Reprise: The Winds Of Change

Due to the fact I have some engagements today which will take up most of my time, I've decided to re post an article from the first week of January. In it I discussed the winds of change which were beginning to blow through the Church. The subsequent months have certainly continued to see the winds blow. The battles over Christologies continued with the SSPX fiasco right through to Madison Wi. Bishop Morlino's recent firing of a lay pastoral associate ostensibly over a six year old Master's thesis.

It does not take a prophet to see that these battles over the nature of Jesus and how they subsequently define the Church will continue into the future.

I suspect that the major underlying issue which is spurring a lot of the Vatican angst lately is in the realm of Christology. The recent disciplining of Fr. Roger Haight is just another in a long salvo targeting theologians whose Christology tends to progress from the bottom up, meaning emphasising Christ's humanity, rather than from the top down, emphasizing Jesus's divinity.
It's a simple observation, but it has profound consequences, effecting virtually every aspect of Catholicism. Roman Catholic Christianity has progressed theologically on a top down Christology. This Christology underpins everything about the clerical caste, the sacramental system, and the laity's relationship with the Church. A bottom up kind of Christology not only threatens all of this, it doesn't support the current structure of the Church.

This link will take you to Archbishop Bathersby's response to St. Mary's South Brisbane and gives his take on whether or not St Mary's is in communion with the Church. The sections which I found most interesting are sections 3 and 5. Both of these sections deal with an apparently poor Christology which doesn't reflect the Church's theology of the Trinity, in that Jesus's divinity is de emphasised in favor of his human actions.

The Archbishop is correct in his assertion that it is difficult to maintain one is Roman Catholic without subscribing to a Top Down Jesus. Although he doesn't quite phrase it that way, this is essentially his message. It's the same message the Vatican has given Fr. Roger Haight and every other theologian who meditated on the divinity of Christ by starting with his humanity. In the Church's view you can not proceed to discuss divinity from a human starting point.

Guess what, human consciousness is evolving in the exact opposite direction. We are beginning to find God within the material universe and our own selves as loved and loving agents of God's plan. In the West humanity is moving away from a God who is up there and out there, and towards one who is right here, permeating all of the material creation. We are beginning to recapture a 'knowing' about God that imbues sacredness to all aspects of material reality. We are recapturing a sense of the feminine side of God and with it the knowledge that we are very close to destroying our Mother in our desecration and desacrilization of this planet. The more we discover a legitimate understanding of the Trinity in Bottom Up Jesus, the bigger a threat that becomes to existing religious structures who owe their existence to Top Down Jesus.

In one part of his response, Archbishop Bathersby states that St. Mary's appears to be in a time warp, rightly emphasizing social justice, but ignoring the theology it is based on. I'm thinking he's right about the time warp, but wrong about who is in it. Top Down Jesus represents the thinking caught in a time warp. Humanity can not solve it's current dilemmas from the kind of thinking which propagated them.

Many of us are coming to the conclusion that those solutions will be found only when the profane material world is once again accorded the innate sacredness God's living presence with in it demands. That living presence is as much female as it is male. Reality says there is nothing for the male agent to exert power over, unless the female agent creates that something. Power does not exist outside creation. Each is sacred and each must be in balance. That balance is not found in emphasizing a Divine power principle over the Divine creative principle. That balance is not found in Top Down Jesus precisely because it's a theology which over emphasizes power at the expense of creativity.

In my book, Jesus is the balance expressed in incarnate form between Power and Creativity. The Magisterium can continue to try to dominate the Creativity of the Holy Spirit using Top Down Jesus as the excuse, but it will be to no avail. The current Church can not stand under the Winds of Change which are blowing through the consciousness of humanity. Try as it might, even in conjunction with any other institutional ally, it won't be able to harness this wind.
It's a wind which is blowing simultaneously from all four directions and includes all of humanity. I suspect the Vatican senses this and this is why it has really come down on liberation theology. It has no vested interest in Bottom Up Jesus getting any more of a foothold in the very Latin American and African continents in which it sees it's future. Especially in view of the fact, ideas expressed in the theologies of Bottom Up Jesus are already an integral part of the indigenous spiritual cultures of these continents.

But it won't matter if the Vatican likes it, if Islamic jihadist's like it, if economic powers like it, if humanity in general likes it. As the Vatican itself is so fond of saying, this wind is not about democracy and it's not about opinion, it's about God's will. This change in humanity's consciousness is what the Church Triumphant is all about, and they are not denominational in their actions. They never have been. For my part, I say let the Winds blow. The time has come.

Hope and Common Sense From An African Archbishop

Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria

The following is part of a much longer article posted by John Allen at the National Catholic Reporter. In this section John writes about Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Nigeria and gives the Archbishop's views of how the affluent West should work with Africa. His take is very very interesting.

While in Cameroon, I had the opportunity to reconnect with an old friend: Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, former president of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar, and one of the most articulate and forceful leaders of the African church. Among other things, Onaiyekan was a principal force behind the working paper for the upcoming Synod for Africa presented by the pope on Thursday.

We spoke of many things, but here I'll pass along the most striking element of our conversation.
Repeatedly, I pressed Onaiyekan to get concrete about what the West ought to do for Africa. Should we lower trade barriers, for example, or restructure the International Monetary Fund, or perhaps stop signing deals to exploit natural resources with authoritarian governments? It was obvious Onaiyekan was reluctant to be drawn onto that ground, though I knew from previous conversations that he favors all of the above. Finally, I simply asked: "What's the problem?"

"The problem is the way you phrased the question," he said. "You asked how the West can ‘help' Africa. We're not interested in ‘help' in that sense, meaning that we are exclusively the receivers of your generosity. We're interested in a new kind of relationship, in which all of us, as equals, work out the right way forward." (I found this statement very interesting given the Church's definition of women as receivers of the love and beneficence of men.)

The most important thing the West can do, Onaiyekan stressed, is not giving increased development aid or more trade, but what he called a "change of mentality" -- including, he said, a change of mentality within the church. (As in away from patriarchy and notions of superiority based on rank, power, and unearned privilege?)

"Let me give you an example," he said. "I arrive in Cologne as the Archbishop of Abuja, and I want to meet the Archbishop of Cologne. The question I ask myself is, ‘Am I going to meet a brother archbishop?' Theoretically, theologically, of course I am. We are both successors of the apostles, we are both in charge of a whole group of Christ's faithful. But when I arrive in Cologne, I have to pass through the whole bureaucracy of the archdiocese before I can get an appointment to see the archbishop, if you are lucky enough to get one. That already confuses the whole situation. Even if the archbishop of Cologne wanted to relate to me as a brother, he has to make an extra effort." (Yes, he has to come down from his exalted perch and meet you, you can't meet him.)

Too often, Onaiyekan argued, church leaders in the West tend to look at developing countries as problems to be solved, rather than as partners in a search for solutions. He was also clear that the mentality he's describing is a two-way street; one can find it, he said, among some African prelates. (Strikes me that this is also how the teaching authority views the reality of the laity--as problems to be solved, not partners in the solutions.)

"Some of my colleagues go all over the place talking in a very subdued tone, painting a picture of a poor Africa that is totally helpless," Onaiyekan said. "They tell long stories of woe and the need to help us, and sometimes they may even exaggerate how bad things are in order to squeeze out a bit of water from the stony hearts of those to whom they are talking." (I've seen my share of victimized women do this as well.)

"I have never believed in that, never," he said, emphasizing and drawing out the word "never." He said his refusal to come hat in hand "has caused me a bit of problems here and there, but I believe it's also won me respect."

Onaiyekan's vision of how church leaders in the United States and in Europe should think about Africa is this: "It would be natural for the bishops of the Western world to be concerned about what's happening in the poorer countries, and to listen to the link between their affluence and our poverty. There is a link, and it is the job of the church all over the world to see how we can do something about this anomaly. But we must do this as brothers and sisters in one church, not as patrons in the West confronting objects of charity." (This is absolutely true if the real spiritual gifts of Africa and Latin America are to be incorporated in the Church.)

********************************************************

Archbishop Onaiyekan is on to something here when it comes to the developing world. As long as the affluent West treats Africa and other developing nations as if they are merely receptors of our generosity, we are a huge part of the problem.

I found the Archbishop's point of view very profound. Why wouldn't the West keep oligarchs in power when the West may very well see that form of male dominance as the only way to bring any order to societies they see as weak, effeminate, and chaotic. The trouble is Western Colonialism had a great deal to do with making Africa weak and chaotic. It seems to me Africa labors under a double whammy when it comes to Western eyes, racism and notions of subservience rooted in archetypal gender roles.

In another article John Allen gives the salient talking points for the upcoming African synod to be held this October. Although apparently couched in spiritual language, it is first and foremost a social justice agenda:

Human rights and democracy
“Globalization,” which, the working paper asserts, “is tending to marginalize Africa.”
The family
The dignity of women, and contemporary threats to that dignity – including “problems of inheritance and rites of widowhood, sexual mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy.”
Ethnocentrism, xenophobia and tribal and regional conflict
Low prices for indigenous products, difficult obtaining credit for small and micro-businesses, a lack of infrastructure and decent roads, growing unemployment, and the phenomenon of “wage slavery”
Urbanization and the depopulation of rural areas
Growing crime
Exploitation of natural resources for the benefit of elites
Climate change and the environment
The financial crisis and international economic structures
Violence and war, and the arms trade
The death penalty, torture, and delays in the justice system
Witchcraft and superstitious forms of religion
Support for farm workers and opposition to genetically modified organisms) (GMOs

None of the above mentions Latin Masses, defending clericalism, the gay threat to world peace, or separates abortion out as the core issue from which all other issues will be solved. In fact, when it comes to women, it's not even mentioned. It almost looks like a list which could have been compiled by Pax Christi and it seems to be fully rooted in the Gospels.

Benedict has stated that the Continent of Africa holds out hope for the world and for the Church. With leaders like Archbishop Onaiyekan and those that compiled the African Synod position paper, these leaders seem to have a very different vision of Church mission. Very different from our own bishops Morlino, Maritino, Chaput et al. I think this time I agree with Benedict as I see no hope coming from the American Episcopacy.

I also agree with Benedict when he exuberantly stated that perhaps the African Church could come up with it's own theological academy, equal to the Alexandrian school which gave the Church Clement and Origin. My only question is would he then silence that school, which like Liberation theology, would be born in levels of social injustice and poverty very similar to Central America.

Somehow I suspect if Benedict thinks it would be a school of theology dedicated to upholding traditional family values because Africa has it's issues with misogyny and homophobia, he may find himself disappointed. Only affluent societies and their third world Episcopal lackeys have the time and money to expound on these issues.

In the meantime Archbishop Onaiyekan and other African bishops are seeing with clear eyes and speaking with real understanding. Here's another taste of Archbishop Onaiyekan's nuanced thinking relative to some of out bishops: (this is an excerpt from another John Allen article during the Synod in October on the Bible. The original seems to have been lost when the National Catholic Reporter switched formats.)

While American bishops are usually circumspect about declaring their electoral preferences, at least one African prelate currently attending the Synod of Bishops in Rome feels no such scruples. Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, said today he would “obviously” vote for Barak Obama if he could cast a ballot on Nov. 4.

Known as a strong advocate for social justice, Onaiyekan said Obama’s pro-choice record wouldn’t stop him from voting for the Democrat.

“The fact that you oppose abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that you are pro-life,” Onaiyekan said in an interview with NCR. “You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions through war, through poverty, and so on.”

A past president of the African bishops’ conference, Onaiyekan is widely seen as a spokesperson for Catholicism in Africa. During the synod, he was tapped to deliver a continental report on behalf of the African bishops.

Onaiyekan said the election of an African-American president would have positive repercussions for America’s image in the developing world.

“It would mean that for the first time, we would begin to think that the Americans are really serious in the things they say, about freedom, equality, and all that,” he said. “For a long time, we’ve been feeling that you don’t really mean it, that they’re just words.”

Onaiyekan said he’s aware that many American Catholics have reservations about Obama because of his stand on abortion, but he looks at it differently.

“Of course I believe that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing innocent life,” he said. “I also believe, however, that those who are against abortion should be consistent.

“If my choice is between a person who makes room for abortion, but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn’t support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death,” Onaiyekan said.

“It’s a whole package, and you never get a politician who will please you in everything,” he said. “You always have to pick and choose.”

Pro Life Progress On Another Issue

New Mexico governor abolishes capital punishment
By DEBORAH BAKER

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Gov. Bill Richardson, who has supported capital punishment, signed legislation to repeal New Mexico's death penalty, calling it the "most difficult decision in my political life."

The new law replaces lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The repeal takes effect on July 1, and applies only to crimes committed after that date.
"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said.

Europe's human rights watchdog on Thursday hailed the decision as "a victory for civilization." The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a historic step and a clear sign that the United States continues to make significant progress toward eradicating capital punishment once and for all."

But the New Mexico Sheriffs' and Police Association opposed repeal, saying capital punishment deters violence against police officers, jailers and prison guards. District attorneys also opposed the legislation, arguing that the death penalty was a useful prosecutorial tool.

"I'm worried for our law enforcement officers who are out there courageously doing their job every night. We've lost a layer of protection and it's a sad day in New Mexico," Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White said.

New Mexico becomes only the second state after New Jersey to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Fourteen other states do not impose capital punishment.

"The tide is turning and the end of this cruel and inhuman form of punishment in the United States is only a matter of time," said Terry Davis, the secretary general of the 47-nation Council of Europe.

All European nations have banned or suspended capital punishment.

The repeal passed the state Senate by a 24-18 vote Friday and was approved by the House a month earlier. With Richardson facing a midnight deadline to decide whether to sign or veto the legislation, he said he made the decision in the late afternoon after going to the state penitentiary.

There he saw the death chamber and visited the maximum security unit where those sentenced to life-without-parole could be housed.

"My conclusion was those cells are something that may be worse than death," the Democratic governor said at a news conference in the Capitol. "I believe this is a just punishment."

The governor also caught a glimpse of one of the two men on death row, Robert Fry. The repeal doesn't affect the death sentences of Fry or the other inmate, Timothy Allen, and Richardson said he wouldn't commute those sentences.

Richardson said he has long believed — and still does — that the death penalty was a "just punishment" in rare cases for the worst crimes. But he said he decided to sign the repeal legislation because of flaws in how the death penalty was applied.

"More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans — a fact I cannot ignore," he said.

"Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can't be 100 percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes."

Currently, New Mexico allows for the death penalty for certain murders, including killing a child, a law enforcement or correctional officer and a witness to a crime. New Mexico has executed one person since 1960.

The governor solicited input over the weekend from state residents. He said he got to 12,000 responses by phone, e-mail and visits, with more than three-fourths in favor of repeal.
"It was never popular in New Mexico," said Patrick Tyrell, a social worker and longtime lobbyist for repeal whose brother-in-law was murdered in 1984.

Roman Catholic Bishop Ricardo Ramirez of the Diocese of Las Cruces, said the governor "has made New Mexico a leader in turning away from the death penalty with all its moral problems and issues of fairness and justice."

A former congressman and member of President Bill Clinton's cabinet, Richardson said he was disturbed that death rows contain so many minorities. And, from a foreign policy perspective, the death penalty "did not seem to me to be good moral leadership and good foreign policy."

"This is a milestone that will make other states stand up and take notice," said Larry Cox, executive director, Amnesty International USA.

In Montana, a proposed ban has cleared the Senate and is pending in the House. In Kansas, a bill failed to clear the Senate this week.

************************************************************

Congratulations to Governor Bill Richardson for making a very difficult political decision, and one that takes this country forward towards more equality. I also want to note that Governor Richardson actually took it upon himself to go to death row and see up close and personal the reality of what his decision would effect. He dropped the safe intellectual distance and met the idea of the death penalty heart on. He made the right decision for the right reasons.

My hope and prayer is that my own state of Montana will follow suit. The bill to repeal the death penalty here is due to be debated in the house in April. Governor Brian Schweitzer, although a proponent of the death penalty, will likely sign it into law if it passes both houses.

I hate to admit it, but one of the reasons the state is re evaluating the death penalty is because of the enormous cost of the appeals process. We currently have two inmates on death row, and the appeals of one, a Canadian, has cost the state an estimated two million dollars. It makes me wonder what the cost of capital punishment has been in Texas.

Anyway, at least for today, there has been some good news on the pro life front. I wonder how the pro life neocons will greet this decision of the Catholic Bill Richardson. At least he can't be threatened with excommunication, his bishop agrees with him.

When The Culture Of Life Is Really The Culture Of Death

On his way to Cameroon Pope Benedict restated the Church's position on the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. When meeting with reporters and answering six previously submitted questions, Benedict stated:

"The problem cannot be overcome with the distribution of condoms. This only aggravates the problem," Benedict told the media as he flew to the western African country of Cameroon.

Instead, the pontiff said sexual abstinence was the best way to fight the deadly disease.

This statement of Benedict's is an outright lie. Condoms most certainly do not aggravate the AIDS problem. We have reams and reams of evidence to the contrary. When used correctly condoms save lives and help reduce the spread of the disease.

It's one thing for Benedict to restate the Church's position on the use of condoms, but it's quite another to flat lie about their effectiveness and in this case, to go so far as to state they aggravate the problem. The fact they work effectively aggravates his problem with the absolute ban on birth control. Perhaps that's the aggravation he was referring to.

The condom ban is another one of those absolute sexual morality statements which applied absolutely result in absolute deaths. Benedict's statement that abstinence as the best way to fight the disease is correct, unless you happen to be married. Nobody gets married so they can practice abstinence. In fact, the Church herself would annul such a marriage as not being a marriage.

Unprotected marital relations are killing spouses and children and leaving existing children orphans---by the millions. We all know this truth. Except for Benedict I guess, who apparently sees it just the opposite. Would it really take a theological rocket scientist to come up with the notion that in cases of marital sex the primary function of condom use is therapeutic intervention rather than birth control? Well, it's been suggested and it's been rejected.

What I find incomprehensible about this is that it is morally permissible to take oral contraceptives for certain conditions, acne comes to mind, precisely because the intent is therapeutic and not birth prevention. Somehow the condom is in a class of it's own when it comes to the therapeutic uses for birth control devices. So women die and children die or are left orphans, while acne sufferers in the West can use oral contraceptives. How in the world does this make any sense? A cynic could read this as saying acne in whites is a bigger deal than AIDS in blacks.

In all honesty, I have to admit that this particular issue is the issue which forced me to finally leave the Church. The refusal to allow the use of condoms in marriage where one partner is infected by HIV says all there is to say about where the Church really is regarding the culture of life. There is no spin that can address this stupidity. It's heartless, and that's the whole problem with the Institutional Church. It lacks any heart, any compassion, any sense of reasonableness. It favors cold logic based on unsupported assumptions and takes these to absurd conclusions, almost exclusively to the detriment of women and children. This is really all about a 'culture of life' for some at the expense of others, whether that's a nine year old rape victim in Brazil or the preventable HIV infection of a mother in Cameroon. Somewhere Jesus weeps.

More Fall Out From The Almost Bishop Gerhard Wagner Story

The famous parents of Irish Catholicism, St. Bridget and St. Patrick.

Father Friedl: The Love Story

Austrian priest Fr. Josef Friedl is back in the news again – for a different kind of love story. Two years ago, Fr. Friedl provided sanctuary to a teenage Albanian Muslim girl, Arigona Zogaj, who fled the Austrian government’s attempt to deport her and her family back to Kosovo. The family had come to Austria in 2002 and the girl said she would rather die than leave Austria. Fr. Friedl stated defiantly that he did not fear government prosecution, though his action earned him the epithet “Mullah Friedl” from some neighbors who were not as happy to embrace foreigners.

Thanks to Fr. Friedl's help, Zogaj is still in Austria, fighting for the reunification of her family.

However, Friedl may not be as successful in eluding prosecution by his Church for the latest love story, which emerged after Friedl and 30 other pastors in the Diocese of Linz opposed Pope Benedict XVI’s appointment of Rev. Gerhard Maria Wagner as auxilliary bishop of Linz. The appointment was also resisted by most Austrian Catholics. Rev. Wagner is known for his ultra conservative views, including that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for the sins of New Orleans and that homosexuality can be cured.

Faced with a firestorm of protest, the Vatican eventually rescinded Wagner’s promotion. Now Kath.net has revealed that Friedl told a public forum that he opposes the discipline of priestly celibacy and lives with his girlfriend. Friedl added that his parishioners have no objections and the Catholic Church Conservation blog gets to the bottom of the story with this translation of an article that appeared on Österreich/oe24.at:

He is a man of frank words- Ungenach’s priest Josef Friedl. Since Monday the country has been discussing his love-confession and the meaningfulness of celibacy. Now Arigona’s helper Friedl tells about his relationship for the first time:

The silver wedding is already behind him - if a church wedding were allowed for Catholic priests. Despite the celibacy requirement, Josef Friedl has lived for more than 25 years together with his Rosi. The pastor sees no reason to deny the relationship. "Why should I lie? Then my people in the parish would no longer believe," said the priest.

The couple came together through a stroke of fate: When the husband of Rosi K had fatal accident, the widow sought solace in the parish priest. "Then more came of it. This was not a story of just from today to tomorrow," says Friedl. The everyday organisation for them is like many other couples. Friedl goes to work in the rectory early, and in the evening he comes home to eat.

Rosi K is already retired. After the death of her husband, she trained as a religious teacher and taught in the elementary school of Ungenach. "She was very good. We will not get someone like that quickly again. This everyone confirms”. Friedl is proud of his partner. For the grandchildren of Rosi K, the pastor at her side is normal: they simply call him "Grandpa." In the parish there is therefore no problem, says the pastor. "On Sunday, many have congratulated me, because I was so open." And, in fact, in Ungenach no one is upset about the love life of the priest. Rosi K is very popular in the village and also active in the liturgy committee of the parish council.

Friedl as a priest is certainly not an isolated case. An estimated 1,400 priests are in permanent or temporary relationships. Most conceal them. For good reason: Some 500 priests have lost their posts because they wanted to marry, says Herbert Bartl from the association "Priester ohne Amt" [the Austrian married priests' association].

The church has ignored the situation, because the priest shortage is huge. Also, the bishops remain silent. No wonder: They are pleased that the recent church crisis is over. Furthermore, Bishop Ludwig Schwarz long ago knew about the relationship. "Friedl knows the rules. He must act in conformity with his conscience, " he said according to sources in Linz. The conservative website kath.net is responsible for the Friedl case now boiling over. They were the first to report the "affair". Observers see this as "an act of revenge" for the resistance of Friedl to the Almost Bishop Gerhard Wagner.

Thanks to the media attention, the diocese can no longer ignore the case. Father Friedl has been summoned to have a talk with Bishop Schwarz. He says he is not afraid of dismissal and will take the matter one step at a time. Stay tuned.

*********************************************************

This story makes me wonder just how many other bishops are ignoring partnered priests precisely due to the priest shortage. I just love it when maintaining a face of silent hypocrisy is considered better than dealing with the fact mandatory celibacy is killing the priesthood and with it the laity's right to partake in the Sacraments.

The state of the priesthood seems to be this issue of this St. Patrick's day. Benedict gave a talk to the Congregation for the Clergy in which he announced a special year for priests to begin this June 19th. In this talk he said the following:

In conclusion, the Holy Father warned of the “dilution” of priestly ministry. He explained that the without priests, “there would be no Eucharist, no mission” or the Church.

“It is necessary then, to ensure that 'new structures' or pastoral organizations are not planned for a time in which it will be possible to 'do without' ordained ministry, on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the promotion of the laity, because this would lay the foundations for a further dilution in priestly ministry, and any supposed 'solutions' would, in fact, dramatically coincide with the real causes of the problems currently affecting the ministry."

It's true there would be no Eucharist, no mission, and certainly not his vision of Roman Catholicism without an ordained and special priesthood. The problem is the demographics, and they indicate maintaining the current celibate male priesthood will eventually result in no Eucharist, no mission, and no Church for vast numbers of the laity. Catholicism will become a church of the bigger population centers and priests will become sacramental dispensers rather than pastors. Actually, this is true in many places already.

I wonder what would happen if the other 1400 or so estimated Austrian priests who are cohabiting were outed by conservative Catholics they way Fr. Friedl has been. Would Austrian Bishops be forced to fire them all, or would doing so cause a massive revolt in Austria? Would Benedict extend a fraternal hand in this case as he did on behalf of a far fewer number of SSPX priests, or would he, in the interests of not diluting the priesthood, let them all take a hike and lose a large chunk of the Austrian church?

Of course there is the option that all these other priests might come out of their phony closets in support of Fr. Friedl. That would be a heck of a statement. A sort of saying, we're done with forced hypocrisy and we're proud of our partners and here we are and now what are you going to do about it? Force us all out?

I can see where this situation deserves to be followed. The Austrian Catholic Church is in a rather snarly mood right now, and let's face it, celibacy is a joke in Africa and Benedict is on his way to Africa. This could be the perfect moment for the Southern and Northern branches of Catholicism to show some unity on a major issue confronting the priesthood and by extension the laity. Celibacy is a doctrinal issue, and the notion that somehow marriage dilutes the priesthood is pretty repugnant. If Benedict wants to keep the ordained priesthood viable, maybe it's time he extended his pastoral hand to married priests. Even Cardinal Egan agrees with that.

Stepping Back From A Precipice Of Absolutism

Vatican backtracks over doctors involved in providing abortion to a raped nine-year-old
The case of the Brazilian child impregnated by her stepfather has divided the Catholic Church
Richard Owen in Rome--Times Of London

The Vatican has backtracked over the excommunication of doctors in Brazil who performed an abortion on a nine-year-old daughter who became pregnant with twins after being raped by her 23 year old stepfather. (This isn't really true because two differing opinions have been offered. One by Cardinal Re and one by Archbishop Fisichella.)

Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said the excommunication not only of the medical team but also of the girl's mother had been a mistake. "Before thinking about an excommunication it was necessary and urgent to save an innocent life", he said. The excommunication had been decided on and publicised "too hastily".

Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, Archishop Fisichella noted that the excommunications had rebounded on the Church. "Unfortunately the credibility of our teaching was dented. It appeared in the eyes of many to be insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking in mercy." The girl "should have been above all defended, embraced, treated with sweetness to make her feel that we were all on her side, all of us, without distinction." (You bet the credibility of Catholic teaching was dented, because this case clearly demonstrated that unborn life is held in higher esteem than any born life.)

Last week the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops admitted that the excommunications of the mother and doctors of the girl had been wrong. It said the girl's mother had acted "under pressure from the doctors", who told her the girl's life was at stake and she would die if she gave birth because she was physically immature. (What if the mother only acted out of love for her daughter, would that make her more culpable than deciding 'under pressure from the doctors'?)

Dimas Lara Barbosa, the secretary-general of the Brazilian bishops said "We must take the circumstances into consideration". He said that equally there was "no clear case" for excommunicating the doctors, since only doctors who "systematically" conducted abortions should be excommunicated.

Earlier Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Vatican Congregation for Bishops, had backed the excommunications, saying the Brazilian bishops were right to take the view that the abortion was a sin. He said attacks on them were "unjustified." (When has the Vatican ever thought an attack on a bishop was justified?)

The girl was found to be four months' pregnant after being taken to a hospital suffering stomach pains. Her stepfather, who is alleged to have sexually abused her since she was six, has been arrested.

However Monsignor Fisichella implied that the case was exceptional, saying it did not affect the Church's ban on abortion as a whole, which was "always bad". He added: "How should one act in these cases? An arduous decision for the doctor, and for moral law itself".

The excommunications were announced by Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the Archbishop of Recife, the city in north-east Brazil where the girl's family lives. He said that all those involved had "broken God's law".

However Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva, the President of Brazil, praised the doctors for their decision to perform the abortion, saying that "as a Christian and a Catholic, I deeply regret that a bishop has behaved in such a conservative way. In this case, medicine is more right than the Church."

The row was inflamed when Archbishop Sobrinho said he had not excommunicated the stepfather because abortion was a more serious sin than rape. Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger. (Archbishop Sobrinho is absolutely right in his absolute interpretation of absolute abortion morality which in turn absolutely precludes the notion of any Catholic mercy.)

***********************************************************

Kind of looks like Benedict has another internal communications problem on his hands. Another apparent case of the left hand not agreeing with the right hand. In this case Archbishop Fisichella disagrees with Cardinal Battista Re, but the Archbishop got space in L'Osservatore Romano and the Cardinal didn't. I'm sure that's got to be significant. That might be my own wishful thinking because I think the Archbishop has the far better nuanced and Christian response to this particular moral conundrum.

Perhaps Archbishop Fisichella sees that the Church has backed itself into a corner in which the unborn are more valued than the born. A position which is not and never has been part of the biblical or Catholic Tradition. Maybe now someone will sit down and ask a very simple question. How did we let ourselves get backed into this corner? They may not like looking at where that answer takes them.

I wrote yesterday that this story of the Brazilian girl has not left me alone. I think part of that is because she represents a loose thread in the seamless garment of life and if one pulls on that thread one is going to start to unravel the whole seamless garment.

Jesus taught that no life is to be held as more sacred or more innocent than any other life. We were called to see Him in all lives, and just as He made decisions about who would be or not be healed, and just as He did not raise all the dead, we too have to make decisions. Those decisions become really difficult in the case of absolute moral theology because there is no room for a right answer, only more, or less, wrong ones. Yogi Berra was quoted as saying "It ain't over till it's over." With absolutism too many times "it's over before it's begun".

Instead of trying to come up with absolute moral statements, perhaps we should have been asking how Jesus made His decisions. Why did Jesus raise Lazarus and not any of the other myriad of people dieing around Him? Was it because Martha and Mary had a special place in His heart? Was it because Lazarus himself still had some part to play? Was it because of their faith in Him or was it a combination of all those things. Here's the really interesting speculation, or was it because Jesus knew a whole lot more about how things actually work and we don't.

I tend to go with the He knew a whole lot more than we do. I also think the Church frequently operates from a position of assuming things we don't know. For instance, we don't know that aborted fetuses don't have the choice of incarnating again, to the same parents, or different parents or in different circumstances all together. Allowing for this choice seems to make more sense to me than assuming they stay in some sort of perpetual limbo just because that assumption validates Thomistic theology about baptism.

Admitting we don't really know what happens to aborted fetuses or when they are ensouled or any number of other unknowns should give us pause before we start excommunicating people because they saved the life of the innocent they did know something about. Perhaps that's the whole point Archbishop Fisichella is somewhat convolutedly hinting at. The Church might need to step back from a precipice where even Angels fear to tread.

Complimentarity Is Not About Gender

Benedict's Address to Participants in Congress on Women

"Recall the Design of God That Created the Human Being Male and Female"
VATICAN CITY, FEB. 10, 2008 (Zenit.org).
* * *
Dear Brothers and Sisters!

With true pleasure I welcome all of you who are taking part in the international conference on the theme "Man and Woman: The ‘Humanum' in Its Entirety," which has been organized on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the publication of the apostolic letter "Mulieris Dignitatem." I greet Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, and I am grateful to him for being the interpreter of shared sentiments. I greet the council's secretary, Bishop Josef Clemens, and the members and the collaborators of this dicastery. In particular I greet the women, who are the great majority of those present, and who have enriched the conference's proceedings with their experience and competence.

The question on which you are reflecting has great contemporary relevance: From the second half of the 20th century until today, the movement for women's rights in the various settings of social life has generated countless reflections and debates, and it has seen the multiplication of many initiatives that the Catholic Church has followed and often accompanied with attentive interest. The male-female relationship, in its respective specificity, reciprocity and complementarity, without a doubt constitutes a central point of the "anthropological question" that is so decisive in contemporary culture. The papal interventions and documents that have touched on the emerging reality of the question of women are numerous.

(None of which were written by women.)

I limit myself to recall those of my beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II, who, in June 1995 wrote a "Letter to Women," and in Aug. 15, 1988, exactly 20 years ago, published the apostolic letter "Mulieris dignitatem." This text on the vocation and the dignity of women, of great theological, spiritual and cultural richness, in its turn inspired the "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World" of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In "Mulieris Dignitatem," John Paul II wanted to delve into the fundamental anthropological truths of men and women, the equality in dignity and their unity, the rooted and profound difference between the masculine and the feminine and their vocation to reciprocity and complementarity, collaboration and communion (cf. "Mulieris Dignitatem," No. 6). This dual-unity of man and woman is based on the foundation of the dignity of every person, created in the image and likeness of God, who "created them male and female" (Genesis 1:27), as much avoiding an indistinct uniformity and flattened-out and impoverished equality as an abysmal and conflictive difference (cf. "Letter to Women," No. 8). This dual-unity carries with it, inscribed in bodies and souls, the relation with the other, love for the other, interpersonal communion that shows that "the creation of man is also marked by a certain likeness to the divine communion" ("Mulieris Dignitatem," No. 7). (While sexual differences are an innate pro creative characteristic of earth's biological reality, I'm not so sure these same differences apply across the entire spectrum of human relationships.)

When, therefore, men or women pretend to be autonomous or totally self-sufficient, they risk being closed up in a self-realization that considers the overcoming of every natural, social or religious bond as a conquest of freedom, but which in fact reduces them to an oppressive solitude. To foster and support the true promotion of women and men one cannot fail to take this reality into account. (Then why do you foster and enshrine this same self sufficiency in a celibate religious caste, which "in fact frequently reduces them to an oppressive solitude".)

Certainly a renewed anthropological research is necessary that, on the basis of the great Christian tradition, incorporates the new advances of science and the datum of contemporary cultural sensibilities, contributing in this way to the deepened understanding not only of feminine identity but also masculine identity, which is frequently the object of partial and ideological reflections. (I wonder why he limits this to anthropological research. Perhaps it's because he doesn't like what's being discovered in biological and psychological research precisely because they don't necessarily reflect the "great Christian tradition" and he sees them as "the object of partial and ideological reflections".)

In the face of cultural and political currents that attempt to eliminate, or at least to obfuscate and confuse, the sexual differences written into human nature, considering them to be cultural constructions, it is necessary to recall the design of God that created the human being male and female, with a unity and at the same time an original and complementary difference. Human nature and the cultural dimension are integrated in an ample and complex process that constitutes the formation of the identity of each, where both dimensions -- the feminine and the masculine -- correspond to and complete each other.

Opening the work of the 5th General Conference of the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopate last May in Brazil, I recalled how there still persists a macho mentality that ignores the novelty of Christianity, which recognizes and proclaims the equal dignity and responsibility of women with respect to men. There are certain places and cultures where women are discriminated against and undervalued just for the fact that they are women, where recourse is even had to religious arguments and family, social and cultural pressures to support the disparity between the sexes, where there is consumption of acts of violence against women, making them into objects of abuse and exploitation in advertising and in the consumer and entertainment industries. In the face of such grave and persistent phenomena the commitment of Christians appears all the more urgent, so that they become everywhere the promoters of a culture that recognizes the dignity that belongs to women in law and in reality. (You mean religious arguments like JP II used in Ordinatio Sarcedotalis when he said the church did not have the authority to ordain women as priests.)

God entrusts to women and to men, according to the characteristics that are proper to each, a specific vocation in the mission of the Church and in the world. I think here of the family, community of love, open to life, fundamental cell of society. In it, woman and man, thanks to the gift of maternity and paternity, together play an irreplaceable role in regard to life. From the moment of their conception, children have a right to count on a father and a mother who care for them and accompany them in their growth. The state, for its part, must sustain with adequate social policies all that which promotes the stability of matrimony, the dignity and the responsibility of the husband and wife, their rights and irreplaceable duty to educate their children. Moreover, it is necessary that it be made possible for the woman to cooperate in the building-up of society, appreciating her typical "feminine genius."

Dear brothers and sisters, I thank you once more for your visit and, while I wish you complete success in the work of the conference, I assure you of a remembrance in prayer, invoking the maternal intercession of Mary, that she help the women of our time to realize their vocation and their mission in the ecclesial and civil community. With such vows, I impart to you here present and to your loved ones a special apostolic blessing. (Why just the maternal intercession of Mary. She has a whole lot of other attributes, such as the vanquisher of Satan Queen of the Angels, and Queen of Heaven and Earth. Those are pretty powerful Spiritual roles not limited to receiving male love and passing it on to others.)

**********************************************************

A lot of things have been going through my mind lately and they seemed to have begun focusing with the story of the nine year old Brazilian girl. That story has really gotten under my skin, and it's not just because of it's inherent lack of compassion, but because it called up questions in my mind about just how the Church sees the constantly referred to 'feminine genius.' So I have spent the better part of the last 24 hours researching the Church's concept of 'feminine genius' so I could get some understanding concerning the Vatican's view of pregnant nine year old girls and the feminine liberating qualities of washing machines.

After all my research I've decided JP II's understanding of male and female complementarity is about as close as I'm going to get to the core foundational understanding of the 'feminine genius'. He sets out most of it in Mulieris Dignitatem. JP II spent a lot of words to get to his one core truth: men give love and women receive love and spread it to others. Men are givers and women are receptors which is mirrored in the Church's relationship as the Bride of Christ to the spousal action of Christ Himself. Of course this very concept is also played out in pro creative heterosexuality. No wonder Genesis is the primary scriptural source of Mulieris Dignitatem.

It's pretty simple notion and somewhat elegant in it's simplicity. If only things actually worked that way. The reality is men are notorious for taking, not giving, and women are notorious for enabling men to take. As such it's a system which has seemingly worked far better for men than women, and really lousy for a lot of children. See Brazilian nine year old.

When I read the Gospel's I have the sense that Jesus was actually teaching both sexes it is better to give than to receive, to serve rather than be served, and that nobody had the right to take from or exploit others.

JP II goes on for quite some length citing Gospel interactions in which Jesus does not treat women any differently from men, and in some cases even seems to think they will get His teachings better than men. JP II's conclusion is that Jesus does this because He recognizes women are better 'receptors' of Jesus's teachings.

I read the same passages and wonder if it's not about reception but about comprehension. Comprehension is a product of both reception and understanding. It's holistic. The women of the Gospels are not prone to have Jesus parse everything down to the last nuance, unlike certain male Apostles who seem to be figuring out just how much they can take from the teachings or how much of the teachings pertain to them personally. The women just seem to get it and to put the teachings into practice--fearlessly. They comprehend what Jesus is teaching.

It's not the men who are the principle witnesses to Jesus's Crucifixion and Resurrection. The men are the great betrayers. The men don't begin to start giving until after Pentecost, after they have been infused with the Holy Spirit, and then Acts records that it was both men and women who went out to preach the Good News and do works of wonder. In this case the men had to become receivers before they could become givers.

The real truth though, is that the men accepted the gift offered by the Holy Spirit. I prefer the word consentor rather than receiver. Mary accepted the calling to be the Mother of Jesus, she did not passively receive a gift she did not choose. She gave consent. I firmly believe that if JPII had used the concept of women as consentors and men as requestors we might have a completely different understanding of the duties and responsibilities of the genders towards each other. Especially in sexual ethics. The Church might find itself far more in sinc with secular notions of sexuality and gender and sexual accountability.

But as long as men are seen as active agents and women as passive recipients there will be serious dysfunction between secular society and the Church when it comes to sexuality and gender. The notions of consent and request are innate to both genders and give dignity to both genders. This mutual understanding is what makes good relationships lasting relationships.

Extended to the Church itself, the hierarchy seems to have forgotten they have their ordained power with the consent of the laity at the request of the Ordinand. Marriage is a Sacrament because of the consent of the two parties to their mutual request and the consent of the witnesses to that obligation. None of this needs to pertain to particular gender roles which are based in notions of action and passive reception. Both request and consent are active verbs.

In this sense even Genesis makes the case for request and consent. Adam bemoans his single fate and makes a request of God and voila God consents and Adam has Eve. God requests Adam and Eve refrain from eating from a particular tree and they don't consent and voila we have separation from bliss and all the delightful things which have followed. The Jews subsequently make request after request of God to save us from our folly and He consents by sending His son. There's no bigger answer to any request than that. That's love in action and that's what request and consent are ultimately about, relational love in action, and both sexes are perfectly capable of that. After all both sexes were born in the image and likeness of God. They should be equally capable of love in action, and that's where the Kingdom is found-----not in a Maytag.

Now For Something Really Important

Modern Woman And God's Greatest Modern Gift

Washing machine brought rights to women: Vatican

The washing machine has had a greater liberating role for women than the pill, the official Vatican daily said in an International Women's Day commentary Sunday.

"The washing machine and the emancipation of women: put in the powder, close the lid and relax," said the headline on the article in Osservatore Romano.

"In the 20th cenutry, what contributed most to the emancipation of western women?" questioned the article.

"The debate is still open. Some say it was the pill, others the liberalisation of abortion, or being able to work outside the home. Others go even further: the washing machine," it added.

The long eulogy to the washing machine - for which the first rudimentary models appeared in the 18th century - highlighted "the sublime mystique to being able to 'change the sheets on the beds twice a week instead of once'," quoting the words of late American feminist Betty Friedan.

While the machines were at first unreliable, technology has developed so quickly that now there is "the image of the super woman, smiling, made up and radiant among the appliances of her house," wrote Osservatore. (Most women I know don't get made up to do laundry--just an observation.)

************************************************************

Neither my mother, nor myself would agree with the Vatican's assessment of the liberating qualities of washing machines. My mother firmly believed all they accomplished was to add more to her work load because every one's expectations for clean clothes became excessive. She also firmly believed washing machines encouraged the purchasing of lots of clothes people didn't need, which in turn forced her to wash more loads.

If I were to list her two favorite liberating inventions they would be permanent press clothes and the micro wave oven. They are two of my favorites as well. In fact, in our house if one of us were to be stupid enough to purchase non permanent press clothing my mother more or less refused to wash it, or she forced them to pay me to iron it. I always bought permanent press. She often lamented that in raising us all as babies she didn't have a micro wave for all our formula. It was so much faster and more accurate than heating bottles on a stove.

The best things about micro waves were the processed foods that one could purchase for them. Our family became tediously acquainted with all things Stoufer. Dad actually had to buy another freezer for all things Stoufer. It's not surprising that I personally have nothing in my freezer which says Stoufer. There is that whole concept concerning too much of a good thing.

When I read this Vatican assessment on the liberation of women I could hear my late mother's harrumph in the back of my mind. Typical asinine male assessment. Only men with no children would opt for the washing machine over the micro wave. She would say these Vatican men could wax eloquently on the labor saving qualities of the washing machine because they mostly didn't use them. The microwave was male friendly from it's inception and so would not be seen as something that liberated women.

My mother was always mystified that the men in our family could tear apart huge diesel engines but be completely incapable of discerning the mysteries of laundry. The micro wave was a different story. Hot snacks and all that. They got so infatuated with our first micro wave that they did a lot of the cooking. Testing it's capabilities or something. That truly liberated my mother. From then on she was waiting for some technological breakthrough in washing machines that would equally capture their attention. It never happened and all the filthy ranch clothes were always her responsibility, or us girls.

For some reason, I never quite got the concept that doing my brothers laundry increased my femininity. If anything it increased my suspicions that girls in my family did not have the same status as boys. Somehow the laundry room was not the special girl territory my brothers tried to make it out to be. A place that was beyond their male capacity, a foreign territory where they might break things in their male ignorance.

For me it was a place where I over loaded, over dried, purposely wrinkled, mixed whites and colors, and in general created havoc. My mother soon tired of my passive aggressive attitude towards laundry and I was relegated to the ironing board, but she also insisted if my brothers actually wanted something ironed, they had to pay me.

I bought a lot of Beatles albums with their money, especially off my one brother's Army uniforms. Starching things cost way more than normal ironing. I loved the US Army's uniform code. Ironing wasn't exactly ego fulfilling, but it was a whole lot better than doing washing for free. Finding out she could convince her children to pay another child for ironing was also a liberating concept for my mother. Far more liberating of her time than the washing machine could ever be.

In all honesty, I can't take this little ditty from the Vatican seriously. If they truly do believe the most liberating thing for women in the twentieth century is the washing machine, they are truly out of touch with where women are really at. It's the pill, they just can't admit that. Or maybe it's because they can imagine the Virgin Mary using a washing machine but not the other thing.

Catholic Conundrums Over Sexual Morality

Bishops repudiate abuse of girl who underwent abortion in Brazil

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Mar 10, 2009 / 03:26 pm (CNA).-

The leadership of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil has strongly condemned the abuse suffered by a 9 year-old girl who was raped by her stepfather, became pregnant with twins and was submitted to an abortion several days ago.

The bishops expressed their bewilderment at what had happened to the girl. “We vehemently repudiate this insane act and we defend [the need for] a rigorous investigation into the facts, and we call for those responsible to be duly punished in accord with justice,” they said in a statement. (I find it difficult to believe they were bewildered by the rape of a child.)

The bishops expressed regret that the case was not isolated. “We are concerned about the growing number of attacks on the lives of children who are victims of sexual abuse. In this context, the Church is united with her and with all the children who are victims of this type of brutality and their families,” the bishops said.

They also recalled that “in fidelity to the Gospel,” the Church “always speaks out in support of life and unequivocally condemns all acts of violence that offend human dignity.”

The bishops in the northeastern region of Brazil, where the girl lives, said the defense of life is “a principle that guides the practice of the Church in Brazil,” as was the case “during the military regime of 1964, when the Church spoke out in defense of life and the dignity of persons, the defense of the human rights of the political refugees that were persecuted and tortured.”

According to the bishops, an awareness of human rights “leaves no room for any kind of violence, especially against children and women. In this concrete case, we reject the rape and sexual abuse suffered by the girl.”

However, they noted, “what is protected by law does not always coincide with what is in accord with ethical principles and moral values. For us, the Lord’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill, will always take priority.” (This is true only in the case of the unborn.)

Given the complexity of the case, we regret that it has not been faced with the serenity, tranquility and time that the situation demanded. In addition, we are not in agreement with the final result of eliminating the lives of defenseless human beings.” “It falls to us to externalize our beliefs publicly in defense of life, which is always a gift from God.”

(I'm sorry bishops, but this point is precisely where your theology has fundamental contradictions. If life is always a gift from God, then the step father was acting in accordance with the Will of God and should not be condemned. God wanted a nine year old child to conceive twins via incestuous rape. There is no other conclusion which can be reached given that life is always a gift from God. This is why you have excommunicated the doctors and the girl's mother, but not the father.)

******************************************************************

In reading comments from Catholics on this story on other websites, it seems the plight of this child, her mother, and doctors has a hit a chord. Many commentators say they have had enough and walking away from the Church is their only choice. It looks like the combination of this story on top of the SSPX and Maciel/Legion of Christ stories are straws which are breaking a lot of Catholic backs. All three seem to be windows into the soul of the Institutional Church and the view of that soul is not pretty. It lacks integrity, consistency and compassion.

Benedict speaks eloquently on the need for both Faith and Reason. A lot of us are beginning to see a view of Faith which is deficient not only in reason but also compassion. No reasonable person can look at the Brazilian situation and not see that the Church values the unborn as a higher form of life and innocence than the born. This message is loud and clear. It has to be, because this notion is a logical outgrowth of the whole of Catholic sexual morality.

A one day old conceptus has more rights in the Catholic church than any other form of life, (except celibate priests) certainly far and above the rights of women, or in this case nine year old girls. It's a sexual theology which places the morality of rape above masturbation, homosexuality, the use of birth control and any and every other sexual act not open to procreation. It's not a sexual theology of love, but of misinformed biology, and it most certainly favors heterosexual men over women and girls. It's errors in logic are also compounded by raising virginity and celibacy to a status above procreative sex. So, no sex is the greatest good, but the forcible rape of women is better than masturbation. No wonder women doubt their rights and dignity with in this theology.

How about the bishops assertion that they are in solidarity with sexually abused children? Well, a reasonable person cannot look at the Maciel situation without coming to the logical conclusion that the Church knew for decades there were serious deficiencies with Fr. Maciel, but he was allowed to operate with impunity and publically defended, while his abuse victims were excoriated. If the Brazilian bishops are truly in solidarity with sexually abused children they should be loudly petitioning the Vatican for an independent investigation of the Legion and Fr. Maciel. They should have been for a long long time, but since Brazilian bishops have their own large mess with pedophile clergy, their assurances in this area wring a bit hollow.

In the meantime the compassion which Benedict has extended to the SSPX, and this also includes his moto proprio, has been thrown back at him by the refusal of Bishop Fellay to even consider acceding to the theology of Vatican II. In other words, the hand that was extended was bit. This has not stopped Benedict from blaming the subsequent fall out on dissident Catholics who didn't understand his gesture. The Jewish community has been less vitriolic.

I understood the gesture. I understood SSPX has a significant number of priests in training and four ordained bishops. They were and are a schismatic church of some significance. They are a slowly growing cancer in the body of Christ. I give Benedict kudos for insisting the Vatican learn how to use Google, but I also have one last bit of advice. One doesn't eradicate a cancer by asking it gently to become something else. Cancers aren't like that at all. They are predatory, just like Fr. Maciel. If Benedict is really serious about unity he needs to be serious about cancers in the church body.

He could start with it's theology of sexual morality, because it was Paul VI's refusal to change anything about this theology which most fully derailed Vatican II and started the Mass exodus.

The Chuch can not authoritatively teach an ideal of sexual expression when it finds itself forced to seed the moral high ground to violent rape over masturbation. What this is really condoning is the sexual exploitation of women under the guise of procreation. That's why I see the only way this conundrum can be solved is through abstinence, the exact opposite of procreation, a situation which directly refutes God's command to go forth and multiply. No wonder so many Catholics are leaving, it's all too confusing.

Powerful Words On The Eucharist From Benedict

The following article is excerpted from Zenit's translation of Pope Benedict's question and answer session with priests of the diocese of Rome. It is part of a longer answer about the centrality of the Eucharistic celebration. The priest who asked the question wanted Benedict's take on the notion that all theology should be connected to the theology of the Eucharist. I think this is one of the most brilliant reflections I have ever read from Benedict.

The mystery is the heart from which comes our strength, and to which we return to find this center. And that is why I think that catechesis, let us say mystagogic [catechesis], is really important. Mystagogic also means realistic, referred to our life of men of today. If it is true that man in himself knows not his measure -- that he is just and that he is not just -- but that he finds his measure outside of himself, in God; it is important that this God not be distant but reconcilable, concrete, that he enter our lives and really be a friend with whom we can talk and who talks with us. We must learn to celebrate the Eucharist, learn to know Jesus Christ, the God with a human face, up close, really enter into contact with him, learn to listen to him and to allow him to enter into us. Because sacramental communion is precisely this interpenetration between two persons. I am not taking a piece of bread, or flesh, but I take or I open my heart so that the Risen One will enter the context of my being, so that he is within me and not just outside of me, and thus speaks with me and transforms my being. He gives me the sense of justice, the dynamism of justice, in zeal for the Gospel. (Wow, finally a confirmation that the Eucharist is about the Risen Christ.)

This celebration, in which God not only comes close to us, but enters into the fabric of our existence, is essential to really be able to live with God and for God and to take the light of God to this world. Let us not go into too many details now. But it is always important that the sacramental catechesis be an existential catechesis. Of course, even accepting and increasingly learning the mystic aspect -- where words and reasoning fail -- the latter is totally realistic, because it leads me to God, and God to me. It leads me to the other because the other receives the same Christ, as I do. Hence, if the same Christ is in him and me, we also are no longer separate individual beings. Herein lies the birth of the doctrine of the Body of Christ, because we have all been incorporated if we receive the Eucharist correctly in the same Christ. Hence, my neighbor is truly close: we are no longer two separate "I"s, but we are united in the same "I" of Christ. (In my book, this is what makes a Catholic a Catholic, the understanding that we are united in the same "I" of Christ through partaking in the Eucharist.)

In other words, Eucharistic and sacramental catechesis must really go to the depth of our existence, to be, in fact, education to open myself to the voice of God, to let myself be opened to break this original sin of egoism and to open my existence profoundly, so that I will really be just. In this sense, it seems to me that we must all learn the liturgy better, not as something exotic but as the heart of our being Christian, which does not open easily to a distant man, but which is, on the other hand, precisely openness to the other, to the world. We must all collaborate in celebrating the Eucharist ever more profoundly: not only as a rite but as an existential process that touches me profoundly, more than anything else, and changes me, transforms me and, by transforming me, sparks the transformation of the world that the Lord desires and of which He wishes to make me an instrument.

**********************************************************

The Eucharist is an existential process that happens to be codified in a ritual. All valid spiritual ceremonies are at their heart existential processes. They derive their power from relationship, not ritual. In the Mass Catholics celebrate and engage in a relationship with the Risen Christ, and it's real. The only limits to the extent of the relationship are ones of our own creating. No one has any God given right to deny this relationship to any other believer. When it happens, it's because it's a Man taken right, and as such it has no basis in God's reality.

If this Eucharistic understanding of Benedict's really was the central teaching around which all other teachings orbit, this understanding of Benedict's would radically reform the Church. It is not only a good place to start, it is the core place to start and this is great theology. At least in my humble opinion.