Remember: Despair is a deadly sin!

I had the surprising joy today of receiving a visit from one of the readers of “Sentire Cum Ecclesia”. Really, the idea that I might actually have any fans out there in blog-world had never occurred to me!

My visitor admitted to having some doubts about the current state of the Church, especially in her local experience. Well, that’s not surprising. The important thing is not to despair or lose hope for the future (despair is a mortal sin, by the way, and hope is one of the three theological virtues!). Remember what Christ said about the gates of hell not prevailing over the Church.

We are all aware of the difficulties in which the Church currently finds herself throughout the world. But she has always suffered from such difficulties—both within and without. We should not fall into the trap of thinking “I’m the only one left”.

I reminded my visitor of the story of Elijah in 1 Kings 19, how he told God he wanted to die because everyone had gone over to the new fashionable god, Baal. In reply, God took Elijah back to the bit of Rock on which it all began for the Israelites: Mt Horeb (Sinai). There he spoke to Elijah in a “still small voice” and assured him that he was not “the last one left”—in fact, there were 7000 in Israel who had not “bowed the knee” to Baal. Then God sent Elijah back to get on with the job, anointing a successor to the King of Israel and anointing a successor for Elijah himself.

You see, God had plans for the future. He still does. A new generation is on its way, when all this current silliness will be put to bed. Not without a fair bit of angst, and probably not without the Church returning to something of a “mustard seed” in size (I seem to remember Papa Benny saying something like that once). For an indication of where things are going, and for a bit of encouragement, you might like to check out this story about the new bishop in Kansas City.

And in the mean time, here’s a joke.

[Reader: I thought you promised you wouldn’t tell any more jokes after that last one about the Pope’s ears.
Schütz: I lied.]

I saw a card in St Peter’s Bookroom today. It had two dogs on the front. One was saying to the other:

“I used to have a blog site, but I’ve given it up. I’ve decided to go back to meaningless and incessant barking.”

Mmm.

New entry in "Year of Grace"

New entry on my retro-blog conversion journey journal thing at www.yearofgrace.blogspot.com . Check it out if you haven’t been there before. This entry introduces a new character into the story, Peter Holmes. If you don’t know Peter, you can read about him here, or experience him for yourself by enrolling in one of the many great courses he runs with with Fr John Flader in Sydney at the Catholic Adult Education Centre.

Cardinal Arinze heads Bishop Trautman & co. off at the pass

Cardinal Arinze’s onto Bishop Donald Trautman, it would seem, and the rest of the English speaking Catholic Church can rest easy. He’s not going to let the US Bishop’s derail the project for a universally accepted and improved translation of the English liturgy.

You can read the text of his 2 May 2006 letter to Bishop William Skylstad, the President of the US Bishops Conference here, but in the mean time, here are the headlines:

• Both the CDW and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow the directives in Liturgiam authenticam.
• The CDW is not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to these directives
• Since Liturgiam authenticam was issues precisely to guide the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, the argument that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes, is not acceptable.
• Since the CDW has determined that there are good and strong reasons for a change in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum, then the revised text should make the needed changes.
• The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.

The last point is with the implication that if the new translations fail, we know who to blame. Of course, if they do fail (God save us from such evil!), there will always be those who will place the fault on the translation itself rather than the half-hearted support of those priests and bishops who opposed it.

"Chernobyl in the Vatican"?

A few blogs ago, I quoted Joseph Ratzinger from his 1968 classic “Introduction to Christianity”, saying:

“The sharpest critics of the Church in our time secretly live on this dream [ie. that the members of the Church are holy, sinless men]… and, when they find it disappointed, bang the door of the house shut again and denounce it as deceit.”

You won’t find a better example of this assertion than over on the Stephen Crittenden Show (The Religion Report) where they get Jason Berry and Paul Collins in to discuss the “retirement” (for want of a better word) of Fr Marciel Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

As an example of contemporary religious journalism, this really represents something of a low point.

Schütz speaking on the Da Vinci Code next Tuesday night

Without forfeiting my right to belong to the Amateur Catholic Blog squad, I have accepted the invitation of St Paul’s Lutheran Church, Box Hill next Tuesday night (May 30) at 7:30pm on That Bloody Book (aka The Da Vinci Code). The address is 711 Station Street, Box Hill (just a little north up Station Street from Whitehorse Road).

My presentation will be on “Themes and Schemes in the Da Vinci Code”.

I’m not really going to go much into “That Bloody Film”, which I haven’t seen yet, and am not keen to after reading the reviews. If it isn’t even a very good film, what’s the point? As Bishop Anthony Fisher once said to me “What’s the point of sinning if it isn’t even any fun?”

Not even the Pope has "the recipe" to "transform Christianity"

In his Wednesday Audience catechesis on 17th May, the Holy Father finished by saying this:

“Peter tells us: You think you have the recipe and that you have to transform Christianity, but the Lord is the one who knows the way. It is the Lord who says to me, who says to you, “Follow me!” And we must have the courage and humility to follow Jesus, as he is the way, the truth and the life.”

Did you note that? It is quite amazing, no? Am I right in hearing Papa Benny say (inter alia) that even he may occasionally fall into the temptation of saying to himself: “I have the recipe and I am going to transform Christianity”? And that whenever he might do so, he has to listen to the first Bishop of Rome who tells him: “It is the Lord who knows the way: follow him”?

"Muslims, Hindus and so forth" not "fine as they are": Papa Benny

Just today, I got around to reading the Holy Father’s homily for the ordination of 15 new priests in the diocese of Rome on May 22nd. It contains the following interesting comment:

“Jesus’ mission concerns all humanity. Therefore, the Church is given responsibility for all humanity, so that it may recognize God, the God who for all of us was made man in Jesus Christ, suffered, died and was raised.

“The Church must never be satisfied with the ranks of those whom she has reached at a certain point or say that others are fine as they are: Muslims, Hindus and so forth. The Church can never retreat comfortably to within the limits of her own environment. She is charged with universal solicitude; she must be concerned with and for one and all.”

Interesting, eh?

I should draw your attention to the outcome of a five day joint WCC/Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sponsored interfaith coversation on the topic of ““Conversion – assessing the reality”” which includes the following affirmation: (:

“Freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and non-negotiable right of every human being in every country in the world. Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.

I am working on a review at the moment of Martin E. Marty’s new book “When Faiths Collide”. Of course he deals with the (by now) rather tired paradigm that in facing the variety of religions we have to chose between “Exclusivism”, “Inclusivism” or “Pluralism”.

My thoughts have gone in this direction:

One need not seek refuge in a philosophy of pluralism to find a way for religions with a claim to “absolute truth” of peacefully and fruitfully co-existing–even if one of these religions is somehow the “official” or “public” religion of a given place. What is necessary is that among the absolute truth claims of such religions is the agreed doctrine of the absolute and inviolable dignity of every human being, and, following from this, the defence of freedom of conscience and religion.

This indeed is what the Catholic Church did at Vatican II. It did not abandon its claim to absolute truth, but embraced the doctrines of the dignity of each human being and the freedom of religion as a part of that absolute truth.

This in turn leads to respect for the other who holds conflicting ideas, even if those ideas are not shared, or even rejected.

Forgiveness and Absolution: "two indispensible elements" in Reconciliation

The Age this morning ran a story entitled “Pope calls for an apology”. It is true, Papa Benny pulled no punches, and these comments were central to his address to our Australian Ambassador to the Holy See:

“In regard to the Aboriginal people of your land, there is still much to be achieved. Their social situation is cause for much pain. I encourage you and the government to continue to address with compassion and determination the deep underlying causes of their plight. Commitment to truth opens the way to lasting reconciliation through the healing process of asking for forgiveness and granting forgiveness — two indispensable elements for peace. In this way our memory is purified, our hearts are made serene, and our future is filled with a well-founded hope in the peace which springs from truth.”

I have highlighted the words “asking for forgiveness and granting forgiveness”, because I think this is a slightly different thing than the usual political demand for “an apology”.

My concern with the general “Sorry” campaign is that it is completely one-sided.

When the Aggressor (all non-aboriginal Australians—that might sound a bit rich, but where do you draw the line and say “They weren’t/aren’t responsible”?) says “Sorry” to the Victim (ie. all Australians of indigenous descent who have ever or will ever live), this is one “indispensable element”. It’s not quite what the Holy Father means though, because he is not just talking about “saying sorry”, but about “asking for forgiveness”.

So, if we (I am including myself in the role of the Aggressor, since I have no indigenous blood to absolve me of this role) not only say “Sorry”, but also “ask for forgiveness”, who is going to reply with the other “indispensable element” of “granting forgiveness”? Who has the authority to say: “I absolve you” in the name of every indigenous Australian who has ever lived, or who will ever live?

Without the second “indispensable element” of absolution, we could go on with annual “Sorry Days”, beating our breasts, paying out continual and continuous compensation to each successive generation of Victims. The result: No closure. No healing of wounds, no peace.

Surely this is not what Pope Benedict means? Asking for forgiveness and granting it are the “two indispensable elements for peace”. Peace will not result if one is given and not the other. Unless there can be a formal absolution, a formal apology will serve no healing purpose.

We can’t change the past. We might even have to face the fact that apologies and absolutions for the past are not possible. But we can change the future. We can speak the truth about both the past and the present, and act with compassion and determination to address “the deep underlying causes” of the plight of our indigenous peoples. Somewhere along this road of reconciliation we might just find that forgiveness has been tacitly asked and granted.

Whatever fantasy you fancy…

There was a letter in The Age today by an ex-pat in China about the impact of the “That Bloody Film” (based on “That Bloody Book”, aka The Da Vinci Code”). He went to see it with his Chinese wife (the film was dubbed into Chinese). The reaction?

“The Chinese audience loved it. My wife even insisted on buying the book (in Chinese). I pointed out that it was a complete fantasy; her reply was that all religion was fantasy, but that sometimes we need a bit of fantasy.”

Ah yes. That’s how insidious This Bloody Book/Film is. In line with its general Gnostic approach, it casts the Christian Faith adrift from any anchorage in history. History is ditched in favour of “a complete fantasy”, but what does that matter? “All religion is fantasy” anyway, s what does it matter which fantasy is chosen by those who “need a bit of fantasy” as a crutch in their life?

[Reader: They’re all looney losers anyway…
Schütz: Yeah, it’s a good thing we’re so bloody rational, isn’t it?]

When a founder is not a saint…

I don’t know the details of the cases and, to be honest, I don’t want to. But finally it looks as if the Vatican has made a decisive move on the long running case of Fr Marciel Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ:

The Vatican Press Office released the following communiqué today, May 19, 2006. This is an English translation of the Italian original.

COMMUNIQUE OF THE PRESS OFFICE OF THE HOLY SEE

In reference to news reports diffused concerning the person of the Founder of the Legionaries of Christ, the Reverend Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Press Office of the Holy See communicates the following:
Beginning in 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith received accusations, already in part made public, against the Reverend Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ, for offenses reserved to the exclusive competence of the dicastery. In 2002, the Reverend Maciel published a declaration for denying the accusations and for expressing his displeasure at the offense provoked by some ex-members of the Legionaries of Christ. In 2005, for reasons of advanced age, the Reverend Maciel withdrew himself from the office of Superior General of the Congregation of the Legionaries of Christ.

All these elements were the object of mature examination on the part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and, in accordance with the motu proprio “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela” promulgated April 30, 2001, by the Servant of God John Paul II, the then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, authorized an investigation of the accusations. In the meantime, the death of Pope John Paul II happened and the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as the new Pontiff.

After having submitted the results of the investigation to an attentive study, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the guide of its new Prefect, His Eminence Cardinal William Levada, decided – taking account of the advanced age of the Reverend Maciel and his delicate health – to renounce any canonical process and to invite the Father to a reserved life of prayer and penance, renouncing every public ministry. The Holy Father has approved these decisions.

Independently of the person of the Founder, the worthy apostolate of the Legionaries of Christ and the Regnum Christi Association is recognized with gratitude.

[Original Text: Italian]

Lots more news and reflections can be found on the Websites of the National Catholic Reporter , Amy Welborn, and Sandro Magister.

While noting that the Vatican Communiqué does not (in so many words) declare Fr Maciel guilty of the accusations that have been brought against him, I think the important point in the Vatican Communiqué however is that last: “Independently of the person of the Founder, the worthy apostolate of the Legionaries of Christ and the Regnum Christi Association is recognized with gratitude.”

The point is that too often, religious orders and movements (eg. Legionaries of Christ, Opus Dei) have assumed that their founders must be saints for the simple reason that they did such monumentally excellent and saintly work in founding the order or movement in question.

On the other hand, there are always many others who are ready to point out with glee the moral and personal failings of the founders with the hope that the order/movement itself (eg. Legionaries of Christ, Opus Dei) will be brought into disrepute and rendered ineffectual.

Let us always be clear on this: being a sinner—even a very wicked one—doesn’t mean that God can’t use you for a saintly purpose. God can—and does—work with the most amazingly rotten raw-material to build his holy Church. That’s a point that is awfully close to the very heart of the Christian gospel.

Papa Benny, almost 40 years ago, wrote in “Introduction to Christianity” that:

“The Church is not called “holy” in the Creed because her members, collectively and individually, are holy, sinless men… The sharpest critics of the Church in our time secretly live on this dream and, when they find it disappointed, bang the door fo the house shut again and denouce it as deceit… The holiness of the Church consists in that power of sanctification which God exerts in her in spite of human sinfulness.”

Shortly after this passage, he goes on:

“God has drawn sin to himself, made it his lot, and so revealed what true “holiness” is: not separation, but union; not judgement, but redeeming love. Is the Church not simply the continuation of God’s deliberate plunge into human wretchedness? …Is there not revealed in the unholy holiness of the Church, as opposed to man’s expectation of purity, God’s true holiness, which is love, love that does not keep its distance in a sort of aristocratic untouchable purity but mixes with the dirt of the world, in order thus to overcome it?”

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.