NEWS ABOUT BENEDICT

OREMUS PRO PONTEFICE NOSTRO

---

The Holy Father requests the prayers of all the faithful so that the Lord may illumine the road for the Church. May the commitment of Pastors and the faithful grow, in support of the delicate and weighty mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter as 'the guardian of unity' in the Church.
- Vatican Note, Feb. 4, 2009

---

In reply to a number of messages from new users (as well as a few veteran users but non-members) about the 'difficulty' of navigating within the Forum, I hope this helps:

FOR NEW VISITORS TO THE FORUM: To navigate within the page you are now on, scroll up or down as needed.
To see preceding entries in NEWS ABOUT BENEDICT, Click on 'Previous page', above right.
To get to other topic threads of the English section, click on the 'envelop' above right, tagged 'Fans speaking English' -
it will get you to the board with all the topic threads available in the section.
On that board, to get to the latest page containing the most recent entries on the topic you choose,
click on 'Last' in the parentheses indicating page numbers right after the subject title,
Once you get to that page, proceed as above.



Especially these days, I do want to start each page with a prayer for the Pope. Also, don't forget - it's the sixth day of the FSSP novena for the Pope.



Then, it's anniversary day today:

ALL OUR LOVE AND PRAYERS TO OUR BELOVED HOLY FATHER!
AD MULTOS ANNOS!

Mons. Fellay explains
'clarifying theological discussions'
about Vatican II
Interview by Brian Mershon
REMNANT COLUMNIST, South Carolina

Exclusive to The Remnant
Posted 2/18/09
www.RemnantNewspaper.com



In this exclusive interview for The Remnant since the lifting of the excommunications of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), General Superior Bishop Bernard Fellay emphasizes that the path forward would be determined by what he expects to be extensive but, hopefully fruitful, theological discussions on the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

In addition to the SSPX’s desire to have more explicit theological precision as to the authority and teachings of the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Fellay revealed the following:

- The lifting of the excommunications could be attributed in great part to the million Rosary Crusade.

- The full extent of the media attacks upon the SSPX and Holy Father were unexpected.

- Certain Vatican cardinals believe the Devil was at work in the ensuing media onslaught.

- Theological points need to be resolved before moving forward.

- Theological discussions should take place out of the media spotlight.


Mershon: The Vatican, in a letter dated January 21, 2009, from Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, dissolved the 1988 decree of excommunication of the four Society Bishops. Faithful Catholics associated with the Society, as well as many Catholic worldwide who identify with your cause, attributed this at least in part to the recent 1.7 million decades of the rosary which were offered for the lifting of the excommunications. To what extent do you attribute the Holy Father’s decision to this spiritual bouquet?

Bp. Fellay: All is in God’s hands and God knows best. The interaction between God’s plan for the world and men’s doing is a great mystery of the Faith. I am sure that without the Rosary Crusade, the decree of January 21 would not have been issued. God knew both the Rosary Crusade and the Holy Father’s decision. Every prayer had its part in God’s plan.


In several public statements over the past few years, you predicted that if the Holy Father were to dissolve the excommunications of the Society bishops there would be a large internal battle and perhaps some dissent from bishops and even cardinals within the Church. What do you hear regarding that battle not only against the SSPX, but the Holy Father as well?

BIn fact, I do not have much feedback from what is happening at the Vatican right now. I just see that there is a fight, with some supporting the Pope, and others using the present situation to put pressure on the Pope and his friends.


Did you ever think this would result in so much negative publicity and attacks from the secular media?

Definitely not. In fact, I had no specific idea what the reactions of the media or the bishops’ conferences would be. It is obvious, and this has been going on for years, that there is a strong opposition against us among the progressivists, but it was impossible to imagine that they would have used such weapons against us as they have now been doing for weeks.

And unfortunately, Bishop Williamson provided them with an unhoped-for weapon to launch their attack against us. And so the secular world and the progressivists together were able to attack us and create tremendous pressure upon the Pope about something that has nothing to do with the Faith.

It would seem that several cardinals were able to discern in that turmoil and storm that the Devil was at work. Let us hope that they will go further in their conclusions.


What is next? Do you have a specific timetable for the theological discussions on the difficult points of Vatican II? Can you tell us who will participate in these talks from the SSPX and from within the Roman curia?

We have no timetable yet. We shall see with Rome in the upcoming months how things will develop with these necessary talks about doctrine and also important elements of Christian life. We will reveal in due time the names of those who will participate in these talks.

It is obvious that part of these discussions must take place in a peaceful atmosphere, far away from the media, in order to be fruitful. We will certainly give the necessary information to our faithful. But all this must first become a concrete reality.


Your letter to your Catholic faithful said, “We are ready to write the Creed in our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of faith of Pius IV, we accept and make our own all the Councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we accept some reservations.”

In subsequent interviews by Cardinal Castrillón and yourself, it was claimed that perhaps Vatican II was not as large as stumbling block as many suspected. Cardinal Castrillón said that you had already accepted it “theologically.”

And in your interview with Monde & Vie, you indicated that sufficient clarification was needed, but not necessarily an exhaustive list of theological points that could carry on endlessly.

Could you clarify for us the specific points, presumably on the Decree on Ecumenism and Declaration on Religious Liberty over which you will seek clarification? Perhaps Gaudium et Spes also?

First of all, if someone thinks that I have watered down our position, he is wrong. Our position remains exactly the same. And when I said that sufficient clarification is needed and not necessarily an exhaustive list of theological points, I mean that all the essential points and principles which have led the Church into the present crisis need to be solved; but of course, not all the conclusions that would take too long and could be an endless task. Once the principles are sound, the conclusions will follow by themselves.

The specific points: we are confronted with a huge mountain.

First, there is a spirit, which we may call modernism. There is also a very ambiguous language that has been used along the pattern of the language of modern philosophy. This gives the false spirit which permeated the whole Council. The fact that there are so many ambiguities leads to several interpretations of the texts, and even Pope Benedict XVI condemned the extremist interpretations of the ultra-progressivists.

Next, we have the whole question of the relations between the Church and the world. In the Council, a very positive and human-centered vision spoils everything, especially in Gaudium et Spes and Lumen Gentium. There is a much too positive way of considering the other religions, which at the time, were still called “false religions.” Now this term has been dropped. Does it mean that they would be truer now?

Religious liberty is a fundamental element of modern thinking and of modern philosophy. Of course, you may find some good points in other religions, but the true doctrine must be found in profound and necessary distinctions.

Let us take human rights, for instance. The Church has always defended and protected many human rights. The Church says that these rights flow from men’s duties toward their Creator. They are not absolute; they are always dependent upon the true and the good. You will never find a right which is based on error or evil.

Therefore, to place the emphasis upon the human person, as it is done now, may lead to profound error. And this does not mean that there is not a true and necessary use of human conscience, for instance. ...

Indeed, we have an enormous task lying ahead of us.


The present Holy Father (in his letter to the Bishop of Chile in 1988), as well as Pope Paul VI himself, both said the Second Vatican Council was primarily pastoral, with no note of dogmatic declarations from the Extraordinary Magisterial level. With this in mind, what type of decisions do you expect to reach with the Holy See?

We will present to the Holy See our questions, our problems. We hope they will be phrased clearly enough so that the right and appropriate answers will be given.

We definitely expect from the Holy Father and the Holy See a true clarification of the Council. What needs to be corrected must be corrected. What needs to be rejected must be rejected. What needs to be accepted must be accepted.


The Institute of the Good Shepherd was reportedly allowed to retain their theological opinions while continuing to engage in discussion over the disputed points of Vatican II, without polemics, at the heart of the Church. Do you foresee a similar mission for the Society of St. Pius X? How might it differ from that of the Institute of the Good Shepherd?

There is no comparison between the Institute of the Good Shepherd and the work we are beginning. Indeed, in the document of their constitutions there was a mention of engaging into discussion about disputed issues. But up to now, where are those discussions? I don’t know of any. [That he does not know of any does not necessarily mean there aren't any!]

We are in a completely different situation in our relation with the Holy See because the Holy See recognizes the necessity of engaging in doctrinal studies and talks with us. [There's no reason it isn't doing so as well with the IBP - just that the questions are not being ythreshed out in the open, as Fellay himself wouldlike teh FSSPX questions to be.]


Of course the Society recognizes the Second Vatican Council as a Council of the Church. Do you believe that you will be expected to adhere to more than that — with the understanding that you adhere to the documents with the same theological authority and certitude in which the Church herself holds them?

If we go by the last statement from the Secretary of State, we may fear that Rome might like to impose upon us a full acceptance of Vatican II. But again, what does this mean? What is the real Vatican II when there are so many different interpretations? Even within the last 40 years, what was Vatican II?

It is, according to its own definition, a pastoral, and not a dogmatic Council, and so it cannot be suddenly interpreted as fully dogmatic. And regarding the authority of the documents, because we do not find any kind of clear pronouncement of their authority, there is great confusion on this issue.

Very clearly, its authority cannot be greater now than what the Council itself meant it to be. And the Council did not want to be infallible.


Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?

That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we will need our own autonomy in order to survive. This means that we will have to be directly under the authority of the Pope with an exemption.

[Besides, that would be unwise and unfair, given the arrogance of many bishops now - behaving as though their diocesan authority as bishop were the only authority that mattered in the diocese, that the Pope has no superior authority over diocesan bishops, and against every specific provision of canon law and 2000 years of Church tradition! Each of these arrogant and disobedient bishops thinks he is Peter's Successor!]

If we look at the history of the Church, we see that every time the Popes wanted to restore the Church, they leaned upon new strength like the Benedictine Cistercians whom the Pope allowed to act as best as possible during the crisis, in a status of exemption, in order to overcome the crisis.


Do you expect a personal prelature or perhaps an Apostolic Administration for the SSPX, reporting directly to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei?

It would seem that the project Rome has in store for us is going in that direction. But I am not certain.

{Well, that is how it has been for the Fraternity of St. Pter and teh Institut du Bon pasteur, both ex-Lefebvrian. I tihink, also for the ex-Lefebvrian community in Campos, Brazil.]


You have spoken in the past about some bishops, cardinals and maybe even Curia members, who are friendly to the SSPX and its cause. Can you name them or give us a clue as to who they are and how many?

The situation of the Church, once again, is such that we cannot give any names. It would make life too difficult or unbearable for these churchmen. [How right you are!]

We certainly meet with more sympathy with some bishops. But as long as they do not declare it themselves publicly, it is not prudent for us to say anything.


How extensive do you see the theological discussions taking place? What timeframe do you expect for the full canonical regularization and subsequent mission for the SSPX?

I have no idea about the time necessary either for the work on the doctrinal questions or afterward for the establishment of the new canonical structure. Once again, I wish to insist that the present situation shows very clearly that it is unthinkable to address the canonical question before having solved the main theological problems.


This dialogue with the Holy See began with your meeting with Pope John Paul II during the Year of the Jubilee in which you reportedly exchanged brief greetings and prayed the Pater Noster with the Holy Father. How much do you attribute this potential path to full recognition to Pope John Paul II and that initial meeting?

It is very difficult to say whether the first initiative came from the Pope or from certain cardinals’ influence upon him.

We know that for years, some cardinals, and maybe even the Pope himself, had been aware of the crisis, and even of the depth of the crisis — even if we did not agree with them on every point, and especially on the causes of the crisis. At the same time, they consider us as potential helpful forces to overcoming the crisis.

But I would not grant too much importance to the meeting with Pope John Paul II since we did not talk at all. I only considered it as a small step forward in a process that had already begun.


Are there tendencies toward anti-Semitism in the ranks of the SSPX? Is it "anti-Semitic" in your opinion, to pray and work and dialogue for the conversion of religious Jews to the Catholic Faith? And why do you think there is such sensitivity in the media to supposed “anti-Semitism” as if it were under every rock? Do you think there is just as much anti-Catholicism from politicians, media and other decision-makers in Western society? If so, why do you believe the anti-Catholicism gets a free pass from the secular media even from most Catholic media?

The words “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Semitism” are ambiguous. They have at least two completely different meanings. First, the word “Semite” refers to all the people who are descendants of Sem, one of Noah’s three sons. Not only the Jews, but also the Arabs belong to this branch of mankind; they are all Semites.

In this sense, the word refers to races, to people, and it has no religious connotation. Anti-Semitism is condemned by the Church as a species of racism. Racism is both an injustice and goes against the commandment of charity toward our neighbor.

There is another meaning given to anti-Semitism, which is connected to religion, and specifically, the Jewish religion. In the present situation, anyone who makes any remarks about the Jewish religion, or, for instance, says that the Jewish people should embrace the Faith, could very easily be labeled as anti-Semitic. But this is wrong.

In fact, to answer your question, in the world there is much more anti-Catholicism than anti-Semitism. The problem is that anti-Catholicism remains in the religious domain, whereas anti-Semitism is almost immediately connected with the Jewish people, which is, once again, very ambiguous and imprecise.


There are reports that Cardinal Re was not very happy with the Pope ordering him to write the letter dissolving the excommunications. [First of all, the excommunication of bishops - and subsequent recall, if any - is a question for the Congregation of Bishops. Re would have been far more offended if the Pope had ordered the decree to come from Ecclesia Dei, assuming it was even canonically right to do so!]

Supposedly, he and others in the Curia are not pleased with the influence wielded by Cardinal Castrillón on this important matter. Can you confirm or deny these reports? How do you expect relationships to go forward with the Roman curia and other bishops, assuming canonical regularization and a juridical mission is finalized soon?

I can neither confirm nor deny these reports. I am not in the Roman curia and what is happening inside it is unknown to me. What I see is that Cardinal Re did sign the decree, from which I assume that he obeyed the Holy Father.


Do you have any closing thoughts you would like to share with Catholics interested in this “joyful news for the whole Church”, as Vatican spokesman Fr. Frederico Lombardi dubbed it?

If we look at the way these excommunications were surprisingly lifted; if we especially look at the undeniable link between this fact of the decree remitting the excommunications and the unbelievable turmoil aroused just after and based upon an incident that had nothing to do with the Faith, we cannot but see that there are forces let loose there which are not human.

I have heard from several cardinals that they believe it was the Devil that was let loose. And whenever the Devil rages with so much violence and uproar, it is a good sign. We may not yet realize all that it means. But for us, it is an invitation to pray, and sacrifice more.

The Church is a supernatural being essentially, and we cannot fully explain the Church, or even the fruits and consequences of human acts performed in the Church if we look only at the human side.

The head of the Church is, and remains, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost Himself. Our Lord promised that His Church would be indefectible. So let us do our best, be faithful to our duty of state, pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and pray our rosary.

And then, everything will end well.


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


Whatever one's personal opinions about the FSSPX may be, any Catholic should be happy that someone like Mons. Fellay has never expressed himself less clearly, correctly and unfailingly about the nature of the Church, the centrality of Christ and the action of the Holy Spirit. It's more than one can say for many a high-profile bishop in the Church today.

February 19

St. Conrad of Piacenza
Franciscan Hermit, Confessor(1290-1351)


OR today.

Illustration: Page 1 of St. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English Peoples, 8th-cetnury miniature.

At the General Audience yesterday, the Pope spoke about St. Bede the Venerable:
'The cultures that open up to Christ make up the universality of the Church'
Other stories on Page 1: Israel jets chase down rocket launchers in Gaza; and a commentary by British Prime Minister
Gordon Brown urging that solutions to the current economic crisis should also be addressed to uprooting the causes
of poverty.




THE POPE'S DAY

The Holy Father met today with

- Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Great Britain, with his wife, and delegation
- Bishops of Nigeria (Group 5) on ad limina visit
- Community of the Latin American Pontifical College of Rome. Address in Italian.






PROGRAM FOR ASH WEDNESDAY, FEB. 25

The Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations announced the Ash Wednesday program for Benedict XVI.

---

On Wednesday, February 25, start of Lent 2009, Benedict XVI will preside at a prayer assembly
in the form of Roman 'Stations' according to the ff program:

At 16:30, in the Church of Sant'Anselmo on the Aventine - Prayers, followed by a penitential
processions towards the Basilica of Santa Sabina.

Taking part in the procession will be cardinals, archbishops, bishops, the Benedictine monks
of Sant'Anselmo, the Dominican priests of Santa Sabina, adn lay faithful.

At the end of the procession Santa Sabina, the Holy Father will celebrate the Eucharist with
Blessing and Imposition of the Ashes.

---

POPE ASKS LAT-AM SEMINARIANS
IN ROME TO SUPPORT
'CONTINENTAL MISSION'
FORMULATED IN APARECIDA






VATICAN CITY, 19 FEB 2009 (VIS) - Benedict XVI today received 150 members of the community of the Pius Pontifical Latin American College in Rome.

The institution, "alma mater" to more than four thousand students, was founded in 1858, originally as a centre for seminarians and, over the last three decades, for deacons and priests.

The Pope described the members of the community as heirs "to a rich human and spiritual heritage, which must be perpetuated and enriched by a serious dedication to the various ecclesiastical disciplines and a joyful experience of the universality of the Church".

Saying the seminarians are the fruit "of the sowing of Christ's message of redemption over history", the Holy Father recalled how they come from various countries "in which for more than 500 years courageous missionaries made Jesus, our Saviour, known to people".

"Thus, through Baptism," he said, "those people opened themselves to the life of grace which made them adopted children of God. Furthermore, they received the Holy Spirit which made their cultures fruitful, purifying them, developing the seeds that the incarnate Word had placed in them, and guiding them along the paths of the Gospel".

"Your bishops", he told his audience, "have sent you to the Pontifical Latin American College that you may be filled with the wisdom of the crucified Christ and that, returning to your dioceses, you may place this treasure at the disposal of others through the various tasks you will be given.

"This means that you must put your time in Rome to good use. Application to study and rigorous research ... will create in you a spiritual life rooted in the Word of God and nourished by the incomparable richness of the Sacraments.

"Love for and adherence to the Apostolic See is one of the most outstanding characteristics of the people of Latin America and the Caribbean", the Pope added.

Recalling his 2007 visit to the Brazilian city of Aparecida for the Fifth General Conference of the Episcopate of Latin America and the Caribbean, the Pope said:

"Through my presence there", he said, "I sought to encourage bishops as they reflected on a fundamental aspect of the revival of the faith of the pilgrim Church in those beloved lands: that of leading all the faithful to become 'disciples and missionaries in Jesus Christ, that in Him our peoples may have life'".

In closing, the Holy Father invited the members of the Pontifical College "to enthusiastically embrace this spirit, already manifest in the dynamism with which dioceses have begun, or are beginning, the 'Continental Mission' proclaimed at Aparecida, an initiative that will facilitate the implementation of catechetical and pastoral programmes aimed at the formation and development of evangelised and missionary-oriented Christian communities".

Oh sorry, here it is.

www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3876

Feb 18 09 - 03:19 PM www.littlechicagoreview.com/pages/full_story?page_label=home&widget=full_story&content_instance_id=1968857&op...

By Paul V.M. Flesher

True dialogue between leaders of different religions is difficult to accomplish. Heart to heart discussions, where each side listens to and engages with the other, are rare. Interaction between religions usually appears like a court trial where each side presents such different views of a situation that they seem not to address the same incident.

A good example of this is the Jewish response to Pope Benedict XVI’s recent attempt to heal the schism within the Catholic Church created by the St. Pius X Society last century. The Pope revoked the excommunication of the four bishops who lead this society. Unfortunately, one bishop has vocally denied the Holocaust, so Jews are understandably upset.

Jewish leaders interpreted this as a slap in the face to Jewish-Christian relations, and Israeli leaders may cancel the Pope’s coming visit to Israel. It seems the Pope was so intent on healing the schism that he failed to foresee his action’s broader impact. Nevertheless, these unintended consequences may give this Pope a reputation as insensitive to Judaism.

This would be unfortunate because Pope Benedict has interacted with Judaism in a way no pope has done before, to my knowledge. He has publically, and in print, stated that he has learned from a Jewish rabbi about Jesus. He, in fact, uses that rabbi’s understanding of Jesus to construct his own portrait of Jesus. This portrait appears in the Pope’s 2007 book, “Jesus of Nazareth,” that he calls his “personal search for the face of the Lord.” The rabbi is the prolific scholar Jacob Neusner. The book is his thoughtful and imaginative work, “A Rabbi Talks with Jesus” (1993, 2000).

Benedict builds on Neusner’s important point that the Jews — the people Israel — became a unified community when God appeared on Mount Sinai and formed a covenant with them. He became their God and they became his people, a bond guided by the Torah (which the Greek-speaking Christians later mistranslated as “law”). This Torah forms the foundation of Judaism and maintains the relationship between God and the people Israel.

As the Pope draws from Neusner’s book, he follows Neusner in seeing that Judaism’s Torah helps Jesus present his message. In Matthew’s sermon on the Mount, for instance, Neusner understands the beatitudes as restating the message of the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) about concern and caring for the poor and downtrodden. Indeed, much of the sermon makes sense within and even extends the divine principles given in the Torah.

But it is Neusner’s insistence that the Jews’ allegiance to God’s Torah prevents them from accepting Jesus’ message for themselves that the Pope finds most illuminating. In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus’ first significant public speech is the sermon on the Mount. The location is important because just as God gave the Torah on Mount Sinai, Jesus presents himself on the mountain. Through his words, Jesus presents himself as the new Torah, as God’s replacement message.

The sermon’s contents are key. Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said . . . You shall not kill . . . But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable.” Notice how this works. In the saying’s first half, Jesus states the Torah. In the second half, beginning with “I say to you,” he replaces the Torah with his own dictum. He accomplishes this not by logic, precedent or argument, but through his own authority. Jesus makes this kind of statement many times in the sermon. Each time he begins with Torah and then replaces it through his own authority.

Pope Benedict applauds Neusner for this precise insight. Jews cannot become Christians because their relationship to God depends on the Torah. To follow Jesus is to believe Jesus’ claim that he himself replaces the Torah. For Jews, to deny the Torah is to deny God.

In the beginning of his book, Rabbi Neusner invited Jews and Christians to join him in his attempt at cross-religion conversation, noting “we can enter into dialogue only if we honor both ourselves and the other.” It is an important insight into Pope Benedict’s key beliefs that he publically joined Neusner in dialogue, giving honor to Neusner’s Jewish insights while never forsaking his own.

(Editor’s note: The writer of this column is Rabbi Dr. Neusner’s last doctoral student. His lessons in religious knowledge, analysis and understanding are being taught to the students at the University of Wyoming).

Paul V.M. Flesher is director of UW’s Religious Studies Program. Past columns and more information about the program can be found on the Web at www.uwyo.edu/relstds. To comment on this column, visit religion-today.blogspot.com.

“Religion Today” is contributed by the University of Wyoming’s Religious Studies Program to examine and to promote discussion of religious issues.


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

Thanks again, Davidd, for sharing another excellent article that doesn't join in the mindless chrous of reflex, politically correct commentary on the Pope.

Mr. Flasher certainly does not ignore Joseph Ratzinger's extraordinary credentials in promoting Christian understanding of Judaism - a fact well-known to even such high-profile Jewish critics like David Rosen and Abraham Foxman, but who choose to ignore it in their new zeal to cast him in unfavorable light with respect to the Jews.

The article comes as an appropriare rejoinder to the JTA article that I posted (and fisked rather thoroughly) in the previous page, and is particularly useful to remind readers of how the Pope treated Judaism in JESUS OF NAZARETH.

But probably among Jewish intellectuals, only Rabbi Neusner and the students he influences are capable at the moment of being fair to Benedict XVI. How unfortunate!

Also, Mr. Flasher should have updated his article (it was published 2/18) where he said "Israeli leaders may cancel the Pope’s coming visit to Israel".

Again, thanks for sharing this article.

TERESA

POPE REJOICES OVER
RELEASE OF 2 ITALIAN NUNS
ABDUCTED IN KENYA




VATICAN CITY, Feb, 19 (Translated from AGI) - Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican Press Office, said Pope Benedict XVI welcomed thew news with great joy that two Italian nns abducted in Kenya late last year have been released,

"It has been months that we have all been praying for them, and there was great concern because nothing had been heard about them all this time," he said.

"Benedict XVI", he recalled,"issued more than one appeal for their release and has asked the faithful to accompany the nuns with their prayers.

Nonetheless, Fr. Lombardi said, in the name of the Pope, "we should not forget all other victims who are still inthe hands of kidnappers, especially in Colombia".

He added that the use of kidnapping in various parts of the world as a an instrument of pressure was "unacceptable".


Kidnapped Italian nuns released



ROME, Feb. 19 - Two Italian nuns kidnapped in Kenya three months ago and then held in neighbouring Somalia have been freed, the Italian prime minister has said.


Sr. Giraudo is the nun on the left, Sr. Giraudo on the right.

Gunmen abducted Maria Teresa Olivero and Caterina Giraudo on 10 November in the northern Kenyan district of Mandera and then took them across the border.

The women, in their 60s, were working on hunger and health programmes.

PM Silvio Berlusconi said the two Roman Catholic nuns were now at the Italian embassy in Kenyan capital, Nairobi.

"Their morale is up," he told reporters, according to the Associated Press news agency.

Italian state TV broadcast a telephone interview with Ms Giraudo, in which she said the affection of Kenyans "provided us with comfort after these days of suffering", AP reported.

Following the nuns' abduction, Pope Benedict XVI expressed concern about their fate.

In the immediate aftermath of the kidnapping there were conflicting reports about how the two had been taken away.

A local aid worker said the women had been seized in the midst of a shoot-out at a church, while the Kenyan Red Cross said the pair had been taken hostage at their home.

It was reported at the time that the two, who had lived in Kenya for years, were snatched at the border town of El Wak, about 400 miles (645km) north-east of Nairobi.

It is not clear who was behind the abductions.

North-eastern Kenya is inhabited by ethnic Somalis, and there are frequent clashes over access to land and water in the area.

In Somalia, armed gangs have kidnapped and killed a number of aid workers, while there have also been repeated attacks on Catholic targets.

Somalia has been without a functioning government since 1991. Islamist rebels are in control of most of the country.

Now, some Jews have crossed the line. I used the term reverse bigotry in the past two weeks to describe the attitude of some Jewish leaders to Catholicism. The kind of concrete anti-Catholicism displayed in the following story is far more offensive than Bishop Williamson's crackpot views about the Holocaust.

Thanks to Lella's blog for the alert and account:



Holy Land bishops protest
'repugnant offenses against the faith'
on Israeli TV
Translated from


"Horrible offenses and repugnant attacks" is how the assembly of Catholic bishops of the Holy Land condemned the contents of an nighttime program on Israeli TV's channel 10 in which "the figures of Jesus and the Virgin Mary were attacked".

Twelve bishops signed the February 18 note, among them the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal; the emeritus Patriarch Michel Sabbah; the Custodian of the Holy Land, Franciscan Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa; and Mons. Elias Chacour, Greek-Melkite Archbishop of Akka.

The note speaks of "offenses launched against our faith and consequently against Christians. The program has directed its attacks against the most holy figures of our belief in the attempt - explicitly declared by its director - to destroy Christianity". [Echoes of Adolf Hitler and Iran's Ahmadinejad, mutatis mutandis.]

"In doing this, Channel 10 has been used to profane our faith and offend tens of thousands of Israeli Christians and millions of Christians around the world."

The bishops said the program "is a symptom of the great problems that perturb society, such as intolerance and the refusal to accept and respect others".

It is also part, they said, "of the wider context of anti-Christian attacks throughout Israel in the course of years", such as the public burning of the New Testament in the courtyard of the Or Yehuda Synagogue. {Even echoes of Nazi book-burning in Germany!]

For years, the bishops point out, "Christianity has done a lot to stop any manifestations of anti-Semitism, and now, it is the Christians of Israel who finds themselves victims of low-life anti-Christian displays:.

The bishops called on Israeli authorities to "take the necessary action to put a stop to such horrible profanation of our faith."

"It is inconceivable," they continue, that these incidents should take place in Israel which has some of the sanctuaries most dear to Christianity and which benefits a great deal on visits by pilgrims from Christian nations".

"We call on the Israel people and their authorities to take appropriate measures against such unacceptable offenses and those responsible for it/

"At the same time, we call on Channel 10 to acknowledge its own responsibility, and to make an official and public apology for this incident and to avoid its repetition."

The bishops also thanked "the support shown by some Muslim and Jewish representatives who are also upset and taken aback" by the offensive program.

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

Earlier in the week, Lella also carried a story about a common practice in parts of Jerusalem City where radical Jews regularly spit at non-Jewish people on the streets, usually Christians.

Let us pray that Israeli authorities will keep such extreme elements well under control and out of sight during the Pope's visit.

Also, remeber last year when some visiting bishops from Europe were prevented by Jewish guards from even approaching teh Wailing Wall, saying they required a special permit to do so! [Though the Wall dominates a wide open space that is normally open to any passerby!]

Fr. Finigan on his blog

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/
links to the current issue of a magazine that contains at least two articles about Pope Benedict XVI, on topics that are not about the Jews, Israel or the FSSPX.



Beyond historical criticism:
Pope Benedict XVI and
the reform of Biblical exegesis
by Marcus Holden

www.faith.org.uk/index.htm
January-February 2009


Fr Holden, assistant priest in St Augustine's, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, and co-author of the popular Evangelium catechetical resource brings out the traditional context in which Pope Benedict is trying to place modern scriptural exegesis, and the great enrichening for all this could involve.


The Historical-Critical method of biblical exegesis has dominated scripture study for more than a hundred years. Despite the uneasiness of many theologians, and especially the faithful, about the way this method has been conducted, few have dared to challenge its presuppositions, implications and exclusivity.

One figure who has consistently called for a re-evaluation, purification and augmentation of the prevalent method of biblical exegesis is Joseph Ratzinger. Now as Pope Benedict XVI his contribution in this crucial area of theology will be all the more influential.

In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph Ratzinger calls us to move beyond mere historical-criticism to a more profoundly theological reading of Scripture.[1]

He acknowledges that a truly historical approach is necessary, but while it only deals with the isolated past as past it "does not exhaust the interpretive task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of Holy Scripture inspired by God".[2]

In expressing this point Ratzinger subtly shifts the debate away from an assessment of what the historical-critical method has achieved or not to a new openness for something which goes much further than historical-criticism itself.

Critical historical exegesis during the past hundred years has undoubtedly aided unprecedented advancements in our biblical knowledge: in the better understanding of literary genres, source history and textual composition; in etymology and archaeology; in the penetration of ancient languages and cultural settings.

Nevertheless, at no other time has there been such a crisis in relating our faith to the findings of modern research. This problem is felt most acutely in relation to the person of Jesus Christ himself.

Many scholars have separated the 'Jesus of history' from the 'Christ of faith' and in doing so have severed theology and doctrine from reason and reality. The potential fall-out from this trend is worrying: "Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air".[3]

Against the background of scepticism it is not surprising that the perennial Christian method of discovering theological truth and spiritual meaning in the Scriptures was virtually eclipsed in the second half of the 20th century.

Ratzinger comments that the great synthesis found in the traditional Christian interpretation, "would become problematic when historical consciousness developed rules of interpretation that made Patristic exegesis appear non-historical and so objectively indefensible".[4]

Reflecting upon this peculiar impasse, Joseph Ratzinger has noted that the crisis in biblical understanding feeds off and fuels a broader predicament in theological hermeneutics.

Almost twenty years ago Joseph Ratzinger observed:

---

Modern exegesis, as we have seen, completely relegated God to the incomprehensible, the otherworldly, and the inexpressible in order to be able to treat the biblical text itself as an entirely worldly reality according to natural-scientific methods.[5]

---

the secularisation of exegesis stems from a more general anti-supernatural rationalism that has been present and growing since the "Enlightenment". If one denies the reality of God and his active guidance of creation, then it follows that one will deny the concept of an inspired Scripture that gives us objective divine revelation and the key to understanding history.

A theological and supernatural view of exegesis is then automatically dismissed, thought unworthy of serious scholarship, or easily reduced to a footnote in the history of ideas.

The issue at stake, which Ratzinger has picked up on, is not one of defending or attacking biblical historicity but rather a more fundamental one. What the rationalist, with his particular philosophy, could not accept was the claim inherent in traditional Christian exegesis that there is a privileged knowledge about the meaning of history that comes from the transcendent God himself.

The properly theological and revelatory sense of Scripture, which was always an essential part of traditional exegesis, could never be considered as "religion within the confines of pure reason" and was therefore unacceptable.

When historical criticism, whose "specific object is the human word as human",[6] is used by a rationalist scholar as the exclusive approach to Scripture, then faith is necessarily banished out of exegesis. Furthermore, when dogmatic belief in a unified corpus of Scripture is excluded any connection between the Old and New Testaments is rendered utterly tenuous.

As Ratzinger has noted:

---

The triumph of historical-critical exegesis seemed to sound the death knell for the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament initiated by the New Testament itself. It is not a question here of historical details, as we have seen, it is the very foundations of Christianity that are being questioned.[7]

---

Even the greatest aids in discovering the surface meaning of an isolated text of Scripture are of little use if the meaning and implications of that literal passage can be neither contextualised within the whole biblical corpus nor allowed to be mined for revealed theological truth.

Historical-criticism always deals with Scripture as a series of fragmented works from different periods and by definition remains at the basic level of human hypothesis. If this becomes the exclusive endeavour of the biblical scholar then theology has been excluded categorically and has been replaced by an essentially secular philosophy and world view.

The Ratzinger Solution

Joseph Ratzinger has indicated two clear ways by which we can help foster a solution to the exegetical crisis.

1. Refocusing Through Faith and Reason
The first is to purify the historical-critical method itself. The purification of the historical-critical method can take place by off-loading the philosophical baggage that has weighed it down in suspicion of faith.

There is no reason why we cannot conduct perfectly rigorous and impartial historical research on the history of ancient peoples and texts while believing at the same time in God, providence and divine inspiration.

In Jesus of Nazareth, Ratzinger cuts through so much of the paper thin scepticism of the critics both with cogent arguments and above all with that devastatingly simple alternative open to every enquirer, "I trust the gospels".[8]

By this masterful stroke the philosophically loaded hermeneutic of suspicion is replaced by a hermeneutic of faith.

Joseph Ratzinger has often called theologians and exegetes to be wary of implicit philosophical presuppositions that carry an innate bias against faith and the supernatural dimension of revelation.

He has stated very clearly that, "at its core, the debate about modern exegesis is not a dispute among historians: it is rather a philosophical debate".[9]

In practice he calls us to reverse the hermeneutic of suspicion from Holy Scripture back upon the exegetes themselves. In his work Behold the Pierced One he states the thesis:

---

"The historical-critical method and other modern scientific methods are important for an understanding of Holy Scripture and Tradition. Their value, however, depends on the hermeneutical (philosophical) context in which they are applied."

---

Reservations regarding minimalist pre-suppositions need not be seen as an attack on the historical-critical method itself. What is being called for here is that the critics practice a little more self-criticism and self-limitation with a greater hermeneutical honesty and philosophical awareness.[10]

A purified historical critical method can, according to Ratzinger, be open to and work with a truly theological understanding of Scripture. This openness is akin to the receptivity of reason before faith.

From the merely human standpoint, "the individual writings (Schrifte) of the Bible point somehow to the living process that shapes the one Scripture (Schrift)".u ;.[11]We begin to see, even without theological faith, the marvellous inter-connectedness of these documents and the events described therein.[12]

When faith begins to see that inter-connectedness as coming from Christ and as supernaturally founded then we enter into the realm of theology proper. "But this act of faith is based upon reason -historical reason - and so makes it possible to see the internal unity of Scripture".[13]

Throughout the work, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict gives us a practical exegetical example of a purified historical approach to Scripture. He reads the sacred text with faith and reverence, with a motive of seeking the true "face of Christ", in the context of the Church's divinely guaranteed doctrine, while at the same time employing to the full modern historical tools for understanding the original context, languages and construction of the biblical text.

Just as the scribe of the Kingdom, as put before us by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Ratzinger brings out of his treasures, "things both new and old" (Mt 13:52).

In a recent audience Pope Benedict said:

---

"We must never forget that the Word of God transcends time. Human opinions come and go. What is very modern today will be very antiquated tomorrow. On the other hand, the Word of God is the Word of eternal life, it bears within it eternity and is valid for ever. By carrying the Word of God within us, we therefore carry within us eternity, eternal life".[14]

---

2. A Return to the Spiritual Sense of Scripture
Against a background of new theological openness Joseph Ratzinger offers a second way towards solving our exegetical crisis, namely, to revive a truly theological exegesis as exhibited by the Fathers of the Church.

In his important preface to the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1993 document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, he praises "new attempts to recover patristic exegesis and to include renewed forms of a spiritual interpretation of Scripture".[15]

One need only survey his many theological writings to see just how steeped he is in Patristic theology. He himself has described very explicitly his love of the Fathers of the Church and the theological influence they have had upon him. For a renewal of exegesis he speaks of the need "to introduce into the discussion the great proposals of patristic and medieval thought".[16]

In his work Jesus of Nazareth and in his unprecedented audience addresses on the Fathers of the Church he has been putting this ideal into practice.

Almost all the Fathers of the Church, to a greater or lesser extent, employed in their writings a particular method of scriptural exegesis which they believed to have been established by the Lord Jesus himself and passed down through the Apostles.[17]

This method uncovers a "mystical meaning" of the Scriptures founded on God's perfect plan for the history and salvation of the world. This "mystical meaning" came to be called the spiritual sense of Scripture. It was practiced in homilies, commentaries, theological tomes and in the teaching of catechumens.

This exegetical method was bequeathed to later centuries as the common inheritance of East and West and was at the heart of theology throughout the medieval period.

The spiritual sense pertains to the Christological significance of the persons, objects, events, images and symbols referred to by the human authors of the bible. These significations are not extrinsically or retrospectively applied but rather God himself has established them in his far reaching providence.

Words signify things, but when God inspires, the things signified by the words, also signify other important eternal and invisible things.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes, "In the other sciences handed down by men, in which only words can be employed to signify, the words alone signify. But it is peculiar to Scripture that words and the very things signified by them signify something".[18]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was compiled under Ratzinger's supervision, states, "Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture, but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs".[19] This depth of meaning manifests the uniqueness of the Bible, no other book could have this kind of second order signification.

During a general audience in April 2007, Pope Benedict, when speaking of the theological contribution of the third century writer Origen, once again emphasised that while the literal sense is indispensable it opens itself to something more. He wrote:

---

"The purification of the historical-critical method can take place by off-loading its philosophical baggage."

"But this sense transcends us, moving us towards God in the light of the Holy Spirit, and shows us the way, shows us how to live. Mention of it is found, for example, in the ninth Homily on Numbers, where Origen likens Scripture to [fresh] walnuts: "The doctrine of the Law and the Prophets at the school of Christ is like this", the homilist says; "the letter is bitter, like the [green-covered] skin; secondly, you will come to the shell, which is the moral doctrine; thirdly, you will discover the meaning of the mysteries, with which the souls of the saints are nourished in the present life and the future" (Horn. Num. 9, 7)".[20]

---

In inspiring the letter of Scripture, God was also revealing in types and figures the full meaning of history and salvation in Jesus Christ. The signifying things that God has chosen are attuned to reinforce truths and refute falsehoods.[21]

Furthermore, they are objects for contemplation by which God elucidates the many facets of the mysteries of faith. The significations of the spiritual sense regard matters pertaining to revealed faith, morality and glorification (and therefore fall into three distinct categories: allegory; tropology; anagogy).[22]

When the literal sense is put alongside the three spiritual senses we speak of the Quadriga. Perhaps the best-known summary of this comes from Augustine of Denmark as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny".[23]

A good and classic example of the different senses relating to the scriptural reference "Jerusalem" in Psalm 137 is taken from St. John Cassian:

These four previously mentioned figures coalesce, if we desire, in one subject, so that the one and the same Jerusalem can be taken in four senses: historically as the city of the Jews; allegorically as the Church of Christ; anagogically as the heavenly city of God, which is the mother of us all; tropologically, as the soul of man, which is frequently subject to praise or blame from the Lord under this title.[24]

God himself, the Lord of history, can alone guarantee this unique form of signification. Through his special providence and inspiration God ensures that the two great Testaments have a particular relationship to Christ's coming and saving action.

In fact, God has ensured that the Scriptures are radically focused as one on Christ. In Jesus of Nazareth we read that "all the currents of Scripture come together in him, that he is the focal point in terms of which the overall coherence of Scripture comes to light - everything is waiting for him, everything is moving towards him".[25]

If these foundational principles are rejected a priori, as has happened in post-Enlightenment exegesis, then clearly the spiritual understanding remains closed.

Discovery of the spiritual sense of Scripture is theological exegesis par excellence. It opens up to us vast tomes of neglected Patristic and Medieval writings and gives a new appreciation of why we posses such a lavish gift as an inspired Scripture. The method comes from the New Testament itself and is not an invention of later theology.

Ratzinger writes, "The Fathers of the Church created nothing new when they gave a Christological interpretation to the Old Testament; they only systematised what they themselves had already discovered in the New Testament".[26]

While the New Testament itself, particularly through St. Paul, gave the formal unity and common foundation of the spiritual sense, it is to the great elaborators and practitioners of the method to which a biblical theologian must turn for more specific guidance.

Origen, St. Augustine, St. Gregory the Great, St. Bede, amongst many others, must therefore play the primary roles in any investigation but always viewed within the context of the entire Catholic theological Tradition.[27]

This return to the sources is an integral part of Joseph Ratzinger's vision of a wide-ranging hermeneutic of continuity.

Conclusion

If Pope Benedict XVI is right then the way forward for modern exegesis is in upholding history and authentic historical investigation while at the same time perceiving the theological import of that same history revealed through the providence of God.

In other words, Catholic exegetes and theologians need to pursue both the precise literal sense of Scripture as well as the three spiritual senses. The Holy Father made this point very explicitly in his discourse to the Swiss Bishops in 2006:

Gordon Brown invites Pope -
possibly for Cardinal Newman rites


Feb. 19, 2009



Gordon Brown has invited Pope Benedict XVI to Britain, in what would be the first visit by a pope for nearly 30 years.

The Prime Minister, speaking to reporters after a private audience with the Pope, said there was no indication of when the visit would take place.

"He was very welcoming of the invitation," Brown said.

It would be the first visit by a pope to the United Kingdom since the late Pope John Paul II visited in 1982.

Brown said he suggested to the Pope that he could consider making the visit coincide with the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman, one of the most prominent English converts from Anglicanism to Catholism.

No date has yet been set for the beatification but it was expected to take place either later this year or next year.

Brown and Pope Benedict also discussed the need to help poor countries during the global economic crisis, the Vatican said.

The Holy See said in a brief statement that Brown and the Pope had a "cordial" private conversation about the financial crisis "and the duty to pursue initiatives benefiting the less developed countries, and to foster cooperation on projects of human promotion, respect for the environment and sustainable development."

The Holy See said that during Brown's talks with the Pope, and later with other top Vatican officials, "hope was expressed for a renewed commitment on the part of the international community in settling ongoing conflicts, particularly in the Middle East."





Gordon Brown uses Vatican meeting
to invite Pope Benedict to Britain
by Richard Owen in Rome

Feb. 19, 2009




Gordon Brown assured Pope Benedict XVI of a "warm welcome" when he invited him to Britain today.

After an audience with the Pope lasting more than 35 minutes - far longer than scheduled - Mr Brown said he had told the Pontiff "that many millions of people would not only welcome his visit but it would be a great moment for our whole country".

He said he was touched by the Pope's "warmth" in also receiving his wife Sarah and their two children at the Vatican.

In an unprecedented gesture, L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, this morning carried a front page article on the financial crisis by Mr Brown.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, who also met Mr Brown, confirmed that he was the first serving Prime Minister to be given this honour.

Mr Brown was received in private audience by Pope Benedict, who impressed upon him that the flow of aid to the developing world must be kept up.

Mr Brown said he had agreed with the Pope that when it came to the world's poor "we cannot pass by on the other side" - a reference to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

He gave the Pope a framed copy of a letter from an Ethiopian woman, thanking him for purchasing the first Vaccine Bond issued by the International Finance Facility (IFF), which Mr Brown helped to set up.



"This is tangible proof of the common commitment of the Holy See and the United Kingdom in favour of international development," Mr Brown said. "Thanks to this bond more than $1.6bn (£1.1bn) has been subscribed, and 500 million children will have been vaccinated between 2006 and 2011".

Mr Brown, a "son of the manse", gave the Pope a collection of sermons by his father, a minister in the Church of Scotland, on a previous visit to Rome. This time he gave him a cross from Iona.



It is thought the two discussed the forthcoming appointment of a new Archbishop of Westminster to replace Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, who has already exceeded the mandatory retirement age of 75.

Caritas International, the Vatican-backed Catholic aid charity, said it hoped Gordon Brown's talks with the Pope would " inspire him and other G8 leaders to become newly dedicated to solidarity for the poor amidst the global economic crisis."

The secretary general of Caritas International, Lesley-Anne Knight, said: "Caritas hopes that the inspiration of Pope Benedict XVI will act as a reminder to the leaders of the world about the fact that the poor do not have to be excluded from the plans to rescue the world economy. Leaders should resist national pressure and show genuine leadership in order to convince voters that to help the poor is not only a positive choice but a moral responsibility."

Ms Knight said: "2009 will determine what kind of world we live in when the economic crisis has passed. The leaders of the world do not have to use the financial problems as an excuse to cut off aid, but rather as an opportunity to reform globalisation in a greater effort for development and justice. When 70 per cent of your financing for health care services comes from foreign donations, as is the case with many African countries, cutting off aid could cost lives".

Mr Brown later met Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, who said although world leaders agreed on key principles they were still "very far" from a solution to the global economic crisis. "Everybody says that they must act in a coordinated way and change the rules of international finance and not fall into the trap of protectionism," Mr Berlusconi said. "But then, when it comes to deciding what to do really, we're far from finding out what to do really, and very far from a satisfactory solution."


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


The Guardian today had an article on Gordon Brown's historic frotn-page article on today's issue (2/19/09) of L'Osservatore Romano, published the day of his visit to the Pope:





Brown trumps Catholic Blair
by writing for the Pope's daily:
World's poor nations need
fiscal stimulus too, he says
by John Hooper in Vatican City

Thursday 19 February 2009


It is an iron rule of British politics. Everything Tony did, Gordon has to do better.

Blair went to the Vatican, met the Pope and converted to Catholicism. Brown too has been to the Vatican. He too has met the Pope. But, no, the nation's best known Presbyterian is not - so far as is known - about to embrace popery.

But he has gone one better all the same and had an article published in the Pope's daily. Today's edition of L'Osservatore Romano, which is to the Vatican more or less what Pravda was to the Kremlin, carries a two-column commentary with the byline, "di Gordon Brown".

A footnote explains to the less worldly (or just disbelieving) that the author of the article is indeed the "British prime minister". Today, Brown is due to meet the Pope at the Vatican before lunching with Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi.

While his contribution to L'Osservatore admittedly took second place on the front page, the prime minister's debut in Vatican journalism appears to have broken new ground.

L'Osservatore's editor, Giovanni Maria Vian, said last night he knew of no other instance of a foreign government leader contributing to the paper.

"With 148 years of history, it's difficult to be 100% sure," he said. "But it's probable. It's certainly not normal."

The fact that a son of the manse should have been allowed to write where no statesman has written before says much about the unexpectedly close links between Brown and the Holy See.

What has brought them together is a common concern for the developing world and what sources close to the Prime Minister say is his keen appreciation of the Vatican's global influence.

Five years ago [as Blair's Finance Minister], he went to Rome to enlist papal support for his International Finance Facility - a scheme for funding the UN's millennium development goals by selling government backed bonds on international markets.

He was back in 2007 to support the Vatican's project underwriting the development of drugs needed in the world's poorer nations.

Their plight in the global economic crisis is the subject of his article today. Brown quotes a World Bank estimate that 2.8 million children under five could die between now and 2015 if the crisis is not checked. "It is as if the entire population of Rome were to die in the next five years," he writes.

The Prime Minister notes that poor countries also need stimulus packages and adds that he will put before the Group of 20 meeting in London in April a plan for the injection of "billions of dollars into the economies of developing nations".

Hope for a conclusion
to Vatican-Israel talks
before Pope arrives in May
by Arieh Cohen



Jerusalem, Feb. 19 (AsiaNews) – The Bilateral Permanent Working Commission between the Holy See and the State of Israel met on Wednesday 18 February, at the seat of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

They have been negotiating a treaty that would confirm the fiscal status of the Church in Israel, and safeguard her properties, especially the sacred places, as well as bring about restitution of some that have been lost over time. These negotiations began on 11 March 1999.

The convoy of motor vehicles with the negotiators for the Holy See, was seen arriving at the Foreign Ministry a little before 10 a.m., and leaving aaround 1 p.m.

The negotiators did not speak to newsmen but issued a joint communique with the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

The communiqué speaks for the first time of "progress" achieved, beyond repeating the usual references to an atmosphere of "great cordiality" and to the shared determination to conclude the agreement "as soon as possible". It also said the next meeting of the bilateral working group will be on April 7.

Observers see it as a sign of hope for further progress before the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI in May on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

And later, here is what the British press did to the bit about the invitation to Britain.


Pope Benedict XVI 'snubs' Gordon Brown's invitation to visit Britain

Gordon Brown suffered an apparent public embarrassment after inviting Pope Benedict XVI to visit Britain only to be rebuffed hours later.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Telegraph.co.uk
Last Updated: 4:05PM GMT 19 Feb 2009

The Prime Minister visited the Vatican on Thursday and invited the Pope to make the first papal visit to the UK for nearly 30 years.

After what the Vatican called a "cordial" meeting, Mr Brown told reporters in the Vatican City that he had made the offer of a visit and it had been well-received.

"He was very welcoming of the invitation," Mr Brown said.

However, hours later, a Vatican spokesman was reported as ruling out any visit by the Pontiff to Britain.

"For the moment, no travel by Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom is scheduled or under consideration," Federico Lombardi, a spokesman, was quoted as saying.

The last Pope to visit Britain was Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, who became the first pontiff ever to visit Canterbury Cathedral where he met Robert Runcie, the then Archbishop of Canterbury. He was also welcomed by the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

Mr Brown and Pope Benedict also discussed the need to help poor countries during the global economic crisis, the Vatican said.

The Holy See said in a brief statement that Brown and the Pope had a "cordial" private conversation about the financial crisis "and the duty to pursue initiatives benefiting the less developed countries, and to foster cooperation on projects of human promotion, respect for the environment and sustainable development."

The Holy See said that during Mr Brown's talks with the Pope, and later with other top Vatican officials, "hope was expressed for a renewed commitment on the part of the international community in settling ongoing conflicts, particularly in the Middle East."

On this monthly anniversary day of the Holy Father, an anecdote recounted by Father Z on his blog today is very comforting:

---

I remember years ago in the corridor of the Palazzo Sant’Uffizio, I asked Cardinal Ratzinger how he took the constant unfair criticism. I had read that day a terrible article about him in an Italian daily.

He said, "If I don’t read an article like that every week or so, I have to examine my conscience."

---

God bless!

Whatever Nancy Pelosi thought she would accomplish by the wide pre-publicity she gave to her trip to Italy that would include a meeting with the Pope, she grossly miscalculated, and the backfire is quite shattering. She would have done better not to announce anything beforehand.

It seems the Vatican did not even allow photographs to be taken. I can't access the Vatican and Foto Felici catalogs for some reason, but Catholic Press Photo certainly doesn't have any. And I saw an experienced New York desk editor on TV last night saying she searched the Vatican and Felici files herself but couldn't find anything.

Photo or not, of course, the meeting has been reported everywhere, and the Vatican statement on it can only be embarrassing for Ms. Pelosi - whom no one expects to change her mind, or her culture.

She is the perfect embodiment of the San Francisco culture of self-indulgence, hedonism and entitlement which has become a constant desecration of the ascetic saint for whom the city is named.


The Pope and Pelosi:
Were they at the same meeting?


Feb. 18, 2009



From the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

---

It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, today. In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren.

---

From the Press Office of the Holy See:

---

Following the General Audience, the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception until natural death, which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists, and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development.

---

Were Benedict XVI and Nancy Pelosi in the same meeting, or even in the same city, this morning?

Charity requires that one concede the possibility that genuine piety was a part of Pelosi’s (rather boorish, and certainly irregular) insistence on being given a private moment with the pope during her current taxpayer-funded junket to Rome.

But her office’s statement on today’s meeting makes it clear something else was afoot: that Pelosi, who shamelessly trumpets her “ardent” Catholicism while leading congressional Democrats in a continuing assault on what the Catholic Church regards as the inalienable human rights of the unborn, was trying to recruit Benedict XVI (“Joseph Ratzinger, D., Bavaria”) to Team Nancy.

His Holiness wasn’t buying it.

He told Pelosi, politely but unmistakably, that her relentlessly pro-abortion politics put her in serious difficulties as a Catholic, which was his obligation as a pastor.

He also underscored — for Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Rose DeLauro, Kathleen Sebelius, and everyone else — that the Church’s opposition to the taking of innocent human life, at any stage of the human journey, is not some weird Catholic hocus-pocus; it’s a first principle of justice than can be known by reason.

It is a “requirement of the natural moral law” — that is, the moral truths we can know by thinking about what is right and what is wrong — to defend the inviolability of innocent human life.

You don’t have to believe in papal primacy to know that; you don’t have do believe in seven sacraments, or the episcopal structure of the Church, or the divinity of Christ, to know that. You don’t even have to believe in God to know that.

You only have to be a morally serious human being, willing to work through a moral argument — which, of course, means being the kind of person who understands that moral truth cannot be reduced to questions of feminist political correctness or partisan political advantage.

As her performance on Meet the Press prior to last year’s Democratic national convention made painfully clear, Pelosi is deeply confused about what her church teaches on the morality of abortion, and why.

She may have come to her bizarre views on her own; it’s far more likely that she has been un-catechized, so to speak, by Catholic intellectuals and clerics who find Catholic teaching on life issues an embarrassment among their high-minded friends and colleagues of the progressive persuasion.

Whatever the source of her confusion, Pelosi has now been informed, and by a world-class intellectual who happens to be the universal pastor of the Catholic Church, that she is, in fact, confused, and that both her spiritual life and her public service are in jeopardy because of that.

Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Pope Benedict did not have only Pelosi in mind when he said what he had to say about the obligations of moral reason and the duties of statesmanship.

President Obama is not a Catholic, but he should understand that he will get the same message if, as expected, he meets with His Holiness later this year.

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

Pelosi's seeming confusion is, of course, only academic confusion. Her office simply failed to give her the right briefing papers on "Catholic Church. Positions on Life. From Early Christianity to Benedict XVI" before she got on Meet the Press.

But she has never been confused about her conviction that abortion is a natural right and that children represent a drain on state funds, so birth control is a perfectly obvious strategy for 'economic stimulus'.

So unfortunately, unless the Republicans pull off a miracle in the 2010 congressional elections, Madame Speaker remains the most influential partisan warrior in the United States government, with a record of ruthless determination. Remember she ended up writing Obama's stimulus bill for him - she has the ability to hijack even her own President's agenda to suit it to her purposes.

Following up on the article above.


Archbishop Chaput responds to Pelosi-Pope meeting

Denver, Colo., Feb 19, 2009 / 07:31 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver is in complete agreement with the message that Pope Benedict XVI delivered to Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday. The archbishop also went so far as to say that since she disagrees with the Church on the "black and white issue" of abortion, she should not present herself for Communion.

The comments by Archbishop Chaput were made following Nancy Pelosi’s meeting with Pope Benedict, at which the Pope reminded the Speaker of the House that all legislators, but especially Catholics, are bound to protect human life from conception to natural death.

FOX News’ Neil Cavuto invited Archbishop Chaput to give his reaction to the Pope-Pelosi meeting on Wednesday afternoon.

Cavuto began by pointing out the disparity between Pelosi’s statement about the meeting and the Pope’s.

"I got very different reads from both the Pope’s message of that meeting and the speaker’s, but the gist of the Pope’s is that, she has a duty to respect life, what did you make of that?" said Cavuto.

"Well it’s true," replied the archbishop. "Every Catholic, whether you’re famous or anonymous, whether you’re a public official or a private citizen, has a responsibility to be faithful to what the Church believes about human life, and we believe that human life is sacred and precious from the moment of conception. So that applies to the Speaker as well as it does to me and to you and to anyone who’s Catholic."

Referring to a previous interview regarding Pelosi’s comment that when life begins is not agreed upon by Catholic teaching, Cavuto asked, "isn’t it a fairly black and white issue?"

Chaput responded, "Well it’s not a fairly black and white issue, it’s a clearly black and white issue.

"The Church without a doubt believes that human life begins at the moment of conception," he said.

Cavuto also asked Archbishop Chaput if he would deny Holy Communion to Pelosi.

To which, the archbishop responded:

"Well, I’d like to talk to her if she’s coming to church in the Archdiocese of Denver and I’d say to her what I’d say to anyone, if you don’t accept what the Church teaches, you shouldn’t present yourself for Communion, because Communion means you’re in agreement with what the Church teaches, and, as I said to you earlier, that applies to all of us..."

Isn’t she boxed in by Catholic beliefs on the one hand and by a society that is pro-choice? Cavuto queried.

"Well I don’t think it’s a box to defend the truth and to stand up for what you know to be right, even if others in the community disagree with you, and being honest about our moral principles is a sign of maturity, is a sign of being a statesman.

"And I think that politicians are required to be both good Americans and good Catholics at the same time and to be convincing when they present the position of the community on basic human rights," the archbishop replied.

Referring to the issue of abortion, Archbishop Chaput said, "This is a human rights issue, from the point of view of the Church, and not a theological or religious perspective. Our religious perspective supports that, but that’s not the source of our belief about the sacredness of human life."


-----------------------


I'm not sure this is the right thread for this article but it follows up on earlier material posted here.


Argentina expels Holocaust- denying bishop

By Hugh Bronstein
Reuters
Published: February 20, 2009

Argentina has given a Roman Catholic bishop 10 days to leave the country or be expelled after he caused an international uproar by denying the extent of the Holocaust, the government said on Thursday.

Bishop Richard Williamson, an ultra-traditionalist who headed a seminary near Buenos Aires until earlier this month, has said he believes there were no gas chambers and that no more than 300,000 Jews died in Germany's Nazi concentration camps, rather than the 6 million figure that is widely accepted.

The Vatican ordered him to retract his comments and the British-born Williamson responded that needed more time to review the evidence.

"The interior minister ... orders Richard Nelson Williamson to leave the country within 10 days or be expelled," Argentina's government said in a statement.

Williamson's views were anti-Semitic and "deeply offended Argentine society," the government said. Argentina is home to one of the world's largest Jewish communities outside of Israel.

At the seminary outside Buenos Aires, in the rural town of La Reja, two clergymen told Reuters that Williamson had already left the sprawling, tree-lined compound.

"It's very sad but there you have it," said a bespectacled, young Frenchman who identified himself as Juan de Dios, or Juan of God.

Neither he nor priest Alvaro Calderon was willing to say if Williamson had left for good.

Pope Benedict angered Jewish leaders and many Catholics last month when he lifted excommunications on Williamson and three other traditionalists to try to heal a 20-year-old schism within the Church that began in 1988 when they were ordained without Vatican permission.

Williamson, who belongs to the ultra-traditional Society of Saint Pius X, was removed earlier this month as head of the seminary in La Reja.

World Jewish organizations and German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the pope for rehabilitating Williamson. The pope, who is German-born, has tried to heal wounds by meeting Jewish leaders and ordering Williamson to recant his views.

Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany and state prosecutors in the southern city of Regensburg are investigating Williamson for incitement.

German neo-Nazi websites and blogs have published pieces supporting Williamson's stand.

Argentine Jewish groups applauded the government's decision. Aldo Donzis, head of the Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations, said denying the Holocaust was "unacceptable."

Rabbi Daniel Goldman, a child of Holocaust survivors who sought government action against Williamson, told the Jewish News Agency that "actions such as these clearly show that our people and our leadership refuse to live alongside a lie."

A leader of Germany's Roman Catholic Church, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, said on Sunday it was "almost ridiculous" that Williamson has said he needs time to review evidence about whether the Holocaust took place.

(Additional reporting by Hilary Burke; Editing by Frances Kerry and Kieran Murray)

February 20

Blessed Francisco and Jacinta Marto
Seers of Fatima



OR today.


Two papal stories on Page 1: The Holy Father's audience with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his
meeting with the Latin American Pius College of Rome. But the main story was that the International
Monetary Fund sees a worse economic forecast in 2009 than earlier thought (although the headline is given
to Obama's mortgage bailout); a French plan to help families and unemployed cope with the economic crisis;
Israel-Hamas ceasefire talks stalled; and a teaser on Christian families starting to return to Mosul as
conditions in Iraq appear to improve.



THE POPE'S DAY

The Holy Father met today with

- Bishops of Nigeria (Group 5) on ad limina visit.

- Participants in the 31st session of the Governing Board of the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD). Address in English.



- Participants in the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America. Address in Spanish.


This evening at 6 p.m., the Holy Father will make his annual visit to the Major Seminary of the Diocese of Rome. Here's the announcement from the Vatican Press Office:

POPE TO GIVE SEMINARIANS
A 'LECTIO DIVINA' ON
PAUL'S LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

---

This evening at 6 p.m, the Holy Father Benedict XVI will visit the Major Seminary of Rome, on the eve of the Feast of Our Lady of Confidence (Madonna della Fiducia).

The Pope will conduct a lectio divina on the Letter of St. Paul to the Galatians. Afterwards, he will dine with the community.

---

To Latin American bishops,
Pope urges careful selection
and formation of seminarians





Pope Benedict XVI today addressed the advisers and members of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America who held their plenary session in Rome this week. Here is a translation of his address, which he delivered in Spanish:

---

Eminent Cardinals,
Dear Brothers in the Episcopate:


1. I cordially greet the advisers and members of teh Pontifical Commission for Latin America, who have been reflecting on "the situation of priestly formation in the seminaries" of that part of the world.

I am grateful for the words addressed to me in your name by the president of the Commission, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, who presented the central lines of the work you have done and the pastoral recommendations that resulted from this meeting.

2. I thank God for the ecclesial fruits of this Pontifical Commission since it was created in 1958, when Pope Pius XII saw the need to create an organism of the Holy See to intensify and coordinate more closely the work done for the Church in Latin America, in the face of its scarcity in priests and missionaries.

My venerated predecessor John Paul II corroborated and potentiated this initiative to highlight the special pastoral concern of the Successor of Peter for the pilgrim Churches in those dear lands.

In this new stage of the Commission, I cannot omit mentioning with sincere gratitude the work done by its Vice President for several years, Bishop Cipriano Calderon Polo, who recently died, and whom the Lord has rewarded for his selfless and faithful service to the Church.

3. Last year, I received many bishops from Latin America and the Caribbean on their ad limina visits. I dialogued with them on the reality in the local Churches entrusted to them, and I was thus able to have closer knowledge of their hopes and the difficulties of their apostolic ministry.

I accompany them all with prayers so that they may continue to exercise with faithfulness and joy their service to the People of God, giving impulse at this time to the 'Continental Mission" that is underway as a fruit of the V General Conference of Latin American and Caribbean Bishops (cf Concluding Document, N. 362).

I have grateful memories of my visit to Aparecida, when we lived an experience of intense ecclesial communion with the sole desire of accepting the Gospel with humility in order to sow it generously.

The theme chosen - "Disciples and missionaries of Christ so that our people may have life in Him" - continues to orient the efforts of the members of the Church in those beloved nations.

When I presented an account of my Apostolic Voyage to Brazil to the members of the Roman Curia, I asked myself, "Did Aparecida do well, seeking life for the world, in giving priority to discipleship in Christ and evangelization? Was it perhaps a mistaken retreat to interiority?"

And I could answer with all certainty: "No. Aparecida decided correctly, precisely because it is through a new encounter with Christ and his Gospel - and only that way - can we raise the strength that enables us to make an adequate response to the challenges of our time" (Address to the Roman Curia, Dec. 21, 2007).

That personal encounter with the Lord continues to be fundamental, nourished by listening to the Word and participation in the Eucharist, as well as by the need to communicate with great enthusiasm our own experience of Christ.

4. We bishops, successors to the Apostles, should lead in keeping ever alive the free and loving call of the Lord such as that which he had for his first disciples (cf Mk 1,16-20).

Like them, we too have been elected to "be with him" (cf Mk 3,14), to welcome his Word and to receive his strength, living thus with him, announcing to all peoples the Good News of the Kingdom of God.

For all of us, the seminary years were a decisive timer of discernment and preparation. There, in profound dialog with Christ, our desire to root ourselves deeply in him was increasingly strengthened.

In those years, we learned to feel with the Church and in the Church as in our home, accompanied by Mary, the Mother of Jesus and our most beloved Mother, always obedient to the will of God.

That is why I am happy that this Plenary Assembly dedicated its attention to the present situation of the seminaries in Latin America.

5. In order to recruit priests that are after Christ's heart, we must place our confidence in the action of the Holy Spirit, more than in human strategies and calculations, and ask the Lord with great faith,
'Lord of the harvest', to send many holy vocations to the priesthood (cf Lk 10,2), always joining to this plea our affection and nearness to those who are in the seminary and looking to Holy Orders.

On the other hand, the need for priests to face the challenges of the world today, should not lead to abandoning a scrupulous discernment of the candidates nor to be inattentive to the necessary and even rigorous requirements in order than their formative process may help to make them exemplary priests.

6. Consequently, the pastoral recommendations of this assembly must be an indispensable reference to illuminate the involvement of the bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean in the sensitive field of priestly formation.

Today more than ever, it is necessary that seminarians, with right intention and beyond any other interest, aspire to priesthood, urged only the will to be authentic disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, and who, in communion with their bishops, make him present with their ministry and the witness of their own lives.

Therefore, it is of supreme importance that great care is given to their human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral formation, as well as to the adequate election of their educators and professors, who must be distinguished by academic preparedness, priestly spirit and faithfulness to the Church, so that they know how to inculcate in young men what teh People of God need and expects of their pastors.

I commend to the maternal protection of the Most Holy Virgin Mary the initiatives of this Plenary Assembly, asking her to accompany all those who are preparing for priestly ministry, so that they may walk in the footsteps of her divine Son, Jesus Christ our Redeemer.

With these sentiments, I impart on you with affection the Apostolic Blessing.

---

Cardinal Cordes criticizes
Cardinal Lehmann for missing
opportunity to educate the public
about excommunication
Translated from

February 19, 2009


'Days of chaos in Rome' was the anti-Church magazine Der Spiegel’s headline description of the scenario that followed after Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four FSSPX bishops.

But in a long article for the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, German Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, president of the Pontifical Commission Cor Unum, sees the episode instead as 'a well-orchestrated poisoning of the well‘ in Germany.

Wrote Cordes: "For those estranged from the Church and for the Godless – and evidently for secularized bishops – excommunication appears to mean something like complete exclusion from a community".

In fact, it only means exclusion from participating in the sacraments of the Church, the cardinal said.

In this connection, he sharply criticized the Archbishop of Mainz, Cardinal Kurt Lehmann.

"In the past few days, the most visible of German bishops, because of his long standing good relations with the media, laid the blame on the Vatican, when he could have used the occasion to iron out misunderstanding of the excommunication process and what its lifting means, to explain the spiritual dimension of the Pope’s gesture, and like him, to see this in the light of the faith and of God’s mercy.“

Instead, he said, Lehmann used his statements "to admonish the Church leadership to show more political sensitivity“.

"That the Pope did something about a spiritually ailing part of the Body of Christ that has caused pain for years is seen only as, at best, the sentimentality of old age,“ he commented

The cardinal is adamant that "the Church should not be reduced, least of all by its own Pastors, to just one body out of many in society“.

Increasingly, he said, opinion-makers are characterized by total subordination to politics and their unquestioning legacy of perverted Illuminism.

Cordes cited the religious philosopher Soren Kierkegaard who said: "It has been quite some time since we hear of God as the Lord and Master, and as Christianity declines, it would seem we would like nothing better than to abolish it or else support it merely as we please, ad libitum, as thought it were our own property and invention“.

"Those in Rome who watched the reaction in Germany could only rub their eyes in disbelief," he noted.

At the same time, he charged that statements from bishops supporting the Pope were suppressed by the media.

Subsequently, he said, the public rebuke of the Successor of Peter by the German Chancellor gave the German 'media tribunal' a new opportunity for agitation.“

Cordes compared the hysteria in the German press to more prudent reactions in the international media, pointing out for instance that it gave the New York Times an occasion to print a detailed appraisal of Pope Benedict by its lead writer Ian Fisher. [I wasn't aware of this - I must look it up!]

Why all this zealotry in Germany, he asks. "Apparently,“ he writes, "it is not so much the person but rather the institution of the Papacy that is the real bone of contention.“ [That may be, but Joseph Ratzinger is no less so!]

Cordes thinks that the Petrine office generally makes most Europeans who live north of the Alps 'see red‘. "And most of the media are only too glad to latch on to every grudge and grievance about the Pope".

Animosity towards the Pope has a long legacy in the Land of the Reformation, he points out. And the German media saw an opportunity to treat the 'Williamson case‘ as a 'Benedict case‘ instead.

In this perspective, he said, "their exuberant 'engagement‘ in the matter is understandable, an involvement that goes beyond and above their simple duty to inform.“


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

I am unable to access Cordes's full article in Die Tagespost, but when I can, I will try to do a full translation.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Walter Kasper, has given an interview on Vatican RAdio's German service in which he defends the Pope on his ecumenical record, and also denounced that the discussion in Germany over the FSSPX case has gone beyond bounds.


Ecumenism is a duty
for every Catholic;
and it's time to stop
German intolerance of the Church,
Cardinal Kasper says
Translated from
the German service of

February 18, 2009


The possible reintegration of the FSSPX into the Catholic Church raises concern in the evangelical Churches about ecumenism, said the chairman of the Council of Evangelical Churches in Germany, Wolfgang Huber.

But Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the Vatican is firmly set on the ecumenical course.

Kasper said, in this exclusive interview:

"The position of teh Catholic Church on ecumenism has been fully clear since the Second Vatican Council," he said. "Ecumenism is not just an option for us, but a duty which is based on the message of Jesus. This holds also for the Pope.

"In fact on the same weekend when the recall of the FSSPX excommunications was announced, Pope Benedict XXVI once again committed himself in all clarity to the ecumenical movement, in his homily at the Basilica of St. Paul outside the Walls at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

"In fact, I don't know any other Church leader who has so often, so urgently and so clearly spoken about ecumenism. To present him otherwise would be unfair and ignore the facts."

Further, Cardinal Kasper commented that the numerous discussions about the Church in the past few weeks, especially in Germany, have become too aggressive and anti-Catholic, even if, he admits, not everything has been optimal inside the Vatican itself.

"One must admit that at the start, there were faults of negligence and mistakes in communications. That is quite clear. But the discussion which has been going on in Germany has now overstepped all limits.

"What has surfaced is not just a criticism of this or that action by the Church, but plain and simple anti-Catholic passion, and sometimes, sheer hatred for the Church."

"They make the Pope look ridiculous on the principle that one hits the sack and not the ass. When the Pope is presented this way, and presented so unfairly, the attack is not just against the Pope, it is against the Catholic church.

"I believe that Catholics should stand up and say, 'We will not let this happen. This is intolerance.'

"Imagine the great outrage if it was the Dalai Lama who is treated this way. But they can say anything about the Pope. That is not right, we cannot allow it to go on, and we must say so clearly."


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


I'm glad Cardinal Kasper spoke this way finally, but I doubt it will get publicized as much as his first reaction - which everyone now quotes, in Germany and outside it, as the typical Curial criticism of how the excom recall was handled, because he was the first cardinal to speak up about it, and was outraged that "Even I was not consulted about it!"

His first negative reaction was amplified and exaggerated by the fact that Fr. Gemmingen, head of Vatican Radio's German service, also pitched in with his criticism at the same time.


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

I saw an item about this 'hol;ier-than-thou' letter to the Pope last week but I chose not to post it because the signatories are also largely made up of pro-abortion Catholics, and I find it unconscionable thart they should be outraged about Bishop Williamson's remarks - which not have caused a single death that we know of - while condoning abortion on demand. But now the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is disseminating it for obvious reasons, so I think it should be noted for the record:

---

Catholic lawmakers press Pope on Williamson
February 19, 2009


WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Fifty Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives pressed Pope Benedict XVI to fully repudiate the views of a Holocaust-denying bishop.

"Your Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, As Catholic Members of Congress, we are writing to express our deep concerns with your decision to reinstate Bishop Richard Williamson to communion with the Catholic Church at the same time that Bishop Williamson publicly denies that the Holocaust occurred or that such was the policy under Adolf Hitler," they wrote in a letter sent last month after Williamson's reinstatement was announced.

"We do not question your reasons for revoking the excommunication of Bishop Williamson or your right to do so, but we fail to understand why the revocation was not accompanied by an emphatic public rejection of his denial of the Holocaust."

Williamson was excommunicated in 1988 by the late Pope John Paul II for defying the teachings of the 1965 Second Vatican Council, which removed from the Jewish people the guilt of deicide.

The letter was spearheaded by U.S. Reps William Delahunt (D-Mass.) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is married to Stanley Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster who is active in pro-Israel circles.

Subdequent to sending the letter, the Vatican called on Williamson to take back his Holocaust denials. In a short statement, DeLauro and Delahunt welcomed the call but added, "In its initial offer to reinstate Bishop Williamson to communion, the Church’s silence on his view that the Holocaust never existed was deeply troubling."

DeLauro is part of a congressional delegation led by U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House speaker, visiting Italy this week. During the tour, Pelosi and her husband met alone with the Pope.

---

Sorry... I just realized that this story, like the first one on this matter that I posted yesterday (near the top of this page, more properly belong to NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH.... I have been associating the storeis from Israel with teh Holy Father's coming trip....



Vatican joins protest over
Israeli TV show's
satire of Christianity
By John Thavis



VATICAN CITY, Feb. 20 (CNS) -- The Vatican has protested what it called a "blasphemous" satire of Christianity on an Israeli TV network.

The late-night program broadcast in mid-February included joking suggestions that Mary was impregnated by a school friend at the age of 15 and that Jesus died at a young age because he was fat.

A Vatican statement Feb. 20 said the program had "ridiculed -- with blasphemous words and images -- the Lord Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary." It expressed support for Christians and Catholic leaders in the Holy Land who had denounced the broadcast.

"Such a vulgar and offensive act of intolerance toward the religious sentiments of believers in Christ must be deplored," the Vatican statement said. It noted that the religious figures satirized, Jesus and Mary, were themselves "children of Israel."

The Vatican said its nuncio in Jerusalem, Archbishop Antonio Franco, had received assurances from the Israeli government that it would take steps to prevent such programs in the future and would try to obtain a public apology from the television network.

In an earlier statement, the Assembly of the Catholic Bishops of the Holy Land condemned the segments, calling them "horrible offenses" and asking the authorities to investigate the incident and "take the necessary actions in order to put an end to such horrible desecration of our faith."

The bishops said the segments were a symptom of problems plaguing Israeli society such as intolerance, lack of respect and inherent hatred.

"It is unconceivable that such incidents have to occur in Israel, which hosts some of the holiest shrines of Christianity and which relies to a great extent on pilgrimage from Christian countries," they said. "Such programs have nothing to do with freedom of expression, art and entertainment. They can only work against national integration and harmony in our society."

A group of Christian lawyers began an online petition urging Pope Benedict XVI not to visit the Holy Land in May.

"The pope should not come to a nation which does not respect Christianity," said Salim Kubti, a lawyer and chairman of an umbrella organization representing Christian courts.

Lior Shlein, host of the TV show, said the segments were in retaliation for the statements by ultratraditionalist Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X and other Christian clerics denying the Holocaust.

"If they deny the Holocaust, we will deny Christianity," Shlein said in a preface to the first segment that depicted Jesus as an obese man who could not have walked on water.

The second segment described Mary as a promiscuous teenager and showed an extremely pregnant woman in pink underwear patting her exposed belly.

The only Christian member of the Israeli parliament, Hana Sweid, then filed a complaint with the legal adviser of the government, charging Shlein with violating an Israeli law that prohibits offending religious sensibilities.

Shlein apologized on his Feb. 18 program.

Kubti said the apology was not sufficient and lawyers were waiting to see the reaction to Sweid's complaint before deciding on their next step.

He said they had been approached privately by the television station and Shlein regarding compensation and were negotiating for an educational program or series about Christianity, Islam and Judaism to be aired to promote religious tolerance.


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

How childish of the Israeli TV producer to 'rtaliate' for Williamson's statements about the Holocaust. But then for most Jews, they are taught that Jesus was nothing but an ordinary man, and their basic story in teh Talmud is that Jesus was the bastard son of a Greek or Roman who raped his mother.

Last week, I posted the ff. in the COMMENTS thread, and I believe it is very relevant to the story above.

The reflection and my brief 'research' was promtped by a remark from oen of the FFSPX priests in Argentina, who said:
"Today, people doubt everything. Above all, Christ. They have been disputing the historical reality of the Gospels. We live in a world of universal doubt."

---

From which one asks, is denying the Holocaust worse than denying that the historical Jesus was the Jesus of the Gospels?

The Shoah is historical fact. The overwhelming majority of Christians today who have had basic education do not question that.

But Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ was anyone special. A typical Jewish 'fact sheet' about Jesus says:

---

Jews believe that Jesus was a Jew who was born in Bethlehem, raised in Galilee, and killed in Jerusalem. Like other educated Jews in his day, he was faithful to the law of Moses, learned in Jewish scriptures and oral law... Many called him 'rabbi'.

Like other religious, nationalistic Jews before and after him, Jesus angered the Roman government. The Romans considered the ideas preached by Jesus to be dangerous. As a result, the Romans arrested Jesus during his Passover trip to Jerusalem. Then the Romans, upon the order of the Roman procurator, executed Jesus...

Jews believe Jesus himself would have been shocked to know that many people today view him as the Messiah.

According to Judaism, Jesus was a Jewish man who was executed and later given divine status by the Christian church.

---

That's the basic Jewish catechism about Jesus. But there's also this from the Talmud [a central text of mainstream Judaism - a compendium of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs, and history, and dating to the first five centuries of the Christian era.

---

There is debate whether this Yeshu in the Talmud is the same Jesus who later became a Christian divinity.

According to the Talmud, Yeshu was the son of a Jewish woman named Miriam who was betrothed to a carpenter. "Betrothed" means she was legally married to him, but she was not yet living with him or having sexual relations with him.

The story says that Miriam was either raped by or voluntarily slept with Pandeira, a Greek or Roman soldier. Miriam than gave birth to Yeshu, who was considered a "mamzer" (bastard), a product of an adulterous relationship.

The Talmud describes Yeshu as a heretic who dabbled in sorcery and lead the people astray. Later, the Sanhedrin (the Jewish "Supreme Court") ordered Yeshu stoned to death and his dead body was hung from a tree until nightfall after his death, in accordance with the ancient Jewish punishment for heretics.

While some believe there is no connection between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus, others believe there is a connection. Thus, some Jews believe that today's popular Christian ideas about Jesus are based on a melding of the Talmudic story of Yeshu and the historian Josephus's writing about Jesus, which included his execution by the Romans.

---

To think I was blissfully unaware of all this before a comment made in La Reja set me off....

Of course, 'Jesus as the Son of God made man' is the central belief of our faith.

Yet we are not affronted that non-Christians do not believe in Jesus. That's just the way it is. We would want it otherwise, of course, but meanwhile, we live and let live - and evangelize where it is possible.

Why should the Jews think that the heavens have fallen with one Christian's negation of the Holocaust? And chosen to raise such an uproar about it?

It is really a pretext to 'embarrass' Pope Benedict XVI yet again, to 'score another point' against him, as though inter-religious dialog were a sporting match where one seeks to score off each other! They're attempting a sort of 'moral' blackmail, though where they see morality in their machinations is hard to explain.

So I wondered about the Jewish concept of charity, and looked it up. [What did we do before there was Google?] The Jews cite the Old Testament, "Be loving to your neighbor as you would yourself" (Lev 19,18), which comes in a series of exhortations from YHWH himself.

But the first commentary I saw quoted about this exhortation was from the great Maimonides - no slouch! - who wrote, "It is a commandment for every human to love each and everyone from Israel as he loves his own body..."

Which set off all my alarms. Can it be that Jews still believe as the Galilean Jews of Jesus's time did that the Samaritans were not their 'neighbors' simply because they were not Jews? Indeed, the first references I came across were specific that 'neighbor' meant 'any fellow Israelite'.

Thankfully, one of the early articles that came up was one by Rabbi Jacob Neusner who shows the distinction betwee
n two schools of thought in Judaism: the older traditional school in which "the commandment of love is limited to one's own group" and the more universal interpretation which sees "humanity as united in genealogy [all descendants of Adam], cousins all" (or neighbors).

Neusner is on the side of the more universal interpretation because he points out that farther on, the God of Leviticus "explicitly extends the rule of love to the stranger or the outsider".

I suspect however that most of the rabbis who have been the most relentlessLY merciless in pillorying the Popes (Benedict XVI, as well as Pius XII anD Pius XI before him) subscribe to the traditional interpretation.

And that may be why they seem so uncharitable from the Christian point of view. They do not feel obliged to love anyone who is not a Jew. Explains a lot.

---

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 20/02/2009 19:29]

OK, here it comes. Another analysis of the Vatican's recent media pratfalls. I am hoping for new information and/or new insight we have not seen before....



Chain of command:
Miscues highlight need
for curial consultation
By John Thavis



VATICAN CITY, Feb. 20 (CNS) -- A pair of recent miscues at the Vatican has prompted questions about how papal decisions are made and criticism of the apparent lack of consultation inside the Roman Curia.

In late January, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of four ultra traditionalist bishops, including Bishop Richard Williamson, who has said the Holocaust was exaggerated and that no Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers.

Then the pope chose as an auxiliary bishop of Linz, Austria, Father Gerhard Wagner, who once linked the destruction of Hurricane Katrina to the "spiritual pollution" of New Orleans.

Two weeks later, after an embarrassing no-confidence vote by senior clergy in the Linz Diocese, Bishop-designate Wagner asked the pope to withdraw his nomination.

An overwhelmingly negative reaction greeted both of these papal decisions, and many wondered why the Vatican failed to see it coming. The concern voiced by some of the church's own officials was that the episodes illustrated a dysfunctional system of internal communications at the Vatican.

"We hope inadequate channels of communication in the Vatican can be improved so the Pope's service to humanity is not impaired," Austrian bishops said after meeting to discuss the situation of Bishop-designate Wagner Feb. 16. [Oooh! Too bad Thavis chose that highly questionable, self-serving and ultimately distasteful Austrian bishops' statement as his first citation!]

In the case of Bishop Williamson, Vatican officials themselves were among the critics. Cardinal Walter Kasper, who coordinates Vatican dialogue with the Jews, told Vatican Radio that the controversy was the result of "management errors in the Curia" and might have been avoided by wider consultation. His office had not been consulted, he said.

[How is it Thavis doesn't ask the obvious common-sense question - Why did Kasper, who is on first-name terms with the Pope - no t asl him about it at all all these months, at least, since Cardinal Castrillon's June 2008 note of conditions to Mons. Fellay/ Better yet, if he knew about Williamson's statements - especially since he is the president of the Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations with Judaism - why didn't he volunteer anything to the Pope, directly or thru Mons. Gaenswein? Are the Curial heads so proud that it must always be the mountain coming to Mohammed? Subordinates have duties of loyalty to their superiors. Warning them about possible traps - without waiting to be asked, obviously - is one such duty.]

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, made clear that Pope Benedict had not known in advance about Bishop Williamson's views on the Holocaust.

"If someone should have known, it was Cardinal (Dario) Castrillon Hoyos," Father Lombardi said. The implication was that Cardinal Castrillon, head of the commission in charge of reconciliation with the traditionalists, should have also made sure the Pope was informed.

[So far, Cardinal Castrillon has not spoken much, except to say he was not aware of Williamson's anti-Holocaust statements, but in the entire episode, his position is the weakest, because, as Fr. Lombardi so indiscreetly - but correctly - pointed out in public, his office should have known, though not his office alone, but also the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for Bishops.]

Traditionally, the Vatican's Secretariat of State has acted as the coordinating agency for some of the important decisions that involve more than one Roman Curia agency or have global implications. [But it never surface till Feb. 4 in this story.]

The plain fact, however, is that the Vatican has no central communications clearinghouse, and no "chain of command" responsible for raising red flags on potentially explosive moves.

[Now, that, if true is a serious organizational defect indeed. But isn't that supposed to be the raison d'etre of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, a full-fledged Curial organism?

It has baffled me that the very media-savvy Cardinal from Pennsylvania, John Foley, who was the President of that Council for more than 20 years, obviously failed to establish the coordination structure. Perhaps because Joaquin Navarro Valls was too strong, too visible, and too singular as Vatican spokesman that it was easy to let him carry all the responsibility. And obviously his successor, Archbishop Celli, has not done that either.]

The Vatican's communications agencies, including its press office, are generally not involved in the gestation stage of important decisions. [But they are not supposed to be, unless it is something that affects them directly.] Their task is to deliver the end product -- and sometimes to help clean up the mess.

[Well, a communications mess inevitably involves them. Anyone with common sense and a strong instinct to 'save the institution and save the boss', if only from embarrassment, would and should call attention to anything he sees or senses amiss before announcing anything.

Once again, in the FSSPX case, they had months to prepare - since Cardinal Castrillon's June 2008 note - their briefing files on the four people involved.

Fr. Lombardi is a very experienced, sophisticated priest - and a Jesuit, too (Jesuits are generally considered very sharp and savvy, especially in media matters). Surely he was aware of the shadows that have always hovered over the FSSPX.

Yet he apparently missed an initiative that even smalltime newsdesks, or even the individual conscientious journalist, always prepare for - know what there is to know about who and what you will be reporting or announcing.]

That doesn't mean internal consultation never occurs; many important papal documents, for example, undergo revisions based on critical in-house commentary. But it's inconsistent, and so is the way such documents are released.

Some papal decisions are rolled out with a press conference and endless explanation, while others drop from the sky unannounced. [That's not exactly right. The announcements that get press conferences and full presentations are generally documents or books, not papal decisions (even if some decisions are necessarily accompanied by documents), which by their nature, cannot be pre-announced.]

Vatican officials say that under Pope Benedict, the decision-making process in general has been streamlined and consultation is more on a need-to-know basis.

On the issue of lifting the excommunications of four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, the Pope appears to have conferred primarily with Cardinal Castrillon's Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei," which has conducted talks with the society, and with the Congregation for Bishops.

It's interesting to recall that before making an earlier gesture to the traditionalist society -- a decree that widened the use of the Tridentine Mass -- the Pope consulted at length with the world's cardinals and bishops and received some negative feedback. Some at the Vatican felt that only slowed down the Pope's ultimate decision.

[But there's a great and fundamental difference between Summmorum Pontificum and the excom recall. Execution of SP requires the understanding, cooperation and collaboration of all the diocesan bishops around the world. The Pope did them the unusual courtesy of consultation over a few years. Lifting a papal excommunication, which teh four bishops incurred, only concerns the Pope as an individual prerogative, not collegial.]

Nothing excites reporters more than a "storm of controversy," especially when it allows the journalistic commentariat to preach to the Vatican about how to improve its public relations operation.

The fact that a simple Google search might have helped avoid these missteps was, in the eyes of many, a sign of how hopelessly out of touch the Vatican really is.

[NOOOOO! AS I've recounted int eh NOTABLES thread, I did the exercise on this facile but fallacious assumption - three weeks after the excom recalls were announced. A simple Google search would not have shown anything of what Williamson said about the Holocaust before the Swedish TV interview aired on January 21.

You'd have to have known either that the Catholic Herald ran a story about in May 2008, and/or that he made his Holocaust statement for the first time in 1989 in Canada to have unearthed a link - and if you already knew that, then you did not need Google at all because your researchers must have done their 'due diligence' earlier.

By the way, that seems to be the single precedent to the Swedish TV statement that the most diligent souls have found or posted online so far. Even the Herald story referred to the 1989 statement.]

Yet amid all the outcry, has anyone noticed that Pope Benedict has shown himself responsive to the reaction and willing to change course?

In the case of Austrian Bishop-designate Wagner, it is rare for a bishop to step aside so quickly after nomination, and the assumption is that Pope Benedict either made it happen or happily agreed. He could have defended the principle that a Pope must be free to name bishops, but appears to have chosen the more conciliatory route of dialogue with Austrian church leaders. (A spokesman for the Linz Diocese said Feb. 19 that the Vatican had accepted Bishop-designate Wagner's withdrawal, although the Vatican had not officially announced that.)

[Too many assumptions, there, Mr. Thavis. Wait until there is final resolution on the matter. There's an apparently authoritative explanation on the canon law complications involved by a church jurist in one of the German-language Catholic news agencies. Just compare it to the unequivocal announcement from the Vatican when Mons. Wielgus stepped back in Poland.]

As for Bishop Williamson, the Vatican began by saying the removal of his excommunication was a totally separate issue from his personal opinions on the Holocaust. But two weeks later, the Vatican said Bishop Williamson could not function as a bishop until he disavowed his previous opinions.

That statement, issued by the Secretariat of State, raised some eyebrows inside the Vatican. Some felt it subjected the episcopal mission to a litmus test that was more political than doctrinal.

[There's a good point, but it assumes the Pope would decide to name Williamson a diocesan bishop if the FSSPX were back in full communion. Since episcopal ordination is irrevocable [that's why Milingo remains an Archbishop even if excommunicated], the Pope could give him some research position somewhere and simply give him an ancient titular see like other non-diocesan bishops. But that's a bridge too far to even glimpse right now.

And one cannot rule out that in an access of humility - or for some devious reason - Williamson may decide to say, "Yes, I retract", and for his penance, he would be assigned to the team that has to go through the Vatican archives for everything in support of the cause of Pius XII. Now, that would be poetic justice.]

In addition, the Vatican initially said nothing about the need for Bishop Williamson and the rest of his society to agree to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. But when the bishop's statements appeared to call into question Vatican II teachings on the Jews, the Vatican declared bluntly that full communion would require acceptance of the council.

[Mmmm, again an over-simplification of the situation. 'Acceptance of the Council' is too vague a term, especially since Mons. Fellay has made clear the FSSPX is not rejecting the Council in toto - only the ambiguities which it wants cleared up. I would tend to see it as Mons. Fellay describes it in the interviews he has given since the Note from the Secretariat of State. And I have no doubt Benedict XVI would be able to clear up any questions concerning religious freedom, human rights, adn Nostra Aetate, which seem to be the major 'ambiguities'.]

The Pope has responded creatively in the past to public relations crises. In 2006, he recovered from a communications disaster provoked by his remarks about Islam in Regensburg, Germany, by reaching out to Muslims and praying next to an imam in a mosque in Turkey. [I object. It seems to imply he prayed at teh Blue Mosque as a PR ploy. I think everyone who watched that coverage saw how spontaneously it came about. I think the Pope's creativity is in not being Machiavellian, therefore what he does comes off as genuine.]

Some believe the recent controversy over Bishop Williamson's remarks sets the stage for a similar recovery in Catholic-Jewish relations when Pope Benedict visits Israel in May. Already, it has led the pope and countless other church leaders to emphasize that negating the Holocaust goes against Catholic teaching.

[I think we would all be deluding ourselves if we think that relations with the Jews will not always be 'one step forward, two step back' by their choice. Because they (that is to say, their most militant representatives who are also, for the most part, the most paranoid and hypersensitive) are forever subjecting the Pope and the Church to microscopic scrutiny, the better not to miss a chance to pounce - GOTCHA!- because everytime they can do this, they get massive publicity, not just for them but for the Holocaust.

As a supporter of the Holocaust memorial in Washington, DC, since it opened in 1993, I know that the most important objective is to keep the memory alive in every way possible so that 'NEVER AGAIN' may something similar happen.

Paradoxically, that is why I can afford to dismiss Holocaust deniers as crackpots: Against the overwhelming documentation, and the resolve shown by people of all cultures and religions who support Holocaust memorials all over the world, it is hard to see what effect the deniers can have.]

BENEDICT'S LECTIO DIVINA
He quotes St. Paul
on unity in the Church






VATICAN CITY, Fe. 20 (Translated from ASCA) - If in the Church, "everyone wants to be superior to the other, and with intellectual arrogance, make everyone think he is the best" then "this hides polemics that are destructive", Pope Benedict XVI said this evening during his visit to the Major Seminary of Rome.

As the object himself of criticisms and doubts from many sectors of the Church and by some of the Catholic hierarchy in the past few weeks, the Pope spoke these words in an unscripted lectio divina based on some passages in St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians.

"Let us not think we are superior to others," he said, "but we should enter into the obedience of faith, thus opening ourselves up to the great spaces of freedom and truth."

He made the above remarks in his third citation from the Letter, when St. Paul reproaches the young Christian community in Galatia for their internal divisions: "The whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. If you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another" (Gal 5,14). [The Italian text has the added words 'like beasts'].

"We see very well," he said, "that even today, similar things happen, when instead of incorporating into the Body of Christ, with intellectual arrogance, one thinks he is superior to the other, leading to destructive polemics, which gives rise to a caricature of the Church."

He said that the Church today needs 'an examination of conscience which will help us not to think ourselves better than our fellowmen, but to find ourselves together in the humility of Christ and obedience to the faith, in that great space to which Christ calls us to be one in spirit with him, in love and in joy".






Thanks to Russi who immediately posted the video
www.benedictxvi.tv/


2/21/09

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF
THE POPE'S 'LECTIO DIVINA'



Here is a translation of the full transcript provided by the Vatican of the Holy Father's words to the Seminarians of Rome last night:

---

Your Eminence,
Dear friends,

It is always a great joy for me to be in my Seminary, to see the future priests of my diocese, to be with you under the sign of Our Lady of Confidence [Madonna della Fiducia, patroness of the seminary]. With her to help and accompany us, we have the certainty of always being aided by divine grace. So let us move ahead.

Now let us us see what St. Paul tells us with this text: "You are called to freedom".

Freedom has at all times been the great dream of mankind, even from the start, but particularly in modern times. We know that Luther was inspired by this text from the Letter to the Galatians, and he concluded that the monastic Rule, the hierarchy, the Magisterium, appeared to him as a yoke of slavery from which he had to free himself.

Successively, the Age of Enlightenment was totally guided and penetrated by this desire for freedom which it believed it had achieved. But even Marxism would present itself as a road to freedom.

We ask ourselves tonight: What is freedom? How can we be free? St. Paul helps us to understand the complicated reality of freedom by inserting it in the context of fundamental anthropological and theological views.

He says: "Let this freedom not be a pretext to live according to the flesh, but through charity: be of service to one another".

The rector already told us that 'flesh' here does not mean the body. "Flesh' in the language of St. Paul is his expression for the absolutization of the 'I', that 'I' which wishes to be everything and takes everything for himself: the absolute I that does not depend on anything or anyone, and seems to truly possess freedom definitively - "I am free if I don't depend on anyone, if I can do everything I want".

But it is this absolutization of the I which is the 'flesh' - a degradation of man, not a conquest of freedom. Libertinism is not liberty but the failure of it.

Paul dares to propose a strong paradox: "Through charity, you shall be of service" (in Greek, dolerite): that is, freedom is paradoxically realized if we become servants to each other. And thus, Paul places the entire question of freedom in the light of man's truth.

To reduce oneself to 'flesh' - while apparently elevating oneself to the level of divinity - introduces us to untruth. Because it is not so, in truth: Man is not an absolute. It is not as though man can isolate himself and act only according to his own will. It is against the truth of our being.

Our truth is that, above all, we are creatures, creatures of God, and we live in relationship to our Creator. We are relational beings. Only by accepting this relationality can we enter into the truth. Otherwise, we fall into untruth, and in it, ultimately, we destroy ourselves.

We are creatures, and therefore, dependent on the Creator. During the Enlightenment, this idea appeared, above all to atheits, as a dependence which man had to rid himself of.

The truth is that such a dependency would be fatal only if God the Creator was a tyrant not a good being, only if he were like human tyrants.

But if this Creator loves us and our dependence means being within the space of his love, then dependence is freedom. Indeed, in this way, we are in the charity of the Creator, we are united to him, to all his reality, to all his power.

So this is the first point: to be a creature means being loved by the Creator - to be in this relationship of love that he gives us, that he has provided us. From this above all comes our truth, which is, at the same time, a call to charity.

That is why to see God, to orient oneself to God, to know God, to know his will, to put ourselves within his will - which means, in the love of God - is to enter increasingly into the space of truth.

This path to knowledge of God, of a relationship of love with God, is the extraordinary adventure of our life as Christians, who recognize in Christ the face of God - God who loves us to the Cross, to making us the gift of himself.

But our creatural relationship also implies a second relation; We are in relationship with God, but at the same time, in the human family - we are in relationship with one another.

In other words, human freedom, on the one hand, is to be in the joy and wide space of God's love, but it also implies being one with the other and for the other. There is no freedom against the other.

If I absolutize myself, I become an enemy of the other. We cannot then live with one another, and all of life becomes cruelty, failure. Only shared freedom is human freedom - in being together, we can enter the symphony of liberty.

So this is another point of great importance: Only by accepting the other, accepting even the apparent limitation which comes from freedom to respect the freedom of the other, only by setting myself into the network of human dependency which makes us one single family, only then am I on the path toward our common freedom.

Here is a very important element: What is the measure of shared freedom? We see that man needs order, law, so that he can realize his freedom as a freedom lived in common.

And how can we find this just order, in which no one is oppressed, in which each can give his contribution to this concert of freedom? If there is no common truth for man as there is in the sight of God, then what remains is merely positivism, which is like something imposed in a manner that might be called violent. And with it comes a rebellion against order and law as though they represent slavery.

But if we find the Creator's order in our nature, that order of truth which gives everyone his place, then law and order can become instruments of freedom against the slavery of selfishness.

To serve one another becomes an instrument of freedom, in which we can find a whole political philosophy according to the social doctrine of the Church, which helps us find the common order that gives each of us our place in the common life of mankind.

The first reality to respect is truth. Freedom against truth is not freedom. To serve one another creates the common space of freedom.

Paul continues by saying: "The whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, you shall love your neighbor as yourself". Behind this statement is the mystery of God incarnated, the mystery of Christ who, in his life, death and resurrection, became the living law.

The first words of our Reading - "You are called to freedom" - refer right away to this mystery. We have been called by the Gospel, we have been truly called in Baptism, to participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, and in this way, we pass from the 'flesh'. from selfishness, to communion with Christ. And thus, we are in the fullness of the law.

You probably know the beautiful words of St. Augustine: "Dilige et fac quod vis" - Love and do what you will. What Augustine says is the truth if we really understand the word 'love'. "Love and do what you will", but we must have entered into communion with Christ, identified ourselves with his death and resurrection, united to him in communion with his Body.

By participating in the sacraments, by listening to the Word of God, then divine will, divine law, will enter our will; our will identifies itself with his; we become just one will, which makes us truly free. We can do what we wish because we wish with Christ, we wish in truth, and we wish with truth.

Let us pray the Lord to help us in this journey begun in Baptism, a path of identifying with Christ which we realize ever anew in the Eucharist.

In the third Eucharistic Prayer, we say, "We become in Christ one body and one spirit." It is a moment when, through the Eucharist and through our true participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, we become one in spirit with him, we are in an identity of will, which brings us freedom.

Behind the words "The law is fulfilled", behind these words which become reality in communion with Christ, behind Christ, are all the saints who have entered into communion with him, in a unity of being, in a union with his will.

Above all, there appears Our Lady in her humility, in her goodness, in her love. Our Lady gives us confidence, she takes us by the hand, she leads us, she helps us in the path towards uniting with the will of God, as she has been from the first moment, a union she expressed in her 'Fiat' [Fiat volunta tua - Thy will be done].

Finally, after these beautiful things, Paul's Letter also refers to the rather sad situation of the Christians of Galatia, when he writes: "If you go on biting and devouring one another [like beasts], beware that you are not consumed by one another... I say, then: live by the Spirit" (Gal 5,14.16).

It seems to me that in that community - which was no longer on the path of communion with Christ, but living by the external laws of the 'flesh' - then controversies will naturally arise, and Paul says: "You have become like beasts, biting one another".

Thus he refers to the disputes that arise when faith degenerates into intellectualism, and humility is replaced by the arrogance of feeling superior to others.

We see very well that even today, there are similar things, in which instead of placing oneself in communion with Christ, in the Body of Christ which is the Church, everyone wants to be superior to the other, and with intellectual arrogance wants to make others believe that he is the best. Thus, disputes arise which are destructive, giving rise to a caricature of the Church, which should be of one spirit and one heart.

In this warning from St. Paul, we should find today a reason for an examination of conscience: not to think one is superior to another, but to find oneself with the humility of Christ, with the humility of Our Lady, and to enter into the obedience of faith. This way the great space of truth and of freedom in love truly opens up to us.

Finally, let us thank God because he showed us his face in Christ, because he gave us Our Lady, he gave us the saints, he has called us to be one body and one spirit with him.

And let us pray that he may help us to be increasingly within this communion with his will so that we will find freedom, love and joy.



After dining with the community, the Holy Father said the following:

I am told that I am expected to say a few more words. I have already spoken too much perhaps, but I would like to express my gratitude and my joy at being with you.

In the conversation at table just now, I learned something more of the history of the Lateran (Basilica), starting with Constantine, then Sixtus V, down to Benedict XIV, Papa Lambertini.

In this way, I also saw the historical problems and the continuing rebirth of the Church of Rome. And I understand that even in the discontinuity of external events, there is the great continuity of the unity of the Church in all the ages.

Even in the composition of the Seminary (student body), I see an expression of the catholicity of our church. From all the continents, we are one Church and we have the future in common.

Let us hope that vocations may further grow because, as I told the Rector, we do need workers in the vineyard of the Lord.

Thank you to everyone.

---

After reading and translating that full transcript, I am even more awestruck. As anyone who watched the video knows, he never once paused or groped for a word in giving this extemporaneous lectio divina. And so, I will keep here my original impressions:

I had expected a formal structured setpiece that would last at least 20 minutes, but instead, the Pope came on, completely relaxed and without notes, just a red-bound folder, with what, I suppose, is the text of the Letter to the Galatians.

And then, after a couple of sentences to break the ice, he proceeded to his meditation in Italian so fluid and fast that I couldn't keep up trying to note down as much as I could. He hardly paused, even when he opened the folder to read the exact passage).

He was hoarse tonight but at least he never once coughed in that 12-minute (thereabouts) tour de force of extemporaneous reflecting-out-loud. And as always, a model of linear thought, simplicity and clarity.

February 21

St. Peter Damian (1007-1072)
Bishop Confessor and
Doctor of the Church


OR today.

Addressing members of the International Fund for Agricultural Development,
Pope urges defense of the cultures of rural indigenous communities:
'Everyone must be guaranteed equitable access to the earth's resources'
Other Page 1 stories: The Holy Father addresses Pontifical Commission for Latin America on the proper selection
and formation of seminarians; former Prime Minister Netanyahu gets mandate to form new Israeli government; and
a commentary on Hillary Clinton's weeklong trip to East Asia as Secretary of State.



THE POPE'S DAY

The Holy Father met today with

- Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (weekly meeting)

- Participants of the International Scientific Congress on Biogenetics on the occasion of
the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Address in Italian.

The Holy Father also presided at the Ordinary Public Consistory to proclaim the canonization of 10 new saints.

The Vatican released the text of the Holy Father's letter naming Cardinal Paul Poupard. emeritus President
of the Pontifical Council For Culture, as his special envoy to the March 7-8 celebrations for the VII centenary
of the start of the Avignon Papacy (1309-1377) when the Popes resided in France.



STATEMENT FROM FR. LOMBARDI,
DIRECTOR OF THE VATICAN PRESS OFFICE
Translated from



Late Saturday morning, Feb. 21, Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, director of the Vatican Press Office,
released the ff. statement:

---

Not infrequently, information media attribute to the "Vatican" - by which they mean the Holy See -
comments and viewpoints which cannot automatically be attributed to it.

In fact, when the Holy See wishes to express itself authoritatively, it uses its own media and appropriate
forms (communiques, notes, statements).

Any other pronouncement does not have the same value [as the above].

Even recently, some inopportune attributions have been made. The Holy See, in its representative organisms,
manifests respect for civilian authorities, who, in their legitimate autonomy , have the right and the duty
to provide for the common good.

---

In reporting Fr. Lombardi's statement,

made the following comments:

---

Fr. Lombardi's statements were in reference to statements on Italian or international current events, from
the Eluana Englaro case, to the new US administration to certain other declarations made by authoritative
officials of the Holy See, including heads of Curial dicasteries, which are generally personal statements
that are not necessarily the official position of the Vatican as an entity.

The confusion also involves the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, which has guest writers who
reflect their own positions and opinions and do not represent the Vatican in any way.

{The OR editor, Giovanni Maria Vian, has stated on every opportunity that the only truly 'official' items
published in the Pope's newspaper are the daily 'Nostre Informazioni' which lists the Pope's daily appointments
along with ecclesiastical appointments adn resignations, as well as Papal texts.]

---

I also think the statement does not indicate whether and if, in fact, the term 'Holy See' as used
by Fr. Lombardi also refers to the Catholic Church and the Holy Father, for communications purposes..

Aid group invites prayer
for Pope tomorrow,
Feast of Peter's Chair



KOENIGSTEIN, Germany, FEB. 20, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Noting that this Sunday is the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, the charity group Aid to the Church in Need is inviting believers to a day of prayer for the Pope.

In a statement today signed by the president of Aid to the Church in Need, Father Joaquín Alliende, the international charity pointed to attacks against Benedict XVI. It noted a "resurgence of the unsavory and aggressive attitudes that many thought belonged to the past."

Though the statement makes no mention of specific issues, it alludes to the turmoil surrounding Lefebvrite Bishop Richard Williamson and an interview in which the prelate denied the gassing of the Jews during the Holocaust.

That interview aired at about the same time as the bishop, along with three other Society of St. Pius X prelates, had their 20-year excommunication lifted, in the framework of Benedict XVI's continuing efforts to heal the schism with the society.

Despite repeated reiteration of the Vatican's respect for the Jews and the Pontiff's motives in lifting the excommunication to seek Church unity, the issue was still seen by some as an affront to Jewish-Catholic relations.

Aid to the Church in Need contended that the "dignity of the papacy and the person of Benedict XVI himself have been crudely insulted." They noted manipulation of facts and an "unworthy dealing with the truth."

This, they said, "does grave damage to the dialogue between civil society and the great religions."

However, the statement continued: "In the midst of these strident attacks, the historical personality of Benedict XVI emerges untouched, as a figure who incarnates rationality, lucid wisdom and courteous kindness. That is why many young people find in him a living image of the Good Shepherd."

"For next Sunday we are inviting all those who believe in a God of truth and love to join us in a day of special prayer," the statement concluded. "Let us pray that the Holy Spirit may enlighten and strengthen Pope Benedict XVI as a prophetic witness of the Gospel of Jesus and a guide for a humanity that longs for peace."