« |
Main
| »

Veritas

April 20, 2008, 8:21 pm
Posted by


I’ve spent some time this weekend re-reading the addresses and homilies that Pope Benedict has given over the last few days.   They are a great gift to the Church in the United States.  One can see a real effort to engage many of the issues we are facing here: the continuing impact of the clerical sexual abuse crisis, the disaffection from the faith on the part of many young people, and the impact of secularism and materialism on the practice of the faith, just to name a few.  I would hope that even those who disagree with Benedict’s analysis of these issues would find something thought provoking and challenging in the way he approaches them.

To suggest that there is a single common theme that unites all of these documents would be hubris.  They are too rich to be reduced in that way.  Nevertheless, I am struck by the frequency with which Benedict consistently returns to a particular theme: truth.

For Benedict, the quest for truth lies at the heart of what it means to be human.  We are able to pose questions about the meaning of our existence, some of which Benedict offered when he spoke to the interfaith gathering at the John Paul II Cultural Center: “What is the origin and destiny of mankind? What are good and evil? What awaits us at the end of our earthly existence?”

Benedict’s conviction—and it is also the Catholic conviction—is that these questions can be answered.  Human beings have a nature and a destiny and that nature and destiny give fundamental shape to authentic human happiness and flourishing.  What is good and evil for human beings is grounded in reality, in truth.  It is not merely the reflection of the will of a legislator.  Freedom, properly understood, is the freedom to fully live this nature and arrive at this destiny.

This was one of the core messages contained within Benedict’s address to the United Nations,  He argued that “human rights must be respected as an expression of justice and not merely because they are enforceable through the will of the legislators.”  One of the reasons that Benedict is critical of utilitarian and positivist theories of rights is that they surrender the quest for truth and thus reduce truth claims to power.

Benedict is not saying, of course, that the truth about the human person can be known entirely through the use of human reason, with no reference to God.   As he stated when speaking to the Catholic educators gathered at Catholic University it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh…that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”  Speaking two days later to a group of young people at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, Benedict argued that:

[T]ruth is not an imposition.  Nor is it simply a set of rules.  It is a discovery of the One who never fails us; the One whom we can always trust.  In seeking truth, we come to live by belief because ultimately truth is a person: Jesus Christ.  That is why authentic freedom is not an opting out.  It is an opting in; nothing less than letting go of self and allowing oneself to be drawn into Christ’s very being for others.

There are many, of course, who do not see Jesus Christ as revealing the truth of what it is to be human.  There are many reasons for this, but two emerge with particular force from a reading of Benedict’s texts.  The first is an eclipse of the sense that the truth is something worth knowing and striving after.  This is what lies at the heart of Benedict’s concern about a “dictatorship of relativism.”  This is even the case among those, such as religious leaders, who might be expected to defend the importance of truth.  In his address to the interfaith group, Benedict suggested that interfaith dialogue cannot stop at an identification of a common set of values.  Attentive to the “voice of truth” we must be willing to probe the “ultimate foundation” of those values.  A similar concern underlies Benedict’s remarks at the ecumenical gathering on Friday, where he criticized the notion that “there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes.”  

Benedict is well aware, however, that the more fundamental reason that Christian claims have not been accepted as true is the failure of Christian witness.  The contemporary crisis of truth is, as he noted, a crisis of faith.  It is this understanding, I suspect, that led him to make a recognition of the harm caused by the clerical sexual abuse crisis so central to his visit here.   Benedict noted repeatedly the importance of Christian witness.  “Those who have hope,” he noted in his homily at Nationals Park, “must lead different lives.”

There is, of course, so much more that one could say about the past week.  It seems appropriate, however, to let Benedict himself have the final word:

And this, dear friends, is the particular challenge which the Successor of Saint Peter sets before you today. As “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”, follow faithfully in the footsteps of those who have gone before you! Hasten the coming of God’s Kingdom in this land! Past generations have left you an impressive legacy. In our day too, the Catholic community in this nation has been outstanding in its prophetic witness in the defense of life, in the education of the young, in care for the poor, the sick and the stranger in your midst. On these solid foundations, the future of the Church in America must even now begin to rise!

Send to a Friend

X
E-mail this Printer friendly

Comments

  1. Joe Pettit 04/20/2008 - 10:13 pm

    These are very thought-filled words; the kind that makeds dotCommonweal a treasure. However, I fear my truth-searching mind and heart are not convinced. If honest minds from many different religions all believe that the “foundation” of moral values that are shared by these great religions lies in an objective truth, call it “ultimate reality,” why is it relativistic to claim that the different efforts to present ultimate reality as found within different religions may be epistemelogically on par with one another?

    I would like to suggest that the issues of relativism and the failure of Christian witness may be more intimately linked than Peter suggests. What truth does the Jew or Muslim lack, and, in so lacking it leads an inauthentic life before God? What difference is made by giving witness to the Christian faith? If the truth matters, it will matter for how we live our lives before God and the world. If the truth makes no important difference in how we live, it is an unimportant truth. Please note that I am not arguing that such truth does not exist. I only wish to note that it rarely, if ever, seems to kind of truth that gets discussed when issues of relativism and witness come up, and yet it seems the most natural of claims to make.

  2. Robert Imbelli 04/21/2008 - 4:43 am  subscriber

    Peter,

    Thank you for a fine beginning to the post-trip time. I think the images have touched many hearts. Now I hope the words will challenge many minds.

    Like you, I find a great coherence to his addresses and homilies when read whole. In some ways the Pope has done justice to each of the Constitutions of the Vatican Council: including Gaudium et Spes (from which the quote you give above — “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh does the human mystery become clear” — ) comes. And it is Gaudium et Spes which enjoins men and women to safeguard life, and which condemns abortion (#51).

    The temptation — for countries, bishops, college presidents, all of us — will be to pick and choose from among the teachings. So the ball is now decidedly in our court as to how integral and catholic our vision and commitment will be. Might not this require of us, the church in the United States, a church in peril, “metanoia?”

  3. Jean Raber 04/21/2008 - 8:27 am  subscriber

    As someone who writes and teaches writing for a living, I don’t trust words very much–and I doubt that seems particularly ironic to others who do the same.

    But I came to conclusions similar to yours (though in a far less brainy and eloquent way), not by careful reading the Pope’s statements, but by looking at what the Pope has DONE here, as Christ’s witness.

    And that was meeting with those abused by clergy and the mentally impaired.

    As you say: “Benedict is well aware, however, that the more fundamental reason that Christian claims have not been accepted as true is the failure of Christian witness.”

    Those actions are wonderful examples of Christian witness. There are probably others that I missed in the press of the end of the semester and finals week. But in those moments, I think the Pope shows HOW to be Catholic. And I found it especially moving that the Pope, aged as he is, and not naturally outgoing or particularly warm, making that effort to demonstrate what many bishops with far more access, time and vigor could be doing–and what many of us lay people could be doing as well.

  4. Sean O Mahoney 04/21/2008 - 9:14 am

    Thanks, Peter, for mentioning some of the key themes from Pope Benedict’s homilies and speeches…I too was struck by the presence of ‘truth’ in his words, but missed the moment when he stated that “truth is a person–Jesus Christ.” That connection, between truth and Jesus, is one that I think is often stated clearly in the writings of theologians, but not clearly enough in the encyclicals and other writings of the church.

    Just one more thought: I was also struck, and moved, by Benedict speaking about the kingdom/reign of God in his homily at Yankee Stadium. I believe that as a society (and as Christians) many of us in the US seem to forget that God has promised to bring about God’s reign, and is acting to do so–and as Johann Baptist Metz warned, to live without a sense of the eschatological, forgetting the promises of the prophets and Jesus (and folks like Oscar Romero) is not Christian. I was grateful for Benedict mentioning the Kingdom/Reign of God not just in an otherworldly sense, but in the sense of the Magnificat–the God who lifts up the lowly and casts down the powerful, bringing justice and peace in surprising and ever new ways.

  5. Bob Nunz 04/21/2008 - 10:02 am

    As Benedict’s visit is concluded, naturally instant analysis has begun.
    Peter’s reflection as usual is thoughtful.
    I think it needs to be said first that Beedict succeded in his own view of what he set out to do – present a positive image of the Good News.
    The fact that almost everything was carefully choreographed and speeches well vetted(no Regebnsburg here) certainly helped, but also his obvious sincerity and personal kindness.
    There wil clearly be some positive impact initially, perhaps to some degree because there were negative expectations in a number of quarters.
    The real question is will his visit both help unite and build up the Church here and will it deepen the faith of our community and perhaps plug the leak of those drifting.
    I think i’ll leave that to the historians and sociologists of the future.

    But there is already a problem among victim groups(see the Levada hread) and certainly skepticism among reform minded groups about the key element of change.
    Seeing Benedict constantly surounded by his hierarchical men raises doubt about his ability to break out of the curtial/clerical.Euro cenbtered view he brings.
    So his view of “truth” is much centered in the traditional philosophical view held in Rome which may be looked at differently in other perspctives as we’ve talked about.
    He’s asked his clergy to listen to each other and discuss and his ability to be open and to change if needed will be what folk look at in the days ahead as the rosiness of time passes.
    Victims will believe or not beieive his “shame” by what actions occur or don’t.
    And whence the laity? Clearly a clarion call to lead a more vigorous Christuian life. But what of their participation?
    I’d like to beleive ther eis an opportunity for greater harmony and development and yes even growth in the Church here, but the kindly positive visit of BXVI can only be a beginning -a well managed for the most part beginning – but a beginning nevertheless.

  6. J. Peter Nixon 04/21/2008 - 11:12 am  contributor

    Sean:

    The line about truth being a person, Jesus Christ, came in Benedict’s address to the gathering of young people at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie on April 19. It’s in the 11th paragraph of the address. Hope that helps.

    Peter

  7. Paul Moses 04/21/2008 - 11:31 am  subscriber

    Thanks for a very fine and concise analysis of Pope Benedict’s message. The pope covered so much ground that it is difficult to frame his message simply, although you’ve done it.

    I thought the pope may have done it with his reference to the stained-glass windows of St. Patrick’s Cathedral: The windows, he said, “flood the interior with mystic light. From the outside, those windows are dark, heavy, even dreary. But once one enters the church, they suddenly come alive; reflecting the light passing through them, they reveal all their splendor.”

    It’s a powerful image – one that must have been all the more powerful for those inside the cathedral at that moment. The pope painted the outside world as a dark, uncomprehending place, “a world where self-centeredness, greed, violence and cynicism so often seem to choke the fragile growth of grace in people’s hearts.” His response to this dark world is the mystical light of faith, found inside the church.

    It struck me initially as insular, especially if one thinks back to John XXIII’s remark about opening the church windows to let in some fresh air. But Benedict did say a number of times that he wants greater engagement in that world outside the cathedral, not less. For example, his explanation of the words “Thy kingdom come” during the Yankee Stadium homily: It “means working to enrich American society and culture with the beauty and truth of the Gospel,” he said, “and never losing sight of that great hope, which gives meaning and value to all the other hopes which inspire our lives.” There is a lot to think about.

    I wrote on this in Newsday at the link below:

    http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-lipaul215658662apr21,0,1458061.story

  8. Bill Mazzella 04/21/2008 - 12:43 pm  subscriber

    Benedict conducted himself so well on this trip. His outreach to the disabled, the 9/11 families and his plea to help the hungry and women was great. He aroused much hope that Rome will do the right thing with the victims of clergy abuse and cover-up. The centrality of Jesus Christ which he emphasized is a treasure that Christians should never stop giving thanks for.

    Yet Benedict’s consistent denial of the diversity in Christianity remains medieval and retrogressive. I suppose we can blame Augustine’s errancy in not ecumenically dialoguing with Nectarios as catapulting a fiercely dogmatic church which was not properly curtailed (somewhat) until Pius IX. Too many Catholic historians are so ill informed on the Augustine Donatist encounter and the ramifications for subsequent times that until historians like John O’Malley present their work more openly and gain wider accpetance, we will continue to maintain insular views on the gospel of Jesus. Especially, when it is viewed as being controlled by some bungling people in Rome.

    While Benedict talks of truth, practically all Catholics concede that the Vatican’s doctrine on birth control is “infallibly” wrong. And though other Christians have their problems with beliefs (as the Catholic church does) it is really incorrect not to see that many of them are so superior in living the gospel than many bishops and cardinals. Too many evil people have outwardly imaged the “truth” within the Catholic church. And it would have been truthful to acknowledge the many good Muslims throughout history and today.

    The continual emphasis of orthodoxy over orthopraxy remains deplorable.

    It has been awhile since most of us have acknowledged that “extra ecclesia nulla salus” is incorrect. But one would never know it, most of the time.

  9. Joseph Gannon 04/21/2008 - 2:47 pm  subscriber

    Actually Benedict was rephrasing the words of Jesus in John’s Gospel “I am the way and the truth and the life.” Any one who hasn’t heard them before has not been listening, or doesn’t go to church. Unfortunately, in my experience, homilists rarely do much to enlighten an audience as to what Jesus is talking about.

  10. gene palumbo 04/21/2008 - 2:49 pm

    Peter wrote:

    Benedict is well aware … that the more fundamental reason that Christian claims have not been accepted as true is the failure of Christian witness. … It is this understanding, I suspect, that led him to make a recognition of the harm caused by the clerical sexual abuse crisis so central to his visit here.

    I agree with Jean Raber that Benedict’s actions – especially his meeting with abuse victims – were “wonderful examples of Christian witness.” And I was struck by the quote from Thomas Reese in Paul Moses’ column: “The way he’s grappled with the sex abuse crisis, meeting with victims of the abuse … I think he handled it extremely well.”

    But I would like to ask Peter and Jean and Tom and all of you: in terms of the sexual abuse crisis, was that witness enough? I don’t think so. Why? For me, the headline of an earlier post by David Gibson says it all: “Cardinal Levada: No sanctions for bishops.” As David wrote, when Levada spoke with journalists, he “rejected any suggestion that Benedict’s statements and meeting with victims was opening the door to disciplining bishops.” How can that ever be acceptable? How can we settle for that? Allow me to repeat here a comment which I submitted in response to David’s earlier post:

    To Andrew Savarese:

    You wrote, “I think the pope did the best he could…to stress the importance of the sexual abuse [issue].”

    Can I respectfully ask, “Why do you think that?” I’d say he could have done more. He acknowledged, in his talk to the bishops, that the abuse crisis “was sometimes very badly handled.” Given the tactics some bishops resorted to, couldn’t Benedict have added, “We will sanction those bishops, just as we sanctioned the priests who they enabled, and who abused children”?

    More specifically, why couldn’t he do something along the lines of what was done here in El Salvador when its 12-year civil war ended? On the question of impunity for top-ranking authorities, there are parallels between what happened in El Salvador and what has happened in the church.

    “No more impunity!” had been the cry in El Salvador since the pre-war years — no more impunity for those at the top who flagrantly violated human rights (or permitted or ordered others to do so), and who were never held accountable. Even in high-profile cases — for example, the rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen in 1980, and the murder of six Jesuits and two co-workers in 1989 – only the underlings were punished. Thanks to cover-ups and obstruction of justice (sound familiar?), the higher-ups were never brought to justice.

    Salvadorans insisted that this be stopped, and that steps be taken against the victimizers — if not criminal trials, then at least a gesture in which the government acknowledged that some of its own — operating at very high levels — had done things that were terribly wrong, so wrong that a house-cleaning was called for. This demand was taken into account in the war-ending peace accords, which mandated the naming of a special review board. Called the Ad Hoc Commission, its job was to critically examine the records of the highest-ranking army officers, and to decide who should stay and who should be dismissed. As a result, some officers were removed from their posts. True, they’ve never been prosecuted, but the families of their victims drew some solace from seeing that, at long last, the generals and colonels had been stripped of their impunity.

    Why couldn’t Benedict appoint an Ad Hoc Commission to review the records of the bishops in question? And why couldn’t that commission remove the bishops against whom the evidence was clear and convincing? Or are there good reasons why this shouldn’t be done?

  11. Joseph Gannon 04/21/2008 - 2:56 pm  subscriber

    Gene

    If the first step is to review the performance of bishops in their handling of sex abuse and related misdeeds, the next step might be to review the performance of Vatican officials, including the late Pope and his successor, the present incumbent in these matters. Do you really expect that this would happen? Who would carry out the review?

  12. william collier 04/21/2008 - 3:56 pm  subscriber

    Not to stray too far from the theme of Peter’s thread, and not that Rome or the USCCB would ever approve, but how about former Senator George Mitchell to head some sort of commission to look into the sex abuse scandal? He received accolades for his even-handed leadership in the baseball steroids scandal investigation and in bringing to successful resolution the political dispute between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. In addition, he has judicial experience, having served as a U.S. district judge before entering the Senate. Finally, he was raised as a Maronite Catholic, so he has knowledge of the structure and workings of the Church.

  13. Bill Mazzella 04/21/2008 - 5:41 pm  subscriber

    William,

    Great idea but…. Gov Keating was a good choice also but ended up calling the bishops “la cosa nostra.”

    They would reject Mitchell just as much as the brothers of Dives would reject someone coming from the dead.

  14. Joseph Jaglowicz 04/21/2008 - 5:42 pm  subscriber

    The pope and all his pontificating.

    The same pope who believes he knows the correct interpretation of Vatican II.

    And a Catholic layman who sees this pope and like-minded folks doing their level best to “circle the ecclesial wagons” and bring back the stuff that helped perpetuate the “clerical culture.”

    That about sums it up for me.

    I’m thankful the pope is back in Rome.

  15. Gabriel Austin 04/21/2008 - 6:08 pm

    I am always curious to learn the source of such statements as Mr. Mazzella’s

    “practically all Catholics concede that the Vatican’s doctrine on birth control is “infallibly” wrong”.

    Has there been a poll taken? of U.S. Catholics? Of Catholics in other countries? Is it nominal Catholics? Cradle Catholics? Practicing Catholics? Is there a difference between women and men on the subject?

    On the question of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the matter will have to be taken up with Our Lord, Who did say
    “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also.” ( John 14:6-7)

  16. Jean Raber 04/21/2008 - 6:29 pm  subscriber

    Gene, was it enough? No, of course not.

    But whatever Jesus Christ did to feed the multitudes, comfort the sorrowing and raise the dead wasn’t enough. He was the example. He pointed the way. Only by everybody following the Spirit will the work get done.

    At any rate, if there’s a take-away from the Pope’s visit, it’s that he’s trying to point the way when I don’t think that these “common touches” come naturally or easily to him.

    Catholic popes and bishops often seem to feel they must walk a fine line between spiritual leadership and the appearance of becoming too involved in temporal crises. As a result, they often say sensible things, make heartfelt appeals, but stop there. Archbishop Desmond Tutu is one cleric (yes, I know he’s not Catholic) who seems to manage to be involved without losing his spiritual and moral position.

    Perhaps there are Catholic bishops people could mention? Those witnesses for the truth in Christ?

  17. Bob Nunz 04/21/2008 - 7:41 pm

    Gene, I deeply respect your views but I think Andy was right – that BXVI did what HE could, Because Benedict is a prisoner of his background and deep ties tio the Curial bearocrats he tries a little to open the door but the boys in Rome slammed it shut (see Carolyn Disco’s comment in the Levada thread about” a brief moment of shining hope.”
    Jean, the crisis Genew refers to is profoundy spiritual (sex abuse crisis) but also many of the ‘temporal” ones are also profoundly spiritual.
    In trying to be Roman in smoothly approaching such an issue, an opportunity to speak the real TRUTH is lost.
    I’ve repeatedl;y said BXVI is a nice man amd was as positive as he could be.
    How much more was possible is quite another matter.

  18. David Gibson 04/21/2008 - 7:47 pm  subscriber  contributor

    Romero. Untener. Bernardin. Those are the low-hanging fruit.

    Here are some of my musings, for what they’re worth, of the framework of what I think Peter rightly identifies as the main theme of the trip, and the B16 pontificate:
    http://blog.beliefnet.com/benedictions/2008/04/what-is-truth-some-postpapal-t.html

  19. Bill Mazzella 04/21/2008 - 9:23 pm  subscriber

    Interesting that women seemed rather absent in this papal visit. Male clergy all over the place. Nuns and the singers in the usual minor role. More remarkable that few are talking about this.

    A remarkable author who wrote “Good Catholic Girls, How women are leading the fight to change the church” gave a talk this evening at Voice of the Faithful of Westchester. http://goodcatholicgirls.com/ A sterling talk by the author of a singular book on women in the church. Much of what she said can be found in her unique book.

    But one of the things she said might be fodder for further discussion here. She said that the seven Catholic nuns who were ordained offshore awhile ago were all excommunicated by Joseph Ratzinger. Yet for all the children sodomized by clergy not one bishop nor priest was excommunicated. Ah justice!!

  20. Bill Mazzella 04/21/2008 - 9:24 pm  subscriber

    Sorry seven Catholic “women” not nuns.

  21. Bob Schwartz 04/21/2008 - 10:14 pm  subscriber

    Bill: You said

    Yet for all the children sodomized by clergy not one bishop nor priest was excommunicated. Ah justice!!

    Amen! Perhaps la cosa nostra learned their tradecraft from the curia.

  22. Jean Raber 04/22/2008 - 7:15 am  subscriber

    Bob, I’m not trying to excuse the bishops, simply observing the usual modus operandi. Say the right things, but don’t buck the system.

    Excommunication isn’t a punishment is it? It simply identifies those outside the teachings of the church who have not acknowledged their sins. I presume the nun-women Bill mentioned were excommunicated because they weren’t sorry about what they’d done, and the child abusers were not excommunicated because they said they were.

    I’d say jail time for some priests and bishops might be more appropriate than excommunication.

  23. Bill Mazzella 04/22/2008 - 9:26 am  subscriber

    How about an automatic excommunication for pedophilia.

    Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

  24. Jean Raber 04/22/2008 - 10:53 am  subscriber

    Bill, I’m not a priest or a theologian, and determining someone’s fitness for communion is not my responsibility.

    Moreover, as a parent, I’m more concerned that pedophiles and those who abet their behavior by turning a blind eye or passing on the problem get locked up than that they be denied communion. In fact, I see no reason to withhold communion to a truly repentant pedophile so long as he is in jail or somewhere he can do no harm to children.

    It seems to me that if the Pope is promoting truth in the person of Christ, which is Peter Nixons thesis, then bishps have a duty to tell the truth about pedophiles and not try to cover up, buy off, and otherwise ignore the problem.

  25. Bob Nunz 04/22/2008 - 11:08 am

    Thanks to David Gibson for his analysis, which looks to me as the first really balanced view of BXVI’s visit (say as opposed to Barbra Bradley Haggerty’s totally positive synopsis on NPR yesterday.)
    Because Benedict probably can’t get too specific on the big issues, of course his call to live like Christ will resonate bioth left and right.
    But it won’t make a big dent in the divide and will leave many issues hanging that really need to be moved along.

  26. Bob Schwartz 04/22/2008 - 4:35 pm  subscriber

    I’d say jail time for some priests and bishops might be more appropriate than excommunication.

    I agree wholeheartedly Jean.

  27. Andrew Savarese 04/22/2008 - 6:00 pm

    Gene, I certainly appreciate and understand your thoughts; however, the pope treated the sex abuse crisis at the very beginning of his visit. If he had treated the sex abuse crisis in the manner you describe, I don’t think he could have proceded with other themes of his visit. If the only purpose of his visit were to deal with the sex abuse crisis, then, he would have been better able to follow your venue, and go more deeply into it. Based on all the other areas he had to cover, I still feel he did well.

  28. gene palumbo 04/22/2008 - 8:07 pm

    Andrew:

    Thanks for replying. You said,

    If he had treated the sex abuse crisis in the manner you describe, I don’t think he could have proceeded with other themes of his visit.

    Maybe I wasn’t clear. Apparently I gave you the impression that I would have wanted him to say a lot more and/or do a lot more, so much more that, if he had actually done it, he wouldn’t have had time for other themes.

    In fact, I was trying to say this and only this: that right after he acknowledged that the problem had been “very badly handled” (by bishops, among others), he could have said,

    We will sanction those bishops, just as we sanctioned the priests who they enabled, and who abused children.

    Simple as that.

    And then he could have gone on to do everything else exactly as he ended up doing it.

    I think it’s possible that, had he added that sentence, the rest of his visit would have gone even better. If, as Peter Nixon suggests, his aim was to give Christian witness, the witness value of that added sentence would have been so great that, as a result, people would have paid more attention to everything else he said and did. Seeing that he was determined to take action in the crisis, people would have taken him much more seriously: “Hey, this guy’s not kidding around. He really means it. He’s not just talking the talk; he’s walking the walk.”

    What do you think?

  29. Bernard Dauenhauer 04/24/2008 - 9:18 am

    Sorry that my comment is so late. I do not wish to quarrel with the pope, or anyone else, about whether there is objective truth. I take it that there is. That’s the point of all inquiry.
    Nonetheless, learning the truth about many matters is really tough. And our faith teaches that some truth we can only know through revelation. So notice the following. We know the truth about some things only by faith. But faith is a matter of belief, of accepting revelation. That is, we can arrive at some truths without faith, but others require faith.
    Furthermore, one can philosophically contend, with Heidegger in some parts of his work, that there is a deeper understanding of truth than that of simply saying the correct correct words about a topic. Truth can more properly be understood as a coming into light of a reality, a coming that is never definitively complete for any human being. This “metaphor” of coming into light is particularly appropriate for the understandings we come to gain about people and their doings. This is always a “work in progress.”
    It follows that, about these topics, there is always more to learn and there is a constant need to listen. This means no “triumphalism” that would claim “We possess the truth” about these matters. We are, about all the really important topics, always at best en route to the truth, to coming more fully into the light of these ultimate realities.

  30. Bob Nunz 04/24/2008 - 9:49 am

    A Vatican press release dated April 23 indicates that Fr. Lombardo, Vatican Press Secretary says Benedict has “closed” the shame of the American Church/
    I now think Gene Palumbo was right!
    So it goes….

  31. Bob Nunz 04/25/2008 - 2:06 pm

    More on April 23: Andrew Greeley in Chicago Sun Times op-ed excoriated victim groups and their advocates as “hateful” and wantimg all bishops heads served up on a silver platter.
    Someone should ask him if he’s ever heard of the phenomenon of projection when it comes to vitriol.
    Taken with the Lombardo comment, it seesm there’s little to expect in terms of change by BXVI or the Am,erican Hierarchy, despite whatever good intentions BXVI had/has (seet his week’s John Allen NCR post.)
    And, finally, on the subject of TRUTH, see David Gibson”s post at benedictions about the Holy father’s visit and Women – no change ther eeither.

  32. Andrew Savarese 04/25/2008 - 2:47 pm

    Gene and Bob. I guess once you give the establishment the benfit of the doubt they willl always put it to you. Stand corrected. Life goes on.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment

Free e-newsletter

More Information