Sentire Cum Ecclesia

For those following the link here from Mr Mullins “BlogWatcher”, please see the update and comment below.

I was very interested to read this post on Fr Zuhlsdorf’s blog with reference to the indulgence granted during the year of faith for visiting the place of one’s baptism and renewing one’s baptismal vows. I was looking forward to gaining this indulgence when I visit the Lutheran Church in my home town after Christmas, so I am glad to have some clarification – ie. you can’t get this indulgence by visiting the place of your baptism if the place of your baptism was a non-Catholic church.

I can see many falsely interpreting this ruling. Some may think this relegates baptism in non-Catholic churches to a “second rate” baptism. Or some may take this to be another case of “Roman superiority”.

Of course, the reason given in the ruling is that the Church cannot make rules concerning sacred places which do not belong to her. And that throws a bit of light on the indulgence itself. I had assumed that the indulgence was connected to the action of visiting the place of your baptism. In fact, the indulgence is actually connected to the place itself, and hence the ruling.

It is a little bit like the case some time ago when the Church beatified three German priests who had stood up for the faith and for justice during the Second World War and martyred for their courage. In fact, they were led and inspired by a Lutheran pastor, who also lost his life as a result of this witness. The Church was criticised at the time for favouring the Catholics over the Lutheran, but the point was made (quite rightly) that the Catholic Church had no authority to appropriate the martyrs of another communion by making declarations concerning their eternal destiny. It was pointed out that the Lutheran Church is quite welcome to use whatever means it has at its disposal to recognise the heroic witness of this particular pastor.

So I guess this means that some time soon I will be making a visit to Our Lady of Perpetual Succour Catholic Church in Ringwood, where I was confirmed and received into full communion on June 16, 2003. But there is nothing at all in the ruling which in any way discourages me from making my planned visit to Bethlehem Lutheran Church, Pinnaroo, where I was baptised in 1966, and there also to renew my baptismal vows.

So I will go ahead with my plans. There are lots of things that are good to do, even if they don’t have an indulgence attached.

UPDATE:

I always get suspicious when I see referrals to my blog on Mr Mullin’s Cathnews BlogWatcher column. There is good reason to be concerned, because, despite how plain I make myself, he manages often to grab the wrong end of the stick and tell the world that my view are in fact the direct opposite of what I have written.

I therefore need to correct Mr Mullin’s version of my comments here.

He introduces his piece by speaking of my “disappointment at missing out on a Year of Faith indulgence”. As you will see by reading this post, I have NOT missed out on the Indulgence, and never said that I thought I would.

He then writes that I said “the Year of Faith indulgence applies only to baptisms in the Catholic Church.” I said nothing of the sort. To say that is incorrect, because the indulgence does not apply to baptisms at all – Catholic or otherwise. It applies to the place where the baptism was administered, and the Church has no right to make laws governing non-Catholic properties. Therefore – precisely so convert DO NOT MISS OUT on this indulgence, the Church has determined that those baptised before their reception into the Catholic Church can visit the place of their reception. This makes sense, as the rite of reception includes a renewal of baptismal vows – thus, by the way, actually recognising the validity of the baptism received outside the Catholic Church.

Really, how can you trust a media service so adept at twisting the facts?

Yes, dear readers, by this time next week I will be heading off to Jordan, Israel, Turkey and Greece on a 34 day study tour of the Bible Lands with the Catholic Theological College. I will be attempting to keep a daily diary via this ‘ere blog, so you can keep up with me as I go. All being well, Deo Volente, Insh Allah, Wifi hotspots and technology allowing etc.

It is my hope that this journey (which is a kind of sabbatical for me after 10 years of service at the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission) will enrich my understanding of many of the aspects of my daily work, both with the Commission and with my teaching for Anima. I expect that I will never listen again to the readings of Scripture in quite the same way.

A priest friend of mine, who has recently travelled in these areas, said something significant. He said: “Up till now these have been just stories for you. Now you will actually be there, where Jesus rose from the dead and met with Mary Magdelene, and where you will read ‘Here the Word became Flesh’ and you will ask yourself, ‘Really? Here? Did that really happen?”

For myself, I wonder, whether the past will still be visible in these places, or whether the present – the Wall dividing Israel and Palestine, the war in Syria, the Global Financial Crisis in Greece etc. etc. – will overwhelm everything else.

Pray for me, as I will pray for all my friends, family and colleagues on my journey. While it is a study tour, it is also a kind of pilgrimage for me. I have been to Rome and Constantinople and a number of other important sites, but this trip will be the “biggy”, so to speak. I don’t know quite what to expect, but I do expect to be very tired when I return – five weeks is a long time to be on any international journey, and I will certainly be missing home while away.

Some of you might recently have seen this article, in which Cardinal Koch was asked about the possibility of a Lutheran Ordinariate along the same lines as the Anglican Ordinariate now being established around the world.

Some have asked for my thoughts on the matter.

For a start you can hear Cardinal Koch’s hesitancy over the idea. As he says, it has to be something that comes as a request from Lutherans, not something Rome or the Holy Father sets up without cause.

Three specific thoughts on how this might relate here in Australia at least:

1) The Anglican Ordinariate was an answer to divisions within the Anglican Church, especially where a small but sizable number of both priests and lay people desired communion with the Bishop of Rome. In Australia, there is no formal division among Lutherans over the issues that have divided Anglicans, in particular issues of sexuality and issues of women’s ordination. Nor is there present any real desire (as far as I can see) among Australian Lutherans for communion with the Catholic Church, except in a vague “hoped for future” kind of way.

2) The Anglican Ordinariate idea worked because the Anglicans who formed the Ordinariates were already (more or less) Catholic in their doctrines. Distinctively Anglican doctrine was not a part of their “spiritual patrimony” as Anglicans in the same sense that some of their polity and liturgical forms were. With Lutherans, apart from hymns and Bach, it is precisely the doctrine that identifies them AS Lutheran. If they were to adopt the Catholic Faith (as in the Catechism) there would be precious little “Lutheran” about them any more – except perhaps in the sense of Lutheran spirituality (which is the case for me!).

3) One of the reasons the Anglican Ordinariate was necessary was because the dialogue process between Catholics and Anglicans internationally was frustrating the hopes of some Anglicans hoping for future communion with the Bishop of Rome. That isn’t the case with the Lutheran Catholic dialogue, at least not here in Australia. One might hold out hopes for full communion yet in the future between the LCA and the Catholic Church if the dialogue and relationship continues in the positive way in which is currently is.

(An example of this was the excellent fellowship dinner and conversation held here in Melbourne between Lutheran and Catholic pastors, priests and theologians on the 31st of October this year – the 495th anniversary of the publication of the 95 Theses).

Of course, the situation is quite different in other parts of the world. So, who knows? There may be some Lutherans in the world who could find that the idea of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome via a “Lutheran Ordinariate” is seen as something desirable.

I have just posted a new article in my “other stuff” pages, called “Ecumenism, Interfaith Relations and Evangelisation”. It is an article which I wrote some time ago for three publications: The Yarra Deanery News, the Catholic Women’s League and our local Archdiocesan magazine Kairos. You can read it here.

Yesterday, when I should have been helping my wife with my daughter’s fourteenth birthday party, I was fulfilling a committment I had made some three or four months ago without taking proper note of the date: I was one of six speakers at the Council of Christians and Jews Same-Sex Marriage Panel.

The panel was made up of six speakers in all, three Christians and three Jews. The Christians were myself, as a member of the Catholic Church, Pastor Mark Tuffin of the Lutheran Church, and Rev. Dr Lorraine Parkinson of the Uniting Church. The Jews were Orthodox Rabbi Shamir Caplan, Conservative Rabbi Adam Stein, and Progressive Rabbi Fred Morgan.

We were each given ten minutes to speak, although we probably went over a little. The three Christians all spoke from prepared texts, and the Rabbis expounded a little more freely. The Christians spoke first, beginning with myself and followed by Pastor Mark. Of the six speakers, Pastor Mark and I were the only ones to take a stand definitively against the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples. The Rabbis had varying approaching, none as strongly rejecting the proposition as Mark and I did, nor any quite as strongly endorsing the proposition as Lorraine did.

In any case, I am posting my own presentation on this site under “My Stuff” (click here to go directly to the link).

While listening to the other speakers, I began to jot down some statements they made, and some reactions and questions that were raised for me. All of the following comments were made during the presentations or discussion.

1) “Marriage is evolving.” Maybe, but as far as I can make out, a core constant of the idea of marriage has always been that it is a covenant/contract between a man and a woman. If we are now to change that particular constant, what is the idea essential to the word “marriage” that we are able to apply it to this newly proposed model, the idea that connects it with the past history of the use of the word?

[At question time, this was the only question I was able to put to all the participants. Lorraine answered “a promise to life long fidelity to the exclusion of others”. Many others simply said: “Language changes – there doesn’t have to be a consistent idea”. In which case, are we not in Wonderland where a word means exactly what I alone think it should mean? How can we have any kind of consistent debate about the issue without an agreement on meaning?]

2) “The current law enshrines inequality at the heart of our nation’s legal code”.  Bishop Anthony Fisher has consistently argued in various places that justice requires some laws to provide for special needs of particular people in particular situations (eg. special benefits for the disabled which able bodied people cannot access). It is not inequality to have laws which protect family structures in which children are raised.

3) “Religion is a human construction” and, more broadly, “All human concepts are human constructions”, with the implication that we can therefore alter them to suit ourselves. This one is very popular these days. However, it goes counter to the conviction at the heart of many major religions that fundamental religious truths are in fact revealed by God.

4) “What the law decides for society in general is no business of the religious community which remains free to do things they way they like”. One Orthodox rabbi, not on the panel, explained that he could never do Kiddushin for anyone other than a Jewish man and a Jewish woman, but what the rest of society did with what they called “marriage” was their own business. The distinction between a “secular” and a “religious” marriage does not hold for the Catholic faith.

5) “Religions should not tell the state wht to do in regard to marriage”. Okay. Should religions tell the State what to do with regard to justice? If one believes that marriage issues are a matter of justice, do religious groups not have a right to speak out about this conviction?

6) One rabbi said “There exist in some quarters of the Jewish community an attitude toward active homosexuals in relation to the hallakah that 612 out of 613 ain’t too bad, and therefore that people in homosexual relationships should be allowed to be rabbis and cantors.” Should a man who enjoys a diet which includes pork be allowed to be a rabbi? Or are the kosher laws more important than the sexual laws?

7) “It is not credible that religoins should argue that the purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. After all we still marry people who are past the age of childbearing.” This is a common argument, however the Church teaches only that married couples should be “open” to life whenever they engage in intercourse. A couple who because of age or medical conditions are unable to conceive can still be “open” to the possibility of life (by means of an unusual natural occurance – cf. Abraham and Sarah).

8) “God wouldn’t put a person in the situation of being homosexually attracted without making it possible for them to be sexually fulfilled.” God indeed tempts no-one, but there is the assumption here that homosexual attraction is a not only a natural (in the sense of commonly occuring) human condition, but a good attraction rightly ordered to human flourishing, ie. that the attraction really does originate from God rather than from the human flesh and psyche.

9) “If I want the law to allow me to live according to my value system, I must allow it to let you live according to your value system.” This may be true to a degree, but we obviously do not apply it in blanket terms. We are not a completely libertarian society. We do make judgements about people values and we do declare some values to be incompatible with the well being of society.

10) “Any couple that raises children should have the protection of the law – and same sex couples have just the same ability to conceive in ways that heterosexual couples do: IVF, donor sperm/egg, surrogacy, etc.” This argument assumes that these are good and natural ways to conceive children.

11) “The Bible talks only about homosexual acts; it does not envisage the situation of committed, loving same sex relationships”. In fact, I – and (I would suspect) all of you reading this – am in numerous “same sex relationships”. We all have relationships of varying degrees of intensity and committment with people of the same sex. But none of my “same sex relationships” involve sex. The problem lies still with the issue of sexual acts between people of the same sex (and hence by implication, outside of marriage as currently defined). I have nothing personally against “same sex relationships” that do not involve sexual acts, and, I would argue, neither does the bible or the teaching of the Church. Hence this argument is a red-herring.

I have a very slight lisp which means i have trouble with some phrases. I clearly remember once many years ago reading the passion narrative from the NIV bible which spoke of “Barabbas of the insurrectionists”… Shades of Monty Python’s Life of Brian there.

Well, tonight I tried to say the collect for the day at prayer time. It is the new translation for the feast of the Guardian Angels. It began:

O God, who in your unfathomable providence…

Fail. (For lithspers anyway).

You may have read, as I did, this article in Cathnews yesterday: German Catholics to exclude tax dodgers. Like me, you probably wondered what it was all about.

Well, of course, I cannot claim any inside knowledge. But I can point out that the Cathnews article was a reprint of an article in the Australian which was a reprint from an article in The Times. When I see that sort of thing, I begin to get suspicious. I want to know: what is the source? Is this a case (as in so many other cases) of ecclesiastical news via journalistic Chinese whispers, with the added complication that the original journalists didn’t understand the language in which the news originated let alone the ecclesiastical details behind the source?

Well, it took a bit of tracking down, but I did find the original German decree on this page, along with a pastoral letter to be sent by parish priests to persons who make the declaration of withdrawal of membership in the Church necessary to opt out of paying the “church tax”.

There is, of course, history behind this situation. A lot of it, which would take too much to go into now (I am sure our good readers will expand upon this in the combox). I am just going to make a few comments:

1) The news stories say (variously) that this decree from the German Bishops Conference has been “approved by the Pope/Vatican” etc. but I see no statement of this in the decree itself. Perhaps I am missing something? If it has received some sort of approval from the Vatican, I would like to know which curial office or official approved it. That would tell us something.

2) it is perhaps regretable that, in Germany and similar countries, the government has become involved in collecting financial support for the Church (and indeed the Protestant Church, Synagogues and other religious groups). It seems so “Constantinian” to us. At the same time, these countries have no tradition of supporting the Church through giving in the collection plate as we do here in Australia (many German Christians who come to Australia are suprised to learn that our Government doesn’t collect “church tax”).

3) It should be noted that there are great positives, however, in having the Government collect material contributions for the Church in this way. First it is only 8 or 9% of the total income tax, not 8 or 9% of income. In other words, we are talking a pittance here. On top of that, it is, in effect, a form of tax-deductible giving to the Church: you don’t pay tax on the money that you give to your religious commuity as we do here in Australia. This is a big gift of the Government to religious communities. Finally, it means that the Church and other religious communities have a lot of cash to do their charitable work in society which we don’t have here.

4) Of course, part of the European culture was the assumption that everyone in the community belongs to one religious community or another, and that they actually want to support their community financially. The tax is designed to be fair and just to all. It really wasn’t designed for a situation in which a very large minority of the community don’t self-identify in this way.

5) No matter, there is a simple solution: if you don’t want to have to pay the tax to the religious community with whom you are registered, you simply make a statutory declaration that you don’t belong to that religious community any more. As far as the Government is concerned, this stat dec is just for their tax purposes; what your religious community makes of it is their business. A recent court case in 2009 upheld the right of any given community to still accept as members people who have made this stat dec before the government officials.

So, what then is all this business about excommunicating “tax dodgers”?

Well, it all hinges on a couple of things:

1) The Catholic Church does not recognise (as do Protestants) a distinction between the Church as the Spiritual Body of Christ and the Church as a visible society in the human realm.

2) It is an obligation upon all Catholics to support the material needs of the Church

3) Apostacy is a grave sin, and a public official declaration that one is leaving the Church – for whatever purpose – constitutes an act of apostacy.

It is notable that the decree cites three canons: 209 §1 , 222 §1 and 1263.

The first says: “209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.”

The second says: “222 §1 Christ’s faithful have the obligation to provide for the needs of the Church, so that the Church has available to it those things which are necessary for divine worship, for apostolic and charitable work and for the worthy support of its ministers.”

The third says: “1263 The diocesan Bishop, after consulting the finance committee and the council of priests, has the right to levy on public juridical persons subject to his authority a tax for the needs of the diocese. This tax must be moderate and proportionate to their income. He may impose an extraordinary and moderate tax on other physical and juridical persons only in a grave necessity and under the same conditions, but without prejudice to particular laws and customs which may give him greater rights.”

Now, it seems to me that a Catholic in Germany who decided not to pay the church tax, but instead put 10% of his income in the collection plate each Sunday would be fulfilling Canon 222 §1. The problem is, as things currently sit in Germany, the only way in which registered German Catholics can get out of the legal obligation to pay the church tax is for them to adopt a “manner of acting” (a very public and legal manner of acting”) which indicates that they are ceasing to “maintain communion with the Church.” Hence, the point at issue is a an act of apostacy.

But what does that matter? you ask. Afterall, it is only a piece of paper. Tell that to the early Christians in the Roman empire, who, if they simply offered a pinch of incense before a statue of the Emperor, would get a “piece of paper” certifying their apostacy. Such acts might save your life, but it would mean your excommunication from the Christian community, not to mention the loss of your eternal salvation.

More interesting, however, is the existence of an interpretation of Canon 209 from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, unearthed by the defendant in the 2009 court case aluded to above. In 2006, the Pontifical Council wrote to Bishop William Skylstad, then president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the [Code of Canon Law], given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of faith.” Apparently, Pope Benedict XVI himself then ordered that this judgement be circulated to ALL bishops conferences, including, one assumes, the German Bishops Conference.

That in fact puts a whole different light on the current matter, and why I would like to know if indeed the German Bishops Conference’s decree has the express approval of some authority in the Roman Curia. Now, of course, the Letter from the PCLT leaves open the possibility of that the one making the statutory declaration of defection from the Church in order to simply get out of paying the Church tax “could still [have] the will to remain in the communion of faith”. This perhaps is the reason for the pastoral letter that the Conference has prepared for pastors to send to individuals who take such a step. The pastoral letter states in closing:

Maybe you do not realize the implications of your decision and want to undo it. I invite you to have a conversation with me (or another Catholic priest of your choice) for clarification. But even if you do not think about changing your decision, I am interested in speaking with you and I look forward to your feedback in this regard.
with friendly greetings,
Pastor

That appears to be the pastoral end of the Bishop Conference’s stick. On the face of it, they are warning Catholics in Germany that what might seem to be simply a bit of legal mumbo jumbo is in fact very serious indeed: “per se” it may well constitute a formal act of apostacy. The concern here is not money, but the eternal soul of the believer. I do not know how such a pastoral conversation would go – it might even leave open the question about whether or not the making of the statutory declaration will be considered an act of apostacy – but I think the fact of the existence of the pastoral letter does change the way we view the original story.

To the cynical, this will seem to be just about money. But it is, in fact, about the salvation of souls.

Pipe Organ by Alfred Fuller 1897 – St. Philip’s Church Blackburn North

Possibly incorporating pipework and casework from organ at St John’s Anglican Church, Heidelberg; installed 1900 Methodist Church, Mackenzie Street, Bendigo. Removed 1999 & installed in private residence Heathcote by Wakeley Pipe Organs. Installed in St. Philip’s Catholic Church Blackburn North September 2012 by Wakeley Pipe Organs. 2 manuals, 9 speaking stops, 3 couplers, tracker action.

The pipe organ came from the Mackenzie Street Uniting Church in Bendigo. It was installed in this former Methodist Church in October 1900 and used continuously until the church closed its doors in 1997. The instrument was removed from the church building on 2 March 1999 by Wakeley Pipe Organs.

The instrument was built by Alfred Fuller, of Kew, Melbourne, who sold it to the church after having built it in his workshop between 1897 and 1900. A card found in the swell windchest had the inscription ‘Alfred Fuller and Son / 29/9/97 Kew / Melbourne’. 1 In the dismantling process it was evident that the great soundboard and pipework were much older than the swell soundboard, pipework, console and action. Investigations revealed that Fuller traded in a pipe organ and installed a new one at St John’s Anglican Church, Heidelberg that was opened on 8 January 1896. The Great soundboard is most likely from the earlier organ at Heidelberg. George Fincham described this organ in 1879 as a single manual instrument with four stops: Open Diapason metal 44 pipes, Stopped Diapason wood 56 pipes, Principal 4 56 pipes, Fifteenth 2 56 pipes, enclosed in mahogany case with gilt speaking pipes in front. 2 The origins of this instrument date back to a three-cylinder rotating barrel organ installed in the church in 1852 and rebuilt by Fincham in 1873 who installed a keyboard with action and extra pipes. 3

The minutes of the Mackenzie Street Methodist Church of 15 August 1900 state:

“That we obtain the Pipe Organ offered by A. Fuller, if he will take the £150 and alter the Cornopean stop to some other, say Gamba or Keraulophon. N.B. This is to be erected in the Church complete for the amount stated.” 4

As an historical aside, the minutes of 20 January 1901 state: “That the Organ Blower be paid 6/6d per quarter.”

To the older nucleus, Fuller extended the case laterally and provided two five-pipe towers at floor level. Additional case posts and a distinctive frieze of Gothic arches above the console were supplied, the latter closed by a folding lid. The lateral towers are very much a signature of his work and three other examples may be found in the organs he built for St Mary’s Catholic Church, Echuca 1890 (now at St John’s Catholic Church, Heidelberg), St John’s Anglican Church, Heidelberg 1896 (rebuilt and altered in the 1960s) and Scots Presbyterian Church, Fremantle 1897. The action, console, wind system and swell box are Fuller’s work. A characteristic feature of his work is the two wind indicators enclosed within glass panels, one at the console and a second at the rear of the organ, for the blower.

This was the last organ to come from Fuller’s Kew workshop before he retired from organbuilding and went into real estate with his son. He died on 10 June 1923 and left an estate valued at £15,154/6/11, a very considerable sum for the time. 5

The 1999 restoration work by Wakeley Pipe Organs Pty Ltd, of Lilydale, Victoria (in accordance with the OHTA Pipe Organ Conservation & Maintenance Guide) involved the repairing of the great soundboard and the cabinet work; the pipework was attended to and regulated where necessary.

A citation from the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) reads:

“A two-manual organ of nine speaking stops built by Alfred Fuller, of Kew, believed to date from the end of Fuller’s organbuilding career about 1900. The instrument retains its original action, console and pipework and is a rare intact example of its builder’s work and of note for its diminutive size.”

The specification follows:

GREAT ORGAN Open Diapason 8 Stop Diapason 8 Principal 4 Fifteenth 2 Swell to Great

SWELL ORGAN Gedact 8 Viol da Gamba 8 Dulciana 8 Suabe Flute 4 Tremulant

PEDAL ORGAN Bourdon 16

Great to Pedal Swell to Pedal Compass: 56/30 Lever swell pedal 2 composition pedals to Great Mechanical key and stop action Attached drawknob console Hand blowing Wind indicators set in glass boxes at console and at rear 6

1. Inscription noted by Ian Wakeley 2. George Fincham & Sons letter books 3/98, to Revd Rockfort Forlong 3. E.N. Matthews, “Old Barrel Organ”, The Age, 31 July 1965 4. Noted by Howard Terrill 5. See: “Alfred Fuller”, OHTA News, vol.31, no.3 (July 2007), p.3 6. Specification noted John Maidment 1966, 2008

Rev. Father Nicholas T. J. Dillon Parish Priest St. Philip’s Parish 60 Junction Road Blackburn North VIC 3130

Donations may be sent to the address above marked ” ORGAN APPEAL “

On my way into work this morning, I was thinking about the riots in Sydney and around the world led by radicalised islamists.

All the reporting says that these riots were in reaction to a film posted on Youtube. When I first read the news last week that the US Ambassador to Libya had been murdered by a mob, I then read Fr Lombardi’s statement on the event, and thought “What?” Here’s what he said according the CNS report:

“Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions are an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples,” said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman.

“The serious consequences of unjustified offense and provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers are once again evident in these days, as we see the reactions they arouse, sometimes with tragic results, which in turn nourish tension and hatred, unleashing unacceptable violence,” he said Sept. 12 in a written statement that was also translated into Arabic.

At that stage, I didn’t know that the rioting was supposed to be “about” that film, so I wondered why a statement about murderous violence began with a comment about respect for beliefs. Shouldn’t respect for human life and a denunciation of violence be at the top of the list?

Of course, since then, there have been endless denunciations of “that film” by western governments and Christian Churches. Here is the latest from Cathnews.

Okay, so back to this morning. On my way into work, I was thinking, “This isn’t about “that film”. Anyone who thinks that it is has got it all wrong. This is about something else.”

When I arrived at work, a colleague showed me a cutting from yesterday’s Age (I cancelled my subscription a fortnight ago!) of this article by Waleed Aly: “The Incredible Hulk proves to be no friend of Islam either”, in which Waleed says exactly what I was thinking, and then tells us what he thinks it really IS about:

It doesn’t matter that they object to insulting people on the basis of their religion, while declaring that Christians have no morals. This is baffling only until you realise these protesters are not truly protesting to make a point. The protest is the point.

It feels good. It feels powerful. This is why people yell pointlessly or punch walls when frustrated. It’s not instrumental. It doesn’t achieve anything directly. But it is catharsis. Outrage and aggression is an intoxicating prospect for the powerless.

Accordingly, it is not an option to leave an insult unanswered because that is a sign of weakness, rather than transcendence.

The protest is what the protest is about, not the film. This arises out of an honour/shame culture that is totally alien to our way of thinking.

Ironically, the solution, it seems to me, lies in harnessing the power of this “honour/shame” culture against this kind of behaviour. I was listening to a program the other day which was talking about so-called “honour-killings” in Pakistan. The way to combat this, said the commentator, was to make “honour-killings” collectively dishonourable, along the lines of “The world sees us doing this and says Pakistan is barbaric and stupid. Honour-killings result in dishonour, not honour. They shame Pakistan. Therefore, for the sake of our honour, we will not do honour-killings any more.” That isn’t a moral argument, but it is, I think a practical way of addressing that particular problem.

The same method can be used by the Muslim community in Australia (and elsewhere) to oppose these kinds of violence riots. “The violence brings shame on Islam, the Prophet and Allah, therefore, we as Muslims will not act violently.” If the Australian Muslim Community in particular, and the Australian community as a whole, can successfully brand this kind of violence (or any for that matter) as “shameful” it will no longer be a sign of weakness to refuse to act violently – it will be a sign of strength.

But of course, I am a Christian, and this has long been a part of our ethic. From “turn the other cheek” to “my strength is made perfect in weakness”, Christianity has long upheld non-violence as a strong (and hence honourable) way of reacting to the violence or offensive activity of others.

Fr Barron, in his DVD series, Catholicism, tells two stories, one about Desmond Tutu and another about Mother Teresa.

One day, Archbishop Tutu was walking on a boardwalk through a muddy area when a South African soldier was coming the other way. The soldier refused to make way for the bishop to pass and said “Get of the boardwalk – I don’t make way for apes”. Tutu stepped off the boardwalk and said “I do.”

Mother Teresa was asking for a loaf of bread from a baker for a starving child. The baker spat full in her face. “Thank you for that,” the saint replied, “now how about something for the child?”

Non-violence can turn the offensive action back on the offender. The best way to deal with silly offensive videos on Youtube is not to riot violently, nor to waste one’s breath denouncing it. It is to ignore it.

Fr Dillon liked the previous post so much, he sent through five more pictures of the organ at St Philip’s Blackburn North.  Enjoy!