When even "Sentire Cum Ecclesia" has to whisper…

Spengler (a writer whom I enjoy reading immensely) wrote a piece some time ago called “When even the Pope has to whisper”. Now he has a related column entitled “The Koranic Quotations Trap”. Both peices are well worth reading. I point you too them because, while I would also like to explore such questions in this forum, “I do not want rocks thrown through my window” (as Nino Culotta, the pseudonymous author of “They’re a Weird Mob“, wrote in his preface)…or worse.

Since reading Sandro Magister’s “Final Appeal” to save Christian Iraq on Monday and listening to >Rosie Malek-Yonan and >Fr Kahil Samir SJ on the Religion Report yesterday, the volume has been turned up for me on what has long been a vague twinge of the conscience–the fact that I work in the area of interfaith relations, and yet (just as Palestine-Israel questions are usually out of bounds for Muslim-Jewish dialogue in this country) so in our Christain-Muslim dialogue in Australia, the current treatment of Christians in many (not all) predominantly Muslim countries goes without mention.

But I don’t know exactly what to do about it. Sure, I get the advice about what I should tell “those people“, but our dialogue partners would (rightly) protest that they are not the ones committing these atrocities. See for instance the article about Hirsi Ali and her fight against female circumcision in yesterday’s edition of The Age. The Islamic Women’s Welfare Council here in Melbourne is right to protest that “we don’t do that” and “it isn’t Islamic”, but the problem is that it IS being done by people who ARE calling themselves Muslim (and, as she points out, Christian also, but I have no facts to know whether that is true or not). Blaming Melbourne Muslims for the atrocities committed in the name of Islam against Christians overseas is obviously not the way to go. That will achieve nothing.

I guess the thing that we have to say to our dialogue partners here in Melbourne is: We know you are not the ones doing this. We know you are not intending to introduce such practices in Australia. And we hear you when you say of atrocities against human rights “this is not authentic Islam”, and when you say “Islam is a religion of peace”, and when you quote the Koran as saying: “There is no compulsion in religion”. But what we want to know is what can we do together to help those members of the Ummah (the Muslim Brother/sisterhood) overseas to understand this in the way that you do. We want to know what we can do to foster the same interpretation of Islam overseas that we see you modelling here in Australia.

Now in actual fact, things are happening in this regard, thanks to the Islamic Council of Victoria. In just the last six months, the Commission has welcomed three groups of young muslim scholars (six men and four women) from Indonesia brought out to Australia by the ICV. These young people–philosophers, lecturers, youth workers, public thinkers–were all associated with Islamic reform movements in Indonesia. They are up against a huge battle–against fatwahs that they believe go totally against the grain of authentic Islam–but they are beginning to do the work that is necessary to allow Islam to find a way of peacefully coexisting with and contributing to human society as a whole. They are, in fact, beginning to address just those issues that Spengler raises in his articles. I hope they don’t get rocks thrown through their windows…or worse. More than that, I pray that God–Allah–will give them courage to continue their witness to “authentic” Islam.

More on the Fallible Pope Honorius

My thanks to Fr Richard John Neuhaus for this reference which is surely helpful in our assessment of Pope Honorius–who had the misfortune to go down in history as having his (possibly) monothelitist opinion condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. It comes from a letter by Pope Pelagius II (d. 590 — before Honorius, so it establishes something a point of view against which Honorius’ theological slip up may be evaluated) in which he is explaining to the Bishops in the West why he changed his opinion on a certain matter:

Dear Brethren, do you think that to Peter, who was reversing his position, one should have replied: We refuse to hear what you are saying since you previously taught the opposite? If in [this] matter one position was held while truth was being sought and a different position was adopted after truth had been found, why should a change of position be imputed a crime to this See which is humbly venerated by all in the person of its founder?

The application is that Honorius made his comment about Christ having only one will in a letter to Sergius BEFORE the Church had made a definitive pronouncement on the matter. While the theology which is reflected in his opinion was later found to have been heretical, he could not at the time have been (and was not later) considered to be a heretic. And of course, as Pope Pelagius points out, even Peter himself was corrected by Paul with regard to the role of the Jewish law in the Christian faith. The point at issue is that, when corrected, Peter (or his successor as in later history) changed his opinion and adopted and continued to defend the truth which “had been found”.

"Was heisst Lutherisch", Pastor McCain?

Over on Pastor Weedon’s Blog, Paul T. McCain makes the following comment:

Lutheranism is the pure and true confession of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith. We name this confession “Lutheranism” to hold it in contradistinction from every other confession, but Lutheranism is nothing more, nor anything less, than the one true faith. And all those confessions that, to whatever extent, also contain or exhibit this same one true faith, to that extent, are Church, in spite of their particular confession’s error.

Oh. Well. I’m glad we got that clear. Now all we need to know is (in Sasse’s words) “Was heisst Lutherisch”?

Pastor Weedon, Pope Honorius, and Errors of the Church

I was visiting Pastor Weedon’s blog as I do from time to time to keep up with things at the saner end of Lutheranism in the States, and there read his post “On the Platonic Church”. Here is the gist of it:

“The Church doesn’t err. Never has and never will. Bishops may err. Priests may err. Christian people may err. Whole dioceses may err. But the Church never can err.” Hold that thought.

“The problem with you Lutherans is that you have a Platonic notion of what the Church is.” Um. Houston…?

Let’s see: can anyone point to this “visible” church that cannot err? Oh, not that bishop! Oh, not his diocese! Oh, not this parish or that priest and certainly not that layperson!

…[Roman Catholics] put all their “church cannot err” eggs into the papal basket, though they try to make it clear that it’s not about the pope per se, but about the whole church, the infallibility given to the whole. But there sits Honorarius… Granted he didn’t make his monothelite leanings an infallible pronouncement ex cathedra, but then again Rome didn’t TALK that way then. But, wait a minute? Oh, never mind.

Luther’s solution was rather simple…: “Therefore the holy church cannot and may not lie or suffer false doctrine, but must teach nothing except what is holy and true, that is, God’s Word alone; and where it teaches a lie it is idolatrous and the whore-church of the devil.”

In other words, the Church by very definition is she who has and speaks the Word of God and it is that Word that does not err, lie, or deceive. When “church” presumes to speak what is NOT God’s Word alongside God’s Word, well, to the extent she does, she forfeits her claim of infallibility, because alongside of the inerrant Word she’s mixed in stuff than can be quite fallible indeed.

etc. His basic point is that rather than having faith in the inerrancy of the Church (and therefore trusting that what the Church teaches is God’s Word), we should trust in the inerrancy of God’s Word and look for the ecclesial community that teaches it in its purity.

Well as far as the argument goes, I have no problem with that. In fact, oddly enough, I believe I have found that visible society upon earth which has unerringly taught God’s Word throughout history (and we all know who that is, don’t we, dear Reader?).

But for the record, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following about the Church’s inerrancy:

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them [cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27] and guides them into all truth [cf. .Jn 16:13].

92 “The whole body of the faithful… cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals” [LG 12; cf. St. Augustine, De praed. sanct. 14, 27: PL 44, 980].

93 “By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),… receives… the faith, once for all delivered to the saints… The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life” [LG 12; cf. Jude 3].

In addition to this, the Catechism teaches that:

869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

and that

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith” [LG 12; cf. DV 10].

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

For the record, the Catholic Church does not teach that popes cannot err. She does not teach that bishops, priests, theologians, or even councils which proclaim themselves to be ecumenical cannot err.

She does teach that the scriptures “firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation” (DV 11), and that “the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys [infallibility] in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.” (LG 25)

And if you have stuck with me this far, it is probably very significant to note that the same passage in Lumen Gentium teaches that this infallibility “extends [ONLY] as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded”.

So, yes, Pastor Weedon, Catholics believe that the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church as a whole cannot err. And if you ask me to point to this Church, I can: it is that whole body of the faithful which was established by Christ and the Holy Spirit, which has existed throughout history from the day of Pentecost, and which is governed by Christ through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

And I for one find it hard to know how one could ever give assent to the teachings of community which does not believe in such inerrancy (here at least Pastor McCain–see the post above–is consistent). For without this, how am I to know that the measure by which I am judging the truthfulness of the Church’s teaching today (the “purity” of its teaching, as Lutherans would say) is in fact a true measure?

And why does Pastor Weedon keep going on about Honorius? Catholics are quite capable of reading history, and the Fathers of the First Vatican Council were well aware of the case of Honorius (if you aren’t, take a look at this Catholic Encyclopedia article which is fairly detailed). The Church has never taught the personal infallibility of the pope (cf. Pope Benedict’s note in the preface to his new book “Jesus of Nazareth” that no-one should regard his personal book as infallible!). The charism of infallibility is something quite different from being a good or bad theologian. I think the most that can be said of Honorius is that he was the latter. We know from history that he was a good and faithful pastor. In any case, Honorius rather proves the point than not: the Church was not derailed by his error; the sixth Council, which condemned the theological opinion expressed by Honorius in that one letter, got it right in the end; and the Church went merrily on its way into the future built upon the solid Rock of Truth.

Hound of Heaven wins the prize…

Hound of Heaven has sent a cooee from the Cloister which merits a repeat of this papal photo moment–this time together with HoH’s suggested caption. I think you will enjoy it.

Will you people be quiet! I’m tryyying to watch the movie!

A Cruel Joke by Eureka Street editors? A critique of Amnesty International’s new Abortinon policy and Ad for Bishop Spong on the same page????

This is either a really cruel joke in incredible bad taste by the editors of the Eureka Street website, or… I don’t know “or” what.

There is an excellent article by Father Chris Middleton in the current edition of Eureka Street entitled “Pro-choice Amnesty means no choice for members”. In it he deplores the unhappy situation in which the change of policy for Amnesty Internation from a neutral position on abortion to a “pro-choice” position leaves Catholic members no choice but to renounce membership in the organisation. In it he quotes English Catholic Bishop Michael Brown (a member of AI for 30 years) as saying:

The world needs Amnesty International. It has touched the lives of countless numbers of people across the world who have been wrongly imprisoned for their beliefs or subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. Long may it do so – hopefully with the active support of Catholics worldwide. But this will be seriously threatened should Amnesty adopt a policy supporting the right to abortion. Those involved in decision-making at international level need to ponder this very carefully indeed.

BUT ON THE VERY SAME PAGE we find THIS advertisment:Readers of “Sentire Cum Ecclesia” will be familiar with the retired Bishop John Shelby Spong. He is no friend of the Catholic Church (or of orthodox Christianity full stop?), and recently on the ABC Religion Report he said:

the abortion battle is basically the last gasp of a white male attempt to control women.

So what gives, you guys at Jesuit Communications? Do you have an explanation, Fr Andrew Hamilton or Robert Hefner?

A "U-Turn" for Interreligious Dialogue in the Vatican? How a little comment is beaten up into a news story…

Many newspapers and agencies (eg. here and here and here) are carrying the Reuters report about a comment made by Cardinal Bertone to the Italian newspaper “La Stampa” in which he reportedly said that the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue will return to being “a dicastery in its own right, whereas previously it had been merged with the Pontifical Council for Culture.”

That is perhaps a bit of a beat-up–and probably Cardinal Bertone himself is to blame because of the way in which he worded his comments (although there has been no publication of the entire interview in English, so it is hard to know the context in which he was speaking). As Rocco Palmo correctly notes,

the councils [for Interreligious Dialogue and Culture respectively] were never “downgraded,” but simply shared a head; both maintained separate officials and staffs. Their status and competencies continued unchanged.

I am skeptical that Archbishop Fitzgerald will be returned to the role. Contrary to popular accounts, his appointment as papal nuncio to Egypt was not an “exile” but rather a case of fitting the best person for the job, since fluent Arabic is a sine qua non for the position and Cairo is home to the most authorative seat of Islamic teaching–the Al-Ahzar University.

But Cardinal Poupard (who currently wears both hats as president of both Pontifical Councils) is past retirement age and will need replacing soon. His appointment to both positions was only ever seen as a stop-gap measure to give time to find a proper direction for the presidency of both Councils. Papa Benny did the same with the Council for Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples and the Council for Justice and Peace shared the same president, Cardinal Stephen Hamao. The Pope has not been rushing about in a panic chaning the deck-chairs of the Holy See since his election to the See of Peter.

So is this a news story? Has the Bark of Peter done a complete 180 degree turn? Or is it simply a case of “steady as she goes”? My guess is that it is the latter.

"My Chosen Lifestyle against Culture" is No Antidote for Dawkins-Style Atheism

A large op-ed piece entitled “With God on side” in The Sunday Age today takes up Catherine Deveney’s gushing review of Richard Dawkin’s documentary “The God Delusion?” from last week’s Saturday Age. The author, Cheryl Lawrie, works for the Uniting Church “Alternative Worship” project.

It is a valiant but doomed-to-failure attempt to counter Dawkin’s tirade. Yes, we all know that about Dawkins’

failure to recognise the not-so-subtle nuances that distinguish between versions of faith and religious expression

, but what Cheryl doesn’t appear to appreciate is that to Dawkins and his ilk IT DOESN’T MATTER if you are a fundamentalist or a liberal believer–BECAUSE IT IS ALL IRRATIONAL (see Sam Harris’ argument against “moderate” religion here) and THEREFORE dangerous in all its forms. The only “safe” kind of faith is empirical rationalism, ie. Dawkinesque Neo-Darwinian Scientism (but of course, Rachel Kohn has already burst that particular bubble).

Cheryl describes her kind of religious faith:

I’m as sceptical and cynical as the next person. I have a very uneasy relationship with traditional Christian doctrines. I’m not convinced in the slightest that there will be life after death; the creeds don’t speak of the truths at the heart of my faith.

I share her scepticism and cynicism (as you well know, dear Reader), but the rest of this causes me to ask: on what is your faith based, Cheryl? You say:

the case for God is pretty flimsy. It’s based on beliefs and experiences that can’t be measured or proven or validated.

You say:

Dawkins is right, of course — there’s nothing rational about a life of faith.

But is it, though? St Justin Martyr, Origen, St Augustine, and St Thomas Aquinas and John Paul II would all be pretty surprised to hear this. So would Pope Benedict XVI, who has built an incredibly strong case over the years for the rationality of faith (cf. the fateful Regensburg Address–which ignited just the sort of reaction Dawkins has been warning against, one might add).

But we need to understand where Cheryl is coming from. For her, faith is an intensely private matter. She says:

At its essence, Christianity is not about doctrine: it’s about a lifestyle, and a commitment at one’s very core to the notion that all people should have life, rich and full beyond measure.

Now on the one hand, I have no argument with he choice–it is a strong counter-cultural statement against what John Paul II called “the culture of death” (although I wonder if Cheryl would take opposition to that culture quite as far as JPII did). And I am just as certain that Christianity is not about doctrine (Papa Benny said as much in his Encyclical Deus Caritas Est). But the fatal flaw in her description is that Christianity is a “life-style”. Lifestyles are private choices that individuals make. You have your lifestyle and I have mine. They are a matter of personal taste, of like or dislike. They are not a matter for rational debate and certainly not any of your business unless my lifestyle is harming anyone else.

In contrast to Cheryl, I am a Christian for extremely rational reasons. They might seem irrational to Mr Dawkins, but I think they are rational enough. They are the reasons outlined by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and are, simply enough, the fact that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. That is a claim that sounds irrational, but is it rational to dismiss a claim which is supported by hundreds of eye-witnesses and well preserved evidence, and for which there is not one shred of evidence (apart from the fact that it sounds incredible) to say that it isn’t true? My faith is built upon the fact that there is historical evidence for the resurrection, and every other article of my faith (and the entire teaching of the Christian Church) builds rationally upon this foundation.

Cheryl, on the other hand, bases her faith on the Sermon on the Mount. For her, Christ is not the basis of her religion. Jesus is there–to be sure–as the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount, but he is simply a voice in the past who is calling us to a lifestyle “against culture”. He is not the one who died and rose again on the third day, who appeared to the apostles, who ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. He is not the one who sent his Holy Spirit upon the Church at Pentecost, and who established the Church to be his people, a visible society to be his presence in the midst of the world. And he certainly isn’t the one who revealed the rational and objective Truth about God and his love for all people. No, the bottom line for her is (in the words of US “theologian” Sallie McFague) that:

there is a power at work in the universe on the side of life and all its fulfilment. Christianity is simply about aligning one’s own life with that power — choosing to live in a way that brings life.

Faith therefore is not:

focusing on what or who God is, …[but] primarily about reorienting ourselves so that we look at the world through the eyes of God, and respond to it with the heart of God. We continue to do so even when it doesn’t seem rational, sensible, or as though it will make the slightest bit of difference.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Cheryl’s chosen lifestyle. But as she herself admits, it is (in the form she presents it) without rational basis and as wooly headed as those who put “Jedi Knight” on the census form as their religion–a vague hope that “the force” will be with you. Yes, it is good and necessary to work for LIFE against the darkness of death in this world–but this work will only grow and result upon the proclamation of Christ the Lord of Life. Otherwise it is pure starry eyed optimism with no power to convince or evoke committment.

At a recent dialogue meeting we were discussing Richard Neibuhr’s paradigms of Christ and Culture: Christ of Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ transforming Culture, Chirst and Culture in Paradox, and Christ against Culture. Richard John Neuhaus has recently written a thoughtful article about the modern Christian feelgood religion which is “Christ without Culture”. But in the end, Cheryl’s “lifestyle” religion is only “My Lifestyle Against Culture” or “Against Culture without Christ”.

Freebirthing? My recommendation: Go with a home birth and a midwife…

Also in this morning’s paper was the article “No doctor, no midwife — women go it alone” on “freebirthing”. It is quite a heartwarming article–you feel for the mother after the medical interventions of the first two births. Child three was at a birthing centre with a midwife, but for child four they decided to go it alone at home–as the title of the article says–with “no doctor, no midwife”.

I know that homebirthing midwives are hard to come by and expensive these days. Put that down to a lack of vocational direction for young people who may be called to this profession and ridiculous insurance premiums for homebirthing midwives–but I think it is sensible to have at least an experienced midwife about the place for a home birth.

Both our girls are homebirthed in our bedroom–in a waterpool no less. Picture below taken a few minutes after Mia’s birth with Maddy and grandad present. For Maddy we had two midwives and a doctor on order–but she turned up so quickly that only the first midwife made it to the birth, and when the second one arrived she rang the doctor to say he wasn’t needed.

So for the second one we decided we would just go with the midwifes. All went well except that Mia didn’t start breathing straight away–she only took her first gasp when one of the midwives–growing concerned–took her out of the comfort and security of Cathy’s arms in the pool. But they had all the gear (oxygen etc.) there for an emergency, which meant that if any emergency had arisen, they would have been able to deal with most of the immediate dangers there at hand while waiting for medical backup.

(our two midwives)

Cathy and I can highly recommend the homebirth alternative (I was converted after Maddy’s birth–a little unsure before then). The only advantage I could see in total “freebirthing” is that you end up saving on the cost. But there are health insurance companies out there that cover home births (not many, but they’re there). Our experience has taught us to value the work of midwives and believe that it is probably sensible to have people of experience and sensitivity around to help if you can. Besides, they do all the immediate care for the baby required, and also give afterbirth care in the week following, help with breast feeding etc., and psychological support for both Mum and Dad.

A tale of sadness and hope…

I am having a rare moment of a lazy morning at home on the Sabbath. No, I’m not skipping mass for the sake of a good lie-in (that would be a mortal sin)–it is my intention to attend the Latin Novus Ordo mass at St Brigid’s in Fitzroy tonight at 6pm.

So, I have the opportunity of reading the Sunday Age from cover to cover (minus the Sports pages, of course). And there I found this story which was at once sad and hopeful: “We could not ask for more“, a side article in another article called “Gene genie: fresh hope in bones battle“. It is about at Melbourne couple who both have the dominant gene of the disorder that “was once called ‘dwarfism'”. The story is that whenever they conceive a child, there is a one-in-four chance that that child will have a fatal genetic flaw that will cause it to die either before birth (resulting in a still-birth) or soon afterwards. The hopeful part of the story is that this (I think) heroic couple are determined to have a family despite these odds–and in fact do now have two children. The sad part of the story (and believe me I am not passing judgement here–just expressing sadness at what must be a terrible choice for these parents) is this paragraph:

“We always said we’d go ahead with the pregnancy as long as there was no fatality with the double dose [of both our genes],” Mrs Daniels said. Meghan is now a happy four-year-old, and Max a healthy baby. But between the two births there was much anguish as, with a second and third pregnancy, each unborn baby had the double dose and the pregnancies had to be terminated as there was no hope of the babies living.

Its that last line of “the pregnancies had to be terminated as there was no hope of the babies living” that gets me. As the article says:

They had the advantage of early warning of the genetic bone disorder, thanks to the discovery of a gene by Associate Professor Ravi Savarirayan.

“By having the knowledge, we didn’t have to go through having stillborns,” Mrs Daniels said. “We grieved earlier…”

In the midst of life there was death–and the inevitable grief–but what the technology made available was an early clinical death at the hands of the technologists rather than a later natural death as a result of the genetic disorder. I can understand that the former would be less traumatic. I just don’t know that it necessarily makes the situation any better.