On the comparative situations of the Catholic and Lutheran Churches in the US and Australia

I wrote this for Christine, but thought I would share the observation with all of you. Catholics and Lutherans welcome to comment.

The comparative situations of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in the US and in Australia are close but not identical. There are more than enough similarities for me to understand what is happening there, but there are still important differences.

For instance, the existence of one major liberal (ELCA) and one major conservative (LCMS) Lutheran synod in the US has sort of guarenteed that the one will continue to stay liberal and the other will continue to stay conservative. Imagine if something like that happened to the Catholic Church in the US – a split, I mean – the one would scuttle the vernacular mass overnight, and the other would be ordaining women in a blink of an eye.

When you try to keep a Church of 1.2 Billion people together all over the world, that Church does end up looking like a series of endless compromises with “The Truth” (whether seen from a liberal or conservative point of view). The Holy Father is getting his butt kicked for exactly that problem at the moment.

Here in Australia, the Lutheran Church is much the same. There is only one Lutheran Church (of any significance), and it has endless battles trying to keep the peace and unity it gained back in 1966 with the merger of the two pre-exisiting synods. There are pastors and congregations on all ends of the spectrum – fundamentalist, catholic, traditional, confessional, conservative, charasmatic, contemporary, evangelical, liberal, social gospel, protesant, church growth, ethnic, you name it. Somehow, they have kept all these people in the one Church – but it is a battle.

The Synodical system of democratic government in the Lutheran Church encourages this battle, and does not ensure that confessional Lutheranism (or any other type) will prevail. Actually, it probably favours liberalism, because once liberal ideas get a grip in a democracy, they tend to be very difficult to overturn.

This is the battle out of which I emerged in 2001, and I was quite happy to lay down my arms. The Catholic Church is like the Lutheran Church of Australia in trying to keep a great variety of theologies together in one communion, but unlike the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church does not allow democratic government. In other words, it really doesn’t matter what Sister So-and-So RSM or Fr So-and-So SJ thinks, because they don’t get a vote.

That doesn’t make the job of maintaining unity any easier, but it does make the task of promoting authentic teaching within the Church – if not “easier” – then at least little more “hopeful” of eventually achieving its goal.

This is cool – REAL cool

Something to think about as we prepare in Melbourne for 43 degree celsius and 50kmh winds tomorrow. Its a picture of monks doing the blessing of the waters in Finland.

Check out the pictures at: http://www.keeping-the-faith.info/fi_valaa.html

Should the Vatican Employ "Spin"?

Henry V: I was not angry since I came to France
Until this instant.

Yes, I am angry. It seems that the generally accepted line is that, in regard to the lifting of the SSPX excommunications, “The Vatican stuffed up”.

“They should have known.” “They didn’t do their research.” “They didn’t explain it properly.” “They didn’t consult.” “They were naive.” “They should have known it would be a scandal.” “They need proper PR.”

Well, I am sick of this.

When the Holy See makes an official decision about anything, it always issues a written declaration or statement. Various curial officials may express opinions from time to time, but official decisions are always in black and white. And in Italian, but we have translators to help with that.

So the details of any decision made are always available to the media in an original written source document.

BUT (and it is a big but), the journalists almost NEVER take the time to read the original statement, to analyse it, to take advise on its meaning etc. They grab the most sensational and newsworthy lines from the source document, and then go out and see what “vox populi” reaction they can get. They will intentionally leave out anything that might explain the rational behind the Holy See’s decision because it has to be a “news” story (ie. a “sensation”). The do the exact opposite of what Martin Luther advised concerning the 8th Commandment, ie. they put the very worst construction on everything. And then their story is picked up and repeated around the world by the various syndicated press agencies, and it is reprinted again and again without anyone even once bothering to go back to the source. (Actually, I am forming a theory at the moment that there are in fact only SEVEN real journalists in the world, all the rest is syndicated copy.)

And THEN, the cries of horror start coming from all quarters, breaking off dialogue and calling for the Pope to resign etc. And do THESE critics bother to go back to the original source material, to analyse what is really going on? Do they stop for one moment to ask themselves whether the report they read in their newspaper is accurate? No. They go off like a hair-trigger shot gun, calling upon the Pope to apologise for “crimes” he never committed.

In the case of Bishop Williamson, the fact is that the Vatican was not only crystal clear in its original statement about what the lifting of the excommunications meant, but the Holy Father himself within days had publically spoken on the matter answering all the questions put to him regarding his reasons for reaching out to the SSPX bishops and his stance with regard to the Jewish people and the Holocaust. Still not enough. Then the Press Office of the Holy See issues a statement, restating AGAIN the same original points. Still the morning papers are hoeing into the Pope. Finally the Vatican Secretary of State issues a statement which spells out every detail of the case, AND STILL the world’s media reports only a few lines from this statement while continuing to repeat the tired paragraphs from their previous columns.

I give up. There’s none so blind as will not see, and none so deaf as will not listen.

But I will ask a few questions:

1) If the four SSPX bishops had recanted of the crimes for which their latae sententiae excommunication had been imposed, would it have been just for the Pope to have continued to impose the punishment out of fear that the act of lifting the excommunications might be wrongly interpreted by “the world”?

2) Do you really think it would be a good idea for the Vatican to employ “spin doctors”, like common politicians?

Update: A Jewish opinion that concurs with mine