Sentire Cum Ecclesia

Recently at a Victoria Police Multi-Faith Council reception, someone made the comment was made that “religion is not a problem to be solved”. This is so true. Unfortunately, there are many in the community, and some political parties (such as the Greens and the Sex Party) who do not view the religious beliefs of members of the community in this light.

For instance, the Greens response to “Your Vote, Your Values” contained this:

The Greens support the right of individuals to express their faith in accordance with their religious doctrines, beliefs and principles. The Greens also strongly support human rights laws. Giving absolute primacy to freedom of religion over the entire range of other rights would not be necessary for the ordinary operations of such organisations, and would serve to undermine the very basis of the human rights system itself.

Misgivings about “giving absoulte primacy to freedom of religion” overlooks the foundational nature of what the international human rights agreements call “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. As Michael Casey explains in this very good run down of what religious freedom actually is and means:

Religious freedom is not some sort of claim for privileges or special treatment for Christians – or any other particular religious community. Religious freedom is a fundamental human right, a right that belongs to everyone by virtue of their being human. It is recognised as such in all the major international human-rights documents. It is so important and so fundamental that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of only seven rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which cannot be suspended or limited – even in a public emergency that threatens a country’s existence.

Religion is NOT a “problem” to be “solved”. It is part of the very glue of human society, and should be regarded as such by our political representatives.

What strange stuff one finds in an economics journal these days. A friend of mine, who has just enrolled to do an MBA, wrote to say:

I read this in The Economist today – this magazine is now required reading for the next three years. I especially liked the table at the end.

The scanned page he sent me can be downloaded here from Mediafire. [Nb. The views of The Economist’s journalists are not the views of this blog owner.]

Fr Z. has a post on the fact that in most Catholic countries, December 8, tomorrow, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, is a holy day of obligation.

But not in Australia. To quote from a 2001 decree of the ACBC,

the only feast days henceforth to be observed in Australia as holydays of obligation are the solemnities of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

It almost makes it too easy to be Catholic! {Nb. Easter Day is a Sunday, and hence a “day of obligation” because it is the Lord’s Day.}

And for non-Catholics who don’t get this whole “Immaculate Conception” business, here is a good post on the First Things blog.

Well, that was close.

We have a very strange way of chosing our upper house representatives here in Australia. On the surface, it is a very fair way of distributing preferences. In the Federal Election, a certain number of seats is given to each State. In the States, the state is divided into regions, and a certain number (five in Victoria) of seats are elected for each region. I can’t quite work out how it is all done, but the preferential voting system has the quirk of often delivering a final seat to a party that had very small primary votes, but gets in on preferences.

That is the way in which Family First got its first senator in the Federal Senate six years ago, and the way in which the Democratic Labor Party got its first seat in the Legislative Council in Victoria at the last elections. It also ensures that the Greens generally get a small number of seats.

This time, however, things looked dicey in at least one region in Victoria. The Family First candidate and the DLP candidate were excluded in the Northern Metropolitan Region, and for a while it looked like an independant with Liberal sympathies (Stephen Mayne) would get the final seat. Then yesterday I heard the news that, thanks to the way the preferences fell, the “donkey vote” for the Sex Party looked set to deliver a seat to them in this region. Yikes! Give me a Green any day!

Anyway, relief at the very last seems to have given the final seat to a Liberal candidate. Premier Ted will be pleased.

But it does demonstrate how dangerous the system can be. Those preferences count, folks. To make sure that your vote goes the way it should, do what I do: fill out all the numbers below the line. It takes a bit of time, but it is the RESPONSIBLE way to vote.

A bit too quiet for my liking. I need to find a subject to liven things up a bit. However, that’s life in the blogging world – you can’t create news. Or perhaps you can.

Anyway, what’s been happening? Cathy and I have both been busy with end of year events in the evenings. Unfortunately different ones, which mean most evenings one or the other of us are out, or, like tonight, both of us.

I’ve had some very interesting events as part of my work. Last week, on the same night as the big U2 concert, the local Turkish Muslim group, the Australian Intercultural Societyheld an event for the festival of Ashura, (which is only a festival for Sunni Muslims; for Shi’ite Muslims it is a day of mourning – history) on a cruise boat. We left from Docklands in the early evening, having done battle with the traffic for the concert at the Dome. One of the themes of the Sunni celebration of Ashura is Noah’s Ark, hence the location on a boat. We travelled out the mouth of the Yarra, out of the Port, under the Bolte and Westgate Bridge into the bay. It had been thundery and rainy earlier, but had cleared to a very calm and clear evening. I was sitting at a table with a Muslim couple, a police commander and his wife, a police psychologist and his wife and the local Liberal MP (who, following the recent change of government, is now the President of the Upper House in our State. Turns out that one of the couples at the table had once lived near where we do and had sent their children to the same school our kids go to. Moreover, one of the women at the table commented that a fellow employee in her workplace had just resigned to start studies for the priesthood. I asked his name, and was surprised to find that it was a gentleman who had been one of my students in an Anima Education course this year. Small world. As we docked back at the pier and made our way back to our cars, we could hear the concert very well. It must have been deafening to be inside. I don’t know why people paid good money to go inside when they could have heard the music just as well outside, while sitting at a café drinking a glass of wine…

Then Saturday was another interesting event: I visited the Vietnamese Buddhist temple in Springvale for a special event to mark their “Mid-Winter” Festival “?ông chí”. The event was organised by the Buddhist Council of Victoria, so there were Buddhists from all traditions present. The weather was almost tropical, which fitted well with the very Asian design of the gardens and the temple. We had a very nice vegetarian lunch, and were shown how to cook rice dumplings, the special festive food of their holiday. Musical items, a tour of the temple, and a chance to meet some new faces. I sat at a table with a man who had a very Barossa Deutsch name, but like me, he was no longer Lutheran. Unlike me, he was a Buddhist and a teacher of yoga. I’m not quite sure whether our ancestors would have been more horrified to know that they would have a descendant as a Catholic or as a Buddhist. Chances are they had never even heard of Buddhism.

Then last night was a strictly Catholic event: Theology at the Pub at the Pumphouse Hotel in Fitzroy. These events are billed as being for 18-35 year olds. I had never been to one before, thinking us oldies were not allowed past the door, but I have been told that you can come, you just aren’t allowed to ask the speaker questions! (Some older folk were there. The joke was that they were dyslexic, and thought the age range was 53-81). Any way, I went along last night because I had been invited to be on a Q&A panel. The other members of the panel were Anna Krohn (founder of Anima Education and erstwhile director of the Caroline Chisholm Library), Fr Glen Tattersall (Rector of St Aloisius and chaplain for the extraordinary rite), and Fr Robin Koenig SJ. The latter was a fill-in for Fr Andrew Keswick, who unfortunately was in hospital having his appendix out, and Fr Keswick was himself a replacement for Bishop Elliott who was unable to make it. Fr Tattersall and Fr Koenig were, I think, each pleasantly surprised to find that they saw eye to eye on most matters. One unexpected pleasure for the evening was that I got to meet Dr Joel Hodge, the new ACU lectuerer in Systematics whom I referenced with in an earlier post. He’s a great bloke, for a Queenslander, and will be a real asset for theological education at that august institution. It was a great event, and I encourage anyone who isn’t dyslexic and who is between 18-35 to make it a regular fixture on their calendar.

I gave a talk at the Caroline Chisholm Library this afternoon on Purgatory. Yes, I am still working that one over, and we will get back to that topic sooner or later. There were about 15 people there, and afterwards we had stollen, cherries and coffee for afternoon tea. A bit Christmassy.

Then tonight I was invited to the Reception for the Victoria Police Multifaith Council (yes, there is such a thing, partnered with the Vic Police Multicultural Advisory Unit). This was held down at the St Kilda Life Savers Clubhouse, a part of town I had never been in before. It was a very pleasant evening, again with lots of friends from the inter-religious networks around Melbourne. The Police here in Victoria are very serious about cooperation with all facets of the community, and this event showed that very well.

So here I am now, sitting outside smoking my pipe with the cicadas going hard at it at a deafening level. A thunderstorm went through earlier today so it isn’t as hot and humid as it was earlier in the evening. The possums are just making their way along the back fence looking for something to eat (my figs aren’t ripe yet, and I have replanted my roses out of their reach, so they can’t do much damage).

Well, as Garrison Keillorwould say, that’s the news from Casa Schütz-Beaton, “where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking and the children are above average”.

Sadly, my meeting today with Greens candidate Jo Tenner was cancelled, as Jo is unwell. We will have to make another time.

Thanks for all the responses members of the Commentators Table made to my question about what I should talk to Jo about. I took most seriously the suggestion that a topic for discussion would be why the Greens agenda is such an odd mixture of positive environmental policies and radical (often anti-religious) social policies.

With that in mind, I spent a bit of time studying the Greens response to “Your Vote, Your Values” (you can download it in PDF form from here (it’s big, 6MB)).

About 50% of their response to the Bishops’ questions were positive. On Housing, Mental Health, Care for Children and those with disabilities, Aged Care, Criminal Justice, Drugs and Alcohol (in the main – there was no mention in the document of a policy to legalise marijuana) the Greens were able to give positive reassurances in response to the Church’s concerns.

However, on Abortion, Euthanasia, Education (support for Catholic schooling), and Religious Freedom, there are serious concerns.

Here are some eg.s [with my comments]

On Euthanasia: The Greens support the right of people in sound mind, dying from an incurable disease, when pain relief is not working for them, to be able to seek assistance to die. The Greens would support any attempt to bring in a conscience vote on euthanasia. [Aside from the actual question of the morality of “assisting someone to die”, there are surely too many “conditionals” in that policy to make a workable and socially safe piece of legislation.]

On Abortion: The Victorian Greens support a women’s right to self determination regarding her body and health. [Except we all know that a baby is not a part of a woman’s body.]We also support the removal of abortion from the Crimes Act.

On funding for Catholic Education: It is the prime responsibility of state governments to fund government schools to a level of excellence such that they set the standard for all schools. [Is that statement open to challenge? The provision of education per se is a prime responsibility of state governments, but funding government schools over against non-Government schools can only be considered a “prime responsibility” in the sense that the “prime funders” of government schools is the government.]A key education priority for the Victorian Greens is the increase of funding for government schools in Victoria. Funding for non-government schools is largely a Commonwealth issue. The Greens support an immediate review of the existing Commonwealth funding arrangements for non-government schools and its replacement with a model that achieves greater equity.

On Religious Freedom: The Greens support the right of individuals to express their faith [what does “express” mean?]in accordance with their religious doctrines, beliefs and principles. The Greens also strongly support human rights laws [The Church on the other hand supports “human rights” per se, not necessarily the positivist laws that claim to establish “human rights”.]. Giving absolute primacy to freedom of religion over the entire range of other rights [such as?]would not be necessary for the ordinary operations of such organisations [the life of a school community, for eg. is more than just its “operations”], and would serve to undermine the very basis of the human rights system itself [“human rights” is a “system”? I thought the basis of human rights were the inherant dignity of the human person, not any “system”.]. The example of the medical practitioner in your document’s ‘religious freedom’ statement is pertinent. In this case, the apparent right of the practitioner to not provide particular medical advice to a patient must be balanced with the patient’s right to receive competent and comprehensive advice on the full range of medical options [such as euthanasia? what exactly is a “medical option”?]regardless of the practitioner’s personal views[What do they mean by “personal views”? Is this a dismissive way of speaking of an individual’s ethics? Of their conscience? A person’s religious beliefs are not just “personal opinions”].

I am sorry that I didn’t get to ask Jo those questions today. I had intended to give her a copy of Pope Benedict’s Message for the World Day of Peace (Jan 1st) 2010, as I thought it might be a good example of a positive Catholic approach to a wholistic ecology, which held together as one concern both environmental ecology and an authentic “human ecology”. It is a mystery to me that the Greens can be so tuned in to the inherent balances and sensitivities of human manipulation of the natural environment and yet so oblivious to the dangers that may result from messing about with the human ecology.

I earnestly hope that Jo and I finally get an opportunity to discuss these issues.

For now, I have to pack this in, and head over to the Pumphouse Hotel where I am participating in the Theology at the Pub session tonight (I can pretend I am under 35!).

New 2011 Anima Education courses now open for registration:

Christian Traditions (First Term, 2011, Mondays at Mary Glowrey House)

Many people around us come from other faith traditions within the Christian context: Orthodox, Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. How did these traditions arise and how do their beliefs and practices differ from those of the Catholic Church? This topic provides a unique opportunity to explore the beliefs of others with whom we come in contact in the classroom, at work or in everyday life.

“Life in the Spirit”: St Paul to the Romans, Chapters 5-8 (February 5, 2011, St Benedict’s Burwood)

In the first four chapters of his letter to the Romans, St Paul proclaimed that the Righteousness of God was revealed in Jesus Christ to all who had faith. Chapter 5 begins “Since we have been justified by faith…” This one day seminar will look at the next four chapters of this great epistle, to see how Paul taught the Roman Christians to live their new life “in the Spirit”.

I occasionally take a look at the ABC Religion and Ethics website. Usually something interesting there.

Well, today I found this very well written article on the “Guest Blog” column, “Setting the record straight on the Catholic Church” by Joel Hodge, a lecturer in the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy here in Melbourne at the St Patrick’s campus of the Australian Catholic University. I think you will find it to be a good read.

Just a taste:

The pope’s recent limited remarks on condoms generated an extraordinary range of reactions. Some expressed relief, others frustration, or even superiority. Some reactions feigned a kind of theological understanding about the Catholic Church’s teaching and structure. Some even sought to impose a secular liberal agenda on the Church by claiming that the Magisterium’s stance on contraception is about to fall apart.

But the reality of the Catholic Church is that, while the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church invested in the Pope and bishops) may be unpopular in some of her teaching, she won’t crumble under public pressure. The Church is interested in the truth, not because she has to be right, but because Christ showed us that the truth is for our good.

Some may not like what the Magisterium says, but we can at least respect its position, and perhaps even show some generosity in interpreting what the Magisterium says and does.

Read it all here.

I have just finished reading an article in the latest edition of the Lutheran Quarterly (thanks, Dr William!) which criticised the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification on several grounds, one of which was that it follows a methodology of “consensus”. The characterisation of this method is “You still say what you say, and we still say what we say, but through our dialogue we now see both as ways of saying it as complimentary rather than mutually exclusive.” The method is thus critiqued as an over optimistic exercise in post-modernism.

But I was a little surprised today to read this from the Council of Florence (1439) – definitely PRE-modern, rather than post-modern:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

It seems that the modern ecumenical method isn’t that modern after all.

As we know, the Florence “agreement” was actually rejected by the Greeks in the final analysis. In the same way, the JDDJ is being challenged today mainly from the Lutheran side (Catholics are barely discussing it, but that is another matter). It seems that the mutual consensus model, the “complimentary expression” model, while it may be as old as dialogue itself, is nevertheless not helpful when one of the parties is particularly convinced that the particular expression of faith utilised by the other party is not only wanting in fullness but actually heretical.

And yet it seems inevitable that when two groups come together seeking a renewed unity in the place of division over a particular issue, there does seem to be only a few possibilities:

1) One of the parties capitulates entirely to the expression of faith of the other, condemning its former expressions as (at least) inadequate [ie. I was right, you were wrong; or vice versa];

2) Both parties accept some degree of compromise and adopt a new joint expression of faith for the sake of agreement [ie. we are both partly right and partly wrong];

3) Both parties accept that each will continue to employ their traditional language but agree that these diverse expressions are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive – again, for the sake of agreement [ie. we are both right].

There is perhaps another outcome, but I’ve never heard of it happening. The dialogue could result in both parties becoming convinced that they were both wrong, and both seek together a new, truer formulation of faith. As I say, I haven’t heard of it happening.

One of the reasons that dialogue statements rarely bear the fruit of true unity, is that the place where the dialogue really needs to take place in is our own hearts and minds. Speaking of my own personal experience, my acceptance of the Catholic faith did not mean throwing out my Lutheran faith. Rather, it was the beginning of a deep internal dialogue that shows no sign of reaching a conclusion. My faith was founded in Lutheranism, and it would be fair to say that my spirituality has a Lutheran shape. What happens when that mould is filled with Catholic data?

Much the same as happens in ecumenical dialogue:

1) Sometimes I have simply had to say “My Lutheran doctrine was wrong” (or at least “inadequate”) and take on board the Catholic expression of faith. Generally this is in relation to clearly defined dogmas, such as the Assumption of Mary.

2) Sometimes I have found a new way of expressing my faith that is a synthesis between both Lutheran and Catholic theology. A good example would be in the understanding of “sin”.

3) Sometimes I am perfectly comfortable with both the Catholic expressions of faith and with the Lutheran expressions of faith, seeing them as complimentary, rather than mutually exclusive. An example would be the language of “transubstantiation” (Catholic) and “in, with and under” (Lutheran) in the doctrine of the Real Presence, both expressions seeking to say nothing other than that the Eucharistic bread IS the body of Christ.

4) And yes, in my own internal dialogue, I can go that one step further which is so difficult to achieve in actual ecumenical dialogue: I can seek the “authentic heart” of a given doctrine for which both Lutheran and Catholic has been searching but which neither has yet discovered. For example, the doctrines of purgatory and justification.

The ecumenical method isn’t perfect. Seeking unity in one’s self is hard enough; how much harder it is when we seek unity with someone completely other than me! Jesus prayed: “Father, may they be one, even as you and I are one”. Whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from the Father and the Son, I do believe that one day God will work that miracle which unifies all who have received that Spirit. And that will be a real miracle.

In 2002, a group of scholars under a committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a document together with some Jewish scholars called “Reflections on Covenant and Mission”. Last year, the USCCB issued its own statement “A note on ambiguities contained in Reflections on Covenant and Mission“. Covenant and Mission had suggested that since Christ gave his command to “Go and make disciples” in reference to the “nations” (explicated in the text of that document as “Greek = ethn?, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel”), the Church should not engage in outreach to Jews seeking their conversion and baptism.

Complicating the issue since the release of “Covenant and Mission” was the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificam”, which revived the 1962 Missal, including the prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the rites of Good Friday. You all remember this.

Well, as well as the comment about condoms in the new book “Light of the World” (which, by the way, Ignatius Press won’t sell to anyone in Australia because of legal distribution restrictions – you have to talk to the Central Catholic Bookshop for this one), he made the following comment about these issues:

A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy. In fact, the formula was such as to truly wound the Jews, and it certainly did not express in a positive way the great, profound unity between Old and New Testament. For this reason, I thought that a modification was necessary in the ancient liturgy, in particular in reference to our relationship with our Jewish friends. I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united. For this reason, the arguments used polemically against me by a series of theologians are rash, and do not do justice to what was done.

Of course, this book is not magisterial teaching. As the Pope wrote in the preface to “Jesus of Nazareth”, “Everyone is free to contradict me.” But on this issue, I don’t think we will.

What I do find interesting is that the Pope rules out prayer “for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense“. What does he mean by this? Any ideas?