Sentire Cum Ecclesia

According to this report on the Canberra Goulburn Archdiocese website, Archbishop Mark Coleridge says that the new Missal “would be in use in churches before the middle of next year”. Well, he should know – but it is a bit of a surprise. I thought that the schedule was for Advent next year, starting a new liturgical year with the new translation. Although, in retrospect, the busy season of Advent would not be the best time to introduce such a change.

Maybe it hinges on what he means by “in use” and where the “churches” that would be using it are. Maybe they have in mind some sort of incremental introduction, rather than the “wham bam / now you see it now you don’t” approach that was used for the introduction of the current translation. I have no idea. I have been told that the new lectionary translation won’t be ready for introduction when the new liturgy translation is rolled out, so there will be a period of overlap between the old and the new in that regard.

I cheered (in a quiet way) the news that the Holy Father may be considering creating a new “Pontifical Council for the New Evangelisation”. That is so right. It reminds me of the fact pointed out to me long ago by one of my NT teachers that whenever Jesus suffered a set back, his very next act was to “up the anti” by making a significant move in his mission to bring the Good News to the world (cf. Luke 6:6-16). Pope Benedict seems to be following the same model. Amid all the criticism he is currently receiving, he will not allow the Church to be diverted from his primary mission of evangelisation.

In this light a recent speech made by Cardinal Levada in the US about a “New Apologetics” seems right on target. The whole speech is worth reading, but here are a few choice bits.

He starts by quoting Pope Benedict to the American bishops:

“In a society that rightly values personal liberty, the church needs to promote at every level of her teaching – in catechesis, preaching, seminary and university instruction – an apologetics [his emphasis] aimed at affirming the truth of Christian revelation, the harmony of faith and reason, and a sound understanding of freedom, seen in positive terms as a liberation both from the limitations of sin and for an authentic and fulfilling life.”

He goes on to cite Avery Dulles:

“The goals and methods of apologetics have frequently shifted. The earliest apologists were primarily concerned with obtaining civil toleration for the Christian community – to prove that Christians were not malefactors deserving the death penalty. Gradually through the early centuries the apologies for Christianity became less defensive. Assuming the counteroffensive, they aimed to win converts from other groups. Some were addressed to pagans, others to Jews. Subsequently apologetics turned its attention to Moslems, then to atheists, agnostics, and religious indifferentists. Finally apologists came to recognize that every Christian harbors within himself a secret infidel. At this point apologetics became, to some extent, a dialogue between the believer and the unbeliever in the heart of the Christian himself. In speaking to his unregenerate self the apologist assumed – quite correctly – that he would best be able to reach others similarly situated.”

That last bit about modern Catholic apologetics being addressed as much to the “unbeliever” in the hearts of Catholics themselves is spot on. It seems to me that this is what groups such as EWTN or Catholic Answers are aimed at this as much as at apologetics to the outside world.

He quotes the Second Vatican Council at length to demonstrate that apologetics are an important part of the evangelising mission of the Church, even while noting the change in attitude toward apologetics that followed the Council.

I was ordained in 1961 and returned to Los Angeles to work in a parish and teach religion, including apologetics, to high school seniors. When I returned for my doctorate after the Council, I took a course on revelation from Tromp’s successor Fr. Rene Latourelle, S.J. In the span of those few years (from before to after Vatican II), the shape of the theology of revelation taught at the Pontifical Gregorian University had changed drastically, to the point where I think it is fair to say that apologetics no longer made an appearance in the theological curriculum.

He notes that one of the reasons for this change in attitude toward apologetics could have been that “old apologetics” was seen as too agressive against those who believe differently from us. “Dialogue” was the new catch word. He quotes Fr Latourelle as having written

“renewed ecumenical impulse that changed the often aggressive and polemical attitude of the old apologetics into an openness for dialogue.”

Levada has some words advice in this regard:

Finally, a new apologetics must take into account the ecumenical and interfaith context of any dialogue about religious faith in a secular world. I do not agree with those who suggest that the time for a specific Catholic apologetics has passed. But questions of spirit and faith engage all the great religious traditions and must be addressed with an openness to interfaith dialogue. Similarly, our ecumenical progress has shown us the many gifts we share in common with fellow Christians: C.S. Lewis is but one, even if outstanding, example. Our apologetics will only be strengthened by common witness and testimony with our fellow Christians about the purpose of God’s revelation in Christ, for our own lives and for the world in which we live.

I agree wholeheartedly. As one engaged in both dialogue and apologetics, we must see that in the New Evangelisation there is a legitimate place for both – they are not mortal enemies, but rather two sides of the same coin.

And when it comes to apologetics, we really can learn something from our Protestant brethren and sistern.
Again, he notes Dulles:

“Many Catholic theologians, unclear about the importance of the faith that comes through hearing, have been reluctant to align themselves with the call to proclaim the Gospel. Conservative protestant groups, although they have a conception of the Gospel that I would regard as very inadequate, are far more committed to the task of evangelization. Having drifted away from the missionary commitments of their forebears, Catholics are only beginning to catch up with Pentecostal and Biblicist Protestants. Yet the Catholic Church, with its rich intellectual and cultural heritage, has resources for evangelization that are available to no other group. We need a more outgoing, dynamic church, less distracted by internal controversy, more focused on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, more responsive to the Spirit and more capable of united action”

Amen to that.

There is a very funny – and clever – segment from the ABCTV “Hungry Beast” program which seeks to inform us about our Prime Minister’s “top priority”:

Perhaps more accurate would be Ross Gittins’ take in The Age this morning:

Rudd’s response to Henry’s recommendations has been determined by his top priority: political survival.

My good friend, Pastor Pearce, told me to expect something like this when I was complaining to him on the phone of the proposed new wine tax that would put an end to Schütz’s “days of wine and roses”.

That Gittins piece is on the money, mind you. Apart from the fact that he and I would probably differ about the desirability of the Emmissions Trading Scheme – now put back on the shelf in the Parliamentary warehouse – he has the rest of it about right:

Rudd has sorted Henry’s many recommendations into three boxes labelled: Yes- now; Maybe-later; and No-never.

In the Yes-now box are all the nice ideas Rudd hopes will win him votes at this year’s election, including a great big new tax on mining companies and cuts in company tax, particularly for small business, and bigger superannuation concessions for low-income earners.

…In the Maybe-later box are various reforms Rudd has failed to specify but which, presumably, wouldn’t worry most voters and would seriously antagonise only interest groups for whom the public doesn’t have much sympathy.

…In the No-never box are all the nasties Rudd knows would cause him grief and cost him votes no matter how much in the nation’s interests they might be. [eg. the new wine tax]

…Now Abbott will be trying to convince us Rudd has half-a-dozen big new taxes to spring on us. All the proposals Rudd says are in the No-never box are secretly in his Once-I’m-re-elected box. But that’s the bitter lesson of last week’s political cowardice and failure of leadership. We needn’t fear Rudd has any tax nasties up his sleeve because we now know he doesn’t have the courage.

Well, I always did say that there was a fine line between courage, stupidity and sainthood. Seems “our Kevin” may not be the saint some people thought they were electing three years ago. One thing is for sure: he isn’t stupid.

But there are others out there with a view of the world that is at least as much tainted by roses as Schütz’s is tainted by wine. Take this from Mark Wetherell in the same pages this morning:

The federal government has rejected the Henry report’s demand to urgently lift the tax on cheap wine to counter widespread abuse, particularly among Aborigines, of lightly taxed cask wine.

Was that what it was all about? Really? If that was the case, it was a bit like taking a missile to kill a sparrow. Surely there are other options to achieve this worthy goal? Or are they implying that the only ones to enjoy a glass of cheap red wine are alcoholics? But then, is this not the same logic that led to widespread support (by non-smokers) for the recent hike in the tobacco levy? (It’s bad for you and we are going to make you stop by getting you to pay more – the marked side effect for our coffers are in no way a motivating factor). As for “cowardly taxes”, there is a letter in this morning’s age from one Pete Smith of Richmond who says:

THERE are leadership taxes and there are cowardly taxes. Leadership taxes comprise upfront taxes, transparent to the community and imposed across the board. Cowardly taxes are not transparent and are invariably aimed at weaker Australians.

The introduction of across-the-board poker machine licences, despite the warnings of social welfare groups, and the subsequent billions in revenues for governments is a prime example of cowardly taxation. Petrol excise and associated taxes are another. One might argue (and many do) that speeding cameras are yet another form of cowardly revenue-raising.

The most cowardly taxes of all are those on items like beer and cigarettes. The federal government has again created an ill-considered initiative, introduced at short notice with no consideration for retailers and sadly affecting those Australians who are likely the least able to afford it.

Ah well. It may well be that some future government – led by either a saint or a hero (or …) will one day decide that it is a good idea to tax all alcohol by % volume, but thankfully that day has not yet come. In the mean time, I raise my glass to political expediency and continue to smell the roses (and my pipe smoke).

TIME Magazine has a list going called “The 10 Most Controversial Popes”. If you haven’t got much to do this afternoon, you might take a look and see if you agree. Note that it isn’t “The 10 Worst Popes” of history (which would probably be a list populated with the popes of the 10th Century alone – notably, only Sergius III makes it to this list), but the “10 most controversial“. TIME has them as:

1.Stephen VI
2.Urban VI
3.Alexander VI
4.Pius XII
5.Benedict IX
6.Boniface VIII
7.Nicholas III
8.Clement V
9.Leo X
10.Sergius III

Neither Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Paul VI or John Paul II have made it to the list – although surely they must together top the list in terms of media controversy. All the popes on this list lived before the time of the widespread open public media Papal Hunting Season – lucky them. Or us. Anyway, what do you think of the list, and how would you correct it?

Did you see it? We just had the first episode of the new series of Robin Hood on ABC2 tonight, and there, smack bang in the middle of the sky over Robin’s right shoulder in the middle of the day, is a half moon. Nothing odd about that, you say? Well no, but this was immediately after the pivotal scene of the episode – involving a total eclipse. I know I wasn’t the only one who saw this. I googled “Robin Hood” and “half moon” and here it is on the IMDB site. In the very next shot, showing the same scene at the same angle, the moon is gone. To add to the lunar lunacy, there was a full moon in the scene showing “the night before”. Dear O dear O dear. Are we so detatched from our physical world that such gaffs can be made so easily?

A question for those of you who might know more than I do about these things.

In a recent conversation with a Catholic academic, I questioned why his course on sacraments dealt with the seven mysteries in this order: baptism, penance, Eucharist, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, anointing. Shouldn’t confirmation follow baptism and precede the Eucharist in the proper theological order? He responded that his ordering of the subjects was the practical pastoral order for reception of these sacraments in our schools and parishes and cited Thomas Aquinas in support of this order as “the proper theological order” as well.

A conversation ensued, which led to some enlightenment on my part. I took a close look at the Decree “Quam Singulari” issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments with the approval of (and presumably at the request of) Pope Pius X in 1910. This is the document usually cited as the basis of our current pastoral practice, by which first confession and first communion usually precede confirmation.

Surprisingly, I discovered that this document – replete with citations of the history of liturgical practice in the West and Thomas Aquinas – says absolutely nothing about Confirmation. It doesn’t even mention it in relation to the whole discussion. What it does focus on is the appropriate age for the reception of the sacraments of penance and communion. This is variously referred to as “the age of reason” or “the age of discretion”. Thus:

Therefore, the age of discretion for Confession is the time when one can distinguish between right and wrong, that is, when one arrives at a certain use of reason, and so similarly, for Holy Communion is required the age when one can distinguish between the Bread of the Holy Eucharist and ordinary bread-again the age at which a child attains the use of reason.

Nothing is said about the age for Confirmation in “Quam Singlulari”.

Further although the document refers to the historical practice in the West regarding the age of first communion, it does so without discussing the question of whether confirmation (or as the Eastern rites would call it “chrismation” – we will get to the Eastern practice in a minute) was administered beforehand. Thus:

The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. This, as was prescribed in almost all ancient Ritual books, was done at Baptism until the thirteenth century, and this custom prevailed in some places even later. It is still found in the Greek and Oriental Churches. But to remove the danger that infants might eject the Consecrated Host, the custom obtained from the beginning of administering the Eucharist to them under the species of wine only.

Infants, however, not only at the time of Baptism, but also frequently thereafter were admitted to the sacred repast. In some churches it was the custom to give the Eucharist to the children immediately after the clergy; in others, the small fragments which remained after the Communion of the adults were given to the children.

This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were not permitted to approach the Holy Table until they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament.

How are we to interpret this? We know that in the West priests did not administer confirmation, but only bishops. But do the “ancient Ritual books” to which “Quam Singulari” refers envision baptism by a bishop, who then chrismated the child, and then gave first communion? OR did these ancient rituals envisage baptism and first communion by a priest and only later confirmation by a bishop? The lack of discussion of Confirmation in this regard is not really helpful.

Two major considerations here:

First the Eastern Churches, both our own Eastern Catholic rites and the Orthodox Churches, are quite critical of what they call an abandonment of the ancient order whereby baptism must be completed by chrismation/confirmation before communion.

Secondly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems quite certain that we are to regard Confirmation as the completion of baptism, and as the second of the three stages of Christian initiation, the conclusion of which is reception of first communion. It also gives “the age of discretion” as the age for confirmation (1307) and says that “although Confirmation is sometimes called the “sacrament of Christian maturity,” we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth” (1308).

So now we come back to the question: What is the “age of discretion”. My academic interlocutor claims that in “English law” the “age of discretion” is 14 years, and that this is how the Australian bishops understand it. Does anyone have any references for this interpretation? Some years ago, Fr Flader had an article in the Catholic Weekly in which he wrote:

At the same time the Code of Canon Law establishes that Episcopal Conferences can decide on a different age than the age of discretion. (cf Can. 891) The age of discretion is the age at which a person acquires the use of reason, and this is presumed in the Code of Canon Law at the age of seven. (Can. 97 §2)

This is the same age at which children can also make their First Reconciliation and First Communion.

In recent years some dioceses have adopted the practice of children receiving the sacrament of Confirmation before they make their First Communion. The reason for this is that the children then receive the three Sacraments of Christian Initiation – Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist – in the proper order. This is a perfectly acceptable practice.

It is incorrect to say that children of this age cannot understand the full meaning of Confirmation.

And then we have the rather enigmatic comment of our own Holy Father in Sacramentum Caritatis:

17. If the Eucharist is truly the source and summit of the Church’s life and mission, it follows that the process of Christian initiation must constantly be directed to the reception of this sacrament. As the Synod Fathers said, we need to ask ourselves whether in our Christian communities the close link between Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist is sufficiently recognized. (46) It must never be forgotten that our reception of Baptism and Confirmation is ordered to the Eucharist. Accordingly, our pastoral practice should reflect a more unitary understanding of the process of Christian initiation. …

18. In this regard, attention needs to be paid to the order of the sacraments of initiation. Different traditions exist within the Church. There is a clear variation between, on the one hand, the ecclesial customs of the East (50) and the practice of the West regarding the initiation of adults, (51) and, on the other hand, the procedure adopted for children. (52) Yet these variations are not properly of the dogmatic order, but are pastoral in character. Concretely, it needs to be seen which practice better enables the faithful to put the sacrament of the Eucharist at the centre, as the goal of the whole process of initiation. In close collaboration with the competent offices of the Roman Curia, Bishops’ Conferences should examine the effectiveness of current approaches to Christian initiation, so that the faithful can be helped both to mature through the formation received in our communities and to give their lives an authentically eucharistic direction, so that they can offer a reason for the hope within them in a way suited to our times (cf. 1 Pet 3:15).

All of which adds up to…what?

I must make it clear that I am not rebelling against local policy. I can understand (as Fr Flader points out in his article) the argument for the “more traditional age for Confirmation of around 12” on the basis of the fact that “children…benefit greatly from the grace of the sacrament in the years of adolescence.”

But my original question to my academic friend is whether there is “a proper theological order for teaching about the sacraments”, and is that order not “baptism, confirmation, Eucharist” rather than “baptism, Eucharist, confirmation”? Do arguments about “the age of discretion” enter into this discussion or not? What IS “the age of discretion”? Does it differ from “the age of reason”? And is this a pastoral or theological issue? (After all, the Church has no argument with the Eastern Rites’ practice of chrismating infants). And is confirmation or reception of the Eucharist the completion of Christian initiation?

Any help you can give me in this discussion would be most appreciated. (nb. I have in the past found Fr Paul Turner’s writings on this subject useful, but his website -www.paulturner.org – seems to be down at the moment).

What’s that American saying? “Nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session”? You can feel for some Muslims in Belgium who now find it illegal to wear the full face veil in public.

Closer to home, Schütz’s own life-style is being challenged. A new excise on tobacco came in today raising the price of a packet of cigarettes more than $2. I don’t smoke cigarettes – I smoke a pipe – and have yet to find out how the new excise will affect a packet of pipe tobacco. I am not “addicted” to tobacco – I smoke my pipe because I enjoy it. I have been known, usually while travelling on holidays with my family, to go up to five days quite happily without a pipe, but I do enjoy at least one pipe a day, if not two. If I don’t smoke at all on any particular day, it is because I have been too busy or because it has been too cold and wet outside to enjoy the experience. Many have heralded the new excise (and plans for radical repackaging) and the Opposition is now committed to supporting it. But – like the burka in Belgium – it is a case of people making laws for other people. Smokers are a minority among our law makers, and easily scape-goated as piranas on society and public health, and so we are easy targets for new laws and taxes.

But it doesn’t end there. This morning I read in the paper about the Henry review of our tax system in Australia – many of the proposals of which seem set to become law before too long. Most radical is a proposal for a “flat tax” on alcohol, which will result (absurdly) in a bottle of Grange Hermitage being $133 cheaper and a cask of red wine rising from $15 to $35. A bottle of Johny Walker Red Label scotch is supposed to drop from $43 to $35 dollars. Now, I have often complained that Scotch is too expensive in this country – but when a bottle of Scotch costs the same as a cask of red wine, (or rather, vice versa) you know that things have gone completely crazy. My standard drink is cask wine (although lately clean skin bottles have been about the same value), with the occasional small whisky as a luxury. This new tax proposal will rewrite my drinking pattern radically – most predictably in the downward direction. Now some might think that a good thing, but again: like my smoking, I drink wine because I enjoy it. Mr Henry and Mr Rudd might look forward to saving a bit on high-end price wines and on their next bottle of Scotch because they can afford it and probably wouldn’t touch cask wine in a blue fit. On my salaray, I don’t have that luxury. God knows that the pleasures of life are few and far between for middle and low income earners in this country. (God also knows, incidentally, what all this will mean for our Australian wine industry.)

I really don’t expect much sympathy from readers of this ‘ere blog, since I don’t expect much approval for my smoking and drinking habits. All I am saying is that as long as our law makers are bent on this program of making laws “for other people”, it seems that the American saying about life, liberty and property has more than just a bit of truth to it.

I am still listening to Julian Barnes’ “Nothing to be frightened of”. His meditations on death and God are really thought provoking. Here is a great little line, however, which I wanted to share with you:

The fury of the resurrected atheist – that would be something worth seeing.

God knows what one should make of this story: Britain sorry for Pope visit document, but Mary Kenny of the Independant in Ireland does a good job of making something of it in this piece: The fashion for bashing Catholicism in the UK hurts Catholics and can revive ancient prejudices.

Sir Humphrey Appleby would probably have just said “Very droll, Prime Minister” and left it at that. For my money, I would like to see the Holy Father invited to visit an abortion ward… His speech on such an occasion alone would be worth any amount, not to mention his opportunity to meet the in-patients. But I rather suspect that this is one invitation which, while His Holiness might conceivably accept it, is unlikely ever to be extended.

Well, that could have been the headline. In fact, it wasn’t, although it would have fitted the facts well enough. The real headline in this morning’s edition of The Age was “Indian surrogacy for gay couples at risk”. As I read the article, I thought: how come we are blind to the other side of this story? Yes, you can see it as a good news story in which a gay couple have “fulfilled their wish for a child”. OR: you could ask yourself: what gives a couple of men the right to take a new born baby away from its mother only days after its birth? What gives these men the right to make the decision that this boy – who has a mother – will be raised without a female parent? What gives these men the right to remove a child from the culture and life of the land of his birth? And on a much more basic level (which men don’t often think about): what gives these men the right to deny this baby the breast-milk of its mother and instead raise it on artificial substitutes? There are times when you wonder why the feminist voice isn’t raised to heaven over issues like this.

Let me be quite clear: this has nothing to do with the two men in question being gay. It would be no different if they were two brothers who wanted a baby brother, or just two single mates who didn’t want to get married but still wanted to have a son in the junior football league. The fact that the two men who took this baby from its mother are a homosexual couple is an entirely different issue from the one that I am arguing here.

True, you could say: would it be any better if it were a married childless male/female couple who took young Noah from his mum? Answer: no, not much, although at least there would be the possibility of a female parent in the equation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions surrogacy in terms of a “surrogate uterus” (CCC 2376) – the “use” of which is “gravely immoral”. The same paragraph says that a child has a “right to be born of a father and mother known to him [or her] and bound to each other by marriage”.

But, you say, what about adoption? Surely the Church isn’t against adoption. No, it isn’t. It would be strange if a creed that bases itself on our “adoption” as “sons of God” were not also open to adoption in the human realm. But it seems to me that planned removal of a child from its mother before birth is not what the Church has in mind when it speaks of adopting children – nor that the Church would approve of adoption arrangements that involve removing the rights of the natural mother [and, less plausibly, but certainly possibly, the natural father] to have knowledge of and access to her child if she so wished. The only reference to adoption in the Catechism is in paragraph 2379: Childless couples are encouraged to “give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children [my emphasis] or performing demanding services for others.”

In every case of adoption, it seems to me that paragraph 2378 of the Catechism must be kept in mind:

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception”169 [CDF, Donum vitae II, 8].

Whichever way you cut this news story, it seems to me that the action of these two Australian men in taking a newborn child from his Indian mother is not right. It is, in the words of the Catechism “gravely immoral”.