Two weeks after President Obama hand delivered a letter to Holy Father from Sen. Kennedy, the Pope responded, writing, as usual, through a senior Vatcan official:
"The Holy Father has read the letter which you entrusted to President Barack Obama, who kindly presented it to him during their recent meeting. He was saddened to know of your illness, and has asked me to assure you of his concern and his spiritual closeness.
He is particularly grateful for your promise of prayers for him and for the needs of the universal Church. "His Holiness prays that in the days ahead you may be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God our merciful Father. He invokes upon you the consolation and peace promised by the Risen Savior to all who share in His sufferings and trust in His promise of eternal life."
Commending you and the members of your family to the loving intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord."
Pope Benedict wisely, and predictably, rendered no judgment on Kennedy's public record. . . . but [offered] his charitable and heartfelt expressions of support and prayer . . .
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Reality Check
Top Vatican official dismisses talk of rollback on Vatican II
By John Thavis
Catholic News ServiceVATICAN CITY (CNS) --
The Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has dismissed fears that Pope Benedict XVI plans to roll back major ecclesial changes introduced by the Second Vatican Council.
On the contrary, the German pontiff has demonstrated his commitment to the council during his more than four years as pope, Cardinal Bertone told the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in an interview published Aug. 27.
In the wake of recent reports about a planned move to reverse liturgical changes made since Vatican II, Cardinal Bertone said reporters and observers should stick to the actual actions undertaken by the pope since his election.
"The other ruminations and whispers about presumed documents of reversal are pure invention, following a standard and stubbornly re-proposed formula," he said.
A week earlier, an Italian newspaper reported that the Vatican's worship congregation had given the pope a document with proposed liturgical modifications, including a curb on the practice of receiving Communion in the hand. A Vatican spokesman later said that, at present, there were "no institutional proposals for a modification of the liturgical books."
Cardinal Bertone pointed to several areas in which he said Pope Benedict had promoted the teaching of Vatican II "with intelligence and depth of thought," including relations with Eastern and Orthodox churches and dialogue with Judaism and Islam.
He said the pope has also favored an increasingly direct and fraternal relationship with the world's bishops, as evidenced during their "ad limina" visits to the Vatican and in the freer discussions during synods of bishops.
Likewise, the cardinal said, the pope has had more direct contact with top Roman Curia officials and has restored the practice of regular meetings with them.
Cardinal Bertone said the pope does have a plan for "reform of the church," but it's one that focuses on personal holiness and fundamental questions of faith. In a similar way, the pope's messages to the wider world have made it clear that his main priority is to restore a sense of awareness of God in the world and in society, he said.
By John Thavis
Catholic News ServiceVATICAN CITY (CNS) --
The Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, has dismissed fears that Pope Benedict XVI plans to roll back major ecclesial changes introduced by the Second Vatican Council.
On the contrary, the German pontiff has demonstrated his commitment to the council during his more than four years as pope, Cardinal Bertone told the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, in an interview published Aug. 27.
In the wake of recent reports about a planned move to reverse liturgical changes made since Vatican II, Cardinal Bertone said reporters and observers should stick to the actual actions undertaken by the pope since his election.
"The other ruminations and whispers about presumed documents of reversal are pure invention, following a standard and stubbornly re-proposed formula," he said.
A week earlier, an Italian newspaper reported that the Vatican's worship congregation had given the pope a document with proposed liturgical modifications, including a curb on the practice of receiving Communion in the hand. A Vatican spokesman later said that, at present, there were "no institutional proposals for a modification of the liturgical books."
Cardinal Bertone pointed to several areas in which he said Pope Benedict had promoted the teaching of Vatican II "with intelligence and depth of thought," including relations with Eastern and Orthodox churches and dialogue with Judaism and Islam.
He said the pope has also favored an increasingly direct and fraternal relationship with the world's bishops, as evidenced during their "ad limina" visits to the Vatican and in the freer discussions during synods of bishops.
Likewise, the cardinal said, the pope has had more direct contact with top Roman Curia officials and has restored the practice of regular meetings with them.
Cardinal Bertone said the pope does have a plan for "reform of the church," but it's one that focuses on personal holiness and fundamental questions of faith. In a similar way, the pope's messages to the wider world have made it clear that his main priority is to restore a sense of awareness of God in the world and in society, he said.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
From theTrumpet.com
The Pope’s Challenge to the Faithful
Joel Hilliker, Columnist
August 26, 2009
“This saying is hard,” he says as he marches forward with his conservative agenda. “Will you also go away?”
Catholic priests are now encouraged to perform mass ad orientem—facing east, with their back to the people. The change, approved by the pope this past weekend, is the latest step in the Vatican’s march toward traditionalist, conservative Catholicism.
Pope Benedict xvi is leading the way, his back to the people, challenging them to keep up. Inside the church, he is continuing his decades-long campaign to expel liberals and stack the deck with conservatives. In Europe, he is working to reestablish a Catholic continent. Among non-Catholic Christians, he seeks to draw worshippers under papal authority. In the world, he is leveling a strong attack against secularism and godlessness. And to Islam, he has unmistakably shown a resistance, a toughness, that promises to grow stronger. He has repeatedly spoken out against those who would stand in his way, unafraid to offend, unafraid to turn opponents into enemies.
In March 2006, Ratzinger lashed out against European secularism—and Islam—with his book, Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. Co-authored with the president of the Italian Senate, it addressed the “advance of Islam” and stated that Europe is now “paralyzed because it does not believe that there are good reasons to say it is better than Islam. And it is paralyzed because it believes that, if such reasons do indeed exist, then the West would have to fight Islam.”
In September, Pope Benedict traveled to his home state of Bavaria for a six-day visit where, among other things, he spoke with German President Horst Kohler about the dangers of Islamic penetration into German society. His most famous speech on that trip was a lecture at the University of Regensburg, where he quoted Catholic Byzantine Emperor Manuel ii Paleologus: “Show me just what Mohammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
In March 2006, Pope Benedict xvi chose to drop “patriarch of the West” from his lengthy list of official titles and became merely “Bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the prince of the apostles, supreme pontiff of the universal church, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the province of Rome, sovereign of Vatican City State and servant of the servants of God, his holiness Benedict xvi.” Why bother with the change? The message was not lost on the Eastern Orthodox Church. It meant the Catholic Church still sought “universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over the entire church,” the Eastern Orthodox synod said, adding that it makes it so that their status as “‘sister churches’ between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church becomes hard to use.” The non-Catholics the pope was targeting knew: He dropped “patriarch of the West” not because it gave him too much jurisdiction, but not enough.
In July 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith restated the doctrines of Dominus Iesus, a document the pope—then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—had signed in 2000 to proclaim that non-Catholics were “gravely deficient” and that Protestant churches are “not churches in the proper sense.” The restatement added that Orthodox churches suffer from a “wound” because they do not accept the pope’s authority, a wound “still more profound” in Protestants. The document, approved by Pope Benedict, said that denominations outside Roman Catholicism are defective or not full churches. “Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress … it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of ‘church’ could possibly be attributed to them,” it said.
Mid-May that year, the pope traveled to Brazil to open an assembly of the Latin American bishops’ conference—not by invitation, but by personal choice. There he challenged the bishops to galvanize a continent-wide crusade against competing non-Catholic religions (“sects,” he called them), such as North-American evangelicals. Latino bishops jumped on board and began lobbying national governments for legislation to ban and obstruct non-Catholics’ operation in Latin America. The visit illuminated Benedict’s aims to re-energize Catholicism not only in Europe, but across the whole globe.
The pope has also resurrected the Tridentine Mass, a Latin-language ceremony codified in 1570. In the 1960s, the church restricted the use of the ultra-conservative Tridentine prayer book, which is peppered with references that make Jews and non-Catholics bristle (asking God to “lift the veil from [their] eyes,” and that Jews “be delivered from their darkness” and converted to Catholicism). The more inclusive, modern mass the church adopted in its place was scorned by hard-core Catholics, one of whom was a younger Joseph Ratzinger. In July of 2006, Pope Benedict reversed that restriction, reconnecting the church to its medieval past.
The offense to Jews grew worse when, in February of 2008, the pope revised the “Good Friday Prayer for the Jews” portion of the Tridentine Mass. The new version reads: “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.” German rabbi Walter Homolka said, “This kind of signal has an extremely provocative effect on anti-Semitic groups. The Catholic Church does not have its anti-Semitic tendencies under control.”
The offense to Jews grew worse when, in February of 2008, the pope revised the “Good Friday Prayer for the Jews” portion of the Tridentine Mass. The new version reads: “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.” German rabbi Walter Homolka said, “This kind of signal has an extremely provocative effect on anti-Semitic groups. The Catholic Church does not have its anti-Semitic tendencies under control.”
Conservative Roman Catholics see nothing to balk at in praying that Jews would emerge from darkness. They see no problem with labeling non-Catholics gravely deficient. Catholicism, after all, is universalism. The church can never attain its universal potential—more are coming to believe—unless it stops pretending that those outside of it have access to God.
While some take offense at the pope’s political incorrectness, an increasing number find it refreshing in a world sick with moral relativism. They appreciate his courage in turning his back to lead the congregation into a stricter, more orthodox, less accommodating future. (Read Brad Macdonald’s column from last year, “Benedict’s Strategy for Expanding Vatican Power,” for more on this trend.)
This was the message of Pope Benedict’s sermon this past Sunday. He spoke of how Jesus’s saying offended many, who responded, “This is a hard saying! Who can listen to it?” The pope then said, “And from that moment on, many of His disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him. Jesus, however, does not lessen His claim. Indeed, He directly addresses the 12 saying, ‘Will you also go away?’”
This is the pope’s challenge to the faithful. “Jesus in fact is not satisfied with a superficial and formal following,” he said. Total devotion—even in opposition to non-believers—is required.
It appears they are accepting the challenge—and that, remarkably, their numbers are swelling. It’s been said that crowds came to see Pope John Paul ii, but they come to hear Benedict xvi. Over his pontificate, Benedict has consistently attracted larger audiences to witness his weekly homilies in St. Peter’s Square than did his predecessor.
As their devotion grows, so does the indignation of the pope’s growing list of opponents. And so too does the inevitability of a violent clash—prophesied in the Bible—between the church and its fiercest enemies, which are becoming more polarized before our eyes. •
Joel Hilliker’s column appears every Wednesday.To e-mail Joel Hilliker, click here.Please note that, unless you request otherwise, your comment may appear on our feedback page.To read more articles by this author, click here.
This content was printed online at: http://www.theTrumpet.com/index.php?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Benedict XVI and Bonaventure
The Pope's Trip to the Saint's Birthplace Is More Significant Than It Seems
By Robert Moynihan
ROME, AUG. 24, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Sometimes, there is more to a papal trip than meets the eye.
And that is the case with an upcoming trip of Benedict XVI to the small Italian town of Bagnoreggio, the birthplace of St. Bonaventure.
In two weeks, on Sept. 6, the Pope will go out of Rome to visit Bagnoreggio and Viterbo.
Viterbo, about 65 miles north of Rome, or just an hour by car, is well-known as the place where papal conclaves were born.
Until 1271, the gathering of cardinals for the election was not called a "conclave" ("con" meaning "with" and "clavis" meaning "a key") -- a closed meeting in a place locked "with a key."
After the death of Pope Clement IV in 1268, the cardinals meeting in Viterbo did not elect anyone for almost three years. Finally, the city officials locked all of them in a meeting room and gave them only bread and water to eat. Soon after, they elected Pope Gregory X. He then made it Church law that papal elections would take place in a conclave.
Benedict XVI will travel to Viterbo by helicopter from the papal summer villa at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome.
But on his way home, he will stop in Bagnoreggio.
Why stop in such a little, seemingly unimportant town?
Because St. Bonaventure was born there in 1217.
Still, the Pope does not stop in the birthplace of every important saint. He would not have time to do so. So, why is he taking time to stop in Bonaventure's place of birth?
For the answer, we have to look into the Pope's own past, and there we find something rather interesting.
We find that Bonaventure was one of the two major intellectual influences on Pope Benedict's entire theological formation. (The other influence? St. Augustine.)
In Germany, scholars must write two dissertations. The first, as in the United States, is to receive a doctoral degree (a Ph.D.). The second, called the "Habilitationsschrift," is to qualify for a professorial post.
And the young Joseph Ratzinger, in the mid-1950s, wrote this second, postdoctoral thesis, on ... St. Bonaventure, and his understanding of history.
Press accounts will say that the Pope is "scheduled to venerate the 'holy arm' of the saint, which is kept in Bagnoreggio's cathedral" (the rest of St. Bonaventure's body is buried in France).
But Benedict is venerating also the deep wisdom of Bonaventure's vision of Christian revelation, and in so doing "making contact" with one of the central concerns of his own personal theological vision.
In this sense, if we can understand what Benedict learned from Bonaventure, we can understand more clearly what Benedict is trying to do now, in his pontificate, to lead the Church through this complicated period in history.
Benedict XVI himself gave us an idea of this intellectual background in a speech he gave to a group of scholars several years ago, before he was Pope.
He said this: "My doctoral dissertation was about the notion of the people of God in St. Augustine. ... Augustine was in dialogue with Roman ideology, especially after the occupation of Rome by the Goths in 410, and so it was very fascinating for me to see how in these different dialogues and cultures he defines the essence of the Christian religion. He saw Christian faith, not in continuity with earlier religions, but rather in continuity with philosophy as a victory of reason over superstition. ..."
So, we might argue that one major step in Ratzinger's own theological formation was to understand Christianity as "in continuity with philosophy" and as "a victory of reason over superstition."
Then Ratzinger took a second step. He studied Bonaventure.
"My postdoctoral work was about St. Bonaventure, a Franciscan theologian of the 13th century," Ratzinger continued. "I discovered an aspect of Bonaventure's theology not found in the previous literature, namely, his relation with the new idea of history conceived by Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century. Joachim saw history as progression from the period of the Father (a difficult time for human beings under the law), to a second period of history, that of the Son (with more freedom, more openness, more brotherhood), to a third period of history, the definitive period of history, the time of the Holy Spirit.
"According to Joachim, this was to be a time of universal reconciliation, reconciliation between east and west, between Christians and Jews, a time without the law (in the Pauline sense), a time of real brotherhood in the world.
"The interesting idea which I discovered was that a significant current among the Franciscans was convinced that St. Francis of Assisi and the Franciscan Order marked the beginning of this third period of history, and it was their ambition to actualize it; Bonaventure was in critical dialogue with this current."
So, we might argue, Ratzinger drew from Bonaventure a conception of human history as unfolding in a purposeful way, toward a specific goal, a time of deepened spiritual insight, an "age of the Holy Spirit."
Where classical philosophy spoke of the eternity of the world, and therefore of the cyclical "eternal return" of all reality, Bonaventure, following Joachim, condemned the concept of the eternity of the world, and defended the idea that history was a unique and purposeful unfolding of events which would never return, but which would come to a conclusion.
History had meaning.
History was related to, and oriented toward, meaning -- toward the Logos ... toward Christ.
This is not to say that Ratzinger -- or Bonaventure -- made any of the specific interpretations of Joachim his own. It is to say that Ratzinger, like Bonaventure, entered into "critical dialogue" with his overall conception -- that history had a shape and a meaning -- that he, like Bonaventure, took it quite seriously.
I have some personal insight into how seriously Ratzinger took these matters.
My own doctoral research was on the influence of the thought of Joachim on the early Franciscans.
When I first met Joseph Ratzinger, in the fall of 1984, I told him I was studying his book on St. Bonaventure with interest, and he replied: "Ah! You're the only one in Rome who has read that book of mine."
Then, later, he commented to me that the liberation theology of the Brazilian Franciscan Father Leonardo Boff was a "modern form" of Joachimism -- a desire to see within history a new ordering of human society.
So I am persuaded that Ratzinger took his research into Bonaventure quite seriously.
Ratzinger received his degree on Feb. 21, 1957, at nearly 30 years of age, but not without controversy.
The academic committee judging his work actually rejected the "critical" part of his thesis, so he was obliged to cut and edit it, and present the "historical" part only, centered on the analysis of the relation between St. Bonaventure and Joachim of Flora.
Ratzinger's professor, Michael Schmaus, thought Ratzinger's interpretation of Bonaventure's concept of revelation showed "a dangerous modernism that had to lead to the subjectivization of the concept of revelation," as Ratzinger himself recalls in his autobiography, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977. (Ratzinger felt, and still feels, that Schmaus's criticisms were not valid.)
What was it that Ratzinger found in Bonaventure that aroused such controversy?
For Ratzinger, Bonaventure's concept of revelation did not mean what it does for us today, that is, "all the revealed contents of the faith."
In Ratzinger's view, for Bonaventure, "revelation" always connoted the idea of action -- that is, revelation means the act by which God reveals himself, and not simply the result of this act.
Why is this important?
Ratzinger wrote in Milestones: "Because this is so, the concept of 'revelation' always implies a receiving subject: where there is no one to perceive 'revelation,' no re-vel-ation has occurred, because no veil has been removed. By definition, revelation requires a someone who apprehends it."
And why does this matter?
"These insights," Ratzinger continued, "gained through my reading of Bonaventure, were later on very important for me at the time of the conciliar discussion on revelation, Scripture, and tradition. Because, if Bonaventure is right, then revelation precedes Scripture and becomes deposited in Scripture but is not simply identical with it. This in turn means that revelation is always something greater than what is merely written down. And this again means that there can be no such thing as pure sola scriptura ["by Scripture alone"], because an essential element of Scripture is the Church as understanding subject, and with this the fundamental sense of tradition is already given."
In essence, what Ratzinger drew from Bonaventure modified and completed what he had drawn from Augustine.
If Augustine's thought emphasized the continuity of Christianity with classical philosophy, and the "reasonableness" of Christian faith over against pagan superstition, Bonaventure's thought emphasized the contrast between Christianity and classical philosophy, indeed, condemned the futility of classical philosophy, with its embrace of the concept of the eternity of the world and the "eternal return" of all things, because it lacked the revealed truth of a divine "actor."
Ratzinger suggested this in the forward to his work on Bonaventure: "Has not the ‘Hellenization' of Christianity, which attempted to overcome the scandal of the particular by a blending of faith and metaphysics, led to a development in a false direction? Has it not created a static style of thought which cannot do justices to the dynamism of the biblical style?"
Even today, if we go to the last chapter of the Pope's recent book, "Jesus of Nazareth," we find the metaphysical terminology that presupposes an ontology of "person as relation" that I believe is the "golden thread" throughout all of Ratzinger's work, from his first book on Augustine, begun in 1953, through his "habilitation thesis" on Bonaventure (1956) to his recent Jesus of Nazareth (2007).
Ratzinger is saying that Christian revelation must always transcend reason, though it does not, and must not, contradict it.
When Benedict XVI visits Bagnoreggio, then, he will be, in a sense, returning to the source of his own deepest intellectual struggles, to the place where he came fully to understand the newness of the Christian faith, and how that faith, that revealed truth, is at one and the same time in harmony with, and at total opposition to, the "reason" which was the highest good of classical philosophy.
This makes the trip to Bagnoreggio far more than another papal trip; it is a trip into Ratzinger's own intellectual and spiritual past, and into the core of his intellectual and spiritual vision.
* * *
Robert Moynihan is founder and editor of the monthly magazine Inside the Vatican. He is the author of the book "Let God's Light Shine Forth: the Spiritual Vision of Pope Benedict XVI" (2005, Doubleday). Moynihan's blog can be found at www.insidethevatican.com. He can be reached at: editor@insidethevatican.com
© Innovative Media, Inc.
By Robert Moynihan
ROME, AUG. 24, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Sometimes, there is more to a papal trip than meets the eye.
And that is the case with an upcoming trip of Benedict XVI to the small Italian town of Bagnoreggio, the birthplace of St. Bonaventure.
In two weeks, on Sept. 6, the Pope will go out of Rome to visit Bagnoreggio and Viterbo.
Viterbo, about 65 miles north of Rome, or just an hour by car, is well-known as the place where papal conclaves were born.
Until 1271, the gathering of cardinals for the election was not called a "conclave" ("con" meaning "with" and "clavis" meaning "a key") -- a closed meeting in a place locked "with a key."
After the death of Pope Clement IV in 1268, the cardinals meeting in Viterbo did not elect anyone for almost three years. Finally, the city officials locked all of them in a meeting room and gave them only bread and water to eat. Soon after, they elected Pope Gregory X. He then made it Church law that papal elections would take place in a conclave.
Benedict XVI will travel to Viterbo by helicopter from the papal summer villa at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome.
But on his way home, he will stop in Bagnoreggio.
Why stop in such a little, seemingly unimportant town?
Because St. Bonaventure was born there in 1217.
Still, the Pope does not stop in the birthplace of every important saint. He would not have time to do so. So, why is he taking time to stop in Bonaventure's place of birth?
For the answer, we have to look into the Pope's own past, and there we find something rather interesting.
We find that Bonaventure was one of the two major intellectual influences on Pope Benedict's entire theological formation. (The other influence? St. Augustine.)
In Germany, scholars must write two dissertations. The first, as in the United States, is to receive a doctoral degree (a Ph.D.). The second, called the "Habilitationsschrift," is to qualify for a professorial post.
And the young Joseph Ratzinger, in the mid-1950s, wrote this second, postdoctoral thesis, on ... St. Bonaventure, and his understanding of history.
Press accounts will say that the Pope is "scheduled to venerate the 'holy arm' of the saint, which is kept in Bagnoreggio's cathedral" (the rest of St. Bonaventure's body is buried in France).
But Benedict is venerating also the deep wisdom of Bonaventure's vision of Christian revelation, and in so doing "making contact" with one of the central concerns of his own personal theological vision.
In this sense, if we can understand what Benedict learned from Bonaventure, we can understand more clearly what Benedict is trying to do now, in his pontificate, to lead the Church through this complicated period in history.
Benedict XVI himself gave us an idea of this intellectual background in a speech he gave to a group of scholars several years ago, before he was Pope.
He said this: "My doctoral dissertation was about the notion of the people of God in St. Augustine. ... Augustine was in dialogue with Roman ideology, especially after the occupation of Rome by the Goths in 410, and so it was very fascinating for me to see how in these different dialogues and cultures he defines the essence of the Christian religion. He saw Christian faith, not in continuity with earlier religions, but rather in continuity with philosophy as a victory of reason over superstition. ..."
So, we might argue that one major step in Ratzinger's own theological formation was to understand Christianity as "in continuity with philosophy" and as "a victory of reason over superstition."
Then Ratzinger took a second step. He studied Bonaventure.
"My postdoctoral work was about St. Bonaventure, a Franciscan theologian of the 13th century," Ratzinger continued. "I discovered an aspect of Bonaventure's theology not found in the previous literature, namely, his relation with the new idea of history conceived by Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century. Joachim saw history as progression from the period of the Father (a difficult time for human beings under the law), to a second period of history, that of the Son (with more freedom, more openness, more brotherhood), to a third period of history, the definitive period of history, the time of the Holy Spirit.
"According to Joachim, this was to be a time of universal reconciliation, reconciliation between east and west, between Christians and Jews, a time without the law (in the Pauline sense), a time of real brotherhood in the world.
"The interesting idea which I discovered was that a significant current among the Franciscans was convinced that St. Francis of Assisi and the Franciscan Order marked the beginning of this third period of history, and it was their ambition to actualize it; Bonaventure was in critical dialogue with this current."
So, we might argue, Ratzinger drew from Bonaventure a conception of human history as unfolding in a purposeful way, toward a specific goal, a time of deepened spiritual insight, an "age of the Holy Spirit."
Where classical philosophy spoke of the eternity of the world, and therefore of the cyclical "eternal return" of all reality, Bonaventure, following Joachim, condemned the concept of the eternity of the world, and defended the idea that history was a unique and purposeful unfolding of events which would never return, but which would come to a conclusion.
History had meaning.
History was related to, and oriented toward, meaning -- toward the Logos ... toward Christ.
This is not to say that Ratzinger -- or Bonaventure -- made any of the specific interpretations of Joachim his own. It is to say that Ratzinger, like Bonaventure, entered into "critical dialogue" with his overall conception -- that history had a shape and a meaning -- that he, like Bonaventure, took it quite seriously.
I have some personal insight into how seriously Ratzinger took these matters.
My own doctoral research was on the influence of the thought of Joachim on the early Franciscans.
When I first met Joseph Ratzinger, in the fall of 1984, I told him I was studying his book on St. Bonaventure with interest, and he replied: "Ah! You're the only one in Rome who has read that book of mine."
Then, later, he commented to me that the liberation theology of the Brazilian Franciscan Father Leonardo Boff was a "modern form" of Joachimism -- a desire to see within history a new ordering of human society.
So I am persuaded that Ratzinger took his research into Bonaventure quite seriously.
Ratzinger received his degree on Feb. 21, 1957, at nearly 30 years of age, but not without controversy.
The academic committee judging his work actually rejected the "critical" part of his thesis, so he was obliged to cut and edit it, and present the "historical" part only, centered on the analysis of the relation between St. Bonaventure and Joachim of Flora.
Ratzinger's professor, Michael Schmaus, thought Ratzinger's interpretation of Bonaventure's concept of revelation showed "a dangerous modernism that had to lead to the subjectivization of the concept of revelation," as Ratzinger himself recalls in his autobiography, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977. (Ratzinger felt, and still feels, that Schmaus's criticisms were not valid.)
What was it that Ratzinger found in Bonaventure that aroused such controversy?
For Ratzinger, Bonaventure's concept of revelation did not mean what it does for us today, that is, "all the revealed contents of the faith."
In Ratzinger's view, for Bonaventure, "revelation" always connoted the idea of action -- that is, revelation means the act by which God reveals himself, and not simply the result of this act.
Why is this important?
Ratzinger wrote in Milestones: "Because this is so, the concept of 'revelation' always implies a receiving subject: where there is no one to perceive 'revelation,' no re-vel-ation has occurred, because no veil has been removed. By definition, revelation requires a someone who apprehends it."
And why does this matter?
"These insights," Ratzinger continued, "gained through my reading of Bonaventure, were later on very important for me at the time of the conciliar discussion on revelation, Scripture, and tradition. Because, if Bonaventure is right, then revelation precedes Scripture and becomes deposited in Scripture but is not simply identical with it. This in turn means that revelation is always something greater than what is merely written down. And this again means that there can be no such thing as pure sola scriptura ["by Scripture alone"], because an essential element of Scripture is the Church as understanding subject, and with this the fundamental sense of tradition is already given."
In essence, what Ratzinger drew from Bonaventure modified and completed what he had drawn from Augustine.
If Augustine's thought emphasized the continuity of Christianity with classical philosophy, and the "reasonableness" of Christian faith over against pagan superstition, Bonaventure's thought emphasized the contrast between Christianity and classical philosophy, indeed, condemned the futility of classical philosophy, with its embrace of the concept of the eternity of the world and the "eternal return" of all things, because it lacked the revealed truth of a divine "actor."
Ratzinger suggested this in the forward to his work on Bonaventure: "Has not the ‘Hellenization' of Christianity, which attempted to overcome the scandal of the particular by a blending of faith and metaphysics, led to a development in a false direction? Has it not created a static style of thought which cannot do justices to the dynamism of the biblical style?"
Even today, if we go to the last chapter of the Pope's recent book, "Jesus of Nazareth," we find the metaphysical terminology that presupposes an ontology of "person as relation" that I believe is the "golden thread" throughout all of Ratzinger's work, from his first book on Augustine, begun in 1953, through his "habilitation thesis" on Bonaventure (1956) to his recent Jesus of Nazareth (2007).
Ratzinger is saying that Christian revelation must always transcend reason, though it does not, and must not, contradict it.
When Benedict XVI visits Bagnoreggio, then, he will be, in a sense, returning to the source of his own deepest intellectual struggles, to the place where he came fully to understand the newness of the Christian faith, and how that faith, that revealed truth, is at one and the same time in harmony with, and at total opposition to, the "reason" which was the highest good of classical philosophy.
This makes the trip to Bagnoreggio far more than another papal trip; it is a trip into Ratzinger's own intellectual and spiritual past, and into the core of his intellectual and spiritual vision.
* * *
Robert Moynihan is founder and editor of the monthly magazine Inside the Vatican. He is the author of the book "Let God's Light Shine Forth: the Spiritual Vision of Pope Benedict XVI" (2005, Doubleday). Moynihan's blog can be found at www.insidethevatican.com. He can be reached at: editor@insidethevatican.com
© Innovative Media, Inc.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
PLANNED PARENTHOOD RIPS BISHOPS
August 19, 2009
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments today on remarks made yesterday by Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood is getting restless knowing that its abortion-happy health care reforms are on the skids. Cecile Richards is now accusing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops of seeking to make “American women second-class citizens.” And that’s just the danger they are doing at home. Abroad, “their hard-line opposition to women’s rights also endangers millions of women around the globe.” Why they haven’t been locked up, she does not say.
Richards was recently summoned to the White House to discuss health care reform. Is this the kind of advice she was given—to lash out at Catholic bishops? If not, then someone needs to rein her in before the whole health care package blows up in their face.
Richards is either ignorant or lying when she says “comprehensive reproductive health care [is] supported by the majority of Americans.” In fact, nearly two in three Americans (63 percent) favor laws preventing the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. But no matter, data never convince ideologues.
This is great. The American people are called fascists by U.S. Congressmen because they oppose the health care bills now on the table, and Catholic bishops are told by one of the leading proponents of health care reform that they are a threat to human rights. This is the politics of self-destruction on steroids.
August 19, 2009
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments today on remarks made yesterday by Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood is getting restless knowing that its abortion-happy health care reforms are on the skids. Cecile Richards is now accusing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops of seeking to make “American women second-class citizens.” And that’s just the danger they are doing at home. Abroad, “their hard-line opposition to women’s rights also endangers millions of women around the globe.” Why they haven’t been locked up, she does not say.
Richards was recently summoned to the White House to discuss health care reform. Is this the kind of advice she was given—to lash out at Catholic bishops? If not, then someone needs to rein her in before the whole health care package blows up in their face.
Richards is either ignorant or lying when she says “comprehensive reproductive health care [is] supported by the majority of Americans.” In fact, nearly two in three Americans (63 percent) favor laws preventing the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. But no matter, data never convince ideologues.
This is great. The American people are called fascists by U.S. Congressmen because they oppose the health care bills now on the table, and Catholic bishops are told by one of the leading proponents of health care reform that they are a threat to human rights. This is the politics of self-destruction on steroids.
Cafeteria Catholics: the results of my Pope Benedict survey
Cafeteria Catholics: the results of my Pope Benedict survey
Posted using ShareThis
As usual, I am out of step with not only society at large, but many of my Catholic brethren as well. Holy Father said somewhere along the line that we may get smaller to remain strong. I think he is no doubt correct.
Posted using ShareThis
As usual, I am out of step with not only society at large, but many of my Catholic brethren as well. Holy Father said somewhere along the line that we may get smaller to remain strong. I think he is no doubt correct.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Pope Benedict: A Pontiff With a Plan
Posted on 08/03/09 by scottarbuckle
Scott’s Catholicism Blog
http://uvcarmel.org/2009/08/03/pope-benedict-a-pontiff-with-a-plan/
By Scott P. Richert
Tuesday July 21, 2009 – The recent release of Pope Benedict XVI’s third encyclical, Caritas in veritate, followed the very next day by a motu proprio on the unity of the Church (Ecclesiae unitatem), has reinforced a sense that I have had ever since the Holy Father’s election in 2005: This is a pontiff with a plan.
Because of his age, Pope Benedict has always known that his would not be one of the longest pontificates in the history of the Catholic Church, but he seems determined to make it one of the most significant in recent centuries. And considering the men who have occupied the Chair of Peter in the 19th and 20th centuries, that’s a tall order.
Yet the Holy Father is well on his way to fulfilling it. In his now-famous address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005, he set forth a plan to show to the world that there is no such thing as a “pre-Vatican II” and a “post-Vatican II” Church, but simply One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, upholding an unbroken Tradition from the time of the Apostles.
That required that Vatican II be interpreted through a “hermeneutic of reform” rather than a “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” which has characterized both proponents of the “spirit of Vatican II” and traditionalist critics of the council.
And Benedict set about putting his own words into action. He signed the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on June 29, 2007, the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. Summorum Pontificum freed priests to use the Traditional Latin Mass, and the date was significant: The Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch sends representatives to Rome each year to take part in the celebration of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (and sometimes comes himself). The Orthodox have long been concerned about the decline of the liturgy in the Western Church, and the revival of the Traditional Latin Mass was seen as a major step in the right direction.
The motu proprio was released to the public on July 7, 2007—a date that takes on greater significance this year, in light of the release of Caritas in veritate on the same date. Three days after the release of Summorum Pontificum, which was an overture to the traditional Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Pope Benedict authorized the public release of “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.” It, too, was dated June 29, 2007, and it addressed another major concern of traditionalists—namely, the Catholic understanding, expressed in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, of the nature of the Church—and, by extension, the nature of those other churches and Christian communities that are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, two years later, Pope Benedict has delivered a similar one-two punch. Caritas in veritate, as I have noted, is an extended exercise in the “hermeneutic of reform,” taking another document long criticized by traditionalists—Pope Paul VI’s 1967 social encyclical Populorum progressio—and situating it squarely within the mainstream of traditional Catholic social teaching. Delivered on the same date (July 7) as Summorum Pontificum (and signed on June 29, as Summorum Pontificum and “Responses” were), the message could not be clearer: All of these documents forum part of a unified plan to clear up confusion and misconceptions that have reigned in the Church since the closing of Vatican II.
Part two was the release of Ecclesiae unitatem the very next day. This motu proprio may seem unexciting, simply announcing the folding of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but what it signals is far more important. As far as Pope Benedict is concerned, all liturgical questions raised by the SSPX schism have been answered, and the groundwork has been laid for addressing the remaining doctrinal questions.
As the Holy Father notes in Ecclesiae unitatem,
"The duty to safeguard the unity of the Church, with the solicitude to offer everyone help in responding appropriately to this vocation and divine grace, is the particular responsibility of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, who is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of both bishops and faithful. And thus it is significant that the results of all doctrinal discussions with the SSPX will be submitted “to the superior dispositions of the Supreme Pontiff.”
It is important always to keep in mind that the pope—any pope—is a man, and subject to personal failings. Even though he cannot err when speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals, he can make mistakes on practical matters.
Yet at many points in the history of the Church, when the Faith seemed most under attack and the Church Herself has seemed in disarray, the Holy Spirit has raised up a Supreme Pontiff who has led the Church out of Her troubles in truth, in charity, and in prudence.
I cannot help but feel that we might be in one of those times now.
Scott’s Catholicism Blog
http://uvcarmel.org/2009/08/03/pope-benedict-a-pontiff-with-a-plan/
By Scott P. Richert
Tuesday July 21, 2009 – The recent release of Pope Benedict XVI’s third encyclical, Caritas in veritate, followed the very next day by a motu proprio on the unity of the Church (Ecclesiae unitatem), has reinforced a sense that I have had ever since the Holy Father’s election in 2005: This is a pontiff with a plan.
Because of his age, Pope Benedict has always known that his would not be one of the longest pontificates in the history of the Catholic Church, but he seems determined to make it one of the most significant in recent centuries. And considering the men who have occupied the Chair of Peter in the 19th and 20th centuries, that’s a tall order.
Yet the Holy Father is well on his way to fulfilling it. In his now-famous address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005, he set forth a plan to show to the world that there is no such thing as a “pre-Vatican II” and a “post-Vatican II” Church, but simply One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, upholding an unbroken Tradition from the time of the Apostles.
That required that Vatican II be interpreted through a “hermeneutic of reform” rather than a “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” which has characterized both proponents of the “spirit of Vatican II” and traditionalist critics of the council.
And Benedict set about putting his own words into action. He signed the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on June 29, 2007, the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul. Summorum Pontificum freed priests to use the Traditional Latin Mass, and the date was significant: The Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch sends representatives to Rome each year to take part in the celebration of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (and sometimes comes himself). The Orthodox have long been concerned about the decline of the liturgy in the Western Church, and the revival of the Traditional Latin Mass was seen as a major step in the right direction.
The motu proprio was released to the public on July 7, 2007—a date that takes on greater significance this year, in light of the release of Caritas in veritate on the same date. Three days after the release of Summorum Pontificum, which was an overture to the traditional Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Pope Benedict authorized the public release of “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.” It, too, was dated June 29, 2007, and it addressed another major concern of traditionalists—namely, the Catholic understanding, expressed in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, of the nature of the Church—and, by extension, the nature of those other churches and Christian communities that are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Now, two years later, Pope Benedict has delivered a similar one-two punch. Caritas in veritate, as I have noted, is an extended exercise in the “hermeneutic of reform,” taking another document long criticized by traditionalists—Pope Paul VI’s 1967 social encyclical Populorum progressio—and situating it squarely within the mainstream of traditional Catholic social teaching. Delivered on the same date (July 7) as Summorum Pontificum (and signed on June 29, as Summorum Pontificum and “Responses” were), the message could not be clearer: All of these documents forum part of a unified plan to clear up confusion and misconceptions that have reigned in the Church since the closing of Vatican II.
Part two was the release of Ecclesiae unitatem the very next day. This motu proprio may seem unexciting, simply announcing the folding of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but what it signals is far more important. As far as Pope Benedict is concerned, all liturgical questions raised by the SSPX schism have been answered, and the groundwork has been laid for addressing the remaining doctrinal questions.
As the Holy Father notes in Ecclesiae unitatem,
"The duty to safeguard the unity of the Church, with the solicitude to offer everyone help in responding appropriately to this vocation and divine grace, is the particular responsibility of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, who is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of both bishops and faithful. And thus it is significant that the results of all doctrinal discussions with the SSPX will be submitted “to the superior dispositions of the Supreme Pontiff.”
It is important always to keep in mind that the pope—any pope—is a man, and subject to personal failings. Even though he cannot err when speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals, he can make mistakes on practical matters.
Yet at many points in the history of the Church, when the Faith seemed most under attack and the Church Herself has seemed in disarray, the Holy Spirit has raised up a Supreme Pontiff who has led the Church out of Her troubles in truth, in charity, and in prudence.
I cannot help but feel that we might be in one of those times now.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
It wouldn't happen to the Koran: Pope attacks Glasgow art gallery's invitation to vandalise a Bible
By Graham Grant
Pope Benedict XVI believes the stunt would not have been contemplated with a copy of the Koran.
The Pope has condemned a ' disgusting' taxpayer-funded exhibition in which visitors are urged to deface the Bible.
Visitors were offered pens by gallery bosses so they could scrawl comments on the text - leading to a host of puerile and obscene remarks.
Pope Benedict XVI believes the stunt would not have been contemplated with a copy of the Koran.
His anger over the show, organised by council-funded arts body Culture and Sport Glasgow, was expressed by a senior Vatican priest.
The adviser to the Pope said: 'It is disgusting and offensive. They would not think of doing it to the Koran.'
Public complaints about the exhibit at the prestigious Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow have forced organisers to put the vandalised Bible on show in a locked case, while still allowing visitors to write comments on blank sheets of paper.
The Made In God's Image exhibit is the work of Glasgow artist Anthony Schrag. He wanted gays and transsexuals who felt left out of religion to 'write their way back in' to the holy text.
Mr Schrag worked with members of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in Edinburgh on the project. But MCC minister Jane Clarke said: 'I had hoped people would show respect for the Bible.
I am saddened some have chosen to write offensive messages.'
By Graham Grant
Pope Benedict XVI believes the stunt would not have been contemplated with a copy of the Koran.
The Pope has condemned a ' disgusting' taxpayer-funded exhibition in which visitors are urged to deface the Bible.
Visitors were offered pens by gallery bosses so they could scrawl comments on the text - leading to a host of puerile and obscene remarks.
Pope Benedict XVI believes the stunt would not have been contemplated with a copy of the Koran.
His anger over the show, organised by council-funded arts body Culture and Sport Glasgow, was expressed by a senior Vatican priest.
The adviser to the Pope said: 'It is disgusting and offensive. They would not think of doing it to the Koran.'
Public complaints about the exhibit at the prestigious Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow have forced organisers to put the vandalised Bible on show in a locked case, while still allowing visitors to write comments on blank sheets of paper.
The Made In God's Image exhibit is the work of Glasgow artist Anthony Schrag. He wanted gays and transsexuals who felt left out of religion to 'write their way back in' to the holy text.
Mr Schrag worked with members of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in Edinburgh on the project. But MCC minister Jane Clarke said: 'I had hoped people would show respect for the Bible.
I am saddened some have chosen to write offensive messages.'
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
And now on a lighter note - something irresistable
Holy hoon: nun clocked at 180km/h
July 21, 2009 - 11:41AM
Italian traffic police got an unholy surprise when they pulled over a driver clocked at 180km/h - it was a 56-year-old nun claiming to be on a mercy dash to the Pope.
The speeding nun, who was accompanied by two fellow Salesian nuns, aged 65 and 78, reportedly told police they were rushing to Pope Benedict's side out of concern for his broken wrist.
The Vatican had recently gone public with news the Pontiff had fallen in the bathroom during his summer holiday.
The nuns' Ford Fiesta was caught travelling at nearly 50km/h over the speed limit before it was pulled over on Friday, The Guardian reported.
"The police were shocked to find three nuns of a certain age in the Fiesta," the report quoted the speeding nun as saying.
"But we were afraid of getting there late. I know you shouldn't go so fast, but the news of his Holiness's injury had made us truly anxious."
Despite the urgency of the mission, the police chose not to overlook the traffic infringement, suspending the nun's licence for a month and issuing a $650 fine.
However, she was a "determined sort" who would contest the penalty, her lawyer told The Guardian.
"She is planning to appeal and we think we can invoke the 'state of necessity' in the law that allows speeding," Anna Orecchioni said.
Orecchioni has successfully defended a Muslim imam in Rome after convincing a judge that asthma medicine doubled his blood alcohol reading.
Also on her books is a priest who claims communion wine consumed at four consecutive masses pushed him over the legal limit.
After surgery on his damaged wrist, the Pope delivered a blessing on Sunday, his right forearm in plaster.
smh.com.au
July 21, 2009 - 11:41AM
Italian traffic police got an unholy surprise when they pulled over a driver clocked at 180km/h - it was a 56-year-old nun claiming to be on a mercy dash to the Pope.
The speeding nun, who was accompanied by two fellow Salesian nuns, aged 65 and 78, reportedly told police they were rushing to Pope Benedict's side out of concern for his broken wrist.
The Vatican had recently gone public with news the Pontiff had fallen in the bathroom during his summer holiday.
The nuns' Ford Fiesta was caught travelling at nearly 50km/h over the speed limit before it was pulled over on Friday, The Guardian reported.
"The police were shocked to find three nuns of a certain age in the Fiesta," the report quoted the speeding nun as saying.
"But we were afraid of getting there late. I know you shouldn't go so fast, but the news of his Holiness's injury had made us truly anxious."
Despite the urgency of the mission, the police chose not to overlook the traffic infringement, suspending the nun's licence for a month and issuing a $650 fine.
However, she was a "determined sort" who would contest the penalty, her lawyer told The Guardian.
"She is planning to appeal and we think we can invoke the 'state of necessity' in the law that allows speeding," Anna Orecchioni said.
Orecchioni has successfully defended a Muslim imam in Rome after convincing a judge that asthma medicine doubled his blood alcohol reading.
Also on her books is a priest who claims communion wine consumed at four consecutive masses pushed him over the legal limit.
After surgery on his damaged wrist, the Pope delivered a blessing on Sunday, his right forearm in plaster.
smh.com.au
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Another point of view
What We Could Learn From Pope Benedict
Good Fences
By J.J. Goldberg
‘Turn it and turn it again, for everything is contained therein” — so says the Talmudic compendium of wisdom known as the “Ethics of the Fathers,” in trying to describe the value of the Torah. It’s got everything you need right inside, tradition teaches. It’s the all-in-one roadmap for living in this world. After all, people have been turning to it for thousands of years for guidance in times of crisis and doubt. There’s a reason they call it the Good Book.
You would think, then, that at moments of really big crisis — say, a global economic meltdown — we could look in the book and find some big idea that helps us make sense of it all. Alas, most of us gave up trying a long time ago. Some have turned it and turned it upside-down and shaken it, but what came out, it seemed, were mostly lists of who begat whom and how many cows to sacrifice on weekends and holidays. Even those who do believe usually find that we go there for the personal, small-bore things like practicing kindness and coping with loss, not redeeming society or saving the planet. For the big stuff we look to the politicians and scientists.
On July 7, however, a very, very big idea was drawn out of Scripture, offering a framework for fixing and humanizing the global economy so that it feeds and houses people instead of fattening offshore banks. The author is Pope Benedict XVI, formerly known as the very conservative Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. What he has to say about the economy reads like a left-wing social-democratic tract, albeit overlaid with a lot of camp meeting-style calls to faith.
The document, titled “Charity in Truth,” was published as a papal encyclical. That means it is a letter to the church, spelling out a doctrine with all the authority of the papacy — and, according to an earlier pope, it “ends theological debate” on the topic at hand.
Here’s what has just been put beyond debate:
All people have a fundamental human right to food, clean water and a job.
Economic decisions are not neutral. “Every economic decision has a moral consequence,” and economic activity must be regulated by “just laws” enacted through the political process.
The current state of economic inequality is a “cultural and moral crisis of man,” and demands “distributive justice” through a redistribution of wealth.
Profit should not be the goal of a business, but a means by which it achieves the goal of providing human needs.
Investment and incentives should be structured to encourage long-term business development rather than short-term profit.
Managers should be accountable not just to investors and shareholders but “to all stakeholders,” including workers, consumers and surrounding communities.
Society must protect the right of workers to form unions “that can defend their rights.”
The globalized economy requires a global economic authority that can prevent companies from escaping national regulation by moving offshore, and can negotiate a fair distribution of capital and resources among rich and poor countries.
There’s much more, of course, in the 130-page document. It speaks several times of what Catholicism calls protection of life — partly to say that economic justice must flow from a value system that respects human life, and partly to say that protecting life is incomplete unless it includes human dignity and economic justice.
The encyclical also says that moral values underpinning this doctrine can be found in many religions, not just Christianity — and that believers and non-believers should work together in alliances based on shared human values.
Commentators have been falling over themselves to insist it isn’t left or right wing, since it mentions abortion along with unions and redistribution. But nobody seems to be fooled. One leading Catholic neoconservative philosopher, George Weigel, wrote in National Review Online that the encyclical reads like a “duckbilled platypus,” meaning an incoherent mishmash. It’s not clear how much longer a defender of church authority can get away with that. After all, it is a papal encyclical, not a Twitter tweet.
As for other religions that don’t have a papal authority, they can only look on in wonder and envy, and perhaps seek ways to link hands. Judaism has a long tradition, older than Christianity, of reading the Bible in very much the same way, as Rabbi Jill Jacobs argues elegantly in a new book called “There Shall Be No Needy: Pursuing Social Justice Through Jewish Law and Tradition” (Jewish Lights).
But Jacobs’s views are all too rare in Judaism these days. For a long time now, those Jews who seek the sort of structural justice that Benedict is talking about haven’t been very interested in Jewish law, and those most attached to Jewish law aren’t jumping into the sorts of coalitions Benedict proposes.
It used to be different. In the Middle Ages, communities were governed by their rabbis as mutual aid societies, following the sort of biblical principles the pope writes about. But rabbis don’t govern the community anymore, now that the ghetto walls have come down.
A century ago the voice of the community was its working class, the unions and populist community organizations that answered to their public. Nowadays the organizations answer to their donors, and rabbis are afraid to preach unionism when the synagogue president is around.
Reading the papal encyclical is a reminder that we’re quickly losing a big part of our tradition. It’s part of what made the Jews a light unto the nations. Look, even the pope is copying us.
Good Fences
By J.J. Goldberg
‘Turn it and turn it again, for everything is contained therein” — so says the Talmudic compendium of wisdom known as the “Ethics of the Fathers,” in trying to describe the value of the Torah. It’s got everything you need right inside, tradition teaches. It’s the all-in-one roadmap for living in this world. After all, people have been turning to it for thousands of years for guidance in times of crisis and doubt. There’s a reason they call it the Good Book.
You would think, then, that at moments of really big crisis — say, a global economic meltdown — we could look in the book and find some big idea that helps us make sense of it all. Alas, most of us gave up trying a long time ago. Some have turned it and turned it upside-down and shaken it, but what came out, it seemed, were mostly lists of who begat whom and how many cows to sacrifice on weekends and holidays. Even those who do believe usually find that we go there for the personal, small-bore things like practicing kindness and coping with loss, not redeeming society or saving the planet. For the big stuff we look to the politicians and scientists.
On July 7, however, a very, very big idea was drawn out of Scripture, offering a framework for fixing and humanizing the global economy so that it feeds and houses people instead of fattening offshore banks. The author is Pope Benedict XVI, formerly known as the very conservative Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. What he has to say about the economy reads like a left-wing social-democratic tract, albeit overlaid with a lot of camp meeting-style calls to faith.
The document, titled “Charity in Truth,” was published as a papal encyclical. That means it is a letter to the church, spelling out a doctrine with all the authority of the papacy — and, according to an earlier pope, it “ends theological debate” on the topic at hand.
Here’s what has just been put beyond debate:
All people have a fundamental human right to food, clean water and a job.
Economic decisions are not neutral. “Every economic decision has a moral consequence,” and economic activity must be regulated by “just laws” enacted through the political process.
The current state of economic inequality is a “cultural and moral crisis of man,” and demands “distributive justice” through a redistribution of wealth.
Profit should not be the goal of a business, but a means by which it achieves the goal of providing human needs.
Investment and incentives should be structured to encourage long-term business development rather than short-term profit.
Managers should be accountable not just to investors and shareholders but “to all stakeholders,” including workers, consumers and surrounding communities.
Society must protect the right of workers to form unions “that can defend their rights.”
The globalized economy requires a global economic authority that can prevent companies from escaping national regulation by moving offshore, and can negotiate a fair distribution of capital and resources among rich and poor countries.
There’s much more, of course, in the 130-page document. It speaks several times of what Catholicism calls protection of life — partly to say that economic justice must flow from a value system that respects human life, and partly to say that protecting life is incomplete unless it includes human dignity and economic justice.
The encyclical also says that moral values underpinning this doctrine can be found in many religions, not just Christianity — and that believers and non-believers should work together in alliances based on shared human values.
Commentators have been falling over themselves to insist it isn’t left or right wing, since it mentions abortion along with unions and redistribution. But nobody seems to be fooled. One leading Catholic neoconservative philosopher, George Weigel, wrote in National Review Online that the encyclical reads like a “duckbilled platypus,” meaning an incoherent mishmash. It’s not clear how much longer a defender of church authority can get away with that. After all, it is a papal encyclical, not a Twitter tweet.
As for other religions that don’t have a papal authority, they can only look on in wonder and envy, and perhaps seek ways to link hands. Judaism has a long tradition, older than Christianity, of reading the Bible in very much the same way, as Rabbi Jill Jacobs argues elegantly in a new book called “There Shall Be No Needy: Pursuing Social Justice Through Jewish Law and Tradition” (Jewish Lights).
But Jacobs’s views are all too rare in Judaism these days. For a long time now, those Jews who seek the sort of structural justice that Benedict is talking about haven’t been very interested in Jewish law, and those most attached to Jewish law aren’t jumping into the sorts of coalitions Benedict proposes.
It used to be different. In the Middle Ages, communities were governed by their rabbis as mutual aid societies, following the sort of biblical principles the pope writes about. But rabbis don’t govern the community anymore, now that the ghetto walls have come down.
A century ago the voice of the community was its working class, the unions and populist community organizations that answered to their public. Nowadays the organizations answer to their donors, and rabbis are afraid to preach unionism when the synagogue president is around.
Reading the papal encyclical is a reminder that we’re quickly losing a big part of our tradition. It’s part of what made the Jews a light unto the nations. Look, even the pope is copying us.
The Pope, the Rabbi, and the Moral Economy
by Samuel Gregg D.Phil.
In our oh-so-secular age, it’s paradoxical that religious leaders’ pronouncements on subjects ranging from marriage to markets invariably receive considerable media attention. This makes it even more surprising that no one seems to have noticed the parallels between Benedict’s XVI’s encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, released on July 7th, and a provocative op-ed written by Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, in the London Times two weeks earlier.
The pope and the rabbi had a similar message, which amounts to the following. Some of our contemporary economic problems reflect a deeper moral crisis within Western civilization. Until we acknowledge this, shifts in economic policy and business practice will only provide limited solutions.
To be sure, it’s not a message everyone will appreciate. But that doesn’t diminish its accuracy.
As individuals, there are many striking analogies between Pope Benedict and Rabbi Sacks. Both are widely recognized as formidable intellectuals in their own right. Each has unapologetically and directly challenged secularizing trends within his own faith-tradition. Neither is afraid to question the secularist zeitgeist which thoroughly intimidates so many rabbis and Christian clergy today.
In their recent reflections, both rabbi and pope underlined what a morally-confused, even dysfunctional, world we live in. It’s not that they consider the pre-1960s era as somehow morally superior. In Sacks’ view, more people today genuinely do care about issues that received less attention from our grandparents, such as extreme poverty in developing nations.
“But,” Sacks writes, “note this: the things we care about are vast, distant, global, remote.” When it comes to matters closer to us such as trust or simple truth-telling, Sacks says we have more or less abandoned notions of right and wrong. Instead the West has embraced a morality in which what ultimately matters, ethically-speaking, is whether we choose something.
Choice has become its own justification and the only sin is to question anyone’s moral choices. To do so is to be “intolerant” or “judgmental.” Who are you to question my choice to lie on my mortgage-application or my choice to betray my wife?
According to Sacks, one effect of this relativism is that we tacitly and increasingly rely upon the state to regulate our behavior. Nature abhors a vacuum, but especially moral voids. Thus instead of an all-seeing God to whom we must eventually account for all our choices, we have video surveillance. “The result,” Sacks claims, “is that we have created the most regulated, intrusive society ever known.”
In Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI makes a similar point. It is good, he writes, that people care about the environment. But, Benedict comments, “Human beings interpret and shape the natural environment through culture, which in turn is given direction by the responsible use of freedom, in accordance with the dictates of the moral law.” It follows that if we ignore this moral law, we are likely to treat nature as “a heap of scattered refuse” or, conversely, embrace “attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism.”
The other intersection between these pontifical and rabbinical reflections is their mutual insistence that we must look beyond what Benedict calls “the exclusively binary model of market-plus-State.”
Let’s be clear: Benedict and Sacks rigorously deny that markets are intrinsically flawed. Each also maintains that there are fundamental limits to state power. They do, however, insist that morality’s ultimate sources come from neither state nor market.
Instead they unabashedly nominate a divine foundation for morality that’s also accessible to human reason. Once this basis is forgotten, they contend, societies and economies are in deep trouble.
For years, Benedict has been spelling out the consequences of living and acting as if God doesn’t exist. Likewise, Sacks underscores the insight of the great Oxbridge philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe (a Catholic convert) that words like “courage” and “criminal” only made sense in the moral world created by Judaism, the Greek Stoics, and orthodox Christianity.
Such expressions make no sense at all, Sacks states, in our world dominated, as it is, by a philosophy as incoherent as utilitarianism. “Concepts like duty, obligation, responsibility and honour,” he stresses, “have come to seem antiquated and irrelevant”. This also helps to make cheating and lying in commercial life more palatable.
None of this is to suggest that Benedict and Sacks are knee-jerk anti-moderns. Their respective faiths affirm that people have lied and stolen from history’s beginning. All of us, they say, are sinners. Hence the good achievable by fallen humanity, Benedict notes, “is always less than we might wish”.
What the pope and the rabbi question are those who limit morality to politically-correct causes and the associated refusal of many working in our economies to acknowledge, in the rabbi’s words, that “Without a shared moral code there can be no free society”.
To which this Catholic can only say “Amen!”
by Samuel Gregg D.Phil.
In our oh-so-secular age, it’s paradoxical that religious leaders’ pronouncements on subjects ranging from marriage to markets invariably receive considerable media attention. This makes it even more surprising that no one seems to have noticed the parallels between Benedict’s XVI’s encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, released on July 7th, and a provocative op-ed written by Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, in the London Times two weeks earlier.
The pope and the rabbi had a similar message, which amounts to the following. Some of our contemporary economic problems reflect a deeper moral crisis within Western civilization. Until we acknowledge this, shifts in economic policy and business practice will only provide limited solutions.
To be sure, it’s not a message everyone will appreciate. But that doesn’t diminish its accuracy.
As individuals, there are many striking analogies between Pope Benedict and Rabbi Sacks. Both are widely recognized as formidable intellectuals in their own right. Each has unapologetically and directly challenged secularizing trends within his own faith-tradition. Neither is afraid to question the secularist zeitgeist which thoroughly intimidates so many rabbis and Christian clergy today.
In their recent reflections, both rabbi and pope underlined what a morally-confused, even dysfunctional, world we live in. It’s not that they consider the pre-1960s era as somehow morally superior. In Sacks’ view, more people today genuinely do care about issues that received less attention from our grandparents, such as extreme poverty in developing nations.
“But,” Sacks writes, “note this: the things we care about are vast, distant, global, remote.” When it comes to matters closer to us such as trust or simple truth-telling, Sacks says we have more or less abandoned notions of right and wrong. Instead the West has embraced a morality in which what ultimately matters, ethically-speaking, is whether we choose something.
Choice has become its own justification and the only sin is to question anyone’s moral choices. To do so is to be “intolerant” or “judgmental.” Who are you to question my choice to lie on my mortgage-application or my choice to betray my wife?
According to Sacks, one effect of this relativism is that we tacitly and increasingly rely upon the state to regulate our behavior. Nature abhors a vacuum, but especially moral voids. Thus instead of an all-seeing God to whom we must eventually account for all our choices, we have video surveillance. “The result,” Sacks claims, “is that we have created the most regulated, intrusive society ever known.”
In Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI makes a similar point. It is good, he writes, that people care about the environment. But, Benedict comments, “Human beings interpret and shape the natural environment through culture, which in turn is given direction by the responsible use of freedom, in accordance with the dictates of the moral law.” It follows that if we ignore this moral law, we are likely to treat nature as “a heap of scattered refuse” or, conversely, embrace “attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism.”
The other intersection between these pontifical and rabbinical reflections is their mutual insistence that we must look beyond what Benedict calls “the exclusively binary model of market-plus-State.”
Let’s be clear: Benedict and Sacks rigorously deny that markets are intrinsically flawed. Each also maintains that there are fundamental limits to state power. They do, however, insist that morality’s ultimate sources come from neither state nor market.
Instead they unabashedly nominate a divine foundation for morality that’s also accessible to human reason. Once this basis is forgotten, they contend, societies and economies are in deep trouble.
For years, Benedict has been spelling out the consequences of living and acting as if God doesn’t exist. Likewise, Sacks underscores the insight of the great Oxbridge philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe (a Catholic convert) that words like “courage” and “criminal” only made sense in the moral world created by Judaism, the Greek Stoics, and orthodox Christianity.
Such expressions make no sense at all, Sacks states, in our world dominated, as it is, by a philosophy as incoherent as utilitarianism. “Concepts like duty, obligation, responsibility and honour,” he stresses, “have come to seem antiquated and irrelevant”. This also helps to make cheating and lying in commercial life more palatable.
None of this is to suggest that Benedict and Sacks are knee-jerk anti-moderns. Their respective faiths affirm that people have lied and stolen from history’s beginning. All of us, they say, are sinners. Hence the good achievable by fallen humanity, Benedict notes, “is always less than we might wish”.
What the pope and the rabbi question are those who limit morality to politically-correct causes and the associated refusal of many working in our economies to acknowledge, in the rabbi’s words, that “Without a shared moral code there can be no free society”.
To which this Catholic can only say “Amen!”
FROM:
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Something positive out of San Francisco Newspapers
The pope pays the economy some attention
Discussing the latest encyclical with social ethics Professor William O'Neill
David Ian Miller
Monday, July 13, 2009
You know you're living in interesting times when the pope decides to write about the economy.
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out on Tuesday after Pope Benedict XVI released his 44-page encyclical, titled "Caritas in Veritate" or "Charity in Truth," popes only address financial issues in encyclicals "during moments of tectonic shift" such as the Industrial Revolution (1891, Pope Leo XIII, argued for workers' rights) and the Great Depression (1931 Pope Pius XI, warning about the dangers of capitalism run amuck).
In the Catholic tradition, encyclicals are open letters written by the pope to the bishops of the church, addressing big issues ranging from dangers to the world at large or the souls of church members. Although the Vatican does an outstanding job of utilizing modern communications -- Pope Benedict XVI has a Facebook page (you can be his friend, but you can't poke him) and his Web site, pope2you.net, offers iPhone content -- videos of the pope's travels and speeches -- encyclicals remain a critical form of discourse.
Caritas in Veritate addresses very modern issues such as globalization, market economy, hedge funds, outsourcing, and alternative energy, calling for people to put aside greed and let their consciences guide them in economic and environmental decisions. Many of the ideas put forward would likely rankle conservatives, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote that the encyclical "places the pope well to Obama's left on economics..."
I spoke about the encyclical with William O'Neill, a professor of social ethics at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley and a visiting professor of ethics at the Jesuit School of Theology in Nairobi, Kenya. O'Neill has worked with refugees in Tanzania and Malawi, and conducted research on human rights in South Africa and Rwanda. His writings address questions of human rights, ethics, social reconciliation, and conflict resolution. We discussed the politics of the encyclical, tensions within the church, and how the current economic crisis might reshape our world.
Let's start with your general take on the new encyclical. What were your first impressions?
I was very impressed, both with its scope and its depth. It is, I think, a remarkable document that raises very difficult questions, particularly for many Americans, partly because it speaks to the possibility of economic redistribution.
It seems that Pope Benedict is offering a much more radical set of economic prescriptions than even the most liberal Democrats in this country. Does that surprise you?
I wasn't surprised as much as I was delighted to see that so many of the fundamental themes that have been a part of the heritage of modern Catholic social teaching were articulated in such a profound and theologically grounded way. Benedict is a theologian, and you see the theological wisdom permeating the entire encyclical. But the concern of mediating the tradition to the specific problems that we are facing in light of the economic crisis and the suffering of so many of the people in our world today -- that, to me, was very heartening. I think what he is doing is taking a rich tradition and trying to apply it to novel circumstances. And I think he does that quite well.
Will the encyclical, in your opinion, actually change anything?
That's the question. How will it be received? I suspect, had this been issued prior to the economic crisis, it would have been met with a kind of constrained interest. Today, we would almost say it's prophetic, because there is a general understanding that the failures of international regulation, the crises of a globalizing economy, will require a kind of profound ethical appraisal.
This encyclical comes at a time when many of us would say business as usual is no longer acceptable. We need significant structural change rather than just making minor modifications and hoping that the great capitalist engine will continue to function. It doesn't give a precise prescription for policy. But it does give a moral perspective for thinking about global economic integration. In many ways, I think it is the beginning of a conversation, rather than the end.
What are the main themes of that conversation?
Some of the central themes are his emphasis upon a kind of integral humanism and a concern that the market must be made moral from within, that the economy is one of the most socialized activities we engage in today, and consequently our economic interdependence has to be leavened with moral solidarity.
Another theme is recognizing the need for appropriate measures, given the vast economic shifts that have occurred just within the last decade of the globalizing economy. The question is, how do we regulate the financial and capital markets in a way that will protect fundamental rights, especially for those who are least prosperous? These are concerns that go back to the gospel, and I think Benedict is trying to cultivate them in a way that could actually make a difference in terms of prevailing policies.
Do you know if encyclicals are written primarily by the pope, or are they a group effort?
Sometimes they are the product of a number of authors. I would say this encyclical bears the imprimatur of Benedict himself, to use a very papal term, just given the coherence of the text and its theological density.
This isn't the first time that he has spoken out about the lack of ethics in capitalism. In 1985, for example, he presented a paper entitled "Market Economy and Ethics" warning that the lack of ethics could cause financial markets to collapse. Is this pope particularly well-educated in financial issues?
He's certainly not an economist or a financier. But there has been a rich tradition, not only for Benedict, but really since 1891 when the first major social encyclical dealing with the massive dislocation of workers at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, a whole history of Catholic social thinking in this regard. This encyclical is the 40-year commemoration of Paul VI of Populorum Progressio, which was the first encyclical to deal with the problems of development and globalization in such detail. It emphasized not only the rights of Western workers, but the profound systematic deprivation of underdevelopment in so many parts of our world.
One of the encyclical's more controversial elements is a call for a "world political authority" to play a central role in regulating the economy. This has been interpreted by some critics as an endorsement of a new world government, though Vatican officials have taken pains to deny that was Benedict's intention. What do you make of the pope's statements on this issue?
He is certainly not calling for a new world government. I think this has to be put into context. One of the key themes in Catholic teaching for many many years is that effective participation for the common good is going to involve different levels of authority. In other words, we have a global common good, so how is that to be implemented? It would be implemented through appropriate international structures and regulations, but also through the appropriate activities of state and regional actors. One of the keys is that the state, or in this case a global authority, should never absorb the appropriate authority of so-called intermediate associations, or hosts.
So it's not a recommendation for world centralized government but an attempt to develop the kind of wise appropriate redistributive measures that would allow an economy to satisfy its moral purposes -- to provide a decent standard of living, especially for those who have been effectively marginalized by the processes of globalization. I think what he is looking for is appropriate redistributive measures that would regulate the economy rather than displace it. That's at least how I would understand it.
It is interesting that to me that the pope's thinking on issues like globalization, the economy, outsourcing, and alternative energy, are in line with liberal or progressive thinking in this country. Yet, he is very conservative on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research. How do you explain that dichotomy?
I think that it represents the tension within church teachings generally between personal and social morality on the one hand, and economic ethics on the other hand. Since the end of the 19th century the church social teachings have emphasized workers' rights, appropriate (wealth) redistribution measures, and the common good, while emphasizing more traditional morality relating to sexual ethics and family life. The teachings are not opposed, but they overlap. It's a matter of different emphases rather than fundamental conflict.
Do you feel the church in its recent history has done enough to address economic inequality?
I think in some ways we have been excessively lacking, and of course, I include myself in this as well. One of the problems is how Catholic teaching becomes Catholic learning. I think one of the tragedies is that we often have done very good social analysis, for instance, on the rights of workers or migrants, but we haven't done a very good job in disseminating that research, and as a result so often the church's moral teaching seems to be reduced to the popular mind largely to its views on sexuality.
What, if any, changes in your work and spiritual practice will you make in response to the teachings of this encyclical?
It will probably take a little more discernment for me to see what this would mean, to be very honest, in my own life. It does suggest to me that I haven't strayed as widely as some might think in emphasizing, for instance, the importance of global solidarity or defending the rights of migrants. The inmates at the federal women's prison where I am a chaplain are mostly migrant women. They are not non-persons. Their lives matter. That's one of the hallmarks of this encyclical, and it's something I can actually bring to my preaching in prison -- that they appear in the text, these women who in many ways are marginalized by a global economy and largely forgotten, even in our criminal justice system.
What does it mean, ultimately, to go back to Jesus' first words in Luke, to preach good news to the poor? If Catholic social teaching means anything, it's at the service of this gospel. So I take from that a sense of being heartened that my church has not forgotten the least among us, and that Benedict, who has been criticized in many ways for being excessively cautious and conservative, has taken such a prophetic view. I think that's both courageous and wise, and I really applaud him for that. Differ as I might with some of his other teachings, I really think that he has effectively spoken the gospel today for us.
Do you want to say anything more about the teachings you disagree with?
I would say here, and maybe this is going a little astray, but I think that for the American church to be prophetic, it first has to be repentant. We have to recognize our complicity in the sexual abuse crimes, for example, and that's a language that Benedict would probably not apply to the institutions of the church, but I think that to recognize the sinful structures of the church and to repent of them is a real condition for allowing the grace of the spirit to be prophetic.
For some to believe that, if we truly repent then we foreclose the possibility of prophecy, that we abdicate our moral authority, is a mistake. I think we have to recognize that the church, in its official and institutional structures, has contributed to social sin. In many ways Benedict has done this in his text by speaking with courage about an integral need to restore the human purposes to our economy. Those are noble sentiments, but I think they will be received, if we recognize that prophecy always requires a certain ability to repent.
Does the Vatican have a history of repentance?
Yes, actually. Benedict wrote a rather remarkable apology to the bishops for lifting the excommunication order on Richard Williamson (a bishop who publicly stated that the Holocaust never happened). And there has been a series of papal apologies beginning with John Paul and others, for anti-Semitism in the church.
I just returned from a week-long conference at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, looking at the behavior of the churches during the Holocaust, and again, it's very sobering to see what happened there. I think of what Martin Luther King speaks of in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," of the silence of the good, the appalling silence of the good. That is perhaps the greatest malaise for Christians. It's not our overt racism and anti-Semitism but rather the complacency of the good. And my hope is that this encyclical may in subtle ways be a subversive antidote to that tendency, that it may help us imagine our world a little differently and call us to action. If it does that, then it has achieved its purpose.
During his far-flung career in journalism, Bay Area writer and editor David Ian Miller has worked as a city hall reporter, personal finance writer, cable television executive and managing editor of a technology news site. His writing credits include Salon.com, Wired News and The New York Observer.
Discussing the latest encyclical with social ethics Professor William O'Neill
David Ian Miller
Monday, July 13, 2009
You know you're living in interesting times when the pope decides to write about the economy.
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out on Tuesday after Pope Benedict XVI released his 44-page encyclical, titled "Caritas in Veritate" or "Charity in Truth," popes only address financial issues in encyclicals "during moments of tectonic shift" such as the Industrial Revolution (1891, Pope Leo XIII, argued for workers' rights) and the Great Depression (1931 Pope Pius XI, warning about the dangers of capitalism run amuck).
In the Catholic tradition, encyclicals are open letters written by the pope to the bishops of the church, addressing big issues ranging from dangers to the world at large or the souls of church members. Although the Vatican does an outstanding job of utilizing modern communications -- Pope Benedict XVI has a Facebook page (you can be his friend, but you can't poke him) and his Web site, pope2you.net, offers iPhone content -- videos of the pope's travels and speeches -- encyclicals remain a critical form of discourse.
Caritas in Veritate addresses very modern issues such as globalization, market economy, hedge funds, outsourcing, and alternative energy, calling for people to put aside greed and let their consciences guide them in economic and environmental decisions. Many of the ideas put forward would likely rankle conservatives, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote that the encyclical "places the pope well to Obama's left on economics..."
I spoke about the encyclical with William O'Neill, a professor of social ethics at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley and a visiting professor of ethics at the Jesuit School of Theology in Nairobi, Kenya. O'Neill has worked with refugees in Tanzania and Malawi, and conducted research on human rights in South Africa and Rwanda. His writings address questions of human rights, ethics, social reconciliation, and conflict resolution. We discussed the politics of the encyclical, tensions within the church, and how the current economic crisis might reshape our world.
Let's start with your general take on the new encyclical. What were your first impressions?
I was very impressed, both with its scope and its depth. It is, I think, a remarkable document that raises very difficult questions, particularly for many Americans, partly because it speaks to the possibility of economic redistribution.
It seems that Pope Benedict is offering a much more radical set of economic prescriptions than even the most liberal Democrats in this country. Does that surprise you?
I wasn't surprised as much as I was delighted to see that so many of the fundamental themes that have been a part of the heritage of modern Catholic social teaching were articulated in such a profound and theologically grounded way. Benedict is a theologian, and you see the theological wisdom permeating the entire encyclical. But the concern of mediating the tradition to the specific problems that we are facing in light of the economic crisis and the suffering of so many of the people in our world today -- that, to me, was very heartening. I think what he is doing is taking a rich tradition and trying to apply it to novel circumstances. And I think he does that quite well.
Will the encyclical, in your opinion, actually change anything?
That's the question. How will it be received? I suspect, had this been issued prior to the economic crisis, it would have been met with a kind of constrained interest. Today, we would almost say it's prophetic, because there is a general understanding that the failures of international regulation, the crises of a globalizing economy, will require a kind of profound ethical appraisal.
This encyclical comes at a time when many of us would say business as usual is no longer acceptable. We need significant structural change rather than just making minor modifications and hoping that the great capitalist engine will continue to function. It doesn't give a precise prescription for policy. But it does give a moral perspective for thinking about global economic integration. In many ways, I think it is the beginning of a conversation, rather than the end.
What are the main themes of that conversation?
Some of the central themes are his emphasis upon a kind of integral humanism and a concern that the market must be made moral from within, that the economy is one of the most socialized activities we engage in today, and consequently our economic interdependence has to be leavened with moral solidarity.
Another theme is recognizing the need for appropriate measures, given the vast economic shifts that have occurred just within the last decade of the globalizing economy. The question is, how do we regulate the financial and capital markets in a way that will protect fundamental rights, especially for those who are least prosperous? These are concerns that go back to the gospel, and I think Benedict is trying to cultivate them in a way that could actually make a difference in terms of prevailing policies.
Do you know if encyclicals are written primarily by the pope, or are they a group effort?
Sometimes they are the product of a number of authors. I would say this encyclical bears the imprimatur of Benedict himself, to use a very papal term, just given the coherence of the text and its theological density.
This isn't the first time that he has spoken out about the lack of ethics in capitalism. In 1985, for example, he presented a paper entitled "Market Economy and Ethics" warning that the lack of ethics could cause financial markets to collapse. Is this pope particularly well-educated in financial issues?
He's certainly not an economist or a financier. But there has been a rich tradition, not only for Benedict, but really since 1891 when the first major social encyclical dealing with the massive dislocation of workers at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, a whole history of Catholic social thinking in this regard. This encyclical is the 40-year commemoration of Paul VI of Populorum Progressio, which was the first encyclical to deal with the problems of development and globalization in such detail. It emphasized not only the rights of Western workers, but the profound systematic deprivation of underdevelopment in so many parts of our world.
One of the encyclical's more controversial elements is a call for a "world political authority" to play a central role in regulating the economy. This has been interpreted by some critics as an endorsement of a new world government, though Vatican officials have taken pains to deny that was Benedict's intention. What do you make of the pope's statements on this issue?
He is certainly not calling for a new world government. I think this has to be put into context. One of the key themes in Catholic teaching for many many years is that effective participation for the common good is going to involve different levels of authority. In other words, we have a global common good, so how is that to be implemented? It would be implemented through appropriate international structures and regulations, but also through the appropriate activities of state and regional actors. One of the keys is that the state, or in this case a global authority, should never absorb the appropriate authority of so-called intermediate associations, or hosts.
So it's not a recommendation for world centralized government but an attempt to develop the kind of wise appropriate redistributive measures that would allow an economy to satisfy its moral purposes -- to provide a decent standard of living, especially for those who have been effectively marginalized by the processes of globalization. I think what he is looking for is appropriate redistributive measures that would regulate the economy rather than displace it. That's at least how I would understand it.
It is interesting that to me that the pope's thinking on issues like globalization, the economy, outsourcing, and alternative energy, are in line with liberal or progressive thinking in this country. Yet, he is very conservative on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research. How do you explain that dichotomy?
I think that it represents the tension within church teachings generally between personal and social morality on the one hand, and economic ethics on the other hand. Since the end of the 19th century the church social teachings have emphasized workers' rights, appropriate (wealth) redistribution measures, and the common good, while emphasizing more traditional morality relating to sexual ethics and family life. The teachings are not opposed, but they overlap. It's a matter of different emphases rather than fundamental conflict.
Do you feel the church in its recent history has done enough to address economic inequality?
I think in some ways we have been excessively lacking, and of course, I include myself in this as well. One of the problems is how Catholic teaching becomes Catholic learning. I think one of the tragedies is that we often have done very good social analysis, for instance, on the rights of workers or migrants, but we haven't done a very good job in disseminating that research, and as a result so often the church's moral teaching seems to be reduced to the popular mind largely to its views on sexuality.
What, if any, changes in your work and spiritual practice will you make in response to the teachings of this encyclical?
It will probably take a little more discernment for me to see what this would mean, to be very honest, in my own life. It does suggest to me that I haven't strayed as widely as some might think in emphasizing, for instance, the importance of global solidarity or defending the rights of migrants. The inmates at the federal women's prison where I am a chaplain are mostly migrant women. They are not non-persons. Their lives matter. That's one of the hallmarks of this encyclical, and it's something I can actually bring to my preaching in prison -- that they appear in the text, these women who in many ways are marginalized by a global economy and largely forgotten, even in our criminal justice system.
What does it mean, ultimately, to go back to Jesus' first words in Luke, to preach good news to the poor? If Catholic social teaching means anything, it's at the service of this gospel. So I take from that a sense of being heartened that my church has not forgotten the least among us, and that Benedict, who has been criticized in many ways for being excessively cautious and conservative, has taken such a prophetic view. I think that's both courageous and wise, and I really applaud him for that. Differ as I might with some of his other teachings, I really think that he has effectively spoken the gospel today for us.
Do you want to say anything more about the teachings you disagree with?
I would say here, and maybe this is going a little astray, but I think that for the American church to be prophetic, it first has to be repentant. We have to recognize our complicity in the sexual abuse crimes, for example, and that's a language that Benedict would probably not apply to the institutions of the church, but I think that to recognize the sinful structures of the church and to repent of them is a real condition for allowing the grace of the spirit to be prophetic.
For some to believe that, if we truly repent then we foreclose the possibility of prophecy, that we abdicate our moral authority, is a mistake. I think we have to recognize that the church, in its official and institutional structures, has contributed to social sin. In many ways Benedict has done this in his text by speaking with courage about an integral need to restore the human purposes to our economy. Those are noble sentiments, but I think they will be received, if we recognize that prophecy always requires a certain ability to repent.
Does the Vatican have a history of repentance?
Yes, actually. Benedict wrote a rather remarkable apology to the bishops for lifting the excommunication order on Richard Williamson (a bishop who publicly stated that the Holocaust never happened). And there has been a series of papal apologies beginning with John Paul and others, for anti-Semitism in the church.
I just returned from a week-long conference at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, looking at the behavior of the churches during the Holocaust, and again, it's very sobering to see what happened there. I think of what Martin Luther King speaks of in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," of the silence of the good, the appalling silence of the good. That is perhaps the greatest malaise for Christians. It's not our overt racism and anti-Semitism but rather the complacency of the good. And my hope is that this encyclical may in subtle ways be a subversive antidote to that tendency, that it may help us imagine our world a little differently and call us to action. If it does that, then it has achieved its purpose.
During his far-flung career in journalism, Bay Area writer and editor David Ian Miller has worked as a city hall reporter, personal finance writer, cable television executive and managing editor of a technology news site. His writing credits include Salon.com, Wired News and The New York Observer.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Faithful Catholic Commentary on Pope Benedic XVI's Caritas in Veritate
July 11, 9:11 PM · Denise Hunnell, M.D. - DC Catholic Living Examiner
. (AP Photo/Tiziana Fabi, POOL)
So many voices are rushing to comment on Pope Benedict’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. There has been a great deal of cherry picking of this portion or that portion in an attempt to score political points. However, as Pope Benedict XVI himself said in his Wednesday Audience, the aim of this document is not about technical solutions to specific problems. It is about principles.
Most important among these is human life itself, the centre of all true progress. Additionally, it speaks of the right to religious freedom as a part of human development, it warns against unbounded hope in technology alone, and it underlines the need for upright men and women – attentive to the common good – in both politics and the business world.
Still, there is a lot to unpack in this encyclical. Catholic World Report has pulled together a cohort of reliably Catholic intellectuals to offer a round table discussion of this profound document. The panel includes: J. Brian Benestad, professor of theology at the University of Scranton; Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, and Resident Scholar in the Institute for the Studies of Religion, Baylor University; Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, editor of Ignatius Press; Richard Garnett, professor of Law at University of Notre Dame; Thomas S. Hibbs, Distinguished Professor of Ethics & Culture and Dean of the Honors College at Baylor University; Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College; George Neumayr, editor of Catholic World Report; Joseph Pearce, writer-in-residence and associate professor of literature at Ave Maria University; Tracy Rowland, Dean of John Paul II Institute, Melbourne Australia; Fr. James V. Schall, professor of government at Georgetown University; Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute.
The comments of this esteemed assembly are not a substitute for reading Caritas in Veritate. Rather, they offer faithfully Catholic guidance in the interpretation and application of the Holy Father’s words.
Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved.
July 11, 9:11 PM · Denise Hunnell, M.D. - DC Catholic Living Examiner
. (AP Photo/Tiziana Fabi, POOL)
So many voices are rushing to comment on Pope Benedict’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. There has been a great deal of cherry picking of this portion or that portion in an attempt to score political points. However, as Pope Benedict XVI himself said in his Wednesday Audience, the aim of this document is not about technical solutions to specific problems. It is about principles.
Most important among these is human life itself, the centre of all true progress. Additionally, it speaks of the right to religious freedom as a part of human development, it warns against unbounded hope in technology alone, and it underlines the need for upright men and women – attentive to the common good – in both politics and the business world.
Still, there is a lot to unpack in this encyclical. Catholic World Report has pulled together a cohort of reliably Catholic intellectuals to offer a round table discussion of this profound document. The panel includes: J. Brian Benestad, professor of theology at the University of Scranton; Francis J. Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, and Resident Scholar in the Institute for the Studies of Religion, Baylor University; Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, editor of Ignatius Press; Richard Garnett, professor of Law at University of Notre Dame; Thomas S. Hibbs, Distinguished Professor of Ethics & Culture and Dean of the Honors College at Baylor University; Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College; George Neumayr, editor of Catholic World Report; Joseph Pearce, writer-in-residence and associate professor of literature at Ave Maria University; Tracy Rowland, Dean of John Paul II Institute, Melbourne Australia; Fr. James V. Schall, professor of government at Georgetown University; Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute.
The comments of this esteemed assembly are not a substitute for reading Caritas in Veritate. Rather, they offer faithfully Catholic guidance in the interpretation and application of the Holy Father’s words.
Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Two Articles of Interest
Pope gives Obama 'unannounced' gift: Vatican document on right to life and bioethics
.- Pope Benedict XVI received President Barack Obama this afternoon in his private library, and after 36 minutes of private conversation, the pair emerged without providing any details about their topics of conversation. Nevertheless, the Holy See revealed that the Pope gave Obama an “unannounced gift”--a Vatican document on bioethics and the right to life.
"The G8 has been very productive, 20 billion dollars have been allocated [to poor countries]; that's something concrete," President Obama told the Pope when he asked about the summit, as photographers and journalists were ushered out of the Papal library.
The meeting between the Pope and the U.S. President started at 4:25 p.m. local time, after an unusually short meeting of ten minutes with the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.
After the private conversation, and again in front of the cameras, President Obama gave the Pontiff a stole that was drapped upon the body of St. John Neumann from 1988 to 2007. The Pope instead presented the president with a mosaic portraying St. Peter's Square and the Vatican Basilica, and an autographed copy of his latest social encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.”
“I will have something to read on the plane,” President Obama joked after receiving the encyclical.
At the end of the meeting, the Pope said in English, "I pray for you and bless your work."
"I am very grateful, I hope we will have fruitful relationships," the President responded.
Despite the fact that the Vatican did not release an official statement about the nature of the meeting, the “unannounced” gift to Obama of the 2008 document "Dignitas Personae" on bioethics and the right to life, could be a signal of the nature of at least part of their conversation.
***********************************
Pope Benedict Spoke to Obama on Right to Life, Freedom of Conscience
ROME, July 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pope Benedict gave US President Barack Obama a surprise gift of the Vatican bioethics document "Dignitatis Personae," and discussed the ethics of abortion and embryo research in their first meeting in Rome this afternoon.
A Vatican statement has said that in their private discussion, the pope addressed issues of "the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one's conscience."
At the customary exchange of gifts, Obama presented Pope Benedict with a relic - a stole that had been draped over the body of the US's most popular Catholic saints, St. John Neumann, Bishop of Philadelphia from1852 to 1860. The pope also offered the president religious medals and rosaries, as well as a copy of his latest encyclical, signed this week, "Caritas in Veritate."
A lengthy live feed video of the meeting showed a relaxed Obama greeting the pope warmly and sitting down immediately at his desk to a conversation that began with the recently concluded G-8 summit meeting in the earthquake-struck city of L'Aquila.
"Dignitatis Personae" (On the Dignity of Persons) is a 2008 instruction by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that gives the Catholic teaching on the ethics of embryonic research and reiterates Church opposition to contraception and abortion, mentioning new methods of birth control such as female condoms and the morning-after pill.
At the end of the meeting, Pope Benedict told the president, "A blessing on all your work and also for you." The president responded, "Thank you very much. We look forward to a very strong relationship."
According to Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, "Obama told the pope of his commitment to reduce the number of abortions and of his attention and respect for the positions of the Catholic Church."
Barack Obama told Pope Benedict XIV it was "a great honor" to meet him in what may be one of the US President's most successful PR ventures in his presidency to date. The meeting in the pope's private office lasted forty minutes and consisted of what White House spokesmen described as "frank but constructive" private discussion on world issues.
After eight years of friendly Vatican relations between former President George W. Bush, observers have eagerly awaited this meeting. Despite differences between the Bush administration and the Vatican on the war in Iraq, the former president's relationship with the Catholic Church was strengthened by his initiatives in defence of human life.
With Obama's zealous support for legal abortion, even to the point of having opposed legislation to protect children born alive after failed abortions, it is expected that tensions with the current administration will be higher.
The Vatican has made unusual accommodations for the visit, scheduling it in the late afternoon before Obama proceeds to a visit to Africa and allowing extensive live video coverage. The Vatican normally schedules such meetings for midday.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Encyclical links, and etc.
I found a site with several link discussing Holy Father's recently published third encyclical. You may find something of interest here. There are several other matters also listed here but it seems to be a good selection, over all, to examine.
**********************************************
Pope hosts G-8 leaders' wives (clearly, Holy Father understands the influence wives's have)
VATICAN CITY - POPE Benedict XVI on Wednesday hosted the wives of world leaders who were in Italy attending the G-8 summit, the Vatican said.
Following his weekly general audience in the Vatican City, the pope received the group, which included five wives of country leaders.
Among them were Sarah Brown, the wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Margarita Calderon, wife of Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and Filippa Reinfeldt, wife of Swedish Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt.
Nompumelelo Ntuli Zuma, wife of South African President Jacob Zuma, and Gursharan Kaur, wife of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, were also at the audience along with Margarida Barroso, wife of European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.
The three-day G-8 summit started Wednesday in L'Aquila, central Italy. -- AFP
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Love in Truth - Holy Father's Encyclical
Pope Benedict's encyclical on social matters was released today. Deep reading but he is so readable, I expect to eat it up. It's title is Love in Truth
***********************************
Pope Benedict appeals for less greed and more soul
In the third encyclical of his papacy, Pope Benedict has appealed to the leaders of the world's wealthier nations not to ignore the needs of the poor in the face of the global economic crisis.
Published on the eve of the L'Aguila G-8 summit scheduled to focus on the global economy, climate change and aid for developing nations, "Caritas in Veritate" (Charity in Truth) says that poorer countries should be given "an effective voice in shared decision making."
The encyclical says the "primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his and her integrity."
The 82-year-old Pope Benedict used the document, which is his first encyclical on social issues, as a platform to denounce what he sees as the unjust nature of globalised capitalism, and to call for "greater social responsibility."
He urged fairer trade practices, citing outsourcing to countries where labour is cheaper, as bad business which could "weaken the company's sense of responsibility to the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the natural environment.
World body with "real teeth"
Furthermore, the pontiff stressed the need for a reform of the United Nations and economic and financial institutions in order to lend some "real teeth" to the idea of a family of nations.
He said there was an urgent need to establish a true world political authority in order to "manage the global economy, revive economies hit by the crisis, to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis."
Such a body, he wrote could work "to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace, to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration´."
The 144-page letter sharply criticised "badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing," and said the world was now in the thick of a greed-induced depression.
Yet for all of the ills the global economic crisis has visited on millions of people across the world, Pope Benedict said it also offered an opportunity to "replan our journey, set ourselves new rules, and to discover new forms of commitment."
Message applauded by German bishops
The encyclical, which the Pope began writing in 2007 but held off publishing in order to reflect the current economic climate, has been welcomed by German bishops.
Speaking in the southern city of Freiburg on Tuesday, the chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, Robert Zollitsch, described the encyclical as a "great piece of work", which embodies the basic conditions for humane and dignified development.
He said Pope Benedict had made a significant contribution to the current debate on globalisation and justice, and added that the timing of the publication highlighted "the urgency of the issue".
Zollitsch praised the pontiff for appealing to industrialized nations to implement good ethical practises and encouraging individuals to see themselves as contributors to the current global developments rather than victims thereof.
"Everyone needs to have a rethink," he said.
***********************************
Pope Benedict appeals for less greed and more soul
In the third encyclical of his papacy, Pope Benedict has appealed to the leaders of the world's wealthier nations not to ignore the needs of the poor in the face of the global economic crisis.
Published on the eve of the L'Aguila G-8 summit scheduled to focus on the global economy, climate change and aid for developing nations, "Caritas in Veritate" (Charity in Truth) says that poorer countries should be given "an effective voice in shared decision making."
The encyclical says the "primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his and her integrity."
The 82-year-old Pope Benedict used the document, which is his first encyclical on social issues, as a platform to denounce what he sees as the unjust nature of globalised capitalism, and to call for "greater social responsibility."
He urged fairer trade practices, citing outsourcing to countries where labour is cheaper, as bad business which could "weaken the company's sense of responsibility to the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the natural environment.
World body with "real teeth"
Furthermore, the pontiff stressed the need for a reform of the United Nations and economic and financial institutions in order to lend some "real teeth" to the idea of a family of nations.
He said there was an urgent need to establish a true world political authority in order to "manage the global economy, revive economies hit by the crisis, to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis."
Such a body, he wrote could work "to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace, to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration´."
The 144-page letter sharply criticised "badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing," and said the world was now in the thick of a greed-induced depression.
Yet for all of the ills the global economic crisis has visited on millions of people across the world, Pope Benedict said it also offered an opportunity to "replan our journey, set ourselves new rules, and to discover new forms of commitment."
Message applauded by German bishops
The encyclical, which the Pope began writing in 2007 but held off publishing in order to reflect the current economic climate, has been welcomed by German bishops.
Speaking in the southern city of Freiburg on Tuesday, the chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, Robert Zollitsch, described the encyclical as a "great piece of work", which embodies the basic conditions for humane and dignified development.
He said Pope Benedict had made a significant contribution to the current debate on globalisation and justice, and added that the timing of the publication highlighted "the urgency of the issue".
Zollitsch praised the pontiff for appealing to industrialized nations to implement good ethical practises and encouraging individuals to see themselves as contributors to the current global developments rather than victims thereof.
"Everyone needs to have a rethink," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
