Sentire Cum Ecclesia

Kate Edwards has had a couple of goes at this matter, and today I posted a response on her second post. For the benefit of all here on SCE, I thought I would repost my comments here for your edification.

Kate’s posts are here:
Question: Did Our Lord ‘literally’ Ascend? Heresy alert!

Perhaps we should also bring back the old Octave of the Ascension?

My comment is posted on her second post, and is reproduced here below:

Having Ascension on the actual day specified in Scripture, rather than moved to the nearest Sunday, would surely help counter this kind of error!

Dear Kate,

I am fully supportive of the push to encourage our bishops to return the festival of the Ascension to the Thursday in the 6th Week of Easter. I will post on my own blog at some stage further considerations of this.

But for now, I just want to query your assertion that this date – 40 days after Easter – is “the actual day specified in Scripture” for the Ascension. In doing so, I no more question the “historicity” of the Ascension than I would question the “historicity” of the Resurrection. I’m with you on that. And on the “literal” bodily ascension too, just to be quite sure (which follows from the “literal” bodily resurrection as night follows day).

But to my point:

Our liturgical calendar for the events of the Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost follows the timeline in the book of Acts. But we should be aware that there are other “timelines” in Scripture, and in Luke’s own Gospel.

To the latter first then. If you closely read Luke 24, you find that he places both the Resurrection and the Ascension (and the appearance of Jesus to Peter and the disciples on the way to Emmaus and to the Eleven) ALL ON THE SAME DAY! Now, I know that rather pushes the “timeline” a bit – as it would require a lot of running around AFTER nightfall (indicated by the Emmaus story), but that is what Luke does. Although he states in his second book that 40 days elapsed between the Resurrection and the Ascension, nevertheless for his own purposes, he closely associates the Ascension with the Resurrection in his Gospel by using this “concertina-ed” timeline. If you like, you could say that he “transferred” the Feast of the Ascension back onto the Feast of the Resurreciton.

Now, if we turn to John’s Gospel, we see something similar happening. Of course, we know that John does not include an account of the Ascension – probably because for him the Paschal Event is itself Jesus’ “glorification” and “going to the Father”. However, he does do something similar to Luke, in that he places a kind of “Pentecost” on the eve of the day of the Resurrection, when Jesus “breathes” upon the Apostles and gives them the Holy Spirit. Of course, if you want to do some kind of “harmony” between the Gospels, you can make a distinction between this outpouring on the apostles and a later outpouring on all the people, but John himself didn’t seem to think that such a distinction was necessary. For him, the giving of the Spirit (which Luke says in Acts took place during the Jewish feast of Pentecost – making his own theological point connecting it to the giving of the Law on Mt Sinai) is inextricably linked to the Feast of the Resurrection. For us that would translate into a tight link between baptism and confirmation.

Now to Matthew, whose Gospel we read yesterday. He obviously knows the Lukan tradition of the Ascension, as he describes what we take to be his account of the “Ascension” in terms very similar to Luke (only he uses a completely different geographical location – Galillee instead of the Mt of Olives – note, however, that there is a slight difference even in the Lukan accounts: Luke’s Gospel says they went “as far as Bethany”, which is a little bit further on from the Mount of Olives as Luke describes in Acts).

Anyway, Matthew obviously knows the tradition of the Ascension (possibly even knows Luke’s account) and plays on the reader’s expectation that at the end of this account he expects Matthew to recount Jesus’ departure into heaven. BUT – and this is the amazing thing – Matthew choses to end on Jesus’ promise “Lo, I am with you always to the end of the age”. In other words, Jesus DOESN’T leave his disciples at all, but remains with them.

Now, I am not saying that Matthew’s text can be used against the assertion that the Ascension actually happened as Luke described it. In fact, Matthew’s account would pack a whole lot less punch if this were the case. He is obviously saying that even though Jesus has ascended into heaven, nevertheless this does not mean that he has left his disciples as “orphans” (as in John’s Gospel Jesus says he will not do) but remains really present with them always.

I just offer these reflections as a bit of a caution not to canonise Luke’s account in Acts over against the accounts of the other Gospels, including Luke’s own Gospel. None of this mitigates against the assertion of the historicity of the Ascension – but there isn’t any single “timeline” for the Ascension in Scripture.

And we should not overlook the fact that Luke even recounts (in three separate narratives) the occurance of at least one post-resurrection appearance of Jesus AFTER his Ascension…

I will add just one comment to what I have written here. Someone I read once, probably Raymond Brown, described the relationship of the ascension to the resurrection in the witness of the Gospels and Acts as a “gradual withdrawal”. By this, he meant that if we take the scriptural witness as a whole, what we see is a number of appearances of the resurrected Lord, gradually diminishing in frequency until the final appearance to St Paul. In the midst of that we have witness to both the “withdrawal” (ie. the Ascension) of Jesus and to his promise of a continued “spiritual” presence, most clearly demonstrated in Luke’s description of Pentecost (which seems to be prepared for most thoroughly by the farewell discourses of John’s Gospel).

Be that as it may, when we apply to word “historical” to something like the Resurrection or Ascension of Jesus, we are obviously using the word in a sense a little different from, for instance, the “historicity” of the assasination of Julius Caesar or John F. Kennedy. In this instance, the word “historical” means it definitely happened “in this time and space”, but the very nature of the spiritual events described mean that the events also transcend the “merely” historical. In other words, it isn’t that the Resurrection and Ascension are NOT historical (they are in fact firmly anchored in time and space), it is that they are MORE than just historical.

Forget “What Would Jesus Do?” – the hottest question around is “I wonder what Yia Yia thinks?”!

These three advertisements for Athenos hommous and yoghurt can’t be embedded. But click on the links to the ads on Youtube. HT to CG for referencing the first one in relation to our discussion on fathers as breadwinners.

“Yia Yia on Parenting”
“Yia Yia on Relationships”
“Yia Yia on Fashion”

Literally ROTFL!

Sentire Cum Ecclesia must be a little disappointing to its fans these days. I just don’t have that much time to blog. Right now, I am up at Kaloramo in the Dandenongs, sitting outside a closed café overlooking Silvan Reservoir. Locals will know where I am. I am waiting for my daughter to finish her dancing class and smoking my pipe. So, I have time to blog.

But blog what? There are, now, quite a few Australian Catholic blogs that keep you up with the news of the world. My RSS feed on my iPhone downloads more material than I can read. Some of it I would like to comment on, but there is rarely something I feel the need to say that others have not said already. And by the time I come to blogging on a topic, it is usually no longer “news”. So current affairs is out.

I thought therefore that I would do something else – one of those things that you only get on Sentire Cum Ecclesia: thrash out a theological problem to find out what the “mind of the Church” really is on a matter (so that we can all then confidently “think with the Church”).

The topic I would like to address is one raised in the combox to the previous post: Does Catholic dogma (or, alternatively, Catholic moral theology) assert that the father is to be the breadwinner for the family as distinct from the mother’s task which is the raising of the children? Gareth and Cardinal Reg reckon “yes”. I am not so sure.

The major reason why I have my doubts about the affirmative answer to this question is because the question itself assumes a particularly modern Western way of dividing labour between the “home” and the “workplace”. The practice of the father “going out to work” is reasonably recent even in Western culture. In many other cultures (eg. a “hunter gatherer” culture) it would make little sense. True Catholic dogma (or moral teaching) must be universal in its formulation, and such that it can be applied explicitly in a particular context (I just formulated the principle – I may be wrong in thinking it. Add that to the question to be debated).

Here is the gist of the conversation so far:

1. Gareth said:

I love to be controversial, so I am going to throw a cat amongst the birds here by adding that I am sure another reason that the Church’s ‘No’ to women priests hasn’t really sunk in is because the Church has failed to adequately speak out against secular feminism per se.
When was the last time I heard JPII or Benedict make any statement against the notion that it is opposed to Biblical values that a women take the place of a man in modern society? I don’t remember many Papal statements encouraging motherhood [in reality, there are plenty of these, I think – add this to the investigative task and see what you can come up with] or that a mother stay be [sic] in their rightful place as full-time mother during a child’s early years. In fact, to the contrary – Papal statements seem to celebrate and encourage this???…

2. Schütz said:

There are many papal statements encouraging motherhood [Dear Reader: please help me find such statements – I was writing from a general impression], but the propositions you put forward here as “biblical” are not Catholic teaching [or at least that is my impression – the purpose of this post is to work out if that is so or not]. That is why you do not hear the popes saying this kind of thing. The Church is on favour of anything that strengthens the family. Thus the demands of the workplace upon either parent – father or mother – would be wrong if it negatively impacted upon the family. But there is no dogmatic reason why the mother cannot be the major breadwinner of the family while the father is the one who stays at home to care for the children [again, that has been my assumption – I want your help to tell me if I am right or not].

3. Cardinal Pole said:

“13. … It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; …”
[Leo XIII., Encyclical Letter Rerum novarum,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
But one doesn’t need a Pope to tell one this; it is a matter of natural law.

4. Schütz said:

I wonder.
1) the pope believed this to be a “sacred law of nature”. Does this come under his magisterium of teaching revealed faith?
2) was the pope saying that, even at the level of natural law, this was the duty of fathers in particular as over against the duty of mothers? In other words, was he discounting the possibility that this is the sacred duty of parents as such? Was he saying that this duty primarily falls to fathers? Was he saying that between them both parents could not together arrange for the provision of their family as best suited their situation?
Just wondering if you are not being too narrow in your interpretation of Pope Leo’s statement.

5. Gareth said:

Sorry, totally disagree with you here David – it is Catholic dogma (even defined at Council of Trent) that a male is HEAD of the household. [Actually, St Paul said that the husband is the “head of his wife” in 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:23; can someone give me chapter and verse of the Council of Trent on this?]
From this, it is pretty self-explanatory that generally speaking God desires that a male’s primary responsibility is to be provider and protector of the family, whilst the female’s primary responsibility is the rearing of children. [Actually, I don’t think this follows necessarily at all.]
Papal statements even in the 1930s and 1950s by Pius’s XI and XII did not beat around the bush – they espoused families and governments to be faithful to this model and anything less as a deviation from God’s plans. [Is it? That would assume that God’s plans for the arrangement of the family economy only ever came to fulfillment in the Western modern culture…]
JPII’s and Benedict’s statements on the issues are wishy-washy and seem to give a positive light to secular feminism. [Is there a kind of feminism which is not secular, but Christian?] Catholic institutions seem to also not care.
No-wonder Papal pronouncements on women priests do not seem to set in deep if the Church at the local level seems no different from the rest of society on the broader issue of family models and being counter-revolutionary to secular feminism that states a women should live their lives as of a man…

6. Cardinal Pole said:

“Does this come under his magisterium of teaching revealed faith?”
I expect that it came under his Magisterium of teaching morals, not Faith. [That seems right]
“this was the duty of fathers in particular as over against the duty of mothers?”
Clearly. [I would need to see the whole context of Pope Leo’s statement to judge whether this was “clear”.]
“In other words, was he discounting the possibility that this is the sacred duty of parents as such?”
He clearly said “father”, not ‘parent’, so yes. [But if the father has died, or has deserted his family or for some other reason is unable to provide for his family (eg. disability) does this duty not then fall to the mother? If so, she must have some share in the duty.]
“Was he saying that this duty primarily falls to fathers?”
It would seem to be something stronger than that. [What, exactly?]
“Was he saying that between them both parents could not together arrange for the provision of their family as best suited their situation?”
No, obviously he wasn’t; he said “father”.

7. Gareth said:

John XXIII made similar magisterial statements.
The doctrine on the matter can be found on the duties of marriage section in the Council of Trent. [Again, reference?]
I once read it is actually a sin to deliberately deny for no legitimate reason a male as his place as primary breadwinner. [That would seem a bit strong – and while “primary” might pertain to the father, does this mean that “secondary” does not pertain to the mother? I mean, in many contexts today, a father’s income alone is not sufficient to provide for the needs of a family.]

Okay. Over to you.

Compare and comment:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’ ” 4 But the serpent said to he woman, “You will not die; 5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves….

National Catholic Reporter editorial, May 23rd 2011 (http://ncronline.org/news/ordination-ban-not-infallibly-taught):

At issue fundamentally is whether John Paul, in his 1994 apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (“Priestly Ordination”), intended to (or actually did) lay out an infallible teaching when he said, “I declare that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the church’s faithful.”

John Paul did not formally pronounce the teaching ex cathedra (speaking from the chair of Peter) or say he was teaching infallibly in his declaration.
It is also notable that he said only that it was a “judgment” that is “to be definitively held” — not a matter of “divine faith” that must be “believed.”

Almost 50 years after this:

We get this:

Wikipedia gives this information about Paul VI’s tiara:

Pope Paul wore his tiara a number of times in 1963, before, in a dramatic act in November 1963, laying it on the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in a gesture of humility to symbolise the papacy’s surrender of any claim to temporal power. He never wore it again. It was announced that the tiara would be sold and the proceeds of the sale given to charity. However, Francis Spellman, Cardinal Archbishop of New York intervened and arranged instead for the tiara to be bought by the Catholic Church in the United States in 1968.

It is now on permanent display in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

J. P. Sonnen (clearly a man after my own heart – see his “profile” pic in his profile) gives this background information to the new “Benedict XVI tiara”:

At today’s weekly general audience the Holy Father received a new tiara made for him and presented by Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

The tiara was commissioned by Dieter Philippi (http://www.dieter-philippi.de/), a German Catholic businessman who has a great devotion to the papacy as well as to the call to Christian unity.

The tiara was created in Sofia, Bulgaria by Orthodox Christians of the Liturgix studio (http://www.liturgix.com/).

Today a small delegation of Roman Catholics and Bulgarian Orthodox on pilgrimage in Rome had the honor to present the tiara to the Holy Father in the name of Christian unity.

Congratulations to Dieter and to all German Catholics and Bulgarian Orthodox involved with this wonderful project.

One would not normally think of the papal tiara as a “sign of Christian unity”, but there you go!

The only question remaining is whether or not this beautiful object will ever see the light of day again after its presentation!

I just received this from Clara, who sits at our commentary table and shares the port from time to time. I would highly recommend this workshop to anyone who is able to attend.

Called and Gifted Workshop
June 17 &18 (Fri evening: 7-9.00pm; Sat 9.30-4.30)
All Saints 174 Brunswick St Fitzroy

The Called and Gifted Workshop is a tool for helping Catholics discern the spiritual gifts (charisms) they received at Baptism and Confirmation. These charisms are given so that we can be a source of God’s love and providence to others.

Melanie, a participant at a recent Called and Gifted Workshop, said: “The workshop proved to be transformative for me in the space of a few weeks. It was a paradigm shift – a real awakening,”

“What struck me from the beginning was that this was a structured program that let us through a process that involved deep thinking and a challenge to growth. It has a deep personal focus which led to exploring how to be more yourself for the sake of others. This was deeply revelatory”

We are all called and gifted by God to fulfil a unique vocation. Discerning charisms can be a major clue in determing God’s plan for your life, as well as your role in God’s plan for humanity. Knowing your charisms can help you make better decisions, simplify your life, excel at work, free yourself from envy and better appreciate your family’s gifts.

Hope that you can join us,
Regards,

Clara Geoghegan
Coordinator – Called and Gifted
Archbishop’s Office for Evangelisation
T: (03) 9926 5687 F: (03) 9926 5767
E: Clara.Geoghegan@cam.org.au
W: www.evangelisation.org

Kate’s blog pointed me to a rather bitey tirade against NCR journalist Mr John L. Allen Jnr on the Life Site News website: John Allen’s strategy for legitimizing Catholic dissent.

I think they’ve got him all wrong.

Here’s my theory.

Mr Allen has a nice job. If I had a job like his, I would think that I had died and gone to heaven. He doesn’t want to lose this job. He’s had it for a little while now. He’s been with the National Catholic Reporter since 1997.

When he joined them, he was, by all accounts, very much in the mold of just about every other contributor to what Fr Z. “affectionately” calls “the Fishwrap”. You can see this in one of his earliest publications, “Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith”, although this review on the Ratzinger fanclub site says it wasn’t as bad as it was said to be. Still, Allen was embarrased when the publisher of the book re-released it upon the election of Ratzinger as Pope in 2005 – his views had shifted somewhat over the intervening five years.

And this is the thing. Long time readers of Allen will notice that he has become wiser with experience. The one adjective that they all use is “balanced”.

Now what does “balanced” mean in the context of a publication like the NCR? It means that it will represent faithfully the point of view that will be found in the rest of the magazine. BUT it also means that it is the only place in the entire publication in which the opposite point of view is represented – and represented accurately and fairly and put forward in a way to make it appear entirely reasonable. That makes Allen unique amonst contributors to the Fishwrap.

Now, how to interpret that? Well, the author of the Life Site News piece thinks that it is Allen’s “strategy for legitimising dissent”. I don’t think so. I think they are critically misreading him. I think Allen’s famous “balance” is his “strategy for legitimising faithfulness to the magisterium”.

You see, context is everything. Sure, Allen tows the NCR editorial line. Afterall, he has the job from heaven and doesn’t want to lose it. BUT, under the cloak of “balanced” reporting and commentary, he is also giving air to a point of view entirely absent from the rest of the journal.

I say, cut him some slack. Working as a double agent can be a thankless task. But I am sure the perks of the job make up for it!

Following upon a decision of the Australian Bishops’ Conference, the following short and pointy statement was posted on the Melbourne Archdiocese website today:

The Roman Missal Third Typical Edition in English

Tuesday 24 May 2011

Archbishop Denis Hart has issued the following statement about The Roman Missal Third Typical Edition in English (Published by Catholic Truth Society, London and distributed by St Pauls, Homebush NSW).

Along with decisions already made by the Bishops’ Conferences of other English-speaking countries, the Australian Bishops have decided at their May 2011 meeting, the use of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal, published by the Catholic Truth Society will be of obligation in all Churches and Chapels in Australia from the First Sunday of Advent, 27 November 2011.

From that date, no other translation of the Roman Missal is permitted in Australia.

Copies of the Missal will be available and distributed by the first week of November.

Denis J. Hart
Archbishop of Melbourne

There you have it. RIP old translation; Huzzah! for the new corrected translation.

Actually, in contrast to the rather short and sudden introduction elsewhere in the world (eg. see this from the Bishops Conference of England and Wales) the new translation has been slowly introduced in Melbourne since January 1st this year, with All Saints Day set as the day from which it will be used in its entirety. Four weeks after that: its all over red rover for the 1973 translation.

[Stop Press: I am on the train at the moment on the way home after a late night meeting. We just had to stop and reverse back to the last station because the train was mistakenly diverted along the wrong line… You have to wonder… any way, on with the story…]

Although the introduction had a fairly clear time line – sung people’s bits could be introduced from the start of the year, then the spoken responses from Pentecost, and then the priest’s parts from All Saints Day – the actual process has turned out to be a bit of a free for all with every parish doing its own thing more or less according to its own time line. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The good thing is that they ARE all introducing it (I haven’t heard of any parish holding out all together – does any reader in Melbourne know of a parish which hasn’t begun to introduce the new translation in some way or other?), and with a degree of enthusiasm (or at least curiousity) and even impatience. Because the “how” of the introduction has not been micromanaged, each parish (and each priest and musician and cantor) feels that they are in control. They are determining the “when”, not someone else from “outside” or “higher up”.

So I don’t expect there to be much problem when the “when” finally comes – as it will on the first Sunday in Advent. I just hope that the Catholic Truth Society can get their copies of the new missal to us all by then!

I am finding myself severely limited in my time for blogging these days. I hope it is only a temporary situation. Nevertheless, I find that I am commenting only only 5% of the things that I think “I should blog on that”.

One thing that I thought “I should blog on that” today is the rather immoderate and irrational fear of what is popularly called “proselytisation”, but is, in fact (as I said in an earlier comment) merely Christian evangelisation – Christians doing what Christians do. This fear is particularly evident in the current debate on Religious Education in schools. The fear is that if Christians are allowed to speak about their faith to those of tender age, the well-being of the said “tender aged” may be under threat.

Are the secularists fearful that the “childish beliefs” of Christians might actually be appealling to their children? Are they afeared that the mere chance that their offspring (or anyone else’s) might overhear the Good News of Salvation in Christ Jesus would be enough to ensure that they will be enraptured by it and commit their little hearts to it? Such things happen, of course. Childhood conversions are not unknown. Cardinal Arinze, who converted to Christianity at the age of 9, a good case in point.

Is there something in the ethics statutes which says that one should preach the Gospel to All Nations, but not to those under 18? (It would seem from this article and this one that even some Christians think the answer to this question is “yes”). Or is it that the parents of these little ones are worried that little Johnny or Jilly will come home asking difficult questions about life, the universe and everything for which they have no answer?

I would be the first to agree that IF proclaiming the gospel actually posed a danger or a menance to the well being of children it should be curtailed and declared to be a legal practice only for consenting adults. But really, I mean, fundamentally speaking, does Christian evanglisation really pose any such danger? If so, perhaps a reader would be kind enough to point out to me what that danger actually is?

I have been having an interesting email conversation with a well-known Melbourne ethicist on the matter of smoking. I was on the defence. He was very seriously trying to persuade me to give up one of my delights, ie. the daily puff on the pipe, and this on the grounds that this activity was unethical and immoral. He made a good case.

Nevertheless, I was not convinced. Of course, before very long, I won’t need to be convinced. Pipe smoking will have gone the way of the dodo (it is on its way there already) thanks to legislation and burdensome taxation. The Sunday Age, well known for its sensationalism, has a front page story on the plans of the anti-smoking campaign to abolish this ancient practice for ever.

Of course, the article doesn’t mention pipe smoking. It is all about cigarettes. I have never smoked cigarettes. I don’t like them (I tried one once). I like my tobacco in more traditional forms. Cigarettes are like fast food. I don’t mind a cigar every now and again if someone gives me one – I can’t afford them – but they are a bit smelly. Pipe smoking is, I would argue, a culture. There are competitions in Europe for making a pipe last the longest (which I can see the point off) and the quickest (which I can’t). Nevertheless, this is proof (to me at least) that there is something in the art of pipe smoking that is quite unique.

But the plans outlined in the Sunday Age article – by putting an end to cigarette smoking – will also kill this ancient culture. The suggestions are:

1) A licence for smokers
2) a complete ban at a given date in the future (I find it interesting that the Finnish government has planned a total ban by 2040 – long enough in the future not to affect any of those who legislated for it)
3) even more taxation.

The first seems to me silly, the second patronising – I will come to this, and the third… well, I can see how appealing that might be to governments: more money, less smoking.

However, despite all the arguments (and I acknowledge they are good ones to do with health etc.), I do see this as an infringement upon my personal liberties. I agree that legislation that bans smoking where it might affect others directly (eg. in cars and in enclosed spaces) is a good thing. But I feel particularly annoyed at the draconian efforts of non-smokers to completely curtail what is an extremely pleasurable pastime for the minority of the population who are smokers. It is the nanny-state trying not only to tell me what is good for me, not only trying to persuade me to give up the pipe, but actually forcing me to comply. It rankles.

Truly, I don’t expect legislation to ban smoking to succeed completely. It is too profitable as a means of revenue raising. But I do think our governments will probably push taxation to the limit whereby they reach some sort of equilibrium between income and reduction of smoking.

I don’t expect many of you to sympathise with this little complaint. But just imagine how you might feel if, at some stage in the future, it was decided that coffee was “bad for you” (which it probably is) and they try to ban coffee drinking. How would you cope with that?