How Cool Is This??? Pope Benedict and Our Lady of Fatima!

Here’s something I didn’t know. When the statue of Our Lady of Fatima arrived by helicopter in the Vatican, her first port of call was the chapel of the residence of the Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI. From there, she went to Casa Santa Marta, and only then into St Peter’s Square.

Here is video of Pope Benedict venerating the statue: 


Actually, to be honest, it is a great comfort to see this video, as we can see that our dearly beloved Papa Benny is in very good health. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for Pope Benedict.

 
 
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

“Your faith has saved you”

Jeff Tan’s thoughts on today’s Gospel at One Bread, One Body prompted me to make a brief comment on his post. 

He didn’t go much into the title of his post “Your faith has saved you”, but it was particularly that phrase upon which I reflected during the gospel reading today (with the help of the Universalis App which gives the Greek text as well). 

The line could well have been translated “Your faith has healed you”. And here is the odd thing – all ten were healed. In what sense then, was this one Samaritan healed/saved that the other nine were not? Did Jesus even mean to suggest this? 

As I am preparing for my new Anima Education Monday Night course “The Challenge of Atheism”, I have been reflecting on the way that many people in the world experience deliverance (salvation/healing) from bondage to evil. Some have the faith to acknowledge that this is a gift from God, and respond with gratitude, but many don’t. In fact, one of the atheist charges against religion is simply that religion is a misplaced sense of gratitude. Something good happens to us, and we don’t know who to thank, so we create the Spaghetti Monster in the Sky to be the object of our gratification (this very position is expressed by Jane Caro in a book I am currently reading “For God’s Sake: An Atheist, A Jew, A Christian And A Muslim Debate Religion“). That seems a bit twisted to me. When the lepers presented themselves as “cleansed” to the priests at the temple, did the priests think that they had invented Jesus as an object of their gratification? 

But (in the terms of the second reading for today) even if we are faithless, God is still faithful! Even if we are thankless, God still acts graciously towards all his creation. 

Something to think about.

(By the way, lately, I have come to regard that 2 Timothy 2:11-13 passage as key to a great deal in the Scriptures about faith and the faithfulness of God. I love the way it says that God will always be faithful because “he cannot deny himself” – not “disown” as the JB lectionary has it – because he has sworn his promises on his own name!)

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Help with Latin Papal Tweet

Could any lurking Latinist please help me here? I like to compare the Pope’s Latin tweets to the English – I am fascinated by the quality (as it appears to me) of these Latin tweets – but honestly they are sometimes beyond me.

Take this one from today:

@Pontifex_ln: Nostris haud viribus christiani evadimus; donum Dei ipsius est in primis fides quam nobis Ille largitur intra perque Ecclesiam

I get the second half, but the first half is causing me some difficulty. I don’t get the meaning of the verb in this context. The parallel English tweet is:

@Pontifex: We do not become Christians by ourselves. Faith is above all a gift from God which is given to us in and through the Church.

The basic idea is, of course, from Lumen Fidei.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Blogpad Pro

Do you have a self hosted WordPress blog? Do you use your iPhone or iPad to manage your blog? 

I do for both. And I’ve just updated to the (don’t let me complain too much) new iOS7 on both instruments. I don’t know if it is an iOS7 bug, but I have encountered something really odd with the official WordPress app – it won’t log into my self-hosted site on my iPad anymore. iPhone is fine. Just not the iPad. This annoyed the heck out of me last night and kept me up till 1am (yes, I am obsessive about software or hardware when it doesn’t work – my iPad ZAGGkeys Mini 9 keyboard wasn’t working either – all happy in the morning). 

I was just about to despair when I found an online recommendation for Blogpad Pro. I paid my $5 something, and downloaded it. What can I say other than it is great, and I have no intention at the moment of going back to the official app. It is really user friendly, and has a great interface for writing posts. One feature is the easy addition of images (which was a pain on the official app). I’ve only been using it for 24 hours, but it comes with my recommendation. Check it out at the App Store.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

What Francis Said Next: The Priority of the Kerygma

Well, he’s at it again, and everyone’s talking about it. Last night after our Anima Education class in Ballarat, one student came up to me to express her distress over an article she had read from the New York Times which reported that Pope Francis had said we mustn’t talk about abortion, homosexuality, divorce or same sex marriage any more. 

I had heard on Vatican Radio that the Holy Father had been giving interviews again, so I thought, hullo, what’s the old boy said now? However, it is very easy, via the old game of Chinese Whispers (especially where media reports are one of the intermediate whispers) to put the wrong twist on things, so after retiring to my room I went to source. Thankfully, my friend Andrew Rabel had already emailed me the link to the full interview in the Jesuit’s America Magazine, so I didn’t have to search very far.

It is a very LONG interview, and written up with comments and descriptions on the side. As far as I can see, the NYT didn’t misquote the Pope on anything he said, but given the length of the interview, it is possible that by quoting just snippets (which is all the America Magazine will allow – they state categorically that the interview is copyright to them – I don’t know what that will mean for future collectors of the Pope’s magisterium!) to get a slightly wrong impression.

I can heartily recommend the reading of it all today, on the Feast of St Matthew, as the Holy Father makes a particular point of the reason he chose his papal motto “Miserando atque Eligendo“. Apparently he was inpsired by the painting of the calling of St Matthew by Carravagio. (The origin of the papal motto is, of course, the commentary of St Bede, but I have just come back from mass, and note that the collect for today also highlights the mercy of Jesus in choosing St Matthew).

By now, we all know that “mercy” is a central theme in this pontificate. The pope wants us absolutely to get what Jesus meant when he said in today’s Gospel “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”. To paraphrase Francis himself “I want the Church to show mercy, not to talk about all these hotbutton issues all the time”. In the case of both Jesus and Pope Francis, commentators would get them completely wrong if thjey reported “Jesus says no more sacrifices” or “Pope says sin no longer the concern of the Church”. It is rather that the fundamental message, the message that has priority over all else, is the Mercy of God. Be merciful, and offer your sacrifices. Be merciful, and uphold the moral teaching of the Church. But above all, always, first: Be merciful. Why? Because your Heavenly Father is merciful, and its what he wants you to be.

That’s basically what Francis says in the interview. But let’s look at the interview itself. The section relevant to the dear lady’s distress, is that headed “The Church as Field Hospital”. Now there has always been a saying that the Church is a “Hospital for Sinners, not a Country Club for Saints”, and perhaps that is what the Pope was thinking about. He says:

I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds…. And you have to start from the ground up.

What a vivid image. I could imagine myself as that person – perhaps hit by a car while crossing the street – finding myself in hospital where the doctor declares that they are not going to treat me becausee I am a smoker, and the hospital policy is anti-smoking.  

Anyway, the Pope goes on to say that “The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.” I believe here that he is talking about what I am going to call “the priority of the kerygma” in the life of the Church. Let me suggest this: The Catholic Church has realised very well the centrality of the Eucharist in its life – since Vatican II we have learned to know the Eucharist as the “source and summit” of the Church. Yet it is equally true for us to grasp that the proclamation of the Paschal Mystery – what the New Testament and Biblical Scholars call “the kerygma” is the heart of the Church’s message. We will not get very far with the “New Evangelisation” or the “Evangelisation of Culture” without it.

What is that kerygma exactly then? St Luke’s version of St Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 gets the nuts and bolts clear:

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. …32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. …36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ.

The Kerygma is at the heart of the Gospel. In fact, in so far as the Gospel is the announcement of the drawing near of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:15), the Kerygma is the Gospel. If we do not preach it, we do not preach the Gospel. Or, as Pope Francis puts it:

A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing… The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ

Curiously, this was the message of Archbishop Porteous in a very recent podcast of Q&A with Archbishop Porteous “What is the Core Message of Christianity?”. There he comments that if you asked most Catholics what the “core message” of the Church is, they would probably answer “Believe in God and try to lead a good life”. That’s important, he said, but it isn’t our core message. Our core message is the apostolic Kerygma: that Jesus died, rose again, and now lives as our Lord and Saviour. Of course, that raises the question “What does he save us from?”, which is a terrifically good question. The obvious answer is “sin”, and I must say I was a little disappointed that Archbishop Porteous went directly for the obvious answer, because it would be so good to explore what ways people today are actually feeling trapped, enslaved, exploited, hopeless etc. and how and in what way the Lordship and Saving Mission of Jesus answers those longings.

Nevertheless, the point is clear, both in Pope Francis’ interview and in Archbishop Porteous’ Q&A: the Church has to get back to the core message. It isn’t that we have failed to proclaim the Gospel, rather it is that we have created too much background noise that drowns out our “core message”. Nor is it that we abandon the fullness of the message of the Church – rather that make sure that it can be heard against the background of the “core message” of the saving mercy of God in Jesus Christ. 

I began writing this post this morning after morning mass. It is now evening and I am preparing to go out for dinner. But I wanted to add that I chose to digress during our sessions on “The Last Things” this morning in class to present this section of Pope Francis’ interview and to go through the issues with the class. It was a valuable experience. At morning tea, someone asked me, “What about the spiritual acts of mercy, such as admonishing the sinner? Don’t we still have to do that?” It was a good question, and given that there was a Compendium to the Catechism at hand, we looked up the list of Spiritual Acts of Mercy in the back of the book. Indeed “Admonish the sinner” is one of the spiritual acts of mercy (in other words, it is not necessarily merciful to fail to warn the sinner when they are heading into dangerous waters), but the very next spiritual act of mercy on the list is “comfort the afflicted”. That’s interesting, isn’t it, I said. How do we know, when some brash atheistic, secularist, church-hating sinner comes hurling accusations of homophobia at us, that we are not dealing with someone who has been deeply wounded and afflicted in some way (perhaps by the Church herself), and who doesn’t need our “merciful” admonition so much as our comfort and care?

We are back to the field hospital again, aren’t we? When I am hit by a car, I hope the doctors will deal with me mercifully even though I am a pipe smoking heretic. When I find someone who has been wounded in anyway, God help me to be a “comforter of the afflicted”, and to stay “on message” with the Kerygma.

Posted in Uncategorized | 31 Comments

Controversy in Tasmania!

Archbishop Porteous was installed as the 11th Archbishop of Tasmania last night and already he is meeting opposition. It is hard to know why a question on whether it was appropriate to use middle aged women as altar servers came up in an ABC interview, but it did, and Archbishop Porteous responded in a perfectly reasonable manner. That lead to this response:

But Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is suggesting the Archbishop’s position on women as alter [sic] servers may not comply with the Act.

Robin Banks says there is an exception to the Act that allows religious institutions to discriminate based on gender but it may not apply in this case.

“There’s a defence that says a religious institution can discriminate on the basis of gender if it’s required by the doctrines of the religion,” Ms Banks said.

“It gets down to the question of is it consistent with the doctrines of the religion to exclude people on the basis of gender. If it’s not then the exception wouldn’t apply.”

In the full video report, even the Premier of Tasmania weighs in with her opinion! And another women says that the Archbishop is new to Tasmania and will take some time to get used to the way they do things there.

Well, it might be that they will take some time to get used to the way Archbishop Porteous intends to do things. I was listening to Archbishop Porteous speak on Cradio a few days ago about his appointment to Hobart. He candidly admitted that one of the difficulties he would have to face early on is the shortage of priests in Tasmania. The belief that preserving altar service as a role for boys and young men works positively towards increasing vocations is widespread among many Catholic priests and bishops, and anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that they are correct in this belief. In other words, this is step one in Archbishop Porteous’s plan for increasing vocations to the priesthood in the Tasmanian diocese.

It seems ludicrous that State powers should interfere – or even threaten to interfere – in this important project.

Posted in Uncategorized | 82 Comments

Senate Voting Reform

20130914-100148.jpg

We are still waiting here in Australia for the final outcome of the Senate election held a week ago. It is likely that we will be waiting for some time yet. The thing that has caused the greatest concern is the election of a number of minor party representatives whose primary vote was minute, but who have slipped in thanks to the “behind the scenes” preference deals. Kate Edwards has a post about this here.

There has been a great deal of comment about this in the media, with calls for Senate Voting Reform of all kinds. Some of the proposed reforms are pretty complicated.

Well, here’s what I think (it’s my blog, after all).

I am a “number all the boxes below the line” voter. I don’t want other people determining what my preferences are, especially when I have not been told what their preferences are. This can be daunting, when the Senate voting paper is over a yard long (holding the paper in my left hand, it reached right across to my right shoulder) and has 97 names on it.

Here’s my question: Why are we only given two options (a) put a 1 only in one party box above the line or (b) number all the boxes below the line?

Why can’t we simply be given a third option, namely to number all the party boxes above the line according to our own preference?

Such a change would be a minimal reform, but make a lot of difference. It would still be possible for micro-parties to register themselves, and maybe even get elected, but they would be elected on the people’s preference, not on the backroom preference deals of the parties.

I have absolutely no problem with a few “colourful” characters in the Senate. There should be room for more “Joe Blows” and independents in my opinion. Originally, back at Federation, the intention was that the Senators would represent the interests of the State they came from. I don’t know if it ever particularly worked as it was designed to do. But I do have a problem with the major parties being in control of the Senate simply to do their bidding.

I don’t know how things work out in the UK, where people are appointed to the House of Lords rather than elected. Would such a system work here? It might, but I suspect that it would not be a popular model, given that republicans in Australia tend to favour even a directly elected President.

People want to have their say. I say, let them. Let’s bring in the third option of numbering all the boxes above the line. And let the dice fly high!

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments

Congratulations Archbishop-Elect Prowse

Well, there’s a pleasant surprise. Seems the Australian file is open on His Holiness’s desk again, and this time Canberra gets to celebrate the appointment of a new Archbishop.

20130912-201941.jpg

Sentire Cum Ecclesia congratulates Archbishop-elect Bishop Christopher Prowse on his elevation to the Capital See of Australia. I had the great pleasure of working with the new archbishop when he was Vicar General and then an auxiliary in Melbourne. I particularly got to know him well when he travelled with us on our Catholic Muslim Pilgrimage to Istanbul and Rome in 2009.

I remember that my wife gave me a St Christopher’s medal when I set out on that trip. I wonder if the patron Saint of Travellers had anything to do with this appointment – given he is also the patron of Canberra’s cathedral?

20130912-204824.jpg

I wish +Christopher and the Archdiocese of Canberra-Goulburn every blessing for the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | 44 Comments

A Latin Corrective

I was very happy to receive the following comment recently from one Br Alexis:

I was passing by when I saw your Latin quote…if you mean to say

“A sinner among sinners, and a madman among the mad…” [yes, that’s right]

I am an expert on Latin, and so, I humbly suggest the correct Latin for that would be

peccator apud pecatores, e insanus apud insanos

since inter, means ‘between’ in the sense of middle between two positions, but apud, means ‘among’ in the sense of human company…/

Glad to take your advice, Brother. I will make the change.

Br Alexis has recently started a webpage here: http://fromrome.wordpress.com/

UPDATE:

I have had two replies to this. The first is from John Nolan (who had difficulty opting in the combox):

BTW, I tried to comment on the previous post, but for some reason couldn’t get the page up. ‘Inter’ in Latin can mean both ‘between’ and ‘among’. Examples of the latter would be ‘inter alia’, ‘inter multos’, ‘primus inter pares’, ‘Inter Insigniores’ (Decree of the CDF 1976) and ‘Inter oves locum praesta’ (Dies Irae). ‘Apud’ is also correct, although its primary meaning corresponds to the French ‘chez’ or the German ‘bei’.

The second is from a private emailer:

Re: your motto change. Brother Alexis is right to say that “apud” bears the meaning “amongst” and that “inter” bears the meaning “between” but not so absolutely correct in my view in suggesting the former is more correct than the latter for the purposes what your motto intended to convey.

The fact is that “apud” also bears other meanings, and its primary or more usual meaning is not “amongst” but “at” or “in the presence of”. “Inter” mainly means “between” when two alternatives are posed. It means very comfortably and frequently “amongst” especially when more elements are contemplated, and this is the meaning that was most obvious and understood by me and, I venture to say, others who will have understood very well what you were saying. I will cite you just one example that immediately springs to my mind: The Good Friday hymn “Crux Fidelis Inter Omnes, Arbor una nobilis…..”. A common English rendition of this is “Faithful Cross above all others, one and only noble tree…” In other words, it is properly translated as “Faithful Cross amongst all others”.

In my opinion, “inter” for “amongst” is no less correct than “apud”, (and I am inclined to say it is more correct), and to my sensitive ear is much nicer. It is much smoother and easier-sounding and pronounceable to say “peccatores” after the open ended “in-tah” than to say “p” after “d”; whilst the final “d” of “apud” causes no such problem with the “i” of “insanos”, the final “r” of the “inter” glides the mouth to the open-beginning “in-“ of “insanos” thus: “insanus intah r-insanos”.

Just a view. I love questions of language and can’t resist discussing them.

Given both opinions, I think I will return to my original. Unless there are any other comments to the contrary?

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Church Leaders and other prominent Australians say “NO” to attack on Syria

For the past week or so, I have been working with Susan Dirgham from “Australians for Reconciliation (Mussalaha) in Syria”. The result has been wide support for this statement, which can be viewed on their website. Here is the media release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Headline: Australians say “NO” to attacking Syria
Sub Heading: Church leaders and prominent Australians urge a peaceful, political solution to the crisis in Syria without military intervention
Location: Melbourne, 8 September 2013

In response to the threat of U.S. military action against the Syrian government, prominent Australians from different faith communities and in public life have added their names to a statement on the webpage of “Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria”. http://australiansforreconciliationinsyria.wordpress.com/

Signatories to the statement include: Catholic Archbishop Denis Hart, Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier, Former Prime Minster Malcolm Fraser, Sheikh Riad Galil, Coptic Bishop Suriel, Greek Orthodox Bishop Ezekiel, Julian Burnside and Bryan Dawe.

The statement supports calls by the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other religious leaders for a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria, without military intervention.

While Australia celebrates its democratic freedom in the outcome of the federal election, the people of Syria anxiously await the outcome of a U.S. proposal for a military strike on their country and wonder if they and their nation will survive.

The signatories to the statement call for further clarification in regard to the chemical attack on 21 August in Damascus, for without more information and proof it is not possible to determine who was responsible for this attack. They express support for the grass-roots Reconciliation (Mussalaha) Movement in Syria, which unites people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds.

The Statement follows similar calls from Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire and former UN officials, including Dr. Hans Christof von Sponeck (UN Assistant Secretary General and United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, 1998 -2000) and Dr. Denis J. Halliday (UN Assistant Secretary General, 1994-1998).

The president of Caritas (Catholic Aid Agency) in Syria, the Chaldean Bishop of Aleppo, has said: “If there is an armed intervention, that would mean, I believe, a world war.”

It is hoped that the new Prime Minister of Australia and the new Australian government will heed this call for a peaceful solution. It reflects the views of an increasing number of Australians. The security of Australia ultimately depends on peace in the world, particularly in the Middle East.

ORGANIZATION: “Australians for Mussalaha (Reconciliation) in Syria” (AMRIS)
Contact details: Dr Fiona Hill, Mobile: 0401 081 677 Mr Joseph Wakim, Mobile: 0407 516 470
Ms Susan Dirgham, Mobile: 0406 500 711
Email: AMRIS.contact@gmail.com; susan.dirgham51@gmail.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment