Let there be sung Non Nobis and Te Deum!

The Western Australian bill for Euthanasia has been defeated! 24 votes to 11! From the SMH "WA euthanasia bill rejected":

Voluntary euthanasia will remain illegal in Western Australia after the bill was defeated in parliament. MPs were granted a conscience vote on the legislation, which was introduced by Greens MP Robin Chapple. The private members bill would have allowed people over the age of 21 with a terminal illness who were sound of mind to ask a doctor to end their life.

Labor MP Kate Doust, who is opposed to euthanasia, told AAP she had always been "fairly confident" that the legislation would be rejected. "It's a very good outcome. The actual vote should send a clear message that the members of the council do not regard it as good policy," she said. "What Robin Chapple proposed was a simple solution to what is a complex issue. I'm very happy that we've put this matter to rest."

Liberal MP Nick Goiran, who also voted against the bill, told AAP he was "relieved" with the decision but did not think it was the end of the debate. "The Greens have a track record of putting these bills up on a regular basis...I have no doubt that it will come up again," Mr Goiran said.

The same article goes on to provide some background to this:

The decision in the Upper House comes after Health Minister Dr Kim Hames revealed he helped a terminally ill patient die with a lethal dose of morphine. Speaking to ABC radio on Wednesday, Dr Hames, who voted against euthanasia, said he had helped a patient pass away by issuing a strong dose of morphine.

"I warned the family that the dose of painkiller that I was about to administer was a respiratory suppressant, can stop that patient breathing," he said. "Did they want me to do that? Did the patient want me to do that? The patient and the family said yes, so I administered that dose of painkiller."

Dr Hames said his actions were legal and rejected any notion that the incident was euthanasia. "What I did was give pain relief, and the side effect of that pain relief resulted in that patient dying then rather than in half an hour's time," he said. "That's very different to me putting in a drip and administering a concoction of drugs deliberately to take the life of that patient."

And that's the simple matter here - not a complex matter at all, really. The distinction surrounds the intention of the act. If the act is intended to relieve pain, rather than hasten death, it is legal. It was a therapeutic act. The dose of morphine was intended to relieve pain in the living patient, not to end the pain by killing the patient, even though a side effect was to hasten the death itself.

Note too that the article reports that the Green MP who introduced the bill "has told reporters he will re-introduce the bill if he wins another term in parliament." It is clear that they will not take no for an answer. They will keep chipping away at public resistence to their ideas.

(Incidentally, The Age published my short letter on Euthanasia in their "....and another thing" column this morning:

RANJANA Srivastava's story (Comment, 22/9) demonstrates perfectly the difference between shooting dying cows and euthanising dying human beings. We shoot cows to put them out of their misery. We want to euthanase human beings to put them out of our misery.

"Extra! Extra! Read all about it! MAN SENDS EMAIL TO OPPOSITION LEADER!"

Is this supposed to be a news story? Basically it amounts to the headline "Man sends email to Baillieu", which provides a rather flimsey opportunity for the Fairfax media to beat the gay marriage drum once more.

We have a State election coming up here in Victorian in November. As I have mentioned before on this 'ere blog, I am very impressed by my local member, James Merlino. A Catholic and a man of principle, he is also a minister in the current Labor Government, and this may be the first time in my life that I "cross the floor" and vote Labor. And while I am not particularly impressed by the present government, the paper today did contain two other bits of information. First, the "man sends email" article also contained the closing point that that "Premier John Brumby, like Prime Minister Julia Gillard, is opposed to same-sex marriage", and a separate article, "Euthanasia Debate Back on the Agenda", reports:

Premier John Brumby, who has long opposed euthanasia laws, said there were no plans for the government to re-examine the matter, or refer the issue to the law commission.

That doesn't entirely reassure me, but makes me feel a bit better about my current voting intention.

Keep an eye on Western Australia today too - and a pray for their government. They are voting on Euthanasia legislation there today.

Starting the discussion on Euthanasia: The Difference Between Cows and Humans

Thre is a story in today's Age by oncologist Ranjana Srivastava: "Family's pain multiplied at pointlessly lingering death". It tells the story of a dying 97 year old woman and the way her family dealt with the process of her dying. She fell into a coma and the family expected her to die soon, but she was still alive, still in a coma thirteen days later, and that's where their patience ran out. Except for one daughter who remained with her (out of a sense of duty, it seems), the others all went home and said "tell us when its over". Srivastava describes the following conversation with one of the woman's sons:

Outside the room, I run into her son. A burly man, he is bleary-eyed from having slept in a chair for the past seven nights. He comes straight to the point. ''Doc, this is inhumane. I can tell you that if it was one of my cattle dying like this, I would have shot it, done anything to end its suffering.''

The analogy is a familiar one to many oncologists; although it makes sense on one level, I find it difficult to base my decisions by equating cattle to human.

''Surely, in this modern era, there is something you can do?'' he pleads.

''I assure you that we are doing everything to keep her comfortable and nothing to prolong her life.'' It sounds odd, an apology that says, ''I am sorry your mother won't die.''

It is then, his voice muffled by wads of tissues, that he drives the point home.

''I started off feeling sad for mum. But we had talked about it and I really felt that she was ready to die. She misses dad and all her friends, there is nothing that she longs to do any more, and she just wants to go in peace.

''But here she is, something in her body just not surrendering when her mind is made up. And you know what this does to us as a family? It replaces images of a wonderful and rich life with those of aimless suffering and a drawn-out death.''

I desperately want to help. But this time, for a change, there is no life support to unplug or chemotherapy to stop. It is simply waiting for nature to takes its course.

''Euthanasia is against the law,'' I say gently.

He chokes on his tears. ''I hate myself so much for being angry that mum won't die. I should be sad, but I am not. This is not my mum any more, I want this to end.''

I find myself telling the truth, ''I, too, wish she would die.''

He looks up at me, as if suddenly he has found an ally. ''Doc, I don't know how you guys deal with this stuff. This is painful. I am going home, call me when it's over.''

Srivastava ends her article by saying: "Some days I muse about the slippery slope argument but today would have been a good day to discuss euthanasia."

Well, yes, discuss it by all means. Let's do that. Let's start with the way that this story demonstrates so perfectly the difference between shooting dying cows and euthanasing dying human beings.

We shoot cows to put them out of their misery. We euthanase human beings to put them out of our misery.

Anglicans to move against Euthanasia

According to this report in The Age, Bishop Phillip Huggins has proposed a motion to the National Synod of the Anglican Church (currently meeting in Melbourne) to oppose the moves of the Federal Labor Government to move toward allowing Euthanasia laws in the Territories. The motion includes the words: ''Our task is to protect, nurture and sustain life to the best of our ability.''

Bishop Huggins correctly points out the rather underhand way in which the Greens have acted in regard to this matter:

Bishop Huggins said: ''This was not a matter of pre-election debate. Would people have voted the same way if they knew a Labor government with the Greens would, as a near-first action, promote a conscience vote on euthanasia?

''There would be more integrity in foreshadowing this proposal before an election rather than immediately after. It should have been made plain during the election campaign. There should be a broad-based public debate.''

This point was echoed in a short letter to the editor on The Age's opinion page (not currently online), which commented that there were more than twenty Green's policies listed on Andrew Bandt's election pamphlets - not one of them mentioning Euthanasia, and this was their very first move once they got a candidate into the lower house.

Lesson No. 1: If you paint your agenda Green it is easier to hide it in the woods.

Happy 200th Birthday Great, Great, Great Grandpa Schütz

[caption id="attachment_4089" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Johann Gottfried Schütz (1810-1900)"][/caption]

Well, okay, I am a few days early, but I don't want to miss this occasion. On 13th October 2010, my great, great, great grandfather, Johann Gottfried Schütz, turns 200. With a bit of luck, we hope to make a pilgrimage to his grave in the next week or so.

Here is a picture of his gravestone, which is online at this site:

Australian "German" Churches on a German Website

The fittingly named "Hochkirche" in Tarrington, Victoria.

Well, how about this? I'm doing a bit of research on the net to find out about the burial places of my ancestors, and (Lo and Behold!) I find this German website with nifty pictures of a lot of Australian Lutheran "country" churches. Josh has just been talking about these wonderful buildings which he encountered on his recent trip to the Barossa Valley. Now you can get an eyeful too.

Newman's Laity

The Pope quoted Newman in his beatification homily:

“I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold and what they do not, who know their creed so well that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it.”

Pray for us, Blessed John Henry Newman!

Have no fear! Pope shows the way for Religious Leaders in Britain and elsewhere...

HT to Adam for this link to a Daily Mail article in Britain:

But who can doubt that the Pope’s central theme deserves a hearing in a society increasingly devoted to instant self-gratification?

Britain is a country riven by family breakdown and moving ever closer towards ‘mercy killing’ for the sick and elderly. It’s a nation in which the destruction of unborn human lives is routine — and anti-abortion protesters have been thrown behind bars for holding a banner depicting an aborted foetus.

In the name of ‘multiculturalism’, Christian nurses have been ordered not to pray for their patients, a BA worker has been disciplined for wearing a small crucifix and public authorities have shied away from celebrating Christmas.

Doesn’t the Pope make a timely point when he warns against the march of ‘aggressive secularism’?

Other church leaders should draw courage from the success of his visit.

There’s a hunger in this country for a spiritual dimension in public life — and they should stop being afraid to feed it.

As they say in the classics, there's something in that for all of us!

Not that every one in Britain was happy with this vocal demonstration of "Affirmative Catholicism" (as John Allen likes to call Benedict's own particular idiom). In this report, Allen describes what he calls "the largest public protest Benedict XVI has ever faced on one of his foreign trips, and one of the largest protests against a pope in modern history".

Maybe that in itself is a guage of his effectiveness. Whoever heard of such protests aimed against any other prelate in today's Church (or Churches)?

Perhaps with an eye to the protesters, Benedict himself said

“In our own time, the price to be paid for fidelity to the Gospel is no longer being hanged, drawn and quartered,” the pope said, “but it often involves being dismissed out of hand, ridiculed or parodied."

Allen goes on to say that

Benedict argued that Newman’s life and example confirms that “the Church cannot withdraw from the task of proclaiming Christ and his Gospel as saving truth, the source of our ultimate happiness as individuals and as the foundation of a just and humane society."

Euthanasia Lookout!

Forget Gay Marriage - the Greens, according the ABC TV news tonight - are going for the jugular: Bob Brown has announced that the first thing on their agenda is to get the law changed so that the Territories have the freedom to enact Euthanasia laws. In essence, he is hoping to overturn the decision of the Federal Government 13 years ago that outlawed a piece of Northern Territory legislation allowing Euthanasia. A small window of "opportunity" that allowed Dr Death (aka Philip Nitschke) to bump off four of his patients (something he is very proud of...)

Forget Islam! Forget the Boats! Forget the Feminists even! These guys are the guys that are really - I mean REALLY - out to change the very fabric of our Society. So what are we going to do about it?

Well, begin by raising awareness of the very real dangers that the Green's agenda is posing.

OPPOSING EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE

October 13 Wed 7:30 PM
O'Hanlon Centre, Mitchell Street, Mentone VIC

$5.00 per person

ALex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is speaking on ''Caring Not Killing".
Democratic Labor Party Upper House MP, Peter Kavanagh is chairing the meeting
Bishop Peter Elliott will be in attendance.

Car parking is available in St. Patrick's School grounds, enrtance via Childers St.
For more information, see the Euthanasia Prevention Coallition

There are moves afoot to legalise euthanasia in Victoria [and elsewhere!] so get informed!!!

"The End of the British Empire"?

The Age today reprinted a part of an article originally published in The Guardian by Andrew Brown on the Pope's visit to England. Fr Z. has a link to another one, in which Brown declares:

This was the end of the British Empire. In all the four centuries from Elizabeth I to Elizabeth II, England has been defined as a Protestant nation. The Catholics were the Other; sometimes violent terrorists and rebels, sometimes merely dirty immigrants. The sense that this was a nation specially blessed by God arose from a deeply anti-Catholic reading of the Bible. Yet it was central to English self-understanding when Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1952, and swore to uphold the Protestant religion by law established.

For all of those 400 or so years it would have been unthinkable that a pope should stand in Westminster Hall and praise Sir Thomas More, who died to defend the pope's sovereignty against the king's. Rebellion against the pope was the foundational act of English power. And now the power is gone, and perhaps the rebellion has gone, too.

Yes, how very different the Britain of today is. It is also the country where more Muslims go to Mosque on Friday than Anglicans go to Church on Sunday... Catholics and Muslims. Both have been portrayed as "violent terrorists and rebels, sometimes merely dirty immigrants". In anycase, both have been defined as "the Other". Here (or rather "There") to stay.

The End of the British Empire? I wonder...

Why can't we all just be nice to each other for a change?

So asks the PM in reference to parliament, and so asks the Australian Anglican Primate in reference to the General Synod currently underway in Melbourne.

Tough Talking and Tough Love

Reading Glosses From An Old Manse, I see that the Bearded One of Canterbury is also having ecumenical talks with the Bearded One of Volokolamsk (I wonder what the Holy Father would look like with a beard... Do you think it would help East West relations?). Metropolitan Hilarion was doing some tough talking:

We are concerned about the fate of [the Anglican-Russian Orthodox] dialogue. We appreciate the proposal Archbishop Rowan Williams made this year to exclude from the dialogue those Anglican churches which failed to observe the moratorium on the ordination of open homosexuals. But we regard this proposal as not quite sufficient to save the dialogue from an approaching collapse. The dialogue is doomed to closure if the unrestrained liberalization of Christian values continues in many communities of the Anglican world.

Now, Sentirists will know that I am no supporter of the liberalisation of Christian doctrine, but reading Metropolitan H.'s comments made me realise that there is in fact a difference in the way Catholics do ecumenism compared to the way Orthodox do Ecumenism, and it is basically summed up in my unofficial motto for my day job: "We're not fussy, we'll talk to anyone!"

Pope Benedict has just been meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury and recommitting to another round of ARCIC dialogue. This is despite (on their side) the ordination of women and homosexual bishops and (on our side) Anglicanorum Coetibus. In spite of? No! Because of! It is precisely because of our disagreement over these fundamental issues of Christian praxis that we must continue our dialogue with our brothers and sisters by Christian baptism. The Russians, of course (and the Lutherans for that matter, which is why Pastor Mark was so drawn to Met. Hilarion's comments), utterly reject an ecumenism of compromise, a "kissy-kissy" ecumenism as Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali put it. Well, for the record, so do does the Catholic Church (although I will admit to our shame that there have been plenty of Catholics willing to practice that kind of ecumenism). But we cannot accept proposals such as that which Archbishop Williams has apparently made to the Russians; we cannot dialogue only with those with whom we already agree! What, then, would be the point of the dialogue! Rather, we conduct dialogue as an opportunity to witness to the truth, to attempt to persuade others of the truth as we have received it, and hence to seek the truth together - not on the basis of compromise, but on the basis of the Truth once received by the Church.

You can "talk tough" in ecumenical dialogue, but unless you are also ready to practice "tough love", it ain' worth nuthin.

My Enemy's Enemy is my...Enemy?

ROTFL with this one. HT to Josh.

I gather that at Twickenham on Friday there were two groups of protestors ; the ultra-gay lobby and the ultra-Protestants. The police were out in force to keep them from really spoiling the occasion and managed to herd them together into one corner where they could keep an eye on them.

What they didn't reckon on was that the two groups spied each other and realized that here was an enemy even more hateful than the Pope; so they then set about having a regular ding-dong at each other and quite missed what they had come to spoil. (Source)

At least Herod and Pilate became friends in their opposition to Jesus...

Communique on the Pope's discussions with the Archbishop of Canterbury

The Vatican Information Service has released a "communique" (not a "joint statement") about the meeting of Pope Benedict with Archbishop Williams. My emphases and [My Comments]

"Fifty years after the first meeting of a Pope and an Archbishop of Canterbury in modern times - that of Pope John XXIII and Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, in December 1960 - Pope Benedict XVI paid a fraternal visit to Archbishop Rowan Williams. [You have to admit that, even though the two prelates are not in communion with one another, a "fraternal visit" is a nice thing among leaders representing two bodies of Christians whose relations, for more than four centuries, had been anything but "fraternal"!]

"In the first part of their meeting they both addressed the Anglican and Roman Catholic diocesan bishops of England, Scotland and Wales, in the Great Hall of the archbishop's library, before moving to a private meeting.

"In the course of their private conversation, they addressed many of the issues of mutual concern to Anglicans and Roman Catholics. They affirmed the need to proclaim the Gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ, both in a reasoned and convincing way in the contemporary context of profound cultural and social transformation, and in lives of holiness and transparency to God. [That's nice too. At least we are on the same playing ground, even if it might sometimes appear that we are playing different games.] They agreed on the importance of improving ecumenical relations and continuing theological dialogue in the face of new challenges to unity from within the Christian community and beyond it. [IOW, the more we disagree with each other, the more urgent our dialogue becomes. IOOW, we don't give up on dialogue when issues arise that divide us.]

"The Holy Father and the Archbishop reaffirmed the importance of continuing theological dialogue on the notion of the Church as communion, local and universal, and the implications of this concept for the discernment of ethical teaching. [A lot of people have been saying that there is no point anymore to continuing dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion - most recently, Bishop Nazir-Ali. However, even though ecclesiastical union is now only a very remote possibility, dialogue on the two issues specified here (ecclesiology and ethics) will obviously help us to isolate the source and cause of the present disagreements.]

"They reflected together on the serious and difficult situation of Christians in the Middle East, and called upon all Christians to pray for their brothers and sisters and support their continued peaceful witness in the Holy Land. In the light of their recent public interventions, they also discussed the need to promote a courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace, especially the needs of the poor, urging international leadership to fight hunger and disease.

"Following their meeting they travelled together to the Palace of Westminster and to evening prayer at Westminster Abbey".

Pope Benedict's Westminster Speech

Continuing to follow the Holy Father's teaching ministry in Britain, here is an excerpt from his speech yesterday in Westminster Hall:

And yet the fundamental questions at stake in Thomas More’s trial continue to present themselves in ever-changing terms as new social conditions emerge. Each generation, as it seeks to advance the common good, must ask anew: what are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? By appeal to what authority can moral dilemmas be resolved? These questions take us directly to the ethical foundations of civil discourse. If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident - herein lies the real challenge for democracy...

The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles. This “corrective” role of religion vis-à-vis reason is not always welcomed, though, partly because distorted forms of religion, such as sectarianism and fundamentalism, can be seen to create serious social problems themselves. And in their turn, these distortions of religion arise when insufficient attention is given to the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion. It is a two-way process. Without the corrective supplied by religion, though, reason too can fall prey to distortions, as when it is manipulated by ideology, or applied in a partial way that fails to take full account of the dignity of the human person. Such misuse of reason, after all, was what gave rise to the slave trade in the first place and to many other social evils, not least the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.

Religion, in other words, is not a problem for legislators to solve, but a vital contributor to the national conversation. In this light, I cannot but voice my concern at the increasing marginalization of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance. There are those who would advocate that the voice of religion be silenced, or at least relegated to the purely private sphere. There are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none. And there are those who argue – paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination – that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience. These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square. I would invite all of you, therefore, within your respective spheres of influence, to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life.

Pope Benedict and Archbishop Williams

Some bits from the Pope's address to the Ecumenical Meeting and Archbishop Williams address at Evening prayer.

Pope Benedict said:

This year, as we know, marks the hundredth anniversary of the modern ecumenical movement, which began with the Edinburgh Conference’s appeal for Christian unity as the prerequisite for a credible and convincing witness to the Gospel in our time. In commemorating this anniversary, we must give thanks for the remarkable progress made towards this noble goal through the efforts of committed Christians of every denomination. At the same time, however, we remain conscious of how much yet remains to be done. In a world marked by growing interdependence and solidarity, we are challenged to proclaim with renewed conviction the reality of our reconciliation and liberation in Christ, and to propose the truth of the Gospel as the key to an authentic and integral human development. In a society which has become increasingly indifferent or even hostile to the Christian message, we are all the more compelled to give a joyful and convincing account of the hope that is within us (cf. 1 Pet 3:15), and to present the Risen Lord as the response to the deepest questions and spiritual aspirations of the men and women of our time...

Our commitment to Christian unity is born of nothing less than our faith in Christ, in this Christ, risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of the Father, who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. It is the reality of Christ’s person, his saving work and above all the historical fact of his resurrection, which is the content of the apostolic kerygma and those credal formulas which, beginning in the New Testament itself, have guaranteed the integrity of its transmission. The Church’s unity, in a word, can never be other than a unity in the apostolic faith, in the faith entrusted to each new member of the Body of Christ during the rite of Baptism. It is this faith which unites us to the Lord, makes us sharers in his Holy Spirit, and thus, even now, sharers in the life of the Blessed Trinity, the model of the Church’s koinonia here below.

Archbishop Williams said:

Christians have very diverse views about the nature of the vocation that belongs to the See of Rome. Yet, as Your Holiness’s great predecessor reminded us all in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, we must learn to reflect together on how the historic ministry of the Roman Church and its chief pastor may speak to the Church catholic—East and West, global north and global south of the authority of Christ and his apostles to build up the Body in love; how it may be realized as a ministry of patience and reverence towards all, a ministry of creative love and self-giving that leads us all into the same path of seeking not our own comfort or profit but the good of the entire human community and the glory of God the creator and redeemer.

Convert Saints

Venerable (Blessed as of tomorrow) John Henry Newman is a hero of mine, perhaps, you might say, for obvious reasons. But in fact, he has had a special place in my life since I was a Lutheran seminarian, long before I followed his example and converted to Catholicism. So I am rather looking forward to tomorrow. The girls and I have already added JHN to our little bed-time litany of the saints, along with St Joseph and St Michael (my patrons), St Bernadette (their school patroness), and Blessed (soon Saint) Mary of the Cross.

But I was wondering this morning about "Convert Saints", by which I mean converts from other Christian traditions, saints who were baptised already before becoming Catholic. I know that there have been many from other religions, notably St Edith Stein and St Josephine Bakhita (I don't think St Paul or the other apostles count - they were not so much converted from Judaism - which was not a separate religion from Christianity at the time - as to a new sect within Judaism). St Augustine was a convert from Manicheanism, but that that wasn't really a form of Christianity.

A check on the internet gave me St. John Ogilvie (born into a Scottish Calvinist family in 1579), St Henry Morse (an English Protestant born in 1595) and St Elizabeth Ann Seton (born as an Episcopalian in 1774). Have there been any others than anyone knows about?

It isn't the Church's job to make herself "attractive": Pope Benedict

This guy is just great. Asked on the plane out to the UK "Can anything be done to make the Church as an institution, more credible and attractive to everyone?", he answered:

I would say that a Church that seeks to be particularly attractive is already on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for her own ends, she does not work to increase numbers and thus power. The Church is at the service of another: she serves, not for herself, not to be a strong body, rather she serves to make the proclamation of Jesus Christ accessible, the great truths and great forces of love, reconciling love that appeared in this figure and that always comes from the presence of Jesus Christ. In this regard, the Church does not seek to be attractive in and of herself, but must be transparent for Jesus Christ and to the extent that she is not out for herself, as a strong and powerful body in the world, that wants power, but is simply the voice of another, she becomes truly transparent for the great figure of Christ and the great truth that he has brought to humanity. The power of love, in this moment one listens, one accepts. The Church should not consider herself, but help to consider the other and she herself must see and speak of the other. In this sense, I think, both Anglicans and Catholics have the same simple task, the same direction to take. If both Anglicans and Catholics see that the other is not out for themselves but are tools of Christ, children of the Bridegroom, as Saint John says, if both carry out the priorities of Christ and not their own, they will come together, because at that time the priority of Christ unites them and they are no longer competitors seeking the greatest numbers, but are united in our commitment to the truth of Christ who comes into this world and so they find each other in a genuine and fruitful ecumenism.

BXVI rocks!

Pope to Students: What God wants from each one of you...

From Pope Benedict's speech to the Catholic School students of the UK:

It is not often that a Pope, or indeed anyone else, has the opportunity to speak to the students of all the Catholic schools of England, Wales and Scotland at the same time. And since I have the chance now, there is something I very much want to say to you. I hope that among those of you listening to me today there are some of the future saints of the twenty-first century. What God wants most of all for each one of you is that you should become holy. He loves you much more than you could ever begin to imagine, and he wants the very best for you. And by far the best thing for you is to grow in holiness.

And not just Catholics! (I must read this to my Lutheran daughters who attend a Catholic Primary School):

A good school provides a rounded education for the whole person. And a good Catholic school, over and above this, should help all its students to become saints. I know that there are many non-Catholics studying in the Catholic schools in Great Britain, and I wish to include all of you in my words today. I pray that you too will feel encouraged to practise virtue and to grow in knowledge and friendship with God alongside your Catholic classmates. You are a reminder to them of the bigger picture that exists outside the school, and indeed, it is only right that respect and friendship for members of other religious traditions should be among the virtues learned in a Catholic school. I hope too that you will want to share with everyone you meet the values and insights you have learned through the Christian education you have received.

God bless you, Holy Father!

Pope Meets Queen Elizabeth for pleasant fireside chat...

...about four hundred and forty years too late.


But, as they say in the classics, better late than never!

As Her Madge said:

Your Holiness, in recent times you have said that ‘religions can never become vehicles of hatred, that never by invoking the name of God can evil and violence be justified’. Today, in this country, we stand united in that conviction. We hold that freedom to worship is at the core of our tolerant and democratic society. On behalf of the people of the United Kingdom I wish you a most fruitful and memorable visit.

Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot in vain?

Ho, ho! Here's a laugh! Is this what Dawkins' "Arrest the Pope" campaign has come to?

Pope Benedict's Speech to Representatives of other Religions

[caption id="attachment_4032" align="alignright" width="500" caption="(Photo: Pope Benedict and Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, September 17, 2010/Toby Melville)"][/caption]
My emphases and [comments]

Pope Benedict's Speech to Representatives of other Religions17/09/2010 12:45 pm
Waldegrave Drawing Room, St Mary’s University College, Twickenham, Friday, 17 September 2010

Distinguished guests, dear friends,

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to meet you, the representatives of the various religious communities in Great Britain. I greet both the ministers of religion present and those of you who are active in politics, business and industry. I am grateful to Dr Azzam and to Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks for the greetings which they have expressed on your behalf. As I salute you, let me also wish the Jewish community in Britain and throughout the world a happy and holy celebration of Yom Kippur [the Holy Father has made a point this year of sending greetings to the Jewish communities for their Holy Days].

I would like to begin my remarks by expressing the Catholic Church’s appreciation for the important witness that all of you bear as spiritual men and women living at a time when religious convictions are not always understood or appreciated. [Note that he is emphasising a positive contribution that the many faiths of a multi-faith society can make. It can really go either way: conflict between the faith groups in a multi-cultural society produces skepticism about religion; harmony produces credibility. Also, note that in this speech, Pope Benedict is continuing to answer the "agressive atheist" and secularist challenge.] The presence of committed believers in various fields of social and economic life speaks eloquently of the fact that the spiritual dimension of our lives is fundamental to our identity as human beings, that man, in other words, does not live by bread alone (cf. Deut 8:3). As followers of different religious traditions working together for the good of the community at large, we attach great importance to this “side by side” dimension of our cooperation, which complements the “face to face” aspect of our continuing dialogue. [I like that too: "side by side" compliments "face to face".]

On the spiritual level, all of us, in our different ways [he isn't smudging the differences here], are personally engaged in a journey that grants an answer to the most important question of all – the question concerning the ultimate meaning of our human existence. The quest for the sacred is the search for the one thing necessary, which alone satisfies the longings of the human heart. In the fifth century, Saint Augustine described that search in these terms: “Lord, you have created us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in you” (Confessions, Book I, 1). As we embark on this adventure we come to realize more and more that the initiative lies not with us, but with the Lord: it is not so much we who are seeking him, but rather he who is seeking us, indeed it was he who placed that longing for him deep within our hearts. [I hope the Lutherans are taking note... Mind you, the Pope here points out a significant difference between Christianity and all other spiritual "paths" - only in our religion does God seek man rather than man seek God.]

Your presence and witness in the world points towards the fundamental importance for human life of this spiritual quest in which we are engaged. Within their own spheres of competence, the human and natural sciences [this comment and what follows is aimed at Prof Dawkins and Co.] provide us with an invaluable understanding of aspects of our existence and they deepen our grasp of the workings of the physical universe, which can then be harnessed in order to bring great benefit to the human family. Yet these disciplines do not and cannot answer the fundamental question, because they operate on another level altogether. They cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart, they cannot fully explain to us our origin and our destiny, why and for what purpose we exist, nor indeed can they provide us with an exhaustive answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

The quest for the sacred does not devalue other fields of human enquiry. On the contrary, it places them in a context which magnifies their importance, as ways of responsibly exercising our stewardship over creation. [Just as Benedict prefers to look at the positive benefit of multi-faith society, so he emphasises the positive benefit of a scientific world-view.] In the Bible, we read that, after the work of creation was completed, God blessed our first parents and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). He entrusted us with the task of exploring and harnessing the mysteries of nature in order to serve a higher good. What is that higher good? In the Christian faith, it is expressed as love for God and love for our neighbour. And so we engage with the world wholeheartedly and enthusiastically, but always with a view to serving that higher good, lest we disfigure the beauty of creation by exploiting it for selfish purposes.

So it is that genuine religious belief points us beyond present utility towards the transcendent. It reminds us of the possibility and the imperative of moral conversion, of the duty to live peaceably with our neighbour, of the importance of living a life of integrity. Properly understood, it brings enlightenment [one for the Buddhists there], it purifies our hearts and it inspires noble and generous action, to the benefit of the entire human family. It motivates us to cultivate the practice of virtue and to reach out towards one another in love, with the greatest respect for religious traditions different from our own.

Ever since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has placed special emphasis on the importance of dialogue and cooperation with the followers of other religions. In order to be fruitful, this requires reciprocity on the part of all partners in dialogue and the followers of other religions. [Tonight I was talking to the Rev. Mark Durie et aliter and they were saying that dialogue was useless because there is no reciprocity. Pope Benedict knows that reciprocity is a major and important issue; but he doesn't make it his prerequisite for dialogue. Jesus said "love your enemies", not "love them if they reciprocate your love".] I am thinking in particular of situations in some parts of the world ["you know who you are"], where cooperation and dialogue between religions calls for mutual respect, the freedom to practise one’s religion and to engage in acts of public worship, and the freedom to follow one’s conscience without suffering ostracism or persecution, even after conversion from one religion to another. Once such a respect and openness has been established, peoples of all religions will work together effectively for peace and mutual understanding, and so give a convincing witness before the world. [reciprocity thus is not the prerequisite for "face to face" dialogue, but it IS a prerequisite for "side by side" dialogue].

This kind of dialogue needs to take place on a number of different levels, and should not be limited to formal discussions [here Pope Benedict expands on his "face to face" and "side by side" analogy using the classic fourfould approach to dialogue embodied in the PCID statements]. The dialogue of life [a form of "side by side" dialogue] involves simply living alongside one another and learning from one another in such a way as to grow in mutual knowledge and respect. The dialogue of action [another form of "side by side" dialogue] brings us together in concrete forms of collaboration, as we apply our religious insights to the task of promoting integral human development, working for peace, justice and the stewardship of creation. Such a dialogue may include exploring together how to defend human life at every stage and how to ensure the non-exclusion of the religious dimension of individuals and communities in the life of society. Then at the level of formal conversations [traditionaly "face to face" dialogue], there is a need not only for theological exchange, but also sharing our spiritual riches [formally known as a "dialogue of religious experience" - the extent to which we can stand "side by side" with one another while we are "face to face" with God, I guess], speaking of our experience of prayer and contemplation, and expressing to one another the joy of our encounter with divine love. In this context I am pleased to note the many positive initiatives undertaken in this country to promote such dialogue at a variety of levels. As the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales noted in their recent document Meeting God in Friend and Stranger, the effort to reach out in friendship to followers of other religions is becoming a familiar part of the mission of the local Church (n. 228), a characteristic feature of the religious landscape in this country.

My dear friends, as I conclude my remarks, let me assure you that the Catholic Church follows the path of engagement and dialogue out of a genuine sense of respect for you and your beliefs [this assurance is necessary because so much has happened that causes some communities to doubt our sincerity]. Catholics, both in Britain and throughout the world, will continue to work to build bridges of friendship to other religions, to heal past wrongs and to foster trust between individuals and communities. Let me reiterate my thanks for your welcome and my gratitude for this opportunity to offer you my encouragement for your dialogue with your Christian sisters and brothers. Upon all of you I invoke abundant divine blessings! Thank you very much.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali and Pope Benedict: Salt and Pepper?

Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali recently stepped down from the Diocese of Rochester (Bishop St John Fisher's diocese). His Wikipedia page is here. He has been described as a "controversial figure" in England. That's "controversial" in the same sense that the Holy Father is controversial. In many ways, the two men - Bishop Michael and Pope Benedict - are chalk and cheese - or perhaps salt and pepper might be a better analogy. But I like both salt and pepper on my food.

Today I spent a number of hours listening to Bishop Nazir-Ali speaking in Melbourne as the guest of Family Voice Australia (the-artist-previously-known-as "Festival of Light"). While his audience was a few kilometres "right of centre", I was pleasantly surprised by the Bishop himself. I had gone along largely because the sessions had been advertised with the titles "Courage in a hostile world: promoting the kingdom of God in an increasingly hostile world / the challenge of radical islam and agressive atheism". I was concerned that this might become just another anti-Muslim session.

There was no question that that was the expectation from a number of people who attended, but that isn't what Bishop Michael gave them. Instead, he spoke about things like
- uniqueness of Jesus Christ
- Dialogue and evangelisation
- Economic justice
- answering agressive atheism
- the omission of Christianity from the preamble to the European Constitution
- laws on marriage and homosexuality
- formation of conscience
- defence of the dignity of the human person
- opposition to slavery a constant in Christianity
- language of natural rights

etc. etc. Sound familiar? I am very interested to get a hold of some of his books (someone stuffed up at the FAVA office - they had the whole collected works of Rev. Mark Durie for sale, but none of Bishop Michael's own books) to see how much evidence there is of direct influence of the Catholic Church's teaching on these issues on his own thinking. He was, by the way, a member of ARCIC for many years, and in response to a question I asked about cooperation between evangelical and Catholic christians, he said that he was embarrassed and disappointed that the ARCIC dialogues came to an end because of the actions of some members of his Communion. He said this afternoon that he remains an Anglican because that is the form of Christianity in which he came to know Christ (not a sufficient reason for remaining one, in my experience, but there you are). Also answering my question, he commented that he believes it is time for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to enter into a "differentiated" dialogue, recognising that the dialogue with the mainstream Anglican Communion can no longer have anything other than mutual friendship as its goal ("and that's okay", he said, "nothing wrong with that in itself") but that we should be pursuing serious dialogue with "orthodox bible believing Anglicans" to seek agreement on the Gospel. He said it, not me.

In the end, he said very little about Islam. He did mention that there are difficulties with the Muslim's committment to the Umma rather than to the nation of which he is a citizen (sound familiar? That's what they said about Catholics in the past too - loyalty to the Church meant we were a fifth column in the society), and warning against the evils of Sharia law (of course, the only aspect of Sharia that has any foothold in Australia is Sharia finance, which is basically a system of finance to avoid charging interest - I pointed out to some others there that of course both Jews and Catholics have separate legal systems in operation in this country, but that didn't seem to help much).

In the end, though, Bishop Michael said that Islam wasn't really the problem. The problem was the gaping hole, the huge vacuum, that secularism has created in our society - and people are seeking a simple answer to fill that hole. That means that we have only ourselves to blame if Islam, rather than Christianity, is filling that hole.

Another point he raised - which I have been meaning to raise for some time now - is how so much of the violence that westerners are accustomed to attributing to the religion of those committing this violence can in fact be attributed to the "honour/shame" culture in which they live. We think it is about their religion, but rather it is about the "shame" they feel when their religion (or race or whatever) is felt to be denigrated, and the "honour" they seek to regain for themselves and their faith by means of violence. This isn't therefore a "muslim" thing - it is the same thing you could expect from anyone brought up in a strict honour/shame society. I am expanding a little on what Bishop Michael said, but I think it is an idea worth exploring a little more deeply.

Anyway, I appreciated the opportunity to listen to Bishop Michael. I am still very uncomfortable with the prevailing "anti-Muslim" sentiments among many in our society, but I can't say that Bishop Michael did anything to fan those flames. As for the "anti-muslim" sentiments themselves, I fear that they are largely irrantional. Yes, there are dangerous people in the world, and some of these are Muslims - but that hardly translates into a rational fear of Islam. And the idea that Australia is somehow going to become a Muslim state with Sharia law is, I think, just laughable. Australians are too bloody apathetic to practice Christianity, let alone Islam, which is a far more demanding religion.

Ticking the boxes in Scotland

I have been enjoying watching the live streaming video of the Holy Father's visit to Scotland, which unfortunately is without commentary, but gives some good viewing. It was something to see the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England together side by side. There are similarities between the two - both are of about the same age, and both have leadership styles that place emphasis upon devotion to their duty coupled with a somewhat old fashioned disdain for the popular press.

The Pope's speech at Holyrood ticked all the right boxes, though. Check out this paragraph:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

In that single paragraph, he defused the fact that he was, of course, on the other side of the conflict between England and Germany, even though, as we know, a reluctant conscript. His Holiness and Her Majesty would both have very vivid memories of that time - although one can be certain that at the time the young German policeman's son could not have possibly dreamed that he would one day pay a state visit to the young woman who was then the crown princess of the greatest enemy of the Nazi state.

But in the same paragraph, Pope Benedict also acknowledges the suffering of the Jewish people, the challenge "atheist extremism", and the need to keep "religion and virtue" in public life. Not bad going...

He goes on to say:

Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the two billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world.

There is a very interesting mix of ideas in that paragraph. This afternoon I am heading off to hear the English Anglican bishop Michael Nazir-Ali speak on "Courage in a hostile world: promoting the kingdom of God in an increasingly hostile world." Tonight he is also speaking on "the challenge of radical Islam and aggressive atheism". From what I heard of him on an interview with Alan Jones on 2GB, and given the folks who are hosting him out here, I don't think that his message will be quite as subtle as that of Pope Benedict's. It is very easy for those who have grown up in a "traditionally Christain" society, such as Britain or Australia, to feel threatened by the fact that our modern society is clearly multicultural. As the Pope says, maintaining multiculturalism as a positive aspect of society is a "challenging enterprise", which needs to

1) "maintain its respect" FOR "traditional values and cultural expressions"
2) be on guard against "aggressive forms of secularism" which do not "value or even tolerate" those expressions
3) uphold that "Christian foundation" which is the very foundation that "underpins" those freedoms which a positive multicultural society seeks to uphold

This applies as much to Australia as to England and even to the US (the Pope speaks of "the example your Government and people set before the two billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world"). I will be interested to hear how Her Majesty's bishop presents this example this afternoon and tonight.

In the mean time, keep up with the Papal visit in the UK. Fr Nick is doing a good job of providing the links and such. I am sure that there is much more to come along these lines...

Blogs of Note

Two blogs you might be interested in.

The first is that of our friend and fellow Sentirist Joshua, Psallite Sapientier. Josh has just come back from a short holiday in South Australia catching up with Lutheran pals there such as the inestimable Pastor Fraser Pearce (now Pastor of Bethlehem, Flinders Street). He also went to the Barossa - my ancestoral happy hunting grounds (or at least grape-stomping grounds) - and visited the little church of Gnadenfrei at Marananga. A good friend of mine, Pastor David Spike, now Deputy Headmaster at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Croydon, was ordained there because his father was the resident pastor there at the time. Your correspondent, having been recently ordained himself, assisted at the ordination, as did (if memory serves me correctly) another good friend of mine and now the pastor to my wife and children at St Paul's Box Hill, Pastor Andrew Brook.

Speaking of ordinations, the other blog I wanted to feature is one that Joshua has only just brought to my attention, by the newly ordained Fr Nicholas Pearce at apriestdownunder.com. Fr Nick was ordained on Saturday here at St Pat's Cathedral (unfortunately I could not attend because I was home alone with a sick daughter), but he has some nice pictures of the ordination and his first mass on the blog. He seems to be quite prolific in his blogging - obviously relishing the new found freedom beyond the walls of the Seminary. Soon pastoral life will kick in and I guess the volume of the blogging will decrease a little, but we can be certain that the quality will be maintained. Nick has been blogging since August, and looks set to become our local "Fr Z." at this rate. Congratulations on your ordination, Fr Pearce, and welcome to the SCE blogroll! I hope you will find time among your many priestly duties to drop in for a glass of port at the SCE commentary table!

England a "Third World" Country?

There is a funny little story going around about comments made by Cardinal Kasper about England and surmising that this is the reason he is not accompanying the Pope on his journey to England. Cathnews picked it up, but the source is here, on the website of the German magazine Focus.

A google translation of the Focus article reads:

Cardinal Walter Kasper is too embarrassed to accompany the Pope to Britain? The British media are in any case after Kaspers interview with FOCUS.
A FOCUS interview makes headlines in the UK: Cardinal Kasper's comparison of the island with a land of "Third World" should have led to Kasper, differently than planned, not the Pope, accompanied on his trip to England and Scotland, British media speculating.

In the interview in the current issue of FOCUS Kasper replied to the question of why so many Britons expressed their displeasure with the pope: "England is now a secular, pluralistic country. If you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you had landed in a third world country. "Kasper also affirmed the question of whether Christians would suffer in the kingdom, and said:" Particularly in New England is an aggressive atheism spread . If you are around at British Airways and carrying a cross, you will be penalized. But we want to show our faith in public. Anyone who knows England knows that there is also a great Christian tradition. Europe would no longer be Europe if it could not maintain this tradition. "

Kasper was referring to a four-year-old case of an employee of British Airways, which had been prohibited, while working a necklace with a cross over her uniform, and thus contribute to visible to customers. The case had been matter of dispute in the UK.

When it was announced on Wednesday that Kasper "health reasons" other than scheduled will not accompany the pope, British media immediately drew the connection to Kasper's statements in the FOCUS interview.

On the other hand stressed Kaspers spokesman, Oliver Lahl, the Cardinal was really ill. And indeed, the cardinal health problems have been known for some time. Moreover, the Vatican has since tried to straighten Kaspers "Third World"-Quote: Kasper had referred to the great international importance of London, with its cosmopolitan population. The observation of the Cardinal over the "aggressive new atheism is true" some well-known authors that appear aggressive and make scientific or cultural arguments, but which are not really of such great value," the Vatican was trying to clarify.

British journalists, however, presented this declaration is not completely satisfied. "To make these remarks on the eve of the journey was a little awkward," said relatively restrained the Rome correspondent for the BBC, David Willey. Much more violent reaction Clifford Langley of the Catholic weekly newspaper The Tablet. " The Cardinal speaks "clearly nonsense," Langley said the BBC. "I do not think he believes Britain were in the grip of a secular atheism, and he had not said that. They claim that his poor health had forced him to cancel the tour. I wonder if he has not called off because his presence would be embarrassing now. "

British Airways defended himself, the Cardinal was "seriously misinformed" about the case of employees, the crucifix she was not allowed: "It is completely untrue that we discriminate against Christians or the followers of any faith." The employee had lost two years ago, a labor court against the airline. Beginning of the year and of appeal judges ruled in favor of British Airways. The "Daily Telegraph" points out that Pope Benedict "contrary to the tradition," will just take the return flight with Alitalia rather than with the former state airline of the host country, British Airways.

The Age reprints Guardian piece on the Church

The Age has a one page spread on the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict in the lead up to his visit to Britain today. I began reading it and then thought "I've read this before..." In fact, it is an edited reprint of an article I linked to in a previous post from The Guardian. I was wondering if the editors just took out the positive bits and left the negative bits. In comparing the two versions, I concluded that there was some evidence of this, but not much, so I won't make anything of it.

Barney over the Funerals Guidelines

I was not aware that there was any "backlash" against the Archdiocesan Guidelines on Catholic Funerals, until someone told me that at Mass on Sunday they heard a priest say in the homily "we will do funerals the way we have always done them: following the rite of the funeral mass but with sensitivity to what the family wants." Well, yes, was my reply, that is rather what the Guidelines say, don't they? But, said my informant, who had not read the guidelines, everyone is saying how insensitive and unpastoral the new guidelines are. Have you read them? I asked. No, I'm just going by what I read in the paper.

Ah yes. The papers. The source of all wisdom and knowledge... I had a bit of a laugh at something John L. Allen Jnr wrote the other day on this: he described religion journalists as "pundits who "know how to write better than anyone else, but who seem to have a problem with reading".

Which brings us to Barney Zwartz's piece in todays Age. Barney isn't Catholic, but that has never stopped him having an opinion about how Catholics really should be doing things. Actually, his article isn't too bad for the most part. He points out what a Catholic funeral is understood to be, and therefore concludes:

The Catholic guidelines basically highlight that a church funeral service is still a church service. Its purpose is to commend the deceased to God and proclaim the Christian hope; it is explicitly not a secular celebration of a completed life. Such a celebration is a natural, proper and desirable thing, but the occasion for it, according to the church, is a separate gathering. According to traditional Catholic thinking, the main priority at a church funeral is prayer for the deceased, and nourishing the grieving with the word of God and the Eucharist.

And if he had left it there, that would have been just fine. But he then does a complete 180 degree turn and gives his own two-pennies worth:

But times move on. The alternative view, shared by Father Bob, Melbourne Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier and others, is that it is about the living, and the main priority is pastoral.

Father Bob says he prefers to think of funerals as ‘‘family affairs attended by clergy, not a clergymen’s affair attended by family’’, suggesting only about 10 per cent of Catholics feel comfortable with these ‘‘sanitised’’ rituals. The rest want the ritual to reflect their lives.

There’s also the practical question of whether the deceased was a churchgoer. As Archbishop Freier says, ‘‘Often we first know the family through the death of a loved one, and that a very different ministry from someone who has been a regular congregation member. The funeral is about the grieving and the living."...

For myself, I think funerals are for the living, and that you cannot separate the church from the culture. While I sympathise with the thinking behind the guidelines, I wish they were more flexible.

But with respect, Barney, no one asked you (or Father Bob, or Archbishop Freier) what YOU think "a funeral" is. The point of the Guidelines is that a Catholic Funeral should be what a CATHOLIC Funeral is. Of course protestants, like Archbishop Freier or Barney, who do not believe in those funny Catholic doctrines like Purgatory or offering the mass for the dead, wouldn't get that a Catholic funeral is precisely about those things.

The Archdiocesan guidelines are not trying to restrict people in their practices of farewelling the dead. They are just about what the Catholic funeral rites are. The funeral mass is not a party put on by the Church for the family (as Fr Bob seems to think), it is something the Church does for the deceased person. That doesn't rule out in anyway the grieving family doing what they think is appropriate, but (as Barney acknowledges) the Catholic funeral IS a service of the Catholic Church.

My friend, who told me about the homily mentioned at the beginning of this piece, asked "But can't the funeral be both? Why do you have to be so strict about it?" The answer is fairly straight forward: because the Church has a message - the hope of Resurection to eternal life - which she doesn't want garbled at this crucial moment by the inclusion of other messages which compromise that proclamation. Christian funerals, from the very beginning, were always counter-cultural. It was the witness to the Resurrection hope over against all the other pagan religious rites and beliefs around it, which proved to be a powerful persuasion to to those pagan cultures. We all know how fuzzy people's thinking on the Christain doctrine of the afterlife is - the funeral is the most important point in time to get that message clear: Christ will raise the deceased to life again!

And, I pray, that "time" will never "move on" in regard to this central doctrine of the Catholic faith.

Tim Colbatch on the Housing Crisis

Tim Colbatch, Economics editor at The Age, has been trying to keep the issue of affordable housing on the boil (see here and here for earlier pieces) - even if our politicians seem treat the issue like playing pass-the-parcel with a time bomb (sorry about the mix of metaphors). Not being an economist, I find it very difficult to understand what causes the decrease in housing affordability, especially (as Colbatch points out) when we are living in a time of economic prosperity. He asks the very question that Perry asked a week or so back in the combox: Why is it that "a million or so young and lower-income Australians who want to buy a home of their own are now unable to afford a home that suits them"?

His article this morning is prompted by a new paper for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. While he acknowledges the paper's suggestion that the solution lies in "a range of targeted solutions", he also has this to say:

The weakness of their paper is that it looks for demographic reasons for the fall in home ownership, when it is clearly the result of competition from housing investors.

In the 1980s, 85 per cent of finance to buy existing homes went to owner-occupiers and 15 per cent to investors. In the '00s, investors' share averaged 41 per cent. In Victoria, in May and June 2010, investors buying existing homes got 51 per cent of bank finance, and owner-occupiers 49 per cent.

You cannot have investors increasing their share of the market without squeezing out the first home buyers. It's a zero-sum game, and politicians such as Wayne Swan who give $5 billion a year in tax breaks to investors are in effect blocking young and low-income buyers from owning a home.

Oh no, they say, you can't take away the negative gearing tax break without creating a shortage of rental housing. Yes, you can.

Aspiring first home buyers are mostly renters. When they buy a home, they cease to rent. There is one less home to rent, but one less household wanting rental housing. Supply falls by one, demand falls by one, and the net balance is unchanged. The market does not tighten. Rents do not rise. Families are not thrown out on the street.

This is an issue ripe for a reform government that is prepared to lose some skin to make Australia work better.

As Colbatch says in one of his earlier pieces on the subject: "Housing exists to provide shelter for families, not shelter from tax, and the law should be changed to reflect this." I generally agree with Colbatch - comparing the massive change in investment to first-homebuyer lending would indicate that this is where the problem lies (in the main, anyway). And I agree with his simple point that in the long run there would be no "rental shortage". Yet I am also aware that any changes to the current tax situation would need to be gradual rather than dramatic, because in the short term a removal of negative gearing and other tax breaks for rental investors would drive our rental prices up very rapidly. This would settle in time, but there would be a period of pain for both landlords and renters. Still, what must be done must be done. And yet one is all too aware that for any government to actually do this would require, in Sir Humphrey's words, "courage"...

Küng "less qualified than most" to comment on Vatican II

A remarkable article in the Irish Times ("Küng invokes spirit of Second Vatican Council he hardly saw") from one who was there, Bishop Michael Smith (Bishop of Meath). According to the paper, Bishop Meath attended all 168 days of the Second Vatican Council for which he and 11 other young priests prepared the official record. In contrast, by Bishop Smith's account, it seems that Dr Küng actually appears to have declined involvement in the event about which he so freely lectures everyone else. There are all sorts of narratives about the Second Vatican Council, but it is always interesting to hear the story from "someone who was there".

Very nice!

Me thinks I can see the hand of Fr Portelli in this somewhere... Nevertheless, it is nice to know that we can still restore churches properly. For the full gallery of photos of the restored St Augustine's Church at Yarraville, go to: http://www.cam.org.au/parish-news/st-augustines-yarraville-celebrations.html

The Archbishop's Funeral Guidelines

Driving to work on Friday, I switched on 774 (our local ABC station) and heard Red Simons declaring: "I'm with the Church on this. I'm with the Pope." What? Had Red got religion all of a sudden? Slowly the facts emerged. He was saying that "The Catholic Church" had declared that certain kinds of "inappropriate" music were not permitted to be used in funeral services (Hullo, I thought, something in this morning's paper), and he was in full agreement. "And I want you to ring in and tell me what songs you think would be inappropriate at a funeral", Red was saying. Actually, the callers came up with some quite funny possibilities for the "banned" list.

Any way, I only got to take a look at the "papal pronouncement" this morning - it is, of course, not from the Pope but from the next best thing locally speaking, our Archbishop. The Archdiocese of Melbourne Guidelines for Catholic funerals are not really anything new, but is a restatement and clarification of principles already long established. Only, with this restatement, no-one can now claim "I didn't know about that". The guidelines are clear and pastoral. Here are a couple of things that stood out for me - not necessarily because of their importance, but because of the "that's-interesting" factor.

But in planning the liturgy, the celebrant should moderate any tendency to turn the funeral into a secular celebration of the life of the deceased. “The Church offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ’s Passover for the dead so that, since all members of Christ’s body are in communion with each other, the petition of spiritual help on behalf of some may bring comforting hope to others.” (GIRM 379)

Good word that, "moderate". It acknowledges that there are some forces that will be very difficult to overcome entirely, but at least the priest can act so as to "moderate" these forces rather than encourage them.
I thought this point particularly interesting:

Designating a Catholic Funeral
When the Eucharist is celebrated, media announcements and the title page of a printed booklet should bear one of these designations:
•Mass of Christian Burial for Mary Brown,
•The Funeral Mass of Mary Brown,
•Requiem Mass for the repose of the soul of Mary Brown

If a Liturgy of the Word is celebrated the designation may be
•Rites of Christian Burial of Mary Brown
•The Funeral Liturgy of Mary Brown
A Catholic funeral is not “A celebration of the life of Mary Brown” or “A Memorial Service for Mary Brown”. These designations should never appear in media announcements or on the booklet.

This is an important point. It concerns branding, and the guidelines show a good grasp of the fact that the goods which the Church offers have to be correctly branded, so that they don't give a false message about their contents. Good theology begins by calling a thing what it really is.

But note the guidelines are not insensitive to the natural human need to celebrate the life of the deceased loved one:

However, celebrating memories of the life of deceased may be carried out:
•the night before the funeral, either at the funeral parlour, or before the vigil or rosary in the church - if permitted by the Parish Priest;
•in a separate moment before the Mass or a Liturgy of the Word begins - if permitted by the Parish Priest;.
•at some social occasion before or after the funeral.

Similar suggestions are made for "Words of Farewell" (including poems and secular readings) and "Military Customs" (no mention is made of Masonic or Lodge customs - I suspect we are supposed to assume that everyone knows they have no place in a Christian burial...). The point is just that such focus on the deceased from a natural point of view (as opposed from a divine point of view) is not appropriate in the Funeral itself. The Funeral is designed to get across a particular message ("it may include appropriate reference to the deceased, [but] it is meant to be a message of Christian hope in the Resurrection" as it says elsewhere in the guidelines), and the Church does not want this message to be lost by getting mixed up with other powerful messages and narratives at work in this context.

There is a significant amount of emphasis on the evangelical opportunity presented by a Funeral. Regarding the homily, the guidelines suggest that it be "given in a positive spirit of evangelization". And then there is this:

Moreover pastors should take into special account those who are present at a liturgical celebration or who hear the Gospel on the occasion of the funeral and who may be non-Catholics or Catholics who never or rarely participate in the Eucharist or who seem even to have lost the faith. For priests are the ministers of Christ’s Gospel for all.” (GIRM 385 and see The Rite of Funerals, Introduction, 18)

This includes again the very practical direction to include the full text of the Rite of the Mass in the booklets (and the note that "This will also be important when the new ICEL translations are introduced"). The guidelines even make the point that the pages of the booklet be numbered (presumably so that the celebrant can direct the people to follow the words of the rite).

I was interested in this:

There are three options for the colour of vestments: white, violet or black. In this matter, pastoral consideration for the circumstances and the wishes of the family should be taken into account and ethnic customs should be respected.

I did not know that black was an option for the Novus Ordo funeral mass - is this an effect of Summorum Pontificum?

Then of course comes the point that drew Red Simon's interest:

Music

The music for a Catholic funeral is liturgical. What is possible will be determined by the circumstances and available musicians. Hymns appropriate to the occasion may be chosen. At the Mass, whenever possible the Lord have mercy, Holy, holy, and Lamb of God should be sung. Recorded music should be avoided.

Where possible it is desirable that the responsorial psalm and alleluia verse be sung.

During a psalm, hymn or music, members of the family and friends should take part in the Procession of the Gifts.

During the Rite of Farewell Saints of God or the alternatives (The Rite of Funerals, 187-191) should be sung if possible while the coffin is sprinkled with Holy Water and incensed.

Secular items are never to be sung or played at a Catholic funeral, such as romantic ballads, pop or rock music, political songs, football club songs.

At the funerals of children, pastoral care needs to be taken in the choice of music. Nursery rhymes and sentimental secular songs are inappropriate because these may intensify grief.

The point that interested me is the stipulation that, where possible, the Lord have mercy, Sanctus, Lamb of God, Psalm and Alleluia Verse are all to be sung. I would like to take from this that, if this is the standard set for Funeral Masses, then surely it ought to apply to Sunday Parish masses as well? Is that an illegitimate conclusion?

As regards "Recorded music should be avoided", I would also like to have a small clarification. We suspect that what is meant is recorded tracks of the deceased's favourite songs and such. But I do have a question about what is permissable when musicians are unavailable. Can suitable recorded instrumental music be used for a period of reflection during the offertory or after communion (as indeed often happens at Sunday masses where there is no musicians available)? And can pre-recorded instrumental music (such as a mp3 or midi file) - be used to support the congregrational singing? Given the shortage of musicians these days, it might be something that a priest may have a setting of the mass and the songs to be sung on mp3 (or midi file).

There is also an interesting note on cremation (which we have discussed several times on this blog):

The Church still favors the burial or interment of earthly remains, however since 1963 cremation has been allowed.

Cremation is best understood as processing a body before burial. For Christians cremation is not a religious act and it should not be confused with burial or interment. Therefore the following procedure would seem best.

1.The funeral Mass or a Liturgy of the Word is celebrated at the church as usual. However, at the end of the Rite of Farewell the celebrant does not say “Let us take our sister to her place of rest”. The coffin is taken from the church to the crematorium for private cremation without prayers.
2.At some later time, by arrangement with the family or friends, the ashes are interred in the churchyard, in a cemetery or some other appropriate place. The committal prayers for the burial of a body are used. The place of interment should be marked with the name of the deceased to assist those who wish to visit that place and to encourage prayer for the dead.
Circumstances may require the funeral rite to be celebrated as a Liturgy of the Word at the crematorium. Any suggestion that the remains are being committed to a furnace should be avoided. Therefore the funeral ends with the Rite of Farewell. The celebrant does not say “Let us take our sister to her place of rest”. The procedure of a later interment of ashes should be followed, as indicated above.

...Under some circumstances cremation may have to precede the funeral rites. Only in such rare situations may the ashes be set before the altar during the liturgy, which is followed by immediate interment of ashes, as indicated above.

In accord with Catholic tradition, scattering ashes cannot be regarded as an appropriate way of treating the earthly remains of the dead. Scattering ashes in a favourite place, e.g. on a golf course or at a beach, may even imply that the deceased would want to remain there, in this world, rather than entering eternal life with God. Keeping ashes at home or sharing ashes between relatives is also inappropriate and may imply an unhealthy even superstitious attitude to the remains of the dead.

All in all, thank you for this, Your Grace.

Tracey Rowland on "Sacro-Pop"

"Our Tracey" is becoming quite prolific these days in the popular media. She has a new essay on Ratzinger's opposition to "Sacro-Pop" on the ABC Religion and Ethics site. Of course, this subject is the source of endless debate. As you know, yours truly has expressed his own opinions on the matter often on this site (most extensively here).

Some snippets from Tracey's article and my comments:

In other words, pragmatism is the attitude of the cleric who says "the music might be a bit low-brow but it's what people like." According to Johansson the pragmatist "emasculates the gospel by using commercialized music to sell it."

The idea of "marketing" the Gospel in a way that makes it "attractive" to the secular culture is always a mistake. Whatever way you wrap the present, inside the box will always be a bloody cross.

In a lecture delivered to the Church Music Department of the State Conservatory of Music at Stuttgart, Ratzinger further spoke of "puritanical functionalism" (the idea that we "have to keep it basic for the people") as a "first millstone around the neck of Church music," and the "functionalism of accommodation" (Church music must follow the norms of contemporary mass culture) as "the second millstone."

When music serves a "function" you end up with a jingle. Music, like poetry and art, can be and often is reduced to serving a pragmatic purpose, but then you end up with something that ultimately is not poetry, is not art, and is not music. That is as true in the liturgy as it is in any other forum.

With reference to the rock music industry and in words that could have been written by Ratzinger, he argues, "This music is not designed for listening. It is the accompanying soundtrack to a drama, in which the singer, strange as it may seem, becomes something like the sacred presence of a cult, the incarnation of a force beyond music, which visits the world in human form, recruiting followers the way religious leaders recruit their sects."

I disagree only with the statement that "This music is not designed for listening". It is, in fact, entirely for listening. It isn't, like Church music, designed for singing. It is orientated toward an "audience" rather than with the view of drawing the gathered assembly into a unified body. I know the force of music as well as anyone. In my car at the moment, I have all three soundtracks to the "Twilight" films. I find them powerful and evocative, and am able to listen to them over and over without boredom. Yet I have to acknowledge the truth of Ratzinger's critique - this is an "incarnation of a force beyond music", and it has the power of grabbing you with both hands.

He has also written that people who argue that liturgy should be about bringing God down to the level of the people are committing a form of apostasy, analogous to the Hebrew's worship of the golden calf.

That is a damning critique if we take the time to consider it. The story in Exodux 32 makes it clear that the Israelites at Mt Horeb had no intention of worshipping any other God than the one who "brought us out of Egypt", and yet they chose to do so precisely by adopting the religious customs of Egypt, that of embodying their gods in the form of animals. How can the Church remain "counter cultural" when she adopts and baptises the very heart of the prevailing culture in her liturgy?

A typical hallmark of a sacro-pop "hymn" is that one could just as easily be singing it to one's lover, as to God.

Go and re-watch Sister Act and you will see how easily modern love songs can be changed with just a few words into something that looks very much like the modern "hymn". Tracey is giving us a good rule of thumb here: if this song can be sung to my lover as easily as it can be sung to God, is it really suitable for the liturgy?

One does not have to be a theologian to discern the difference. Sacro-pop lacks the pathos of the great hymns of the Christian tradition and it diminishes one's perception of divine glory. There is not the same sense of awe and of self-transcendence and only the most oblique references to the Incarnation, Passion and Redemption.

Ah, pathos. On the one hand, liturgical song must be something other than a "love song", but that doesn't mean that it should be without passion. Tracey cites the passage from "Come Down O Love Divine" which begins "And so the yearning strong...". Another I would add is the closing verse of "When I survey the wondrous Cross" by Isaac Watts: "Were the whole realm of nature mine / That were a present far too small / Love so amazing, so divine / Demands my soul, my life, my all." I always get goose bumps when I sing that verse... Of course, that hymn has "Incarnation, Passion and Redemption" in spades: "Forbid it Lord, that I should boast / Save in the death of Christ my God / All the vain things that charm me most / I sacrifice them to His blood."

I suspect that, if a poll were taken one might find that the banality of sacro-pop is less of a liturgical carrot than a liturgical repellent.

Unfortunately, the polls that exist say otherwise (see for eg. here). But perhaps one of the reasons why these substandard hymns come in at the top of the list on a regular basis is that that is what we are serving up for our people to sing in the first place. Catholics do not regularly spend time with their hymnals at home singing through all the available material and deciding which they like. They only have what they hear at Mass on a regular basis to choose from. It's a bit like taking a poll of people who eat at MacDonalds on their favourite meal: you aren't going to get people voting for "Veal Cordon Bleu".

A Dangerous and Childish Game

News just in says that Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, has decided to cancel his plan to hold a "Koran-burning day" tomorrow. Thank God for that. But you must agree that he was remarkably successful at getting people's attention just by the mere suggestion of the intention to commit such an act. Everyone from the Whitehouse to the Vatican came out and publically pleaded with the man to reconsider. Mind you, there are places in the world where the pressure to "reconsider" his plans would have been applied rather less publically and rather more persuasively. But in the Good Ol' U. S. of A. Pastor Jones' right to go ahead with his plan of action was protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech.

My one observation to add to the whole mix is that the desecration of the Koran to a Muslim is rather more like the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament to a Catholic than the desecration of a Bible - although the latter would be shocking enough. To give an example, Catholics would have no difficulty with placing a bible on the floor (eg. next to your chair in a study room), but Muslims would never do such a thing to the Koran. We wouldn't do it to the Blessed Sacrament either. That's more the parallel here.

So what have we learned from all this? Probably not a lot. Pastor Jones was upset by the plans to build a Mosque at Ground Zero. He saw it as provocative. So he wanted to retaliate by doing something provocative in return. Despite the fact that the plans to build the Mosque at Ground Zero have become a source of contention, it was never the intention of the Imam who initially suggested it (whom I have met, by the way, on a visit to Melbourne a couple of years ago) that it should be. I can understand people thinking that his suggestion to locate a mosque at Ground Zero was not a wise one - for a raft of reasons - although it is sad that it should have been received by many as a point of provocation. Pastor Jones on the other hand had provocation as his major purpose in his plan to hold a Koran-burning day right from the start. He felt pain and wanted to cause pain in return to those whom he blamed for his pain.

Friends, this is silly. And dangerous. Anyone who has ever been a parent knows how these things escalate.
"Tommy broke my toy".
"It was an accident".
"Was not".
"Was too."
"Well, I going to break one of your toys."
SMASH.
"You *%^@#!!! Now you're really going to get it."
PUNCH, KICK, SCREAM, HOWLING.

As Pope Benedict told the ambassador to the Holy See from Morocco in 2006: "Violence as a response to offences can never be justified, for this type of response is incompatible with the sacred principles of religion."

A "four-way struggle" demonstrates danger of "gay marriage"

This story in today's Age, "Four-way struggle to care for baby E" eloquantly demonstrates precisely why "gay marriage" is a bad idea. The State supports and encourages and safeguards marriage with all the power of the law BECAUSE it is the environment most suited for the raising of children. Homosexual unions are, by their very nature, unfruitful. Any same-sex couple which desires to become "parents" must in one way or another "import" a child into the relationship. A child cannot be conceived by and born to a same-sex couple without the involvement of at least a third, or possibly even a fourth, party. Nor is it the natural place for a child to be raised.

Now go ahead and argue with me.