"the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church"

There is a classic scene in "Life of Brian" where they say: "Why do you keep going on about women, Stan?" and Stan (after a moment's hesitation) says: "I want to be one."

PE wants to know why, in conversation with Protestants, we keep on going on about "the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church." He says that this tendancy proves we Catholics make a "God" out of the Church. It all ends up with "sola ecclesia".

Why DO we keep going on about the Catholic Church? The reason is very simple. Let's try an analogy.

Imagine a Lutheran in conversation with a Calvinist. The Calvinist and the Lutheran will both agree on many things. They will certainly agree that justification is by faith alone and that the bible is the sole source and norm of all Christian doctrine. They might even agree on infant baptism. But they will part company on a crucial issue--the same crucial issue that Zwingli and Luther parted company on back in 1529, namely: the Lord's Supper.

As Martin Luther did then, so today. In dispute with a Calvinist (or any other species of Reformed Christian) the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, that is, the insistance that when Christ said "This is my body" he meant that the bread of the Lord's Supper is his true body born of the Virgin Mary etc., will be the crucial issue. Unless the Reformed/Calvinist can assent to this, they cannot be in communion with the Lutherans.

As Zwingli did then, the Calvinist/Reformed Christian will today say to the Lutheran: Why do you keep going on about the Real Presence? "The Real Presence, the Real Presence, the Real Presence." Don't you think that you might not be making a "God" out of the Real Presence? Aren't you making this "sola the Real Presence"?

To which, in reply, the Lutheran can only shake his head and say "My Calvinist friend doesn't get it. How can he say that I am "making a god" out of the Real Presence when the Real Presence IS my God in flesh and blood? How can I conceive of a Christianity without the Lord's Supper? Without the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper there is no church."

So you see? In the Lutheran view (Catholic too, but that is irrelevant here), the Real Presence is essential to the Christian faith. But the Calvinist/Reformed Christian denies this essential element. Therefore, in the dialogue with one another, this will be the chief issue between Reformed and Lutheran Christians.

The analogy is this: in the dialogue between Catholic and Protestant Christians, the necessity of the Catholic Church per se is the point of contention. We go on and on about "the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church" because it is the point on which we differ. We could go on about "The Holy Trinity, the Holy Trinity, the Holy Trinity", or "Baptism, baptism, baptism", or "faith, faith, faith", or "Christ, Christ, Christ", but the essential necessity of these for our faith is not in dispute between us.

The essential neccesity of the Church IS. And that is why we keep banging on about it.

The Learned Opinion of Dr William Tighe: An antidote to PE's perverted ecclesiology

The following learned opinion was offered by Dr William Tighe in a com-box of a previous posting. It is such a useful and well worded statement that I wish it to be recorded here for all posterity. In the future, when Past Elder spouts his pseudo-historical argument that the Catholic Church of the present time is neither the "catholic church" nor "true Catholicism", I will simply say: "I refer you to the learned opinion of Dr William Tighe", and be done with.

PE's argument [against the Catholic Church], insofar as it is historical, is a lot of nonsense. In making a distinction between "the catholic church" and "the Catholic Church" he is postulating a "catholic church" unknown to both History and to Christians before the Reformation, and in which "before the Reformation" also comprehnds "before Constantine."

His argument seems to be based on the premise that there exists a "catholic church" which, if it is not the fictitious "invisible church" of most of the Reformers, seems to be a "catholic church" that includes more than one "visible communion." This may well be good Lutheran ecclesiology, but it is imcompatibe with the ecclesiology, so far as we can discern it, of that visible communion that5 condemned and excummunicated the various Gnostic terchers and their followers, the "reformed church" of Marcion, the "spiritual church" of Montanus, and the "pure church" of Novatus and the Novatianists. In other words, that body which did all of these things, at the same time regarded it self as solely, uniquely and visibly "the Catholic Church" -- both "Catholic" and "catholic."

It seems an idle and rather ridiculous waste of time and mental energy to construct a theory about how the claim of both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church to be THE Catholic Church is a function of their post-Constantinian status as the "Western Roman" and the "Eastern Roman" Empires' "State Religions" when the pre-Constantinian Catholic church of which the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church each claim to be the authentic representative today, made the same claims about itself, as they make. In other words, it knew nothing of the kind of catholic church of which PE is the protagonist, and no doubt would have rejected the notion of such a "catholic church" as a strange and heretical conceit, had it been presented with it.

Much more honest to acknowledge that such an ecclesiology has no foundation in the Fathers' teaching, no more than does that other pet idea of sola fide.

William Tighe

This is clever - and a good message!

(HT to Sonitus Sanctus)

Pope on "The Freedom of a Christian"

Martin Luther famously wrote a little tract called "On the Freedom of a Christian". It is a topic that has long interested Pope Benedict too, and - given that we have been talking about the role of "law" in relation to St Mary's in South Brisbane - I thought it would be interesting to stick up a few of the Pope's ideas on the matter of freedom and obedience from his little talk given at Rome's Major Seminary recently.

Somewhat characteristically, the Holy Father begins his talk on Galatians 5:13 ("For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another") with a reference to Luther. In fact, he makes the same point that he made in his final catechesis on St Paul:

At all times, freedom has been humanity's great dream, since the beginning, but particularly in modern times. We know that Luther was inspired by this text of the Letter to the Galatians, and his conclusion was that the monastic Rule, the hierarchy, the magisterium seemed a yoke of slavery from which he had to free himself. Subsequently, the age of the Enlightenment was totally guided, penetrated by this desire for freedom, which it was thought had already been attained. However, Marxism also presented itself as the path to freedom.

To anyone unfamiliar with Benedict's long study of these matters, his jumps from Luther to the Enlightenment to Marx will seem unjustified. (We can't go into the matter here, but if you want to check it out further you might find a few more dots to connect in this essay "Truth and Freedom" (1996)). But of greater interest at the moment are these statements:

• "We are free if we become one another's servants"
• "Dependency [on God] would be a fatal dependency only if this Creator God was a tyrant, not a good Being, only if he was as human tyrants are."
• "There is no freedom in being against the other. If I absolutize myself, I become the other's enemy."
• "Only a shared freedom is human freedom"
• "Only by accepting the other, by accepting also the apparent limitation that respect for the other implies for my freedom, only by inserting myself in the network of dependencies that makes us, finally, only one human family, will I be on the way to common liberation"
• "We see that man needs order and law, to be able to realize his freedom, which is a freedom lived in common."
• "Freedom against truth is not freedom."

To put it succinctly: God is a good God (this is a statement of faith, Tony, for your information). Dependant upon our good Creator, we are also dependant upon the other human beings whom he has created. We cannot be free apart from the other or against the other; there is freedom only in being for the other and in communion with the other, ie. there is freedom for myself only in shared freedom with others. If I make myself the absolute, I become the enemy of God and of the other. It is therefore necessary, for this shared freedom in communion with others that I accept an "apparent limitation" on my own "freedom", and submit to common order and law. The ordering of human community requires law and organisation, not only for human society but also for the Church of God, in which the greatest freedom is found in the highest degree of communion.

Thus beginning from our dependance upon a good God and our desire for true freedom, we arrive at the necessity of "organised religion", of Church law, and of submission one-to-another for the sake of the communion of the Body.

The Error of Pope Benedict

Yes, my friends, Pope Benedict has made an error. I freely admit and acknowledge it. His judgement is wrong. He made a mistake.

Reader: What! Schütz admits that the Pope is not infallible?

Schütz: Well, we all know the Pope is human, and can make errors when not teaching ex cathedra on faith and morals.

Reader: Well, don't keep us in suspense: What is this great "error" of Pope Benedict?

Schütz: It is this: He has decided to cut his catecheses on St Paul at his weekly general audience short by several months. Instead of continuing to teach on St Paul for the whole of the Pauline Year, he has chosen to finish up the current series, and has returned to his reflections on the other saints of the Church.

The series (which he began with the opening of the Jubilee Year last July - you can find the whole series here and here) has been absolutely marvellous, the only problem is that it has been much too brief. Surely more could have been said about this great saint and his writings? The Holy Father has covered some key themes, and some of the epistles. But could he not have extended his reflections with some systematic look at each of the Epistles? And he has in no way exhausted the possibilities for reflections on Pauline themes.

All that being said, the two last catecheses - on the Pastoral Epistles and Paul's Death and Legacy - have some very interesting elements.

The catechesis on the Pastoral Epistles contains some interesting stuff on the way the Pope Benedict personally reads the situation with regard to the relationship between Scripture and Tradition and the structure of ministry in the Apostolic Church. Here is one comment on the latter of some note:

The other reminder is a reference to the good "deposit" (parathéke) [1 Tim 6:20]: a special word found in the Pastoral Letters and used to indicate the tradition of the apostolic faith which must be safeguarded with the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. This "deposit" is therefore to be considered as the sum of the apostolic Tradition, and as a criterion of faithfulness to the Gospel message. And here we must bear in mind that the term "Scriptures", when used in the Pastoral Letters, as in all the rest of the New Testament, means explicitly the Old Testament, since the writings of the New Testament either had not yet been written or did not yet constitute part of the Scriptural canon. Therefore the Tradition of the apostolic proclamation, this "deposit", is the key to the reading of the Scriptures, the New Testament. In this sense, Scripture and Tradition, Scripture and the apostolic proclamation as a key, are set side by side, and almost merge to form together the "firm foundation laid by God" (cf. 2 Tm 2: 19 ). The apostolic proclamation that is, Tradition is necessary in order to enter into an understanding of the Scriptures, and to hear the voice of Christ in them. We must, in fact, "hold firm to the sure word as taught" by the teaching received (Ti 1: 9).

The last catechesis - on Paul's legacy - is interesting at several points for those interested in Lutheran/Catholic dialogue. Here are a few selections. Your comments would be appreciated:

A true turning point was reached in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation. The decisive moment in Luther's life was the "Turmerlebnis" (1517), the moment in which he discovered a new interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of justification. It was an interpretation that freed him from the scruples and anxieties of his previous life and gave him a new radical trust in the goodness of God who forgives all, unconditionally.

It is interesting to note that in reporting Luther's "discovery" in this way, the Holy Father does not condemn Luther's "new interpretation" - he rather emphasises its pastoral and spiritual effect upon Luther. By extension, the Holy Father could be taken to say that he acknowledges that the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone can be recognised to have positive pastoral benefits for others who are searching for "a new radical trust in the goodness of God who forgives all, unconditionally". This would seem to concur with Chris Burgwald's doctoral thesis which I am reading at the moment, in which the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue has generally recognised the "pastoral purpose" of the Lutheran doctrine of "simul justus et peccator". There is a lot in this which I hope to explore further in the future. But we digress. The Pope goes on:

From that time Luther identified Judaeo-Christian legalism, condemned by the Apostle, with the order of life of the Catholic Church. And the Church therefore appeared to him as an expression of the slavery of the law which he countered with the freedom of the Gospel. The Council of Trent, from 1545 to 1563, profoundly interpreted the question of justification and found the synthesis between law and Gospel to be in line with the entire Catholic tradition, in conformity with the message of Sacred Scripture read in its totality and unity.

Now there you have the Holy Father's own personal critique of Luther and of what he believes to have been the real error in Luther's reformation. I guess we can see that this same error is not completely absent in the Church today, as demonstrated by our discussions regarding the benefits or otherwise of submission to the law of the Church in relation to the case of St Mary's South Brisbane. But he has more still to say that is of interest for Lutherans:

Let us set this aside and examine the essential current of the new scientific interpretation of Sacred Scripture and of the new Paulinism of that century. Here, the concept of freedom has been emphasized as central to Pauline thought; in it was found the heart of Pauline thought, as Luther, moreover, had already intuited. Yet the concept of freedom was then reinterpreted in the context of modern liberalism.

And even Lutherans reading this will recognise the way in which many modern protestant liberal exegetes have twisted Luther's "freedom of the gospel" into something which has been termed "gospel reductionism" - ie. The Gospel sets me free from all constraints, even the constraints of the commandments contained in Holy Scripture. I think that conservative confessional Lutherans will find an ally in Pope Benedict when it comes to that point. But the Holy Father concludes on this point:

In the progress of exegesis, especially in the past 200 years, the points of convergence between Catholic exegesis and Protestant exegesis have increased, thereby achieving a notable consensus precisely on the point that was the origin of the greatest historical dissent. There is thus great hope for the cause of ecumenism, so central to the Second Vatican Council.

I think that the work of the "new perspective" on St Paul - especially as it is expounded by N.T. Wright - would be one example of the way in which new, fresh readings of Paul are opening up a path for renewed consensus between Catholics and Lutherans in the doctrine of justification.

And finally, Past Elder will be happy to learn that the Holy Father seems to have some sympathy with the idea that "Nietzsche is the only philosopher worth reading" - he certainly quotes Nietzsche at least as often as he quotes Aquinas in his magisterium these days!

Here we shall prescind from the fact that even in that century, as later in the 20th century, a true and proper denigration of St Paul emerged. I am thinking primarily of Nietzsche, who derided the theology of St Paul's humility, opposing it with his theology of the strong and powerful man.

"A true and proper denigration" - ie. a denigration for the right reasons! Now there is a back-handed compliment, if ever there was one! Maybe it could be said that Luther's denigration of the Catholic Church of his day was "true and proper" in some degree as well?

Killing Guinea Pigs on ABC Children's Television

Below is a letter written by my daughter Maddy in reaction to the broadcast of "Serious Andes" on 24 February at 5pm. We sent it to The Age, The Green Guide, Media Watch and the ABC Complaints Department. So far the only response we have had is from Media Watch, who said they will take a look at the offending program:

On Tuesday 24 February at 5:00pm, there was a show on the ABC called "Serious Andes" on which they were killing and eating guinea pigs. In children's TV time! With no warning about it or anything! It's like killing a dog on TV! Lots of people have pet guinea pigs including us. My younger sister cried madly and was also very upset - as I am. I would never watch another episode.

"Cute and fuzzy animals", she cried. "Why would you kill and eat them just for a TV show? Evil, evil, evil." (Mia loves her guinea pigs).

I find it very inconsiderate to put this on a children's TV show on without warning.

Maddy Schütz-Beaton (aged 10)
Boronia

Lent has begun...

Ashes. We have lots of them about around here. I know that it isn't the liturgical thing - you are supposed to use the burned leaves of last year's palms - but I did wonder if it would have been fitting for someone to have gathered ashes from our burnt bushlands and townships and imposed that on us all today...

I cantored at two masses in the Cathedral today, the one the just ended was celebrated by the Archbishop. A quiet, peaceful service of great dignity, with no organ music, but lots of incense. Add that to the beautiful afternoon sunshine that comes into that building at this time of day and it was a truly sublime atmosphere in which to begin Lent.

I am hopping onto my motorcycle now to get to the service at my wife's Lutheran parish with my family. (I could have attended a fourth Ash Wednesday service today if I had been inclined - the girls had an Ash Wednesday mass at their Catholic parish school.)

They will have the imposition of ashes in the Lutheran service too - something rare in the Lutheran Church when I was a child, but which we began to introduce during my time in the Seminary, and which I always observed in every Ash Wednesday service I celebrated as a Lutheran minister.

Funny how, on the one hand, the Catholic Church is awakening to the gifts which the Protestant Churches have to offer us (slowly, but surely), and how equally the Protestant Churches are making their own our ancient customs. A sharing of gifts.

I have high hopes for this Lent - and pray that God will give me the grace to make a "good Lent". Today marks the beginning of a pilgrimage for me. When Easter Eve comes, I hope to be with my wife in St Peter's in Rome...

Solomon [Rajah] in all his glory!

When I was a student at Luther Seminary, a Malaysian pastor by the name of Solomon Rajah was there doing his masters degree. Solomon was a good bloke, and I remember him well, although we did not keep in touch after he returned to Malaysia.

Well, now it appears he has risen to new heights, being consecrated as Bishop of the Malaysian Lutheran Church (the previous bishop, Julius Paul , died last year in a boating accident).

This report says that he was consecrated by

Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala, Sweden, The Most Rev Karl Gustav Hammer

in the presence of Rt Rev Dr H.A. Martin, the Bishop of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tamil Nadu

and Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of West Malaysia Rt Rev Ng Moon Heng.

Newman and Chesterton Seminar in Melbourne this Saturday

with Guest Speakers:
Bishop Peter Elliott
Rev Dr Austin Cooper
Rev Dr Lawrence Cross
Mr Anthony Krohn

The Caroline Chisholm Library (3rd floor, 358 Lonsdale Street, MELBOURNE)

Morning Seminar at the Library

Saturday 28th February, 2009
9.30 am-12.30 pm

Programme

Chairman: Bishop Peter Elliott (Director of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage & Family, Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, Author and scholar in sacramental and liturgical theology.)

9.30-10.30 – Keynote Talk “Newman as Pastor” – Rev Dr Austin Cooper OMI (Fr Cooper is a church historian and a highly regarded author and lecturer in Christian spirituality.)

10.30-11 am – Talk 2 “Newman & Revelation” – Very Rev Prof Lawrence Cross (Centre of Early Christian Studies , Australian Catholic University.)

11- 11.30 am- MORNING TEA

11.30-12.30 Talk 3 & Panel Discussion “100 Years After The Man Who Was Thursday” - Mr Anthony Krohn (Library Secretary, Barrister.)

Seminar Lunch : A light and reasonably priced lunch with the speakers will follow for those interested at 1pm at The Celtic Club at the corner of La Trobe and Queen Street – two blocks from the Library. Note: Pay for lunch separately at the Celtic Club.

Registration including refreshments:
$15 full registration
$10 concession.
The Newman & Chesterton Seminar
Bookings & Payment
To: The Caroline Chisholm Library 3/358 Lonsdale Street; MELBOURNE
Phone: 03 9670 1815
Email: cclibrary@bigpond.com

From the Cathedral Presbytery: Lent at St Patrick's

The following came through on the notices today. I thought you might be interested:

In his recent Lenten pastoral letter the Archbishop said,"On Ash Wednesday we begin together our Lenten journey. Through prayer, fasting and works of love we will experience God’s power at Easter, which 'dispels all evil, washes guilt away, restores lost innocence, and brings mourners joy'." (The Exultet)

Saint Paul said to the Ephesians: "You must be renewed by a spiritual revolution, so that you can put on the new self that has been created in God’s way, in the goodness and holiness of the truth." (Ephesians 4:23-24)

+++

Mass Times for Ash Wednesday in the Cathedral
Mass will be said at the usual times of 7am, 8am and 1:00pm [with the blogmeister as cantor]
An extra Mass will be said at 5.30pm with Archbishop Denis Hart as the Principal Celebrant [and the blogmeister as cantor again].
Ashes will be blessed and distributed at all Masses.

Ash Wednesday Reconciliation in the Cathedral
Reconciliation is available on Ash Wednesday between 12 – 12:50pm [I note that they have two priests rostered on today]

Stations of the Cross in the Cathedral during Lent 2009
Stations of the Cross will commence at 12.30pm Friday 27 February and then on Wednesdays and Fridays at 12:30pm for the duration of Lent.

Lenten Obligations - Days of Fast and Abstinence
Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are days of fasting and abstinence from meat.

Lenten Obligations - Friday Practices of Penance
On Fridays other than Good Friday, the following practices of penance fulfill the law of the common practice of penance.

1. Prayer (eg: Mass attendance; a visit to a church or family prayer)
2. Self Denial (eg: Limiting food and drink, not eating sweets or desserts)
3. Helping Others (eg: Special attention to someone who is sick, elderly, lonely or overburdened)

Additional Lenten Exercises available in the Cathedral Parish
every Sunday Liturgy of the Hours 7.30am Cathedral
every Wednesday Stations of the Cross 12.30pm Cathedral
every Thursday Six30 Eucharistic Adoration 6.30pm Cathedral
every Friday Stations of the Cross 12.30pm Cathedral
Eucharistic Adoration 1.30pm Cathedral
Exposition 5.30pm St John the Evangelist

What a Catholic has a right to expect of the Catholic Church - and what he doesn't.

I wrote this as a comment in the last post on this blog (see, I got it right this time, Tom!), but I think it deserves a separate posting (especially as the comments there have reached 29 already).

Tony kept asking what difference I see in the case of Ms Dickson and the case of St Mary's.

The difference, I believe, lies in this:

There are some things that a Catholic has the right to expect of the Church - and somethings he does not have a right to expect.

A Catholic has a right to expect that in the Catholic Church he will:

1) Hear Christ and his Gospel proclaimed
2) Learn the Scriptures
3) receive valid sacraments
4) receive pastoral care
5) be formed as a disciple of Christ
6) be catechised according to the Catholic faith

He has a right to expect that his pastors, his parish priest and his bishops, will:

1) celebrate the liturgy according to the rites of the church
2) be faithful to the law of the Church
3) preach and teach, uphold and defend the Catholic faith
4) govern wisely and responsibly in imitation of Christ and his apostles
5) live lives in accordance with Catholic morals.

Above all, he has the right to expect that the Church which calls herself "The Catholic Church" will BE "The Catholic Church" (at least to this degree, PE and Christine are correct and fully justified in their critique of the contemporary Church).

He does not have the right to expect that in the Catholic Church he will, with the Church's blessing, be allowed to:

1) believe and teach what is contrary to the Catholic faith
2) behave in ways that are contrary to Catholic morals
3) alter the way in which the sacraments and liturgy of the Church are celebrated according to his own tastes or reasons
4) break or ignore the Church's laws
5) attack and defame the Church's pastors when they act to uphold the faith and morals of the Catholic Church
6) bring into doubt and question the teachings of the Catholic Church
7) claim authority which he has not received from Christ or his Church
8) teach as "God's Word" that which God has not spoken.

Above all, a Catholic does not have the right to expect the Catholic Church to be anything other than what she is, namely, the Catholic Church.

In this, and in this alone, namely, in what a Catholic has a right to expect from the Catholic Church and what he does not have a right to expect, lies the essential difference between the cases of Ms Dickson and St Mary's. She expected that the Catholic Church would provide her with something that she had a right to expect it would provide her. St Mary's expect that they have a right to things which they do not have the right to expect the Church to provide them.

This is not a post about Mary...

...or Marina for that matter. It isn't about a personality - and it isn't really about World Youth Day either.

But it would be very remiss of the Catholic Church in Australia if it didn't do a bit of soul searching in reaction to the the news that "Mary"/Marina Dickson has decided that for the sake of her relationship with God she has to leave the Catholic Church and join the pentecostal Sydney mega-church Hillsong:

Last week, Ms Dickson, of Pennant Hills, told The Sun-Herald: "I have only good things to say about the Catholic Church but I have this hunger for God. I wanted to learn more about the Bible and have a deeper relationship with God."

Let's get two things out of the way first, so we can concentrate on the really important thing:

1) World Youth Day certainly gave young Catholics a taste of what a vibrant, personal relationship with Jesus could be

2) WYD exposed Catholic young people to the experience of the spiritual "high" that can result from being together with other joyful believers committed to their faith and celebrating it with upbeat and soul-touching music (much of it provided by Hillsong)

Right. Now the important thing. Ms Dickson specifically mentions that she "wanted to learn more about the Bible and have a deeper relationship with God." And you know what? That is a very, very healthy desire for any Christian, Catholic, Pentecostal or otherwise.

And you know what else? We Australian Catholics don't do that well. At all.

I've told you about the time I began a lecture series called "A Walk through the Scriptures", and of the 15 or so Catholics who turned up, not one of them brought a copy of the bible.

The opportunities for everyday Catholics to learn and know about the Scriptures are simply far, far too few. Very few Catholic parishes have regular bible study groups. Most preaching does not "open the Word" for Catholics, that is, it doesn't send them back to the Scriptures to study them for themselves. It is as if the dots between in-depth bible study and growth in personal spiritual life have simply not been connected by our pastors and pastoral assistants.

And on top of that, many Catholic communities in Australia actually seem scared that too much bible study might actually promote a kind of "evangelicalism" in the Church.

The fact that Ms Dickson felt that she had to go to Hillsong in order to "learn more about the Bible and have a deeper relationship with God" is an indictment upon Australian Catholicism. May the Lord give us ears to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches.

Backing the Wrong Horse in South Brisbane

Juliette Hughes. What is there to say? We've heard her before on a couple of topics (World Youth Day, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson). She self-identifies as a Catholic, but if you want to get her take on what she believes authentic Catholicism to be, look no further than this article - in which she points out that the only difference between herself and Catherine Deveny is that "she has left" and "I still belong."

Anyway, in an article today's edition of The Sunday Age ("Catholic Church must rediscover a tolerant God"), she takes up the sword on behalf of none other than that hero of the Catholic faith: Fr Peter Kennedy and the good people of St Mary's South Brisbane.

Now, a word to the wise from the very beginning: Ms Hughes is backing the wrong horse in this piece. The word is, according to someone I met this morning who had just returned from a conference in Brisbane, that even those in the Church who once felt some sympathy for Fr Kennedy are now saying he has "gone too far".

Well, how far is that? To the point of saying that he and his own personal ministry are essential for the faith and life of the parish of St Mary's. We have a term for that in the Church. It is a "messiah-complex".

This is reflected a little in the rather disquieting words reported in the Courier Mail today. He said of the priest who has been appointed administrator of the parish in his place:

"The people are not going to receive Fr Howell. He's naive enough to think he can walk in there on Sunday and the people will welcome him. Well, they won't. I know the people, I've been there 28 years - the people want me there and I've helped build that community into what it is today. And then this guy comes in, like a religious scab."

I don't know; you tell me. Does that sound like the attitude of a balanced Christian pastor to you? On the other hand, the so-called "religious scab" decided not to approach the parish today, despite his appointment by the Archbishop, partly on the grounds of a bomb threat which had been made (the police took this seriously, even though we would hope that Fr Kennedy is right in asserting it was not a member of his flock who made the threat), but more because - as a good priest - he did not want to risk an unseemly dispute to disrupt the celebration of the Eucharist.

So let's get to Juliette Hughes' piece. Remember, as you read this, that Fr Kennedy was not "sacked". "Sack" is not a canonical term. Archbishop Bathersby "terminated" his appointment as administrator of the parish (he was not "parish priest") and, as he is 71 years of age, he was offered the opportunity of peaceful and honourable retirement. Note also that the parish was not threatened with closure. No-one was excommunicated. No-one was disciplined. The Archbishop took no step other than that of replacing the Administrator. (And let's be honest about this: 28 years as "administrator" of a parish is rather odd. The term of office for administrators is usually much, much shorter than this anyway).

So, onto Ms Hughes' piece:

THE banner outside St Mary's Catholic Church, South Brisbane, reads: "Everyone has a place in the church. Every person without exception should be able to feel at home and never rejected." These are the words of Pope Benedict XVI himself. But it seems they don't apply to the community of St Mary's. [See here for Archbishop Bathersby's own comments on the irony of that quotation - quotations should always be given in context so that they don't become a pretext!]

God is good. [Ms Hughes is very certain that she knows what God is like, and what his will is.] Organised religion is often not. [The Church is dismissed as "organised religion". That is the extent of her ecclesiology. Ms Hughes prefers do-it-yourself religion.] To some in the Catholic hierarchy, it doesn't matter how much godly good you do if you don't toe the line. [Note the argument: Doing good should give you a licence to ignore due authority. Richard Pratt did a lot of good too, but that didn't give him the authority to break the law.] The past 40 years have seen a determined fundamentalist backlash against the openness and reforms of the Second Vatican Council that began so hopefully in the 1960s. [The shenanigans that Fr Kennedy got up to at St Mary's cannot in any sense be justified by the decrees of the 2nd Vatican Council.]

Now an entire parish of decent, spiritual people [Again, note the reasoning: "decent, spiritual people" (assuming for the sake of the argument that the "entire parish" is such) should not be required to submit themselves to lawful authority] can be threatened with expulsion from the faith [note well that no such threat has been made; the Archbishop pointed out that they were in danger of expelling themselves - his wish is to draw them back into the fellowship of the faith] because some bigot has protested to Rome that they are, horror of horrors, too tolerant and accepting of diversity [I don't think the "bigot" in question (and there was more than one complaining to Rome, I believe) would have quite put it that way; they protested that Fr Kennedy was administering invalid sacraments, blessing that which could not be blessed, allowing those with no mandate to preach the Word, and blatantly flouting the liturgical laws which the Church has given for the sake of unity and good order]. Most parishes are burdened with a tiny minority of fundamentalist obsessives who dob in priests for supposed breaches of tradition [what if they are REAL breaches of Tradition? Would that be alright then?]. They are successful way beyond their numerical strength [they are successful because they have right on their side, and, as King Arthur discovered many years ago, "might is not right" - ie. the justice of a cause has nothing to do with the numbers who fight for it]; indeed, the Vatican is notoriously deaf to anyone else in the laity, ignoring the concerns of the vast majority of those who call themselves Catholic [The Holy See listens to anyone who has just cause according to the law of the Church - for eg. it has supported laity against bishops before where bishops have overstepped their authority]. Accordingly, in August last year, the Archbishop of Brisbane, John Bathersby, wrote a letter to Peter Kennedy, St Mary's parish priest. In it he objected to the kind of prayers said at the parish's liturgies and to the style of clothing worn by Father Kennedy at Mass (Kennedy wears ordinary clothes much of the time) [Ms Hughes is being deliberately obtuse at this point, misleading her readers into thinking that the "kind of prayers" and "style of clothing" were minor issues rather than the very serious breaches that they were. If they were so "minor" why didn't Fr Kennedy, for the sake of peace, just accept to make the requested alterations to his "kind of prayers" and "style of clothing"?].

It wasn't only about clothes [you're damned right it wasn't!]. The parish was adapting some prayers, allowing divorced and gay people to receive the Eucharist and letting groups such as a Buddhist group and a gay choir use the church when it wasn't in use for Catholic celebrations. According to the letter, this was enough to put them outside the Catholic Church. [Yes, the "letter" of canon law; the law which Fr Kennedy was, as a priest of the Catholic Church, obliged to obey. Failing in this obedience, he was failing in his ordination oath. Flouting the law of the Catholic Church, he was, in effect, putting himself outside the Catholic Church.]

"The question for me," the archbishop wrote, "is not so much whether St Mary's should be closed down, but whether St Mary's will close itself down by practices that separate it from communion with the Roman Catholic Church." [Precisely: he wasn't going to do it. If anyone was doing it, they were closing themselves down.]

Now Kennedy has been sacked [his term of office - which he held only by the authority of the Archbishop in the first place - was terminated] and yesterday a new, Vatican-approved parish priest ["Vatican-approved"!?? What a howler! I have a "Vatican-approved" priest in my parish. I expect you do too (if you are Catholic). Every priest is "Vatican-approved" by virtue of his ordination and incardination into a diocese or belonging to a recognised religious order! Even Fr Kennedy is a "Vatican-approved" priest - until such time as he goes so far in his rebellion that he is dismissed from his priesthood altogether!] was shoehorned ["appointed" - and Fr Howell isn't parish priest either - he also is an "administrator" appointed by the will of the Archbishop] into the place. Kennedy has said that he intends to offer the 9am Mass today, and many are expected to attend. [Fr Kennedy said that he expected 1000 to turn up - news reports say "hundreds" did.]

In the meantime, the Pope is battling on another front: the public relations disaster he incurred when he rescinded the excommunication of four dissident hyper-conservative bishops [Oh yes, thank you for reminding us of that. How helpful. And relevant.]. These chaps, so much more acceptable to the Vatican than the gentle people of St Mary's [who was it that made the bomb threat again?], belong to the Society of St Pius X. The SSPX adheres to a form of liturgy that was rejected by the Second Vatican Council as anti-Semitic: it includes a disgraceful Good Friday prayer for the conversion of "the perfidious Jews". [Ummm. A) the Second Vatican Council did not reject the liturgy of Pope John XXIII - which didn't have this phrase in it, B) Anti-Semitism had nothing at all to do with the request for the reform of the liturgy. Good Grief. You see how the hostile media strings ideas together into a noose with which to hang the mean old nasty Church?]

Unfortunately, Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops, went further, stating on Swedish television that no more than 300,000 Jews perished under the Nazis, and that he did not believe there were gas chambers in Auschwitz.

It is baffling that the Vatican machinery that can sniff out a recalcitrant liberal in Queensland did not pick this up. [You see the argument here, don't you? Pope favours anti-Semitic conservatives over against decent, spiritual liberals. As the Monty Python skit puts it so well: "This isn't an argument"...]

For those who adhere to notions of papal infallibility, it wasn't a good look: either the Pope didn't know and blundered into this, or he knew and didn't care until the international fuss. In damage control, the Pope stated that Holocaust denial was "intolerable". And then he had to go and threaten to excommunicate Williamson again. [He never made any such threat. Good double grief.]

Now that puts the excommunicated Kennedy [KENNEDY ISN'T EXCOMMUNICATED!!!!] and the St Mary's folk in some unpleasant company. But we have to realise that to the mindset of fundamentalists [nB. Ms Hughes uses this word "fundamentalist" a lot - she means people who are religious but not "decent" and "spiritual" like her, and Fr Kennedy, and the "entire parish" of St Mary's; she especially means people for whom submission to lawful authority is a virtue], all deviation from the party line is intolerable [no, Ms Hughes: insubordination to lawful authority is intolerable], so Holocaust denial is only as bad to them as some other things that wouldn't bother you or me [What? There's an argument in there somewhere trying to break out, but I don't get it.].

Let's see: allowing women to preside at the Eucharist and preach homilies; that'll get you into heaps of strife. Bless the loving union of gay or divorced couples? Ouch. Wear ordinary clothes to celebrate Mass? That's it, you've done it now: the vestment police are at your door. [Aha! The Church Police again. Must be the same blokes giving Bishop Morris a hard time...]

Fundamentalists are so afraid of freedom [Read: "People who believe that submission to lawful authority is right and just and good are fundamentalists - they need to be "set free" like us "decent, spiritual people"]. The deity they believe in is one whose morals are like any sociopathic despot's: toe its line, obey, don't commit a thought-crime or it will chuck you into a lake of fire for all eternity [correspondingly the "deity" that Ms Hughes and the "decent, spiritual" folk believe in is a God who throws your soul into the air and says "Fly! Be free!", leaving you to your own devices (and presumably utters the word "Shuzbut!" when your soul falls to the ground and cracks due to the undeniable and inescapable law of gravity]. Do these worshippers ever think how they would judge a human who was such a sadistic tyrant as this nightmarish torturer-god? [What? Archbishop Bathersby beieves in a God who is "a sadistic tyrant"? A "nightmarish torturer-god"? Where did that come from?]

But for the majority of Catholics (only 13 per cent of us even bother to go to church these days [I guess by this arguement (majority rules) the "real" Catholic - the one you can rely on for having a really good understanding of the faith and of God etc. - is one of the 87% who don't go to Mass anymore?]), their God does not sit there devising horrible punishments and scourging the unbeliever, but is infinitely, unconditionally loving and kind [which is why they don't go to Church anymore. God understands if I don't bother with him or his Word anymore...]. That's the God I can believe in ["the one I made up in my own imagination"]. The one who understands failure, suffering and frailty [Memo to Ms Hughes: My God understands failure, suffering and frailty too. He gives me grace and power in my weakness to overcome this. He doesn't glorify it or leave me wallowing in it.]. I hope the hierarchy of my church can rediscover the God of all creation, with the gentle son of a humble Jewish woman as our guide. [That would be the same gentle man who made a whip and cast the money-changers out of the temple, I guess.]

If you are still reading this - good luck to you! Despite all the inaccuracies and downright errors in this piece, the upshot of the whole thing is that for Ms Hughes, the "real" God is the God who has brought us freedom by abolishing all laws and "organised religion" and leaving it up to us to decide for ourselves as individuals how we want to worship him (or indeed whether we want to worship him). There is no place in her theology for authority and submission, despite the pretty important place these have in the scriptures, and not the least in the preaching of Jesus Christ himself.

The Verification Code Dictionary So Far!

Okay, here it is: the first edition of the Sentire Cum Ecclesia "Verification Code Dictionary". I have my favourites, but I don't want to prejudice anyone's decision. Please award your prize for the best definition in the combox!

adantraw: de-punctuated instruction in Outback Survival cookbook (Vicci)
Altske: breed of scandanavian dog (Louise)
ampes MUTUAL friends (Vicci)
bandizzl: a proprietory compound for young people to take before going to see their favourite band to enhance the experience. (Tony)
bowaga: the phenomenon of the trembling hand of the archer just before the release of the arrow. (Tony)
Brizina! Raises glass of schnapps. (Peregrinus)
decti: The fragrance of much beloved flowers (Kiran)
dismoth: To get off a moth one has been riding. (Kiran)
Dizate: a corrosive chemical compound used to remove tar stains from the seat of men’s trousers (Peregrinus)
doper: 'The doper dropped me a Mickey Finn' (Tony)
Effugist: one who makes a whistling noise when exhaling. (Peregrinus)
Epapsyro: brand of indigestion tablets (Louise)
evism: characteristic of those (evists) who seek to live forever. (Tony)
expal David is to PE as PE is to David (Vicci)
fluillin: The miracle cure for common colds and flu (Kira)
foises vt. How moderators impart views. (Vicci)
forelug: pulling from the front (Tony
Fracksts: Minor injuries sustained in a fight between siblings over Who Said It First. (Peregrinus)
Golatie: National drink of Azerbaijan, made from fermented goat's milk flavoured with aniseed and caraway, and topped with stuff that looks like chocolate sprinkles but sadly isn't. (Peregrinus)
Hesper: to recite vespers very, very quietly. (Peregrinus)
loadsl: digital subscriber lines under heavy load (Tony)
mudgi: heavy duty squeegee for removing the mud from car tyres (Louise)
panon: The act of a camera in focussing on something else. (Kiran)
PC: Post cibos-after meals ,the prayer we should offer for having eaten (Matthias – not sure about this one, I don't know what the original verification code was – but I like the meaning)
reclesin: A time of your life when leisure is hard to find. 'He's a young man on the move, very much in reclesin mode'. (Tony)
redge: crimson rage that takes you to the precipice of sanity (Tony)
Rutgan: of, or pertaining to, the island of Rutga. (Peregrinus)
Safijow: Silesian liqueur made from beetroots, traditionally given as a Michaelmas gift to in-laws you don't get on with. (Peregrinus)
sectione: the Italian bit (Tony)
shmedoe: bambi overload (Tony)
soapistic: The attitude of one who views Neighbours (Matthias)
statum: as soon as possible (Matthias)
Terch: coarse fish, cross between a tench and a perch. (Peregrinus)
UNFOR - the United Nations Force Orange-Red, which promotes the installation of traffic lights in benighted parts of the Third World. (Joshua)
wadec: [anglicised Polish expression] "hail!" (Louise)
xebnuo the result of typing English on a French keyboard (Vicci)

The Pope on Fasting

I am constantly thrilled by small exegetical insights that are lying in wait to be discovered in the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI.

Today's little "thrill" comes from the Holy Father's 2009 Message for Lent, in which he focuses on fasting.

I have always found fasting a difficult spiritual discipline. (Actually, to be honest, I find any discipline, spiritual or otherwise, problematic...). Partly this is because while I know that Holy Mother Church - and indeed our Lord himself - urges her sons and daughters to fast for their spiritual welfare, I have probably not been convinced of it on a theological level.

Papa Benny masterfully connects two verses from Scripture:

Matt 6:18 "that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

John 4:34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."

He points out that

the true fast is directed to eating the "true food", which is to do the Father's will.

In other words, to see fasting as simply abstaining from food gets it wrong. It is abstaining from eating one kind of food in order to concentrate on eating another sort of food, the "true food", which is the will of the Father.

I get that.

What is it about this guy and police/military hats?

Is it something to do with growing up in a police station?

"How to Understand Pope Benedict" (in under 1000 words)

I have not previously been aware of the religious news site Religious Intelligence, but it seems a good source of info (such as the fact that the Pope has accepted the request of Fr Gerhard Maria Wagner not be elevated to the episcopate in the view of his comments on Hurricane Katrina).

Cathnews promoted this short entry by Paul Richardson on the site, entitled "Pope Benedict and the Archbishop of Canterbury", and I am glad they did. It is only incidentally about Rowan Williams, and actually focuses on Pope Benedict XVI - and I must say, for a very short article, it is a good introduction to "How to Understand Pope Benedict".

Especially:

He gets it exactly right in this paragraph:

Benedict has no sympathy for Holocaust denial, but it is not an excommunicable offence and the olive branch to the traditionalists is aimed a healing a division in the Catholic Church opened up by Vatican II. Whether it succeeds depends on whether the traditionalists accept the teaching of the Council.

And this one:

As a new collection of essays, Blind Spot: Why Journalists Don’t Get Religion makes clear, time and again the media go wrong because they insist on interpreting religious stories in their own secular terms. Typical was the British press coverage of the Pope’s Christmas address to the Curia which included some remarkable reflections on his trip to Australia and a discussion of environmental issues but was reported to British readers as an attack on homosexuality. There was reference to ‘gender theory’ but homosexuality itself was not actually mentioned.

That might be a good collection of essays to check out.

He is also surely right on Benedict and interreligious dialogue:

This is a pope who has said ‘inter-religious dialogue, in the strict sense of the term, is not possible’, though by this he does not seem to rule out all dialogue whatsoever (just that aimed at securing theological agreement) or practical co-operation.

I think that explains Benedict's concern well. He is not against talking about theological issues to help us understand one another and ourselves better, but "dialogue" in the specific sense of a discussion oriented toward achieving agreement is surely not what the Catholic Church has in mind with regard to our conversations with other religions. Nor, it must be admitted, do Jews and Muslims and Buddhists etc have any such desire either.

Richardson makes a comment that should be heard loud and clear by the writers of the afore-blogged petition re Vatican II:

On one issue Catholics should put their minds at rest. Benedict is not seeking to reverse Vatican II. Much debate has focussed on what he meant by speaking of a ‘hermeneutic of reform’ rather than a ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ in interpreting the Council.

What he appears to mean is that while the Council changed the way the church responded to developments in modern culture their was no change in underlying principles. It is worth remembering that at the time of the Council, no less a figure that Henri de Lubac pointed to Fr Ratzinger as the best guide to what was actually going on.

Finally, I must express my full agreement with this comment:

Part of the trouble with Pope Benedict is that he thinks in centuries. His mind is less on the immediate reactions his policies will provoke than where they will leave the church in the distant future.

That is, on the one hand, "the trouble" with Benedict, but on the other hand, thank God it is so. If the Church, like our democratic states, were run by leaders who governed only for fixed terms of office and whose re-election depended upon the popularity of their policies, we would get the same result in the Church that we have in our states: ie. governments who cannot see beyond the next election, and whose policies are not formulated in terms of "centuries" but in terms of the next morning's newspaper headlines.

None of us want that. Long live the Pope (especially THIS Pope)!

Nameless? No. Theologians? Well, some of them.

Marco Vervoost complains on his blog about the Cathnews story "Theologians launch Vatican II petition". Among his complaints is the fact that the oft cited "group of European theologians" behind the Petition for the "For the full recognition of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council" "shall remain without name!"

Well, in fact, if you go to the online petition website you will see several lists of all the people who have signed this thing so far. And there are quite a few people with "DR" in front of their name. But any man and his dog can put his name to this signature - you don't have to show your theological qualifications before signing. Nor, in fact, do you even have to be Catholic.

Here is the text of the petition, with my comments:

"For the full recognition of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council"

The papal cancellation of the excommunication of bishops from The Society of St. Pius X signifies the reception into full communion with the See of Rome those who have consistently opposed the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. [WRONG. These boys have a long way to go before we can say they are in "full communion" with the Holy See. Their relationship to the Holy See is much like that of the Orthodox Churches. Not excommunicated, but not in full communion either]

Regarding the anti-Semitic remarks and the denial of the German national-socialist persecution of the Jews by Bishop Richard Williamson and his followers, we share the indignation of our Jewish sisters and brothers. Moreover, we state that the SSPX’s attitude towards Judaism does not correspond to the Council’s understanding of and commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue. We support the recent statements of Bishops’ Conferences, and others, all over the world, on this issue. We also welcome the recent statements made on these matters by Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican’s Secretariate of State. [Well, that's nice. I agree fully. It should be pointed out that the statements by the Pope came before the statements of the Bishops' Conferences.]

We believe that the close correlation between the excommunication’s cancellation and the 50th anniversary of the calling of a General Council of the Church by Blessed Pope John XXIII gives a clear indication of the direction which the present Papacy wishes to take. [Absolutely. He wanted to say to the SSPX boys: See? The acceptance of Vatican II is essential for your full communion with the Holy See.] We sense a desire to return to a pre Vatican II Church with its fear of openness to the breath of the Holy Spirit, a positive appreciation of ‘the signs of the times’, and the values of democratic institutions. [We sense a sense of paranoia on the part of the authors of this petition.]

We are very concerned that this act of rehabilitation heralds a turn-around on important documents of Vatican II, for example, the decree on ecumenism “Unitatis Redintegratio”, the declaration on non-Christian religions “Nostra Aetate”, the declaration on religious liberty “Dignitatis Humanae” and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, “Gaudium et Spes”. [Again. Paranoia. It indicates the exact opposite. There might, of course, be some correcting of the popular misconceptions about these documents in a direction that is more faithful to the Council itself, but why should anyone be afraid of that?] Such an act will have a disastrous effect on the credibility of the Roman-Catholic Church. [What act? The "act of rehabilitation"?] For Catholics who love their Church, the price is too high! [Is that a battle cry I hear?]

The Pope hopes this act will help unify the Church. [Yes. The unity of the Church remains the central concern of the Holy Father's papacy. The problem for these writers is that the Pope's ecumenism is the "wrong ecumenism".] However we think it is particularly outrageous that the Vatican’s renewed overtures to a schismatic traditionalist movement have been undertaken without the imposition of any conditions whatsoever. In June 2008, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Levebvre’s excommunication, the SSPX rejected the invitation of the Holy See towards theological reconciliation. Likewise, the fraternity rejected the invitation to sign a five-topic declaration containing conditions for its re-integration in the Roman Church. [Well, is that quite true? The June 2008 communication from Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos made it quite clear that five conditions in reference to Papal authority would have to be fulfilled for their excommunications to be lifted, and while the SSPX let the deadline go by, a new appeal and expression of loyalty to the Petrine Office was made by Fellay in December 2008 - see Andrew Rabel's story here.]

A return to full communion with the Catholic Church can only be made possible if the documents and teachings of the Second Vatican Council are fully accepted without any reservations, as requested by the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” on the topic of the Tridentine rite. [Quite correct. As pointed out, these guys have a long road to walk before they will be accepted back into full communion.] It is also imperative that the papal ministries of Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are recognised and accepted. [Also true. There is no need to petition the Holy Father on these matters. He and his Secretary of State have made it quite clear themselves.]

The Church of Rome, perceived as the Barque of St Peter, lists heavily as long as the Vatican:

• only rehabilitates the “lost sheep” at the traditionalist edge of the Church, and makes no similar offer to other excommunicated or marginalised Catholics [what "other excommunicated" Catholics do they have in mind? I don't know of any liberal theologians who have actually been "excommunicated" for their ideas recently? Disciplined, yes. Excommunicated? No.]

• persists in preventing progressive theologians from teaching [From teaching what? the Holy See would be more than happy for "progressive theologians" to teach the faith of the Church.]

• refuses dialogue with all movements in the Church. [The Holy See does this? First I knew about it. As far as I know, the Church encourages and blesses all authentic "movements" in the Church for the sake of the New Evangelisation.]

So all in all, not much of a petition, wouldn't you agree? It is obvious these petitioners have an axe to grind, but they would grind it on any stone they found - the SSPX stone just appears convenient at the moment. And it really isn't right to compare the Pope's gesture to the SSPX with the acts of discipline against those who falsify the teachings of the Church in the Church's name. The SSPX was excommunicated and has now been invited to the table of dialogue. Long way to go still. The disciplined theologians (and really, there are only a handful compared to the hundreds of thousands of SSPX followers) haven't been excommunicated - they have simply been informed that if they wish to have the right to teach the faith of the Church, then they ought to teach the faith of the Church. Not too big an ask. As far as I know, all these disciplined theologians still have access to the sacraments. In fact most - all? - of them who are in holy orders are still able to exercise their ministry in full communion with the Church. So I don't really know what their beef is.

What a brave woman...

US House Speaker Pelosi to meet pope: Vatican.

Somewhat akin to walking into the lion's den with a plate of milk for kitty, no?

At the Movies with Cathy and David: Ghost Town

Here is the latest film review from the column Cathy and I write for her parish magazine "Inside Story".


Ghost Town

Cathy: Ghost Town is a lighthearted romantic comedy. Ricky Gervais plays Bertram Pincus, an antisocial dentist who, after a near-death experience in surgery, starts seeing ghosts. The ghosts want Pincus' help in resolving their unfinished business so that may be set free. Frank (Greg Kinnear) a suave and charming adulterer is keen for Pincus help with his widow whom he believes is in danger of marrying a man who is after her money. Enter the love interest: Tea Leoni playing Gwen. Due to Frank's annoying persistence Pincus reluctantly agrees to help and becomes attracted to Gwen.

David: Right from the start, I think the real appeal of this film is seeing British comedian Gervais in an American context. Those who know him from "The Office" and "Extras" know that he has an idiosyncratic style which doesn't quite lend itself to this American genre. And as romantic comedies go, this one is fairly standard. But it comes off and in fact excels because the writers allowed plenty of scope for Gervais to employ his own particular sort of dialogue and the other actors seem happy to go with the flow.

Cathy: There was quite a bit of qwirky humour in the film, which I really enjoyed. Some of it was visual, like the scene of Pincus gagging at the dog's bad breath, some of it was the witty verbal interplay.

David: Like the banter between Pincus and his doctor on the way into surgery. Actually, for a bit part, the surgeon was quite good, and certainly gave Gervais a run for his money as far as the dialogue went. I enjoyed every scene she appeared in.

Cathy: Actually I thought there was a good supporting cast. And lovely cinematography with some beautiful views of New York.

David: There isn't really a lot else to say about this film – except perhaps that it might make us ask what motivates us to help others. Pincus starts off helping because he sees something in it for himself, but in the end learns to see that others have genuine needs that only he can fulfill.

Cathy: Not particularly outstanding, but quite enjoyable. I'm giving it three stars.

David: Yes, it is good to see a romantic comedy that is actually a comedy for a change and not just a romance. I agree. Three stars – with one of those just for Gervais.

For our film review of Madagascar 2, see the "Inside Story" review page here.

Denominationalism, Cafeteria Catholicsm and Choice in the Modern Society

It is well known that the word "heresy" has its etymological roots in the idea of "choice". It is interesting in this light to read in Fr Neuhaus' last published essay in First Things "Secularisations":

In this religio-cultural circumstance, Americans typically live at two levels of religious identity and affirmation. One is national (“In God We Trust”). The other, more deeply personal and communal, is lived in “the church of your choice.” This is an experienced choice, and is thus a facet of modernity that is difficult to avoid in the American situation.

In the sociological jargon, our religious connection is elective rather than ascribed. Even with those churches, such as the Catholic and Orthodox, that have a deep ecclesiology of being sacramentally incorporated into the Body of Christ and thus being more chosen than choosing, the need for choice and repeated choice is the norm. A tradition chosen is different from a tradition into which one is born and by which one is defined. A choice can always, at least hypothetically, be reversed. This is obviously in tension with the self-understanding of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, but it is the American religious circumstance.

H. Richard Niebuhr wrote that the American contribution to ecclesiology was to add, to the European religious types of church and sect, the phenomenon of the denomination. A denomination is an elective association that assumes the appurtenances of the (upper-case) Church. The Catholic and Orthodox churches do not understand themselves to be denominations but the Church of Jesus Christ rightly ordered through time. For Catholics and Orthodox, one understands oneself to be baptized, and not usually by choice, into that one expression of the one Church. It is true that people also say they were “baptized Episcopalian” or “baptized Methodist.” But that is a matter of institutional identity or even tribal loyalty rather than of a coherent ecclesiology, since other churches do not claim to be what the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim to be.

...Of course, in the real world there are no pure types. The connections between modernity and choice, in both Europe and America, result in a pick-and-mix approach to religion. The French sociologist Daniele Hervieu-Leger employs the term bricolage—which can be translated as “tinkering,” as when a child ­assembles and reassembles the pieces of a Tinker Toy set or a Lego game. Among Catholics, this is referred to pejoratively as “cafeteria Catholicism.” The American scholar Robert Wuthnow calls the phenomenon “patchwork religion.”

I have often said that my own "choice" to be Catholic was finally a recognition that I had "no choice". If the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ as she claims to be (a hotly debated thesis on this blog) then the Christian who is aware of this and believes it has no choice but to belong to it. I was more "chosen" than "choosing" if you like!

In the end, I contend that this is not finally a question of whether I exercised personal judgment and choice (which is, I think, phenomenologically indisputable), as a question of ecclesiologies, as Fr Neuhaus points out. It is a question of whether one holds a "coherant" or, rather, an all-encompassing ecclesiology, or a denominational ecclesiology.

I am very aware - given that I once held quite firmly to a denominational ecclesiology until challenged by my good friends Adam Cooper and Fraser Pearce - how hard it is for non-Catholics or non-Orthodox to think their way out of denominationalism. Fr Neuhaus' essay also made me aware of how much denominationalism - and the "choice" that goes with it - has made its way into the American religious psyche, even of Catholics. The result, of course, is what we have all come to know as "Cafeteria Catholicism".

My small contribution to the discussion here (and the thesis to which I would invite reaction) is that it makes little sense in this schema for a Catholic who is offended by the phenomenon of "Cafeteria Catholicism", to make a protest "choice" by opting out in order to belong to an ecclesial community among the denominations.

[Update: in the combox I refer to an essay by Dr Adam Cooper from 2006 which perfectly illustrates the difficulties of a denominationalist ecclesiology. The essay is called "The Church and the Churches", and is, I should point out, not to be taken as the the author's current view on the matter, which has, let us say, "developed".]

There's still a need for "that hypothesis".

I got myself in hot water over the question of God's action in the bushfires. I apologise to anyone I may have offended. Unfortunately one reader decided that my comments of late have shown me "as very superior, insenstive and b*tchy". Oh dear.

But here is another question raised by one of my interfaith dialogue partners, which hopefully will take the discussion in a different direction. My friend asks: "I wonder how our atheist and ratinalist freinds would console those who have lost all in the fires?"

I was wondering the same thing the other day while listening to the interview of John Cleary with John Lennox.

Lennox acknowledges that the "problem of pain" is the most significant arguement in the atheistic arsenal against the existence of a good God. And that there isn't really an answer to the problem.

But, as he points out, one thing that is clear is that the rejection of the existence of a good God is not a solution to the problem of pain. In fact, it makes it a darn sight worse, for two reasons. The first is that then the whole notion of justice breaks down. But the second - especially in the context of natural rather than human evil - is that if there is no good and just supreme Being, then not only is pain as senseless as ever, but there is no HOPE that things will ever be better.

Laplace may have famously said "Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la", but at least in the face of the suffering such as we have seen and felt in the last week, "that hypothesis" still seems to serve a positive function.

Jesus Blood Never Failed Me Yet

I've been listening to some of the last Religion Reports aired over summer. They were replays of John Cleary interviews from Sunday Nights. I highly recommend you read the interview with John Lennox - he suggests the best and most intelligent response I have ever heard to the silly question "asked by school boys and Russian scientiests": "Who made God?"

Two other interviews are on the opposite end of the scale for intellectual satisfaction (in fact, I would love to see either of them go a few rounds with Lennox): one with sociologist Hugh Mackay - who seems to have received the remarkable revelation that Love is God, and God is within all of us; and the other with the founder of the Movement for the Ordination of Women in the Australian Anglican Church, Dr Patricia Brennan.

Nevertheless, at the end of the Brennan interview is this remarkable piece of music that I have never heard before, but appears to have been around for ages. You can read the story about it here, but you can listen to it right here:

Story from a blog reader caught in the fires...

It was a bit of a shock to find that one of our regular readers of SCE was caught up in last Saturday's fires - here is her story:

Thanks for asking - I had a horrible weekend!

Went to Christmas Hills (CH) to pick up the family's two little dogs on Friday eve, to take back to Horsham next day, then all of us went to the Yarra Glen pub to eat (daughter and her defacto,Ross, and my son).

Got back from pub to find 12 yo maltese cross dog had got out and was missing.

Spent time in blasting heat on Sat looking through forest for maltese imagining him dehydrating and dying there. Couldn't find him.

Late Sat afternoon we found there were fires near Yarra Glen

Later daughter walked outside and could hear the fire coming from towards Yarra Glen! It was the most horrible sound, not extremely loud but eerie and menacing, a strange sort of deep rumbling (couldn't see anything as there was a rise in that direction near the house & between the fire)

Panic about staying or leaving.

Daughter and defacto decided to stay. I said I'd go and take the two remaining dogs (extra one belonged to daughter) so they would have less to worry about protecting.

Son & I left along bush track in separate cars.

About this same time the weather change came and the fire no longer continued in their direction.

Houses about 1.5 to 2 km way in the CH area burnt that afternoon or evening (Skyline Road)

I then drove on to Beaufort and stayed there for night in motel, as I had heard the Western Highway might still be blocked because of
Horsham fires, before travelling on to Horsham Sunday.

Pound phoned Monday to say our dog was picked up by a ranger that Sat morning.

My daughter said in any such future situation she would leave, thank goodness. I felt ill leaving her there (her house is surrounded by trees and scrub)

All is well now. No injuries to persons occurred at the Horsham fire these being mainly grass fires rather than forest fires.

Bishop Morris digs deeper as "Temple Police" go on war path!

It might well be said that it would be unfair to dog a bishop for something he happened to write in an off-hand manner years ago in a pastoral letter.

It is another thing altogether if he is still openly pushing the same agenda today.

The Courier Mail has a story today about a man who I am assured by someone who knows him well is a gentle and caring bloke, and among one of the most pastoral bishops in Australia.

I am glad to hear it, and if only we could have more of them.

But why is it that "pastoral" bishops are always played off against doctrinally "faithful" bishops? Is there some law of ecclesiastical nature somewhere that they can't be both?

According to the Courier Mail article, Bishop Morris "admitted he's...under investigation after discussing the prospect of women or married priests in a pastoral letter."

Far from defending himself against this charge, he in fact deeps deeper:

"I will continue to fight for what I believe is the truth... And I will continue to fight to be able to ask questions... There's a lot of people agitating for a third Vatican Council and that could happen too - I'd love to see that happen."

At the same time, he points the finger at who is to blame for his current predicament. I have often denied that there are any such thing as "church police", but it seems that I am wrong. According to the Bishop,

"There are plenty of temple police around at the moment. They're not a large majority - they believe in their conservative views and if they don't agree with something, they'll write to Rome."

Well, why wouldn't they? Especially since they know that "Rome" also "believes in their conservative views" and doesn't agree with the same things they don't agree with.

As for Vatican III - yeah, I'd like to see that. Especially as currently there are about 4800 bishops in the Catholic Church. Where on earth would they meet? And where would you house them for three years? And who would fund it? And why does every liberal and his dog assume that the decisions of such an ecumenical council would be in their favour?

We pray that Bishop Morris will not be fazed by the attacks of the "Temple Police", leave aside challenging current Church doctrine, and continue being pastoral.



(Bishop Morris modeling the new mode of clerical dress from New Zealand. Picture from Courier Mail)

The Mass for the Repose of the Souls of the Victims of Bushfire and Spiritual Support of Those who are Suffering

Barney Zwartz, who was at the mass in St Patrick's yesterday, described it as "grandly titled" in his article in The Age this morning. Here are some TV news coverages:

Benedict on Australia again!

From the Vatican Information Service:

BENEDICT XVI PRAISES RECONCILIATION IN AUSTRALIA

VATICAN CITY, 12 FEB 2009 (VIS) - This morning in the Vatican, Benedict XVI received the Letters of Credence of Timothy Anthony Fischer, the new ambassador of Australia to the Holy See. The Pope began his remarks by expressing his sorrow for the recent bush fires in the Australian region of Victoria, asking the ambassador "to send my condolences to the grieving individuals and families".

Continuing his English-language address, the Holy Father noted how the new ambassador is Australia's first residential ambassador to the Holy See, thus marking a "new stage" in the diplomatic relations between the two countries. "The Church's engagement with civil society is anchored in her conviction that human progress - whether as individuals or communities - is dependent upon the recognition of the supernatural vocation proper to every person", he said. "It is from God that men and women receive their essential dignity and the capacity to seek truth and goodness. Within this broad perspective we can counter tendencies to pragmatism and consequentialism, so prevalent today, which engage only with the symptoms and effects of conflicts, social fragmentation, and moral ambiguity, rather than their roots".

He then went on to recall last year's World Youth Day celebrated in Sydney, commenting that every WYD "is a spiritual event: a time when young people, not all of whom have a close association with the Church, encounter God in an intense experience of prayer, learning, and listening. ... I pray that this young generation of Christians in Australia and throughout the world will channel their enthusiasm for all that is true and good into forging friendships across divides and creating places of living faith in and for our world".

"Cultural diversity brings much richness to the social fabric of Australia today. For decades that collage was tarnished by the injustices so painfully endured by the indigenous peoples. Through the apology offered last year by Prime Minister Rudd, a profound change of heart has been affirmed. Now, renewed in the spirit of reconciliation, both government agencies and aboriginal elders can address with resolution and compassion the plethora of challenges that lie ahead".

The Holy Father had words of praise for Australia's "active support of the Millennium Development Goals, numerous regional partnerships, and initiatives to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". He also highlighted its readiness "to respond to a growing variety of exigencies in a principled, responsible and innovative manner. Not least of these are the menacing threats to God's creation itself through climate change. Perhaps more than ever before in our human history the fundamental relationship between Creator, Creation and Creature needs to be pondered and respected".

Referring then to his Message for this year's World Day of Peace and its focus on "the need for an ethical approach to the creation of positive partnerships between markets, civil society and States", the Holy Father commended "the Australian Government's determination to establish relations of co-operation based on the values of fairness, good governance, and the sense of a regional neighbourhood. ... It is ethics which render imperative a compassionate and generous response to poverty; they render urgent the sacrificing of protectionist interests for fair accessibility of poor countries to developed markets just as they render reasonable donor nations' insistence upon accountability and transparency in the use of financial aid by receiver nations".

Finally Pope Benedict spoke of the activity of the Church within the healthcare sector, highlighting one aspect of particular concern in "the provision of medical care for families, including high-quality obstetrical care for women. How ironic it is", he concluded, "when some groups, through aid programmes, promote abortion as a form of 'maternal' healthcare: taking a life, purportedly to improve the quality of life".

Pope Expresses Deep Sadness Over Victorian Fires

Source: Zenit

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 10, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI assures Australia of his closeness in prayer for the victims of the bushfires in Victoria, and for the assistance organizations who have gone to their rescue.

The Pope's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, affirmed this today in a message sent to the governor-general of Australia, Quentin Bryce. The death toll has reached 181, with many people still missing. Hundreds of families have lost their homes and are living in temporary shelter.

The message read:

"Deeply saddened to learn of the tragic consequences of recent fires in the state of Victoria, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI assured all affected of his closeness in prayer.

"The Holy Father commends the deceased to the loving mercy of Almighty God, and upon their grieving families, and all those suffering from loss of property and destruction of land, he invokes divine strength and consolation.

"His Holiness likewise prays for all involved in providing assistance to the victims of this disaster, encouraging them in their efforts to bring relief and support."

"We Said Mass".

St Patrick's Cathedral was packed today for the service of prayer and remembrance for the bushfire victims.

There were no theatrics or "special ceremonies" such as candle lighting or things with ashes or anything.

As the Archbishop commented to us afterwards: "We did what Catholics do at a time like this. We said mass."

Sound familiar? You bet.

From the combox of this ABC story on Archbishop Bathersby's decision to appoint a new administrator at St Mary's South Brisbane:

My family where all practicing Catholics but now none of us (out of 7 children) including our parents declare ourselves as Catholic anymore.

Like you said I dont need some old fart to tell me about what he thinks God is about - most of the priests I had dealings with were very very far from Godly... The whole church heirachy is groaning from the weight of its own debauchery and I hope I live to see it collapse.

If Jesus were here today I think He would be banging on the doors of the Vatican just like He did with the money lenders at the temple. I dont think He would take their crap very well at all..

People seem to forget that Jesus was a rebel, and fought against the might and hypocrisy of the religious establishment, He spent time with the underpriveliged and the outcasts and turned His back on the powerful and exposed their moral vacuum..

Does this sound familiar?

Oh yes, very familiar. So familiar that it makes one wonder if there is some website somewhere with some sort of software-generator thingy that just churns this stuff out at a push of the button...

I thought this comment string from the same post was a worth a chuckle:

Commentator: The little noise you just heard was Jesus turning in his grave [in reaction to the Archbishop's decision].

Next Commentator: Hmmmm, not read your bible? He left his grave after three days for more appropriate lodgings.

Bushfire Mass at St Patrick's Cathedral Thursday 12th at 1pm

Archbishop Hart invites the community of Melbourne to join him on Thursday 12 February at 1.00pm for Mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral (East Melbourne). The Mass will be offered for those who have lost their lives in the bushfires and for the spiritual support of those who have suffered through the fires.

Archbishop Hart said that the Church stands in solidarity with the community in this time of crisis and ‘this is a time in the history of our community, when we are seeing and will see in an extraordinary way the great generosity of the Australian community’. The Archbishop said that he has rarely witnessed the level of community anxiety and concern for people and communities through which the fires have passed or are still under threat.

In response to numerous requests from the Catholic community on how they can help victims of the bushfires, Archbishop Hart has launched a special appeal to raise funds to go to victims of the bushfires. The Archbishop said the funds collected will be used to assist victims of the bushfires. If you would like more information or to make a donation please visit http://www.cam.org.au/archbishop/bushfire-appeal.html.

The Bushfires: Blame or Judgement?

Until now I had heard it only in whispered conversations - spoken by people who knew what they were saying was not only politically incorrect but probably theologically incorrect too, and yet for whom the logic was so tight as to be convincing. [Update clarification: "convincing" to them, not to the author of this blog.]

Well now Victoria's most "incendiary" preacher, Rev. Danny Nalliah, has said it loud and in public with a press release from the (ironically named) "Catch the Fire" Ministries.

Abortion laws to blame for bush fires?

[After condolences to the suffering and offers to help, the press release continues:]...CTFM leader, Pastor Danny Nalliah...said these bushfires have come as a result of the incendiary abortion laws which decimate life in the womb. Besides providing material assistance, CTFM will commence a seven day prayer and fasting campaign for the nation of Australia tomorrow Wednesday the 11th February.

CTFM has called upon all Australian Bible-believing God-fearing Christians to repent and call upon the Lord Jesus Christ for His mercy and protection over Australia once again.

“Yesterday (Monday 9th February 2009), the front page of the Herald Sun newspaper reported “The Darkest hour for Victoria”. A few months ago the news media should have reported “The darkest hour for the unborn” but unfortunately the “Decriminalization of Abortion bill” went through parliament and was passed, thus making many people call Victoria ‘the baby killing state of Australia,’” Mr Nalliah said.

He said on November 7 last year we had sent out an email to our national network...following a dream he had on the 21st of October 2008, which he shared with his team on 22nd October.

...“In my dream I saw fire everywhere with flames burning very high and uncontrollably. With this I woke up from my dream with the interpretation as the following words came to me in a flash from the Spirit of God. That His conditional protection has been removed from the nation of Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of innocent children in the womb.”

...”Australia is based on Judeo-Christian values. How far have we as a nation moved from these principles instilled in our nation’s inception. How much does it take for a nation to return to God? The Bible is very clear, if you walk out of God’s protection and turn your back on Him, you are an open target for the devil to destroy.

“Can we stop the fires? Yes we can! But it will take God’s children to rally together and repent and cry unto Him as in 2 Chronicles 7:14 (The Holy Bible).

...CTFM calls on all Australians to declare the 18th February as a National Day of Prayer, Repentance, and Mourning.

Whatever you make of the theology behind Pastor Danny's statement, it has to be said that to the prophets of the Old Testament 2500 years ago - or even for the preachers of the Christian Church only 200 years ago - the connection between the passing of the abortion laws and the bushfire disaster would have been a no-brainer.

We today, of course, know better. We are confident that God is not like that. Yet what do we really know of God's ways? Did his own prophets not tell us: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, saith the Lord" (Is 55:8). That, of course, cuts both ways. On the one hand Peter Costello is right when he says that "to link the death and the suffering of bushfire victims to other political events is appalling, heartless and wrong." On the other hand, what do we really know of "God's thoughts"? If we find the call to repentance whispering in our hearts and minds, then "for him with ears to hear", let him heed that call.

Nevertheless, whatever we may say about divine judgement, there is no shortage of those who are ready to cast blame about. Everything from "climate change" to "tree-change" to the "stay or leave" policy has been blamed for the disaster. Pastor Danny just takes the "blame game" a step to far and with a great deal more certainty than he has a right to claim.