Sentire Cum Ecclesia

This guy is just great. Asked on the plane out to the UK “Can anything be done to make the Church as an institution, more credible and attractive to everyone?”, he answered:

I would say that a Church that seeks to be particularly attractive is already on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for her own ends, she does not work to increase numbers and thus power. The Church is at the service of another: she serves, not for herself, not to be a strong body, rather she serves to make the proclamation of Jesus Christ accessible, the great truths and great forces of love, reconciling love that appeared in this figure and that always comes from the presence of Jesus Christ. In this regard, the Church does not seek to be attractive in and of herself, but must be transparent for Jesus Christ and to the extent that she is not out for herself, as a strong and powerful body in the world, that wants power, but is simply the voice of another, she becomes truly transparent for the great figure of Christ and the great truth that he has brought to humanity. The power of love, in this moment one listens, one accepts. The Church should not consider herself, but help to consider the other and she herself must see and speak of the other. In this sense, I think, both Anglicans and Catholics have the same simple task, the same direction to take. If both Anglicans and Catholics see that the other is not out for themselves but are tools of Christ, children of the Bridegroom, as Saint John says, if both carry out the priorities of Christ and not their own, they will come together, because at that time the priority of Christ unites them and they are no longer competitors seeking the greatest numbers, but are united in our commitment to the truth of Christ who comes into this world and so they find each other in a genuine and fruitful ecumenism.

BXVI rocks!

From Pope Benedict’s speech to the Catholic School students of the UK:

It is not often that a Pope, or indeed anyone else, has the opportunity to speak to the students of all the Catholic schools of England, Wales and Scotland at the same time. And since I have the chance now, there is something I very much want to say to you. I hope that among those of you listening to me today there are some of the future saints of the twenty-first century. What God wants most of all for each one of you is that you should become holy. He loves you much more than you could ever begin to imagine, and he wants the very best for you. And by far the best thing for you is to grow in holiness.

And not just Catholics! (I must read this to my Lutheran daughters who attend a Catholic Primary School):

A good school provides a rounded education for the whole person. And a good Catholic school, over and above this, should help all its students to become saints. I know that there are many non-Catholics studying in the Catholic schools in Great Britain, and I wish to include all of you in my words today. I pray that you too will feel encouraged to practise virtue and to grow in knowledge and friendship with God alongside your Catholic classmates. You are a reminder to them of the bigger picture that exists outside the school, and indeed, it is only right that respect and friendship for members of other religious traditions should be among the virtues learned in a Catholic school. I hope too that you will want to share with everyone you meet the values and insights you have learned through the Christian education you have received.

God bless you, Holy Father!

…about four hundred and forty years too late.

But, as they say in the classics, better late than never!

As Her Madge said:

Your Holiness, in recent times you have said that ‘religions can never become vehicles of hatred, that never by invoking the name of God can evil and violence be justified’. Today, in this country, we stand united in that conviction. We hold that freedom to worship is at the core of our tolerant and democratic society. On behalf of the people of the United Kingdom I wish you a most fruitful and memorable visit.

Ho, ho! Here’s a laugh! Is this what Dawkins’ “Arrest the Pope” campaign has come to?

(Photo: Pope Benedict and Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, September 17, 2010/Toby Melville)

Pope Benedict’s Speech to Representatives of other Religions17/09/2010 12:45 pm
Waldegrave Drawing Room, St Mary’s University College, Twickenham, Friday, 17 September 2010

Distinguished guests, dear friends,

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to meet you, the representatives of the various religious communities in Great Britain. I greet both the ministers of religion present and those of you who are active in politics, business and industry. I am grateful to Dr Azzam and to Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks for the greetings which they have expressed on your behalf. As I salute you, let me also wish the Jewish community in Britain and throughout the world a happy and holy celebration of Yom Kippur [the Holy Father has made a point this year of sending greetings to the Jewish communities for their Holy Days].

I would like to begin my remarks by expressing the Catholic Church’s appreciation for the important witness that all of you bear as spiritual men and women living at a time when religious convictions are not always understood or appreciated. [Note that he is emphasising a positive contribution that the many faiths of a multi-faith society can make. It can really go either way: conflict between the faith groups in a multi-cultural society produces skepticism about religion; harmony produces credibility. Also, note that in this speech, Pope Benedict is continuing to answer the “agressive atheist” and secularist challenge.] The presence of committed believers in various fields of social and economic life speaks eloquently of the fact that the spiritual dimension of our lives is fundamental to our identity as human beings, that man, in other words, does not live by bread alone (cf. Deut 8:3). As followers of different religious traditions working together for the good of the community at large, we attach great importance to this “side by side” dimension of our cooperation, which complements the “face to face” aspect of our continuing dialogue. [I like that too: “side by side” compliments “face to face”.]

On the spiritual level, all of us, in our different ways [he isn’t smudging the differences here], are personally engaged in a journey that grants an answer to the most important question of all – the question concerning the ultimate meaning of our human existence. The quest for the sacred is the search for the one thing necessary, which alone satisfies the longings of the human heart. In the fifth century, Saint Augustine described that search in these terms: “Lord, you have created us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in you” (Confessions, Book I, 1). As we embark on this adventure we come to realize more and more that the initiative lies not with us, but with the Lord: it is not so much we who are seeking him, but rather he who is seeking us, indeed it was he who placed that longing for him deep within our hearts. [I hope the Lutherans are taking note… Mind you, the Pope here points out a significant difference between Christianity and all other spiritual “paths” – only in our religion does God seek man rather than man seek God.]

Your presence and witness in the world points towards the fundamental importance for human life of this spiritual quest in which we are engaged. Within their own spheres of competence, the human and natural sciences [this comment and what follows is aimed at Prof Dawkins and Co.] provide us with an invaluable understanding of aspects of our existence and they deepen our grasp of the workings of the physical universe, which can then be harnessed in order to bring great benefit to the human family. Yet these disciplines do not and cannot answer the fundamental question, because they operate on another level altogether. They cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart, they cannot fully explain to us our origin and our destiny, why and for what purpose we exist, nor indeed can they provide us with an exhaustive answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

The quest for the sacred does not devalue other fields of human enquiry. On the contrary, it places them in a context which magnifies their importance, as ways of responsibly exercising our stewardship over creation. [Just as Benedict prefers to look at the positive benefit of multi-faith society, so he emphasises the positive benefit of a scientific world-view.] In the Bible, we read that, after the work of creation was completed, God blessed our first parents and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). He entrusted us with the task of exploring and harnessing the mysteries of nature in order to serve a higher good. What is that higher good? In the Christian faith, it is expressed as love for God and love for our neighbour. And so we engage with the world wholeheartedly and enthusiastically, but always with a view to serving that higher good, lest we disfigure the beauty of creation by exploiting it for selfish purposes.

So it is that genuine religious belief points us beyond present utility towards the transcendent. It reminds us of the possibility and the imperative of moral conversion, of the duty to live peaceably with our neighbour, of the importance of living a life of integrity. Properly understood, it brings enlightenment [one for the Buddhists there], it purifies our hearts and it inspires noble and generous action, to the benefit of the entire human family. It motivates us to cultivate the practice of virtue and to reach out towards one another in love, with the greatest respect for religious traditions different from our own.

Ever since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has placed special emphasis on the importance of dialogue and cooperation with the followers of other religions. In order to be fruitful, this requires reciprocity on the part of all partners in dialogue and the followers of other religions. [Tonight I was talking to the Rev. Mark Durie et aliter and they were saying that dialogue was useless because there is no reciprocity. Pope Benedict knows that reciprocity is a major and important issue; but he doesn’t make it his prerequisite for dialogue. Jesus said “love your enemies”, not “love them if they reciprocate your love”.] I am thinking in particular of situations in some parts of the world [“you know who you are”], where cooperation and dialogue between religions calls for mutual respect, the freedom to practise one’s religion and to engage in acts of public worship, and the freedom to follow one’s conscience without suffering ostracism or persecution, even after conversion from one religion to another. Once such a respect and openness has been established, peoples of all religions will work together effectively for peace and mutual understanding, and so give a convincing witness before the world. [reciprocity thus is not the prerequisite for “face to face” dialogue, but it IS a prerequisite for “side by side” dialogue].

This kind of dialogue needs to take place on a number of different levels, and should not be limited to formal discussions [here Pope Benedict expands on his “face to face” and “side by side” analogy using the classic fourfould approach to dialogue embodied in the PCID statements]. The dialogue of life [a form of “side by side” dialogue] involves simply living alongside one another and learning from one another in such a way as to grow in mutual knowledge and respect. The dialogue of action [another form of “side by side” dialogue] brings us together in concrete forms of collaboration, as we apply our religious insights to the task of promoting integral human development, working for peace, justice and the stewardship of creation. Such a dialogue may include exploring together how to defend human life at every stage and how to ensure the non-exclusion of the religious dimension of individuals and communities in the life of society. Then at the level of formal conversations [traditionaly “face to face” dialogue], there is a need not only for theological exchange, but also sharing our spiritual riches [formally known as a “dialogue of religious experience” – the extent to which we can stand “side by side” with one another while we are “face to face” with God, I guess], speaking of our experience of prayer and contemplation, and expressing to one another the joy of our encounter with divine love. In this context I am pleased to note the many positive initiatives undertaken in this country to promote such dialogue at a variety of levels. As the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales noted in their recent document Meeting God in Friend and Stranger, the effort to reach out in friendship to followers of other religions is becoming a familiar part of the mission of the local Church (n. 228), a characteristic feature of the religious landscape in this country.

My dear friends, as I conclude my remarks, let me assure you that the Catholic Church follows the path of engagement and dialogue out of a genuine sense of respect for you and your beliefs [this assurance is necessary because so much has happened that causes some communities to doubt our sincerity]. Catholics, both in Britain and throughout the world, will continue to work to build bridges of friendship to other religions, to heal past wrongs and to foster trust between individuals and communities. Let me reiterate my thanks for your welcome and my gratitude for this opportunity to offer you my encouragement for your dialogue with your Christian sisters and brothers. Upon all of you I invoke abundant divine blessings! Thank you very much.

Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali recently stepped down from the Diocese of Rochester (Bishop St John Fisher’s diocese). His Wikipedia page is here. He has been described as a “controversial figure” in England. That’s “controversial” in the same sense that the Holy Father is controversial. In many ways, the two men – Bishop Michael and Pope Benedict – are chalk and cheese – or perhaps salt and pepper might be a better analogy. But I like both salt and pepper on my food.

Today I spent a number of hours listening to Bishop Nazir-Ali speaking in Melbourne as the guest of Family Voice Australia (the-artist-previously-known-as “Festival of Light”). While his audience was a few kilometres “right of centre”, I was pleasantly surprised by the Bishop himself. I had gone along largely because the sessions had been advertised with the titles “Courage in a hostile world: promoting the kingdom of God in an increasingly hostile world / the challenge of radical islam and agressive atheism”. I was concerned that this might become just another anti-Muslim session.

There was no question that that was the expectation from a number of people who attended, but that isn’t what Bishop Michael gave them. Instead, he spoke about things like
– uniqueness of Jesus Christ
– Dialogue and evangelisation
– Economic justice
– answering agressive atheism
– the omission of Christianity from the preamble to the European Constitution
– laws on marriage and homosexuality
– formation of conscience
– defence of the dignity of the human person
– opposition to slavery a constant in Christianity
– language of natural rights

etc. etc. Sound familiar? I am very interested to get a hold of some of his books (someone stuffed up at the FAVA office – they had the whole collected works of Rev. Mark Durie for sale, but none of Bishop Michael’s own books) to see how much evidence there is of direct influence of the Catholic Church’s teaching on these issues on his own thinking. He was, by the way, a member of ARCIC for many years, and in response to a question I asked about cooperation between evangelical and Catholic christians, he said that he was embarrassed and disappointed that the ARCIC dialogues came to an end because of the actions of some members of his Communion. He said this afternoon that he remains an Anglican because that is the form of Christianity in which he came to know Christ (not a sufficient reason for remaining one, in my experience, but there you are). Also answering my question, he commented that he believes it is time for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to enter into a “differentiated” dialogue, recognising that the dialogue with the mainstream Anglican Communion can no longer have anything other than mutual friendship as its goal (“and that’s okay”, he said, “nothing wrong with that in itself”) but that we should be pursuing serious dialogue with “orthodox bible believing Anglicans” to seek agreement on the Gospel. He said it, not me.

In the end, he said very little about Islam. He did mention that there are difficulties with the Muslim’s committment to the Umma rather than to the nation of which he is a citizen (sound familiar? That’s what they said about Catholics in the past too – loyalty to the Church meant we were a fifth column in the society), and warning against the evils of Sharia law (of course, the only aspect of Sharia that has any foothold in Australia is Sharia finance, which is basically a system of finance to avoid charging interest – I pointed out to some others there that of course both Jews and Catholics have separate legal systems in operation in this country, but that didn’t seem to help much).

In the end, though, Bishop Michael said that Islam wasn’t really the problem. The problem was the gaping hole, the huge vacuum, that secularism has created in our society – and people are seeking a simple answer to fill that hole. That means that we have only ourselves to blame if Islam, rather than Christianity, is filling that hole.

Another point he raised – which I have been meaning to raise for some time now – is how so much of the violence that westerners are accustomed to attributing to the religion of those committing this violence can in fact be attributed to the “honour/shame” culture in which they live. We think it is about their religion, but rather it is about the “shame” they feel when their religion (or race or whatever) is felt to be denigrated, and the “honour” they seek to regain for themselves and their faith by means of violence. This isn’t therefore a “muslim” thing – it is the same thing you could expect from anyone brought up in a strict honour/shame society. I am expanding a little on what Bishop Michael said, but I think it is an idea worth exploring a little more deeply.

Anyway, I appreciated the opportunity to listen to Bishop Michael. I am still very uncomfortable with the prevailing “anti-Muslim” sentiments among many in our society, but I can’t say that Bishop Michael did anything to fan those flames. As for the “anti-muslim” sentiments themselves, I fear that they are largely irrantional. Yes, there are dangerous people in the world, and some of these are Muslims – but that hardly translates into a rational fear of Islam. And the idea that Australia is somehow going to become a Muslim state with Sharia law is, I think, just laughable. Australians are too bloody apathetic to practice Christianity, let alone Islam, which is a far more demanding religion.

I have been enjoying watching the live streaming video of the Holy Father’s visit to Scotland, which unfortunately is without commentary, but gives some good viewing. It was something to see the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England together side by side. There are similarities between the two – both are of about the same age, and both have leadership styles that place emphasis upon devotion to their duty coupled with a somewhat old fashioned disdain for the popular press.

The Pope’s speech at Holyrood ticked all the right boxes, though. Check out this paragraph:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

In that single paragraph, he defused the fact that he was, of course, on the other side of the conflict between England and Germany, even though, as we know, a reluctant conscript. His Holiness and Her Majesty would both have very vivid memories of that time – although one can be certain that at the time the young German policeman’s son could not have possibly dreamed that he would one day pay a state visit to the young woman who was then the crown princess of the greatest enemy of the Nazi state.

But in the same paragraph, Pope Benedict also acknowledges the suffering of the Jewish people, the challenge “atheist extremism”, and the need to keep “religion and virtue” in public life. Not bad going…

He goes on to say:

Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the two billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world.

There is a very interesting mix of ideas in that paragraph. This afternoon I am heading off to hear the English Anglican bishop Michael Nazir-Ali speak on “Courage in a hostile world: promoting the kingdom of God in an increasingly hostile world.” Tonight he is also speaking on “the challenge of radical Islam and aggressive atheism”. From what I heard of him on an interview with Alan Jones on 2GB, and given the folks who are hosting him out here, I don’t think that his message will be quite as subtle as that of Pope Benedict’s. It is very easy for those who have grown up in a “traditionally Christain” society, such as Britain or Australia, to feel threatened by the fact that our modern society is clearly multicultural. As the Pope says, maintaining multiculturalism as a positive aspect of society is a “challenging enterprise”, which needs to

1) “maintain its respect” FOR “traditional values and cultural expressions”
2) be on guard against “aggressive forms of secularism” which do not “value or even tolerate” those expressions
3) uphold that “Christian foundation” which is the very foundation that “underpins” those freedoms which a positive multicultural society seeks to uphold

This applies as much to Australia as to England and even to the US (the Pope speaks of “the example your Government and people set before the two billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world”). I will be interested to hear how Her Majesty’s bishop presents this example this afternoon and tonight.

In the mean time, keep up with the Papal visit in the UK. Fr Nick is doing a good job of providing the links and such. I am sure that there is much more to come along these lines…

Two blogs you might be interested in.

The first is that of our friend and fellow Sentirist Joshua, Psallite Sapientier. Josh has just come back from a short holiday in South Australia catching up with Lutheran pals there such as the inestimable Pastor Fraser Pearce (now Pastor of Bethlehem, Flinders Street). He also went to the Barossa – my ancestoral happy hunting grounds (or at least grape-stomping grounds) – and visited the little church of Gnadenfrei at Marananga. A good friend of mine, Pastor David Spike, now Deputy Headmaster at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Croydon, was ordained there because his father was the resident pastor there at the time. Your correspondent, having been recently ordained himself, assisted at the ordination, as did (if memory serves me correctly) another good friend of mine and now the pastor to my wife and children at St Paul’s Box Hill, Pastor Andrew Brook.

Speaking of ordinations, the other blog I wanted to feature is one that Joshua has only just brought to my attention, by the newly ordained Fr Nicholas Pearce at apriestdownunder.com. Fr Nick was ordained on Saturday here at St Pat’s Cathedral (unfortunately I could not attend because I was home alone with a sick daughter), but he has some nice pictures of the ordination and his first mass on the blog. He seems to be quite prolific in his blogging – obviously relishing the new found freedom beyond the walls of the Seminary. Soon pastoral life will kick in and I guess the volume of the blogging will decrease a little, but we can be certain that the quality will be maintained. Nick has been blogging since August, and looks set to become our local “Fr Z.” at this rate. Congratulations on your ordination, Fr Pearce, and welcome to the SCE blogroll! I hope you will find time among your many priestly duties to drop in for a glass of port at the SCE commentary table!

There is a funny little story going around about comments made by Cardinal Kasper about England and surmising that this is the reason he is not accompanying the Pope on his journey to England. Cathnews picked it up, but the source is here, on the website of the German magazine Focus.

A google translation of the Focus article reads:

Cardinal Walter Kasper is too embarrassed to accompany the Pope to Britain? The British media are in any case after Kaspers interview with FOCUS.
A FOCUS interview makes headlines in the UK: Cardinal Kasper’s comparison of the island with a land of “Third World” should have led to Kasper, differently than planned, not the Pope, accompanied on his trip to England and Scotland, British media speculating.

In the interview in the current issue of FOCUS Kasper replied to the question of why so many Britons expressed their displeasure with the pope: “England is now a secular, pluralistic country. If you land at Heathrow Airport, you sometimes think you had landed in a third world country. “Kasper also affirmed the question of whether Christians would suffer in the kingdom, and said:” Particularly in New England is an aggressive atheism spread . If you are around at British Airways and carrying a cross, you will be penalized. But we want to show our faith in public. Anyone who knows England knows that there is also a great Christian tradition. Europe would no longer be Europe if it could not maintain this tradition. ”

Kasper was referring to a four-year-old case of an employee of British Airways, which had been prohibited, while working a necklace with a cross over her uniform, and thus contribute to visible to customers. The case had been matter of dispute in the UK.

When it was announced on Wednesday that Kasper “health reasons” other than scheduled will not accompany the pope, British media immediately drew the connection to Kasper’s statements in the FOCUS interview.

On the other hand stressed Kaspers spokesman, Oliver Lahl, the Cardinal was really ill. And indeed, the cardinal health problems have been known for some time. Moreover, the Vatican has since tried to straighten Kaspers “Third World”-Quote: Kasper had referred to the great international importance of London, with its cosmopolitan population. The observation of the Cardinal over the “aggressive new atheism is true” some well-known authors that appear aggressive and make scientific or cultural arguments, but which are not really of such great value,” the Vatican was trying to clarify.

British journalists, however, presented this declaration is not completely satisfied. “To make these remarks on the eve of the journey was a little awkward,” said relatively restrained the Rome correspondent for the BBC, David Willey. Much more violent reaction Clifford Langley of the Catholic weekly newspaper The Tablet. ” The Cardinal speaks “clearly nonsense,” Langley said the BBC. “I do not think he believes Britain were in the grip of a secular atheism, and he had not said that. They claim that his poor health had forced him to cancel the tour. I wonder if he has not called off because his presence would be embarrassing now. ”

British Airways defended himself, the Cardinal was “seriously misinformed” about the case of employees, the crucifix she was not allowed: “It is completely untrue that we discriminate against Christians or the followers of any faith.” The employee had lost two years ago, a labor court against the airline. Beginning of the year and of appeal judges ruled in favor of British Airways. The “Daily Telegraph” points out that Pope Benedict “contrary to the tradition,” will just take the return flight with Alitalia rather than with the former state airline of the host country, British Airways.

The Age has a one page spread on the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict in the lead up to his visit to Britain today. I began reading it and then thought “I’ve read this before…” In fact, it is an edited reprint of an article I linked to in a previous post from The Guardian. I was wondering if the editors just took out the positive bits and left the negative bits. In comparing the two versions, I concluded that there was some evidence of this, but not much, so I won’t make anything of it.