Sentire Cum Ecclesia

And I am sitting by the fire outside in (what my wife and children call) “the cave” with my pipe and a pint while the rain is gently and consistently bucketting down around me. I am catching up (now that I am back in internet range) with my weekly google-reader news stories, and came across this quotation on Fr Z’s blog:

“In Catholicism, the pint, the pipe and the Cross can all fit together.” -G.K Chesterton

I don’t know about “in Catholicism”, but in my own life, this is most certainly true!

Oh, and “What is JCMA?” you ask? see here: jcma.org.au. I am the Secretary and a founding member of the organisation. The Annual Conference is a three day and night live-in event up in the hills around Warburton. And in case you are wondering, it is a thoroughly delightful event spent with my brothers and sisters from various Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities in Melbourne. This was the 9th Annual Conference, and I have been to 8 of them. A highly recommened experience!

There has been a rather long conversation going on in the combox on my last post on “same sex marriage” on the question of whether or not homosexuality (the inclination and the act) can be classed as a “mental disorder” and whether or not to do so is a case of unjust discrimination. I haven’t entered into that discussion, because I don’t think it is awfully profitable.

Partly because what counts as a “mental disorder” is very difficult to define. I’m no psychologist and wouldn’t even pretend to be, but I am aware that many things that today are classed as “mental disorders” were not so understood in the past, and vice versa. It doesn’t really seem to be a very objective category of classification. One should note the difficulty that the legal profession encounters on the plea of “insanity” with regard to capital crimes (well explored here on a past episode of the Philosophers Zone – and I note in passing my extreme sorrow in learning of the death of the host of that program, Alan Saunders). In a sense, are not all people who commit murder in some sense or other “mentally disordered”?

I think too that there is a problem with the discussion if it latches onto the term used in the Catechism which describes certain tendencies or acts to be “disordered”. We need to grasp a sense of what this word means in Catholic theology. It really has nothing to do with “mental disorder”. The media, of course, totally misses this point. Let’s take a look of several examples of the use of the idea of “disorder” in the Catechism:

Paragraph 37 of the Catechism quotes from Pius XII’s Humani Generis to the effect that we human beings display “disordered appetites which are the consequesnces of original sin”.

Paragraph 339 talks about “the particular goodness and perfection of every creature” and the need to avoid “any disordered use of things that would be in contempt of the Creator”.

Often the Catechism uses the word “disorder” with “crime” and “sin” (cf. pp. 598, 827, 1459).

Pararaph 1394 describes “attachment to creatures” as “disordered”.

The “discord” in “relatioships between man and woman” is described as “disordered” in p. 1606. The very next paragraph tells us that this “discord” “does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin”.

Paragraph 1753 talks about acts that are “intrinsically disordered” and which are not made “good or just” by “good intentions”.

Paragraph 1755 talks about “some concrete acts – such as fornication” which are “always wrong to chose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will”. Paragraph 1768 says that “an upright will orders the movements of the senses to the good and to beatitude, an evil will succumbs to disordered passions and exacerbates them.”

And so on. I am only half way through the Catechism at this point, and only just entering on the section about morality. It would be perhaps tedious to continue. What I hope is clear is that when the Catholic Church says that something is “disordered”, it isn’t talking about what psychologists might call “mental disorder”. It certainly doesn’t mean something which is “socially” unacceptable. The idea of what is “ordered” and “disordered” has nothing to do with passing fads of popular mores.

What it has to do with is (something I learnt about in Lutheran theology, namely) the “order of creation”. God created human beings to be in a right relationship with him, with each other, and with the rest of creation. This is “order” as opposed to “chaos”. Human beings are ordered toward God, hence idolatry or attachment to creatures is “disordered”. Male is ordered toward Female, and toward the procreation of children, and hence discord between the sexes or misuse of sexuality outside of marriage is “disordered”. Humanity is ordered toward the created world, and hence when Man acts in a way that abuses God’s creation, be it his body, the body of other human beings, or other created beings, it is disordered.

There is nothing about “mental” states here. It is, rather, a state of the soul. Disorder = sin. Order = righteousness, holiness. In fact, precisely at those points which we would deem “mental” (ie. the will, the passions) we are told that “good intentions” do not make the objectively disordered act “good”.

When I was a Lutheran, especially at the Seminary where we had a real practice of daily observance of the liturgical year, this week was always a big week: June 24th was the Birthday of John the Bapist, June 29 was the Feast of Sts Peter and Paul, and June 25 was… well… the Commemoration of the Augsburg Confession. Yes, this is a “feast day” in the Lutheran Church and, on his blog, my friend Pastor Matt Harrison (now President of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church) explains why: June 25, 1530, was no less than the “Birthday of the Lutheran Church”.

And this raises an interesting point of ecclesiology. If you were to ask a Catholic and a Lutheran “What day is the Church’s Birthday?”, they would both answer “Pentecost”. If you were to ask a Lutheran “When was the Lutheran Church born?” one possible answer might by the one Pastor Matt gives: June 25th 1530, the date of the presentation of the Augsburg Confession. But if you were to ask a Catholic “When was the Catholic Church born?” his answer would be the same as the one he gave you previously: “Pentecost”

These differing answers point out, first, that it is too simplistic to say to Protestants “Your Church was founded by X on such and such a date; but ours was founded by Jesus Christ”. Protestant Christians aren’t stupid. Lutherans know that Luther didn’t “establish the Church”. They also believe that their Church was established by Jesus Christ, in so far as they see themselves as belonging to the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. But they do make a clear distinction between their church as a denomination (or more strictly, in the Lutheran case, a “confession”) and the “Una Sancta”, as one of my dear (now departed) seminary lecturers used to call the Church Catholic. And so they can indeed speak of a “birthday” of their church which is not synonymous with the birthday of the “Una Sancta”.

But Catholics can’t. Apart from Pentecost, we don’t have any point in our history (Dan Brown and all that nonsense about Constantine not-with-standing) to which we, or any impartial historian, can point and say “That’s when the Catholic Church began”. It is simply one long continuum, without break, from the first beginning until now. Now, of course, our Protestant friends will say “But the Roman Catholic Church has deviated from true Christianity” – but even they are at a loss to say when this happened. When – at what date or juncture – did the “Roman Church” cease to be “true Christianty” and become something else?

I do not for a moment want to denigrate the great witness or courage of the Lutheran reformers in the presentation of the Augsburg confession all those years ago. There is very much in that Confession of faith that is recognisably Catholic and, compared to many other Protestant statements of faith that came afterward (and compared even to what Martin Luther would have said if he, and not Melanchthon, had written the Confession) it is a very Christian and irenic document. And we need to acknowledge that among our friends in the world today, traditional Lutherans are foremost (see here for example). But we do have very different understandings of the nature of the Church and of our understanding of the nature of our own communions.

Here is an event you won’t want to miss if you are in Melbourne:

Caroline Chisholm Library & Anima Education invite you to a Book Launch with Fr Aidan Nichols O.P.

Saturday 2.30 pm July 7th, 2012

“Chalice of God: A systematic Theology in Outline” By Aidan Nichols

Fr Aidan Nichols OP is a lecturer at Cambridge University. He is a Magister (Master) of Sacred Theology in the Dominican Order (a rare and high honour), and is an author of many important works which include: The Shape of Catholic Theology, The Thought of Pope Benedict XVI, Lost in Wonder: Essays on Liturgy and the Arts.

Venue: Mary Glowrey House 132-134 Nicholson St. Fitzroy (Nb. NOT the CC Library!)

Launch will include light refreshments

Inquries & RSVP: cclbookmarks@gmail.com

Phone: 03 9670 1815

For a funny story about Fr Aidan, see this very early post on my blog.

Rome Reports has this interesting video item: “The Seven Most Common Mistakes about ‘Vatileaks’

The text of the report is as follows [with some of my own comments]:

June 8, 2012. (Romereports.com) The leak of confidential Vatican documents seems to be in the news everyday. But the constant flow of information has brought about a lot of confusion and even factual mistakes. Here are some of the most common errors.

The first mistake is the notion that “the documents are scandalous.” Even though the leak of roughly 100 documents has caused some embarrassment, their content is not very shocking. In them, its authors write to the Pope to address real problems within the Church. In some of them, its authors highlight decisions that they don’t agree with. [In other words, we should not be surprised, but rather gratified that such documents exist. This means that the Pope is accessible to the people of the Church and he at least listens to their concerns, even if – as is only right – he makes his own decisions on these matters after taking relevant advice]

Some of the documents include requests to meet with the Pope, confidential reports and proposals for Benedict XVI. The documents are quite direct and don’t always follow protocol, since it was assumed, they would only be seen by the Pope.

The second mistake, is that notion that the “documents are an attack against the Pope.” The leaked documents actually give a positive image of the Pope. They show that before making a final decision, he seeks insight from his collaborators.

But in essence, the leak of documents is a direct and serious violation of his privacy and of the Vatican in general. [So the real scandal is not the documents as such, but that someone is seeking to benefit from publishing private correspondence – many already have, although as far as we can see, they are mainly book publishers and media networks]

The third mistake that’s been reported, is that “the Vatican is divided into two battling groups.” [What? only two??? :-)] The leaked documents actually deal with very different topics and different departments. The documents do however, seem to be a way to discredit Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who serves as the Vatican’s Secretary of State. Also on that list is the Pope’s secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein.

As in other governments and bureaucracies, there are always differing opinions. But this shouldn’t be confused with internal hostility.

The Fourth most common mistake, is that “cardinals cannot be judged in court.” Since the Vatican is a state, it actually has its own “Supreme Court Tribunal,” which is also the court that deals with formally judging cardinals. The tribunal is made up of a panel of cardinals, including Raymond Burke, Jean-Louis Tauran and Paolo Sardi.

The fifth mistake out there, is that “the Pope’s butler, will be judged by the Tribunal of the Church.” This is not completely correct, since the butler and other possible suspects, will be judged by the civil tribunal of the City State of the Vatican. In this case, the judges are not priests, but rather, lay people who are law experts and professors of Italian Universities. [Pastor Mark Henderson on his blog asked “after all, how many church hierarchies today can, on their own authority, imprison an apparent whistleblower in a cell with only the barest of amenities without appeal to a judge unconnected with the prosecution (habeus corpus!)?” The Vatican State is not the Holy See. It is not a “Church Heirarchy” but a State. Every state has the right to its own legal system. And to say that the butler was a “whistleblower” is a bit rich…]

The term ‘Holy See’ actually refers to government of the Catholic Church. While, the Vatican City State is the territory where the Pope lives.

The sixth mistake is that “the butler will be judged secretly.” At this point, a judge has issued a gag order on items connected to the investigation. But if he chooses to go forward with a trial, that trial would take place publicly. If a trial does take place, the butler would have his two lawyers.

The seventh item, is that Benedict XVI will issue a “Papal Pardon to the butler” At this point, this is still a hypothesis that’s still in the air. Years, ago, John Paul II forgave the man who tried to kill him, Ali Agca. Even though this case, is completely different, it is possible that the Pope may issue his pardon to Paolo Gabriele. [What is interesting is that when the Pope is the victim of an actual assasination attempt, he becomes a potential martyr – how different when the “assination attempt” is done via the media]

In any case, only time will tell, what the fate of the butler and possible accomplices will be.

This is very interesting. Our ++George in an “evening round table” with the pope and three other leading curial cardinals. Wait a minute… ++George isn’t a curial official, is he? All the more interesting… In any case, one hopes that they were able to come up with some good ideas, and give HH some sound advice.

I have been having a conversation with Pastor Mark Henderson on his blog “Glosses from an Old Manse” with respect to the current spate of goings on in the Vatican being reported to us in the media. He originally started off opining that:

As this scandal increasingly plays out in the unforgiving light of media scrutiny, it might be said by some in defence of Rome that all churches suffer from sometimes vicious ecclesiastical politics. True enough, I suppose, but none seem to rise – or perhaps should that be sink – to the levels of Rome; after all, how many church hierarchies today can, on their own authority, imprison an apparent whistleblower in a cell with only the barest of amenities without appeal to a judge unconnected with the prosecution (habeus corpus!)? Furthermore, most other church bodies do not claim that their hierarchies are the succcessors to the Apostles and the only guarantors of God’s grace in this world. That claim would seem to require a higher degree of probity than that usually associated with the Roman curia.

He went on in his next post to

happily admit to using the various scandals of the Vatican as an antidote to the romantic longings for a return to Rome which seem to afflict some Lutheran pastors and laity in these poor and difficult times for the Church of the Augsburg Confession.

Here follows my response in the combox to his latest post, and then his response, and then some further reflection from me.

David Schutz said… I still don’t think you have quite understood my point, Mark.

Your criticism is based on what appears to be a disjunction between the Catholic Church’s claim to be the “the guarantor of God’s grace in the world and, I might add, an infallible guide in matters of faith and morals” and the way some of her members, even among her leaders, are behaving.

You are giving a lot of credance to rumour rather than fact here – we do not know (and probably even the pope doesn’t know) exactly what is going on – we have rumours and strange things being reported in the papers, but no one has actually been charged with any crimes here except for a butler (which sounds like the stuff of Agatha Christie, but is hardly the basis for condemning the whole Catholic Church) – what you are seeing is exactly the same sort of thing that goes on in any human institution, including other Christian communities. It goes on because the members of these institutions – even good and holy Christian institutions – are still sinners. That is no different in the Catholic Church to what it is in the LCA or any other Christian communion.

The Church’s claim to be an (not the only) instrument of God’s Grace and integral to the plan of God for the salvation of the world, doesn’t change this one bit, and it is a bit Donatist of you to think that it would. While the example of the saints in the Catholic Church is a strong factor in the attraction of converts to the Church, I don’t know of any Protestant who has converted to the Catholic faith because they believed that the institution of the Catholic Church (rather than the Church in her spiritual aspect) is “more holy” than the institutions of any other Christian communion.

While the Church’s claim to be a infallible teacher of faith and morals is certainly not helped when the faith and morals of her members (and even her leaders) does not comply with that teaching, it is not proof that the claim is false. It is, and always will be, the beauty and holiness of Truth that attracts converts to the Catholic faith, not some fanciful idea that the institutions and members of our church possess a greater degree of holiness and purity than the insititutions and members of other Christian communities.

And his response:

Mark Henderson said… Thanks for your reponse, David. Perhaps we are talking past each other. I’m presently wrapping up a busy week but I’ll be on recreation leave as of Friday so perhaps I can respond then.

One question in the meantime – are you saying that the marks of the church as claimed by Rome are simply objects of faith and not actualised in its life? Of course, the marks are objects of faith, but it has always seemed to me that the distinguishing feature of Rome is the claim that the marks are demonstrably evident in itself as in no other church body (or ecclesial community!). Is not the Roman church “where the Spirit flourishes”, even “the temple of the Spirit” where His gifts are poured out for the purpose of making the church holy? Is it not from the Roman church itself, the divine-human institution presided over by the Pope and the magisterium and administered by the curia, which claims to provide the baptized with the “example of holiness”? This is all taken from the CCC, btw. I’m simply saying that we should be able to assay (quantitatively examine) these momentous claims in the life of the church itself. If not, then the Roman conception of the church would seem to be more of a Platonic Idea than a reality in time and space.

My further comments:

Certainly the “conception of the Church” held by the Catholic Church is not a “Platonic idea”. Quite the contrary. It may be said that the “Platonic idea” of “The Church” is far more a Calvinist trait with the doctrine of the “invisible Church” (sometimes seen in Lutheranism too, but not to the same extent, as Lutherans affirm the visible “marks of the Church”). In distinction from both the Lutheran and Calvinist conception of the Church, the Catholic faith affirms that the Church is a true visible society on earth with visible structures (cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 8).

The Catechism deals at length with the four marks of the Church – Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity – in paragraphs 811-870, with particular attention being given to the mark of Holiness in paragraphs 823-829. As a preliminary, it should be said that the marks of the Church are indeed “objects of faith”, which seems to be affirmed in paragraph 812:

“Only faith can recognize that the Church possesses these properties from her divine source. But their historical manifestations are signs that also speak clearly to human reason. As the First Vatican Council noted, the “Church herself, with her marvellous propagation, eminent holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in everything good, her catholic unity and invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her divine mission”  [Vatican Council I, DS Filius 3: DS 3013].”

So the marks of the Church can only be recognised by faith, and yet faith recognises them in “historical manifestations” which are “signs that also speak clearly to human reason”. It is notable that the First Vatican Council spoke of “eminent holiness” as one of these signs. Mark calls this assertion into question: is the “holiness” of the Catholic Church indeed “eminent” and can it be recognised by reason alone, without the aid of faith? What is the teaching of the Church with regard to the disjunction between the mark of “eminent holiness” which she claims, and the reality of sin and scandal which are seen all to often in the media today?

First let us note that in regard to the mark of Unity, the Catechism acknowledges that while this mark is a gift of the Lord Jesus to his Church, nevertheless, because of the sinfulness of human beings, there are real “wounds to unity” among Christians. This reality with regard to the first mark of the Church should give us some parameters for discussion of the second mark, Holiness. We should note that

1) As a mark of the Church, her Unity can ultimately only be recognised by faith.
2) This is because Unity is a gift from the Lord to the Church – it is (in Lutheran speak) an “alien” unity because it is Christ’s unity and the unity of his body.
3) Nevertheless, because the Church truly is Christ’s Body, that unity also properly belongs to her; ie. although the source of Unity is “from without”, yet it becomes truly “within” and a mark of the real society that exists on earth.
4) At the same time, there are forces working in the opposite direction, namely human sin, which contradict this Unity and wound it as a visible sign that should “speak clearly to human reason”.
5) And yet, despite the manifest “wounds to unity” that exist even within the Catholic Church, it must be admitted that the fact that over a billion Christians exist within the one visible communion of the Catholic Church is something of a miracle, evident even “to human reason”. There is indeed an “historical manifestation” of the mark of Unity within the Catholic Church.

If we can say all this of the mark of Unity, I suspect that we can also say this of the mark of Holiness. What does the Catechism say specifically on this issue?

Paragraph 823 begins by asserting that the Holiness of the Church is “held…as a matter of faith”. It goes on to say that this Holiness derives as a gift from the Bridegroom to the Bride – because he (with the Father and the Spirit) is the One who sanctifies the Church, we must confess that the Church is indeed Holy.

Sanctified by Christ, paragraph 824 asserts that the Church is a channel of holiness and sanctification to the world. The previous section on Unity acknowledged that there are indeed elements of sanctification outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church (paragraph 819, drawing on Unitatis Redintegratio from the Second Vatican Council), but that these derive from what properly belongs to the Catholic unity of the Church. So the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on holiness. The Second Vatican Council acknowledged in Nostra Aetate that there may be elements of holiness and truth even in non-Christian religions, but that these too have their source in Christ and should be recognised as such.

Is Holiness more evident in the Catholic Church than in other Christian Communions or in other religions? Catholics with the eyes of faith may affirm this, but the cold hard view of human reason without the aid of Catholic faith would say not. Paragraph 828 points to the one place where the mark of Holiness truly is in evidence in the Catholic faith: in her saints. The fact that such heroic holiness is possible in the Catholic Church is testimony to the gift of Holiness which Christ bestows on all the Church. For in the end, all true holiness must be personal, and can only really be discerned in the personal. Here there is something of the particularity of the Gospel. At the same time, while the Church does not canonise saints who do not belong to her fold, there is what Blessed John Paul II called “the ecumenism of the martyrs” – that is, the recognition that not even saintliness is restricted to the Catholic Church, but examples of heroic holiness may indeed even be found outside her boundaries. Yet again, this holiness derives from Christ and from his Body, the Church.

At the same time, the Catechism, in paragraphs 825 and 827, acknowledge the reality of human sinfulness even within the one, holy Church. The Holiness of the Church is described by the Second Vatican Council in terms that are exactly the same as those which it used to describe the “real though imperfect” communion that exists between the Catholic Church and her separated brothers and sisters:

825 “The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect” [LG 48# 3]. In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired.

This is sober reality. Holiness is a gift from the Lord of the Church to his Bride and Body, yet its perfection in her members is a reality “yet to be aquired” – or perhaps “attained” might be a better word. Paragraph 827 states:

“The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal” [LG 8# 3; cf. UR 3; 6; Heb 2:17; 726; 2 Cor 5:21].”

Paradox of this kind ought not sound strange to Lutheran theologians, who are aware of the “simul justus et peccator” nature of the individual Christian. What the Council taught is that this is also a reality for Church as a whole. The “gift” nature of the mark of Holiness always remains someting to which we aspire to receive in faith. Yet the practice of the Church in canonising “saints”, and above all the presence within the Church of the Blessed Mother herself, point to the reality of the hope of that the holiness only imperfectly seen here in the Church in the present age will shine forth gloriously at the final vindication of God’s elect at the Last Judgement.

I hope these reflections are sufficient to guide us all in the right understanding of the nature of the mark of Holiness in the Catholic Church. Despite all the sinful actions of many of the members and pastors of the Catholic Church, I have embraced the Catholic faith and entered into her fold in the certain hope and assurance that it is within the Catholic Church that I myself might – solely by the grace of God and merits of the Lord Jesus (made most evident in his saints) – one day attain the fullness of Holiness which Christ desires to endow upon all his people.

The Realms of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, in both the United Kingdom and in Australia are considering legalising so-called “same-sex marriage”. The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have issued a very interesting judgment on the matter. Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith of the Catholic Herald has comments on it.

One thing he highlights is the inconsistency that could result from changes to the English law to legalise “same-sex marriage” in relation to the question of consummation. In English law, if a marriage is not consummated, it may be declared invalid, null and void – ie. non-consummation is grounds for annulment. But what would constitute “consummation” in a “same-sex marriage”? By definition, consummation is impossible in such relationships (unless, along with changing the definition of marriage, we are now going to change the definition of consummation as well).

This is a very serious point – for England. In Australia, at some stage in the past, the law must have been changed, because according to this page, non-consummation is no longer a legal ground for annulment. So, we can’t make that a basis for an argument against changing the definition of marriage here in Australia then. Still…

I’m not going to apologise for the delay in transmission or explain why this is the topic upon which I choose break my silence.

Pope Benedict XVI on Monday met with airport chaplains on the first day of the XV World Seminar for Catholic Civil Aviation Chaplains and Chaplaincy Members.

No kidding. Here’s a bit of what he said:

Dear friends, always be conscious that you are called to embody in the world’s airports the Church’s mission of bringing God to man and leading man to the encounter with God. Airports are places that increasingly reflect the globalized reality of our time. Here one finds people of a wide variety of nationalities, cultures, religions, social status and age. One also comes across all manner of difficult human situations that demand increasing attention. I think, for example, of people waiting anxiously as they seek to pass through border controls without the necessary documentation, either as immigrants or asylum seekers. I think of the inconvenience caused by anti-terrorism security measures…

I know that I have often experienced a degree of existential angst in airports out of all proportion to my normal levels of anxiety when juggling hand luggage, passport, wallet, laptop and shoes at the security checks. And there have certainly been times – such as when stuck in an international stopover for twelve hours 6 hours out of whack with one’s own personal timezone – when a friendly chaplain would have been appreciated.

One thinks too of the literary and film references to airports. Douglas Adams once wrote that it was hardly surprising that no language on earth had ever coined the proverb “as pretty as an airport”. There was the Steve Martin classic “Trains Planes and Automobiles”. And then there was of course the Tom Hanks 2004 film “The Terminal” – perhaps that was what the Holy Father was thinking of on this occasion.

In any event, which it is reassuring that in this increasingly confusing world, there are actually people who give of themselves to alleviate such suffering. And that the Holy Father would take the time to encourage them in their ministry. Yes, the New Evangelisation is all about proclaiming the Gospel in the new situations of the modern millennium.

Sorry about the silence on the blog in recent weeks. Life has been very busy in the office, especially planning for Sunday night’s “Catholic Jewish Friendship Dinner” (for which there are still seats left – go to this page on Eventbrite to book for what will really be a great time with great speakers and music). I have been spending a lot of time in the company of Jewish friends lately, the most recent giving a talk with my friend Rabbi Shamir Caplan on “Passover meets Easter” at the Glen Eira Interfaith Network.

The real blessing in recent days however was, as mentioned previously on this blog, the discussion on Pius XII at Temple Beth Israel hosted by the Melbourne Mitzvah of the B’nai B’rith Antidefamation Commission and the Council of Christians and Jews. I have written a report on this (with the help of my good Jewish friend Michael Cohen) which has been published on the website of the Archdiocese here.

The main speaker for the event was Dr Paul O’Shea, who has his own blog “Paul on Pius”. Paul has published my article reporting on the event, and with it said some very nice things about me:

While David and I would probably agree to disagree on somethings, he is one of those people in the “blogosphere” who really does make the cyber-world a better place. Listening to him speak at the seminar in Melbourne on the Catholic understanding of beatification and canonisation to a largely Jewish audience who had just sat through a presentation on Pius XII in his gentle, polite and firm manner was very impressive. As David writes in the opening paragraph of the article the true test of inter-faith discussion lies in the ability to speak honestly and frankly on matters of great sensitivity and disagreement.

Allow me in return to say some “nice things” about Paul. Everyone (well, almost everyone, since, as Monty Python wisely said “there’s no pleasing some people”) who heard him speak at Temple Beth Israel that day were in agreement that his presentation and scholarship was helpful and enlightening. In his own comments, he said that the more one studies the record of Pius XII during the war, “the black gets no blacker, the white no whiter and the grey just gets murkier”, yet I think he was able to dispel a lot of false ideas and put our mutual understanding on a much firmer grounding. Without his help, the event could not have been held and this discussion would not have been moved forward in the way it has here in the Melbourne community. I am extremely grateful for his kind assistance in making the event possible. I wish Paul all the best in his continued studies in this area, which so sorely needs an even historical hand to guide us.

The transcripts of the presentations at the event (the third speaker was Rabbi Fred Morgan) will soon be available, and I will give you the full links when these are published.

UPDATE: Paul has placed the transcript of his presentation (via a recording on my iphone – a last minute decision on my part to press the “record” button) on his blog here.