Sentire Cum Ecclesia

In the discussion on the “strategies” for the priest shortage and future of Catholicism in Australia, I was just wondering today whether there wasn’t something more fundamental going on than just how we are going about our mission here in Australia.

As usual, if I have some question going in my head, anything I read will make me ask “Is that pertinent to my inquiry?” So today, I was reading (in preparation for my class in 3/4 of an hour) a section on the Reformed Churches in the book “The Christian Church: An Introduction to the Major Traditions” edited by Paul Avis.

The writer of this chapter, David Fergusson (a Scot, maybe?) commented on Calvin’s (and by implication, Luther’s) ecclesiology:

The sovereignty of God is such that persons outwith the institutional church may nonetheless be redeemed, although God for the most part has chosen to mediate the divien decree by the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. …Calvin argues that salvation comes only through the Christ who is present in Word and sacrament… The emphatic insistence that ‘there is no other way’ illustrates the necessity and importance of the church in Calvin’s theology. Yet the dependence of the church upon the Word of God is revealed by the way in which Calvin exalts the preaching of true doctrine… The visible church, though everywhere mixed and impure, is identified by the preaching and hearing of the Word ad the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution…

…In stressing this christological constitution of teh Church, Calvin argues for the indivisibility of Word and Spirit. Christ is known to us through the Word of God, and it is to this Word that he directs us. This linkage of the second and third articles is crucial in his polemics against both anabaptist and Roman Catholic opponents. He charges each side with abstracting the Spirit from the Word…

Calvin’s strict warnings against unnecessary separation [of congregations from one another because of doctrine] may have been designed to counteract the centrifugal tendencies of the Reformation churches. Its fragmentation and repeated subdivisions were weaknesses by contrast with the more unitary nature of the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, my reason for quoting those sentences is that the Catholic Church also sees the essence of the Church’s existence to be the Word and Sacraments, but places the emphasis directly opposite to the Calvinist. The Calvinist exalts the Word of God as constitutive of the Church, with sacraments as a kind of “add-on”, whereas the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches) see the Eucharist as foundational (“source and summit”) for the life of the Church (and hence the other sacraments as well). As the author notes, by the very nature of the two different emphases, the one tends toward heirarchical unity and the other toward congregational fragmentation.

Be that as it may, I wonder if one of the fundamental reasons for the current situation in the life of the Australian Catholic community is that we have emphasised our Sacramental unity and belonging at the expense of a deep communion in the Word of God? The current Holy Father has certainly done all he can to indicate that he believes it is necessary for the good of the universal Church that we find new ways into a living relationship with the Word. I wonder if in fact a renewed emphasis on the Word as the “fount and source” of the Spirit in the life of the Church would not go astray? Indeed, is not a strong proclamation and deep familiarity with the Word of God necessary for Evangelisation? For Catechisation? For Conversion? Is this not precisely what paragraph 1072 of the Catechism means when it speaks of the necessary preparation for involvement in the Eucharistic liturgy and sacramental life of the Church?

If so, then the “strategy” for facing the priest shortage and the future life of the Catholic Church in Australia (and elsewhere) is a renewed emphasis on the Word of God in the life of the Church (which was in fact the subject of the 2008 Synod of Bishops). Do we need our priests, teachers and families to be more deeply formed as “people of the Word”, both as teachers and spiritual leaders? So, if you are drawing up your “strategy” for the Church, give some thought to the question of where the Word of God fits in your plans!

Kate, at Australia Incognita, has been running a series of posts on the priest shortage, and on what needs to be done to address the problem. She has also addressed the so-called Wilkinson Report, published by “Catholics for Ministry” (go to their home page and click “The Death of Australian Catholicism?” at the top) and featured in yesterday’s Age.

Kate and Peter Wilkinson largely agree on current scenario, but very broadly disagree on the solutions. Just compare Kate’s suggestions in her extensive treatment with the list of objectives that Catholics for Ministry have posted on their home page. Chalk and cheese.

But in one sense, both Kate and Catholics for Ministry agree – please forgive me for this observation, Kate! They both propose the urgent adoption of a pro-active strategy to change the situation. The message is: Get Active!

Long term readers of SCE will know that this blogger proposes a very simple strategy indeed: Evangelisation and Catechisation. This is, I believe, the strategy of the Holy Father too, and can be seen in the intention to hold a Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelisation (the lineamenta for which has just been produced; see John Allen’s comments here).

But at a far deeper level, what is really needed within the Australian Catholic Churches (all 26 of them) – and indeed in every Church and every ecclesial community – is conversion to the Gospel. At root the priest shortage is a spiritual rather than a strategic problem.

On these lines, there is much to be gleaned from an excellent presentation by Cardinal Raymond Burke’s presentation to the Northwest Catholic Men’s Conference (go here for both the text and the audio). This section in particular I draw to your attention:

Addressing the challenge of Christian living in a totally secularized world, the Venerable Pope John Paul II called us to the new evangelization, to teaching the faith, celebrating the faith in the Sacraments and prayer, and living the faith, as if for the first time, that is, with the engagement and energy of the first disciples, of the first apostles to our native place. Before the grave situation of the world today, we are, he reminds us, like the first disciples who, after hearing Saint Peter?s Pentecost discourse, asked him: “What must we do?” Even as the first disciples faced a pagan world which had not even heard of our Lord Jesus Christ, so, we, too face a culture which is forgetful of God and hostile to His Law written upon every human heart.

Before the great challenge of our time, Pope John Paul cautioned us that we will not save ourselves and our world by discovering “some magic formula” or by “inventing a new programme.” He declared to us:

“No, we shall not be saved by a formula but by a Person, and the assurance which he gives us: I am with you.”

He reminded us that the programme by which we are to address effectively the great spiritual challenges of our time is, in the end, Jesus Christ alive for us in the Church. He explained:

“The programme already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as ever. Ultimately, it has its center in Christ himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in him we may live the life of the Trinity, and with him transform history until its fulfillment in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is a program which does not change with shifts of times and cultures, even though it takes account of time and culture for the sake of true dialogue and effective communication.”

In short, the program leading to freedom and happiness is, for each of us, holiness of life.

The Venerable Pope John Paul II, in fact, cast the entire pastoral plan for the Church in terms of holiness. He explained himself thus:

“In fact, to place pastoral planning under the heading of holiness is a choice filled with consequences. It implies the conviction that, since Baptism is a true entry into the holiness of God through incorporation into Christ and the indwelling of his Spirit, it would be a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethics and a shallow religiosity. To ask catechumens: “Do you wish to be receive Baptism?” means at the same time to ask them: “Do you wish to become holy?” It means to set before them the radical nature of the Sermon on the Mount: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48)”

In the end, it is only this “program”, this “strategy” that will bring new life to the Church. It is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the same work that the Church has always been engaged in. Kate suggests many things, in part liturgical, in part evangelistic, that can be done to turn things around in the Church, but what really needs “turning around” – converting! – are the hearts and minds of baptised Christians. I don’t agree with Kate that the Apostles had a “strategy” other than that given by our Lord “preach the gospel to all nations”. They didn’t spend a lot of time working this strategy out – they just did it, following the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

We are called to “just do it” too. Pretty simple really. Evangelise. Teach. Convert and be converted. “Be Holy as I the Lord your God am Holy.”

Although every news story that I have read on the matter actually acknowledges that the Second Vatican Council – in 1965 already! – had already said exactly the same thing, the news outlets are in a tither about Volume 2 of Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth” in which Pope Benedict repeats what has only been a commonplace among New Testament scholarship in the last 50 years: “The Jews” are not to blame for the death of Jesus.

Barney Zwartz’s version of the story actually made front page in The Age this morning.

Oh well, at least for once the message is on target, and it’s a positive news story, and it’s good publicity for one of the most significant works on Jesus to have come out in the last 50 years. “But David, but David”, I hear you say, “What about John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg?” Yeah, what about them? Dis guy’s da Pope, and when it comes to being conversant with the tradition of the 20th Century “Quest for the Historical Jesus”, he’s up there with the best of them. Barney writes:

According to the publisher Ignatius Press, volume two looks at many controversial questions, including whether Jesus was a political revolutionary, what he taught about the end of the world, how he interpreted his own death, whether he really rose from the dead and what the early Christians believed about his second coming.

That list is a pretty good summary of what is on the scholarly “Jesus Agenda” today. If I were making a recommendation to someone who was wanting to know what to read about Jesus today, I would say the two authors who have most reliably answered these questions: N.T. Wright and Joseph Ratzinger.

HT to William Tighe for sending me this link to this new book: “Inventing Authority: The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation”, by Esther Chung-Kim. It is published by Baylor University Press. On their website, the book has this description:

Adding great historical insight to the events of the sixteenth century, Inventing Authority uncovers how and why the Protestant reformers came, in their dissent from the Catholic church, to turn to the Church Fathers and align their movements with the early church. Discovering that the reformers most frequently appealed to patristic sources in polemical contexts, Esther Chung-Kim adeptly traces the variety and creativity of their appeals to their forebears in order to support their arguments—citing them to be authoritative for being “exemplary scriptural exegetes” to “instruments of choice”.

Examining three generations of sixteenth-century reformers—from such heavy-weights as Calvin and Luther to lesser-known figures like Oecolampadius and Hesshusen—Chung-Kim offers an analysis of striking breadth, one that finds its center by focusing in on the perennially contentious topic of the Eucharist. Filling a significant lacuna in the early history of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, Inventing Authority is an important and eye-opening contribution to Reformation studies.

That doesn’t really tell us much about Dr Chung-Kim’s assessment of the Reformers’ use of the Fathers. However, like William, I have not heard of Chung-Kim before, so of course, I googled her. She is a lecturer at the Claremont School of Theology. Their website has this information:

Dr. Chung-Kim teaches and researches the Reformation and the Early Modern Period. Her current projects are on the reception of the early church fathers in the early modern period, the history of biblical interpretation and the use of wealth, property and possessions.

She offers courses on the History of World Christianity, The Protestant Reformation and its Medieval Heritage, Women in the Early Modern Era, History of Biblical Interpretation, The Life, Thought and Influence of Martin Luther and John Calvin, and The Radical Reformation and Nonviolent Traditions.

B.A., Drew University
M.Div., Th.M., Princeton Theological Seminary
Ph.D., Duke University

Excerpt from her book (forthcoming 2010):

“Calvin and Westphal deployed an increasing number of the ancient writers as the disagreement intensified. But the nature of the appeal to the fathers shifted in such a way that the actual views of the fathers mattered less, even though the number of references to the ancient church fathers increased.”

Now that last comment is indeed very interesting, and makes me want to buy the book to see how she demonstrates this position. However, it does accord with my experience of Lutheran use of the Fathers, and (in particular) Pastor Mark’s use of the Fathers on his blog “Lutheran Catholicity”. I have said to him before that I think he quotes the Fathers in isolation, not taking into account the overall Catholic faith which they held and passed on to the Church.

It will be interesting to see what Dr Chung-Kim has to say about the 16th Century use of the Fathers.

Reading the story in the Catholic Herald about the tragic event of the shooting of a Catholic government minister in Pakistan leads me to believe that this man was a martyr for both the Christian faith and for Religious Freedom. Here is the story with my emphasis:

Catholic critic of blasphemy law is shot dead in Pakistan

By Ed West on Wednesday, 2 March 2011

Shahbaz Bhatti pictured at the US bishops’ conference headquarters in Washington (Photo: CNS)

Pakistan’s leading Catholic politician has been murdered in the capital Islamabad.

Minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti died this morning after gunmen opened fire on his car while travelling to work through a residential district.

Mr Bhatti, 42, a leader of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), had just left his home when at least two gunmen ambushed his car, police official Mohammad Iqbal said. He was rushed to the nearby Shifa hospital, but was dead on arrival.

Mr Bhatti had received numerous death threats after calling for changes to the country’s controversial blasphemy law. The blasphemy law carries a death sentence for anyone who insults Islam, and critics say it has been used to persecute minority faiths. In January, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who had also opposed the law, was murdered by one of his bodyguards.

The first Christian to hold a cabinet post in Pakistan, Mr Bhatti spoke about the threat facing him last month, during a visit to Canada to raise awareness about his country’s blasphemy laws. He said: “I have been told by pro-Taliban religious extremists that if I will continue to speak against the blasphemy law, I will be beheaded.”

However, he said: “As a Christian, I believe Jesus is my strength. He has given me a power and wisdom and motivation to serve suffering humanity. I follow the principles of my conscience, and I am ready to die and sacrifice my life for the principles I believe.”

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but leaflets issued by Tehrik-i-Taliban Punjab, a branch of the Taliban in Pakistan’s most populous province, were found at the ambush site, according to the private TV channel Express 24/7.

A government spokesman condemned the assassination. Farahnaz Ispahani, an aide to President Asif Ali Zardari, said: “This is concerted campaign to slaughter every liberal, progressive and humanist voice in Pakistan.

“The time has come for the federal government and provincial governments to speak out and to take a strong stand against these murderers to save the very essence of Pakistan.”

John Pontifex of Aid to the Church in Need said this morning: “I had the pleasure of meeting Shahbaz Bhatti on a trip to Pakistan with Aid to the Church in Need a few years ago. He was a very kind and thoughtful guide to the region with a deep commitment to improving the lot of the disadvantaged, especially those suffering persecution and oppression on account of their faith.

“Shahbaz Bhatti had the courage to speak out against the suffering that has its root in the country’s blasphemy laws, and we at ACN will be praying for his soul following his murder.

“Despite having received death threats for his stance Mr Bhatti continued to stand up heroically for Christians and other religious minorities who have been victims of mob violence after they were accused of blasphemy.”

That strength of conviction, that committment to both his Christian faith and to Freedom of Religion, that concern for the suffering, and that knowledge that his opposition to the unjust laws of Pakistan might well lead to his death, are all indications (for me) that this man was a martyr who died on account of his Christian faith. I don’t know exactly how these things work, but in my mind that makes this man a saint.

I have a running interest in the newly consecrated Basilica of La Sagrada Familia. Some time ago, I ran a little article on this ‘ere blog linking to a story in The Age about Melbourne RMIT Professor Mark Burry, who has been working on Gaudi’s creation for decades.

I – and perhaps you – are therefore very interested to hear about this, from a Media Release from RMIT:

Embedded with Gaudí

Professor Mark Burry, Director of the Design Research Institute at RMIT University and the Executive Architect and Researcher to the Temple Sagrada Família in Barcelona, will give a public lecture on Thursday, 24 March.

This will be the first time in six years that Professor Burry has given a free public lecture on Gaudí in Melbourne.

Professor Burry has been following Antoni Gaudí’s footsteps for almost a third of a century; not an easy task when the sands of time, the dusts of war and the vagaries of fashion and taste cover the traces. It would be even harder if that was all there was to follow: footsteps in soft terrain.

Fortunately, Gaudí saw beyond the material and imposed an intellectual framework to the Sagrada Família, the unfinished basilica with diminishing prospects of being completed within his time. The rigour of geometry he used provided the code from which his unknown successors, Professor Burry included, could engage with his ideas, plans and models.

Not only did Gaudí appreciate deep practice as the best means to apply his genius while alive; he also invested deep practice principles in his legacy to ensure his project’s future viability.

What is the relevance of this to current design practice and challenges? Professor Burry will discuss Gaudí’s approach to creative solution-finding in the context of today’s emerging complexities.

This public lecture opens a Design Research Institute symposium, “Deep Practice: Deepening knowledge and innovation through design practice”.

Professor Burry is the Executive Architect and Researcher to the Temple Sagrada Família in Barcelona. He is an Australian Federation Fellow (Complex Architecture and Convergent Design) and Professor of Innovation (Spatial Information Architecture) at RMIT, the Director of the RMIT Design Research Institute and the Spatial Information Architecture Laboratory.

Embedded with Gaudí: A public lecture on deep practice by Professor Mark Burry

DATE: Thursday, 24 March
TIME: 6.30 to 7.30pm
VENUE: Storey Hall Auditorium, Swanston Street, RMIT University
COST: A free public lecture
BOOKINGS: Essential as seating is limited. RSVP by Friday, 18 March, to
events@rmit.edu.au with the subject line “Gaudi lecture”

For media enquiries: Lorraine Buckman, (03) 9925 4621 or 0419 107 278.

If you are between 16 and 35, then if for no other reason, you should go to World Youth Day in Madrid just to get one of these:

To see the deal, read here. Aid to the Church in Need is producing what might be the biggest print run of any new book ever just to meet the demands!

I am a “fan” of Philip Adams in the same sense that I am a “fan” of Christopher Hitchens. So I do listen to “Late Night Life” every now and again.

For those interested in prognosticating the Middle Eastern outcome, especially in terms of the religious question, you might enjoy the latter part of this episode of “Late Night Live”, with Professor Anthony Grayling (Philosophy, Birkbeck College, London) and Professor John Keane (Politics, University of Sydney).

My one thought is this: Is the “Facebook” technology playing the same role in this this “revolution” that the Printing Press played in the 16th Century reformation? Might this be Islam’s Reformation?

I have noticed of late that the conversation at our little after-dinner table on this ‘ere blog is tending to be dominated by one or two (or three in particular) commentators.

May I just remind commentators to be mindful of the fact that if the host at the table has “gone silent”, and if other members of the commentary table are being excluded from conversations, those “doing all the talking” might like to step back a little and allow others into the debate?

My suggestion is that if you have said your piece, let it stand. See how others respond. You don’t need to argue each point endlessly.

In several comments to a recent post, Gareth and Catherine AGREED on something! Here is Catherine’s comment (with my emphasis):

Gareth, for once I agree with you, The whole annulment business is pretty dodgy. No offence intended to anyone who has an annulment [none taken!]. I am delighted that people can remarry, but find it ” interesting ” the technicalities that some people can get out of a marriage on, yet other people won’t be granted an annulment, yet I would consider they were far more deserving.

At the end of that comment, Catherine called annulments a “get out of jail free card”.

It is important to note that annulments are not given for “moral” reasons, but for “legal” reasons. Even the State has the power to annul a marriage if in some respect or other the law concerning marriage was not properly observed when the marriage contract was entered into.

All annulments are on the basis of a legal “technicality”. They are never given for “moral” reasons to the “most deserving”. The Church has laws regarding what is required for a valid marriage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is worth consulting. I quote the relevant sections (again, with my emphasis):

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means:
– not being under constraint;
– not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that “makes the marriage”125 [CIC, can. 1057# 1]. If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” – “I take you to be my husband” [GS 48# 1; OCM 45; cf. CIC, can. 1057# 2]. This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two “becoming one flesh” [Gen 2:24; cf. Mt 10:8; Eph 5:31].

1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear [cf. CIC, can. 1103]. No human power can substitute for this consent [cf. CIC, can. 1057# 1]. If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed [cf. CIC, cann. 1095-1107]. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged [cf. CIC, can. 1071].

If on any of these legal “technicalities” – such as not abiding by Church law (eg. a Catholic who marries without dispensation outside of the Church) or the consent not being entirely free (which could be due to immaturity or financial pressure or some other such “technicality”) – it can be shown that the marriage was not, under Canon Law, a valid marriage, an annulment may be granted.

Law – both Church and State – is full of “technicalities”. But the technicalities matter, and it is always on such “technicalities” that annulments are granted.

The duty of marriage tribunals is to ascertain that such a “technicality” really does exist. I grant that it may be that some tribunals have been a little ready to find “technicalities” where they do not exist, but the abuse of the law does not negate the law itself.