Most Rev Roger Cardinal Etchegaray

Readers will almost certainly be aware of the security breach during the Pope’s celebration of midnight Mass.

The Pope recovered from his fall and continued to pontificate at Mass.

Roger Cardinal Etchegaray was also felled by this woman, and he is undergoing tests in hospital. Cardinal Etchegaray is the vice-dean of the College of Cardinals and Cardinal Bishop of Porto-Santo Rufina. He is aged 87, has served 30 years as a Cardinal, 40 years as a Bishop and 62 years a priest.

This incident was no doubt very shocking for all involved – please pray for both the Holy Father and Cardinal Etchegaray, as well as for those who have the task of keeping the pontiff safe.

ARCIC III

Pope Benedict XVI with Archbishop Rowan Williams

When, during the recent visit of Archbishop Rowan Williams to Pope Benedict XVI, a third phase of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), I wondered whether there was any point – it all seemed like a very costly exercise that has, historically, achieved little. Despite two rounds of ARCIC, the Churches have continued to drift apart. Indeed, the lines of division between Anglicans and Roman Catholics are now entrenched, and if the secular media is to be believed, the divisions concern such matters as the ordination of women and ethical teachings on human sexuality. I wondered, as many did, if the third phase of ARCIC was merely designed to placate the Archbishop of Canterbury (and the Anglican Communion as a whole) after the public relations disaster that was the release of the Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum cœtibus, and the subsequent (thinly veiled) rage of Archbishop Rowan Williams.

Very often, the temptation amongst ecumenists seems to be to focus on the teachings of symbolic documents (for example the 39-Articles of the Anglicans and the Council of Trent for the Catholics) and attempt to find points of agreement, points of misunderstanding, and points of potential reconciliation. The result is that the “cracks” between the theological positions of the various communions are “plastered over” in the hope that they will remain hidden. A favourite tool of the ecumenists has been to claim “terminological divergence”: masterfully deployed in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification to claim that Lutherans and Catholics utilize the same terms to refer to different theological realities, thereby affirming that the respective condemnations of the reformation era do not anathematize the theological positions of each communion.

Whilst the fruits of such an approach are undoubted – and there is certainly truth in identifying terminological divergence (the Lutheran and Catholic understandings of ‘justification’ as event and process respectively is a notable example) – this approach has left the impression that ecumenical dialogue deals with the branches of theology without tackling the roots, and the health of the vine itself.

It was with some surprise – and considerable pleasure – that I noticed, courtesy of Fr Hunwicke, that the third phase of ARCIC is scheduled to discuss “fundamental questions concerning the Church”, including the relationship between the local Church and the universal Church, and its role – local and universal – in discerning “just moral teachings”. (See the Vatican Bolletino, 28th November 2009).

Firstly, ARCIC is therefore billed to discuss something deeply relevant to the modern Church and not a sixteenth century division that is of historical interest only. An evaluation of the Church’s role in the production of ethical teaching, is a matter of fundamental theology – that is, it questions the very start of the theology: the “how we do theology” – the sources and methods and the role of the Church.  It is clear that there are profound differences in Anglican and Catholic ecclesiology that touch on matters such as the Church’s authority as an authentic custodian of truth, and the understanding of the Church as a communion characterized by union and communion. It is these issues of divergence that are most pressing, as they drive much of the theological disagreement about matters of faith and practice. Indeed, it is the Catholic fundamental theology that must be embraced by Anglican converts to Catholicism, not merely the liturgical life and the ethical teaching.

Secondly, ARCIC implicitly acknowledges that this fundamental theology has implications for “just moral teachings”. In short, the discussion of fundamental theology relates directly to the points of divergence between the two communions, and by extension, to the divisions within the Anglican Church (matters such as homosexuality, marriage and family life, contraception, etc). I think “just moral teachings” could also be extended to a consideration of the role of women in ordained ministry, especially given that so many see the Catholic Church as “depriving” women of that opportunity – I suspect, however, that the ordination of women will not be on the agenda, lest the divide between Anglicanism and Catholicism be reduced to the lowest common denominator.

So, in short, my pessimism about ARCIC has been proven incorrect – and I am thrilled. That’s not to say I think ARCIC-III is going to bring about reunification of the Church of England and the Roman Church – nor do I anticipate there to be any immediate implications for believers of either communion. But perhaps the lines of division will be more clearly defined: it would be a great achievement if ARCIC-III explicitly narrated the fact that the division is a deep one, and not one that can simply be attributed (as it is so conveniently, by members of the mainstream press) to the “ordination of women”. This observation, perhaps, would have implications for the formation of those men who were formerly Anglican Clergy who now put themselves forward for service as diocesan priests in the Catholic Church. Indeed, from an ecumenical point of view, the identification of the fundamental theological roots of the divergence will lead to the birth and genesis of a more targeted and proactive theological ecumenism.

Summorum Pontificum – 2nd Anniversary

The feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross – which occurs on Monday – is the second anniversary of the implementation of the decrees contained in the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum, issued motu proprio by our present Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

The document has been among the most significant of the documents issued by the Holy Father during his pontificate and provided an overhaul of the regulations governing the celebration of the liturgy according to the Missal of John XXIII promulgated in 1962 (formerly known as the “Tridentine Rite” and now known as the Extraordinary Form of the single Roman Rite, of which the post-Vatican II Mass is the Ordinary Form). The Motu Proprio is intended to make the Extraordinary form more readily available for those people who wish for it, and for those priests who wish to celebrate it in private.

The document proved to be the source of much opining both on the Catholic blogosphere and in the back of our Churches. Those attached to the Extraordinary form celebrated a perceived victory and those opposed to the extraordinary form mourned a backwards step. Those celebrating and those mourning ranged from the people in the pews to the highest echelons on the episcopacy. Some Bishops have notably provided commentaries on the implementation of the document in their own dioceses. Some commentators have interpreted this as attempts to avoid its implementation… for my part, I don’t know if they were motivated by genuine pastoral concern or by fear.

Maybe this anniversary is an opportunity to express, in a most profound way, our communion with the Holy Father by attending a celebration of Mass in the form that we do not personally prefer. For me, this will mean attending a celebration of the Extraordinary Form. For other this will mean attending a Novus Ordo Mass. By so-doing I will express my communion with all who hold and teach the Catholic faith which comes to us from the Apostles: I will confess our One Lord and Saviour and unify myself to Christ’s body in the Barque of St Peter under the authority of his successor Benedict XVI. It is a deep means of attempting to think with the mind of the Church, casting aside my own prejudice, an identifying and repenting of my own tendency to use the liturgy as a point of division within the ecclesial Body of Christ.

At the elevation of the Sacred Body and the Precious Blood, it will be the same Christ who greets me and who I greet with the prayer of doubting St Thomas: “My Lord and my God”.

Papal Wrist Twitter

Yesterday Pope Benedict XVI slipped and broke his wrist whilst on holiday. today he has required surgery to realign the displaced bones. B16 showed his tenacity by celebrating mass and eating his breakfast before deciding to head off to the hospital. Of the various bones I have broken, a wrist is not one, so I will have to check with my colleague who has broken her wrist to establish just how much pain the Pope would have experienced!

Twitter allows those who are interested to follow the Papal Wrist announcements as they come. It is truly extraordinary the things that are put on twitter and the speed with which news is made available.

Thomas Reese SJ on “Caritas in Veritate”

Fr Thomas Reese SJ, former editor of the Catholic weekly “America” has been discussing Pope Benedict XVI’s long awaited encyclical letter “Caritas in Veritate”, which will focus on social justice in the modern world as it endures the economic crisis (comments and emphases as per usual in the Z-style):

Conservatives will be shocked and disappointed (what a way to open the discussion of a social enclyclical!) by the encyclical, which will reflect Benedict’s skepticism toward unbridled capitalism based on greed.

Back in February, he said, “It is the Church’s duty to denounce the fundamental errors that have now been revealed in the collapse of the major American banks. Human greed is a form of idolatry that is against the true God, and is a falsification of the image of God with another god, Mammon.”

Unlike President Obama who wants to reform a system that he believes is out of control, Pope Benedict wants to rethink the whole system. As he said earlier this month, “The financial and economic crisis clearly shows that certain economic-financial paradigms that have been dominant in the past years must be rethought.”

This is good news for liberals (This is an encyclical about social justice, it is clearly “Good News” in the strictest sense to any Catholic and to all men and women of good-will, it is certainly not designed to bolster any form of factionalism within the Body of Christ) who thought Benedict’s first encyclical “Deus caritas est” (God is love) was too heavy on personal responsibility and not heavy enough on social change (I happen to think that’s a really false division – as if personal responsibility does not extend into social change and social change does not firstly and foremostly depend upon personal responsibility – besides, it’s not a conclusion I drew from reading Deus Caritas Est, but there we go.). But it is bad news for conservatives (no it isn’t, Father). If they think that Obama is a socialist, what will they think of Benedict after the encyclical (hopefully they will see him as a Preacher of Truth rather than being allied with any form of political ideology)? Will they write him off as the product of “old Europe”? (Who cares? If what he says is true, people will always find a way to write him off. Worry about preaching truth, not about how people are going to discredit truth.)

The pope has given hints about the content of the encyclical. It will be heavy on concern for the poor, especially those in the Third World who are not responsible for the crisis but are unduly suffering from it. Undoubtedly it will also develop the pope’s concern about the environment. As he has already said, “Starvation and ecological emergencies stand to denounce, with increasing evidence, that the logic of profit, if it prevails, increases the disproportion between rich and poor and leads to a ruinous exploitation of the planet.”

This is, of course, speculation. There are a lot of good points that Fr Reese notes, but it’s important to note that B16 isn’t intending to write a political manifesto and he isn’t offering economic solutions to the economic crisis. He is, as Fr Reese SJ himself notes:

…neither an economist nor a policy wonk. He will present sweeping goals and the values that should guide experts, but his prescriptions will lack the specificity of legislative programs. This is as it should be since he believes it is the vocation of the laity (and surely of ministers to promote and implement where appropriate) to implement Catholic social teaching.

It is, however, deeply disappointing to see that the old titles of “liberal” and “conservative” are being dredged up. Firstly, I think they are outdated and often misapplied. Secondly, I don’t think it’s consistent with a ecclesiology rooted in 1 Corinthians 3:4. Ultimately, I think it’s entirely inappropriate in this context. Why? Because the world looks to the Church for moral and spiritual guidance in spirit and truth at times of grave difficulty. Reese himself notes that it is the Church’s solemn obligation to respond. To credibly respond, the Church must be united behind the Pope. It is our vocation.

The title of encyclical “Love in Truth” is indicative of B16’s self-understanding. He is firstly and foremostly, it seems to be, concerned with Canon §1752 – the supreme lex of the Church is the salvation of souls. If he uses this encylical to confront the world, he will do in spirit and truth because it is necessary for the salvation of souls and the establishment of the Kingdom of God – not because he desires to engage liberals and confront conservatives. Benedict XVI is a theological pastor – he sees that his pastoral ministry is that of his theological ministry – truth is not abstracted from the world but has deep meaning and importance for the world. One cannot simply dismiss his earlier encyclical as “light on social change” because it deals with the subject of love and the suject of God. These are forces that Christian theologians have universally been acknowledged as transforming the world. A better man (and blogger) than me writes “Save the Liturgy; Save the World”. True theology, true prayer, will do just that.

B16 on Irenaeus of Lyons

From March 2007, courtesy of Zenit with emphases and comments in the “Z”-style. I offer comments, not critique:  

… Irenaeus was elected bishop of the city. The new pastor dedicated himself entirely to his episcopal ministry (for me, this has been the key to understanding Irenaeus and his writings: nothing is mere academic, dogmatic, speculation – it has an immediate and pastoral use in his time and is geared toward the salvation of souls), which ended around 202-203, perhaps by martyrdom.

Irenaeus is above all a man of faith and a pastor. Like the Good Shepherd, he has prudence, a richness of doctrine, and missionary zeal. As a writer, he aims for a twofold objective: to defend true doctrine from the attacks of the heretics, and to clearly expound the truth of the faith (there is an old proverb that one removes a thorn by using a thorn – Irenaeus not only refutes error but he removes it by preaching of the truth). His two works still in existence (it is a tragedy that so much, that could have contributed to a deeper understanding of this theologian and pastor has been lost) correspond exactly to the fulfillment of these two objectives: the five books “Against Heresies,” (some English translations use the full title – “On Gnosticism and other Christian heresies) and the “Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching” (which could be called the oldest “catechism of Christian doctrine”). Without a doubt, Irenaeus is the champion in the fight against heresies.

The Church of the second century was threatened by so-called gnosticism, a doctrine (His Holiness is deliberately simplifying for the purposes of catechesis in a General Audience – from the very beginning there were many Gnostic movements, although they all shared certain key characteristics, which he goes on to outline. The group Irenaeus was most concerned with was the Valentinian gnostics..) which claimed that the faith taught by the Church was nothing more than symbolism for the simpleminded, those unable to grasp more difficult things. Instead, the initiated, the intellectuals — they called themselves gnostics — (only they) could understand what was behind the symbolism, and thus would form an elite, intellectual Christianity.

Obviously, this intellectual Christianity became more and more fragmented with different currents of thought, often strange and extravagant, yet attractive to many. A common element within these various currents was dualism, that is, a denial of faith in the only God, Father of all, creator and savior of humanity and of the world. To explain the evil in the world, they asserted the existence of a negative principle, next to the good God. This negative principle had created matter, material things (This malevolent deity is the Demiurge, and it is the Demiurge that Valentinian Gnostics identify with the Jewish God YHWH).

Firmly rooted in the biblical doctrine of Creation (and his doctrine of recapitulation…), Irenaeus refuted dualism and the gnostic pessimism that devalued corporal realities. He decisively affirmed the original holiness of matter, of the body, of the flesh, as well as of the spirit. But his work goes far beyond the refutation of heresies: In fact, one can say that he presents himself as the first great theologian of the Church, who established systematic theology. He himself speaks about the system of theology, that is, the internal coherence of the faith (I want to return to this in a future post…).

[...]

More generally, in the doctrine of Irenaeus, human dignity, body and soul, is firmly rooted in Divine Creation, in the image of Christ and in the permanent work of sanctification of the Spirit. This doctrine is like the “main road” to clarify to all people of good will, the object and the limits of dialogue on values, and to give an ever new impulse to the missionary activities of the Church, to the strength of truth which is the source of all the true values in the world (His Holiness is affirming the centrality of the dignity and holiness of humanity – the creation of humanity in the Imago Dei).

Increasingly, I am convinced that the modern world contains an insidious attraction towards the dualism of the type offered by the gnostic soteriologies. There is also a tendency toward efforts to possess esoteric redeeming knowledge, although I accept neither of these are in anyway a coherent body of gnostic thought, they just seem to permeate the way the we think. Theologians can use the approach of Irenaeus to cogently respond to the confusion introduced by the new age way of thinking.

Letter to Christ’s priests…

On June 5th 2009, Archbishop Piacenza, secretary of the Congregation for the Clergy, wrote to the world’s priests inviting them to the inauguration of Pope Benedict XVI’s “Year of the priesthood”. Archbishop Piacenza himself celebrates forty years of priesthood in December, during the year for priests which begins on the solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (Jun 19th 2009) and will conclude in June 2010.

Here is the text of his letter with comments and emphases of my own, as is customary:

Dear Priests!

 In only about two weeks’ time, on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Friday 19th June, we will experience an intense moment of faith, closely united with the Holy Father and amongst ourselves, when we shall begin the Year for Priests by celebrating First Vespers of the Feast in the Basilica of St. Peter at the Vatican.

 Each day we are called to conversion, but we are called to it in a very particular way during this year, in union with all those who have received the gift of priestly ordination. Conversion to what? It is conversion to be ever more authentically that which we already are, conversion to our ecclesial identity of which our ministry is a necessary consequence, so that a renewed and joyous awareness of our “being” will determine our “acting”, or rather will create the space allowing Christ the Good Shepherd to live in us and to act through us (What a wonderful way to see grace working through the priesthood. Note that His Excellency cannot divorce ‘acting’ from ‘being’ – the internal conversion and holiness gives rise to authentic Christian ministry. It is almost as if a joyous outpouring of service is the unavoidable and necessary consequence of priest authentically being who they are – the people God created them to be!)

 Our spirituality must be nothing other than the spirituality of Christ himself (priests are “another Christ” for us), the one and only Supreme High Priest of the New Testament.

 In this year, which the Holy Father has providentially announced, we will seek together to concentrate on the identity of Christ the Son of God, in communion with the Father and the Holy Spirit, who became man in the virginal womb of Mary, and on his mission to reveal the Father and His wondrous plan of salvation. This mission of Christ carries with it the building up of the Church: behold the Good Shepherd (Cf. Jn. 19:1-21) who gives his life for the Church (Cf. Eph. 5: 25).

 Yes, conversion every day of our lives so that Christ’s manner of life may be the manner of life made ever more manifest in each one of us (The theme of conversion runs throughout the letter).

 We must exist for others (the priesthood looks outwards towards the world it serves), we must undertake to live with the People in a union of holy and divine love (which clearly presupposes the richness of holy celibacy), which obliges us to live in authentic solidarity with those who suffer and who live in a great many types of poverty (Again and again on this blog the value of celibacy is being emphasised by theologians, lay people and priests themselves – the voices who call on our priests to abandon their celibate calling seem to come from the misunderstandings of the secular media).

 We must be labourers for the building up of the one Church of Christ, for which we must live purposefully and faithfully the communion of love with the Pope, with the Bishops, with our brother priests and with the Faithful. We must live this communion with the unbroken pilgrimage of the Church within the very sinews of the Mystical Body.

 We should be able to run spiritually in this Year with a “wide open heart” (this is, I believe, a quotation from the prologue of the Rule of St Benedict) so as to inwardly conform to our vocation the better to say, in truth “it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20).

 The holiness of priests redounds to the benefit of the entire ecclesial Body (i.e. a priest’s personal holiness is not something to selfishly pursue – the priest always looks outward to the people he serves). Thus it would be most fitting for all of us, be that the ordained Faithful, seminarians, the male and female religious, and the lay Faithful, to find ourselves all together at the Vatican Basilica for the Vespers presided over by the Holy Father, which will be celebrated after welcoming the Reliquary of the heart of that most outstanding priestly model who is St. John Mary Vianney.

 Those who are unable to be in City of Rome are encouraged to join themselves spiritually to the occasion.

 + Mauro Piacenza

Titular Archbishop of Vittoriana, Secretary

A wonderful letter. Thank you, Archbishop Piacenza.

Benedict XVI: Being truly human

One feature that has characterised the pontificate of our present Holy Father, Benedict XVI, is the regular “Question and Answer” meetings he holds with groups of individuals preparing for the sacraments, and the annual Q&A with his clergy of the Diocese of Rome. For Vatican observers, these provide a unique insight into the pastoral thought of B16, who is often unfairly portrayed as a dry academic theologian with little or no “down to earth” pastoral concern. It must be remembered, that from 1977 to 1982 he was Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Munchen und Freising, serving 26 years as a simple priest before his elevation to the episcopacy.

Every one of these Q&A sessions has contained a pearl of great price for me. The following example, an exchange between a priest of Rome and the Holy Father, demonstrates the Pope’s ability to synthesise his academic thought with his profound pastoral concern. It also demonstrates the great call that unites all of humanity – the challenge of being fully human. Emphases mine:

P. Lorezo: I am Fr Lorenzo, a parish priest. Holy Father, the faithful expect only one thing from priests: that they be experts in encouraging the encounter of human beings with God. These are not my own words but something Your Holiness said in an Address to the clergy. My spiritual director at the seminary, in those trying sessions of spiritual direction, said to me: “Lorenzino, humanly we’ve made it, but…”, and when he said “but”, what he meant was that I preferred playing football to Eucharistic Adoration. And he meant that this did my vocation no good and that it was not right to dispute lessons of morals and law, because the teachers knew more about them that I did. And with that “but”, who knows what else he meant. I now think of him in Heaven, and in any case I say some requiems for him. In spite of everything, I have been a priest for 34 years and I am happy about that, too. I have worked no miracles nor have I known any disasters or perhaps I did not recognize them. I feel that “humanly we’ve made it” is a great compliment. However, does not bringing man close to God and God to man pass above all through what we call humanity, which is indispensable even for us priests?

Benedict XVI: Thank you. I would simply say “yes” to what you said at the end. Catholicism, somewhat simplistically, has always been considered the religion of the great “et et” ["both-and"]: not of great forms of exclusivism but of synthesis. The exact meaning of “Catholic” is “synthesis”. I would therefore be against having to choose between either playing football or studying Sacred Scripture or Canon Law. Let us do both these things. It is great to do sports. I am not a great sportsman, yet I used to like going to the mountains when I was younger; now I only go on some very easy excursions, but I always find it very beautiful to walk here in this wonderful earth that the Lord has given to us. Therefore, we cannot always live in exalted meditation; perhaps a Saint on the last step of his earthly pilgrimage could reach this point, but we normally live with our feet on the ground and our eyes turned to Heaven. Both these things are given to us by the Lord and therefore loving human things, loving the beauties of this earth, is not only very human but also very Christian and truly Catholic. I would say – and it seems to me that I have already mentioned this earlier – that this aspect is also part of a good and truly Catholic pastoral care: living in the “et et”; living the humanity and humanism of the human being, all the gifts which the Lord has lavished upon us and which we have developed; and at the same time, not forgetting God, because ultimately, the great light comes from God and then it is only from him that comes the light which gives joy to all these aspects of the things that exist. Therefore, I would simply like to commit myself to the great Catholic synthesis, to this “et et”; to be truly human. And each person, in accordance with his or her own gifts and charism, should not only love the earth and the beautiful things the Lord has given us, but also be grateful because God’s light shines on earth and bathes everything in splendour and beauty. In this regard, let us live catholicity joyfully. This would be my answer.