Sentire Cum Ecclesia

When sitting down to Christmas dinner with my wife’s family, our beloved matriarch declared the ground rules: “No religion and no politics.”

It did seem a bit odd to me, as both a religious believer and an historian, that a celebration of Christmas could take place in which neither religion or politics were granted a place, but I understood it for what it was: a pre-emptive strike to head off at the pass the main subjects of dissension in the family.

I have been using the time since to catch up on a bit of reading – most significantly, to get as much of N.T. Wright’s “Jesus and the Victory of God” read before the end of the holidays. But I have also been reading some of the excellent essays on the ABC Religion and Ethics website, including this one by William Cavanaugh (research professor at the Center for World Catholicism and Intercultural Theology at DePaul University, Chicago): “Why Christopher Hitchens was wrong about religious violence”.

There is a link in all this. Cavanaugh challenges Hitchens’ view of “religion”. His point is quite simply that for Hitchens “Religion poisons everything because everything poisonous gets identified as religion.” This raises the question of the definition of “religion”, which Cavanaugh deals with to some degree in this essay. It is a problem with which I am familiar in my daily work in “inter-religious” dialogue. What counts as “a religion”? You get all sorts of comments such as “Islam mixes religion and politics” and “Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion”. Cavanaugh discusses the “functionalist” and “substantivist” approaches to the definition of religion. Here is a taste:

Such scholarship assumes a “functionalist” definition of religion, where religion is identified not by doctrines, such as belief in God or gods, but by the way it actually functions in a society. Ideologies and institutions that provide an overarching symbol system of the meaning and end of human life are considered religions by functionalists…

Most arguments about religion and violence assume a “substantivist” definition of religion, whereby religion is defined by the substance or content of beliefs. Commonly substantivists start with God or gods, but soon recognize that the category must be broader to include the many forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism that don’t involve gods. More inclusive definitions like belief in “transcendence” or “soteriology” are floated to try to include Buddhism and other beliefs and practices.

I guess I would come down in the “functionalist” camp as well – IF I thought there was any profit in trying to define what a “religion” is.

In fact, here is where my reading of N.T. Wright comes in. He belabours the obvious fact that so often is not obvious to post-Enlightenment Westerners: the modern distinction between “religion” and “politics” (eg. the classic “Separation of Church and State” argument) was completely foreign to the ancient world, especially to 1st Century Judaism. For Jews in Jesus’ time, the religious WAS the political, and vice verse. To argue whether Jesus’ mission and message was religious or political is therefore to miss the point entirely. Thus, in a sense, traditional Islam preserves the natural world view of the ancient world much more faithfully than modern (or post-modern) Christianity. This is more than to say that for ancient Judaism and modern Islam, “religion has a rightful place in the public square”. It is to say that in the whole set of beliefs that make up a persons world view, the distinction between “religious” belief and “political” belief is not only naïve, but in fact utterly fatuous.

So, coming back to the Christmas dinner, what was my honourable mother-in-law in fact saying to us? By eliminating “religion” and “politics” from the table conversation, she was eliminating deeply held BELIEF from the conversation. This is because it is such deeply held BELIEFS that produces conflict of ideas, not “religion” or “politics”. If someone truly deeply believes something to be true, they will attempt to convince others of it. (I have heard the contrary asserted, but I don’t believe it. Even the most ardent post-modernist asserts with fervour those beliefs he believes to be objectively true; those which he is prepared to hold merely as “my truth” as opposed to “your truth” are not, I would say, his most deeply held beliefs!).

Of course, each of us holds many “beliefs” that have no consequence for anyone other than ourselves, but those beliefs we generally characterise as “political” and “religious” are usually the kind of beliefs that are, of their nature, “public square” beliefs. They are about the kind of world we live in and wish to live in. They are consequential for society, and not only for how I individually live my life. If you hold and act upon deeply beliefs in this respect that are contrary to my deeply held beliefs in the same respect, it is impossible for us simply to say “Well, that’s your opinion; I have mine; leave it at that.” An example, in case you misunderstand me, would be the current debate over Climate Change and the appropriate way to respond. I won’t go into that here, but I hope that you can see that what we believe in regard to Climate Change and appropriate response has consequences that are not just personal, but corporate.

Should we, for that reason, adopt the Venerable Matriarch’s dinner table solution – exclude discussion of belief for the sake of peace? No. No, and a thousand times, NO. Unless we wish to be satisfied with the gentility of the superficial, unless we wish to occupy ourselves with the millions of banal minutiae of existence, unless we belief that it is an effective strategy to stave off death by boredom with death by amusement, then we must engage one another at the level of belief. By retreating to the safety of the superficial, we fail truly to hear and to know our conversation partner. We put up a barrier, a limit, to our engagement, and hence limit the value of our dialogue.

More significantly, when we fail to speak out on our most deeply held beliefs, others, holding contrary and less noble beliefs will silently enact their beliefs, determining that the world we live in comply to their beliefs rather than to ours. (Nb. it is a fact that one’s own most deeply held beliefs are always by definition “the most noble” – otherwise one would cease to hold them in favour of some more noble belief).

All this, of course, relates to the subject of evangelisation and the Gospel. I am convinced that two of the reasons we are failing to evangelise – failing to proclaim the Gospel – is because we either fail to know what the Gospel actually is, or, we do not truly believe it ourselves. And this is a subject on which I intend to write a lot more in the near future.

For the moment, I simply lay down this foundation for our conversation: both religion and politics have to do with belief, and beliefs of all kinds have an essential role to play in the Public Square.

The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter. It’s a cool name – and, I think, a wise one. To have chosen a Marian name would have sent all the wrong signals to American non-Catholic Christians – whereas “Our Lady of Walsingham” pressed all the right buttons in the UK. It emphasises the purpose of the Ordinariate, which is, in the statement of the new Ordinary, Fr Steenson:

The parishes and communities of the Ordinariate have been called, not to live in relative isolation, but to be fully engaged in the life of the local diocese; not to be assimilated, but to be integrated into the rich life of the Catholic Church. This Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter must be, above all else, an effective instrument for evangelization. But Jesus taught us that the unity of Christian people is the essential condition for evangelization (John 17:21). So this must be our hallmark:to build bridges, to be an instrument of peace and reconciliation, to be a sign of what Christian unity might look like. And gaudete in Domino semper (Philippians 4:4) to be joyful and happy Catholics!

I love that little bit at the end, where sobriety seems to give way to joyous levity! When I first told my friend (and now boss), Fr Denis Stanley that I wanted to become Catholic, I was most encouraged by his own description of himself as a “happy Catholic”. I wanted to be just such, and by the grace of God, I think that today I can say that I am.

Happiness and joy should characterise our lives as Catholics. This will make our task of evangelisation and Christian Unity so much simpler, because others will see and be attracted to that which gives us such joy. So:

New Year’s Resolution No. 1: To be a happy Catholic in 2012.

So, all sourpusses and grumblebums be warned: this is not your blog! My intention is not to turn a blind eye to our failings as Catholics; it is rather to emphasise the joy and beauty and truth of the Faith which we have received from the apostles, to seek the twin goals of Evangelisation and Christian Unity, and always, always, always to propose (not impose!) as the path of true happiness the dictum: “Sentire Cum Ecclesia”!

HT to Dr Tighe for this story from Virtue Online:

Former Episcopal Bishop Jeffery Steenson to be named the first American Ordinary
Rome will formally announce appointment on New Year’s Day

A VOL EXCLUSIVE

By Mary Ann Mueller
Special Correspondent
www.virtueonline.org
December 22, 2011

Former Episcopal Bishop of the Rio Grande, Jeffery Steenson, is to be named the Ordinary when the Anglican Ordinariate is erected on January 1, 2012, sources tell VOL.

Word seeped out from the Vatican late last week that Steenson — who left The Episcopal Church in 2007 over TEC’s polity – has been tapped for the new post as the Ordinariate gets its first foothold in the United States.

The former Episcopal House of Bishops’ member has been deeply concerned with the continued fracturing of Anglicanism. The Episcopal Church’s insistence on autonomy has further distanced itself from other Anglican provinces and resulted in a shredding of the fabric of Anglicanism.

This reporter came into possession of a private communiqué late Wednesday revealing that Steenson is being tapped for the Ordinariate’s top post. A second confidential source has confirmed the communiqué.

When asked if the former Episcopal Bishop of the Rio Grande has received the nod to be the first Ordinary the source replied: “Yes, Jeffrey Steenson will be the new Ordinary.”

On Tuesday, a third source, The Bovina Bloviator Blog theorized that Steenson would get the miter.

“It is being noised Jeffrey Steenson, the former Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande in the Episcopal Church, who was received into the Catholic Church in 2007 and is now a priest, will be named Ordinary of the American Anglican Ordinariate on January 1, 2012,” the Bovina Bloviator posted under an Ordinariate Buzz header.

Steenson’s Anglo-Catholic pedigree comes from being an Episcopal priest for 24 years including stints as the curate and rector at two Pennsylvania parishes — All Saints’ Church in Wynnewood, and Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, before going on to St. Andrew’s in Fort Worth, Texas. From there he was elected, in 2004, to be bishop coadjutor for the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande under Bishop Terence Kelshaw. The former Rio Grande bishop has the distinction of being the 1000th Episcopal Church bishop consecrated with his “lappets” stretching all the way back to the first Bishop of Connecticut, Samuel Seabury who was consecrated in 1784. Steenson’s consecrators included then Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, his predecessor Bishop Terence Kelshaw, Anglo-Catholic Bishop Clarence Pope, indigenous Bishop Mark McDonald, and ecumenical Bishop Anthony Burton from the Anglican Church of Canada. Steenson became the eighth diocesan bishop in 2005. He was an Episcopal bishop for two short years before swimming the Tiber.

The Anglo-Catholic Bishop of the Rio Grande shed the purple in December 2007 and was received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This was done in Rome, Italy, at the Basilica of Saint Mary Major during a private ceremony officiated by Bernard Cardinal Law, the former Catholic Cardinal of Boston and then archpriest at a Roman basilica.

The former Episcopal bishop embraced the Pastoral Provision that allows for former Anglican clergy to become Roman Catholics and eventually recoup their priesthood. The Pastoral Provision is the precursor to the unfolding Anglican Ordinariate and will operate along side of it for those converting priests who do not wish to become a part of the Ordinariate yet want to become Roman Catholic.

One year after becoming a Roman Catholic, Cardinal Law ordained Steenson as a Catholic deacon. Fourteen months late, he was priested by Archbishop Michael Sheehan in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, located within the Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe, which overlaps the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande.

Since becoming Catholic, Steenson has kept a high profile in his new Catholic circle. He has been active at various levels and has been seen at several Anglican Use events including attending Anglican Use Conferences where he has been the keynote speaker or the preacher at the solemn high Mass. In addition, he has been actively working hand-in-glove with American Catholic bishops as they hammered out the details of how the Anglicanorum Coetibus would be implemented in the United States.

In November, Steenson was introduced to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops by Donald Cardinal Wuerl. The Cardinal was then tasked with the implementation of the Anglicanorum Coetibus in the United States. Steenson was on hand when the Cardinal announced the January 1 date for the formal erection of the American Ordinariate.

The soon-to-be-named Ordinariate leader was educated at Harvard Divinity School and holds a doctoral degree from Oxford.

Steenson is now in Houston, Texas, where has been on the faculty of St. Thomas University and St. Mary’s Seminary. He has also been instrumental in helping to set up the theological training that his brother bishops and priests will undergo in order to become fully formed Catholic clerics. He has worked at helping to develop the specific elements needed in the formation and retraining program. The former Episcopal bishop has worked closely with both Cardinal Wuerl and Daniel Cardinal DiNardo to get the unique seminary preparation program setup and running in time for the establishment of the Ordinariate on New Year’s Day.

Once the Ordinariate is established, Steenson will be in charge of a non-geographic-type diocese, which encompasses the entire United States from Alaska to Florida and New York to Hawaii.

Since Steenson is married with grown children, according to Anglicanorum Coetibus norms, he can never be elevated to the rank of bishop. However, he will receive the honor due a bishop and will be in the temporal and limited sacramental charge of an as-of-yet-to-be-named Ordinariate; although, he will be prevented from celebrating episcopal sacraments such as ordination.

Once the Ordinariate is established, the initial membership is expected to eclipse the Rio Grande’s numbers. Waiting in the wings are at least 67 priests, as well as a bishop or two, and several established Anglican Use parishes that may or may not be incorporated in the new Ordinariate as it unfolds including the thriving Texas parishes: Our Lady of the Atonement, San Antonio; Our Lady of Walsingham, Houston; and St. Mary the Virgin, Fort Worth. Other established Anglican Use congregations include: St. Thérèse Little Flower in Kansas City, Mo; St. Thomas More, Scranton, Penn; and St. Anselem’s, Corpus Christi, Texas.

Recently, several Episcopal parishes converted to the Roman Catholic Church in anticipation of the Ordinariate. They include: St. Timothy’s, Fort Worth, Texas; St. Luke’s in Bladensburg, Md.; and All Saints Sisters of the Poor in Catonsville, Md.

There are also several Traditional Anglican Communion (Anglican Church in America) congregations scattered around the country poised and ready to convert en masse to Roman Catholicism and be brought into the Ordinariate.

Steenson was unavailable for comment.

This story is copyright, but may be forwarded and posted with full recognition of the source.

—Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline

Just a taste of what we’re up to!

I don’t know which blog I picked this up from, but someone out there refered to a short story by C.S. Lewis: “Xmas and Christmas: A Lost Chapter from Herodotus”. I had never heard of it before, but i found a copy if it here. It only takes a few moments to read, and is even more pertinent now than when it was written more than 50 years ago.

We are about to begin the Christmas festivities with Cathy’s extended family in the traditional Australian manner: down at the beach with a BBQ and prawns. The sun is still shining (it is 6:30pm) and I am enjoying a whisky on ice on the deck while watching the game of amatuer cricket being played by grandad and the kids on the lawn. We have just finished decorating the tree we bought from the greengrocer, and have put up the coloured lights on the verandah. Mass is at 8pm, so we should get a wriggle on.

A very merry and blessed Christmas to all our readers and especially to those at the Commentary Table. Pass the port – and the chrissy cake!

Polemical atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens dead at 62
Reuters Staff
16/12/2011 11:11 PM

British-born journalist and atheist intellectual Christopher Hitchens, who made the United States his home and backed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, died on Thursday at the age of 62. He died in Houston of pneumonia, a complication of cancer of the esophagus, Vanity Fair magazine said.

“Christopher Hitchens – the incomparable critic, masterful rhetorician, fiery wit, and fearless bon vivant – died today at the age of 62,” Vanity Fair said.

A heavy smoker and drinker, Hitchens cut short a book tour for his memoir “Hitch 22? last year to undergo chemotherapy after being diagnosed with cancer.

As a journalist, war correspondent and literary critic, Hitchens carved out a reputation for barbed repartee, scathing critiques of public figures and a fierce intelligence.

In his 2007 book “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” Hitchens took on major religions with his trenchant atheism. He argued that religion was the source of all tyranny and that many of the world’s evils have been done in the name of religion.

Read the full story by Anthony Boadle here.

That is the title of this article in the Catholic Herald.

Archbishop Dairmuid Martin is claimed to have said, with regard to non-practicing Catholics who present their children for baptism:

“It requires maturity on those people who want their children to become members of the Church community and maturity on those people who say ‘I don’t believe in God. I really shouldn’t be hanging on to the vestiges of faith when I don’t really believe in it.’”

According to the article, opinion falls into two camps on the matter of whether priests should acquiesce to requests from non-practicing Catholics for baptism of their children:

Generally the responses were evenly divided between those who agreed (cautiously) with Archbishop Martin and who felt that if it were known that the family did not intend to raise their child as a Catholic, baptism should be delayed until their attitude had changed; and those who felt this attitude lacked compassion: lost or wavering sheep should be welcomed and supported, not shunned.

My position is a “third way”: the way of the New Evangelisation. When non-practicing Catholics come to have their children baptised, this is a first class opportunity for evangelisation which should not be squandered by either turning them away or by simply granting their request without any additional action or requirement. Good evangelical Catholic pastoral practice should be to require all parents (practicing or not) to undergo some short period of catechesis in the faith and in the particular meaning of baptism.

I certainly did this when I was a Lutheran pastor, and it was a primary means by which I built up the worshipping community. It is important that the both the priest and the people are involved in this process. Like RCIA, it not only provides an opportunity for catechesis and proclamation of the Gospel, but it also provides a way for establishing relationships between the family and the worshipping community. In fact, it seems to me that this is precisely what is called for by the New Evangelisation: a new kind of Rite for the Initiation of Children which involves the RE-initiation of the family.

I recently, through the Catholic Herald, discovered this blog: the Catechesis of Caroline. Caroline Farrow is an English Catholic, married to a formerly Anglican clergyman. This post on “Civil Partnerships” expresses well the position which I myself hold in this regard and tried to enunciate in my post on the difference between the terminology of “Civil Unions” and “Civil Partnerships”. I commend it to you for your consideration.

Here is an idea, suggested by Philip Hughes, senior research officer of the Christian Research Association, in the latest edition of the CRA’s magazine “Pointers”:

Another theory is that the mainstream churches are declining most rapidly because they emphasise the importance of religion as values and place less emphasis on religion as finding God… The primary values in religion which are important to people are the emphasis on compassion and the care of others. However, if religion is primarily about such values, there is little need to attend a church. One can live a life that exemplifies such values without attending church at all.

Parents want their children to develop such values. Hence, church-based schools are increasingly popular in Australian society, even though church attendance is declining. Church-based schools are seen as encouraging such values, both through their structures of pastoral care and discipline and through their explicit teaching.

Those people who value the opportunity for a personal relationship with God are much more likely to attend church. Many people value that relationship with God because they believe that, through it, they align themselves with a divine purpose or sense within it something of the mystery at the heart of the universe. Such a relationship may also contribute to a sense of inner peace and security, and can be a resource in times of trouble.

This theory suggests that those churches which focus on enhancing a close, personal relationship with God, and the expectation that God will intervene in personal life, are likely to grow, while those churches that focus on the values of helping others…are likely to decline.

It is an idea that merits further research. My gut feeling is that he is onto something. Since the Debate in the Melbourne Town Hall last month, I have been pondering the role which social justice and charitable activity have in the New Evangelisation. My basic thesis is that when Church lives according to the commandment “Love one another as I have loved you”, she is giving authentic witness to the Gospel; however, this “new commandment” is NOT the Gospel itself. If the Church is to fulfill her mandate to “make disciples of all nations”, she must not only give authentic witness to the Gospel, but also clearly enunciate and proclaim the Gospel itself.

It is my impression that the social justice values of the Catholic Church (as distinct from the Church’s moral teaching) are generally approved of and supported by the general population – along the lines that Mr Hughes suggests above. How often I have heard teachers tell me that their students – who otherwise have little religious sensitivity – have a strong sense of social justice and are enthusiastic about programs which involve charitable work. The entire platform of the argument that “The Church is a force for good in the world” put up by the affirmative side in the aforementioned debate was in relation to this aspect of the Church’s mission.

But we are all aware that such enthusiasm does not translate into Church attendance – and this is where I think Mr Hughes may be onto something. People attend church because they feel a need to connect with God. In the Catholic Church this connection is achieved through the Church’s liturgy and sacraments. In protestant churches, it is often through the lively preaching that this connection is achieved. Music and devotional/spiritual practice are also powerful “connectors”. The simple conclusion would be that improvement in our liturgical, devotional, homiletical and musical practice on Sunday would translate into higher attendance.

But something else, it seems, is also required, and this is where we get back to the proclamation of the Gospel. What is, after all, the Gospel? I throw this to those of you at the commentary table to take further (I will open a new bottle of port for the discussion), but it does seem to me that Mr Hughes is correct – it must involve pointing people to the path of relationship/communion with God. I will be more specific. “The Way” (as Christianity was known in apostolic times) to God is through the Risen Christ, Jesus, God’s Son. Proclaim Christ and you proclaim the Gospel. Proclaim the Gospel and you show people “The Way” to God.

There is an old story of an American rancher visiting a cattle station in outback Australia. The rancher says to the station owner: “How do you stop your cattle from running away without any fences?” The station owner replies: “We dig a well and provide water. They always come back to the water.”

I was doing a bit of web research, looking for recordings of the O Antiphons in preparation for singing O Adonai and the Magnificat (a little early) at Mass on Sunday during Communion, when I came across this: a series of talks on the O Antiphons by a member of our commentary table, Pastor William Weedon of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the good ol’ US of A. I haven’t listened to them yet, but if they are by Pastor Bill, they will be good!

 Issues, Etc.  The O Antiphons of Advent Series

KFUO Host: Todd Wilken  Part 1 WMA  Part 1 MP3  free download     “The O Antiphons of Advent I: O Wisdom & O Adonai”        Rev. Wil Weedon  St. Paul Lutheran Church  Hamel, IL  Part 2 WMA  Part 2 MP3  free download     “The O Antiphons of Advent II: O Root of    Weedon        Jesse & O Key of David”                        Rev. Wil Weedon  St. Paul Lutheran Church Hamel, IL                  Part 3 WMA  Part 3 MP3  free download                      “The O Antiphons of Advent III: O Dayspring”                        Rev. Wil Weedon  St. Paul Lutheran Church Hamel, IL                  Part 4 WMA  Part 4 MP3  free download                      “The O Antiphons of Advent IV: O King of the Nations”                        Rev. Wil Weedon  St. Paul Lutheran Church Hamel, IL                  Part 5 WMA  Part 5 MP3  free download                      “The O Antiphons of Advent V: O Emmanuel”                        Rev. Wil Weedon  St. Paul Lutheran Church Hamel, IL