Rereading the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery

After the Parish Fete ended tonight, I attended (still dusty and tired from my duties in the carpark) the Vigil Mass for the 5th Sunday in Lent.

The Gospel was, of course, that of “The Woman Caught In Adultery” from John 8. It is a fascinating story, and full of Johannine dramatic tension (including his characteristic way of reducing the essential drama to a dialogue between Jesus and only one other person in the final verses). But surely it loses some of its impact because we today hear of an act of adultery and say to ourselves “STONING? for ADULTERY? How unjust! Of course Jesus was right not to condemn her.” We are on Jesus’ side because we don’t think (contrary to ancient Judaism and modern Islam) that adultery is such a serious or shameful crime that the death penalty should be applied.

An example is the “Reflection” that appeared in the parish bulletin. All I know of the source of this reflection is that at the bottom it said “(c) GIA”. (Here is the full “Reflection” published on the website of another Australian parish.) It is obviously American in its origin. What got me is this rather self-congratulatory paragraph:

Some of you may remember a while back when the news media ran a picture of a woman accused of adultery buried up to her neck, exposing her face and head for a pummeling with rocks. It was the first time many of us existentially understood what it meant to be ‘stoned to death’. We have nothing like that in our culture.

I don’t remember the photograph – although obviously it appeared in the US press. Obvious too was the fact that this stemmed from somewhere in the world where a strict and merciless Sharia law is applied. But do we really “have nothing like that in our culture”?

Run with me on this – and don’t stone me for thinking it. Just try this out for how it might revitalise the story for us.

The lawyers and the reporters brought a priest who had been caught in child abuse; and making him stand before all of them, they said to him, “Teacher, this priest of yours was caught in the very act of committing abuse. Now our law and society commands us to stone such man. Now what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at him.” And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground.”

Now, I know that adultery differs greatly from sexual abuse against minors in the major respect that we can generally assume the willingness of the adulterers, whereas child sexual abuse is an horrendous crime against the dignity and will and innocence of the victim. So there is not a strict parallel here.

But ask yourselves this: Do we really “have nothing like that in our culture”? How would you write the ending of this story if the accused in the story was a priest caught in child abuse and not a woman caught in adultery?

I am one of those who was, by Jesus statement “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is must ask myself whether I can maintain my self-righteous indignation and whether it is possible to show mercy to those whom our society truly (and perhaps rightly) regards as “the chief of sinners”.

For the fact is that Jesus’ terrible and appalling mercy has been shown to me also.

Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments

Benedict XVI Visits Lutherans to Promote Unity

And more on unity: here is a great and heartwarming story of the visit of the Holy Father to the Lutheran parish of Rome.

In his address, which the Holy Father delivered without a written script, he invited his listeners to be thankful for the fact that “we are here together on this Laetare Sunday, that we sing together, that we listen to the Word of God together, that we listen to each other, all looking to the one Christ and, thus, rendering testimony to the one Christ.”

Benedict XVI was welcomed with prolonged applause in the Christuskirche on the Via Sicilia in Rome. The choir, composed of Lutherans and German Catholic seminarians, intoned Mozart’s “Jubilate Deo.”

…Benedict XVI was also already familiar with the church. In 1998, when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he met with the Lutheran community during its annual festival.

The young pastor of the community, Jens-Martin Kruse, began his homily acknowledging that “for us it is truly a day of joy.” Pastor Kruse’s homily, appropriately themed for “Laetare Sunday,” was a commentary on the meaning of Christian joy.

Citing St. Paul, he invited his listeners to advance along the way of Christ together, everyone “for each other” and “in tribulation consoling each other with the consolation by which we are consoled by God.”

I wish I could have been there. The visit reminds me of his Holiness’s recent visit to the Jewish Synagogue. Despite all the controversies, what can be seen is that both Roman communities – the Jews and the Lutherans – have a love for the Holy Father which is reciprocated tenfold by Pope Benedict himself.

What do we have to do to translate this good will into action?

Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I issues Lenten Encyclical defending dialogue and ecumenism

I know from several of our Orthodox readers that the ecumenical movement has some way to go in completely convincing the Orthodox hoi poloi of their leaders enthusiasm for ecumenism. Most Russians, for eg, are dead against any talk of unity with Western Christendom, papal or otherwise. The fact that Patriarch Kirill was in charge of the “ecumenical desk” in Moscow – a post now held by the excellent Archbishop Hilarion – does not excite them at all. And there are a good number of Greeks who are not too keen on the Ecumenical Patriarch’s for enthusiasm for links with Church and Pope of Rome (a term I use in its most specific sense) – see here for news of a “document on ‘heresy of ecumenism'”, a manifesto published “a group of Orthodox clergy in Greece, led by three senior archbishops, …pledging to resist all ecumenical ties with Roman Catholics and Protestants.”

The topic chosen by the Ecumenical Patriach, Bartholemew I, for his Lenten Encyclical – published on “the Sunday of Orthodoxy” no less – could therefore not have been more pointed or controversial. Nevertheless, his empassioned plea for Orthodox Ecumenism is to be applauded and welcomed by all non-Orthodox. Here – at some length – I quote from the Letter:

With a sense of duty and responsibility, despite its hurdles and problems, as the First-Throne Church of Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate cares about protecting and establishing the unity of the Orthodox Church, in order that with one voice and in one heart we may confess the Orthodox faith of our Fathers in every age and even in our times. For, Orthodoxy is not a museum treasure that must be preserved; it is a breath of life that must be transmitted and invigorate all people. Orthodoxy is always contemporary, so long as we promote it with humility and interpret it in light of the existential quests and needs of humanity in each historical period and cultural circumstance.

To this purpose, Orthodoxy must be in constant dialogue with the world. The Orthodox Church does not fear dialogue because truth is not afraid of dialogue. On the contrary, if Orthodoxy is enclosed within itself and not in dialogue with those outside, it will both fail in its mission and no longer be the “catholic” and “ecumenical” Church. Instead, it will become an introverted and self-contained group, a “ghetto” on the margins of history. This is why the great Fathers of the Church never feared dialogue with the spiritual culture of their age – indeed even with the pagan idolaters and philosophers of their world – thereby influencing and transforming the civilization of their time and offering us a truly ecumenical Church.

Today, Orthodoxy is called to continue this dialogue with the outside world in order to provide a witness and the life-giving breath of its faith. However, this dialogue cannot reach the outside world unless it first passes through all those that bear the Christian name. Thus, we must first converse as Christians among ourselves in order to resolve our differences, in order that our witness to the outside world may be credible. Our endeavors for the union of all Christians is the will and command of our Lord, who before His Passion prayed to His Father “that all [namely, His disciples] may be one, so that the world may believe that You sent me.” (John 17.21) It is not possible for the Lord to agonize over the unity of His disciples and for us to remain indifferent about the unity of all Christians. This would constitute criminal betrayal and transgression of His divine commandment.

It is precisely for these reasons that, with the mutual agreement and participation of all local Orthodox Churches, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has for many decades conducted official Panorthodox theological dialogues with the larger Christian Churches and Confessions. The aim of these dialogues is, in a spirit of love, to discuss whatever divides Christians both in terms of faith as well as in terms of the organization and life of the Church.

These dialogues, together with every effort for peaceful and fraternal relations of the Orthodox Church with other Christians, are unfortunately challenged today in an unacceptably fanatical way – at least by the standards of a genuinely Orthodox ethos – by certain circles that exclusively claim for themselves the title of zealot and defender of Orthodoxy. As if all the Patriarchs and Sacred Synods of the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, who unanimously decided on and continue to support these dialogues, were not Orthodox. Yet, these opponents of every effort for the restoration of unity among Christians raise themselves above Episcopal Synods of the Church to the dangerous point of creating schisms within the Church.

In their polemical argumentation, these critics of the restoration of unity among Christians do not even hesitate to distort reality in order to deceive and arouse the faithful. Thus, they are silent about the fact that theological dialogues are conducted by unanimous decision of all Orthodox Churches, instead attacking the Ecumenical Patriarchate alone. They disseminate false rumors that union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is imminent, while they know well that the differences discussed in these theological dialogues remain numerous and require lengthy debate; moreover, union is not decided by theological commissions but by Church Synods. They assert that the Pope will supposedly subjugate the Orthodox, because they latter submit to dialogue with the Roman Catholics! They condemn those who conduct these dialogues as allegedly “heretics” and “traitors” of Orthodoxy, purely and simply because they converse with non-Orthodox, with whom they share the treasure and truth of our Orthodox faith. They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being “the pan-heresy of ecumenism” without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers.

Beloved children in the Lord, Orthodoxy has no need of either fanaticism or bigotry to protect itself. Whoever believes that Orthodoxy has the truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue. By contrast, when in our day all people strive to resolve their differences through dialogue, Orthodoxy cannot proceed with intolerance and extremism. You should have utmost confidence in your Mother Church. For the Mother Church has over the ages preserved and transmitted Orthodoxy even to other nations. And today, the Mother Church is struggling amid difficult circumstances to maintain Orthodoxy vibrant and venerable throughout the world.

It is plain to me that the Patriarch shares the same desires as the Pope, who, in his inaugral homily as Pontiff, stated:

Here I want to add something: both the image of the shepherd and that of the fisherman issue an explicit call to unity. “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must lead them too, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16); these are the words of Jesus at the end of his discourse on the Good Shepherd. And the account of the 153 large fish ends with the joyful statement: “although there were so many, the net was not torn” (Jn 21:11). Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn! But no – we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised. Let us remember it in our prayer to the Lord, as we plead with him: yes, Lord, remember your promise. Grant that we may be one flock and one shepherd! Do not allow your net to be torn, help us to be servants of unity!

I pray that the Lord would support and bless the efforts of these two great leaders of world Christendom and answer their prayers for the unity of all Christians, both within and without their folds.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The newspaper men report on the atheist convention

Lots of other bloggers have already covered this (eg. see Pastor Mark’s comments here), but now it is my turn. Just briefly, the Atheists Convention here in Melbourne last week failed entirely to win friends and influence people.

The newspaper men especially were not convinced. See here for Barney Zwartz’s review and here for Andrew Bolt’s.

I must say that Barney tries to be charitable, but still is unconvinced. Bolt wasn’t even trying. Both reviews increase my wonder at C. Hitchen’s claim that “religion poisons everything”. The best comparison is, as I have said before, with the Parliament of the World’s Religions. Now, I have my criticisms of the latter event also, but it never descended into the kind of ridicule and self-congratulation that the Atheists Convention did. Rather it was truly a positive event which welcomed one and all and which did a heck of a lot of really positive things about how the world could be made a better and more wholesome place to live in. Even the likes of Hans Kung and Joan Chittester didn’t sour the event in the way that the Dawkins crowd did last week. Once again, proof in the wisdom of our Victorian and Australian governments in refusing to give a cent in support of this latest gathering. The fact is that the Parliament injected a great deal of really uplifting and inspiring energy into the cultural and religious life of this state, whereas the Atheists Convention was entirely, utterly negative.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

We apologise for the break in our transmission…

I say, What Ho, chaps, someone pass the port, eh what? Must have drifted off there for a moment…

Apologies for the lack of communication on this blog over the last few days. Life has been very busy in the office and in the home. In the office, I have been preparing this three day Interfaith Symposium on Death and Dying (a monumental task) and at home we have just finished THE PARISH FETE (capitals intended).

Parish fetes are big deals here in Melbourne, drawing about 30 to 40 thousand dollars into the parish coffers each year. This year I was in charge of the parking – a voluntary charge that I took upon myself having been an assistant in the car park for three years in the past and each time thinking “I could do this better”, and spending my time on the dusty oval preparing ideas. This year I had the chance to put it into action, and with lots of help from others, we had the smoothest running car park in the history of the fete – even if I do say so myself. But this has meant that I have put about 24 hours of solid work into preparation and setting up and execution and clearing up, and now am sunburnt, dusty, tired and footsore. Cathy spent all day on the face painting stall, and is fast asleep now. The Fete is a red letter feast day for the kids, and they too are dead to the world now, after a busy day of rides, fair food fare, and buying trinkets at the trash and treasure.

So now is time to catch up on the blog. Thanks for your patience. I am back in action!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Evangelium Vitae "Time of Prayer and Forum" (25 March)

Australian Catholic University invites you to attend a time of prayer and public forum commemorating the 15th anniversary of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) by Pope John Paul II.

Thursday 25th March 2010
Christ Lecture Theatre,
Australian Catholic University (Melbourne)
115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy
6.30pm-7pm

Time of prayer in Chapel led by Bishop Tim Costelloe SDB
7pm-7.30pm

Supper sponsored by ACU and The Order of Malta
(Victorian Association)

7.30pm-9pm
Forum with key note speakers

Bishop Tim Costelloe SDB (Auxiliary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne)
Evangelium Vitae 15 years on – A pastoral response

Ms Jo Grainger (Healthcare ethicist, Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery (Vic), ACU)
The challenges of fostering a culture of life in a ‘culture of death’

Dr Mary Walsh (Melbourne GP specialising in women’s health, obstetric shared-care, paediatrics and care of the aged)
Evangelium Vitae for health professionals

For more information and RSVP
Email: jo.grainger@acu.edu.au

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Paul O'Shea (Author of "A Cross Too Heavy") opens a blog

I received this email from Paul a few days ago. I highly endorse his blog – it will be a real “go to” place for good historical information and comment on the issues surrounding Pope Pius XII. I will add him to my blog roll.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

After much wondering whether I should, could or would, I took the plunge into Blog world yesterday. If every other voice on Pope Pius XII can claim their share of cyber space, I figured, why not me?

I welcome your comments, criticisms and suggestions. It is very much a work in progress.

http://paulonpius.blogspot.com/

Regards,

Dr Paul O’Shea

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Please Call Us By Our Name

Okay, blog policy time, guys.

I am becoming a little tired of the short hand “RC” or “RCC”, and even of the long hand “Roman Catholic/Roman Catholic Church”.

That is a name for the Church which was dreamed up by English Protestants. Even German Protestants have the good grace to refer to us as “Katholische”.

It is generally polite to call another person by the name they wish to be called (please do NOT call me “Dave”). You might have objections to my name, but do me the courtesy of calling me by it.

Same goes for the Church to which I belong. I belong to a Church called “The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne”. I do not belong to an entity called “The Roman Catholic Church” or any version there of. I DO belong to a body which calls itself “The Catholic Church”. You might have a problem with that. You might want to protest (as in “protest-ant”?) that your “church” is a part of the “catholic church”. Good for you. Go ahead and call your “church” that then. Call your church “God’s Own and Only True and Apostolic Church of Christ and No Other” if you like, and I will refer to your “church” by that name.

So. Please – on this blog – no more of this “RCC” stuff, okay? The Church to which I belong calls itself “The Catholic Church”- as in PE’s oft stated “The Catholic Church the Catholic Church the Catholic Church”. Go and write it out a hundred times if it will help.

End of rant. Time for bed.

Posted in Uncategorized | 145 Comments

The History of Christianity on TV

“The Conversion of Constantine represented the beginning of a relationship between politics and religion.”

What a silly statement. It appears at the very beginning of the second episode of the series “Christianity: A History” from Channel 4 (an odd series that has a range of different “hosts” for each of the eight series, including Ann Widdecombe and Cherie Blair), currently showing here on ABC TV’s Compass. It is the sort of nonsense platitude that one expects of these TV “Histories of Christianity”. I mean, who could seriously claim to be able to point to any event in history in which politics and religion could first be said to be related? Was there ever a period when they (ie. any religion and all politics) was not?

For some reason, Christian history does not translate well into television. That goes for the excellent Dairmaid MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity” too. The book is marvellous. Unfortunately, you won’t learn much from the TV series. I’ve just watched episode two of the DVD version, which focuses on the Latin/Roman Church from Peter through to the Crusades and the dawn of the Reformation. What in his book comes across as balanced and detailed and highly informative, is reduced to a vague overview, given from what can only be described as protestant-Whig-school-history-text-book terms. No deep insights.

(I have to interupt myself here: I have just watched a scene in Episode 2 of “Christianity: A History” which suggested that Constantine burned those “heretics” who disagreed with the Nicene Creed!!! Another statement in this program is exactly like it: the claim that Constantine gave Eusebius the task of deciding “what stories of Christ to leave in and what to leave out” of the gospel books he commissioned. This is utter Dan Brown nonsense – in fact, they actually say “this was made widely known later by the Da Vinci Code!!!)

The BBC/MacCulloch’s production is historically better than this Channel 4 production, but the second episodes of both series have a lot in common with one another. From the way they tell the story, Christianity after the conversion of Constantine was a completely (“180 degree turn”) different religion to that which went before it. It makes the “pre-Vatican-II/post-Vatican-II” argument look pale in comparison. Both are characterised by the frequent use of the word “power”. It appears that they cannot understand what the Church was about without using this word repeatedly. The story of the quest for “power” is the only narrative by which these TV commentaries seems to be able to comprehend the Church – and therefore they completely misunderstand it. The show ends with the host saying “I’m a lapsed Catholic, so I think that power is for politicians, not churchmen, so Constantine gets my thumbs down.” Que?

I am almost ready to give up ever finding a TV series that I can recommend for my students. I might suggest that they look at MacCulloch’s series. I could never recommend “Christianity: A History”. At least it’s second episode is utter rubbish.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

"Convinced by the Truth"

Fr John Fleming’s latest book, on which he has been working for some time, is available for pre-publication ordering.

The title is “Convinced by the Truth” by John Fleming. [Old title was “Receive the Power”] and will be available next month.

What’s it about? Here is the blurb:

Why convert to Catholicism? In the context of what he saw as the global disintegration of Anglicanism Father John Fleming, former Anglican priest, presents a compelling account of his spiritual odyssey, and why Catholicism alone could satisfy his need for the synthesis of faith and reason. The Mass being a crucial factor in his own conversion, he draws readers into his exchange with two young people, one a Catholic the other not, on the reasonableness of Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass. He concludes with a fascinating account of how the Traditional Anglican Communion came to seek, without condition, full corporate reunion with the Holy See and his own part in this history-making episode.

Click here for preordering.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment