Jesus, Gender, And The New Covenant

Pope Benedict is now in Israel where he gave a very moving speech at the Yad Vashem holocaust memorial. He was about as straight forward and uncompromising as one can get on the issue of antisemitism and the reality of the Holocaust. Click here for the full text.

I've written before that Benedict can be just brilliant is some areas and then suffer from a total blind spot in other areas. One of his blind spots is on "women's genius". In a sermon given during Sunday's Mass in Jordan, he once again made reference to women's genius. The following is an extract from his homily:

An important aspect of your reflection during this Year of the Family has been the particular dignity, vocation and mission of women in God’s plan. How much the Church in these lands owes to the patient, loving and faithful witness of countless Christian mothers, religious Sisters, teachers, doctors and nurses! How much your society owes to all those women who in different and at times courageous ways have devoted their lives to building peace and fostering love!

From the very first pages of the Bible, we see how man and woman, created in the image of God, are meant to complement one another as stewards of God’s gifts and partners in communicating his gift of life, both physical and spiritual, to our world. Sadly, this God-given dignity and role of women has not always been sufficiently understood and esteemed. The Church, and society as a whole, has come to realize how urgently we need what the late Pope John Paul II called the “prophetic charism” of women (cf. Mulieris Dignitatem, 29) as bearers of love, teachers of mercy and artisans of peace, bringing warmth and humanity to a world that all too often judges the value of a person by the cold criteria of usefulness and profit. By its public witness of respect for women, and its defence of the innate dignity of every human person, the Church in the Holy Land can make an important contribution to the advancement of a culture of true humanity and the building of the civilization of love." (So just what exactly is 'men's genius'?)

As usual the message about women is their complimentary ability to serve others through motherhood, teaching, and healing. As usual the justification given for this genius 'for serving others', is the original complementarity between man and woman as described in Genesis.

What Benedict usually leaves out in his references to Genesis is that biblical scholars see the first chapter of Genesis describing the creation of ha adam out of adamha. That is creating an 'earthling' (ha adam), from earth (adamah). There is no gender definition implied in the original Hebrew. It is only after God introduces the 'earthling' to all the other pairs of animals and the 'earthling' names them that ha adam realizes species loneliness. Every other animal is paired.

I suppose one could wonder if God realized that ha adam, as a species, distinct from an individual, was short something, and hence corrected the oversight. In any event we have Adam and Eve in the next chapter, and from then on all things bad blamed on Eve. She distorted her feminine genius by 'helping' Adam disobey God's command.

I read the 2004 letter sent to bishops On The Collaboration of Men and Women in Church and the World written by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. It is essentially a restatement of John Paul's Mulieris Dignitatem, with an additional dig at feminists and homosexuals and a really strong dig at Eve:

"God's decisive words to the woman after the first sin express the kind of relationship which has now been introduced between man and woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gn 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other. Indeed the story of humanity is continuously marked by this situation, which recalls the three-fold concupiscence mentioned by Saint John: the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan, are lost." (Interesting he doesn't state which sex lords it over the other.)

This treatment of Genesis blames this whole sexual discord thing on Eve, the woman. Adam being the victim. Actually, Benedict starts this letter out blaming the current discord on secular feminism--the new incarnation of Eve, I guess.

In this perspective, physical difference, termed sex, is minimized, while the purely cultural element, termed gender, is emphasized to the maximum and held to be primary. The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.

While the immediate roots of this second tendency are found in the context of reflection on women's roles, its deeper motivation must be sought in the human attempt to be freed from one's biological conditioning. According to this perspective, human nature in itself does not possess characteristics in an absolute manner: all persons can and ought to constitute themselves as they like, since they are free from every predetermination linked to their essential constitution. (The truth is human characteristics spread out over a bell curve continuum. The absolutes, if there actually are any, would be at the very ends of the bell curve and not include many people.)

This perspective has many consequences. Above all it strengthens the idea that the liberation of women entails criticism of Sacred Scripture, which would be seen as handing on a patriarchal conception of God nourished by an essentially male-dominated culture. Second, this tendency would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form. (Bingo!)

I wish Benedict could read these sentences through the eyes of a woman. He might find himself thinking that his objections are all wet and that Sacred Scripture is most certainly patriarchal and a product of a male dominated culture.

Of course, he started the letter out by claiming the Church is an expert in humanity, which I guess means I have to accept the underlying assumption that celibate males can be experts in female humanity, since this letter is almost exclusively about female roles.

I seriously doubt he would ever accept the notion that celibate women can be experts in male humanity, since he never bothered to consult one single female in the writing of this letter. Which leads one to believe the whatever women's genius is, it doesn't include expertise in the humanity of either sex---at least as far as the Church is concerned.

The reason I bother with all of this, is precisely because Benedict is in a part of the world where the rights of women are seriously curtailed, women are still the victims of family pride killings, can be stoned for adultery, contracted in marriage before puberty, and gays are imprisoned and or executed.

Benedict has repeatedly noted that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share the first books of the bible. When he insists on a literal and somewhat erroneous interpretation of Genesis he isn't just promoting his notion of the traditional family, he's also giving tacit support to some of the worst human rights violators in the world, and I'm not just talking the Islamic world.

If you take the time to read his entire letter, you might come away with the same over all impression I did. Benedict's notion of complementarity describes a male essence based in the Old Testament, and a female essence based in the New Testament. One gender rules, judges, creates, and jealously protects, while the other sacrifices, suffers, forgives, heals, and loves.

Perhaps this is precisely why Jesus came as male. Women didn't need a New Covenant. They already embodied it. Pun intended.

Cardinal Martini Has A Different Attitude Towards The Sheople

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini is not exactly Archbishop Raymond Burke

First off happy Mother's Day. According to my daughter, who has this day all planned out, my particular Mother's Day gift will give us approximately 12 hours of bonding time. I suspect the second season of the Tudors has hit store shelves and will soon hit my DVD collection. But since this is my day, we will actually enjoy 15 hours of bonding time, since I will force her to watch game five of the Redwings/Ducks Stanley Cup playoff series.

In the meantime, I have been reading a lot of the old articles from America Magazine. I mean old articles from the entire 100 year history of the magazine. It's been fascinating reading. I found one written by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini that really struck me. He wrote this in 1998 as a commentary on the upcoming millennium, but it is hugely prophetic for today's Catholic world.

It's about his vision of how Holy Mother church could work, and how he put this vision in operation in the Archdiocese of Milan. The entire article can be read here, but the following is the part that really struck me. Let's just say that Cardinal Martini's view of the Church is not Bishop Martino's view of the church. In this case changing one letter in a name is a world of difference.

Praying in Milan

With the coming of salvation in Christ, a new world economy is possible, based, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, not on competition but on concern for all human beings. It is essential at the eve of the new millennium that we live according to these prospects, conveying them to others for the good of all humanity. First, we need to address those who are searching for meaning in life and would like to be helped in the new millennium. We need to bring to them new openings for this meaning. Second, we need especially to help young people find distinctive points of reference for this new quest for meaning. Third, we need to aid the ordinary Christian in looking to the new millennium not with fear and anxiety but with joy and hope.

How can we be of assistance to others in a local community, a local church, a diocese? In Milan, to cite a city where I have tried to implement my vision of Christianity, I have tried to address the needs of Christians and nonbelievers alike. For the last few years, I have invited people belonging to every religion—or even to no religion at all—to gather in our cathedral for sessions we organize periodically throughout the year. My only request is that those who attend be willing to think. Normally between 1,000 and 2,000 participate at each session. I said at the outset, "Let us ask some nonbelievers to tell us why they do not believe and let us listen to them." And I provided what might be called a "chair for nonbelievers," so they could speak to us about their experiences, since I believe that there is inside each one of us, whatever our religion, both a believer and a nonbeliever. (Even a bishop, I must confess, feels at times the interior tugs of belief and non-belief.) Thus, I have asked myself, "Why not give an open voice to this inner struggle by listening also to people who are in search of meaning? Can't I be helped by them to understand what is happening within me?" (Isn't this exactly what real parents do, listen to their children's hopes and struggles, freely admitting we experience the same struggles?)

In due course, I invited a well-known Marxist philosopher to speak about the implications in his own personal life of not believing in God—and I can tell you, it was a moving experience. Very, very interesting. And after that I invited others—psychiatrists, artists, poets and others—to speak about the searching for a meaning in life, with all the doubts and anxieties that it entails. In inviting these speakers, I was not out to convince anyone of the Christian message, nor to give a sermon or an apologetic exhortation. I simply wanted to provide an environment where each person present could think and reflect on the meaning of his or her life.

At the conclusion to each session, I asked some questions that might have occurred to me: What have we heard this evening? What does it mean? What is the question I have to arrive at in order to think more deeply? How can what I have heard make me more self-sufficient? Has my heart learned something new? In order to vary the sessions, we have had different topics for reflection, such as the silence of God in Jewish history, especially during the Holocaust. I remember well an elderly woman who had been in a concentration camp as a young girl: "I entered the concentration camp," she said, "an atheist. I left it an agnostic, convinced that there was a mystery I could not name. But I felt that there was a mystery about human life." You see, life is a process, a search, an inquiry that helps us to think. (Good, bad, or boring, life is a process and a search. It is not a stagnant proposition.)

An important Italian psychologist once said to me, "I do not believe in God, but I pray twice a day." "Could you tell me what you pray about?" I asked him. "Why don't you pray just once a day?" I remember, too, a conversation with a Japanese Buddhist monk who prays, even though he does not believe in a personal God. To each, I would ask, "What is your prayer?" They all seemed to say, one way or another, that prayer is something deeper, more interior, than trying to achieve a thematic idea of God. Even though they say they do not believe in God, they pray. I found it very moving to listen to these different forms of witness.

The purpose of these sessions was always the same: to help people think and go into the depths of their consciousness. Because of the large attendance, we had to provide a huge screen so that all could participate to the maximum. I interpreted the numbers coming to each session, not as mass concern for things apocalyptic, but as a serious search for meaning common to many people of different religious denominations—and even to many who do not belong to any religion.

I have tried to vary my approach in allowing people to grow in my presence and in the presence of others. One time a group of young people asked me to explain to them how to pray with the Bible, which I did. Approximately 200 of us stayed up the better part of one evening—I remember we were outdoors on a delightful May night sitting on the grass. I explained something about prayer in the Bible. Some of them asked me to give an example of a practical biblical prayer. I did so. As we continued our sessions, we moved into the cathedral, since our numbers had grown to more than 500, then 1,000, then 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, until each month the cathedral was full.

My method was simple: We began with moments of silence, some singing and praying of psalms, followed by a reading from the New Testament and a short introduction to personal prayer. And then no music—just long periods of silence. It was amazing. This went on each month for five years. One year we prayed the psalms of repentance, focusing on the phrase from Psalm 51, "Lord have mercy on me." Word of what we were doing spread even to the prisons, and one young man who was incarcerated wrote me that after learning how to pray he wanted nothing to do with his former life of terrorism. When the cathedral proved too small for the thousands who attended, we spread out into many diocesan churches—some 70 in all. Even in the dead of winter, when unheated churches are like refrigerators, everyone sits quietly and prays. All are absorbed by listening to God's words.

Prayer Brings Love and Hope

At the end of this millennium, I have seen God's words make an opening in the hearts of young people. There is no secret in what we do; we provide a time and a place, as St. Ignatius of Loyola did for those who wished to make a retreat with him, for a person to pray the Bible in silence. Young people want to learn to pray, to have meaning in their lives. In a changing world, what lives inside a person will prove victorious. But it is not easy to reach everyone. As I have said, the end of one millennium and the beginning of a new one invite us not to yearn for predictions but to engage in courageous action.

As a bishop I have also realized that it is possible to give a retreat to many thousands of people by means of radio and television. Last year, in honor of the anniversary of the 16th centennial of the death of St. Ambrose, who was Bishop of Milan, I gave just such a retreat to half a million people. I received many letters of gratitude for this spiritual experience; these letters showed me that God is preparing great things for the millennium to come. Above all, I learned that it is possible to teach thousands and thousands to pray together at the same time. (This concept of group prayer can be extremely powerful when done correctly, as in getting everyone on the same page.)

Let me conclude by emphasizing that we have to prepare for the new millennium with courage and hope. Christ has come among us and remained with us; his presence, the strength of the Holy Spirit, is stronger than ever. During two millennia of the history of sanctity and faith, Jesus, our Lord, has shown that he is the lord of history and shall guide the new millennium with a new explosion of love and hope. Let us be with him as he is with us.

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

For some really fascinating reading on more of Cardinal Martini's thinking, check out this link. It will take you to a dialogue the Cardinal had with Ignazio Marino, an Italian doctor and member of the Italian parliament. It concerns life issues. It was conducted in 2006. It caused some angst amonst certain Vatican dicasteries, but Pope Benedict didn't offer an opinion.

Cardinal Martini is now retired and studying in Jerusalem.

The Italian magazine La Stampa cited an anonymous source from the 2005 Papal election that on the first ballot Cardinal Martini actually had more votes than Cardinal Ratzinger 40-30. Another anonymous source refutes that and says Martini only received 12 and then removed his name from consideration. I guess we'll never know the truth, just like we never really know what the vast majority of our hierarchy actually thinks until they retire. Which I guess shows you that the CDF still has a very strong grip on the official Catholic conversation---except when it came to Cardinal Martini. That, I find very interesting. Have a great mother's day.

Crusader Raymond Burke Rouses The Catholic Neo Cons By Condemning All Things Obama

The 2007 keynote speaker at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, who also allowed limited stem cell research, amongst some other notable conflicts with Catholic moral teachings. I guess because he wasn't Catholic the 2004 Bishops statement does not apply. That only applies to non Catholics named Obama.

Archbishop Condemns Obama Administration's "Culture of Death"
By Jacqueline L. Salmon--Washington Post

For conservatives seeking a buck-up in these bleak times, the always lively Archbishop Raymond Burke did not disappoint this morning at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, launching an all-out attack on President Obama, liberal Catholic members of Congress, Catholic voters who voted for them and abortion rights and same-sex marriage, and the University of Notre Dame for inviting Obama to the school. He also said that Jesus Christ is on the side of those who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage.

(I guess Jesus must be a Republican, since Burke pretty much condemned everyone else.)

"What those who were so enthusiastic about the strong message of hope and change delivered during the last election are now discovering is a consistent implementation of policies and programs which confirm and advance the culture of death," he told the crowd at a Washington D.C. hotel. (I guess nuclear disarmament is not part of the culture of life.)

It was vintage Burke, and the 1,300 mostly conservative Catholics at the event interrupted his 45-minute address more than a dozen times with applause.

Burke was giving voice to the frustrations of conservative Catholics leaders, who haven't been able to budge Catholic opinions of Obama despite recent decisions that they believe violate Catholic teachings. A recent Gallup poll found that Catholics, who voted 54 percent for Obama, continue to give him high approval ratings -- 59 percent as of April, down only slightly since January. Among weekly Mass-attending Catholics, considered the most conservative, two-thirds approve of him, a percentage that is unchanged from January.

You can trust Burke not to mince words. He attacked Obama for lifting the ban on embryonic stem-cell research, for reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions, and for plans to reverse a Bush policy allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections and Obama's verbal support of the Freedom of Choice Act. Burke labeled new HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, as a "source of deepest embarrassment to Catholics."

"Christ is with us, always in the church and in a particular way in the struggle to restore the respect for life...and to safeguard the integrity of marriage and the family," Burke said. (I really would like Archbishop Burke to cite some actual statements of Jesus that corroborate Burke's 'particular' knowledge about what Christ particularly favors---say particularly Jesus's statement about love of one's enemies.)

The breakfast, in its 6th year, is a project of Catholic lay leaders--former evangelicals who converted to Catholicism and decided to set up an event for Catholics that paralleled the evangelical National Prayer Breakfast. It has turned out to be wildly popular among many Republican Catholics and has spurred local such events around the country. (Gee, like Deal Hudson, and John Neuhaus, and Brent Bozell?)

Two conspicuous absences from the breakfast this year: Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. and Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Va., local bishop who don't take a hard line of refusing communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Both say they will respect the wishes of the politician's local bishop, while Burke has long advocated for the blanket refusal. (Maybe they were just sending Archbishop Burke a message about how they appreciated his video taped attack on them.)

Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis who now heads the Vatican Supreme Court, has long been vocal on all these issues, so his remarks here were no surprise. But they serve to highlight the growing tensions between right-leaning Catholics who prioritize abortion and same-sex marriage, and "social justice" Catholics, many of whom also oppose abortion but focus more on poverty, immigration reform, health-care reform and anti-war activism. The tensions seem to be rising with the coming of the Obama Administration, which seems closer with the latter group, while Bush was closer with the former.

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

For those who might be interested in reading all of Archbishop Burke's speech you can access it here.

This is getting kind of sad, the propping up of conservative Catholics. I came across another article on Catholic News Services which cites a new survey done by Rasmussen Reports:

A telephone survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports has found that 52% of Americans-- and 60% of Catholics-- believe that the University of Notre Dame should not have made the decision to award President Barack Obama an honorary degree.

The Rasmussen Reports survey results are markedly different from an earlier survey conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life. The Pew Forum survey found that Catholics, by a margin of 50% to 28%, supported the university’s decision.

The varied results may be attributable to the different poll questions. Rasmussen Reports told survey respondents that the university was violating the US bishops’ guidelines: (This would be a perfect example of a question specifically designed to get people to answer the way you want them to answer.)

Guidelines established by U.S. bishops state that Catholic institutions such as Notre Dame should not honor people whose actions conflict with the church's moral principles. Given these guidelines, should Notre Dame award President Obama an honorary degree?

The Pew Forum, on the other hand, simply asked, “Do you think it was right or wrong for Notre Dame to invite Obama to give their graduation speech and receive an honorary degree?”

One of the problems with the way Rasmussen worked this question is that is does not reference the guideline in it's entirety. There is debate as to whether the guideline refers specifically to Catholics. Obama is not a Catholic. This survey is a joke in any scientifically valid sense, but that's not important. It is valid in affirming what 'conservative' Catholics need to have affirmed.

I also wonder as to the timing of this breakfast. It's given the conservative Catholic press another shot at Notre Dame at precisely the time the Pope is in the Middle East. Faux news has given as much coverage to Archbishop Burke as it has the Pope in Jordan. Why is that I wonder? Is it because Benedict's message about religious cooperation is not all that welcome in neo con Catholic and Evangelical land? In order to clang and gong out Benedict's message, was it time to give Crusader Burke some more air time? The big cats away, so the mice can play kind of thing.

In any event, Archbishop Burke has pretty much stated the vast majority of American Catholics are actively doing the devil's work, led by their new center of false teaching, Notre Dame. The Golden Dome is really the hatch to hell.

I guess it is for people who don't want to think too much for themselves, or really delve into some of the prickly biological and psychological issues around abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research. It's much easier to believe life begins at the moment of conception than to look at the fact embryological development doesn't actually support this, or that the medical and psychological associations don't consider homosexuality a choice, or a life style, or deviant.

It is precisely because these are complicated and multi faceted issues that the majority of Catholics do not put them in the class of de fide issues that Archbishop Burke wants us too. I don't know why he or other bishops like him can't hear that. It isn't necessarily a matter of selfishly denying Episcopal teaching authority, as it is a matter of recognizing these issues are not so cut and dry, and they haven't been that cut and dry in the historical development of Catholic moral teaching.

In my own personal case, I have to say that I am getting seriously tired of American Catholicism being dragged through the mud, and American Catholics condemned for the sake, not of Jesus, but for the Republican party. Enough already.

For those who might actually be interested in what is happening with the Pope in the Middle East, Rocco Palma on Whispers In The Loggia, is doing a fantastic job. Click here for the latest, including the full texts of Benedict's speeches.

Another English Saint For All Seasons

Whose saint is John Henry Newman?

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH in London recently reported that the Vatican had accepted the cure of a Massachusetts man, who had suffered from spinal stenosis, as a miracle attributed to the prayers of John Henry Newman, the Victorian-era cardinal, theologian, and writer.Jack Sullivan, a Catholic deacon in Marshfield, later told the Globe of his overnight cure."The next morning I woke up," he said, "and there was no pain."Sullivan's dramatic healing would fulfill the church's requirement for Newman's beatification, which could take place as early as this fall. (Another miracle is required for canonization.)

Born in 1801, Newman would make both a fascinating and controversial saint.

An eminent clergyman, Newman spent much of his life in the orbit of Oxford University, where he studied and later taught. Ordained in 1824, the brilliant scholar instantly became one of the glittering stars of the Anglican Church.

Over the next decade, he spearheaded the "Oxford movement," which sought to return Anglicanism to more traditional roots. Newman's ultimate decision, in 1845, to convert to Catholicism came on the heels of research that led him to conclude that the Catholic Church had a greater claim to orthodoxy. His conversion horrified much of England.

Even after "crossing the Tiber," however, Newman retained his intellectual independence, freely toggling between traditional and progressive theologies.

Despite his conservative theological leanings, he championed such radical ideas as the rights of the individual conscience at a time when that notion was held in low regard in the Vatican.
("Error has no rights" was the prevailing line of thought.) When he was named cardinal in 1879 by Pope Leo XIII, it was joked that perhaps Rome hadn't read all that he had written.

Because of his protean mind and voluminous writings, then, he is beloved by groups that are often at loggerheads. More traditional Catholics admire Newman's elegant apologias for Catholicism.

Progressives embrace his work on conscience and the "development of doctrine," the idea that church belief on some matters can change over time - for the better. And ironically, many Catholics suspicious of clericalism often quote this prince of the church, who once quipped about the laity, "[T]he church would look foolish without them."

Indeed, one of his most famous articles was called "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine." (What a novel concept.)

The greatest controversy over the soon-to-be-saint, however, may be his intense relationship with his long-time friend Ambrose St. John. "As far as this world was concerned, I was his first and last . . . he was my earthly light," wrote Newman.

Before his death in 1890, Newman made an unusual and strongly worded request.
"I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Fr Ambrose St. John's grave - and I give this as my last, my imperative will," he wrote. As a result, he is beloved among some in the gay community, who often claim him as one of their own.

Last year, church officials announced that they would unearth Newman's remains from a small rural cemetery in Worcestershire in order to transfer them to a marble sarcophagus in the Birmingham Oratory church.

But diggers found little left of the cardinal. Some charged that the church wanted to move Newman to whitewash his friendship with St. John.

Church officials replied, accurately, that the remains of many saints are often moved to sites that are more appropriate for "public veneration."

Admired by conservatives and liberals, cradle Catholics and converts, as well as anti-clericalists and gays, Cardinal John Henry Newman is destined to be a popular but controverted saint.

Who is the "real" Newman?

It's a bit like the popular quest for the "historical Jesus."
Which one you find depends a great deal on which one you're searching for.

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

It's most likely an understatement to say that Cardinal Newman will be a popular but controverted saint. In my mind he's a lot like St. Thomas More. St. Thomas is another English saint who seems to be the property of everyone. It takes a real multi faceted saint to be both the patron saint of elected politicians and the only western thinker with a bust in the Kremlin.

I suspect Cardinal Newman, like Thomas More, appeals to so many different kinds of people because both were seriously conflicted with in themselves. Both appear to have been critics of the hierarchy with wide open thinking, while pursuing a very narrow and pious personal life. I can easily see where Cardinal Newman could have been madly in love with John Ambrose and perfectly willing to torture himself with chaste abstinence. Thomas More tortured himself over his sexual inclinations---literally.

Both men extended a compassionate hand and optimistic world view to others, while not extending the same courtesy to themselves. Both were intellectually brilliant and both had a mystical approach to the Eucharist. In fact some of Thomas More's best writing was his last while he was in prison and was a mystical treatise on the Eucharist and Jesus's passion.

Both men seemed to understand that Catholicism at it's best describes a vision of humanity which is in process. Real Catholics work to become better people through the action of Grace on one's reason. One doesn't start out with perfection as the minimal requirement for being seated at the Catholic table.

Somewhere a long the line, aspects of American Catholicism have lost track of that notion. Absolute fidelity has become the minimal entrance requirement for Eucharistic reception. A notion which in and of itself pretty much negates the need for Eucharistic Grace influencing spiritual development. Apparently real Catholics have to be totally developed before they can enjoy being developed through Grace. Cardinal Newman would probably fail to appreciate the logic in that kind of thinking. He would see it as far more Donatic than Catholic.

Over on the National Catholic Reporter one of the "Young Authors" Jamie Manson, has written an interesting piece on why she still calls herself Catholic, even though she's got issues with clericalism and the hierarchy. I can get on board with a lot of what she wrote, especially this part:

The notion that grace perfects nature forms the basis for the uniquely Catholic idea that all finite things in creation are capable of revealing truths about what is infinite or eternal. Catholics have a sacramental view of the world. That is, for a Catholic, all of creation is good, and everything in our finite world can be a vessel of God’s presence and God’s transforming grace. This idea provides the foundation for Catholicism’s rich mysticism and spirituality, its unparalleled social justice doctrine, its care of the poor, and its exquisite legacy of artists and writers.

I would say I consider myself a Catholic because it's through the examples of the Thomas Mores and the Cardinal Newmans that I understood progress in spirituality is a really kind of a wrestling match with oneself. The function of the Sacraments was to support the person in this wrestling, strengthening them and supporting them. Most of our best art and our best writers brilliantly describe this personal growth process, or the stunting there of.

I can remember in high school being profoundly struck by a novel of Graham Greene's in which the lead character decides to commit suicide as the last best choice he has to stop hurting Jesus. The character had committed a number of sexual indiscretions and then compounded his error by receiving communion while in this state of mortal sin. He came to the conclusion he was unforgivable and might as well get it over with and stop forcing Jesus to suffer for him. This was not just a case of losing the wrestling match, but having it spin completely out of control. Only a Catholic could have written this story and only a Catholic could understand that it actually made sense in a weird way. Catholicism can be a strange universe.

Like Thomas More, Cardinal Newman will undoubtedly become all things to all people, and that too is a legitimate part of the strange Catholic universe. Sometimes in our saints there really is a little something for everybody because some of them really do model the big Church idea and the multiple paths to spiritual progress. Cardinal Newman certainly fits that bill.

Another One Bites The Dust

Caught up in a romantic scandal, the Rev. Alberto Cutié has disappeared from public view for prayer and contemplation.
BY ANDRES VIGLUCCI, GERARDO REYES AND JAY WEAVER
aviglucci@MiamiHerald.com

Caught by paparazzi in the tender embrace of a woman on a Florida beach -- is this how celebrity Catholic priest Alberto Cutié's meteoric religious and multimedia career crashes down to earth? (He can probably take some solace in the fact that most TV Evangelists manage to rise from the ashes of sexual scandal.)

Or does he emerge from a period of prayer and contemplation, humbled and chastened, renewing a vow of priestly celibacy he apparently violated -- and only recently publicly questioned?

It's Cutié's call.

In a brief telephone interview Wednesday, a day after he was relieved of his duties at his Miami Beach parish and the church's media arm, the internationally known priest and media personality said he was taking an indefinite leave for ``personal reflection.''

Cutié, who issued a public apology Tuesday, declined to identify his companion in the published pictures or talk about their relationship.

''It would be inappropriate. To protect that person it's best not to speak about that. It has been enough already. It has been too much for me and my family,'' Cutié told El Nuevo Herald, The Miami Herald's sister newspaper, for which he writes a weekly advice column.

Catholic Archdiocese officials said Wednesday that Cutié's future is in his hands.

''Father Alberto is taking time to pray; how he proceeds is totally his choice,'' said archdiocese spokeswoman Mary Ross Agosta. ``He is a member of the clergy and, therefore, the archdiocese will assist him in his prayerful journey.''

''This is a conversation between a priest and his archbishop, like a conversation between a father and a son,'' she said. ``Now Father Albert has some prayerful time ahead of him.''

Just last week, in an interview with a Spanish-language Miami TV station, Cutié endorsed giving Catholic priests the choice to marry. He told the interviewer from WSBS-TV's Paparazzi TV program, referring to church authorities: ``If they want to discipline me, let them discipline me, but I think the option would be better and healthier.'' (Perhaps he's already discerned his answer.)

Paparazzi TV producers said Tuesday that they had been offered the photos of Cutié on the beach for purchase, but turned the offer down.

On Wednesday, the disgraced Cutié and his so-far-unidentified companion were probably the most sought-after couple in South Florida, as copies of the Mexican magazine that published the compromising photos hit local newsstands. One particularly attention-grabbing shot shows Cutié reaching into his companion's swimsuit bottom.

The 40-year-old priest with youthful good looks and gelled hair remained in seclusion and off the air, while reporters fruitlessly tried to track down his female friend.

Cutié's mother offered no clues, declining to talk about her son at her South Miami-Dade home.
Throwing her hands up in the air, Yolanda Cutié said in Spanish, with a sigh: ''`Cosas de la vida.'' The expression roughly translates to ``Things happen.''

Some followers of Cutié were not so sanguine.

''I feel very bad for his parents,'' said Miami Beach Mayor Matti Herrera Bower, a parishioner at St. Patrick's church in Miami Beach, Cutie's one-time church. ``It's very hard on the community and the family. He's a young, intelligent man. How could he do that? It's a letdown for the community. It's a letdown for the people that love him.'' (Because he's a young intelligent man.)

But some parishioners, fans and celebrity friends emphatically defended Cutié on Wednesday. Next to his South Beach parish church, St. Francis de Sales, the doors of an apartment building kept swinging open as elderly women congregated outside to discuss the news.

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

This particular scandal is the news in Florida. It's not hard to see why. Fr. Alberto is not exactly unphotogenic. I wonder how many of those elderly women congregating to discuss this news secretly hope his anonymous partner is their daughter. Scandalous musing aside, I suspect there might be much more to this crisis of vocation than a good looking woman.

I've rarely run into priests who have strayed strictly because they couldn't keep their promise of chastity. There is a difference between of vow of celibacy and a promise of chastity. In theory a priest violating his promise of chastity is no different from a lay person. Marrying the person breaks the vow of celibacy and that is quite different. Had Fr. Alberto not been a priest celebrity Miami Catholics would be talking about something else entirely, as the 'offense' would more than likely have been an issue between Fr. Alberto and his confessor. Fame has it's drawbacks.

What I have experienced is priests who question their vocation do so at first for entirely different reasons, usually having nothing to do with celibacy. Sometimes it's a poor relationship with their bishop, estrangement from their fellow priests, a lonely posting, or a spirituality which is evolving beyond what they are expected to preach. There is usually some other serious disconnect before the eyes start to stray. The reason one never hears about this is that the Vatican usually only allows for dispensation from priestly vows for reasons of celibacy, not spiritual angst, loneliness, or problems with authority. Better it be a woman's fault than the Church's or a priest's failing. I appreciate that Fr. Alberto is keeping his partner out of the story because he seems to understand what ever the failing it's not hers.

I really hope this story helps move forward the discussion about dispensing with the vow of priestly celibacy. As Fr. Alberto is quoted as saying "making it an option would be better and healthier." I agree it would make the current priesthood better and healthier, but it would not answer the fundamental problems with the clerical and hierarchical system. It would in essence be nothing more than a band aid.

The real problem is a theology of priesthood which places the priest spiritually and religiously above the laity. Maybe that's the lesson that Fr. Alberto will take from his prayer and contemplation. That in reality his collar does not elevate him above his parishioners, just as in that same reality neither does his celebrity status. That's not just a humbling lesson, it's a critical spiritual lesson. It's not the clothes or ritual which makes the authentic priest, it's the mindset.

This is the biggest reason I don't much support the ordination of women. I don't actually see the point if the theology behind the priesthood stays the same. Changing the gender of the priest doesn't change the fundamental issues of separation (power) and control. Spiritual leadership should be a matter of authentic spiritual living. Our current seminary training more or less layers a monastic lifestyle on priests who are then expected to work in the real world. No one considers the monastery the real world. It's not designed to be. A relational style which works in the close quarters of a monastery, in which personal relationships are discouraged, does not work well in the real world.

It's not like the lack of priestly vocations isn't sending this message. It's more that those men who were trained in this system and devoted their lives to it, can't hear that message. I feel for Fr. Alberto and hope his period of discernment leads to serious self truth and that he continues to speak his truth. He won't be the first priest whose disciplined for speaking their truth, and I doubt he'll be the last.

There are a couple of other articles on Clerical Whispers today which deal with other priests who have been or are in the process of being excommunicated or disciplined. Fr. Peter Kennedy of St Mary's South Brisbane is about to be disciplined for starting St. Mary's In Exile, and Bishop Ohlmsted of Phoenix has excommunicated a second gay priest for signing up with the Reformed Catholic Church. That brings the total to three priestly excommunications in Phoenix.

In the meantime, the Diocese of Miami will ordain three priests this coming Sunday. Two are widowed Deacons past retirement age. I appreciate their willingness to take on such an assignment when most of their peers are fishing and golfing, but they too are part of the message.

If these two stories out of Miami are the future of the priesthood, the Sacramental Church is in serious trouble. I wish Pope Benedict all the best when he travels to the Middle East, but there is a big part of me that thinks it's time he looked at the state of his priesthood--for the sake of his entire Church.

Another Catholic Politician Feels The Pro Life Sword

School’s commencement pick of Sen. Casey ‘sad and disappointing,’ Bishop Martino says

Scranton, Pa., May 5, 2009 / 06:27 am (CNA).-

Bishop of Scranton Joseph F. Martino has called Sen. Bob Casey, Jr.’s role as commencement speaker at King’s College is “sad and disappointing” because the allegedly pro-life Democrat cannot “muster the courage” to oppose “the pro-abortion agenda” in Washington. King’s College, a Catholic institution in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the Senator will receive an honorary doctorate.

President of King’s College Father Thomas O’Hara, C.S.C., commented on the selection of Sen. Casey in a March 31 statement:

“From the time that Senator Casey taught fifth grade in a Philadelphia inner city school after graduating from college, he has been a great advocate of improving the quality of education.
“He is keenly aware of the issues important to the people he represents and provides great support to Northeast Pennsylvania on a federal level akin to state level support that his father obtained. The Caseys are a shining example of a family of faith who have dedicated their lives to public service. Throughout his career, Bob Casey has been guided by the legacy of his father’s principle that ‘all public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.’”

The Diocese of Scranton commented on Sen. Casey’s appearance in a May 1 statement.
The statement noted Sen. Casey’s vote to confirm Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, which it called “an affront to all who value the sanctity of life.” It also described the governor as “a committed advocate of abortion.”

“It is the Bishop’s position that his vote on April 28 demonstrates that Sen. Casey is a reliable vote for President Barack Obama’s aggressive pro-abortion agenda,” the diocesan statement continued.

The statement then quoted Bishop Martino.

“Sen. Casey’s appearance at King’s graduation ceremony is sad and disappointing in view of his recent alignment with anti-life forces in the Senate and the highest offices of our government,” Bishop Martino said. “I do not believe he has the moral stature to stand before the graduates of a Catholic college to address them about their futures and the challenges they will face when on the most important issue of the day—the sanctity of human life—he cannot muster the courage to oppose the pro-abortion agenda which is currently being promoted in Washington.” (This is quite the statement. Might just as well have called Senator Casey a political prostitute.)

The bishop did note that the college’s decision to invite the Senator was made prior to his votes to confirm Gov. Sebelius and to rescind the Mexico City Policy, which allows taxpayer funding for organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.

Before Senator Casey’s actions, Bishop Martino said, he had no objection to the invitation.
However, he said it is now “truly unfortunate” that the Catholic institution will appear to provide a forum for “a politician who is steadily distancing himself from pro-life principles and, sadly, from his father’s legacy as a statesman who championed the rights of the unborn.”

Sen. Casey’s father Gov. Bob Casey, Sr. was a pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania. He signed several abortion restrictions into law, a move which led to the 1992 Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He is believed to have been denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because of his pro-life views.

Bishop Martino said he will continue to challenge Sen. Casey “whenever he fails to cast a vote or advance a position that will protect the most vulnerable in our society.” (The trouble with this is that Senator Casey was elected to represent all the people of his state, not just the unborn and one bishop.)

CNA contacted King’s College and was told it had no comment on Bishop Martino’s statement.
Sen. Casey is scheduled to be commencement speaker at King’s College on May 17.

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

I posted the above because it's just one of a number of articles making the rounds on the 'official' Catholic news sites. Deal Hudson has an op/ed piece on his blog in which he makes it sound as if every bishop and 'real' Catholic in the land is appalled with Notre Dame. Unfortunately for Deal and his political party, sixty bishops is about 25% of the total number of our bishops and that coincides with the 25 or so percent of Catholics who actually are angry with Notre Dame, and that figure is also very close to the percentage of Americans who self identify as Republicans.

So that vast majority is really only one quarter of the Catholic population and episcopacy. The truth is, according to a recent PEW survey, almost twice as many Catholics haven't even heard of the Notre Dame controversy as those who oppose Notre Dame.

The reality is that the Notre Dame controversy is really a tempest in a conservative teapot. Bishop Martino's castigating of Senator Casey for catching the Sebelius disease is more of the same, but then not unexpected from a man who seems to have caught 'limelight' disease.

What I've found more interesting is the utter silence from these pro life stalwarts on the torture practices of the Bush regime. InsideCatholic.com has this bizarre piece written by David Carlin in support of the use of torture. It more or less makes the case for citizens to turn a blind eye to politicians who 'cut legal corners' for state security reasons. I was sort of speechless by the time I got to the end of the article. However, another blogger from Vox Nova was not speechless, and this person completely skewers the tortured logic in Carlin's article. Following the Vox Nova link is worth the read.

While reading on the Vox Nova website I found another statement which I wish I personally had written. This is from an article discussing the politicizing of American Catholicism and how weird this whole thing is to Catholics who don't live in the US. The author ends the piece with a warning about the mixing of Evangelical political thinking with pro life Catholicism:

"It’s high time for an emperor-has-no-clothes moment: the American Catholic Church is deviating from the global Catholic church in this area because the American Catholic church is increasingly aping the tactics and outlook of the politicized evangelical movement – an alliance forged two decades ago by Neuhaus and others. It is a movement based on a stark “us versus them” mentality, a dualistic mentality based on cultural Calvinism and a whiff of Gnosticism, a mentality directly translated into partisan rigidity, and where theological orthodoxy is confused with political loyalty. We are now reaping the fruit of this trend, and the fruit is rotten."

The fruit is indeed rotten. One of those signs of this rot is when Deal Hudson, who was the architect behind this mixing of pro life Catholics and Evangelicals, writes an article which conflates the minority view of Notre Dame into notions of a full scale Catholic revolt. The facts just don't support this notion. The facts seem to indicate that the only people Hudson is reaching are the already in the 'party' crowd. He certainly doesn't seem to have reached anyone in the Vatican which I guess makes Hudson's crowd more Catholic than the Vatican.

That's the problem with the political Evangelization of American Catholicism, it's more Catholic than the Vatican, just like protestant Evangelicals are convinced they are more 'saved' than mainline protestants and all Catholics. It really and truly is 'us' against everyone else.

My issue with this is that the 'us' folks truly think they should be able to dictate morality to everyone else, leading us by our moral noses, not to their promised land, but to a position where we give them all the power they want. We found out how well that worked under President Bush. The Republicans took Catholic pro life proponents to the cleaners while giving us sanctioned torture and illegal war as a moral principle, based not in Christian values, but in state security.

Pope Benedict is going to run into the same mentality this weekend in Israel. A mentality that seems to say state security is the only barometer on which nations need base their morality. It's not surprising that one of the biggest American supporters of the Israeli government is the Evangelical movement. For them this issue of Palestine is not about Jews, it's about the nation state of Israel and how it's existence signals the beginning of the final confrontation described in Revelations. Israel must prevail or Revelations is wrong. Keep this in mind when Benedict is in Israel and Palestine, because the political issues aren't just between Muslims and Jews, they also include Evangelical Christians whose theology is based in the Rapture, not Jesus.

In the meantime the real hot spot for me is in Pakistan. This is serious. Unlike Iran, Pakistan actually has nuclear weapons. The sudden upsurge in regional violence from the Taliban is a real security threat. This is the war we should have brought to a conclusion. I only hope the fall out from that mistake isn't greater than the world is willing to pay. The Bush legacy is bad enough without the destabilization of Pakistan courtesy of the Taliban.

The Paradox of Vatican II

I've been struck by a comment left by a priest in response to John Allen's latest article on the NCR. The commenter is reflecting on a statement made by Cardinal Mahoney concerning one of the problems the Cardinal sees with in the current church--that of the generational divide with in the priesthood:

"the article points out to two things I experience. The divide between the clergy is apparent. I went to a evening of discernment where there usually have a younger priest and an older one. When asked the question, Why did I want to be a priest, I mentioned the wonderful and selfless service that I witnessed with the religious in my life. My priests, teachers, and I saw how happy they were. When the younger priest responded he said that he experienced a call praying in the presence of the blessed sacrament. No where in his 20 minute answer did the word service ever come up. So much for the ministerial priesthood."

I've noticed this generational divide as well. The seminaries which are flourishing are cranking out what I call 'sacramental' rather than ministerial priests. Sacramental priests have a very different mindset from a ministerial priest and consequently very different views of the Church and it's mission in the world.

I think one of the problems the framers of Vatican II failed to discern is that they were creating a vision for the Church which was in no way, shape, or form, supported by the psychology of the clerical priesthood or the institutional structure. In fact, the whole notion of Vatican II really consisted of a group of bishops and theologians proposing a theology and psychology from which the council itself did not act. In other words they were proposing a more bottom up theology and psychology but doing it from a seriously top down authority structure, which at the highest levels also believed it was infallible.

They were proposing more freedom and choice--maturity-- for the laity, while enacting those decrees with virtually no input from the laity or the clergy who would have to bring them to fruition. They were talking things they themselves weren't walking, and in many cases had no experience of walking. Vatican II was offered to the Church out of an institutional vacuum on how just to enact or model Vatican II. No wonder it all got so confusing.

In retrospect, the issuance of Humanae Vitae brought this entire paradox to the surface. Paul VI demonstrated in spades that the institution could talk the talk, but had no intention, nor any idea of how to authentically walk the walk. The trend since Humanae Vitae seems to be to rework the interpretation of the documents of Vatican II in such a way that they support the exact clerical theology and psychology they were meant to transcend. Hence we have the 'reform of the reform' and young priests who see themselves as sacramental celebrants rather than ministers to fellow pilgrims.

I can't see how the institutional church can reconcile itself with the psychology and view of humanity of Vatican II without reworking the entire notion of priesthood and church governance. The option they seem to be following is to let the Church reduce itself in numbers until a vastly shrinking laity fits the number of vastly shrinking priests. They seem utterly incapable of entertaining the notion that the Holy Spirit's answer to the call for vocations to the current form of priesthood is a resounding "NO". I can understand that on one level. Accepting that answer would in essence be accepting the rejection of one's own calling. In reality though, it's really accepting rejection of one's interpretation of one's vocation and that is a different concept.

In the meantime, the paradox of Vatican II is being played out in political divisiveness. The more traditional camp siding with the authoritative clerical priesthood and the more liberal type searching for meaning outside that authority. I have no doubt that at Vatican II the Spirit was moving things in the proper direction for the evolution of mankind. I also have no doubt that the very people who were inspired to write these documents were incapable of discerning those notions also applied to them. In some respects Benedict really is the perfect Vatican II Pope. Brilliantly able to teach the concepts while oblivious to the fact he doesn't have the personal psychology to govern from them.

Unfortunately for the American church the real divisions have come from episcopal appointees who not only can't walk the walk, they can't talk the talk. Too many of them are Canon lawyers. That mindset has mired us in legal definitions of abortion and traditional marriage, rather than pastoral solutions that deal with the human person. It is however, a nice strategy for enhancing their own canonically derived authority with in their own dioceses. It is a real sign of the current times when so many of them use Canon Law to support their authority rather than rely on their pastoral ability. That this mentality filters down to their seminarians is hardly surprising.

Until some really inspired brilliant person can convince the ecclesial structure that they really can govern the Church inspired by the psychology and theology of Vatican II, the church will continue to fracture. It is completely inauthentic to teach from one world view while governing from it's opposite. The exodus from the pews, coupled with all the fear based legal rhetoric shows the depth of this truth. So does the lack of priestly vocations. So does the propensity for Catholics to fracture a long political lines rather than unite around a shared belief in Jesus. None of this will change until the smoke screen of the 'reform of the reform' includes the completely unreformed ecclesiastical and clerical structures.

Grasping At Straws As Causal Events

I swear, there are times when I think somebody 'up there' has an incredible sense of humor. The following is part of the latest letter from Fr. Euteneuer of Human Life International. Father Euteneuer is known for his passion about the single pro life issue of abortion. He sometimes sinks to some rather low level arguments for his position. The following is a good example:

Spirit & Life®
Human Life International e-NewsletterVolume 04, Number 17 Friday, May 1, 2009
www.hli.org

Swine and Abortion

As loathe as I am to sully the good name of "swine" by relating them to abortion, there is a story in the Mexican swine flu epidemic that you will not hear broadcast by the major media or lamented in the stories of its victims: it is the connection between the epidemic and the legalization of abortion in Mexico.

I learned of the story this week when I was conducting an HLI pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. The swine flu scare was "officially" announced on Friday, the 24th of April, two days before our pilgrimage was set to begin. The outbreak at that time was mostly limited to Mexico City which seemed to be the epicenter of the viral storm and where 20 people had already died (although it appears that the facts are not yet in on the causes of these and other suspected "swine flu" deaths). Despite the scare, 35 of our pilgrims decided to risk it and bring their intentions to the feet of Our Lady at the place where she chose to manifest her love to the people of that land in 1531. However - and this is the connection - it was also on April 24th, two years ago to the day that abortion was legalized in Mexico City, setting such an evil precedent for the whole nation. The connection just seems too eerie to be coincidental.....

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


Two can play this game of connecting dates to events and making them causal links. Since I hate this kind of rationale, I looked up the history of events for April 24th, and found to my amusement that this was the very day in 2005 when Benedict was elevated to the Papacy.



Hmmm. Somehow I doubt Fr. Euteneuer would see the connection as being 'too eerie to be coincidental' for the now world wide swine flu outbreak to be linked with the election of Benedict as leader of the world wide Catholic Church. He should perhaps be more careful in grasping at straws.





Have a good and Holy Sunday.








(Kudos to Kiko for leaving the link to Fr. Euteneuer's letter in a comment on yesterday's post.)

The New Face Of Traditional Marriage=Brain Cramp

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, poses for Bliss Magazine


My brain is in a state of pure cognitive dissonance. Carrie Prejean is the face of traditional marriage as is evidenced in a new video ad for National Organization of Marriage. Carrie was the Miss USA contestant from California who was asked by gay blogger Perez Hilton for her views on traditional marriage:

CARRIE: I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman.

I'm going to refrain from commenting on 'opposite marriage', or the fact California, the state she represents, does not afford choice in marriage. What I will comment on is the absolute and blatant hypocrisy of the National Organization for Marriage. How in the world does a woman who is marketing personal vanity with a direct appeal to lust become a spokesperson for the sanctity of traditional marriage? But it's worse than this.

On Matt Lauer's program, Carrie claimed that standing up for traditional marriage cost her the crown of Miss USA. She is playing the tyical victim strategy so often used by the fundamentalist right. Unfortunately the judge's scorecards don't reflect her analysis. The winner was comfortably in front and Carrie would have had to have answered Perez's question with the intelligence and wit of a George Will in order to win. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Traditional marriage arguments are generally based on God's so called natural laws. Miss Prejean is no longer 100% natural, having had the California Miss USA pageant pay for her breast enhancements. Apparently the free boobs were all about making her feel comfortable on stage. Apparently contestants have other ways of enhancing themselves that don't call for surgery, but California honored her request for the permanent self assurance boost. So much for trusting in the Will of God, or Jesus's intervention.

Carrie says one of her goals is to be a role model for children. Someone should tell Carrie that those of us who raise daughters in this highly sexualized culture have serious problems with models like herself promoting 'inflated' breast images and 'thinly' disguised eating disorders. They are teaching our daughters that the height of female expression is appreciated best by male lust. This is blatant objectification of both men and women. Women to their body image and men to their testosterone. This has had a devastating effect on the self image of American girls. Oh but I forget, it's not really about our children, it's about traditional marriage.

Hey maybe that's the message the political traditional marriage crowd wants to send. Lust is the real driving force behind heterosexual marriage, not God. Breast augmentation surgery and viagra are the real grease on the wheels of heterosexual marriage, not the Bible.

Maybe that's why they go so overboard vilifying gay marriage as nothing more than legal recognition for 'immoral' sexual acts. Their idea of heterosexual marriage isn't about love between two people either. It's about 'procreative' sexual acts between two lusting sexual objects. Maybe that's why gay marriage is a bigger threat to families than actual heterosexual divorce. Maybe that's why Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, those stalwart practitioners of serial monogamy, can be considered authentic spokesmen for traditional marriage--because traditional marriage is really the enculturation of the rights of heterosexual male lust and the self esteem challenged women who support it.

If that's all true, then you go girl. You are the poster woman for traditional marriage and Jesus must be in a state of God approved lust driven drooling.

You can have that Jesus. I'll sick with the one who understands committed love is well beyond sexual exploitation and personal vanity.

The Taize Community--A Prophetic Voice

The Taize Community is an ecumenical monastic movement located in France. Noted for their music and outreach to youth, Taize really is as Pope John XXIII said: "Ah, Taize, that little springtime." I personally find their music extremely helpful in meditation, but it's their whole philosophy which makes them prophetic for our time. They are all about Christian unity and isn't that a novel thought in this particular time in Catholicism.

The following from L'Osservatore Romano is an interview with Cardinal Kasper which took place this past August. For those who don't know, Taize's founder, Brother Roger was killed by a mentally ill woman in 2005. As Cardinal Kasper notes below, the community sails on under the benevolent guidance of Brother Alois. Although not a Catholic religious congregation, it never the less has historic and close ties to the Vatican. In many respects Taize is the polar opposite of SSPX.

Interview with Cardinal Kasper three years after the death of Brother Roger

Three years have passed since the tragic death of Brother Roger, the founder of Taizé. You yourself went to preside at his funeral service. Who was he for you?

The death of Brother Roger moved me deeply. I was in Cologne for World Youth Day when we heard about the death of Brother Roger, the victim of an act of violence. His death reminded me of the words the prophet Isaiah spoke about the Servant of the Lord: “Ill-treated and afflicted, he never opened his mouth; like a lamb led to the slaughter-house, like a sheep dumb before its shearers, he never opened his mouth” (Isa 53:7).

Throughout his life, Brother Roger followed the way of the Lamb: by his gentleness and his humility, by his refusal of every act of human greatness, by his decision never to speak ill of anyone, by his desire to carry in his own heart the sufferings and the hopes of humanity. Few persons of our generation have incarnated with such transparency the gentle and humble face of Jesus Christ.

In a turbulent period for the Church and for Christian faith, Brother Roger was a source of hope recognized by many, including myself. As a theology professor and then as Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, I always encouraged young people to stop in Taizé during the summer. I saw how much that time spent close to Brother Roger and the community helped them better to understand and to live the Word of God, in joy and simplicity. I felt all that even more when I presided at his funeral liturgy in the large Church of Reconciliation in Taizé.

What is, in your eyes, the specific contribution of Brother Roger and the Taizé Community to ecumenism?

Christian unity was certainly one of the deepest desires of the prior of Taizé, just as the division between Christians was for him a true source of pain and regret. Brother Roger was a man of communion, who found it hard to tolerate any form of antagonism or rivalry between persons or communities. When he spoke of Christian unity and of his meetings with the representatives of different Christian traditions, his look and his voice enabled you to understand with what intensity of charity and hope he desired “all to be one”.

The search for unity was for him a kind of guideline in even the most concrete decisions of each day: to welcome joyfully any action that could bring Christians of different traditions closer, to avoid every word or act that could slow down their reconciliation. He practiced that discernment with an attentiveness that bordered on meticulousness. In the search for unity, however, Brother Roger was not in a hurry or nervous. He understood God’s patience in the history of salvation and in the history of the Church. He never would have acted in ways unacceptable to the Churches; he never would have invited the young people to dissociate themselves from their pastors. Rather than the speed of the development of the ecumenical movement, he was aiming at its depth.

He was convinced that only an ecumenism nourished by the Word of God and the celebration of the Eucharist, by prayer and contemplation, would be able to bring together Christians in the unity wished for by Jesus. It is in this area of spiritual ecumenism that I would like to situate the important contribution of Brother Roger and the Taizé Community.

Brother Roger often described his ecumenical journey as an “inner reconciliation of the faith of his origins with the Mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone.” This road does not belong to the usual categories. After his death, the Taizé Community denied the rumors of a secret conversion to Catholicism. One of the reasons those rumors arose was because Brother Roger had been seen receiving communion at the hands of Cardinal Ratzinger during the funeral Mass of Pope John Paul II. (One needs to think about this for a second before it sinks in. The Mystery of the Catholic faith is a profound treasure. This Mystery does not call for the breaking of fellowship with anyone.)

What should we think about the statement that Brother Roger became “formally” Catholic?

Born in a Reformed family, Brother Roger had studied theology and had become a pastor in that same Reformed tradition. When he spoke of “the faith of his origins,” he was referring to that beautiful blend of catechesis, devotion, theological formation and Christian witness received in the Reformed tradition. He shared that patrimony with all his brothers and sisters of Protestant affiliation, with whom he always felt himself deeply linked. Since his early years as a pastor, however, Brother Roger sought at the same time to nourish his faith and his spiritual life at the wellsprings of other Christian traditions, crossing certain confessional limits in doing so. His desire to follow a monastic vocation and to found for this purpose a new monastic community with Christians of the Reformation already said a lot about this search of his.

As the years passed, the faith of the prior of Taizé was progressively enriched by the patrimony of faith of the Catholic Church. According to his own testimony, it was with reference to the mystery of the Catholic faith that he understood some of the elements of the faith, such as the role of the Virgin Mary in salvation history, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic gifts and the apostolic ministry in the Church, including the ministry of unity exercised by the Bishop of Rome.

In response to this, the Catholic Church had accepted that he take communion at the Eucharist, as he did every morning in the large church at Taizé. Brother Roger also received communion several times from the hands of Pope John Paul II, who had become friends with him from the days of the Second Vatican Council and who was well acquainted with his personal journey with respect to the Catholic Church. In this sense, there was nothing secret or hidden in the attitude of the Catholic Church, neither at Taizé or in Rome. During the funeral of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger only repeated what had already been done before him in Saint Peter’s Basilica, at the time of the late Pope. There was nothing new or premeditated in the Cardinal’s act.

In a talk he gave in the presence of Pope John Paul II in Saint Peter’s Basilica during the young adult European meeting in Rome in 1980, the prior of Taizé described his own personal journey and his Christian identity with these words: “I have found my own Christian identity by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the Mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone.”

In fact, Brother Roger never wanted to break “with anyone,” for reasons which were essentially linked to his own desire for unity and to the ecumenical vocation of the Taizé Community. For that reason, he preferred not to use certain expressions like “conversion” or “formal” membership to describe his communion with the Catholic Church. In his conscience, he had entered into the mystery of the Catholic faith like someone who grows into it, without having to “abandon” or “break” with what he had received and lived beforehand. The meaning of some theological or canonical terms could be discussed endlessly. Out of respect for the faith-journey of Brother Roger, however, it would be preferable not to apply to him categories which he himself considered inappropriate for his experience and which, moreover, the Catholic Church never wanted to impose upon him. Here too, the words of Brother Roger himself should suffice for us.

Do you see any links between the ecumenical vocation of Taizé and the pilgrimage of tens of thousands of young adults to this small village in Burgundy? In your opinion, are young people sensitive to the visible unity of Christians?

As I see it, the fact that every year thousands of young people still make their way to the little hill of Taizé is truly a gift of the Holy Spirit to today’s Church. For many of them, Taizé represents the first and main place where they can meet young people from other Churches and Ecclesial Communities.

In Taizé, during the times of prayer and sharing on the Bible, they rediscover the gift of communion and friendship that only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can offer. In listening to the Word of God, they also rediscover the unique treasure that has been given to them by the sacrament of baptism.

Yes, I believe that many young people realize what is truly at stake in the unity of Christians. They know how the burden of divisions can still weigh heavily on the witness of Christians and on the building up of a new society. In Taizé they find a kind of “parable of community” that helps to go beyond the rifts of the past and to look towards a future of communion and friendship. When they return home, that experience helps them to create groups of prayer and sharing in their own life-context, to nourish that desire for unity.

Before heading the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, you were the bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart and, in that capacity, you welcomed in 1996 a young adult European meeting organized by the Taizé Community. What do these meetings contribute to the life of the Churches?

That meeting was indeed a time of very great joy and profound spiritual intensity for the diocese, and especially for the parishes that welcomed the young participants from different countries. Those meetings seem to me extremely important for the life of the Church. Many young people, as I said, live in secularized societies. It is hard for them to find companions on the road of Christian faith and life. Spaces to deepen and celebrate faith, in joy and serenity, are rare. The local Churches sometimes find it hard to walk alongside the young in their spiritual journeys.

It is in this respect that large meetings like those organized by the Taizé Community respond to a true pastoral need. Christian life certainly requires silence and solitude, as Jesus said: “Shut yourself in your room and pray to your Father who is in that secret place” (Matt 6:6). But it also needs sharing, encounters and exchanges. Christian life is not lived out in isolation, on the contrary. Through baptism, we belong to the same one body of the Risen Christ. The Spirit is the soul and the breath that animates that body, making it grow in holiness.

The gospels, incidentally, speak regularly of a great crowd of persons who came, often from very far away, to see and hear Jesus and to be healed by him. The large meetings held today are part of this same dynamic. They enable the young better to grasp the mystery of the Church as communion, to listen together to the words of Jesus and to put their trust in him.

Pope John XXIII called Taizé a “little springtime.” For his part, Brother Roger said that Pope John XXIII was the man who had affected him the most. In your opinion, why did the Pope who had the intuition of the Second Vatican Council and the founder of Taizé appreciate one another so much?

Every time I met Brother Roger, he spoke to me a lot about his friendship for Pope John XXIII first of all, then for Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. It was always with gratitude and a great joy that he told me about the many meetings and conversations he had with them over the years. On the one hand, the prior of Taizé felt very close to the Bishops of Rome in their concern to lead the Church of Christ along the ways of spiritual renewal, of unity between Christians, of service to the poor, of witness to the Gospel. On the other hand, he felt deeply understood and supported by them in his own spiritual journey and in the orientation that the young Taizé Community was taking. The awareness of acting in harmony with the thought of the Bishop of Rome was for him a kind of compass in all his actions. He never would have undertaken an initiative that he knew was against the opinion or the will of the Bishop of Rome. A similar relationship of trust continues today with Pope Benedict XVI, who spoke very touching words when the founder of Taizé died, and who receives Brother Alois every year in a private audience.

Where did this mutual esteem between Brother Roger and the successive Bishops of Rome come from?

It was certainly rooted in human realities, in the rich personalities of the men concerned. In the final analysis, I would say that it came from the Holy Spirit, who is coherent in what he inspires in different persons at the same time, for the good of the one Church of Christ. When the Spirit speaks, all understand the same message, each in his or her own language. The true creator of understanding and brotherhood among the disciples of Christ is the Spirit of communion.

You are well acquainted with Brother Alois, Brother Roger’s successor. How do you see the future of the Taizé Community?

Although I had already met him previously, it is above all since Brother Roger died that I have come to know Brother Alois better. A few years earlier, Brother Roger told me that everything was planned for his succession, on the day when that would be necessary. He was happy about the prospect that Brother Alois was going to take over. Who could have ever imagined that that succession was going to take place in a single night, after an unthinkable act of violence? What has astonished me since then is the great continuity in the life of the Taizé Community and in the welcome of the young. The liturgy, the prayer and the hospitality continue in the same spirit, like a song that has never been interrupted. That says a lot, not only about the personality of the new prior, but also and above all about the human and spiritual maturity of the whole Taizé Community. It is the community as a whole that has inherited Brother Roger’s charism, which it continues to live and to radiate.

Knowing the individuals concerned, I have full confidence in the future of the Taizé Community and in its commitment for Christian unity. That confidence comes to me from the Holy Spirit as well, who does not awaken charisms in order to abandon them at the first opportunity. God’s Spirit, who is always new, works in the continuity of a vocation and a mission. He will help the community to live out and to develop its vocation, in faithfulness to the example that Brother Roger left it. Generations pass, but the charism remains, because it is a gift and a work of the Spirit. I would like to conclude by repeating to Brother Alois and to the whole Taizé Community my great esteem for their friendship, their life of prayer and their desire for unity. Thanks to them, the gentle face of Brother Roger remains familiar to us.

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

I can't help but wonder how much influence Brother Roger had on Pope John calling for the Second Vatican Council. Maybe it wasn't Brother Roger per se, but the Spirit that seems to hang around the Taize community. That particular Spirit can be contagious, as well as coherent, as Cardinal Kasper noted. Maybe that's why Taize stands out as a ray of hope in a sea of disunity, and why it appeals so strongly to youth of all faiths, nationalities, cultures,--- and ages.

There's been an awful lot in the Catholic news lately about charismatic movements and leaders gone off the deep end. Taize stands out in contrast to all of that as well. I suspect though, the reason for this is as Cardinal Kasper said, the human and spiritual maturity of the entire community. This appears to be a group of stage IV spiritual sojourners who are able to see beyond doctrine and dogma and drive to the heart of spiritual mystery. Their authenticity and genuineness is such that even Popes don't seem to think the normal rules apply when it comes to Eucharistic sharing. The Spirit of genuine community trumps the need for doctrinal obedience.

For me personally, the Vatican attitude towards the Taize community offers great hope. Sometimes it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the Vatican is hell bent on returning to the closed church of the fifties, but then there is Taize. True spiritual authenticity is still recognized and celebrated, even if it isn't quite Catholic kosher. A spiritual sojourner can find a home port.

I'd like to think Benedict saw the same thing in Chief Fontaine of the Canadian First Nations and it was in recognition of Chief Fontaine's genuine pursuit of reconcilliation that Benedict recieved and honored him. Spiritual authenticity transcends religious differences and reaches for unity and reconcilliation. It's not an accident that the church at Taize is called The Church of Reconcilliation.

As I wrote yesterday, reconcilliation is a two way street. Both sides have to admit they were full time players contributing equally to the problem--especially if the sides appeared to be functioning from different places of power. Benedict's offer of reconcilliation with SSPX failed precisely because SSPX refuses to admit any fault or move towards Rome. That's not an authentic spiritual stand, that's a narcissitic ego stand. My advice to Bishop Fellay would be to spend some contemplative time at Taize. It might be good for his soul, and it's a not a very long drive. It might give Benedict some sorely needed hope.

Now that I think of it, there are a few other bishops whose names come to mind that might also benefit from a little comtemplative time with the brothers at Taize. That might give a whole bunch of people some sorely needed hope.