Quo Vadis ELCA? David Yeago looks at "The Way Forward" "In the Aftermath"

While a lot is going on among the Anglicans, we should not loose sight of the fact that there are things going on among the Lutherans as well. The recent decision of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to allow practicing homosexuals to serve in the ordained ministry has caused great difficulty for “Confessional” (or “traditional”) Lutherans in that country. Many are asking “Where do we go from here?”. One answer is provided on the blog “Lutherans Persisting” by the Rev. Dr. David Yeago, an intelligent and widely published theologian who teaches systematic theology at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina. Together with theologians like Michael Root and Carl Braaten, he represents the very best of Lutheranism among the Yankees.

He began by publishing back in September a post entitled “In the Aftermath”. He has followed this up with about ten additional posts under the title “The Way Forward”. This is a work in progress, and we look forward to more. But I have found this so very intriguing because essentially it is all a question about what to do when you suddenly find that the ecclesial community you belong to (and I use that term advisedly) publically teaches a lot of tommy-rot and expects you (as either a minister of that community or a lay member) to tow the line and go along with it.

There are different “breaking points” – as Dr Yeago calls them – for everyone. For me it was the fact that my Lutheran Synod simply voted on a question which thirty-four years earlier they had declared a matter of divine revelation, of apostolic teaching, which could never be altered. This led me to understand that the Lutheran Church of Australia had contradicted its claim to be able to authoritatively teach on matters of divine revelation (aka “judge teachers and teachings according the sole norm of Holy Scripture”), and that such authority must be sought elsewhere. As our Lord promised, seek and ye shall find, and I found the Catholic Church.

Dr Yeago is, like many in his situation, very eager to nip in the bud any such seeking beyond the boundaries of Lutheranism. He is convinced that “breaking point” has not been yet reached, and this series of posts is designed to be a call Lutheran “traditionalists” (as he names them) to remain faithful to their denomination. I think you can see why I am interested in his arguments. Should I have remained in the LCA? Was I wrong to see the vote on women’s ordination at the 2000 General Convention of the Synod of the LCA as a “breaking point”?

Of course not. I remain convinced and thankful that God in his grace opened my eyes to the truth. I have, in the past, been wrong in many of my convictions. Once I was a supporter of women’s ordination, and demanded of those who opposed it that they demonstrate their case. In fact, while I was still a Lutheran I saw the error of that teaching. Other doctrines I was not convinced of until I accepted the whole Catholic faith upon my conversion to the Catholic Church. For example, until I became a Catholic, I practiced contraception. I was not convinced that it was sinful until I learned to listen to the Catholic Church in faith. Then I understood. As St Anselm said, Credo ut intelligam. Another more esoteric example – but important none-the-less – was my rejection, as a Lutheran, of the immortality of the soul. Now, Lutherans do not generally reject this doctrine, but I did. It was not until I accepted the Catholic faith, that I learnt the truth concerning the destiny of the human being as a body-soul unity.

It is my intention over the next few weeks to examine David Yeago’s essays addressing the predicament of traditionalist Lutherans in the ELCA. I hope to do some service to both my Catholic and Lutheran readers, both here and in the United States. I want the Catholics to understand where the Lutherans are coming from, and I want the Lutherans to understand that what they fear in the Catholic Church (the ABC rule: “Anything But Catholic”) is unfounded. There is a way forward. There is somewhere to go. In fact, there is a Church to which God is calling all those who are baptised into Christ.

More info on the upcoming "Anglican" Apostolic Constitution

Many thanks to Andrew Rabel for forwarding this link on to me from Robert Moynihan at Inside the Vatican. Andrew has his own report included in this. So many questions yet to be answered!

http://insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2009/newsflash-oct-20-09.htm

A new model for Catholic Ecumenism?

Well, well, well. So it has finally happened. Doing things backwards, as they often do, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has released an explanatory note on an Apostolic Constitution that has yet to see the light of day, but which we are assured will set up "personal ordinariates" for Anglicans wishing to enter full communion with the Holy See while maintaining the bulk of their traditional Anglican heritage and spirituality.

Two things to note about the Note:

1) It solves the problem of married bishops among the traditional Anglican groups by determining that (a) married Anglican clergy - priests and bishops - seeking full communion can be prepared for ordination as priests but not bishops, and (b) that "the Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop". What a neat solution!

2) It solves the old question about the Western liturgical diversity. Part of the problem has been that, essentially, the Anglican rite is simply a "Reformed" version of the Roman Rite. Can it be said to be a "rite" in its own "right", so to speak? Answer: Yes. According to Levada:

"It is the hope of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, that the Anglican clergy and faithful who desire union with the Catholic Church will find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Anglican traditions precious to them and consistent with the Catholic faith. Insofar as these traditions express in a distinctive way the faith that is held in common, they are a gift to be shared in the wider Church. The unity of the Church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows. Moreover, the many diverse traditions present in the Catholic Church today are all rooted in the principle articulated by St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians: ‘There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (4:5). Our communion is therefore strengthened by such legitimate diversity, and so we are happy that these men and women bring with them their particular contributions to our common life of faith."

So, the only question remaining for this one-time Lutheran is: Could a similar situation be envisaged for Lutherans wishing to enter into communion with the See of Rome? Or, for that matter, any identifiable Christian tradition? In other words, is this a new model for Catholic ecumenism? OR, is it just ancient "Uniatism" resurrected?

Cathy and David At the Movies: Mao's Last Dancer

[caption id="attachment_2415" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Li Cunxin (Chi Cao) with his girlfriend Liz (Amanda Schull) contemplating his return to Communist China"][/caption]Cathy: Mao's Last Dancer is a truly beautiful film. It tells the story Li Cunxin's remarkable rise to fame as a dancer and is based on his autobiography of the same name. Selected from his village in rural China at the age of 11, Li leaves his much loved family and is sent to Beijing to train as a ballet dancer. He is later selected to go to the USA on a Cultural exchange with the Houston Ballet and eventually defects.

David: Bruce Beresford has decided to make a film which emphasises contrasts: the first half of the film juxtaposes Communist China with Capitalist America, the poverty of Li Cunxin's large family with the wealth of Ben Stevenson (director of the Houston Ballet), the restrictions of Mao's People's Revolution with the freedom of the free-thinking West. Although this theme is abandoned for a while during the second half the film, it returns with a vengeance in the final scene. Certainly educational for Maddy and Mia who saw it with us.

Cathy: It is great to see such a wonderful Australian production. I loved the ballet sequences (and there were lots of them), starring our very own Australian Ballet Company and Sydney Dance Theatre with choreography by Graham Murphy. It was a nice change seeing Australian actors such as Jack Thompson and Penne Hackforth-Jones playing Americans instead of the other way around.

David: Actually, there were quite a few Australian actors in the film, not all as well known as those, such as the dancer who played "middle Li", Chengwu Guo, who is a dancer with the Australian Ballet, and Camilla Vergotis who plays Li's wife Mary. But of course this intense Australian interest is because Li and Mary and their three children have lived in Melbourne since 1995. "Adult Li" was played by Chinese born Chi Cao. Like Li, he was trained at the Beijing Dance Academy and is in fact the son of two of Li’s former teachers. All three actors who play Li, including "Little Li" (Huang Wen Bin) are superb.

Cathy: I agree. This is a stirring story of courage, loyalty, determination, and perseverance. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I am giving it four stars.

David: There are places where the film lacks subtlety, and the emotional triggers are laid on with a trowel, such as the split up scene with Li's first wife, and the on-stage reunion with his parents. Of course, I cried at these points – as I was supposed to! Nevertheless, I liked it too. Three stars from me.

“Praying the Mass: a guide to the new English translation of the Mass. The Prayers of the People” by Jeffrey Pinyan (150 pages)

Review Article by David Schütz

In the near future English speaking Catholics are going to face a challenge unlike any since the introduction of the English liturgy forty years ago: the new English translations of the Roman Missal.

It must be acknowledged that there has been much debate about the desirability of a new translation. The fact is that this change is going to take place. Given that this change is not one that can be avoided, how can we turn the challenge of introducing the new texts into a truly positive experience for everyone?

Jeff Pinyan, an young American author, has taken a positive view of the challenge of introducing the new texts as a “teachable moment” for the Church. Inspired by Pope Benedict’s call in Sacramentum Caritatis for a "mystagogical catechesis" on the liturgy, he has written and self-published a study booklet on the people’s parts of the mass. His aim is that through using this book, individuals and groups may learn more about the origins and meanings of the prayers they say at mass, and so be enabled truly to engage in the liturgy with that “active participation” which the Second Vatican Council called for.

The focus of “Praying the Mass” is much broader than the new translations themselves. Treating the liturgy section by section, he gives both the English and the Latin text of the people’s prayers, marking with a discreet arrow those places where the are changes from the current text. Alongside the text, he helpfully gives the biblical passages from which the liturgy derives or to which it refers. These scriptural references are a unique feature of this particular study, and serve to build an appreciation for the liturgy as a response to the Word of God.

The author then follows the text of each prayer with an explanation that is detailed, informative and very readable. As well as addressing the words that the people say at mass, he has included a treatment of the postures and actions we use, bringing out the fact that worship is not just what we say with our mouths but also about what we do with our bodies. “Praying the Mass” does not, however, encourage a cold rubricism, but rather a deepening of interior prayer and engagement with the rite.

A special feature at end of each chapter is a set of questions which relate to the three stages of liturgical catechesis: interpretation, explanation and relation to the experience and faith of the worshippers. These would be very useful in a study group situation and would lead to opening out the ideas and information he has provided. Where necessary he explains the changes that have been made, but this is not an overwhelming feature of the book.

I can see many different applications for this manual. Individuals will benefit from the close study of the liturgy that it provides, but it would also be eminently suited to study groups and adult education classes. There is an opportunity here for parish priests as well. I can easily imagine a series of homilies utilising the scriptural references, examples and questions for reflection that Pinyan provides. An added bonus of the new translations is that they are uniform throughout the English speaking world, which means that there is nothing in this book that will clash with our local usage.

Copies of the book will be available through the Central Catholic Bookshop, but also may be ordered online from the author himself at http://www.prayingthemass.com/2009/08/buy-book.html

The Gospel calls us to make the most of every opportunity for proclaiming and teaching the faith. Jeff Pinyan’s book will be a valuable resource to all who wish to approach the challenge of the introduction of the new translation of the missal as just such an opportunity.

(For an interview with Jeff about his new book, see: http://www.prayingthemass.com/2009/10/interview-on-son-rise-morning-show.html )

Will the earth move tomorrow for the TAC?

From Damien Thompson's blog:

Announcement tomorrow on Catholic-Anglican relations; Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster at joint press conference
By Damian Thompson Religion Last updated: October 19th, 2009

Something big seems to be brewing in Rome and London. This from the Vatican:

We inform accredited journalists that tomorrow, Tuesday 20 October 2009, at 11am, in the John Paul II Hall of the Press Office of the Holy See, a briefing will be held on a theme pertaining to the relationship with the Anglicans, at which His Eminence Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and His Excellency Mgr Joseph Augustine Di Noia OP, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will take part. (Hat-tip, Fr Finigan.)

And this, from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office:

PRESS CONFERENCE INVITATION

(not for publication)

You are invited to a press conference with Archbishop Vincent Nichols (Archbishop of Westminster) and Archbishop Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) on Tuesday 20 October at 1000. The press conference will take place at 39 Eccleston Square, London SW1V 1BX.

(Yes, I know it says “not for publication”, but it wasn’t me they invited, so tough.)

I cannot believe that the two press conferences are not directly related.

UPDATE: Fr Z is speculating that tomorrow’s press conferences will confirm that the Traditional Anglican Communion, a rebel Anglican group that left the Anglican Communion many years ago, is to be received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. That makes sense, as the TAC has been dealing with the CDF, which it trusts more than the Vatican’s professional ecumenists. If Fr Z is right, then +Rowan and +Vincent may put on a show of (partial) unity in order to prevent talks of splits, mainstream Anglicans “coming over”, etc. We shall see.

As they say: Watch this space!

Oh Dear...

[caption id="attachment_2402" align="alignleft" width="255" caption="Fr John Dear"][/caption]
Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear...

Intrigued by what on earth a "prophet school" might be, I followed this link from Cathnews this morning. There we are told:

The PROPHET SCHOOL is a 12 month program beginning with a weekend in November 2009 and concludes with a second weekend in late 2010. Both weekend PROPHET SCHOOLS will be led by John Dear S.J. In between the two weekend PROPHET SCHOOLS, participants are expected to commit to developing their prophetic mission. You may choose to do this on your own or take advantage of resources and opportunities that the sponsoring group will provide. The 2009 PROPHET SCHOOL retreat is not a ‘stand alone’ event, it is the beginning of a 12 month journey for participants to embrace their call to be Christian Prophets for the 21st Century. This is a unique opportunity for the Adelaide church.

What a bizarre idea. (I note that the Adelaide Catholic Archdiocese is not among the "prophet school partners".) A "school" for prophecy? I thought the only thing one required to be a prophet was a call from God and a generous dose of the Holy Spirit as confirmation and empowerment.

Do they not know the distinction between charismatic and institutional gifts? The priesthood, for eg., is an institutional gift. The Church calls and ordains. It takes seven years to prepare, and a lot of study.

No such qualification applies to being a prophet. However, the verification of the call is somewhat more difficult too - precisely because of the non-institutional nature of prophecy. Certainly not all are called to be prophets (1 Cor 12:29). A prophet is verified by what he speaks, not by having done some course or other. As Jeremiah said, the test is whether what they speak proves to be true (cf. Jeremiah 28).

And it is precisely on the basis of their message that future generations of Catholics will judge who and who are not the prophets of today. They may well hold Dom Helder Camara to be a "prophet", even as many now recognise that Pope Paul VI was being "prophetic" when he wrote Humanae Vitae. But we will have to wait and see whether Fr John Dear earns that title of respect - or whether he goes the way of the Berigan brothers.

In the mean time, I am pretty certain that no amount of "schooling" would have made prophet out of Hananiah.

Remember the Sabbath Day...

This ad, found in a local newspaper, raises all sorts of questions. The meeting place (the "upper room"?) is somewhat ironic too...

She got that much right!

[caption id="attachment_2392" align="alignleft" width="243" caption="Dr Muriel Porter"][/caption]Cathnews reports this morning about opposition within the Australian Anglican Church to the push by the Sydney Anglicans to allow lay presidency at the Eucharist.

Melbourne Anglican Dr Muriel Porter, one of the 28 signatories to the tribunal's reference, said who presided at Holy Communion was not a ''trivial in-house issue'' but one ''at least as important as women's ordination and gay clergy''.

Well, she got that right, at least.

It is somewhat ironic that among Australian Anglicans you have those in the blue corner arguing against women and homosexual priests but for lay presidency, while in the red corner you have those arguing for women and homosexual priests and against lay presidency. What any sane orthodox Anglican makes of it, I have no idea.

But perhaps the problem is best expresses by Dr Porter again, as she is reported to have gone on to say:

''Who presides at Holy Communion - the central worship service for Anglicans - is about who are the leaders in the Anglican Church, who is authorised to lead."

The issue of presiding at the Eucharist, according to Dr Porter, is about "leadership" - that horrible modern word that can mean just about anything these days, but is certainly about power within the community. This becomes more interesting in the context of comments made by Anglican Bishop Glenn Davies of North Sydney, who said in the original article that allowing laypeople, including lay women, to preside at the Eucharist:

"gives women the full range of possibilities in ministry without being head of a parish."

In other words, the Sydney Anglicans oppose Women's Ordination, not because they do not believe that a woman can preside at the Eucharist, because they don't think a woman should be (in Dr Porter's terms) "leaders", ie. with authority over male members of the Church.

Thus, for both the Sydney Anglicans and their opponents, Eucharistic presidency has become an issue about "leaderhip", and about "power" in the Church. I am not saying that such ideas do not often figure in debates between Catholics on this matter. I am saying that you won't get anywhere with this approach.

The president at the Eucharistic celebration in the Church is the ordained priestly icon of Christ. The Eucharist he offers is the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood. Yes, this is a kind of leadership, but it is the leadership of Christ who said "Take up your cross and follow me" and "Whoever wishes to be greatest of all must be the servant of all."

The Word and Its Interpreters

Fraser Pearce has drawn my attention to a paper by American Lutheran (ELCA) Pastor James Arne Nestingen ("Joining the Unchurched") about the current mess that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has created by voting at their most recent synod to allow ordination of actively homosexual men and women as pastors of their church.

I don't want to get into that issue, or the charge that Pastor Nestingen lays at the door of the ELCA leadership (that they have effectively shown the ELCA to NOT be a "Church" in the sense recognised by the Augsburg Confession - interesting though that Catholics are not the only ones who can speak in terms of whether a body of Christians is or is not a "church" in the "true sense").

What I am intersted in is Nestingen's discussion of "the Word" and its "interpretation".

He writes:

The ELCA has redefined the Word of God. Instead of understanding it in terms of what God does with words, the theologians of the church—with the bishops in tow—have uncritically shifted out of the original Lutheran argument into a scheme in which God’s word depends on its meaning. To no one’s surprise, in this setup the power transfers from the word itself to the interpreters of the word—those who decide what it really means. The biblical text is ambiguous by definition, they say, and consequently only the informed—generally, those who are superior, either intellectually or politically—can finally determine what it says. Old Erasmus, his most sophisticated opponent, tried this on Luther and got the drubbing of his life. But in the ELCA, having long lost its theological moorings, the leadership has gotten away with it. That is how theologians and church leaders could dismiss as unclear biblical passages that produced a two thousand year old, all but universal consensus concerning homosexual practice....

With the action taken in the Minneapolis assembly, the ELCA has made such power mongering official procedure and policy. The Word of God does not create, shape or control it; no, the ELCA controls the interpretation of the Word.

Now, I think I understand Pastor Nestingen to be saying that the Word should be allowed to stand and be received by the Church as the power of God to freely "create", "shape" and "control" what is done in the Church. I hear him to be saying that the power of the Word is neutralised when any person or group of persons within the Church claims the right or authority or even the need to "interpret the Word"; that in such a situation the supposed or claimed “meaning of the Word" replaces “the Word” itself.

Pastor Nestingen points out that both the Papacy and Calvinism do exactly the same thing – ie. place the interpretation or the meaning of the Word above the power of the pure Word itself – and yet

the universal consensus concerning homosexual practice…continues to hold among Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and most Protestant Churches…because it is biblical, [and] isn’t subject to change.

This is also because, Nestingen asserts, both Catholics and Calvinists have certain checks and balances.

Although he compares the ELCA’s arrogance with regard to the Word to that of the “medieval papacy that Luther and the reformers set off against…[which] declared itself master of the Word rather than servant” in that “instead of proclaiming God’s Word, it formally proclaims itself as arbiter of the Word”, nevertheless, “the office of the papacy acts as a check, controlling the range of interpretation” of the Word. The interpretation of the Word is “one of the keys to the power of the papacy”. Nestingen notes that “the bishops share in this authority” (actually, it is more true to say that this authority belongs properly to all the bishops in college teaching in communion with one particular member of their college, id est , the Bishop of Rome).

As for the Calvinists, they also had checks and balances. For the Calvinists, since

the process of interpretation always remains vulnerable to the power of original sin…it must necessarily be checked. So the congregation, the elders, pastors and theologians are linked together in a system of mutual watchfulness. The lay people, elders, pastors and theologians all look both ways, watching over each of the other layers of authority. Interpretation requires constant scrutiny, lest the interpreters be led astray. In American church life the systems of checks vary from one Protestant church to another, but the necessity gets minded.

Note at this point the essential difference between the Calvinist checks and balances and the Catholic checks and balances. The Calvinist is pessimistic about the abilities of human beings to interpret the Word, and thus makes the interpretation of the Word an exercise of mutual suspicion. The Catholic “checks and balances”, on the other hand, are entirely positive in outlook: it is the charism and gift of God that our magisterium is preserved from error, following Christ’s promise “the gates of hell will not prevail against my Church” and “the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will lead you into all truth”.

In Pastor Nestingen’s eyes, the ELCA has committed a double sin: it has replaced the pure power of the proclaimed Word with the interpretation of the Word by a class of experts, and secondly it has “dropped the checks Roman Catholics and Protestants have carefully maintained.” The rest of his paper concerns the story of how this happened. He is especially scathing of the abdication of responsibility for teaching on behalf of the ELCA “bishops”:

With all of this, the bishops—said to be responsible for the unity of the church—stand by in silence. In their own assemblies, they hide behind punctilious observation of Roberts Rules of Order; at the national, while the gay advocates freely use the microphones, those who are opposed remain conspicuously silent.

Ecumenically, it could hardly be a stranger procedure. Having made the interpretation of Scripture a problem of meaning, the ELCA does not, like the Roman Catholics, bring in the bishops for clarification—with rare exception, the current bishops don’t have the scholarly training commonly available among Roman Catholics.

Well. That’s a compliment for our bishops. I think.

He is also complimentary in the following statement:

Benedict XVI, the orthodox patriarchs and commonly the Protestant leaders as well, know both Scripture and the church’s tradition intimately—well enough to recognize the difference between the historically certain and the ambiguity of convenience. They can hardly welcome a church that has defied standards they consider inviolate.

But let us now come to the nub of the matter. Nestingen’s whole point in this article is that the ELCA has ceased to be a Church, because it has replaced the proclamation of the pure Word of God with the interpretation of the Word by “experts”. This elevation of interpretation over proclamation is detrimental, because, according to the Augsburg Confession, the true Church is to be found:

“[w]herever” the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity, “wherever” sinners gather to hear and receive Word and sacrament, God’s word has become incarnate in down-to-earth community.

There is a curious reversal here of St Ignatius dictum “where Jesus Christ is, there is the Church”. It seems to be saying “Where the Church is, there is Jesus Christ”. But we will let that pass for the moment. Pastor Nestingen expresses the problem for himself and for other ELCA Lutherans who share his objection to the recent change in ELCA policy in the question: “Where do you go?”His answer?

“It’s up to you now… you are on your own.”

How horrible. One feels great sympathy for ELCA Lutherans caught in such a situation. There is, however, a road forward that is open to our Lutheran brothers and sisters who come to the realisation, like Pastor Nestingen, that their “Church” has been found to have more in common with the Emperor and his new clothes than that triumphant procession foreseen by St John “dressed in white and coming out of the great tribulation”:

Some of the most devout Lutherans, including learned theologians who were formerly part of the ELCA, are now Roman Catholics. It may be premature and even unthinkable for some of us, but on the other hand, where Christ is proclaimed in Word and Sacrament and sinners gather to hear and receive it, the triune God can break beyond misunderstandings to do his work.

Well… yes.

But one final word is necessary. Throughout the paper, Pastor Nestingen casts nasturtiums at the ELCA for “redefining” the Word of God:

Instead of understanding it in terms of what God does with words, the theologians of the church—with the bishops in tow—have uncritically shifted out of the original Lutheran argument into a scheme in which God’s word depends on its meaning. To no one’s surprise, in this setup the power transfers from the word itself to the interpreters of the word—those who decide what it really means.

But is he not setting up a false dichotomy here? Indeed, the Word of God is not a set of propositions. It is, as Pope Benedict never tires of reminding us, a Person, with a human face. In respect of this truth, the Word of God will always address us directly and personally in such a way to create, shape and control the life of the Church. BUT, one ought to be able to distinguish between the Sacred Text and the encounter with the Word of God that takes place in the event of the proclamation of the Sacred Text. There is a true dynamism at work here.

Nevertheless, if the Sacred Text is to have any application to the lived faith of the Church, it MUST be interpreted before it can be expressed in dogmatic propositions – such as “homosexual acts [are] acts of grave depravity” (CCC §2357). Surely Pastor Nestingen cannot be saying that the interpretation of the Word is unnecessary in the Church? Even if every word of the Sacred Text was crystal clear, the text itself is not expressed in propositions that are immediately transferable into practice.

Thus, SINCE interpretation of the Sacred Text is an unavoidable necessity if the Word of God is to be upheld in teaching and practice of the Church, we cannot avoid asking the question of who is to do the interpretation, what process they are to utilise, and what checks and balances exist for such acts of interpretation.

I am convinced that only those who have the authority to determine the interpretation of the Sacred Text for the Church are in fact entitled to do so, that the process must reflect the Holy Spirit's own means for conveying God's Word to the Church, and that the nature of revelation and the deposit of faith must itself provide the "checks and balances" in the process of interpretation.

In essence, this means that only the Bishops in Communion with the Successor of Peter may exercise the right and duty to interpret the Sacred Text for the Church (since they are the successors of the ones to whom Christ gave the authority to speak in his name), that popular voting is excluded (since God's Word does not originate in the minds and hearts of believers), and that Sacred Tradition itself is the best "check and balance" for all interpretation since it is via Sacred Tradition that the Sacred Text has been preserved and handed down to us.

Therefore, I long ago threw in my lot with the Catholics on this matter. The guarantee of our Lord Jesus and of the Holy Spirit that we will be “led into all truth” and that, built upon the Rock of the teaching of the Successor of St Peter, “the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church”, is more than enough for me. The Catholic Church has never erred in the interpretation and teaching of the Word of God ever in all of history. Even Pastor Nestingen concedes that she has stood firm time and time again on controverted issues that continually divide the Protestant Churches.

“Quo Vadis?”, faithful ELCA Christian? The answer is very near you.

"The One Thing We Can't Do In Heaven"?

I was rather struck just now reading something in my wife's AGM report to her parish. She was reporting a comment that was expressed by a guest speaker at one of the gatherings she attended recently.

The comment was that "the one thing we can't do in heaven is mission".

While one can understand the purpose of such a statement (to encourage us to be active in mission now), any Catholic reading that is immediately struck by the words of the woman who is now recognised the world over as the Patroness Saint of Mission: St Therese of Lisieux:

"I wish to pass my Heaven in doing good on earth,"

and again,

"After my death I will let fall a shower of roses."

"A Truly Ecumenical Church Council"?

I am very much enjoying the ongoing discussion on Arcoamaticus' two blogs, "Glosses from an Old Manse" and Lutheran Catholicity. Of course, in claiming "catholicity" for the Lutheran tradition (if not the Lutheran Church) the dear fellow has set himself up as a bit of a target for one such as I - a target as big as a barn door, as I heard someone express it recently...

Here I want to steal an issue that Acro raised in the combox of one of his blogs, where he wrote:

Indeed, and there we disagree. We will have to leave that verdict to a truly ecumenical church council or to the verdict of God in heaven, which ever comes first.

To which I responded:

Exactly who would you want to invite to a "truly ecumenical Council"? ...We, of course - and I expect the Orthodox too - could only accept validly ordained bishops as genuine participants of an ecumenical council.

Then there is the question of how one could really have such a council unless "full communion" were to be established between these bishops before the council opened.

So tell me: who would be able to attend and vote at your "truly ecumenical council"?

Acroamaticus then responded:

I think we could be gracious enough to allow the Pope to call it, since we have no other better candidate for head of Christendom at the moment. I think its pretty much a no-brainer (great American phrase) that the RCs would permit Orthodox representation.

I think we orthodox Lutherans should have a seat at the table, since our concerns have never really had a valid hearing, or at the least we should be allowed in the room to whisper in the ears of sympathetic bishops.

And the Anglicans, the orthodox ones, that is, as that would finally settle that argument.

And the non-Chalcedonians and Nestorians, because the opportunity is too great not to invite them.

And the Reformed could be let in on the same basis as us, provided they baptise infants and confess the Creeds.
Have I forgotten anyone?

Now I should make it clear that my own understanding is that an "ecumenical council" is any council of validly ordained bishops recognised as such by the Bishop of Rome. In that light, Acro's grace in suggesting that the Pope call such a "pan-Christian" meeting (perhaps a better description for what we are talking about rather than "truly ecumenical" - a description which is somewhat judgemental on earlier ecumenical councils) is appreciated. I know that for years there have been plans to hold a "pan-orthodox" council, which has floundered upon the simple ground that they can't agree who has the authority to call such a council. Most of them would agree that if the Roman Pope were not "a heretic", he would have the authority to call a such pan-Christian council.

But of course, that raises the other problem that the Orthodox could never regard any council that included non-Orthodox (Catholic, Protestant, or Non-Chalcedonian) as in any sense "ecumenical". But for the moment we will leave that to one side.

As for the non-Chalcedonians, we Catholics actually have a fairly good relationship with these Churches these days, and certainly recognise the validity of their Orders and other sacraments.

A much bigger problem is raised by Acro's distinction between the various protestant bodies as "orthodox" or "non-orthodox". How is the Holy Father supposed to make such a distinction - when effectively we regard ALL protestants as "non-orthodox"?

And then, what office holders in these bodies should be regarded as voting members, given that none of them are validly ordained bishops?

The fact is, that even if the Pope were to call a council in which non-Catholics were invited to take part, he could only concievably extend that invitation to the bishops of those "particular Churches" which we are able to recognise as "Churches in the true sense".

If non-episcopal voting participants were included it could not in any sense be regarded as an "ecumenical council", since every ecumenical council (whatever counting method you use) in history has been a council of bishops and bishops alone.

Deaths from "Unsafe Abortions"?

This Report says that:

Deaths from unsafe abortion kill 70,000 women a year, a Guttmacher Institute report has found, leading to a call for further easing of developing nations abortion laws, a move rejected by a US bishops' pro-life spokesperson.

My guess is that the reason the US bishops have rejected "further easing of developing nations' abortion laws" is because even "safe abortions" end in the death of both (unborn) women and men in every instance.

Another important "Catholic Principle": Communio

In fact, I wouldn't call it a "principle", but rather an "aspect" of being "catholic". Acroamaticus, like many non-Catholics trying to be "small-c catholic", concentrates on dogmatic characteristics. But the Creeds remind us that there is something else in view: that Church which is Holy, Catholic and Apostolic is also One. This means the ecclesiological question cannot be dodged.

Catholic ecclesiology speaks of the One-ness of the Church in terms of an "ecclesiology of communion" (as does the Orthodox Church - this is something we share with them, thus proving that it is indeed a "catholic principle"). My assertion that there is no meaning to the term "catholic" if it does not include "communion with the Bishop of Rome" may give rise to argumentation on the "bishop of Rome" side of the equation, but noone can deny the necessity of the "communion" aspect if we are seeking to understand what we mean when we say "catholic". For indeed, how can the church be "catholic" in the sense of "according to the whole" or "universal" without entering into the question of how local churches are united in one visible communion?

One of the chief reasons that I became Catholic is because, despite my deep Lutheran spirituality, I could no longer continue in a church body in which the universality of communion of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church was given no concrete expression whatsoever. That, and the fact that I became equally convinced of the other end of the equation, the necessity for this universal communion to be united in communion with the Successor of the one to whom Christ said "I give you the keys of the Kingdom" and "On this Rock I will build by Church".

Proposition #1: A Sectarian Doctrine Cannot be a "Catholic Principle"

Acroamaticus, previously mentioned on this blog, has begun to post on his "Lutheran Catholicity" blog. The first post takes up the challenge for him to try to define "catholicity" apart from communion with the bishop of Rome. He has outlined three "principles" that for him are a sine qua non of catholicity. I don't quibble with his identification of these principles - they are among those that I would specify as Catholic "principles" also. [Although I don't really like talking this "principles" language, even though my favourite theologian wrote a book along these lines. I could recommend that to anyone wishing to read more on this subject.]

But I do need to quible with his definition of at least one of these "principles", namely, the "Gospel Principle".

Acroamaticus writes:

2. The Gospel Principal. To be catholic a statement or practise must be consonant with the Gospel, defined in the narrow sense, i.e. that we are freely justified before God for Christ's sake when we believe that we are recieved into God's favour and our sins forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes to us as righteousness (Romans chs. 3 & 4) [see Augsburg Confession, Art IV). Any statement or practise that contradicts God's Gospel can self-evidently not be catholic.

But how can we make such a "narrow definition" of any part of the faith, let alone "the Gospel", a part of a definition of what it means to be "catholic"? To give St Vincent of Lerins his due, at least he got the "always" and "everywhere" part right. Something cannot really claim to be "catholic" unless it can be demonstrated to be held by the whole Church rather than a "narrow" group of theologians or believers. In fact, the "narrow" sense in which Acroamaticus describes "the Gospel" is quite open to being called a "sectarian" principle, rather than a "catholic" principle.

My personal conviction is that there is no sense in which one can speak of being "catholic" apart from "the Catholic Church". Now, we have been through all this before with Past Elder (are you still lurking there in the shadows, ol' boy?), but let me say it again: the faith only has meaning, is only catholic, within the Communion of the Church. All these assertions that Acroamaticus makes ("To be catholic a statement or practise must be ...") - in whose book? under whose authority? As I said, I am not arguing with the fact that the Scriptures, the Gospel and the Church in her historical aspect are all central to what it means to be "catholic". But I can assert this because the Church says so, not because I say so. By definition, I cannot, on my own, declare what it means to be "catholic". That is something that can only be done by the community which IS "catholic".

St Damien of Molokai

Ever since seeing the David Wenham film "Molokai", I have had a real soft spot for this saint, and am glad to see he made it to canonisation recently. There is an excellent article on St Damien on the Catholic World Report site: The Apostle to the Lepers.

There is an interesting comment in this article about the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) entry on Fr Damien:

Damien’s superiors, however, could not picture their difficult charge as a saint. (Compare the coolness of the original Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on Damien composed by one of them with the article on Molokai written by Joseph Dutton.) The flourishing Sacred Hearts Fathers did little to promote his canonization cause until 1938, when his generation of superiors was dead.

Wondering what they meant, I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Web, which is, I believe, the original edition, and found the article in question:

Missionary priest, born at Tremeloo, Belgium, 3 January 1840; died at Molokai, Hawaii, 15 April 1889.

His father, a small farmer, sent him to a college at Braine-le-Comte, to prepare for a commercial profession; but as a result of a mission given by the Redemptorists in 1858, Joseph decided to become a religious. He entered the novitiate of the Fathers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary at Louvain, and took in religion the name of Damien. He was admitted to the religious profession, 7 Oct. 1860. Three years later, though still in minor orders, he was sent to the mission of the Hawaiian Islands, where he arrived, 19 March, 1864. Ordained priest at Honolulu 24 May of the same year, he was later given charge of various districts on the island of Hawaii, and, animated with a burning zeal, his robust constitution allowed him to give full play to the impulses of his heart. He was not only the missionary of the natives, but also constructed several chapels with his own hands, both in Hawaii and in Molokai.

On the latter island there had grown up a leper settlement where the Government kept segregated all persons afflicted with the loathsome disease. The board of health supplied the unfortunates with food and clothing, but was unable in the beginning to provide them with either resident physicians or nurses. On 10 May, 1873, Father Damien, at his own request and with the sanction of his bishop, arrived at the settlement as its resident priest. There were then 600 lepers. "As long as the lepers can care for themselves", wrote the superintendent of the board of health to Bishop Maigret, "they are comparatively comfortable, but as soon as the dreadful disease renders them helpless, it would seem that even demons themselves would pity their condition and hasten their death." For a long time, however, Father Damien was the only one to bring them the succour they so greatly needed. He not only administered the consolations of religion, but also rendered them such little medical service and bodily comforts as were within his power. He dressed their ulcers, helped them erect their cottages, and went so far as to dig their graves and make their coffins. After twelve years of this heroic service he discovered in himself the first symptoms of the disease. This was in 1885. He nevertheless continued his charitable ministrations, being assisted at this period by two other priests and two lay brothers. On 28 March, 1889, Father Damien became helpless and passed away shortly after, closing his fifteenth year in the service of the lepers.

Certain utterances concerning his morality called forth Robert Louis Stevenson's well-known philippic against the Rev. Dr. Hyde, wherein the memory of the Apostle of the Lepers is brilliantly vindicated. In addition a correspondence in the "Pacific Commercial Advertiser", 20 June, 1905, completely removes from the character of Father Damien every vestige of suspicion, proving beyond a doubt that Dr. Hyde's insinuations rested merely on misunderstandings.

Hmm. Definitely "cool". How about the bit about "his robust constitution allowed him to give full play to the impulses of his heart"!? or the description of the lepers as "persons afflicted with the loathsome disease"; or the comment that Fr Damien "went so far as to dig their graves and make their coffins"!

In the same edition we find the "article on Molokai written by Joseph Dutton". There we read:

Father Damien and the Franciscan Sisters
It is the name of Father Damien, however, that has made Molokai known throughout the whole world. He came to the Molokai Settlement to remain, 11 May, 1873. Good order in the settlement was somewhat precarious. Damien's determined character proved to be of great value. Besides his priestly offices, there was opportunity for his efforts at every turn. With a hungry zeal for work, he accomplished many things for the good of the place; he helped the authorities, and brought about a good spirit among the people. Ten years later (1883) the Franciscan Sisters came to Honolulu from Syracuse, N.Y., having been engaged by the Hawaiian Government. They expected coming to the settlement at once, but the authorities concluded that conditions there were unsuitable, that better order must be secured, and some improvements made in buildings, etc. So the sisters remained at Kakaako Branch Hospital, near Honolulu, for about six years, a certain number of newly gathered lepers being retained there. The hospital was given up when the sisters came to Molokai. At the settlement in 1883 conditions would indeed have been intolerable for the sisters, and the same was true in 1886 when the writer joined Father Damien; but matters were being gradually improved. At last three sisters came to Kalaupapa 15 Nov., 1888. Bishop Home for girls and women had been built. Two more sisters came 6 May, 1880, Robert Louis Stevenson coming by the same boat for a visit. Father Damien died 15 April, 1889. His death, after such a life, arrested the world's attention. A spontaneous outburst of applause from everywhere at once followed. The sixteen years of labour on Molokai made a record that seemed unique to the world at large. The world knew very little about lepers, and Father Damien's life came as a startling revelation of heroic self-sacrifice. He is acknowledged the Apostle of the lepers, and whatever others may do in the same field will help to perpetuate his fame and honour. A monument was offered by the people of England, and accepted by the Hawaiian Board of Health. It was given a place at Kalaupapa, not far from the steamer landing, near the public road now called "Damien Road", adjoining the sisters' place at Bishop Home. The monument in itself is interesting, being an antique cross, fashioned and adapted from stone cutting of about the sixth century, such as was found in the ruins of the Seven Churches of Clonmacnoise on the river Shannon, Ireland. It was transferred by the Board of Health to the Catholic Mission on 11 Sept., 1893, the Bishop coming to receive and bless it. Two miles away, at the other end of the Damien Road, in Kalawao, the body of Father Damien lies, close by the church, where the Pandanus tree stood that sheltered him on his arrival in 1873. Over this grave stands a simple cross with the inscription on one side, "Father Damien", on the other, "Damien Deveuster". The strong wooden coffin was placed in an excavation, and imbedded in a solid block of concrete. Since Father Damien's time, two priests have usually been on duty at the settlement, one at Kalawao, the other at Kalaupapa. Father Pamphile Deveuster, Damien's brother, was here in 1895-7; he returned to Belgium and died there 29 July, 1909.

Yes. "Getting warm", as they say.

If you haven't seen the film, get it out and watch it. It might be hagiography, but it is good hagiography and very moving. David Wenham plays Damien perfectly.

New Feature on Vatican Website

Well. I was excited at first, but now am a little annoyed.

The Vatican Website has started puting CTV video coverage of the Pope's speeches etc. with the relevant document on their webpage. For example, see here, the speech that Benedict XVI made to the Czech academic community on his recent visit to the country. Just below the heading you will see the link to "Video" - a quicktime film of the entire speech. (You need to download and install quicktime if you haven't already got it).

I thought "goody!", as I knew this speech had been given in English. BUT the bloody Italians have gone and covered over the pope's original English with a voice over in Italian. Fat lot of good that is. You think they could have put that on the "Italian" translation page, and given us the original without the voice over.

Grumble, grumble, grumble.

P.S. By the way, it is a good speech and worth reading. John Allen calls is "rhetorical jiu-jitsu" on the Pope's part. Here's a taste from John Allen's report:

“Relativism … provides a dense camouflage behind which new threats to the autonomy of academic institutions can lurk,” the pope said, speaking in English as he has throughout his trip.

“Is it not the case that frequently, across the globe, the exercise of reason and academic research are – subtly and not so subtly – constrained to bow to the pressures of ideological interest groups and the lure of short-term utilitarian or pragmatic goals?” the pope asked.

“What will happen if our culture builds itself only on fashionable arguments, with little reference to a genuine historical intellectual tradition, or on the viewpoints that are most vociferously promoted and most heavily funded?”

"What will happen if in its anxiety to preserve a radical secularism, it detaches itself from its life-giving roots?"

Benedict didn’t bother providing direct replies to those rhetorical questions, but the implied answer to “what will happen?” seemed fairly obvious: nothing good.

"March for the the Babies": It might as well never have happened

At least as far as the media is concerned.

My wife and kids went to the inaugral "March for the Babies" here in Melbourne on Saturday morning. Unfortunately, I couldn't join them - there was an unfortunate clash of scheduling that saw me at the ordination of our deacons that morning.

The march was held to mark the shameful anniversary of the passing of our liberal abortion laws here in Victoria. Cathy says there were "probably a thousand" people there.

Yet the ABC TV news that evening didn't even mention it. Nor did The Sunday Age the next day. There was a mention that it was going to happen in Saturday's Age (see this article), but then, suddenly, nothing. Deafening silence. Zilch.

I always say, in the ecumenical and interfaith business, that if you don't get pictures and reports into the media, it might as well not have happened. I don't think that this is the case with this march, I mean, I am sure that some good will have come from it, but... you see what I mean? How is a message to get out if the media just turn away and ignore an event like a thousand people marching on Parliament House on a Saturday Afternoon?

Good Lord, if it had been for a march to save the Yellow Breasted Whistling Parrot, it would have made the front page - even if only a tenth of the number turned up. But babies? Last year's news.

An Australian "Lutheran Catholic"?

I know that there are plenty of Lutheran pastors in the states who have "come out" as "evangelical catholics", but Australian Luthero-Catholics (or should that be "Catholo-Lutherans"? The latter is my daughter's favourite) are fairly thin on the ground. Thinner than ever since Easter 2001.

Nevertheless, wonder of wonders, behold a new blog on the landscape called "Lutheran Catholicity". It is barely conceived yet, with one entry from yesterday which reads:

Thursday, October 8, 2009
Coming Soon!

Evidences for the catholicity of the Lutheran Reformation.
Posted by Acroamaticus at 5:06 AM 1 comments
Labels: Blog Purpose

Needless to say, we here at the after-dinner table of Sentire Cum Ecclesia wait with bated breath for the first installments.

The blogger, who goes by the name of "Acroamaticus" (which according to one on-line dictionary means "of/belonging/pertaining to a musical/reading entertainment"), identifies himself as a pastor of the Lutheran Church of Australia, a convert to Lutheranism from Anglicanism, and of Anglo-Scottish descent. At one time, anyone answering such a description would have stood out like a sore toe in the ministerium of the LCA, but not today. Still, I am sure that someone out there knows who he is!

Acroamaticus has two other blogs, What Sasse Said and Glosses From An Old Manse that make interesting reading. (Sasse was a very famous theologian, a contemporary and colleague of Barth and Bonhoeffer, who took the path less travelled and ended up at North Adelaide at the Seminary where I was trained. His writings had a very formative effect on me as a young seminarian).

So, as they say, "watch that spot".

P.S. We would also welcome Acroamaticus to the table at SCE. Despite his "Anglo-Scottish" heritage, we hope the Lutherans have taught him something about drinking port in the last 14 years!

Quote of the Day

"Homo sapiens [are] a tiny twig on an improbable branch of a contingent limb on a fortunate tree."
— Stephen Jay Gould

I came across this quotation today, and it chimed in with my thinking about the recent near-apocalyptic disasters in our region. People ask "Why does God allow these things?" I reflect upon the sheer miracle that we exist at all. Here we sit, on a thin semi-solid crust floating upon a ball of molten rock, surrounded by a thin layer of atmosphere with enough oxygen to keep us alive, and then beyond that: nothing. More or less.

Leunig's cartoon in The Age today (see his gallery here) has something to contribute also:

[caption id="attachment_2349" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Cartoon by Michael Leunig, The Age, 9th Oct 2009"][/caption]

More interesting developments on the US Catholic-Jewish dialogue from the USCCB

As I reported earlier, the USCCB has made some changes to its Catechism and clarified its stance on Catholic dialogue with Jews in recent months. Now there is another development. According to the National Catholic Reporter,

"U.S. Jewish leaders had found [a] passage [in the Note on Ambiguities contained in REFLECTIONS ON COVENANT AND MISSION] offensive and said faithful Jews could not enter into dialogue with Catholics if those Catholics were always at least implicitly seeking their conversion."

In response,

Five key officials of the U.S. Conference of Catholics Bishops have excised [the] controversial passage from a public note on Catholic-Jewish dialogue issued in June two USCCB committees... The church officials, who included Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, USCCB president, also issued a six-point “Statement of Principles for Catholic-Jewish Dialogue” that clearly affirms that God’s covenant with the Jews has never been revoked.

The controversial paragraph (still complete on the online version) read:

7. Reflections on Covenant and Mission maintains that a definition of evangelization as the "invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers which is the Church" is a "very narrow construal" of her mission. In its effort to present a broader and fuller conception of evangelization, however, the document develops a vision of it in which the core elements of proclamation and invitation to life in Christ seem virtually to disappear. For example, Reflections on Covenant and Mission proposes interreligious dialogue as a form of evangelization that is "a mutually enriching sharing of gifts devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism." Though Christian participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the Church, the Christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of Christ, to which all are implicitly invited.

The letter of the five bishops to the five Jewish leaders indicates that not only the final sentence (the sentence in bold in the quotation above), but also the sentence before it (the whole section in italics) will be removed from the Note on Ambiguities contained in REFLECTIONS ON COVENANT AND MISSION.

What is one to make of this? Well, a couple of things, and both are made clear in the accompanying Statement of Principles for Catholic-Jewish Dialogue.

The first is that by entering into dialogue with Jews, Catholics do not retreat from their belief that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenant of God with Israel. The bishops assert that it is their duty to bear witness to the fullness of the Catholic faith, that this truth must be stated honestly and accurately in the dialogue, and that only Catholics who are faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church are truly qualified to engage in dialogue with the Jews.

On the other hand, the bishops affirm that God has not revoked his promises to the Jewish people (note that the six principles carefully avoid stating that the Mosaic Covenant is still a valid alternative path of salvation for Jews alongside the fulfillment of God's promises in Jesus), that they wish to proceed with the dialogue in a spirit of deep friendship and respect, and that Jews have no reason to suspect that we are using our dialogue with them as a covert means of proselytism.

Both these principles indicate that the US Bishops have in no way abandoned what I have called the "both/and" approach. The removal of the reference to an implicit call to baptism does not mean that they have retreated from their affirmation that all dialogue involves an explicit witness to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. It does mean that the bishops wish to remove anything that might impede the dialogue - ie. the opportunity to make such a witness - with the Jewish people. If fear of proselytism is such a stumbling block, then it is best to remove it. I don't think we should criticise this decision - however unfortunate it may be that the sentences needed to be removed to allay the fears of our partners in this dialogue.

By What Shall You Know Them?

"By their trousers you shall know them". So wrote Australian author Thomas Kenneally of priests-in-mufti in his novel, Three Cheers for the Paraclete . The above picture is from the banner of the website of the Leadership Conference of Religious Women in the United States. As you can see, despite there not being a habit in sight, there is still a certain "uniform" involved ("By their calf length floral skirts you shall know them", perhaps?).

These ladies are, as many of you will know, currently under "visitation" from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

It just so happened that, via a certain blog commentator who will remain anonymous (pass the port bottle to the man in the corner behind the newspaper please), I have been directed to a document entitled "An Invitation to Systems Thinking", a document described by the LCWR website as "developed by the LCWR Global Concerns Committee as a tool for using a systems approach to decision-making about issues both internal and external to the congregation, e.g., governance, mergers, formation, retirement, as well as justice issues." Just the kind of thing that the CDF visitation would be interested in, I expect.

Part of this document is a section entitled "Case Study: Congregational Issue". The case study opens with a description of a conflict within a particular (unnamed) congregation of women religious:

Description of the Situation

Recently our leadership team has received individual and group letters expressing concern over a Saturday afternoon prayer service to be held at our annual congregational gathering seven months away. The prayer is the highlight of a weekend of celebration honouring our founder. The planners of the event, a congregational committee of three elected delegates and a few volunteers, have designed a Rite of Celebration for Saturday afternoon that is not a Eucharistic celebration. Sunday morning everyone is invited to participate in the two regularly scheduled Eucharists at our Motherhouse complex.

Concerns expressed by the sisters include:

1) a belief that the most fitting way to honour our founder is with a Mass because "That's what she would want;"
2) an assumption that our unity can best be celebrated if all of us are present at one event, and that event should be a Eucharist since it is the sign of our unity;
3) a fear that a small group (the Planning Committee) is thursting something on the whole group; and a deeper fear that a small number of those who object to priest-led liturgies is determining how we worship;
4) and a hope that such a decision could be voted on by the whole community.

The issue appears to be how we as a congregation can worship together in a satisfying way at a major congregational celebration.

Actually, the issue appears to be around some of the sisters (those on the planning committee) objecting to the Eucharist because it is a "priest-led liturgy", and other sisters (the letter writers) not standing for this kind of nonsense.

Anyway, the case study goes on to analyse the source of the conflict. What is identified (using "Systems Thinking Resources") is that some of the sisters (those who want the Eucharistic celebration) are thinking with the "Western Mind mental model", while others (the planning committee) are thinking with an "Organic mental model". Apparently the former "values ordiless, predictablity, continuity, productivity and a clear chain of authority" while the latter "values chaos, connectedness, process, inclusivity, relationship, and a non-linear expression of authority." Apparently:

With regard to theology and spirituality, many sisters move back and forth between the "Western Mind" and "Organic" mental models. They value beliefs and practices flowing from a stable world of fixed relationships characteristic of an earlier time, as well as the insights of process, liberatioist and feminist theologies grounded in a more organic model. For them, cherished beliefs about Eucharist co-exist with a haunting awareness of patterns of ecclesial exclusion.

Hmm.

The next couple of pages are spent analysing the "systems" in which the sisters live and work, the place of entry into these systems, and how they might want to "disturb" these systems. Finally, we are told what the leaders of the congregation did to handle the concerns raised by the "Western Mind" sisters about the "Organic" planning committee sisters:

In responding we intentionally created our own ‘disturbance.’ We wrote and spoke with many of those who expressed concerns. In our response we

1) resisted the temptation to ‘fix’ the situation;
2) provided information by sharing our understanding of what the planners had in mind;
3) attempted to clarify both our own and the congregation’s identity at this time, by stating our belief that our current situation of differing understandings about the Eucharist and differing ways of celebrating Eucharist not only create uncertainty and frustration, but also offer new opportunities for the Spirit to lead us in life giving patterns of prayer;
4) attempted to strengthen relationships by thanking the writers and at the same time voicing our support for allowing the planning committee to do its work as it saw fit;
5) tried to honor all the voices by receiving without judgment each one’s uncertainty and frustration around the Eucharist question facing the Congregation; and by affirming the desire in each of us to have the best possible celebration of our founder.
6) invited a broader discussion of the Planning Committee’s proposal at our open representative Governing Board meeting a month later where the tensions around the issue were aired, and the authority of the Planning Committee was respected.

So. Without wanting to be too judgmental, I would say this amounts to a psychologising away of the objective truth of the Catholic Faith. In this "system", the Eucharist has become an optional extra for the good sisters, and in fact they are no longer identifiably Catholic.

Now, it is one thing to get rid of their habits, but if the LCWR is encouraging its member congregations to feel free to dispense with the Eucharist as the "source and summit" of their religious vocation and life, it is hard to know exactly by what one is to "know them" as Catholic religious sisters at all.

A Melbourne Catholic in the Court of the Lutheran Church of Australia

Well, not quite the "court", but the Lutheran Church of Australia National Convention Reception on Saturday night, anyway. I was very happy to be invited with my Lutheran wife to this social occasion during the Lutheran's national synod here in Melbourne this weekend. The invitation might have been a bit "naughty" on behalf of the local organisers (who are good friends). I think they were interested to see what would happen if this particular cat was set among those particular pigeons!

All in all, it was a delightful occasion where I had the chance to catch up with many good friends from around the country. I was very moved by the fact that my "defection" nine years ago has not dampened the affection and deep regard that exists between us. As I might have mentioned before, relationships between Lutherans and Catholics here in Melbourne is particularly positive as they are being built upon the foundation of personal friendships and networks. Part of that positive relationship is the deep regard both communities have for faithfulness to the gospel and the church, and a resulting high degree of shared teachings and moral values.

If you want to find out what has been happening at their Synod, just go to: http://www.lca.org.au/lca/synod/. Here is just one interesting report:

Private confession and absolution to be promoted as regular Lutheran practice

A study of private confession and forgiveness, prompted by the consequences of mandatory reporting legislation for pastors who are bound to uphold the seal of confession, has led to work focusing on the benefits of private confession and absolution (forgiveness) within the spiritual life of the church.

‘Private confession and absolution is a practice deeply embedded in the Lutheran tradition but one that has fallen into relative disuse so that most people in the church know little if anything about it’, said Rev Dr Jeff Silcock, chair of the Commission on Theological and Inter-Church Relations.

Synod agreed that pastors and congregations together study and reflect on the practice, with a view to discovering how private confession and absolution enhances the pastoral care of individual and the spiritual life of the church, and that pastors and congregations promote the practice in the life the church.

Dr Silcock said, ‘The Commission hopes that the document it has produced will encourage pastors to teach the benefits of private confession and so encourage congregational members to go to their pastor to confess any sin that is burdening their conscience and receive from him, as from Christ himself, God’s forgiveness.’

Starting Tonight! "The Last Things" with Anima Education

It's not too late to join us for our final subject at Anima Education this year. Appropriately, as we come to the end of the year and the season All Saints, All Souls, Christ the King and Advent, we will be focusing on the "Last Things" - or eschatology as theologians like to call it (any doctrine always sounds better in Greekish). So, bring your bible, your catechism, yourself and your $15 to Mary Glowrey House tonight for a very exciting 8 week course. Details below:

My final Anima Education Course for 2009 will look at

• Death


• “The end of the World”


• Judgement


• Resurrection


• Heaven


• Hell


• Purgatory


• Eternal Life

Why do we Catholics believe what we do? What is the source of our great HOPE?

“SPE SALVI facti sumus—in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans, and likewise to us (Rom 8:24)” Benedict XVI Spe Salvi

16 hours of interactive lecture/discussion

Mondays Oct 5—Nov 30 (excl. November 2) 6.30-8.30 pm
Mary Glowrey House, 132 Nicholson Street, Fitzroy (opposite Carlton Gardens)
Total cost : $120, payable in advance

A joint project of Anima Education and the Catholic Women’s League

For more information or to register, contact Joan on 9926 5733 or email
jclements@melbourne.catholic.org.au

PS. I should add that it was Joan, and not I myself, who wrote the description of me on the flyer!

Quote of the Day

An endearing quality of the Howard government was they didn't actually do much.

Chris Berg, "Meet the Nanny Spider", The Sunday Age

The Sunday Age: "Balancing Religion and Rights"?

The Sunday Age continues its fight against the “injustice” of “last week's decision by Attorney-General Rob Hulls to grant religious organisations the right to continue to reject employees on the grounds of sex, sexuality, marital and parental status and gender identity” by carrying two pieces related to the topic today.

1) The Teacher

The first is an article about a teacher, Rebecca Ireland. Today she is a married mother-of-three. But there is a dark history:

Back in 2004, the 31-year-old was an outsider. Before Rebecca and Peter married, she fell pregnant. It was unplanned, but welcomed. The problem was that Mrs Ireland taught at a Catholic primary school that disapproved of unmarried and single mothers.

The school indicated to Mrs Ireland, then known as Miss Harman to her students, that her contract would not be renewed. Facing the loss of maternity leave rights, Mrs Ireland took the case to the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. In mediation, the school backed down after the teacher signed an agreement not to promote her ''chosen lifestyle'' to the students.

Can we take a moment to point something out? First, Catholics, in my experience, do not “disapprove of unmarried and single mothers”. The Catholic Church teaches that sex (and hence parenthood) is reserved for marriage, and that sex outside of marriage is a sin. So, it is true to say that Catholics “disapprove of sex outside marriage”. On the other hand, Catholics are generally wild about babies no matter what the marital status of their parents may be and (in this day and age where the alternative to keeping a baby is usually abortion) seeks to be supportive of those who experience unplanned (and sometimes unwanted) pregnancies.

Catholic primary schools however might not be so keen when one of their staff members, who had agreed to be supportive of the “Catholic ethos” at the time they were employed, turns out to be publically living a lifestyle that is not supportive of the “Catholic ethos”.

I have a little experience of this. When I was a Lutheran pastor, one of my parishioners lost her teaching job at an independent “Christian school” under just these circumstances. I was certainly sympathetic. The way in which she was summarily dismissed did seem a bit harsh – especially given that soon after the birth of the baby she married her partner. I thought at the time that I could understand the school’s point, but surely a solution could have been found? Eg. Leave of absence until after the child was born or after the marriage?

In Rebecca Ireland’s case, it appears that a solution was found – and in fact a fairly lenient one for her. Sometimes these things just need a willingness to negotiate on the part of all concerned. (The recent case of Fr Bob Maguire shows that.)

2) The Archbishop and the Law Professor

On the opinion pages, the story is revisited in the standard respected form of “pro” and “con” pieces by representative voices. In the blue (green?) corner is the Archbishop of the Glorious See of Melbourne, His Grace, the Most Reverend Denis Hart DD, arguing “The Case for Discrimination”. In the red (yes, definitely red) corner is Professor Margaret Thornton BA(Hons) Syd, LLB (UNSW), LLM (Yale), FASSA, FAAL, Barrister of the Supreme Court of NSW & the High Court of Australia arguing “The Case against Discrimination.”

Let’s just look at the way the Archbishop was put on the defensive right from the very beginning by the editor of the Opinion Pages. Why was he asked to defend the case “FOR discrimination”? Why was he not asked to defend the case “FOR religious freedom”? Because that is what these two pieces are really about. This really isn’t a dispute about discrimination. As I have written before, everyone discriminates when employing people. Generally the Catholic Church agrees with the rest of society about what is “unjust discrimination”: it is unjust to discriminate on the basis of “race, disability, political belief, age, physical features or breastfeeding”, as Professor Thornton points out. As Archbishop Hart points out,

While we hold many values in common with the community, there are certain values that are not held in common but are central to our understanding of the meaning of life. These same values are not exclusively Catholic or religious. They are also held by people of other faiths and often by people of no faith at all.

Margaret Thornton shows her ignorance of Catholic moral theology when she asserts that “it is unlikely that there is a rational theological basis for the discrimination” – as His Grace points out, our moral theology is a direct, rational and logical outcome of “our understanding of the meaning of life.”

So lets get back to the real disagreement here, which is not about discrimination (which everyone does) but about religious freedom (about which there is far from unanimous agreement in our society).

Professor Thornton asserts that:

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities specifies a right to freedom of religion, which is conceptualised in individualistic terms. This means that everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, however bizarre, and they can also engage in the religious practices of their choice.

The problem with the exception is that it extends the protection of personal belief to organisations such as schools run by religious bodies.

It doesn’t take much to see what is at issue here. Professor Thornton admirably demonstrates the time honoured Enlightenment view of religion: it is a private, personal matter, not to be allowed to transgress into the public square. “The problem”, as she calls it, is when personal religion overflows into communal associations.

I don’t know if the good Professor has studied religion very much, but contrary to the good old-fashioned Enlightenment dogma, religion in human society is generally a communal rather than a purely private or individualistic affair. This is certainly the case for Christianity, and especially the case for Catholicism. The sort of religion that Denis Hart represents, then, is emphatically NOT “private religion”, but public. One cannot be a Catholic without being a member of the Catholic community.

Now note well that the kind of “religious freedom” Margaret Thornton supports is exactly the sort of “religious freedom” that the Saudi Arabian government allows its citizens and foreign residents: freedom to believe whatever you like personally and privately, but not freedom to act upon it in public or communal ways. In other words, be very, very careful of anyone who tells you that they support “freedom of religion”, but only for individuals in their private life. As Douglas Adams might have written, that is a new meaning of the term “freedom of religion” that I wasn’t previously aware of.

3) The Letters

And finally, of course, there are the letters. Let us just say that The Age continues to display its own “right to discriminate”. The number of letters against the Hull’s decision is three times higher than the number of letters in favour. “Read The Age” and “Maintain the Rage”?

The Homily: I know that feeling

You will have to agree that the above picture is an interesting choice to illustrate an article on Catholic priests and preaching. I must say I know that feeling. Listening to your average priest preaching his average sermon is doubley difficult when one is oneself a retired preacher. Professional criticism is always lurking in the wings. But what really irks me is not a question of homiletical skill, but the fact that whenever the 15 minutes taken up by the homily does not result in a better understanding of the text or a clearer proclamation of the gospel, I can only regard it as a wasted opportunity for evangelisation and catechisation.

The writer of the article, Columban Fr Paddy Clarke, suggests that we learn to pray for our preachers. He suggests that

whenever you attend Mass, say a short prayer for the priest as he begins to preach; if it does not change him, I believe it will help you.

Well, it would be a bonus if it changed the sermon too, but we get his point.

Morning Tea with Cardinal Foley

[caption id="attachment_2312" align="alignleft" width="118" caption="Cardinal John Foley"][/caption]The Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem (who assured us he has not engaged in equestrian activities since he was five years old and has not intention of doing so now that he is "almost 74") had tea with us this morning.

Cardinal John Foley served as President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications from 1984 to 2007. If you have ever watched a papal mass on the TV or Internet (eg. the Christmas Midnight Mass from St Peters), chances are you have heard John Foley's voice - which is very easy to listen to. You could call him "The Voice of Christmas".

While he is in Australia to create new knights and ladies/dames for the Order, he was invited to speak to Archdiocesan staff about aspects of Communications and Media in the Church. Hence our morning tea.

Indeed he is a most engaging speaker, telling us all sorts of stories and jokes from his childhood and early years in the media and the church. I don't know if I learnt a lot more about communications and media, but I certainly learnt a lot about Cardinal Foley and had an enjoyable morning to boot.

I was specifically interested in the question of blogging and the "new media", of course, but it seems to be that His Eminence is much more comfortable with good ol' fashioned print media. "At almost 74, I'm closer to Gutenberg than to the Internet... I don't know the future of print media, but it would grieve me to see the end of it."

But he was responsible for several policy decisions with regard to the Vatican Internet services, for instance in securing the ".va" tag for the Vatican. "They wanted us to be .it, but I said to them that although we are surrounded by .it, and although in many ways we are .it, we are NOT .it!"

He did grant that in one respect, the on-line media had an advantage. Whereas many radio, tv and print media are being swallowed up by large conglomerates, the internet still gives a "local" voice.

At the end, I asked him which was his favourite Vatican journalist. His answer: "No comment".

Quite apart from the question of the media, he also told us about the work of the Order in the Holy Land, which was very interesting. And he also commented that he thought I resembled Cardinal Richelieu. I hope it was the moustache and goatee he was referring too...