the same thing without the help of the colourful colloquialisms he employed. What I'm commenting on is the fact that he has been treated in exactly the same way as Warwick Marsh of the Fatherhood Foundation. He has questioned the rules of the New Orthodoxy, and it's straight to the stake.

The fact is that when his comments are engaged and not simply rejected as an outrage, even his indigenous detractors have admitted some element of truth in what he said: Lowitja O'Donoghue (who thought that Harris has "some bloody cheek" to make such a suggestion) admitted that "Aborigines must help themselves" (which is what Rolf said in stronger language). "There are lots of people who get off their butts, as he says, and do things," she said. And this is not to be denied but applauded and encouraged for the whole people.

But Ms O'Donoghue goes on to say that "colonisation [read: you non-indigenous people being here] was the root cause for much of her people's plight" and "Australia [ie. you non-indigenous people] needed to lift its game in how it dealt with indigenous issues". Thus while admitting just what Rolf said, she continues to sing from the old song sheet of blame and victimhood.

Former national Labor president and indigenous leader Warren Mundine also "agreed that it was up to Aborigines to instigate change. However, he said Harris' language was a "bit tough"." We at SCM agree. He went on to say

"It's not as simple as (Harris) thinks it is," Mr Mundine said. "I agree that we have to get up, take responsibility and drive forward, but at the same time I reject that it is our traditional values at fault … It's actually the whole process of invasion, colonisation and government policy."

So while agreeing with Mr Harris in the first part of his statement, he too eventually falls back upon the old song sheet and starts singing of victimhood and blame.

As I said in a short Letter to the Editor published in the Age today:

WARWICK Marsh, from the Fatherhood Foundation, said: "I hope we're in a free society that still allows us to speak our mind" (The Age, 27/11). Well, you found out the answer to that question, didn't you?

David Schütz, Boronia

Past Elder admits: "No Alternative to the Church"

You know that one of the philosophical projects we have had going on this blog for some time is to sort out the mystery of Past Elder's (aka The Artful Dodger's) ecclesiology. Well, deep down in the combox to the blog on conscience below, PE offers another clue to unravelling the riddle. I asked him, if he objects (which apparently he doesn't, he was just pointing it out) to the authority of the Catholic Church as being a determinant (perhaps even THE determinant) in the matter of Conscience, what is his alternative? We received this reply:

I do not demand you change, nor do I characterise your ways as wicked, nor, although I think it would the best for you, do I seek to convert you to Lutheranism (that being the requested "alternative").

...A Catholic can have nothing to do with this preposterous and monstrous sham ["the post-conciliar entity travelling under the name "Catholic Church""], precisely for the sake of Catholicism and the Catholic Church. That's it.

As to what to do then, the "alternative", I don't know and I am not trying to encourage you to follow the path I did at all.

For me, the utter violent and vicious apostacy of the Catholic Church to the Catholic Church itself was so intense as to render Christian belief impossible in any form for about twenty years.

I am not saying you must do so too. The message is what I saw, not what I myself did about it. You may find another answer. Many have.

If you want to find what I believe by the grace of God was shown to me as the answer, fine but I am not here to promote that, nor to challenge the Catholicism you seek, but to say for its own and very sake, what has been presented to you under the same name is nothing of the sort.

...In fact, I do not believe there is another authority [for conscience other than the authority of the Church]. The solas I now believe are not understood apart from the church.

My difference with the post-conciliar Roman church and, now, with the actual Catholic Church are not about the authority of the church at all, but about how does that authority, and that church, actually work out.

I am not here to promote my answer for that.

In other words, PE has not given up his belief in "the church" (small "c"). He believes that there is no longer any such thing as the "Catholic Church", and he rejects the institution that contintues to go by that name today.

He comments on this blog to convince us of this opinion. He wishes to open our eyes and to lead us out of the "tent of wickedness". But to what? To leave us starving in the wilderness?

He says that he does not comment on this blog "to challenge the Catholicism you seek, but to say for its own and very sake, what has been presented to you under the same name is nothing of the sort." But, my dear PE, do you seriously expect us to accept your challenge, to admit that you are right, to leave "this preposterous and monstrous sham" when you give us no clue as to what the alternative may be?

From your own experience, the only alternative was "to render Christian belief impossible in any form". You don't expect us to embrace an act that would have the same effect upon us, do you?

But the fact is you now DO have Christian faith. Tell us how this is possible! Tell us - nay, enlighten us - we beg you, and lead us through the wilderness to the same verdant pastures that you yourself now enjoy. You still believe "the church" is an authority - thus you must have some experience of it, you must have some knowledge of it.

Or is there indeed "no alternative" but the Church to which I now belong - the Catholic Church?

For, even if the Catholic Church (ie. the institution that goes by that name today)is a "preposterous and monstrous sham", yet, if beside her there is no "reality" to which I may turn as an alternative, then I have no choice but to abide by that choice I made eight years ago: to embrace her and all in communion with her and all her teachings as those of our Lord Jesus Christ himself.

"Hey, come on in, we were just talking about you!"

"During his weekday audience this week on the topic of the Second Coming of Christ, the Holy Father was interupted by an unexpected visitor... (Source: Vatican Radio)"

________________

HT for this one to Fr Z.

Of the captions suggested on WDTPRS, I especially enjoyed the following:

- Here comes the Son.

- The Hiilllls are alive…. with sacred music…. With chants that were sung… for a thousand years….”

- Heard from the back of the crowd: “Hey, who ordered a pepperoni double cheese thin crust?”

SCM Psychoanalysed!

HT to the Ironic Catholic for this one. Go here to unleash Myers-Briggs on your blog.

My result was INTP, which is fairly accurate, except that I usually come out as an ENTP. My inner "I" is a significant reality in my life but I hide it under an outgoing, pleasant, charming exterior - my outer "E"(go).

Nevertheless, since it is hard for this side of my character to come out in a virtual cyber-environment like the blogosphere, I can live with the following analysis:

INTP - The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

Solemn Mass in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, “ad orientem”, in Latin with Gregorian Chant at St Brigid's Fitzroy this Sunday!

Solemn Mass in the Ordinary Form/Use of the Roman Rite (Novus Ordo) “ad orientem”, in Latin with Gregorian Chant at St Brigid's Catholic Church, Fitzroy North On the last Sunday of each month.

Next Mass: Sunday, 30 November 2008 at 6pm (1st Sunday in Advent)

On the last Sunday of each month, St Brigid’s Parish offers Mass in a way that more closely follows the teachings of the Second Vatican Council in its document Sacrosanctum Concilium. Solemn Mass in the Ordinary Form/Use of the one Roman Rite (the Novus Ordo) is celebrated in Latin, with Gregorian chant and in an "ad orientem" posture for the Liturgy of the Eucharist: where Priest and Congregation together face liturgical east toward the Tabernacle.

For more information, see: http://glorificamus.blogspot.com/

John 10:10 in the Magisterium?

A friend (currently working in the area of Catholic social service) just asked me about the meaning of John 10:10 "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." The question was how this "life" refers to the quality or justice of life here and now. I won't go into that right here, that's for another discussion.

We explored it a bit, and then I suggested, given the centrality of this verse to the whole of Christian faith and spirituality, that we look up and see how the Catechism uses it.

Guess what. It doesn't. No use or reference to it whatsoever. Anywhere. Not even in a footnote.

Well, we gave the Compendium on Social Doctrine a go.

Guess what. Nothing there either.

But hold on a moment, surely Papa Benny said something about this in his latest encyclical "Spe Salvi". After all, how could you say anything about the hope that the eschatological promise gives us for life here in the present without refering to this verse?

Then we hit pay-dirt. Paragraph 27:

from faith I await “eternal life”—the true life which, whole and unthreatened, in all its fullness, is simply life. Jesus, who said that he had come so that we might have life and have it in its fullness, in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10), has also explained to us what “life” means: “this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (Jn 17:3). Life in its true sense is not something we have exclusively in or from ourselves: it is a relationship. And life in its totality is a relationship with him who is the source of life. If we are in relation with him who does not die, who is Life itself and Love itself, then we are in life. Then we “live”.

In fact, a google of "benedict XVI" and "john 10:10" turned up 2,270 results. Of course, the majority of these would be "repeat" hits of the same instances, but it is interesting to see how such a crucial verse - crucial also for the teaching of the present pope - is totally absent in the Catechism or the Compendium on Social Doctrine. Isn't it?

"Down right evil"? The New Heresy of questioning the New Orthodoxy...

This is from Crikey.com under the title "Anti-gay bigots on Roxon's mens' health taskforce":

Marsh and Williams seem to have rather peculiar views on some male health issues. Worse than peculiar, actually. Downright evil is a term that springs to mind.

"Downright evil"? Who are these guys? What on earth have they written? Why should I keep them away from my children (my first thought about people who are "down right evil" is usually "How far away from my children do they have to be before they are safe" - my children that is, not the "down right evil" people - you get what I mean). The Crikey.com account continues:

Because they appear to have a problem with gay men. Marsh’s group has a website where it has brought together people "who believe in the natural biological family. The best way to protect children is for children to be brought up by a loving mother and father who are married." On the site, you’ll find a quite loathsome document called "21 Reasons Why Gender Matters".

We will take a look at this "loathsome" document by these people with "peculiar", "evil" ideas about the need for a child to have a loving mother AND a loving father in a minute (one notes, for the moment, that these evil people would obviously have a problem with that other marvel of modern morality, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill 2008 waiting in the wings to be finally passed into law upon the Victorian people which actually legalises a situation in which children will NEVER have a legal mummy AND daddy), to give a bit of background to those beyond our borders.

The Age, that bastion of social conservatism (well, conservative in its predictable support for the New Orthodoxy of the Social Revolution anyway) has the story on the front page this morning:

NICOLA Roxon has been embarrassed by the revelation that two men she appointed as health ambassadors put their names to a publication saying homosexuality is a mental disorder and gay people are more likely to take drugs and molest children.

The Health Minister, who is under pressure to dump them, said last night she found the document "unacceptable and repugnant".

...The appointment of six men's health ambassadors has turned into a PR disaster for Ms Roxon, who was already under fire for appointing Tim Mathieson, partner of Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, despite him having no health background. [He is, in fact, a hairdresser - DS]

Two of the ambassadors — Warwick Marsh and Barry Williams — were listed as among 34 contributors to a paper published last year by the Fatherhood Foundation entitled 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters.

Among its claims are that gay people are more likely to cheat and hit their partners than those in "normal" relationships.

Mr Marsh, from the Fatherhood Foundation, said he "absolutely" stood by the content of the paper. But he said he was not homophobic. "I hope we're in a free society that still allows us to speak our mind. [In fact, Mr Marsh, you are about to find out that we are not -DS] I don't wish any evil on anybody," he said. "I'm there for men's health and I'm there to support the wonderful policy."

But Mr Williams, the president of Lone Fathers, said he did not write any of the paper, having merely provided advice on family law issues. He said he believed people "should be accepted the way they are born" and that he did not discriminate against anyone.

Associate Professor Anne Mitchell, from Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria at La Trobe University, said the document amounted to gay-hate literature and it was not appropriate for its authors to be associated with promotion of men's health.

In news just coming in this morning, the Minister has since sacked Warwick Marsh (who refused to recant) but has allowed Barry Williams (who recanted under the threat of dismissal from his new position) to retain his position.

Well, by this stage, I guess you are all just itching to see this "loathsome" "gay-hate literature" which is "down right evil" for yourselves. Here are the links: to the Website "Gender Matters" and to the document "21 Reasons why Gender Matters".

As soon as you open the document, you realise what this is about. There is a picture of a baby staring right at you. Yes, it is about procreation. About parenthood. And it is no suprise that a bloke who represents an organisation supportive of fathers and fatherhood would support such views. What, after all, has the gay lobby ever done for fatherhood?

The document lists "four foundational principles" before giving the "21 reasons" of the title:

Four Foundational Principles

There is an enormous and growing body of research, encompassing the fields of biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology and psychology, which all point to a clear conclusion: that there are profound differences between men and women. These go well beyond the obvious physical appearances and reproductive differences; men and women differ at many levels, and also approach relationships differently. As such, this document rests upon, and makes the case for, these four foundational principles:

1. Gender differences exist; they are a fundamental reality of our biology and impact our psychology. Our maleness and femaleness is a key aspect to our personhood.

2. Acknowledging, rather than ignoring (or worse denying), gender differences is the only intellectually honest response to this reality.

3. Gender differences are complementary; individuals, our collective humanity, and society as a whole, all benefit from masculine and feminine characteristics. We are better for having men with a clear understanding of their masculinity and women with a clear understanding of their femininity.

4. Gender identity confusion does exist in a small minority of individuals. It is a painful pathology and warrants a compassionate response. However it is not the ‘normative’ experience and is not therefore a paradigm upon which to drive social policy and institutions.

Now all that, without going into detail on what the 21 reasons actually are (and they are all explained in detail - far more detail than the reports are allowing with their "sound bite" quotations - with footnotes and references) is simply to say that the authors of this document do not accept the "New Orthodoxy". They do not hate homosexuals. They believe that homosexuality is not normal and that social policy should be based upon what is normal. However, the New Orthodoxy is that homosexuality IS normal. Anyone denying this is a heretic. And the heretics must burn.

Thank God they didn't appoint a Catholic priest to this group of Men's Health Ambassadors. Because the guts of this "loathsome", "down right evil", "gay-hate literature" is exactly what the Catholic Church has been saying on gender issues for some time. John Paul II (in his Theology of the Body) was way ahead of these "Gender Matters" guys, but they're singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.

But it is a hymn sheet that the New Orthodoxy has declared unacceptable (too "ancient" for the "moderns", perhaps?). Remember Juliette Hughes on the subject back during WYD? ("John Paul II's Theology of the Body...is a load of windy tosh about "telling the truth with your body", which in the end boils down to (surprise, surprise) how sex is only for people who are married, straight and willing to risk pregnancy.")

But then we live in a time when men (and women) call good evil and evil good. Repeat after me: "21 reasons why Gender matters" is "evil". The Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill is "good".

But there is an antidote to the New Orthodoxy. I recommend a quick immersion into First Things to read this article "Natural Law Revealed" by J. Budziszewski. Here's a small teaspoonful of what he has to say:

As I say, all this follows if the intellect concedes that sexual powers have a procreative purpose. But should reason concede this? In modern times, we tend to object that the purposes of things aren’t natural, that they are merely human constructs. The notion that nature is purposeful is derided as “metaphysical biology.”

Of course, we typically say this only about sex. The purpose of respiration is to oxygenate the blood; apart from it there would be no reason to have lungs. The purpose of circulation is to deliver nutrients and other substances to the places where they are needed; apart from it there would be no reason to have a heart and vascular system. If we are consistent, we should reason this way about sex, too. We should say that its purpose is to generate posterity; apart from this purpose there would be no purpose for the sexual organs.

What wisdom. But simple wisdom. Foolishness, even perhaps. But the kind of foolishness which, in St Paul's words, destroys the "wisdom" of the "wise".

Are you a ROFTer?

ROFTer = Reader of First Things

As you know from my frequent references to this journal, I am, and I think very highly of the founding editor, Fr Richard John Neuhaus.

If you are a reader of/subscriber to First Things, let me know in the Combox. We could form a kind of "online" ROFTers group!

Does the Pope believe "Interfaith Dialogue Not Possible"?

Reports (see here for New York Times) are circulating in the media today about a letter written by Pope Benedict to his friend and one-time co-author, the former president of the Italian Senate Marcello Pera.

The "headline" of the reports is that Benedict is denying the possibility of "true dialogue" between faiths, in favour of "intercultural" dialogue. Some will see here echoes of the temporary arrangement whereby the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue were working under the one president early in Benedict's pontificate.

Here are the facts as clearly as I can make them out.

Pera and Ratzinger co-authored a book shortly before the latter became pope called "Without Roots: Europe, Relativism, Christianity, Islam" (2005). Their contact has continued since Ratzinger's election as pope (cf. this story about a papal audience in October 2007).

Now Pera has written a new book, "Perché dobbiamo dirci cristiani" (“Why We Must Call Ourselves Christian"), and, as an introduction, there is a personal letter and recommendation from the Holy Father. As reviewer Maria Antonietta Calabrò puts it in a 23rd November review in Corriere Della Sera, such an "introduction" for a book is "un evento eccezionale, se non unico" ("an exceptional event, if not a unique one").

The same edition of the Italian newspaper published the full text of the letter/introduction.

Below I give the full Italian original of this letter and the "google translation". My Italian is very poor, but as far as I can gather, the sentence which begins "Ella spiega..." (ie. the crucial sentence regarding the possibility of authentic interreligious dialogue) refers to a thesis put forward by Pera in his book, not a thesis originating from the Holy Father himself. Benedict may agree with this judgement, but the judgement is not originally his, but Pera's.

As Fr Federico Lombardi of the Holy See's press office said (according to the NYT article):

the pope’s comments seemed intended to draw interest to Mr. Pera’s book, not to cast doubt on the Vatican’s many continuing interreligious dialogues. “He has a papacy known for religious dialogue; he went to a mosque, he’s been to synagogues,” Father Lombardi said. “This means that he thinks we can meet and talk to the others and have a positive relationship.”

It is also quite likely that George Weigel's remarks (also as reported by the NYT) are correct. The Pope is not saying that interrelgious dialogue is "impossible", but that dialogue between religious communities is more fruitful when it is focused on practical and social outcomes rather than theoretical and theological agreements.

He may well have had in mind the current situation with respect to dialogue with Islam. For instance, at the recent Catholic Muslim Forum, the Catholic side clearly were more interested in practical outcomes with regard to religious freedom than theoretical outcomes relating to reaching mutual understanding on theological matters.

In fact, as I read it, the Holy Father in the next sentence actually says that true intercultural dialogue cannot "put faith in brackets", that is, blank it out as irrelevant. To be truthful, dialogue between cultures must include the aspect of the faith of those engaged in dialogue. This appears to be a swipe, not at interreligious dialogue, but at secularism that would exclude faith from the dialogue.

That conclusion is a little bit different from the conclusion the newspapers have reached.

Anyway, here is the letter, in Italian and Google English for you to read yourself (page down to the bottom of link)

Asceticism & Passion: St Augustine, Max Scheler & Pope Benedict XVI - On the Place of Desire in Life

Caroline Chisholm Library
Wednesday Lunchtime Talk

Asceticism & Passion: St Augustine, Max Scheler & Pope Benedict XVI - On the Place of Desire in Life.

Br Vincent Magat O.P.

1-2 pm, Wednesday 26th November, 2008
The Caroline Chisholm Library
3rd Floor\358 Lonsdale Street Melbourne 3000
For more information call 03 9670 1815
Or Email: cclibrary@bigpond.com

Br Vincent Magat is a solemnly professed friar of the Order of Preachers (the Dominicans) in the Province of the Assumption. He has recently completed studies in theology at the Melbourne College of Divinity and an Honours Degree in Philosophy at Melbourne University. He is currently the Religious Assistant to the Dominican Laity Chapter of Blessed Adrian Fortescue which meets at the Caroline Chisholm Library.

No Bookings Required
Donations for the Support of the Library Welcome

"Exactly what is the difference between Lutherans and Catholics, Dad?"

Okay. This was going to come sometime. So, if you are Lutheran or Catholic, or was once either and are now the other, I need your help.

The question came from my 10 year old daughter at (Catholic) Mass last night (my wife's graduation from her Heart of Life Spiritual Leaders course). Five minutes before mass is not the easiest time to give an answer to that question.

If you asked me that question, I could tell you, no probs. After all, I am nothing to you, and you nothing to me other than that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. You could take or leave anything I say. I'm sure you do anyway.

But Maddy (baptised and communing Lutheran, going to Catholic school, one parent Lutheran the other Catholic) tends to look to her father as an authority on these things whom she can trust, and so she should. And whatever answer I give her will have a real impact for her life as she decides how she will faithfully follow her Lord. This is no time for philosophy or splitting hairs, and probably even history will have to be put on the back burner. She asked a simple question. Now it is my duty to give her a simple, honest and fair answer.

Which is easier than it sounds.

So this is where you come in, dear Reader, in this interactive posting:

I am inviting you to write a letter to Maddy in the combox - saying what you would say in answer to the question "Exactly what is the difference between Lutherans and Catholics?" Remember to keep it simple - she's ten years old, a cluey girl as you would expect her to be, but still only a youngster.

If your letters hit the spot, I will give them to her and tell her that this is how some of my friends, Lutheran and Catholic, have answered her question. It will be a good discussion starter for us.

Change re God's Covenant with the Jews in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

Fr Neuhaus reports in his latest ramble in First Things a change voted by the American bishops in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults.

That book aims at being a more accessible, some would say dumbed-down, version of The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it included this statement: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”

Not surprisingly, some people took that to mean that, for Jews, the redemptive mission of Christ is not necessary. Catholic teaching, of course, is that, while God does not deny anyone the grace necessary to be saved, all who are saved are saved by virtue of the reconciliation effected through Christ.

In place of the former statement in the catechism, the bishops now follow The Catechism of the Catholic Church by quoting St. Paul in Romans 9: “To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.’”

As Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, who helped edit the adult catechism, explains: “There was a concern that we were trying to say too much in too few words. When you get into an area of theological complexity, brevity doesn’t always serve you well.”

Two comments:

1) After trying to use the Catechism on the weekend to teach a bunch of Australian youth of immigrant background about Conscience, I actually think we DO need a "dumbed-down" version of the Catechism - by which I mean a plain english version, not a version stripped of authentic Catholic doctrine. I don't think that the Compendium actually succeeds in this, as often the language it uses is just as difficult as that used by its parent. This is not a criticism of the Catechism - it is (as it should be) precise in its use of theological language. But we really do need a "teaching" Catechism that can be put in the hands of folk whose philosophical, theological and linguistic development is not as advanced as with some of the rest of us. (Sometimes I would benefit from a simpler statement of doctrine too!)

2) If only the original wording of the US catechism had been “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through ABRAHAM remains eternally valid for them”, there would have been no reason for a change. There is much confusion in this area. The whole reason Paul agonises so much for his people is that he is convinced of the eternal validity of the Abrahamic covenant. With regards to the Mosaic covenant, even a cursory reading of Galations (eg. Gal 3:23-26) would make it clear that he regards it to be of a temporary nature. Neuhaus is right when he adds

The simple sentence was misleading, and the point of St. Paul’s statement, and of the Church’s teaching, is that the [Mosaic] covenant is not finished but incomplete.

But the Mosaic Torah, now completed (ie. fulfilled) in Christ, no longer has validity either for Jews or for Gentiles, whereas the Abrahamic Covenant, likewise fulfilled in Christ, remains eternally valid, not only for the Gentiles, but for the Jews also.

If you've done three impossible things before breakfast...

There are some things that will never happen this side of eternity but are nevertheless worth working for.

Three of those are:

- stopping the practice of abortion
- peace between Israel and the Arabs
- full visible unity of all Christians

I have heard, at any one time, people say that because it is unrealistic to hope for any of these things, all we can work for is some half way compromise.

The most recent was a comment made to me by a fellow Catholic that the bishops in the US made a mistake in their one-issue approach to the recent election. "What they want - decriminilisation of abortion - is impossible." No, I corrected him, what they want is that abortions be stopped completely, and the legal proscription is only one plank in this over all agenda, which will include a new way of loving and valuing all expectant mothers and unborn children.

It is because we set our sights high, hoping in the One who promised fullness of life, peace and unity to all humanity, that we are able to maintain our committment to these causes at all.

Even if the promises themselves were eschatological in nature.

2009 National Colloquium for Catholic Bioethicists: "Ethical and Pastoral Issues in Care of the Ageing and at the End of Life" (January 25 - 28)

I thought some of you might be interested in "The fifth National Colloquium for Catholic Bioethicists" next January. The theme is "Ethical and Pastoral issues in Care of the Ageing and at the End of Life", and as we are gearing up for a discussion on euthanasia in this state that seems very opportune.

According to their flyer:

The purpose is to foster discussion and debate amongst bioethicists, and we would welcome participation from health professionals, and members of HRECs or clinical ethics committees, and, given the topics, lawyers and politicians.

Here are some snippets from the "Colloquium Program":

Sunday 25th January, 2009

4.30pm Public Forum
Christ Lecture Theatre, ACU National, Melbourne, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy
"Making sense of human suffering – hope, witness and redemption."
Most Reverend Christopher Prowse, VG, STD, Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne

Monday 26th January, 2009
The ethical consideration of aged persons in the community.
Thomas Carr Centre, 278 Victoria Parade, East Melbourne

Tuesday, 27th January, 2009
Giving Meaning to Life and Death

Morning program includes:
"Meaning, value and worth at the end of life", John Ozolins
"Hope and end of life care", Brigid McKenna.
"Defining Death: A Theological and Philosophical Issue", Nicholas Tonti-Filippini
"The Medical Determination of Death", James Tibballs [he's the one who has been asking questions about organ donation - Schutz],

Wednesday, 28th January, 2009
Conscientious Objection and professional freedoms

Includes:
"Professional Conscience and the Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion: What protection is there or might there be?", Greg Craven
"Is conscientious objection in health care an instance of a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion?", Robert Manne
"Code of Professional Ethics and conscientious objection", Eamon Mathieson

Registration by January 16th, 2009 Email: acoleiro@jp2institute.org
Full registration $175
Part registration available

Searching for Origninal source on "Pope requests Sign of Peace review" story

I really wish that the daily edition of L'Osservatore Romano was available IN ENGLISH on the internet WITH full archived versions. That's a tall order, because at the moment, only the Italian original is available and that only for the current day. At least we can be thankful that the current Weekly edition is available in English.

The problem is that we then have to be content with second hand sources for the original articles, such as this report from the Associated Press which was picked up by Cathnews (wait for it) via an American Website (Seattlepi.com). Fr Z is carrying the story via Andrea Tornielli. Unfortunately, because the full editions of LOR are not available in their archives on line, neither is the original interview with Cardinal Arinze which is the source of the story.

Oh well, we will have to take Associated Press and Andrea Tornielli on trust on this one then.

On the issue itself, however, I am with Fr Z. on this one. Where the sign of peace is now is where it always has been in the Roman rite, and it belongs with the emphasis on "peace" at that point in the Liturgy ("I leave you peace, my peace I give you"..., "The Peace of the Lord be with you always"..., "Lamb of God, grant us peace"). Funny how some traditionalists - because of an understandable aversion to the manner in which the exchange of peace is often carried out - are so keen to see this "inorganic", "unilateral" alteration made to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite when they are usually so keen on the unchangeable nature of the liturgy.

Conscience: Too complicated for a layman?

As you may know, I am currently an "enquirer" to become an "aspirant" to become a "candidate" to become a permanent Deacon in the Church. Its a long process (four years formation) and I am only at the end of the first year (the "enquirer" year), and there's no guarentee that the Church will judge my personal sense of vocation to be a sign of a genuine call.

I mention this, because when the Director of the Office for the Permanent Diaconate reviewd formal studies in theology from the Lutheran Seminary, he deemed it to be insufficient in moral philosophy. Hence, next year, I hope to enrol at the Catholic Theological College to remedy this deficiency.

I tell this little story because last night I was invited to give a talk on the topic of "Conscience" to a local Melbourne youth group. If I had been asked straight out to do a talk on this topic, I would have declined and referred them to an expert in the area - Bishop Peter Elliott, for instance, who wrote this little piece ("Moral Conscience") for Kairos (our archdiocesan rag) a few years ago.

However, that isn't how it happened. They booked me up some months ago to speak on the topic of ecumenical and interfaith relations - something I do know something about. I accepted. Then two weeks ago, I got a phone call asking if I could speak on a different topic. Okay, I said, what do you want me to speak on? Conscience.

Understanding the importance of Conscience and its role in living the moral life is just about the first plank in any system of moral philosophy - the aforesaid area of deficiency in my theological eduction. But, I thought to myself, surely it can't be too hard for a layman to understand? Afterall, everyday I (like you, dear reader, lay or otherwise) have recourse to my conscience on an endless number of issues. So, armed with Scripture and Catechism and a few essays by local chums, off I went to give my presentation.

You can find it here and evaluate it for yourself. The main idea, as far as I see it, is something like this. Conscience is (as the Catechism says at §1778) "a judgement of reason". Like a compass that always points North/South, Conscience always enjoins a person "to do good and to avoid evil." (CCC §1777). But as the same paragraph says, conscience "bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn [ie. God]". So the whole deal looks something like this:

God = Supreme Good = Truth
6
Authority = Witness to the Truth = Voice of God
6
Reason = Judgement = Conscience
6
Will = Discipline / Prudence
6
Concrete Action = Future / Present / Past

And thus, as the usefulness of a compass depends upon a the accuracy of the map with which it is used (and knowing where you actually stand in relation to that map), so the usefulness of the rational judgement of conscience will depend upon the authorities upon which one relies and trusts to hear the "voice of God" speaking to one.

While many and various are these "authorities", the Catechism suggests five such authorities on which Christians rely (CCC §1785):

- the Word of God
- the Lord's Cross.
- the gifts of the Holy Spirit,
- the witness or advice of others
- the authoritative teaching of the Church.

That last one is has become the sticking point for "dissenters" in the Church today. On this, two opinions are interesting, first that of Cardinal George Pell (as given in two addresses: The Inconvenient Conscience and Newman and the Drama of True and False Conscience):

“If we disagree with the Church’s message so seriously that we cannot follow its terms, we cannot reinvent that message to make it easier or more palatable. Rather, we enter into a period of prayer, study, and enquiry to try to understand the message and to understand why we find ourselves opposed to it. And if the matter that puzzles us is one of a binding Church teaching or a central moral teaching, then this may prove a lifetime’s work. .” George Pell, The Inconvenient Conscience

The other opinion, not differing from this, is in an essay by local Australian Catholic University theology, Brian Lewis. Lewis is actually writing in reply to another very good essay by Bishop Anthony Fisher, "The moral conscience in ethics and the contemporary crisis of authority". Although he does not share Bishop Anthony's evaluation of the authority of the Magisterium in matters of conscience, nevertheless he concedes that:

“For a Catholic to make a decision in conscience, deliberately ignoring the official teaching of their Church, would be to forfeit one’s claim to be acting as a committed Catholic and in accord with a properly informed conscience.” Brian Lewis , Conscience and the Teaching of the Magisterium on Morality

Anyway, what do you think? Do we need doctorates in moral philosophy just to understand the Church's teaching on conscience? Or is it all, in the end, very simple?

Cathy and David at the Movies: Quantum of Solace

David: The latest James Bond movie (the second with Daniel Craig as 007) takes up exactly where Casino Royale left off in 2006. Aside from Craig, Judi Dench is M, Mathieu Almaric is villain Dominic Greene and (previously unknown French Ukrainian) Olga Kurylenko is Camille (this film's standard Bond girl).

Cathy: From the first breathtaking scenes to the end, this Bond movie is all about action, and the more extreme the better. I found myself holding my breath on many occasions throughout the movie as Bond bounces from one high octane action sequence to another.

David: "Bounces" is the word for it. I know this is supposed to be a fantasy, but the only way Bond could survive any of those chase scenes is if he were made of indestructible rubber. He's not a superhero, but he survives action sequences more extreme than anything we've seen in Spiderman or Batman.

Cathy: The story line is thin on the ground, and what little there is seemed to be a bit confusing at times. The focus is more on the action than on any actual spying. However Daniel Craig does the moody revenge-driven Bond exceptionally well. And Judi Dench's M adds a human touch to the film.

David: Yes, there is an obvious effort in these latest films to give some depth to Bond's character, but it still remains fairly shallow. It is quite clear that the plot only exists to connect together the action sequences. And admittedly these visually complex scenes are very well done. I don't think we have seen much better in this genre. I loved the Tosca scene where the on-stage fight was juxtaposed with the backstage battle to Puccini's soundtrack.

Cathy: I was impressed with the tight, sharp cinematography of the car chase and the hand-to-hand combat. And even some of the location images, such as Haiti, were beautifully portrayed.

David: If you are a fan of James Bond movies, this film has everything you require. If you’re not, then don't go see it. I'm giving it 2½ stars as a movie over all – although if I were rating it on the action scenes alone, it would be a 4 star job.

Cathy: Fast paced and exciting, good for an adrenalin rush. I'm giving it 3½ stars.

Stop Press! Bishop of Bunbury calls for Radical Reconsideration Confirmation!

Well, this is the strangest "press release" I have ever read. It is a most unusual way to communicate episcopal instruction. Whatever happened to a good, old fashioned pastoral letter? Or a column in the diocesan paper?

That aside, we applaud Bishop Gerard Holohan for raising the question of the practice of Confirmation in our Australian schools.

He is spot on in calling Confirmation (as it is currently practiced) a "Sacrament of Farewell". It reminds one of the old joke about how the parish priest got rid of the pigeons in the bell tower. "I just baptised and confirmed them, and I never saw them again", he said.

And his analogy of catechesis to a trade apprenticeship in contrast to religious education as a TAFE course in that trade is spot on.

As is his call for us to return to the original and proper order of initation: Baptism, CONFIRMATION, first eucharist. The Orthodox have been looking at us sideways ever since we brought in the novelty of first eucharist BEFORE confirmation.

He is calling for:

- a new and focussed catechesis programme,
- a new level of parish and school collaboration,
- a catechesis strategy that draws in parents and even other family members so that families can offer catechesis and
- the raising of the Confirmation age.

This four-pronged approach is just what we need, but it's going to take a hell of a lot of education and hard work and debate before we can see this level of reformation across the board.

Perhaps the next Synod of Bishops in Rome should be on the sacrament of Confirmation and the effective catechesis and initiation of the young...

Nicked from Cooees

who nicked it from somewhere else...



I reckon this is probably Brian Coyne's idea of "Sentire Cum Ecclesia"...

(nb. correction: When I say that the Cooees guys nicked it, I meant the picture, not the captions. They are Cooees originals).

CATHOLIC Lessons and Carols for the ABC

In the combox to this blog about the ABC recording of Carols and Lessons in St Patrick's Cathedral, that ubiquitous and tireless commentator "Anonymous" was incensed (?!) that we should be having a PROTESTANT form of worship in our Catholic Cathedral rather than, for eg., Pontifical Vespers. His final comment in the string was:

Wiki - that very reliable source - tells us that the order of Nine Lessons and Carols was adapted from an order drawn up by Edward White Benson, who would later become Archbishop of Canterbury, for use at a 10 pm service on Christmas Eve in 1880 that took place in a temporary wooden shed serving as his cathedral in Truro, Cornwall.[1] Based on an idea of the future Bishop of Edinburgh, George Henry Somerset Walpole,[2] the purpose of the service was to keep men out of pubs on Christmas Eve.[3]

In other words, a very post-Reformation idea.

Personally, I would imagine the idea of singing carols in Church as a service is likely to go back even further, given their popular origin, but this just underlines the fact: a carol service is not inherently liturgical in the Catholic sense.

Why do we not recover what is liturgical in the Catholic sense.

As far as Pontifical vespers not being a drawing card, I would respectfully say that never have I been to a liturgical service as "charged" as the Pontifical Vespers in the Extraordinary Form at WYD. The whole service was deeply prayerful - profoundly, and matched only a few days later by the Adoration with the Holy Father - what happened as the congregation pounded out "Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat", I'll take to the grave.

The simple reason we fall into the trap of saying this won't attract anyone is because we never see it in order to judge it. Like that's a rational, really empirical approach, no?

Weeellll... its just this thing about singing carols, Anon. It's so much more "Christmassy". I still don't think Pontifical Vespers would get them switching on the telly on Christmas Eve...

And, I have some information to share. Consulting with our Herr Kapellmeister, Dr Geoffrey Cox, he pointed out that in fact the form of 9 readings is taken from from the 3 nocturns of three readings in the traditional form of Matins (as I suspected, the traditional vigil form). Hence, whether Bishop Benson was aware of it or not, the form is "inherantly Catholic".

And to cap it all off, on Wednesday night they completed the Traditional Lessons and Carols with the expositio of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction.

So there.

About the Catholic Muslim Forum

I haven't said a lot about the Catholic Muslim Forum that was held in Rome from 4-6 November. I've been waiting to hear reactions first. But I had to write a piece for the next edition of Kairos, so that got me thinking about it.

You have to sympathise with Cardinal Tauran's comment that sometimes there seems to be "too many" dialogues between Christians and Muslims. There are other churches and religions out there that we need to be dialoguing with. But, perhaps given the fact that the geo-political stability of the earth seems to depend upon the one third of the population who are Christian getting along with the one quarter who are Muslim, the importance of the dialogue cannot be overestimated.

In case you don't know the background to the Forum, here is the potted version from the A Common Word website:

On October 13th 2006, one month to the day after Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address of September 13th 2006, 38 Islamic authorities and scholars from around the world, representing all denominations and schools of thought, joined together to deliver an answer to the Pope in the spirit of open intellectual exchange and mutual understanding. In their Open Letter to the Pope (see english.pdf), for the first time in recent history, Muslim scholars from every branch of Islam spoke with one voice about the true teachings of Islam.

Exactly one year after that letter, on October 13th 2007 Muslims expanded their message. In A Common Word Between Us and You, 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals have unanimously come together for the first time since the days of the Prophet r to declare the common ground between Christianity and Islam. Like the Open Letter, the signatories to this message come from every denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in the world is represented in this message, which is addressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere.

...Indeed, the most fundamental common ground between Islam and Christianity, and the best basis for future dialogue and understanding, is the love of God and the love of the neighbor. Never before have Muslims delivered this kind of definitive consensus statement on Christianity. Rather than engage in polemic, the signatories have adopted the traditional and mainstream Islamic position of respecting the Christian scripture and calling Christians to be more, not less, faithful to it.

So that is quite a unique opportunity for the Roman Curia (which prefers, wherever possible, to deal with authoritative and comprehensive representatives in all their diplomatic relations) to actually dialogue with "Islam" per se, and not some sect or school of thought within it.

But while the "Common Word" cooperative action has support of some of the national Islamic authorities (eg. King Abdullah II of Jordan is a patron), it really cannot speak for governments as such, and many of the concerns that the Catholic Church has with Islam involve the way it is imposed politically in some places. That was an obvious difficulty in the dialogue.

I found Tom Heneghan's observation and use of the analogy of "funnel vision" most insightful:

Imagine you’re asked to examine a problem through a funnel but not told which end to look through. Some people will look through the narrow end and get a wide-angle view of the problem. Others will look through the wide end and get a narrow focus on certain parts of it. Both will be looking at the same problem, but in different ways.

This image came to mind after I spoke to members of both delegations in advance of the Catholic-Muslim Forum that starts today in Vatican City. Both sides are looking at the same problem – how to really improve understanding and cooperation between Christians and Muslims – but from different points of view...

The Common Word delegation seems to have grabbed the narrow end [of the funnel] and peered through it, thus getting a broad view of the challenge of deeper Christian-Muslim understanding.

The Vatican side seems to have focused on issues within the Common Word manifesto, looking with two eyes through the wide end to zero in on specific questions.

This is a rough analogy and not meant to criticise either position, since both perspectives can enrich the other. The broad view can help both sides to make progress despite differences on specific points. The narrow view can help clarify details of certain points in the Common Word manifesto.

The result of the talks was a 15 point agreed statement, which in itself is quite an achievement, but is really pointless unless it can be put into action. I guess you could put it in the category of a "choose now which way you will live" address to Christians and Muslims throughout the world, with a "but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord" rider.

The longest point in the statement is point 1, on loving God and loving the neighbour (the broad end of the funnel), but points 2-15 are really where this fine rhetoric hits the road (the narrow end of the funnel). In particular, take special note of point 5:

5. Genuine love of neighbour implies respect of the person and her or his choices in matters of conscience and religion. It includes the right of individuals and communities to practice their religion in private and public.

Now that, if we could get it implimented universally, WOULD be an achievment. Of course, it is precisely this section that has received much attention from the media. One the Religion Report interview with one of the signatories of the original "A Common Word" statement included this exchange:

David Rutledge: The declaration puts a heavy stress on the importance of religious freedom, and specifically the right of Christians to build churches in Muslim countries. Now this is a contentious issue and Saudi Arabia didn't have a delegate at the talks, and I wonder if you think that takes some of the shine off that statement...?

Ali Lakhani: Well it's a good point that you make and I think what you are really bringing out is the fact that there are many different shades of articulation of faith, even within a faith tradition like Islam, and certainly in the case of the Saudis... So religion and politics really are intertwined here. In terms of the effectiveness of the declaration without those elements being included, I think that will be something that emerges over time. What has to happen is that there has to be a momentum, a critical mass that builds up over the sort of moderate and centrist views that will eventually be able to engage the less moderate views. But that's an evolution. So I'm quite hopeful.

But how easy was it even to get point 5 into the final statement? In Heneghan's interview with Tauran, there is this exchange:

Heneghan: What were the most important points in the declaration for you?

Tauran: The most important for us is the explicit reference to religious freedom in private and public. I think that’s important.

Heneghan: Was it hard to agree on?

Tauran: Yes, a bit. There was some discussion. On the spot, it was not acceptable for them. But there was a discussion.

Heneghan: I understand that Grand Mufti Ceric convinced the Muslim delegates to support this.

Tauran: You are well informed. [Don't you just love that?]

Heneghan: Did it take a long time to agree on this?

Tauran: No, there was a desire to achieve results. He represents European Islam, which is more open and sophisticated.

Well, even better informed is Asia Times commentator "Spengler", who, in a piece entitled "A Pyrrhic propaganda victory in Rome?" reveals all:

An especially Orwellian moment was reported by the Jesuit Samir Khalid Samir (as reported by the Italian service Asia News on November 7):

In the Joint Declaration, "the right of persons and communities to practice their faith in private and in public" emerged in point 5. Serious problems arose. Some Muslims said: "if you include those words you put us in great difficulty. Freedom of religion in our countries is governed by State law. How can we distribute a document that is against State law? We risk being disqualified and marginalized by our society". Some Muslims suggested omitting at least the words "in private and in public".

There was also a formula that defended the right to spread ones own faith such as "Da'wa" (mission for Islam) or Tabshir (Christian mission). But it was held to be too strong and so we eliminated it.

All of these difficulties were resolved by the grand Mufti [of Bosnia]. Mustafa Ceric recalled that the formula on religious freedom used in the joint statement "are those found in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Many Muslim governments signed this declaration. Therefore they must accept it, even though perhaps they don't practice it". This solved the problem and eased the path for all to adhere to the final document.

So there you have it. Yes, it was a victory (for the thin-end of the funnel orientated Catholics) to get an agreed committment on religious freedom incorporated into the final statement. But unless the Church can get some committment from Islamic political authorities as well as Islamic religious authorites, such a victoriy does, in the final analysis, appear "Pyrrhic".

Still, as they are all saying (including his Holiness BXVI who received the Forum members in audience), these are only "first steps" on what will be a long and difficult journey.

Of Monarchs, Presidents and other Nincompoops...

I am not an avid reader of obituaries, but this one caught my eye in the paper this morning: Key figure in republic debate: GEORGE GRAHAM WINTERTON Constitutional Expert, 15-12-1946 — 6-11-2008.

And in this obituary, I read the following comment of the late Professor Winterton:

He said afterwards that he would "like to think people would decide this issue on its merits as opposed to emotions and questions of affection for the monarchy. But the reality is (that) the identity of the monarch is a factor … along with any perceived crisis in the monarchy.

"If we had an absolute nincompoop on the throne, people would want change."

Of course, the one factor most in favour of our current Australian system of Constitutional Monarchy is precisely the fact that if there were "an absolute nincompoop on the throne" it wouldn't matter one jot. The machinery of government would continue as usual (ie. being run by the absolute nincompoops we have elected and sent to Canberra rather than the absolute nincompoops in Buckingham Palace in London).

Whereas, were we to be a republic, with a popularly elected president, I could just about guarentee you that we would indeed be governed by an head of state who would be, if not an absolute nincompoop, a person who would at least occasionally displays the traits of nincompoopery, and who would have a much greater effect upon our nation than our current in absentia monarch. If you don't believe me, just take a look at American politics...

Which is just another way of saying "the nincompoop you know is better than the nincompoop you don't.

New Monty Python Channel on YouTube

I'm guilty - not of uploading Monty Python on YouTube, but at least of linking to pirated copies of their skits on this blog. So I heartily rejoice with the announcement of the Monty Python fellows of a dedicated channel on YouTube. Here is what they have to say.

For 3 years you YouTubers have been ripping us off, taking tens of thousands of our videos and putting them on YouTube. Now the tables are turned. It's time for us to take matters into our own hands.

We know who you are, we know where you live and we could come after you in ways too horrible to tell. But being the extraordinarily nice chaps we are, we've figured a better way to get our own back: We've launched our own Monty Python channel on YouTube.

No more of those crap quality videos you've been posting. We're giving you the real thing - HQ videos delivered straight from our vault.

What's more, we're taking our most viewed clips and uploading brand new HQ versions. And what's even more, we're letting you see absolutely everything for free. So there!

Check it out today!

Good news - but not good Ecumenical news...

Cathnews, in reposting Deacon Keith Fournier's article from Catholic Online "Will Entire Episcopal Diocese Come into Full Communion with Rome?", is a little inaccurate in optimistically re-entitling the piece "A moment in history for Anglicans and Catholics". Deacon Keith himself gives an inaccurate impression with his opening comment:

2008 has been a year of potentially historic breakthroughs between Anglican Christians and the Chair of Peter.

There have been NO "breakthroughs" between the Anglican Communion as such and the See of Rome in 2008 - quite the opposite. What he is referring to is the increase in the number of those Christians currently in communion with the See of Canterbury who, either individually or corporately, are seeking to return to full communion with the Roman Pontiff. And that is good news indeed (as it is whenever any of our separated brethren and sistern are reunited with the One Sheepfold), but it is not necessary good Ecumenical news.

So what, I hear you ask? Ecumenism is just fiddling while Rome (metaphorically) burns, anyway, isn't it?

Well, no, that is a bit unfair. Were the goals and aims of the Ecumenical Movement to be attained (something which, in my moments of Ecclesiastical Realpolitik, I have to admit is very unlikely to occur this side of eternity), then there would be only one Christian Church on earth.

It would be the Church which we confess in the Creed, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and it would have as its "primus inter pares" the Bishop of Rome, for the goal of the movement is the "full visible unity of all Christians". Since any such unity would include that present united, universal, apostolic and quite visible Communion most of us call "The Catholic Church", then this is just another way of saying that the goal of the ecumenical movement is that all Christians will once again be united in communion with Rome. And Constantinople, and Jerusalem, and Canterbury, and Moscow etc. etc.

I defy any reader of this blog to say that that would not be a very good thing.

So, while the news that an entire diocese, Fort Worth (Texas) formerly of the Episcopal Church, has requested admission into full communion with the Holy See is good, it doesn't go anywhere to achieving the plenary reconciliation of Anglican Christians such with the Catholic Church.

Apart from any other difficulties (and a principal difficulty would be the question of whether Bishop Iker would continue to be the bishop of such a reunited "diocese" - especially if he married? Does anyone know?), the reality is that the Episcopal Church would simply appoint a new bishop to the diocese of Fort Worth, and the Episcopal Church would be no closer full communion with Rome than it was when it started.

In fact, it would be more clearly "separated" than it currently is, as one would assume that the resultant Episcopal diocese, drained of all its "catholic" members and clergy, would be much more of the flavour that currently pervades the American branch of Anglicanism.

In the end, as you would not be surprised to hear, I believe that reunion with Rome will continue to happen on an "ad hoc" basis - an individual or family here, a parish or diocese there - but that overall, Christian disunity will persist.

So, I am all in favour when anyone seeks communion with the Catholic Church. Just don't think that is in anyway a "breakthrough" for unity between Catholics and Anglicans.

BTW: This is not the first time an entire diocese has sought communion with Rome. Apart from the TAC's own approach, history is replete with examples of Eastern Churches making such decisions. The latest one that springs to mind is the case of an entire diocese of the Assyrian Church of the East in California.

"Fit for Mission? Church" - English Bishop Tells It As It Is

I was very impressed about a month or two ago when I came across the work of one very conscientious English bishop, Patrick O'Donoghue of Lancaster (not to be confused with our own very conscientious Bishop Patrick Dougherty of Bathurst). He has released two papers for his diocese, the first one called "Fit for Mission? Schools" and the second one "Fit for Mission? Church" (nb. I had downloaded the latter document from http://www.lancasterrcdiocese.org.uk/mission%20review/index.html but it looks like that website is undergoing some reconstruction at the moment).

These two "reports" are really more of a series of personally written catecheses by the bishop (following extensive consultation and review) addressing crucial issues in the life of the parishes and schools in his diocese. You can read about the whole project on this "blog/forum".

Suffice it to say that he got himself into hot water with the UK education authorities for demanding that Catholic schools in his diocese have:

"Crucifixes in every classroom, "sex-education" based on the principles of chastity and the sanctity of marriage, no school fundraising for anti-life groups and religious education based firmly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church" (see source here)

but no way was he backing down:

Bishop O'Donoghue told the six committee members, "Every school has a philosophy. And a philosophy which puts God at the centre and morality as objective, is no less powerful than that which says God is irrelevant and morality is up to the individual choice."

"To our view, the role of democracy is to embrace all views, and not to infringe on basic human rights."

He said "the impression that is coming across" from politics and the media is that "some people seem to think that the only true democratic stance is the latter, namely that God is irrelevant and that morality is up to the individual."

Now his "Fit for Mission? Church" has drawn praise from the Congregation of the Clergy in Rome.

This morning, Bishop O'Donoghue is in the news again with the Telegraph giving an extensive report of comments he made (source, as usual with the Telegraph, not given, although the impression - wrongly - is given that they came from "Fit for Mission? Church") regarding the negative effect which more widespread higher education seems to have had on the Catholic faith in the UK:

"What we have witnessed in Western societies since the end of the Second World War is the development of mass education on a scale unprecedented in human history - resulting in economic growth, scientific and technological advances, and the cultural and social enrichment of billions of people's lives.

"However, every human endeavor has a dark side, due to original sin and concupiscence. In the case of education, we can see its distortion through the widespread dissemination of radical scepticism, positivism, utilitarianism and relativism.

"Taken together, these intellectual trends have resulted in a fragmented society that marginalizes God, with many people mistakenly thinking they can live happy and productive lives without him.

"It shouldn't surprise us that the shadows cast by the distortion of education, and corresponding societal changes, have also touched members of the Church. As Pope Benedict XVI puts it, even in the Church we find hedonism, selfishness and egocentric behavior...

"The Second Vatican Council tends to be misinterpreted most by Catholics who have had a university education -- that is, by those most exposed to the intellectual and moral spirit of the age...

"These well-educated Catholics have gone on to occupy influential positions in education, the media, politics, and even the Church, where they have been able to spread their so-called loyal dissent, causing confusion and discord in the whole church...

"This failure of leadership has exacerbated the even-greater problem of the mass departure from the Church of the working-class and poor. For example, the relentless diatribe in the popular media against Christianity has undermined the confidence of the ordinary faithful in the Church."

Is he wrong? We don't think so. Neither does Telegraph journalist Damian Thompson, in a piece on his blog called "With friends like these, the Church doesn't need enemies." The "friend" to which Thompson refers is the Tablet with an article by Nicholas Lash called "Log in the Church's Eye". I don't subscribe to "the Bitter Pill", so I rely on Thompson for this summary and comment:

Meanwhile, on page 12 [of this week's Tablet], "leading theologian" Nicholas Lash tears into Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue for his recent admirable statements about the sickness of contemporary society and the inability of his fellow bishops and Catholic university intellectuals to come to grips with it. If the Bishop had named individual universities or individuals "he might well have had a series of libel actions on his hands," says Lash pompously.

He concludes: "Bishop O'Donoghue is, I understand, shortly to retire. Perhaps he might care, in retirement, to spend some months (incognito, if possible) in a university chaplaincy. He might then have the courage to withdraw and apologise for many of the grave accusations levelled in this interview."

It's true that "POD" is retiring from active ministry as a bishop; but he will, of course, continue to serve as a priest, as he has done faithfully for decades. Which is is more than can be said for Nicholas Lash, who, like so many Tabletistas, is an ex-priest.

It seems to me that Lash's comments merely prove the Bishop's point, no?

But sadly, one thing that the Bishop of Lancaster has in common with the Bishop of Bathurst is age. Both men, at the end of their careers as bishops, have shown courage right to the very end. And here is where we are winning, folks. The faithful priests and bishops among us have staying power. They will be working for the Kingdom until the day they die.

The others end up writing for the Tablet...

(BTW: There is a support page for Bishop O'Donoghue on Facebook. Is that, perhaps, a "POD"-cast?)

ABC Lessons and Carols at OUR Cathedral!

As I went to Mass this afternoon, I almost tripped over the multiple electrical leads leading in all directions. There were several big ABC TV trucks outside the Cathedral, and cameras and pews moved, and all sorts of stuff, not to mention the Chrissy decorations all up about a month and half too early. What's all this then?, I asked myself.

Well, the mystery is solved. According to this story, its all because Aunty is coming to town to record Carols and Lessons for the first time at the Micks' joint, rather than at the local Anglicans.

ABC recording of the St Patrick's Cathedral Annual Carols and Readings Service
Wednesday 19 November 2008
7pm, St Patrick's Cathedral
Cathedral Place
East Melbourne

The ABC will make a recording of the Annual Carols & Readings Service at St Patrick's Cathedral. This service is usually held Sunday before Christmas Day.

This is the first time the ABC has ever recorded a Christmas service in a Catholic Church. [How about THAT, eh?]

We invite you to be a member of the Congregation for this very special occasion.

Please make a note of this in your diary and come along to prepare together for Christmas in this way.

I know that our Cathedral Choir is second to none (hat tip to the Herr Kapellmeister, Dr Geoffrey Cox (admittedly, a convert we nicked from the Anglicans) and well up to the job, but what worries me is how they are going to manage to get a whole congregation of singing Catholics...

Oh well, it is only Christmas Carols after all. Even Catholics should be able to manage that. Good luck, Aunty.

The US Exit Polls, the "Catholic Vote", and parallel universes...

Exit polls, schmexit polls, I say.

But in any case, some people are fascinated by what the "exit polls" (based on answers asked by pollsters as the voters leave the voting booths) have to say about the "Catholic Vote" in the US.

The question is, when these polls show that (self-identifying not necessarily practicing)Catholics voted pretty well the same way as the rest of the US population (ie. pro Obama by about 4-6%), what should one make of the very vocal stand some Catholic bishops took against the pro-abortion policies of the Democrats?

The Tablet, for instance, carries a story by Michael Sean Winters: "Why they didn’t listen", in which he declares that "the greatest problem is that these "abortion-only" bishops are living in a parallel universe."

But at the same time, Catholic News Service is carrying a story which indicates that some Catholics well might have been listening to their bishops:

Mark Gray, a research associate at Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, pointed to several states as examples of where a higher percentage of Catholics supported McCain compared to the rest of the state's voters.

In Missouri, McCain and Obama each got about 50 percent of the vote. Catholics in Missouri voted for McCain by a difference of 55 percent to 45 percent.

In Pennsylvania, Obama won 55 percent of the vote and McCain 44 percent, but Catholics favored McCain by 52 percent to 48 percent.

What distinguishes those states, Gray noted, is that in each at least one bishop issued statements that leaned strongly toward telling voters they should vote only for candidates of the party that supports overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion virtually on demand.

Now admittedly, that's not a big difference (that's still 45-48 percent of "Catholics" in favour of the pro-abortion party) but hey, it indicates that about 10 percent of Catholics (God knows, but that might represent all of the usual Democrat voters among the active Catholics in the Dioceses) WERE listening to their bishop.

In any case, we ought not to be fazed by the "parallel universe" accusation. Didn't Jesus say as much in the "in the world, but not of the world" line?

We are citizens of heaven, guys...

Strange customs...

We act differently when we think people aren't looking...

On our holiday in the King River Valley recently, my family was the last to leave. My wife had washing in the machine, and as the kids were getting restless, she sent me off with them down to the river.

Well, my kids are like ducks around water. Or fish. You can't keep them out of it.

"Can we paddle in the water, Dad?"

I knew that if I let them, their clothes would be soaked from top to bottom.

"Only if you take off your clothes."

They didn't know what to think of that at first - but, when I assured them that we were in complete wilderness and there wasn't another soul around for at least a mile, they stripped off and jumped in. A good time was had by all.

I explained that such is the custom in Eastern Europe, where (so I am told) it is customary to swim in public at lakes, rivers and the beach quite starkers. Some friends told me once that they were quite shocked when travelling in East Germany some decades back with a female Pastorinnen, when she took them to the local lake to go swimming. Arriving at the destination, she proceeded to strip off and jump in. Leaving them to hunt around for a place to change into their togs.

Foreign places have always had strange customs. Perhaps this explains the behaviour of this reverend gentleman from the East...

Happy retirement, Bishop Patrick Dougherty (Bathurst)!

SCM wishes Bishop Patrick Dougherty of Bathurst many happy and relaxed years of retirement. Given that his retirement was announced mere weeks after the Dresser case, one has to admire the fact that His Lordship did anything at all. I (yes, I, dear Reader) would have been sorely tempted to simply leave a sticky note on the episcopal throne for the next incumbent.

Lots of rumours flying around about the future of the diocese, however, for which the Cooees boys (and girl - sorry, Sr K) have a good roundup.

This is my Godson...

Isn't he cute? Daniel is the offspring of Pastor Fraser Pearce at epistolae obscurorum virorum. I got a good loooong cuddle with him when visiting Fraser and his family last weekend.

BTW, no-one has answered Fraser's query about the "formal and material principles" yet. Be the first! Comment now!

Catholic Politician "Swayed" by "Emotional Tug" in IVF debate

Compassion, I have heard it said, is the core of Christian ethics.

But it is a devilishly dangerous foundation on which to build an ethical approach to law, precisely because it is allowing a feeling to sway a thought. It is giving the heart control of the head. It is allowing reason to be swayed by the passions.

Now all that might be good in its proper place (eg. a romantic novel), but even in real life relationships, we know too well what trouble lays around the corner for those who follow the "tug" of the the passions and are "swayed" against the objections of their reason.

In the halls of our legislative assemblies and councils, there is even more to be concerned when, as The Age reports this morning in the article "Isabella's story sways a conservative", the application of and aquiescence to emotional pressure succeeds in narrowly passing a piece of legislation which will impact on the whole of our society.

Here are snippets. It is not the clearest account of the matter, and is itself obviously written to produce an emotional result, but you will get the picture. The emphasis is added by me:

IT WAS an emotional tug that traditionally conservative Labor MP Bob Smith couldn't ignore.

As the Catholic MP wrestled over whether to back a bill giving single women and lesbians greater access to fertility treatment and change surrogacy arrangements, close friend Stephen Conroy intervened.

A Victorian senator and Rudd Government minister, Mr Conroy was forced to travel to Sydney with his wife to have their daughter, Isabella, through IVF and surrogacy.

Isabella's story, Mr Smith told Parliament, had an extraordinary and powerful influence.

"The good senator did everything in his power to pressure me, even to the extent of suggesting I would be voting against Isabella," he said.

Senator Conroy and his wife, Paula Benson, turned to surrogacy after Ms Benson had ovarian cancer and a hysterectomy and could not conceive.

Yesterday, Mr Smith's vote was crucial in the Victorian upper house's backing of the proposed legislation.

After days of furious lobbying by supporters of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, a second reading vote passed 20 to 18.

You get the picture. It is a little sad. One cannot be too hard on Mr Smith. He is, after all, a product of our times--and probably the Catholic moral education of the seventies which emphasised such "core principles" as "compassion". And he was under such great pressure from his good friend.

But it is sad. It is clear that without this "pressure", he would have voted against the legislation, and the legislation would have been scuttled. It raises all sorts of questions about conscience and acting in accordance with it, as well as the way in which our laws are made.

I would also like to ask the more theoretical question: What happened to Mr Smith's conscience at this point? Was it "awakened" by the emotional pressure of his friend's lobbying? Or did he act contrary to the way in which his formed conscience directed him to act?

For the moment, the bill has not yet become law. It has to come back to the house inthe first days of December after a spell with a legislative committee. But if Mr Smith votes again as he did yesterday, then we can expect that by next Christmas we could well be welcoming more than one child into the world without a natural father...

A New Foreign Policy "Realpolitik" for America in dealing with Islamic Politics? Sounds like the position Rome has already adopted!

I have just read an excellent and, I think, important essay in the latest edition of First Things by Thomas Farr entitled "Islam's Way to Freedom". The author is described at the end of the article as a

visiting associate professor of religion and international affairs at Georgetown University. This article is adapted from an essay in Foreign Affairs, which also appears in his new book, World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty is Vital to American National Security (Oxford University Press).

So his credentials seem sound.

In case you don't subscribe to First Things (and you should, I think, even if only to the online edition which is quite cheap) you won't have access to the article until a couple of months time (when they put all their material up free).

His central point is that the American government should adopt a "First Principle" as follows:

First, by adopting an overarching principle: Religion is normative, not epiphenomenal, in human affairs. Policymakers should approach it much as they do economics and politics—as something that drives the behavior of people and governments in important ways. Like political and economic motives, religion can act as a multiplier of both destructive and constructive behaviors, often with more-intense results. When faith is associated with social identity, ethnicity, or nationality, it is all the more important as an object of foreign policy.

The approach he describes and recommends is not dissimilar to that which the Vatican and Pope Benedict have adopted.

At one point, he writes:

To assume that the religion of 1.3 billion people can be separated from politics, or that American diplomacy can afford not to engage political Islam, is the opposite of realism. The interests of the United States, especially its national security, demand that policymakers and diplomats put political Islam on the policy table and learn how to discern the qualities of its agents. Who are the dissimulators, and who are the earnest? Which Islamists see religious freedom and human dignity embedded in the Qur’an and hadith, and which ones are searching in that direction?

The answer to that question should undoubtedly be the "A Common Word" initiative, as has been shown in the recent outcome of the talks in Rome. The almost universal and comprehensive subscription to this alliance means it is well placed to bring through the necessary changes with regard to democracy and religious freedom in Islam - precisely on the basis of a re-examination of their own sacred texts.

An update on the Assisted Reproductive Treatments bill

As noted below, the Brumby government was getting very anxious that it might not be able to get its Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill 2008 through the upper house.

As Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini writes below, it seems that the effects of the Government's determined, reckless, who-gives-a-damn attitude to social re-engineering is starting to show at the opinion polls level too...

Dear Colleagues,

Faced with the prospect of a defect in the Legislative Council, Mr Brian Tee MP, the parliamentary secretary to the Attorney General, has moved that the ART bill be refered to the legislation ctee. The motion was seconded by leader of the opp in the Council. The motion was passed 23-14.

This decision may reflect concern that the government is losing public support in the polls and is concerned about the legislation. If that is so it may mean that the legislation is simply allowed to lapse. Alternatively it may mean that the government will bring forward a raft of amendments to the Bill and then take it back to the Assembly.

It is not clear what process will be followed by the Legislative Committee and whether it will follow a consultative process and seek public comment.

The news is therefore good in that the progress of the Bill has stalled but it may mean problems ahead if it is brought back to the Assembly.

Nicholas.

Fist fight in the OK Corral? Or the Holy Sepulchre?

Its not a pretty picture, but (courtesy of Reuters) it shows that ecumenism has some way to go yet - and that unity among our Orthodox sisters and brothers is not all that it could be...

See this report by Tom Heneghan on his Reuters FaithWorld Blog.

C.S. Lewis speaks to Fr Peter Dresser from beyond the grave...

In a combox to one of my posts on Fr Peter Dresser, Sharon posted this very relevant snippet from C.S. Lewis:

"It is your duty to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other."

--from Christian Apologetics by C.S. Lewis, Easter 1945.
(Reprinted in God in the Dock pp. 89-90)

To think that they had the same problem already in 1945, when you think they would have had other things to keep them busy...