Today, tucked into the celebration of “the weekly Easter,” the Dies Domini, the Church also commemorates, with the entire Franciscan family, St. Bonaventure, theologian and pastor.

In 1959 the young professor, Joseph Ratzinger, published a significant study: The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure. This second thesis, or Habilitationschrift, is required for the aspirant to hold a chair in a German university.

(For an intriguing account of the drama of the dissertation’s initial rejection and its refashioning and ultimate acceptance, see Ratzinger, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977.)

In his 1969 “Foreword to the American Edition,” Ratzinger writes of his findings:

It became apparent that Bonaventure’s theology of history presents a struggle to arrive at a proper understanding of eschatology. It is thus anchored in the central issue of the New Testament question itself. It became clear that the discussion which Bonaventure undertook with Joachim of Fiore — the remarkable prophet of that period — led to a change in the concept of eschatology which remains operative even today. Finally, it became obvious that the theology of history does not represent an isolated area of Bonaventure’s thought. On the contrary, it is related to the basic philosophical and theological decisions which provided the basis for his participation in the bitter controversies of the 1260s and 1270s.

It was in these controversies that the question of philosophy and theology was handled, as well as the question of Hellenism and de-Hellenization, and the problem of whether faith could be translated into understanding. In many ways, those turbulent years, with the abrupt entrance of Arabian science into  the firmly built structure of traditional theology, are similar to the post-Conciliar mood which we are experiencing at the present time.

It seems to me that Bonaventure could not remain silent concerning Joachim since he was Minister General of an Order that was torn almost to the breaking point by the Joachimite question. Hexaemeron [Bonaventure's last, unfinished work on the "Six Days" of creation] is the answer he gave to this problem as General of the Order. It is a critical discussion with the Calabrian Abbot and his followers. But the discussion is carried on in such a way that Joachim is interpreted back into tradition, while the Joachimites interpreted him against that tradition. Bonaventure does not totally reject Joachim (as Thomas had done); rather, he interprets him in an ecclesial way and thus creates an alternative to the radical Joachimites. On the basis of this alternative, he tries to preserve the unity of the Order.

Does one discern, in these words written almost forty years ago,  a foreshadowing of the theological-pastoral program of Benedict XVI?

India plans to implement a pregnancy registry to help reduce gender-based abortions and infanticides, the BBC World Service reported this morning. You can read the story at Reuters India.

Listening to the story on the radio this morning, I have to admit that the notion of government registered pregnancies struck me as pretty draconian. But apparently previous laws banning sex determination did not lower the abortion and infanticide of girls as much as was hoped. The government said that some 10 million girls have been aborted or killed by their parents in the past 20 years.

While some say pregnancy registration is unrealistic, the measure has invigorated discussions about the nation’s attitudes toward girls, infant mortality and pre- and post-natal care for poor and rural women. And certainly nothing but good can come from such discussions.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the President of the Pontifical Council for  Promoting Christian Unity, has provided an irenic exegesis of the recent CDF Declaration that has been commented on in a post below.

Kasper writes:

A first and quick reaction among Protestant Christians to the declaration of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church” has been one of irritation. But a second, quiet reading will show that the document does not say anything new. It explains and, in a brief summary, clarifies positions that the Catholic Church has held for a long time. Therefore, no new situation has developed. Nor is there any objective reason for outrage, or the feeling of being offended. Every dialogue presupposes clarity about the different positions. Our Protestant partners are the ones who have recently spoken about an ecumenism of profiles. If this declaration now explains the Catholic profile and expresses what, in a Catholic view, unfortunately still divides us, this does not hinder dialogue, but promotes it.

The full text is available here.

Andrew Sullivan isn’t optimistic about the president’s press conference on Iraq (transcript):

He’s arguing he didn’t decide to go to war; Saddam did. He’s saying he
agrees with his Republican critics. He’s blaming the generals for all
the combat decisions that have made this war a failure. His blaming
Tommy Franks specifically for the troop levels was particularly
piquant. So he gave him a Medal of Freedom anyway? Worse, the president
conflated every single radical element in the Middle East into one
amorphous anti-American entity. It appears that he sees Shiite
militias, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Hamas and the Sunni insurgents as
indistinguishable. He has even said baldly that the people bombing and
murdering in Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9/11. The
Shiite militias? The Baathist dead-enders? Is he serious? He seems to
be still operating under the premise that the fundamental dynamic is
one between democracy and radicalism. At some very broad and general
level, that’s not wrong. But in terms of forming policy, it’s close to
useless. Actually, it’s worse than useless. We have a president who
seems unable to understand the critical dynamics of the war he is
allegedly waging. Is he capable of understanding the complexity? Does
he really think we need another lecture on the evil of al Qaeda? Does
he really think that’s what we’re arguing about at this point?

It’s way too late in the game for the Commander in Chief to be this confused about our adventure in Iraq. The notion that this man is making military decisions–whoever wields influence–is frightening. He seems not to have the faintest idea of what’s happening in Iraq. Why should anyone believe he can bring this debacle to a just conclusion?

Update: Bush on Libby video:


Update 2: Bush responds to David Gregory’s question about the Washington Post article Peggy Steinfels mentions in the post below. (Watch the whole press conference here: part one, part two, part three, part four, part five.)


Update 3: Biden on the “good news”: “This progress report is like the guy who’s falling from a 100-story building and says half-way down that ‘everything’s fine.’” Except this guy isn’t falling alone. (H/T TPM)

Bob Woodward reports on the testimony of CIA head Hayden to the Iraqi Study Group last winter. Sobering.

CIA Said Instability Seemed ‘Irreversible’

By Bob Woodward

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102451.html?hpid=topnews

In Lumen gentium #8, the Second Vatican Council says that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church. All previous drafts of this statement had said flatly that Christ’s Church is the Roman Catholic Church. The significance of the change of verbs has been controversial ever since it was made. It has this last week been the subject of a statement of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Here are some notes that I compiled some time ago for the use of my students.

When the Council’s Doctrinal Commission brought the final version of the Constitution on the Church to the Council Fathers in 1964, it explained that among the purposes of paragraph 8 was “to show that the Church, whose intimate and mysterious nature which forever unites it with Christ and his work has been described [in ch. 1], here on earth is concretely found [concrete invenitur] in the Catholic Church. While this empirical Church reveals the mystery, it does not do so without shadows until it is brought to full light, just as Christ the Lord came to his glory by emptying himself. Thus is avoided the impression that the description of the Church which the Council presents is merely idealistic and unreal.” The chapter would show, the Commission went on, that “the mystery of the Church is present [adest] and is manifested in a concrete society” and that “the Church is one, and here on earth is present [adest] in the Catholic Church, although ecclesial elements are found outside it.”

When the Doctrinal Commission came to the text in which the word “is” [est] is replaced by the words “subsists in” [subsistit in], it explained the change in this way: “Some words are changed: in place of “is” the text says “subsists in” so that the expression may better accord with the affirmation about ecclesial elements which are present [adsunt] elsewhere.” This alteration did not please all the bishops and experts (for example, Maximos IV and Yves Congar were opposed to it), some of whom proposed amendments. Some wanted to strengthen the statement, others to weaken it, and so the Doctrinal Commission decided to stay with the change of verb.

The first rule of conciliar hermeneutics should be to follow the indications of the official explanation provided by the Doctrinal Commission. To interpret the meaning of “subsists in,” then, we should look to the Council’s statements about the “ecclesial elements” that are found outside the Catholic Church. There are several texts in which the Council describes these.

The first is in LG 8 itself: “several elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible structure.” This general statement is clarified and explained in three other passages.

LG 14 speaks about what constitutes “full incorporation” into the society of the Church, a phrase which the Council prefers to the language of “membership.”

Those persons are fully incorporated into the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church along with its entire organization and who, by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion, are joined in the visible structure of the Church to Christ, who rules it through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.

Now, if full incorporation gives some clue as to what the constitutive elements of the Church are, we can list the following:

the Spirit of Christ – the means of salvation

Lesser degrees of communion are described in LG 15, where the Council is speaking about the links between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian individuals. Here can be found another list of elements:

Sacred Scripture – religious zeal

Perhaps the strongest statement is found, however, in UR 3, where the Council discusses the relationship between the Catholic Church and other Christian communities:

>>Some, even very many, of the most significant elements and endowments that together go to build up and to give life to the Church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope, and charity, with other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.

<<

Having described in such strong terms what is present in these other communities, the Council then makes its statement about what it believes to be unique about the Roman Catholic Church:

>> But the brethren separated from us, whether as individuals or as Communities and Churches, do not enjoy that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those whom he has regenerated and vivified together into one body and into a new life, that unity which the Sacred Scriptures and the Church’s ancient Tradition profess. For it is through the Catholic Christ of Christ alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be attained. It was to the apostolic College alone, with Peter as its head, that we believe that the Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant in order to establish on earth one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who in any way belong to the People of God. This people, during its earthly pilgrimage, although in its members still liable to sin, grows in Christ and is being gently guided in accord with God’s mysterious counsels until it comes joyfully to the entire fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.<<

I think this passage provides the best explanation of what is the unique claim that the Roman Catholic Church makes about itself and, thereby, I believe, sets out what “subsists in” means in LG 8: the Catholic Church alone possesses “the fullness of the means of salvation.” It is not a claim that it alone possesses the truth and grace of Christ; it is not a claim that it is holier than other Churches or communities. It is a claim about the “means of salvation,’ that is, institutions, ordinances, etc. with which God has blessed the Church for the sake of the salvation of its members. If these can be set out in terms of the ancient pillars of the Catholic form of the Church, they would include: the rule of apostolic faith (the Creed); the canon of apostolic Scriptures; the form of apostolic worship (sacraments); and the structure of apostolic ministry. To take some examples: Catholic believe that the canon of the Scriptures includes texts that Protestants do not receive, that there are seven sacraments willed by Christ, that the normative ministry includes that of the Bishop of Rome as minister of catholic unity. The Catholic Church regards these as divinely willed elements of the Church, and since no other Christian Church or community has them all, it says that the fullness of these means of salvation is found in the Catholic Church alone.

Perhaps one way of putting this is to say that the Council, in saying that the Church as an instrument of salvation is found in its fullness only in the Catholic Church, is not denying, in fact, it clearly says, that the spiritual reality that is the Church as the effect of God’s saving grace can be found not only in non-Catholic Christians but also in non-Catholic Christian Churches and communities. I think the CDF could have explained this much more effectively than it did.

This is for Gene!

The Barna Group has published a new study of American Catholics that concludes that Catholics are more or less indistinguishable from the general public with respect to many social and cultural attitudes. This led George Barna to offer some bracing–one might even say harsh–words about the collapse of American Catholic identity:

The history of American Catholics is that of
a pool of immigrants who have successfully blended into the native
culture. They have done well at adapting to their surroundings and
emerging to become a backbone of the community and the national
economy. The questions raised fifty years ago about the political
loyalties and social objectives of Catholics are no longer relevant in
this society,” Barna commented. “Yet, the cost of that struggle to
achieve acceptance and legitimacy is that Catholics have largely lost
touch with much of their substantive spiritual heritage. They retain an
appreciation for tradition and consistency, but have much less of a
commitment to knowing and practicing the commands of Christ. For
instance, the data show that some of their long-held distinctives, such
as being champions of social justice, are no longer a defining facet of
their community.”

“The trail of Catholicism in America is a clear example of
culture influencing faith more often than faith influencing culture,”
Barna continued. “The faith of tens of millions of Catholics is
affected by the prevailing culture more than by the central principles
and teachings of the Bible. Spiritual leaders who are passionate about
remaining true to the scriptures and to Catholicism’s historic
commitment to Jesus Christ and the Word of God must address this
spiritual drift within the body. If they fail to do so, in the next
quarter century American Catholicism could well lose its ability to
shape people’s minds and hearts in ways that conform to the historic
teachings and purposes of Christianity.”

Hmmmm…

The rhetoric seems a bit over the top and I’d suspect it was designed to get me to buy the full study, except I can’t seem to find a link to it on the site. Furthermore, Barna’s indices of religious commitment (e.g. donating money to churches, reading the Bible, sharing their faith in Christ with others, attending a Sunday School class) are heavily drawn from Protestant models. Even during the alleged “golden age” of American Catholicism in the 1940s and 50s, I very much doubt that many Catholics would have scored high on reading the Bible or sharing their faith in Christ with others. The fact that the folks who invented Bingo tend to buy lottery tickets at the same rate as the general population does not seem to be a major cause for alarm.

I’m not trying to ignore the massive amount of evidence out there that there has been a marked decline in Catholic religious practice in the last half century. The evidence–from many sources other than Barna–is overwhelming. The finding that concern for the poor is not more evident in the Catholic population than in the general population is certainly cause for concern, as are some of Barna’s other findings.

But the overall tone of this document irks me, as it seems to suggest that Catholics are not good Christians primarily because they don’t think and act like Evangelical Protestants. Fine. But if you want to play that game, don’t expect me to take your concerns about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s recent statement very seriously.

Today’s  Times has an extraordinary piece (behind firewall) on the politicization of the  Surgeon’s General’s office .  In brief,  Richard H. Carmona, Surgeon General from 2002-2006  claims the White House repeatedly intervened in reports on and scientific analysis of emergency contraception, global warming and other hot-button topics. He even claims that administration officials did not want him to highlight the work of Special Olympics given that organization’s close ties to the Kennedy family. (Eunice Kennedy and her husband Sargent Shriver founded Special Olympics in the late 1960s.)

Special Olympics will survive, although this won’t help the President’s poll ratings. But add this to what we now know about the politicization of  Paul Bremer’s  office in Iraq (where  appointees talk about being grilled, not on their knowledge of Iraqi society or command of Arabic, but  Roe v. Wade and privatization) and  the  White House legal counsel and the Attorney General’s attempt to purge “disloyal” (if often Republican) Federal prosecutors.

This level of politicization is new, I think,  at least in the post WWII era.  How do we explain it?  I think it stems from the genuine isolation conservative intellectuals  felt from mainstream establishment institutions — i.e. the universities, the courts,  the churches,  the government — by the  1970s, and the contempt they developed for  the same.  These conservatives,  much to their credit, drew upon corporate money and built some of their own institutions  (notably  think tanks) and became far more adept  than liberals at the art of the polemic. (The Ur text here is Lewis Powell’s fasinating 1971 memo about liberalism in the “respectable elements of society” and the need for corporate America to challenge these views. What’s striking in that memo, given the situation today, is the complete absence of any discussion of abortion.) But has this deep suspicion of institutions left some conservatives  predisposed to view *all* questions and programs as ideological? 

Be sure to jump over to the home page to read the just-released issue of Commonweal, including Jack Miles’s review of the pope’s book on Jesus, the editorial on dialogue among Catholic scholars, and Richard Alleva’s latest film review. Anxious to get at some of the subscribers-only features (you’re really missing something, not reading that Prusak piece)? Why not subscribe for just seventeen bucks?

Today the Church celebrates the Feast of Saint Benedict. His life span (480-547) conjures up a world in disarray. His genius was to chart anew a path to the abiding and life-giving Center that was both contemplative and practical: a school of the Lord’s service.

The famous close of his Rule reads:

Just as there is a wicked zeal of bitterness which separates from God and leads to hell, so there is a good zeal which separates from evil and leads to God and everlasting life.

This, then, is the good zeal which monks must foster with  fervent love: “They should each try to be the first to show respect to the other” (Rom 12:10), supporting with the greatest patience one another’s weakness of body or behavior, and earnestly competing in obedience to one another. No one is to pursue what he judges better for himself, but, instead, what he judges better for someone else.

To their fellow monks, they should show the pure love of brothers; to God, loving fear; to their abbot, unfeigned and humble love.

Let them prefer nothing whatever to Christ, and may He bring us all together to everlasting life.

The Benedictine monk, Columba Stewart, in his Prayer and Community: the Benedictine Tradition writes:

Benedict’s most fundamental insight in the Rule is that we seek God through ordinary means. God is already here, in and among us, if only we can learn to see Christ and hear his voice in those with whom we live.

Benedict would have us structure each day with several exercises of attentiveness to Christ, each a form of listening and responding to God in prayer. The development of these exercises over the centuries and the various arrangements of them in the Benedictine tradition past and present suggest that the key to mindfulness lies not in precision of detail but in the ensemble of practices.

Individuals have the same freedom as communities to find a mix that works for them. For it to be “Benedictine,” it would contain both liturgical and personal prayer, be grounded in lectio divina, and heighten awareness of how we stand before God as both sinful and saved.

And so the Church prays today (in my “dynamically equivalent” translation):

O God, you set the blessed Abbot Benedict as an outstanding master in the school of holiness. May your people prefer nothing whatever to your love, and, with generous hearts, may we follow the way of your commandments: through Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Here’s Cal Thomas holding forth on Hilary Clinton’s religious faith (HT Digby):

Liberal faith, which is to say a faith that discounts the authority
of Scripture in favor of a constantly evolving, poll-tested relevancy
to modern concerns — such as the environment, what kind of SUV Jesus
would drive, larger government programs and other “do-good” pursuits –
ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and
jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins
and a transformed life.

If the newspaper story is accurate, this
is where Clinton is on her faith: “In a brief quiz about her
theological views, Mrs. Clinton said she believed in the resurrection
of Jesus, though she described herself as less sure of the doctrine
that being a Christian is the only way to salvation.”  This is a
politician speaking, not a person who believes in the central tenets of
Christianity.

The
same book that tells of the resurrection, also quotes Jesus as saying
“I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but
by me” (John 14:6). One might ask, which the reporter did not, that if
there are other ways to God than through Jesus, why did Jesus bother to
come to Earth, allow himself to be crucified and suffer rejection?

I can’t quite tell what Thomas means by liberal Christianity here. 
But I know I disagree with his characterization of the view that “being
a Christian is the only way to salvation” as a central tenet of Christianity, unless Catholics do not count as Christians.  (Of course, we’ve seen that one before as well.)

From the Congressmen and -women’s press release:

Fourteen Members of Congress including Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) and
Congressman Tim Ryan (OH-17) sent a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops (USCCB) last Thursday, calling on the Bishops to increase their
involvement in efforts to end the war in Iraq . 
In the letter, which was sent to Bishop William S. Skylstad, President of the
USCCB and Bishop Thomas Wenski, International Justice and Peace Committee Chair,
the Members of Congress ask for a meeting with representatives of the USCCB to
discuss ways that Congressional Members and the clergy can work together to
mobilize public action to end the war.

“Throughout our nation’s history,
Catholics have been at the forefront of the fight for social justice,”
said Congressman Tim Ryan. “We are proud to see that the USCCB feels as strongly
on this issue as we do and we are prepared to work closely with them to reach
out to fellow members of the faith.”  

“As Catholic Members of Congress we
stand in unison with the Catholic Church in opposition to the War in Iraq .
Yet to attain the ideal of peace, we must not only speak the words, we must take
action and that is why we are reaching out to the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops to work with them to bring an end to the War in Iraq,” said
Congresswoman DeLauro.

Read the rest right here.

Newsweek has a fascinating essay by Ed Husain, the author of the recently released The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left. Unlike some other commentators, Husain is not at all surprised that physicians were involved in the recent attacks in Britain. He notes that the ranks of radical Islamic organizations are filled with activists with a technical education. He offers some speculative thoughts on how this background has affected their approach to Islam:

In the past, Muslims did not pronounce on religious matters without the endorsement of trained theologians, the ulama. The ulama were the bastion of religious knowledge that operated in an informal yet consensual method of intellectual plurality, interpretational elasticity, and maintained a centuries-old chain of transmission of sacred knowledge, known as the ijaza. Before modern-day terrorists turned to destroying buildings and killing innocents, they violently rejected this millennium-old Muslim tradition of learning. The founder of the Wahhabi school killed scholars who disagreed with him in Najd, and as late as the 1980s Islamists assassinated leading ulama in Egypt and Syria. Free from the constraints of traditional learning and the learned, Wahhabi-Islamists developed their theology of terror: those who disagree must be killed. What started as intolerance, ended up as justification for mass killing.

Islamists and jihadist networks lack the support of the ulama. Just as their bombing techniques are amateur and desperate, often destined to failure, so is their reading of scripture and warped justification for suicide bombings and killing humans. They approach the Qu’ran as though it were an engineering manual, with instructions for right and wrong conduct. Literalism and ignorance dominates their readings. This flaw is deepened by the haughty mindset of the engineer or medical doctor that academic achievement, a place at a university, now qualifies him to approach ancient scripture without the guidance of the ulama. To the Islamist engineer, centuries of context, nuance, history, grammar, lexicon, scholarship, and tradition are all lost and redundant. The do-it-yourself (DIY) attitude to religious texts, fostered by doctors and engineers of secular colleges, produces desperate, angry suicide bombers devoid of spiritual guidance.

Reading this, I was reminded of Pope Benedict’s comments at Regensberg about the importance of the relationship between faith and reason. It also reminded me that there are those within my own religious tradition who sometimes try to interpret our texts in the way that Husain describes.

While the bloggers are worried about the recent motu proprio (a tempest in a teapot in my estimation) I have been thinking about art. Every time I get to New York I try to visit the Frick to stand before Bellini’s “The Ecstasy of Saint Francis” – the greatest painting in the whole city for my money. In London, I head straight for Caravaggio’s “The Supper at Emmaus” at the National Gallery. In Rome, I love to go to Trastevere to pray with the Sant Egidio Community before the stunning apsidal mosaic. Last Year I got a chance to return to Colmar where, in the museum, is the Isenheim Altarpiece. Nonetheless, the one painting that strikes me as the greatest religious painting ever done is the Rublev “Old Testament Trinity” which I have never seen since I have never been to Russia. I did once see early variations of it in a show of Russian religious art at the Royal Academy in London. For a long time I thought of some modern art as bering epiphanic but a recent long look at a Rothko made me think that my enthusiasm has waned. Perhaps I was, when younger, too impressed with the thought of Paul Tillich on art but now think not much of him. Too Protestant. That is another story.
Here is a thought: anyone want to share what most moves him or her before a “classic” work of art? Inquiring minds want to know.

Today, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released something called “Responses to some Questions
Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.” I’m not sure who was asking, but here’s the link to the Vatican Information Service story about the document, which contains the full text. 

An item from the Christianity Today website, with interesting links:

Bishop corrects priest who announced, “I am both Muslim and Christian”

The June 2007 newspaper for the Seattle-area Episcopal Diocese of Olympia had an article on Ann Holmes Redding, proclaiming her “both a practicing Muslim and an Episcopal priest.” The Seattle Times followed up, and paraphrased Diocese of Olympia Bishop Vincent Warner (identified as Redding’s bishop) as saying “he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.”
Now it turns out that Redding is actually a priest under the Diocese of Rhode Island. Bishop Geralyn Wolf doesn’t find the interfaith possibilities so exciting, and announced Thursday that Redding is undergoing church discipline.
“After meeting with her I issued a Pastoral Direction giving her the opportunity to reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam,” Wolf wrote in an e-mail message to clergy and diocesan leaders. “During the next year she is not to exercise any of the responsibilities and privileges of an Episcopal priest or deacon. Other aspects of the Pastoral Direction will remain private.”
“I’m deeply saddened, but I’ve always said I would abide by the rulings of my bishop,” Redding told The Seattle Times today. “I understand that one of my options would be to voluntarily leave the priesthood … The church is going to have to divorce me if it comes to that. I’m not going to go willingly.”
Warner tells the paper that he still accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, but says Wolf’s pastoral direction is “a good way to have a timeout and provide an opportunity for Ann to continue to teach … and at the same time take a look at her relationship both with the Episcopal Church and the Christian faith and Islam.”
What will she continue to teach? Turns out that she’ll be teaching theology at Seattle University, a Jesuit school.

And–hard to believe, I know–much more pressing (not that I’m expecting motu-level comments here): Yesterday the New York Times editorial page called for the United States to withdraw from Iraq. Some highlights:

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is
wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and
its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the
life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden
on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the
wise application of American power and principles.

(snip)

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be
clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and
more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against
those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even
genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and
Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps
most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which
terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the
Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies
must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans
must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will
only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now,
about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big
challenges that will arise.

(snip)

The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the
White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome.
To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush
spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

(snip)

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his
resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France,
Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to
help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it
spills across Iraq’s borders.

(snip)

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out
this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops
are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much
effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

As you can see, I learned a lot of Latin (and some of my basic outlook on life) from MAD Magazine. And it pretty much reflects how I feel about the Motu Propio–nice for those who want to hear the Mass in Latin again, but I don’t worry that it’ll turn the tide from the vernacular Mass by a long shot.

Anyhoo, please carry one the arguments in threads below (I think it says in the Catechism that you’re not Catholic if you don’t argue), but I thought it might be interesting to get some quick responses to this fill-in-the-blank statement:

“The WORST thing about giving parishes more freedom to choose the Latin Mass is [your thoughts here in no more than three lines, please.]

My guess is that the worst that can happen just isn’t really that bad.

The Vatican web site has now published Pope Benedicts’ Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum. It is currently available only in Latin (as seems fitting).

But the accompanying Letter to the Bishops is available in English. Here is, to my mind, a crucial paragraph, reflective of the personal tone of the whole Letter:

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu
Proprio updating that of 1988.  It is a matter of coming to an interior
reconciliation in the heart of the Church.  Looking back over the past, to the
divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one
continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were
coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain
reconciliation and unity.  One has the impression that omissions on the part of
the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were
able to harden.  This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to
make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in
that unity or to attain it anew.  I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to
the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our
heart is wide.  You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own
affections.  In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor6:11-13).  Paul
was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must
touch us too, precisely on this subject.  Let us generously open our hearts and
make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

The rest of the Letter may be found here.

P.S. The challenge of an intelligent grasp of Latin in the present cultural climate may be indicated by the fact that the leading Italian daily, Corriere della Sera, in an article in today’s edition, twice refers to the Motu Proprio as SummArum Pontificum. O tempora, o mores!

It’s here.

Yes, it’s true that the actual publication date of the motu
proprio Summorum Pontificum is not until
Saturday, but Rocco Palmo at Whispers in the Loggia has obtained an advance copy and has all the details for your
reading pleasure.

As expected, the document will make it easier for priests to
celebrate the Roman Rite according to the 1962 Missale Romanum. That form of the rite—which the document states was
“never abrogated,” is to be understood as an “extraordinary form” of the Roman
Rite. No permission is required for a
priest to celebrate the extraordinary form privately and the faithful may be
admitted to such celebrations. In
parishes where desire for the extraordinary form “exists stably” pastors are
exhorted to allow formal celebrations of it.
For more details, I’m going to force you to click over to Rocco. He’s done the reporting; he deserves the
traffic.

Much has been written (this is an understatement!) on
the topic of how removing barriers to the celebration of the 1962 rite would
help reconnect the Church with its liturgical tradition. Fr. Joseph Fesso, S.J., for example, recently
stated that the document would be “a major step toward the genuine renewal of the
Mass, and therefore the genuine renewal of the Church, which the Council so
ardently desired.” Similar themes are
struck by Pope Benedict in his letter of transmittal.

It will be interesting to see if this happens, but I’ll
admit that I remain a bit skeptical. It’s
not as if I don’t have concerns about how the liturgy is currently
celebrated. Sometimes I think that if I
have to sing the hymn “Sing a New
Church” one more time, I
will slam my head into the pew ahead of me in an effort to knock myself
unconscious. In recent years, I’ve endured
Pentecosts where the church was decorated like it was a children’s birthday
party, Halloween masses where the celebrant wore a clown wig, and various other
exercises in liturgical creativity that ended badly. The more I study what those involved in the
liturgical movement of the 20^th century were trying to accomplish,
the more that significant gaps between our current practice and that vision
emerge.

I’m still not clear, however, on how liberalizing access to
the 1962 rite is going to help solve these problems. Much of the mainstream criticism of
contemporary liturgy focuses more on how the Roman Rite is celebrated
than the rite itself. If one peruses
many of the books, weblogs and internet sites that critique contemporary
liturgy, one finds that most of the arguments focus on the following issues: 1)
music; 2) posture; 3) architecture; 4) language; and 5) vestments. Pope Benedict’s book The Spirit of the Liturgy (written while he was still Cardinal
Ratzinger) focused on many of these issues, but did not—as far as I can recall—spend
much time comparing the 1962 rite to the current one.

One can certainly grant the substance of many of the
criticisms of contemporary liturgy. But
the current rite can, believe it or not, be celebrated in Latin, using
Gregorian Chant, with the celebrant wearing a fiddleback chasuble if he so
chooses! What has never been clear to me
is what aspects of the 1962 rite—as rite—those who favor it would like to see
reintroduced into the new. The prayers
of Leo XIII at the end of Mass? The
final Gospel? The pre-conciliar
lectionary? Do they want to do away with the communal penitential rite and have
the Confiteor said exclusively by the celebrant? Do they want to eliminate the three additional
Eucharistic prayers?

Pope Benedict, for his part, seems to see the traffic moving
in the other direction. He specifically
suggests incorporating some of the new prefaces—and even the revised
lectionary—into the celebration of the “extraordinary form,” a suggestion that
will probably not be well received by some traditionalists. As to what the “extraordinary form” can give
to the “ordinary form,” it seems that its primary contribution will be
“sacrality” rather than specific ritual forms.

It’s hard not to see this as confirmation of the thesis that
the core of contemporary liturgical criticism—up to and including the criticism
presently issuing from the Holy See—is not about the reformed rite per se. The issues are things that are
harder to quantify: the loss of a sense
of mystery and reverence, an emphasis on the horizontal aspect of the mass to
the neglect of the vertical, and a sense that the Mass has become simply one
more thing to be subject to modern techniques of manipulation and control.

There are times when I think what many critics of contemporary
liturgy want is not so much the 1962 rite but the 1962 rubrics. They want an end to
what Cardinal Arinze once termed the “do-it-yourself Mass.”
They want a liturgy that their parish community receives as gift rather than
as a vehicle for their collective self-expression. Fr. Aidan Kavanagh once suggested that the
pre-conciliar liturgy was often less a system of worship than a system of discipline. Whatever the problems of that discipline, however,
it at least bound the CEO and the charwoman together in a common experience of
worship that is much less common today.

When he wrote The
Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict indicated a hope that it might spark a
“new liturgical movement.” I’m not sure
whether we need a new liturgical movement or merely a recovery of some of the
insights of the old one. We need an adequate
understanding of “active participation” that does not reduce it to mere
activity and that sees the goal of such participation as enhanced openness to
what Pius X called the “true Christian spirit.”
We need an understanding of the history of the liturgy that does not
fall into the trap of seeing the developments of the second millennium as a
narrative of relentless liturgical decline.
We need a serious conversation about liturgical aesthetics, particular
in the area of music. Finally, we need
to figure out how the insights from these various conversations can be
implemented in ordinary parishes with small staffs and competing demands on
their resources.

While the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum is not keeping me up nights, I remain
convinced that the Mass we are called to celebrate can be found within
the rite as it exists today. We have
what we need there to worship God in a way that is “right and just.” If we have
failed to do that, it is not primarily because the rite is deficient but
because we have been deficient in excavating and bringing forth its
riches. Whatever the impact of Summorum Pontificum, that task remains.

I meant to blog this sooner, but in case you missed it, take the time to read the Washington Post‘s much-talked-about four-part blockbuster on Dick Cheney. The articles provide plenty of context for today’s news.

And while you’re at it, have a look at the hilarious, and at times frightening, piece by a New Republic correspondent who took a ride on the National Review cruise.

Last week I offered to review the new iPhone for the Commonweal blogsite, if Commonweal would buy the phone for me. I took Paul’s and Grant’s silence in response to my offer to be an acceptance. So move over Pogue and Mossberg, here is my review.

Let me say at the start that the long lines everyone predicted did not materialize, at least not in Cleveland, and at least not if you had the good sense to go after dinner on Friday night instead of at 6:00 p.m. sharp. I strolled right up to the counter, bought the phone, and was out the door in less than ten minutes.

The phone was a breeze to set up. You have to activate the phone through iTunes, and the longest part of the process was updating my iTunes, which I should have done in advance. Even with this delay, the phone was up and running within 15 minutes.

For the most part, I would say that the phone lives up to its hype: It is gorgeous, remarkably easy to use, and just plain fun. Almost every function is intuitive and can be easily mastered without reading a thick manual. My Gmail account was a breeze to set up and it works much better on the iPhone than it did on my Treo 650.

There are a couple of wrong notes here, but not many. You cannot add or delete buttons on the opening screen, nor can you move them around. Thus, for example, there is a permanent button for checking stocks on the opening screen—which I will never use—but not one for contacts—which I use all time. You cannot take a screenshot picture, which is too bad, because I can imagine lots of situations when that would be useful. You cannot use your iTunes songs to make ringtones. You cannot set a home page for your Internet browser. Nevertheless, despite a few minor problems, this is a terrific phone/ipod/organizer.

(Paul and Grant, receipts are in the mail. Just kidding.)

So, he did it. He really did it. The convicted purjurer Libby is guilty still, but the president found the prison sentence “excessive,” so he commuted it (Scooter still has to pay the fine, though–see, crime doesn’t pay). In making the decision, the president opted out of running it through the normal channels (and it’s highly unusual for sentences to be commuted before being at least partly served). David Brooks is pleased. Andrew Sullivan is not. Doesn’t look like Patrick Fitzgerald is thrilled either. Ditto for the Times‘ opinion page.

Lakes of ink have already been spilled on the happy subject: Libby is a good man, his friends say. And he deserved better–from his superiors, who seemingly hung him out to dry, and from the judge, whose sentence was quite tough. For all I know, they’re right. But even good men commit crimes. And the judge in this case–a Bush political appointee–called the evidence against Libby “overwhelming,” and sentenced him accordingly. I suspect it would have been reduced on appeal, but after the court rejected Libby’s request that the jail sentence be suspended until the appeals process was complete, the president apparently couldn’t wait for a punishment more in line with his thinking. So by splitting the difference–already rather amusingly being called an “elegant” political compromise–Bush has demonstrated, like Clinton before him, why this particular presidential power ought to be seriously restricted, or done away with altogether. Presidential pardons: what are they good for?

Independence Day is only two days away. Do you think patriotic songs or hymns, such as America the Beautiful, should be sung at Mass? It seems wrong to me, but I’d love to hear what you think.

Michael Gerson (a former speechwriter for President Bush) has an interesting analysis of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) recent speech on religion and politics. Gerson had some words of caution for those who would use religion to baptize a specific set of policy proposals:

Obama’s criticism of the religious right for baptizing the agenda of economic conservatism — making tax cuts their highest legislative priority — had some justified sting. But then he proceeded, in the typical manner of the religious left, to give a variety of more liberal causes a similar kind of full-immersion baptism: passing a “universal health care bill,” withdrawing quickly from Iraq, approving comprehensive immigration reform. Agree with these proposals or not, none is a test of true religion.

The whole enterprise — there are examples on the right and left — of asking “What Would Jesus Do?” on the earned-income tax credit or missile defense is presumptuous. Jesus, were he around again in the flesh, would probably be doing sensible things such as healing the sick, embracing outcasts and preaching sacrificial love. After all, he showed little interest in issuing a “Contract With the Roman Empire.” But his followers eventually found that “love your neighbor” had political consequences, leading them to challenge slavery, infanticide and the mistreatment of women and children.

This has been the Christian compromise on faith and politics. The essential humanism of Christianity requires an active, political concern about human dignity and the rights of the poor and weak. But faith says little about the means to achieve those ideals. The justice of welfare reform or tax cuts or moving toward socialized medicine is measured by the outcome of these changes. And those debates cannot be short-circuited by the claim “Thus sayeth the Lord,” spoken by the Christian Coalition or the United Church of Christ.

Obama is clearly more fluent on religious issues than most in his party. But to appeal broadly to religious voters, he will need to be more than the candidate of the religious left.

(HT: Get Religion) 

Several months ago, I blogged on the painful case of Fr. Daniel McCormack, 38, whose alleged abuses made the holes in the Archdiocese of Chicago’s abuse policy all too clear. Now it appears that he’ll plead guilty to charges that he abused five boys at his West Side church. Allegedly, abuse took place after the 2002 Dallas Charter. According to several local news outlets, the terms of the deal could mean he’d spend just five years in jail–2.5, if he behaves well while incarcerated. It’s no surprise, then, that many are calling the agreement unjust, and who can blame them? McCormack’s alleged crimes show all the signs of a textbook serial molester. Still, I can’t but recall that it didn’t take 2.5 years for inmates to murder John Goeghan.

Update: The deal is done. McCormack received his prison sentence today–five years for each count of abuse, but served concurrently.

From his blog (http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/), here is Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s description of the meeting at which the Vatican explained the forthcoming motu proprio on the Tridentine Rite.

From Cleveland I flew to Rome at the request of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to participate in a meeting discussing the Holy Father’s Motu Proprio about the use of the older form of the Latin Mass. There were about 25 bishops there, including the president of Ecclesia Dei Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, the prefect of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments Cardinal Francis Arinze, several heads of bishops’ conferences as well as some cardinals and other residential bishops.

They shared with us the Motu Proprio and the Holy Father’s letter explaining it. We also had an opportunity to read the Latin document. We each commented on that, and then the Holy Father came in and shared some of his thoughts with us. The Holy Father is obviously most concerned about trying to bring about reconciliation in the Church. There are about 600,000 Catholics who are participating in the liturgies of the Society of St. Pius X, along with about 400 priest.

The Holy Father was very clear that the ordinary form of celebrating the Mass will be the new rite, the Norvus Ordo. But by making the Latin Mass more available, the Holy Father is hoping to convince those disaffected Catholics that it is time for them to return to full union with the Catholic Church.

So the Holy Father’s motivation for this decision is pastoral. He does not want this to be seen as establishing two different Roman Rites, but rather one Roman Rite celebrated with different forms. The Motu Propio is his latest attempt at reconciliation.

In my comments at the meeting I told my brother bishops that in the United States the number of people who participate in the Latin Mass even with permission is very low. Additionally, according to the research that I did, there are only 18 priories of the Society of St. Pius X in the entire country. Therefore this document will not result in a great deal of change for the Catholics in the U.S. Indeed, interest in the Latin Mass is particularly low here in New England.

In our archdiocese, the permission to celebrate the Latin Mass has been in place for several years, and I granted permission when I was in Fall River for a Mass down on the Cape. The archdiocesan Mass is now at Immaculate Mary of Lourdes Parish in Newton. It is well attended, and if the need arises for an extension of that we would, of course, address it.

This issue of the Latin Mass is not urgent for our country, however I think they wanted us to be part of the conversation so that we would be able to understand what the situation is in countries where the numbers are very significant. For example, in Brazil there is an entire diocese of 30,000 people that has already been reconciled to the Church.