Easter messages
Here’s a snippet from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’s wide-ranging, and even topical, Easter sermon:
Beyond all the history of confusion and betrayal that surrounds a lot of the Church’s history, beyond the power games that we still play in the churches, this one rocklike conviction remains, the conviction that drove the writing of every word of the New Testament. Nothing to do with conspiracies, with the agenda of the powerful; everything to do with how the powerless, praying , risking their lives for the sake of Christ and his peace, are the ones who understand the Word of God. And to accept that is not to sign up to the agenda of a troubled, fussy human society of worried prelates and squabbling factions. It is to choose life, to choose to belong to the life-giver.
Pope Benedict XVI also links his Easter message to contemporary, albeit graver, events:
May the Spirit of the Risen one, in particular, bring relief and security in Africa to the peoples of Darfur, who are living in a dramatic humanitarian situation that is no longer sustainable; to those of the Great Lakes region, where many wounds have yet to be healed; to the peoples of the Horn of Africa, of the Ivory Coast, Uganda, Zimbabwe and other nations which aspire to reconciliation, justice and progress. In Iraq, may peace finally prevail over the tragic violence that continues mercilessly to claim victims. I also pray sincerely that those caught up in the conflict in the Holy Land may find peace, and I invite all to patient and persevering dialogue, so as to remove both ancient and new obstacles. May the international community, which re-affirms Israel’s just right to exist in peace, assist the Palestinian people to overcome the precarious conditions in which they live and to build their future, moving towards the constitution of a state that is truly their own. May the Spirit of the Risen one enkindle a renewed enthusiastic commitment of the Countries of Latin America, so that the living conditions of millions of citizens may be improved, the deplorable scourge of kidnapping may be eradicated and democratic institutions may be consolidated in a spirit of harmony and effective solidarity. Concerning the international crises linked to nuclear power, may an honourable solution be found for all parties, through serious and honest negotiations, and may the leaders of nations and of International Organizations be strengthened in their will to achieve peaceful coexistence among different races, cultures and religions, in order to remove the threat of terrorism.
Now that is a mandate that we should all welcome. Jesus’ Maundy Thursday mandate (command-mandatum) to them was “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Please God let us see the “mandatum” in terms of service. Orthopraxy always over orthodoxy. Isn’t that what Jesus did and commands?
“Orthopraxy always over orthodoxy”? Surely we want a partnership of right action and right belief. There is no opposition between them.
In the pope’s remarks I find an inclination to favor democracy, and this is not the first time Benedict has spoken in this way. This is not a line many of his predecessors would have taken. Does that say something?
“There is no opposition between them.” In an ideal world perhaps. Joe, my point is that adherence to a Creed is too many times exalted over the stopping to help the enemy Samaritan.
What struck me in Benedict’s message was his concern for the downtrodden which was given primary focus in the message; something that is new in that beliefs were not as much stressed as much as action.
As far as ‘favoring democracy’, Joe, perhaps you can detail so that we can more easily discuss this significant aspect you see in Benedict’s thought.
In my view right belief never leads to wrong action, wrong belief may, although sometimes our belief is right and we act wrongly despite that. The church officials who burtned Giordano Bruno as a heretic were right about him being a heretic but mistaken in thinking that this justified their action. I am saying that their views about what htye had a right or duty to do were objectively unorthodox. Unfotunately Vatican II had not yet occurred to provide them with more light, and John Courtney Murray was still unborn.
As for democracy, Benedict seem to favor it in one of his remarks cited here and he has spoken elsewhere in favor of American democracy. I don’t thnk Pius IX would have agreed. I don’t know when the occupants of the papal throne began to favor democracy, but I suspect it was relatively recently. What one pope noninfallibly says another pope may noninfallibly unsay.
In his Easter message this year Pope Benedict prays for relief and security, the healing of wounds, reconciliation, justice, and progress in Africa. His words are compassionate, and his wishes for peace in that troubled area are good to hear. However, Dr. Marcella Alsan writing in this week’s Commonweal, describes the Pope’s advice to a group of African bishops at an audience last June: “After reviewing the importance of catechesis and recruiting African men to the priesthood, the pope turned his attention to AIDS: ‘It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking, and a contraception mentality.” He emphasized that contraception leads to a “breakdown in sexual morality.’ In the speech, the pope made a diagnosis: condoms increase sexual immorality, and sexual immorality increases the spread of AIDS.”
It costs nothing to pray for peace. Saving the lives of all those women and children dying needlessly of AIDS in Africa because of the Church’s stubborn insistence that marital fidelity is sufficient to protect them—well, that would require admitting a change of policy is both needed and possible. Difficult? Embarrassing? Likely to arouse loads of “admiratio populi ” on every side? Yes, of course. But to do this would surely be, as Rowan Williams puts it “to choose life, to choose to belong to the life-giver.”
Joe, I know you are not naive so I must lack something in my post. The belief that there is no salvation outside the church has changed only in the last century. The belief that love is just as equal as children in a marriage is also new. The suppression of the Jews was roundly preached from many pulpits for centuries without correction from the hierarchy. And so on. And it can be argued that Dominus Jesus is far from correct. Maybe Joe K can weigh in here and help us (me) out.
Bill, in brief there is orthodoxy and there is “orthodoxy”. The former is right opinion; the latter is what passes for right opinion. I suspect you are thinking of the latter; I of the former.