NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH & THE VATICAN

New papal nuncio to U.S. cites vitality of U.S. Catholicism

By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Archbishop Pietro Sambi, new papal nuncio to the United States, said April 3 that he is impressed by the vitality of U.S. Catholicism.

"There are problems in the church of the United States," he said in an interview with Catholic News Service. "I know also there is a lot of vitality -- I would like that this be more known."

The nuncio, who arrived in the United States Feb. 24, just before Lent began, said he was impressed at reports from U.S. bishops on the "hundreds and hundreds of adult persons" who came to their cathedrals on the first Sunday of Lent to begin the final stages of preparation to be baptized or enter into full communion with the church at Easter.

He said he is also impressed by the level of weekly Mass attendance among U.S. Catholics and by their generosity toward others.

As a papal diplomat "I travel a lot throughout the world," he said. "It is difficult to find a part of the world where the charity of U.S. Catholics did not reach the poor or sick people."

In his previous posting Archbishop Sambi, who speaks Italian, English, French and Spanish, was the Vatican representative to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Asked about his views on peace in the Middle East and the U.S. role there, he said, "I come with a deep conviction that peace in Jerusalem means peace in a great part of the world."

Noting that Jerusalem is a holy city to Jews, Christians and Muslims, he said, "If there the Jewish, Christian and Muslim civilizations will learn to accept each other, to respect each other and to collaborate for the best, there will be peace in all parts of the world where these three civilizations have influence."

He declined to comment on U.S. policy in Iraq, saying that was beyond his mandate as a Vatican diplomat. But he said he shares the feeling that he thinks is common among Americans, "to pray and hope that this conflicted situation will soon end and that a democratic and free society will emerge."

When asked to comment on the current U.S. debate over immigration reform, in which a number of U.S. bishops have spoken out strongly against proposed restrictive legislation, Archbishop Sambi said as an ambassador it was not his role to comment on a nation's "internal" issues.

"But I am happy the Catholic bishops are really outspoken on this matter," he added.

When questioned about responding to the cultural upheavals in the United States over issues with moral dimensions such as abortion and same-sex marriage, he addressed the question in terms of what it means to be Catholic.

"I don't like to speak inside the Catholic Church about liberal or conservative, but about people faithful to Jesus Christ and to his church," he said. "The church has been established by Our Lord to continue the mystery of the salvation of human beings. It is not your invention, it is not my invention. To be faithful to the church means to accept the lordship of Jesus Christ over your life. ... The question of the church is not only a question of culture, it is a question of the Gospel."

He summarized the church's vitality in three principles:

-- "First, have a clear identity, what it means to be Christian and Catholic.

-- "Second, have a strong sense of belonging. Your community needs you and you need your community. (The one) who is walking alone will be lost.

-- "Third, quantity is not the (only) way to emerge and have influence in society. Exceptional quality is the best way to have influence."

A papal nuncio is not only the Vatican ambassador to a nation's government, but also the chief Vatican liaison with the church in that country, especially in the Vatican's dealings with bishops.

Archbishop Sambi said it was too early to say what his message to the U.S. bishops will be when he meets with them. "Leave me a bit more time to know the situation."

But in general terms, he said, "My job is this: to strengthen communion between the Holy Father and the bishops and the Catholic Church of America, to bring all the time the support and encouragement of the pope to his brothers in the episcopate and to their faithful, to be an instrument of ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, to defend life and the dignity of every human person, to find a way of peace with justice in the world."

Four days before Italy's parliamentary elections, Sandro Magister on www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=47661&eng=y
summarizes recent statements made by the Pope and the Church hierarchy on the role that the Church must play inthe public sphere, particularly where it concerns life, the family and the education of children.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Italy Is Voting:
Here’s the Stance of the Church’s Hierarchy
The pronouncements come from two addresses by the Pope
and his vicar, and three articles in La Civiltà Cattolica.
A question: Can everything be voted on in a democracy?

by Sandro Magister

ROMr, April 5, 2006 – Next Palm Sunday, the beginning of Holy Week, Rome and the rest of Italy will vote in parliamentary elections. The top members of the Church’s hierarchy have not said for whom Catholics should vote. But on several occasions, and in a number of ways – in the days leading up to the elections – they have imparted practical lessons on the relations between Church and politics.

Benedict XVI did this in his speech to the representatives of the European People's Party whom he received at the Vatican on March 30.

Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the pope’s vicar for the diocese of Rome and the president of the Italian bishops’ conference, CEI, did the same thing in his introductory address to the latest meeting of the permanent council of the CEI, held on March 20.

And to their remarks have been added three articles in the last edition of La Civiltà Cattolica, the magazine of the Rome Jesuits that is printed – down to the last line – with the inspection and authorization of the highest Vatican authorities.

In chronological order, the first of the contributions cited is that of Cardinal Ruini.

In referring to the Italian elections on April 9, the president of the CEI repeated the stance that he had formulated on the eve of previous elections:

“... which is that of not involving ourselves, as a Church and thus as clergy and ecclesiastical bodies, in any political configuration or party affiliation. But at the same time, we propose to the voters and future elected officials those inalienable principles [...] that constitute an essential part of the Church’s social doctrine, yet are not norms peculiar to Catholic morality, but rather elementary truths regarding our common humanity.”

Among these “inalienable principles” Ruini cited “respect for human life from conception to its natural end” and “concrete support for the legitimate family founded upon marriage, particularly in its tasks of generating and educating children.”

In Italy, among the Catholic candidates running in the elections, there are some who have chosen to promote these principles within the coalition of the left, and others in that of the right.

It is obvious that the first of these have the more arduous task, as they are mixed in among men and parties of pronounced secularist tendencies. But in spite of this, the list of leftist candidates includes, for example, neuropsychiatrist Paola Binetti, a numerary of Opus Dei and the former president of the “Science and Life” committee which, during the first months of 2006, organized the successful Italian campaign in defense of the inviolability of the conceived embryo, against the referendum promoted by the radicals and by much of the left. Cardinal Ruini personally inspired and guided the campaign. And it concluded on June 12 with the defeat of the referendum, which was shunned by over 75 percent of the citizens.

Life, family, and freedom of education were the three “non-negotiable principles” recalled also by Benedict XVI in his address on March 30 to the representatives of the European People's Party:

“These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.”

So the Church’s activity in promoting these principles in the public sphere, the pope specified, “is not confessional in character,” and “does not constitute a form of intolerance or an interference.” On the contrary:

“Such interventions are aimed solely at enlightening consciences, enabling them to act freely and responsibly, according to the true demands of justice, even when this should conflict with situations of power and personal interest.”

Pope Ratzinger asked the politicians seated before him in the Hall of Blessings to “defeat a culture that is now fairly widespread in Europe, which relegates to the private and subjective sphere the manifestation of one’s own religious convictions. Policies built on this foundation not only entail the repudiation of Christianity’s public role; more generally, they exclude engagement with Europe’s religious tradition, which is so clear, despite its denominational variations, thereby threatening democracy itself, whose strength depends on the values that it promotes. [...] In this context one has to recognize that a certain secular intransigence shows itself to be the enemy of tolerance and of a sound secular vision of state and society.”

The three articles published in La Civiltà Cattolica on April 1, 2006, develop in the form of a dispute this criticism of secularist culture by the pope.

The first of these is the lead editorial. It does not have a byline. It is entitled “Democracy and the Church.” And it begins by summing up the opposing positions, in particular those recently expressed in the magazine Micromega by Gustavo Zagrebelski, a former president of the Italian constitutional court. La Civiltà Cattolica then disputes these positions one by one.

For example, there is this passage on abortion, the declining birth rate, and Islamization in Europe:

“How can one categorize as 'cold and abstract doctrines' the questions of abortion, the family, and the transmission of life, when these are dramatic and extremely concrete matters, which should preoccupy and vex all Italian citizens – and thus the bishops, too, who are also Italian citizens – both because of the weight of suffering that they bring, and on account of the country’s future? Recently, Bassam Tibi, a Muslim born in Damascus who is now a professor of international relations at Cornell University, recalled that in Europe ‘the number of Islamic immigrants has risen from 800,000 in 1950 to 20 million today, and in 2015 there will be 40 million of them, while the [non-Muslim] European population will decline. In the end, as in Israel, the Muslims will be in the majority.’ In this decline of the Europeans, is no role at all played by the voluntary interruption of pregnancies, of which there were 684,041 in Italy from 1997 to 2001?”

Or there is this other passage against Zagrebelski’s thesis according to which the Church overlooks charity in order to impose its own truths:

“As it says in the letter to the Christians of Ephesus, one must live ‘according to the truth in charity’ (Ephesians 4:15). This means that faith and charity are two inseparable realities. [...] It is from the Truth, which is Jesus, and from the truth of his word that Christian charity is born: if, in the other, the Christian recognizes a brother to be helped, it is partly because Christ said that the poor and needy are his ‘least brothers’ (Matthew 25:40). And in fact, when the hierarchy defends life in condemning abortion, or defends the family against its counterfeits, what else is it doing but an act of charity, defending the weak, like the children in the womb and the children who need stable and united families in order to grow up?”

But the most interesting passage is the one in which the authoritative magazine of the Rome Jesuits brings the majority vote into question:

“Today there is a rather widespread tendency to ask for the legalization of euthanasia, assisted suicide, common law couples, and homosexual unions with the ability to adopt children. This fact brings up the question of the majority vote. Undoubtedly, this vote is an essential characteristic of the democratic system, so much so that this system would not exist if it could not have recourse to the majority vote. But when can and should the majority be brought into play? It seems to us that such recourse is useful and necessary when it comes to peacefully resolving problems regarding the political, social, legal, and economic life of the country, problems on which there is legitimate difference of opinion, but which must be decided one way or another in order to permit the peaceful unfolding of the nation’s life. But we ask ourselves whether it is wise and opportune to opt for a majority vote in the case of problems and practices that involve moral principles and values that touch the most intimate depths of much of the population’s conscience.”

What is interesting about this passage from the editorial in La Civiltà Cattolica is that it effectively exposes the Church to one of the strongest criticisms of its secularist opponents: that of lèse-démocratie.

According to the reasoning reproduced above, in fact, the Church would reject the majority vote, for example, on the “non-negotiable principles” that Benedict XVI recalled to the European members of parliament.

In other words, in order to defend objective truths from relativism, the Church would end up rejecting the idea that these truths should be submitted to a vote.

But is that really the way it is?

On the theoretical level, the opposition between the relativists and those who uphold objective truth seem to be insuperable.

But it’s different on the practical level. On December 2, 2005, in an address later collected in a book entitled “Truth and Freedom,” cardinal Camillo Ruini summarized the problem and its solution as follows:

“I would like to advance a proposal that might sound obvious, but which has the merit of overcoming on the practical level the stalemate caused by the opposition between the supporters and opponents of the relativistic approach in matters of public ethics, without obliging either side to stop acting according to their own convictions.

“My proposal is that we rely, even in these areas, on the free exchange of ideas, respecting democratic results even when we cannot share them.

“This is essentially what already does happen, fortunately, in a democratic country like Italy, but it would be well for all of us to become more conscious of this in order to defuse the atmosphere of tension that is likely to continue for a long time, continually fed by new issues.

“The proponents of relativism will continue to think that in some cases the ‘rights of liberty’ have been violated, while those who hold to an approach based on human nature will continue to maintain that in other cases the rights founded upon nature, which thus come before any human choice, have been violated. But there will be no reason for reciprocal accusations of antidemocratic extremism.”

It is surprising that the editorial in La Civiltà Cattolica, which is completely dedicated to demonstrating the compatibility between the Church and democracy, did not revive this “gentlemen’s agreement.”

On the contrary, the conclusion of the editorial is full of fuel for controversy:

“There’s something rather strange going: while the Church is accused of wanting to impose its own ‘truth’, even upon those who reject it, through its constant and burdensome ‘interference’ in political life, in reality it is the Catholics who must accept laws (abortion and divorce) that contrast with their consciences, while attempts are made to approve others that are no less problematic for them – like those on euthanasia, common law, and homosexual unions – with the motivation or pretext of combating the Church’s attempt to impose ‘its’ truth on all Italians.”

Even more polemical is the second article that the magazine dedicates to this topic, written by Fr. Giandomenico Mucci and entitled “Secularism, Church, and Catholics.”

This is its final paragraph:

“The secular world tolerates a Church that speaks out and struggles, but only on the condition that it be the loser in society, that it exercise little or no influence on the culture, that its foothold in public opinion be superficial and unsteady. It cannot tolerate a Church that shows itself capable of confronting issues and problems of great social relevance, and of elaborating, at a time of general uncertainty and crisis, ethical, doctrinal, and behavioral clarifications that find interest, attention, and agreement even outside of organized Catholicism. A Church that fights and loses is acceptable, while a Church that fights and wins is less so. [...] It doesn’t seem to have been an accident that the pope, in describing the tolerance that the secular world displays in regard to God, spoke of hypocrisy.”

The third article in La Civiltà Cattolica from April 1, written by Fr. Giuseppe De Rosa, is an accompaniment to the previous ones. It defends from secularist criticism the “eight per thousand” system which has been in place in Italy since 1985.

In this system, every taxpaying citizen indicates each year how to distribute – between the state, the Catholic Church, the Jews, the Waldensians, the Lutherans, the Seventh-day Adventists, etc. – 0.8 percent of that year’s total tax bill.

Each year, about 80 percent of taxpayers in Italy choose the Catholic Church.

This totals more than 900 million euros every year, which are destined “to a great extent to those who suffer in body and spirit, to young people and children, to the marginalized, gypsies, needy people in whatever condition, in Italy and the Third World.”

Fr. De Rosa concludes:
“It seems to us that, at a time of such severe crisis in essential human values, like those of life, the family, public morality, fraternity, and dialogue among religions, one should not underestimate the contribution that the Catholic Church makes to the preservation and growth of these values. It is not a gesture of victimism to highlight the fact that it is precisely because of its defense of such values that the Catholic Church is made the target of harsh and unjust accusations.”

__________

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 06/04/2006 16.15]

Thanks to Beatrice for this analysis published today in the French newspaper, Le Figaro, that tries to bring perspective to the role of the Catholic Church in Italian politics. (The French Catholic newpaper LA CROIX has apparently devoted a 3-page dossier to the issue). Here is a translation of the Figaro piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------

The Vatican in the Italian political arena
By Christine Fauvet-Mycia
(with Hervé Yannou at the Vatican)


The Catholic Church, which says it is not interfering in the campaign for the April 9 parliamentary elections in Italy, is counting on the Italian voters to help prevent the shipwreck of Christian values. Campaign or not, the Church has been quite vocal on certain issues.

While denying it is interfering at all in the Italian political debate, it has not stopped to remind the faithful, with the firmest statements, of the basic principles which every good Christian must live by. It’s up to the individual to remember these injunctions or not at the moment of casting his vote this coming Sunday and Monday.

In the tension of the last few days of a bitter battle between a “Union” which counts with members from the center to the extreme left and a “House of freedoms” whose membership goes from the center to the extreme right, the Church’s appeal is exploited by one and denounced by the other.

Thus, when on March 30, Pope Benedict XVI received the parliamentarians who belong to the Partito Popolare Europeo (PPE) and who were holding their annual Congress in Rome, and reaffirmed, most notably, “the defense of the family as an institution founded on the marriage between a man and a woman,” the right felt comforted, whereas the left, within which today co-exist the heirs of the Christian Democrats of yore and radical anti-clerical elements, was embarrassed.

“Those who hear the Pope’s statements as a reminder of their political and moral duty could never vote for the left,” says Alessandra Mussolini, who is allied to Silvio Berlusconi, the current Prime Minister.

Whereas Daniele Capezzoni, allied to Romano Prodi who hopes to replace Berlusconi, charged that “The religious hierarchy, with the Pope and Cardinal Camillo Ruini leading then, have decided to intervene aggressively in the electoral campaign.”

No matter that the Pope has said his statements are intended only “to illuminate minds,” the polemics have swelled in a nation whose Constitution guarantees a certain laicity of the State.

A representative of the leftist democrats (ex-communists), Maurizio Bartolucci, acknowledged that “whoever wants to govern this nation cannot do it against the Church.”

Silvio Berlusconi’s alliance will not contradict him. The Prime Minister has addressed a brochure to the 38,000 Italian parish priests to boast of his government’s record in the light of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The two candidates of the centrist party allied to Romano Prodi have also sent letters to the priests and to 65,000 Catholic associations in the country, to assure them that a victory by the opposition will not bring with it a “laicistic drift.”

The defense of Christian values and the denunciation of relativism and laicism is the battle Benedict XVI has undertaken. In a secularized Europe where the churches are emptying, where morals are loosening up a bit more every day, he wants to prevent the shipwreck of the Christian heritage.

The struggle is rough and many battles have already been lost. The Church tried in vain to have a reference to the continent’s Christian roots included in the proposed European Constitution. It has been campaigning in vain to keep Spain from defying the principles that the Church considers “non-negotiable.”

If one does not count Poland (where the Catholic integrists of Radio-Mariya have been an embarrassment rather than of help to the Vatican), Italy seems to be the last bastion. The Church must keep it firmly on its side, especially with the growth of the Muslim community in Europe, in which religious practice governs daily life and where the assertion of religion outside the private sphere is widely assumed to be right and so practiced.

To carry on the battle in Italy, the Holy See has its networks, old and new. The terrorist attacks that shook Madrid in 2004, and London in 2005, after having dealt a severe blow to the United States in 2001, and even the remote prospect of Turkey entering the European Union, have inspired new initiatives in the name of “defending the values of the West.”

The second most important man in the Italian state, Senate President Marcello Pera, who could succeed Carlo Azeglio Ciampi as president and head of state, has already spearheaded such a crusade. His credo, spelled out in a manifesto which he intends to proclaim and defend in every corner of Italy, is similar to that of American Christian conservatives and appears to have been organized around the doctrine of Benedict XVI.

In its wake, young parliamentarians, already thinking of a post-Berlusconi era, are working to create a new conservative party which will be the ideological base for the movement. Others dream of reconstituting a centrist force from the Christian Democrats who are currently scattered to the right and to the left.

And the Church is never far from them…

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

Beatrice comments:
I am not a conspiracy theory fan, but might not the start of a second wave of “Benedict-phobia” described by Patrice de Plunkett and launched by the media in the past few days with great hue and cry, availing of the first anniversary of John Paul II’s death as an opportune context, have something to do with the fear of seeing a strong movement for “a return of the moral order” under the aegis of Benedict XVI?

What leads me to think that this may well be true is that the “enemies” of the Holy Father are very often the same ones who are avowed and bitter enemies of Silvio Berlusconi and George Bush, the two personalities most detested by the media world. It cannot be just coincidence!

In a subsequent post, Beatrice picks up from the blog Le Salon Beige which reproduces part of Berlusconi's campaign letter to Italian Catholics. Here is a translation:

I launch an appeal to Catholics: please reflect very well before voting for the coalition of the left, which despises the family which we consider to be sacred and based on the union of a man and a woman...

"For a Catholic to vote for the left is to renounce your values, because the leftist Union, for the most part, wishes to gag the bishops and representatives of the Church....(though) even the Church has a right to express its views. Cardinal Ruini is an Italian like all of us...

"I do not think a believer could give his vote to those who profess openly their intentions against the Catholic religion and the Church....They want to eliminate religious instruction in the schools and the Cross from classrooms, to do away with 0.8% tax [a religious tax for which 80% of Italians choose the Catholic Church as its beneficiary] and the Concordat between the Italian state and the Vatican...
-------------------------------------------------------------

The blogger underscored the parts of Berlusconi's appeal which makes direct reference to two of the "non-negotiable principles" (defense of the family as an institution and the education of children) that the Pope spoke about to the PPE delegates last week. [Notably omitted is the first principle,i.e., the defense of life at all stages]

However, "defense of life" is clearly enunciated by Rocco Buttiglione, another leading Italian politician, as reported on
www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43398
.]

Apr. 05 (CWNews.com) - "The defense of life is non-negotiable," a leading Italian Catholic politician has announced in the last week before national elections.

Rocco Buttiglione, the president of the Christian Democratic Union, said that Italian political leaders should defend the family and the country's Christian heritage. He made his comments in an interview with the French weekly Famille Chrétienne and the I Media news agency.

[The rest of the item is available only to subscribers]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 06/04/2006 16.13]

The following item was posted 4/2/06 in the English service of Deutsche Welle, the state broadcasting agency in Germany, which has generally run unfavorable articles on Pope Benedict XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Bavarian Pope Revitalizes
Catholic Church in Germany

The election of a German pope has revived the once flagging fortunes of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, bringing people back to the fold and inspiring the affection of younger worshippers, observers say.

The popularity of Benedict XVI's predecessor John Paul II in Germany had waned towards the end of his pontificate. He won enthusiastic support here for his defense of human rights but sparked anger with his public admonishment of the church's involvement in abortion advice clinics in the country.

The election of Bavarian-born Joseph Ratzinger a year ago appears to have come at the right time for the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, which, though it boasts 26 million members, was seeing church attendance decline at an alarming rate.

Benedict XVI's visit to Cologne last August for the World Youth Day festival proved that the shyness for which the former Cardinal Ratzinger was well-known would not hamper his reception by the public. He received an enthusiastic welcome on his first visit to his homeland since his election. The tone was set when thousands of teenagers waded into the waters of the Rhine to get a closer look as the pontiff passed on a ferry, and one million young people, the majority of them Germans, took part in the closing mass.

The organizers of the pope's upcoming visit to Bavaria in August are confident of a similar reception.

Even beyond Catholic circles, the pope has been good for the church locally. While 59 percent of Catholics believe his election has boosted the Catholic Church in Germany, 54 percent of agnostics and 52 percent of Protestants share the same view, according to a recent survey for the Neue Bildpost.

A quarter of Germans believe it is important that the pope is one of them, and 37 percent view him as moderately reform-minded, while 45 percent believe he is highly conservative.

It has played in Benedict's favor that he is a German theologian who has mastered the subtleties of contemporary thinking on religion in a country where a traditional suspicion of popes remains high. But while he has drawn praise for setting a new tone, critics such as the anti-establishment group "We Are Church" say he has taken an "ambivalent" stance on issues that matter to Germans.

"He has engaged in thinking about the role of women in the church but does not want them to be ordained. And he has held audiences with the anti-authority theologian Hans Küng but has seen traditionalists in far greater numbers," said "We Are Church" spokesman Christian Weisner. "Benedict XVI promotes ecumenism with the Orthodox church but not with Protestants, and talks fulsomely about love in an encyclical yet forbids homosexuals from becoming priests."

Renowned theologian and psychoanalyst Eugen Drewermann lost patience with the pope and left the Catholic Church in December.

While some observers saw the World Youth Day festival as having little lasting impact, the head of the Catholic Church in Germany, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, sees a direct link with rising church attendance. He told Der Spiegel magazine that the number of members leaving the church had reduced by a third in 2005 compared with the previous year, and there were "three times as many new worshippers, most of whom were returning to the church."

The south of the country, especially the states of Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate remain strongly Catholic.

But the effect of a German pope has done little to reverse predictions from the German Bishops' Conference that 700 Catholic churches will cease to be used as places of worship over the next decade.

Religious affiliation is relatively simple to measure in Germany because believers must register to pay church tax.

REASONS WHY U.S. CATHOLICS GET UPSET

Church data shows 5,000 clergymen accused of child sex abuse

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Based on U.S. church figures, the clergymen accused of sexually abusing minors between 1950 and 2005 number at least 5,000 and the number of people registering as victims could easily reach 13,000. No accurate count is possible as no statistics were gathered in 2003, and not all dioceses, Eastern-rite eparchies and religious communities reported figures for the other years surveyed. Almost all of the accused clergymen were priests. Regarding accused clergymen, a mammoth study on the nature and scope of the clergy sex abuse crisis by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York reported that 4,392 clergymen were accused of sexually abusing minors in the 53-year period starting with 1950 and ending with 2002. Compliance audits in 2004 and 2005 turned up a further 572 clergymen accused for the first time. The audits plus the John Jay figure total 4,964. The annual average of priests accused for the first time in the 55 years surveyed is 90. If this figure is used for 2003, the total is 5,054.

- - -

Catholic universities across nation grappling with identity questions

ST. PAUL, Minn. (CNS) -- The University of St. Thomas has been embroiled for several months in a dispute over whether unmarried partners on its faculty should be allowed to travel together and share a room when they lead student trips. On campus and on editorial pages, the well-publicized debate has revolved around what's more important: St. Thomas' right to uphold moral policies based on its identity as a Catholic institution, or its efforts to treat all people with tolerance and without discrimination. It's a shake-up the St. Paul institution hasn't faced with such intensity until now. But St. Thomas is not alone. Around the country, spurred by a variety of challenges, Catholic universities are grappling with just what it means to have a Catholic identity in the 21st century. At Boston College, for example, a newly formed abortion-rights group recently clashed with university officials who tried to cancel a panel discussion featuring abortion-rights supporters, whose views are in opposition to Catholic doctrine. At the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, a production of "The Vagina Monologues" was moved from a theater to a classroom so as to frame the play as a teaching moment rather than a blanket endorsement of an event that includes episodes supportive of sexual activities condemned in Catholic moral teaching. Other U.S. Catholic universities have canceled performances altogether.

[Teresa wrote about the Notre Dame issue on one of our threads recently.]

AND ON A RELATED TOPIC

Adopting chaos

4/6/2006
National Catholic Register

Ask Charles Mitchell. The media may have painted the same-sex adoption fight as a battle over religious freedom. But Mitchell knows that there’s much more at stake.

When Massachusetts wanted to force Catholic Charities’ adoption services to submit to the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling about homosexual “marriage,” the church refused. The media played the story as a simple confrontation over religious rights – as if Catholic Charities’ right to affirm traditional marriage is only defensible in the same way as tribal religions’ rights to get high from peyote buttons.

People like Charles Mitchell who grew up with homosexual parents know that the church’s opposition to the practice isn’t an eccentricity of Catholic belief. It’s a bold, counter-cultural stand in defense of children.

Charles Mitchell and two brothers were adopted as infants by two men. He called same-sex adoption “a tragic social experiment” and said, “homosexuality destroyed a normal way of life for us.”

Often, the homosexual parents shown in the media are straight-laced, responsible men. Mitchell said that his “dad” and “uncle” weren’t unlike that. But “it’s not just the two people involved; it’s the environment.”

Both he and his two adopted brothers were sexually molested by friends of his “dad” and his “uncle.” To this day it is difficult for him to trust men, he said on a March 14 “Straight Talk Radio” broadcast.

The truth is, from the song “YMCA” to the Showtime program “Queer as Folk,” homosexuals have long celebrated sex with underage partners. In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.

When the John Jay College of Criminal Justice thoroughly researched clergy sex abuse for the U.S. bishops, they found not a pedophilia crisis, but what Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, described as “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.”

John Jay’s report found that 81 percent of sexual abuse by clergy was homosexual.

McHugh called that a “bombshell” and said, “I’m astonished that people throughout America are not talking about it, thinking about it, and wondering about what the mechanisms were that set this alight.”

The mainstream media seem unwilling to admit the reality of the homosexual lifestyle, even as it is revealed for all the world to see.

Homosexual parades can’t be broadcast on network television because they are filled with displays of public nudity and sexuality. A homosexual cable network in Canada tanked until it became a homosexual pornography channel. Then it boomed.

Though there are always exceptions, the homosexual lifestyle by and large is marked by sexual immaturity and immoderation. Growing up in this culture did permanent damage to the Mitchell brothers.

“The boys turned to self-destructive behavior,” reported National Catholic Register correspondent Gail Besse last week. “One brother became a male prostitute and died of AIDS. Mitchell became promiscuous to prove he was heterosexual. As a child, he did not understand why he had no mother.”

Msgr. Tony Anatrella, a French psychoanalyst and consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family, suggested that the Mitchells’ experience is no surprise. Homosexual couples are unable to give children the model of sexual differences they need to develop their own sexual identity, he said in Rome at a Feb. 23 conference.

The media has trumpeted several studies that purport to show that adoption by same-sex couples doesn’t adversely affect children. But Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of the Catholic Medical Association said that, when studies are done properly, with control groups, the data show overwhelmingly that homosexual adoption is a bad idea.

“In effect,” he said, “the social science research supports the recent statement of the Vatican that to deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother through adoption by those in the homosexual lifestyle would inflict severe harm onto those children.”

As Catholics argue the case against homosexual adoption, we should argue for the rights of the church. But we should also argue for the rights of the children.

It’s hard to argue against homosexual adoption. We don’t want to feel mean and moralistic. We want to feel tolerant, magnanimous and modern. We’d rather look only at the positive cases, ignore the rest and put a smiley face on the homosexual subculture.

The only problem: This strategy leaves all the pain to the kids.

Way of the Cross to Focus on Loss of Sense of Sin

Text Written by Archbishop Comastri

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The loss of the sense of sin and its consequences for humanity will be central themes of the text of this Good Friday's Way of the Cross at the Colosseum.

The text for the Stations of the Cross this year has been written by Archbishop Angelo Comastri, the Pope's vicar for Vatican City.

Vatican sources told ZENIT that the meditations for each of the 14 Stations that Jesus went through in his passion will be published in a volume by the Vatican Publishing House, beginning April 11.

These texts will guide the meditation of tens of thousands of pilgrims, who will participate in the ceremony that starts at 9:15 p.m. local time. Benedict XVI will preside.

At the end of the Way of the Cross, the Pope will address a few words to those present and impart the apostolic blessing.

Since February 2005, Archbishop Comastri, 62, former archbishop of the National Shrine of Loreto in Italy, has been vicar general for Vatican City State and president of the office of the Vatican's chief engineer.

The archbishop preached the Lenten spiritual exercises in the presence of Pope John Paul II and the Roman Curia in March 2003.

Last year's meditations for the Way of the Cross were written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, at the request of John Paul II.

President Bush Reflects on Popes John Paul and Benedict at Catholic Prayer Breakfast

By John-Henry Westen

WASHINGTON, April 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Speaking at the 3rd Annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast at the Hilton Washington this morning, President George W. Bush said that Pope John Paul II "set off one of the greatest revolutions for freedom the world has ever known."

"When Pope John Paul II ascended to the chair of St. Peter, the Berlin Wall was still standing," recalled the President. "His native Poland was occupied by a communist power. And the division of Europe looked like a permanent scar across the continent. Yet Pope John Paul told us, 'Be not afraid,' because he knew that an empire built on lies was ultimately destined to fail."

"By reminding us that our freedom and dignity rests on truths about man and his nature, Pope John Paul II set off one of the greatest revolutions for freedom the world has ever known," he said.

Turning his comments to Pope Benedict XVI, President Bush remarked, "Like his predecessor, Pope Benedict understands that the measure of a free society is how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable among us."

To the crowd's delight, evidenced by their applause, the President appreciatively recalled Pope Benedict's pro-life Christmas homily. "In his Christmas homily, the Pope noted that the Savior came to earth as a 'defenseless child,' and said that the splendor of that Christmas shines upon every child, born and unborn," he said.

The President followed up by outlining his government's pro-life initiatives and expressed his hopes for a future where the culture of life is fully embraced in the United States of America. "Here in the United States, we work to strengthen a culture of life, through many state and federal initiatives that expand the protections of the unborn," he said. "These initiatives reflect the consensus of the American people acting through their elected representatives, and we will continue to work for the day when every child is welcome in life and protected in law."

The keynote speaker at the breakfast was His Excellency Robert Morlino, Bishop of the Madison, WI. EWTN's Raymond Arroyo and Fr. Neil McDermott, O.P., who is responsible for reconstruction of Catholic schools in the New Orleans area, also spoke. Catholic Theologian Scott Hahn and Fr. Benedict Groeschel, gave talks following the breakfast.

If you do not have a copy yet of the English edition of the
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (suggested abbreviation C4, as in the explosive!), here is a review by Jimmy Akin on http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/first_thoughts_.html
---------------------------------------------------------------

So here are some thoughts after an initial leafing through of it:

1) This is good. Really good. It'll really help make the teaching of the faith accessible to people in a way that the Catechism doesn't. Why do I say that? Well . . . .

2) The Catechism is a big, huge, honking book. It's too much for the average person to absorb (given how intimidated many are by big, huge, honking books). The Compendium is much more absorbable for the ordinary person, and this will help more folks absorb the faith.

3) The Compendium is also much easier to read than the Catechism. It's written in a Q & A format that is very friendly and digestible, whereas the Catechism is written in prose that is at times very dense and flowery.

4) The Compendium focuses more on the essentials of the faith than the Catechism does. In order to get the material down to size, they had to leave out a bunch of the less important, more debatable stuff, which has the effect of concentrating the reader's mind more (not perfectly, but more) on the essentials of the faith. By covering the essentials alongside secondary material, the Catechism had a tendency to flatten Catholic doctrine so that people couldn't always tell what is infallible and essential versus what is merely the common opinion and non-essential.

5) The Compendium also gives straightforward explanations in a way that the Catechism doesn't. One of the problems with the way that the Catechism was written is that it often tried to get really flowery and inspiring and it also tried to quote so much from Vatican II and other church documents and various Christian writers and this often impeded its ability to state doctrine in a straightforward manner.

Let me illustrate. . . .

Here is what the Catechism says about original sin:

---

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin", by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

---

That's it. That's the whole section.

Now--other than saying "It's an essential truth of the faith, just look at the section head"--can anybody tell me what original sin actually is based on this passage?

Didn't think so.

Now here's what the Compendium says:

---

76. What is original sin?

Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin "contracted" by us not "committed"; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam "not by imitation, but by propagation." This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand.

77. What other consequences derive from original sin?

In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, suffering, and to the domination of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence.

---

Now, the Compendium's treatment of original sin is not that much shorter than the Catechism's, but it's worlds better in terms of telling you what original sin actually is. The reason is that the discipline of giving concise answers to questions people would have about a doctrine--rather than simply discoursing on theological themes--forced the authors of the Compendium to write with much greater clarity than the writers of the Catechism did.

That's a big, BIG plus in my mind.

The Compendium thus stands to serve as a catechetical tool that will be far more practical in normal settings than the Catechism ever was.

Having said how great I think the Compendium is, though, let me add something else about the Catechism: I'm glad it came first.

At the time the Catechism was released, I was disappointed that it wasn't more like the Compendium, but having seen what happened in the intervening years and having seen the Compendium, I think it's a good thing that we had over a decade to get familiar with the Catechism before this one came out.

The reason is that the Catechism had an enormous stabilizing effect on the teaching of the Catholic faith. After Vatican II, everything was topsy turvy. Vatican II took such a different tack in articulating the faith compared to previous councils and magisterial statements that it was very hard for many individuals to harmonize the different articulations of the faith. The content of the faith was the same, but the language being used to express it was vastly different. Because of this, it made it easy for dissidents to simply harp on Vatican II and dismiss everything from before the Council, which was not at all the Council's intent.

Further, the Vatican II documents themselves were nothing like an attempt to articulate the whole of the Catholic faith. They addressed it in a here-and-there manner, not a systematic manner. There is virtually no treatment of the subject of justification in Vatican II, for example. ("Why should there be?" the Council Fathers might say. "That subject was already treated by Trent. Go look up what Trent said.")

The fact that Vatican II used such different language, coupled with the fact that it was not a systematic presentation of the faith, meant that enormous amounts of chaos were created once the "That's pre-Vatican II, so don't pay attention to it" meme kicked in.

What we needed (BADLY!) in the years after the Council was a summary of the faith that was (a) authoritative (not just some author's opinion), (b) comprehensive, (c) systematically organized, and (d) integrating both pre-Conciliar, Conciliar, and post-Conciliar statements of the faith.

In other words, we needed the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We needed a big, huge, honking book that did all that stuff.

(Incidentally, we also have Bernard Law to thank for the Catechism. Whatever his sins as archbishop of Boston, he was the one that first proposed writing the Catechism at the 1985 Synod of Bishops.)

If the Compendium had been released in 1992 instead of the Catechism, it wouldn't have had as much of a stabilizing effect on the teaching of the faith as the Catechism did.

So I'm glad that the Catechism came out when it did, and now I'm glad that we have the Compendium, too.

ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY!

----------------------------------------------------------------
And to preview the art work in the Compendium - pieces which we are told Cardinal Ratzinger himself had selected - see Emily's post on Tuesday, April 4, called TRUTH AND BEAUTY on
holywhapping.blogspot.com/
You see the pictures as well as brief comments to put them in context as they relate to the section of the C4 where they are found.

What is wrong with journalists today? They don't even look back at recent stories to place
their current stories in context. All this flap about Judas because National Geographic
is finally coming out with something it announced last December already took place in December.
Now everyone's re-inventing the wheel!

Benefan first posted a story about it on 12/1/05(top of Page 2 in the ODDS AND ENDS thread)
under the title "What to do about Judas."

On January 19, 2006, I posted two items (on Page 6 of NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH that
seemed to me should put the whole question of the "Judas gospel" at rest! But obviously,
few people read the "corrections" (it always happens!), and even fewer remember it.

Now that the time has finally for National Geographic to release what it said
last December it would release in Easter, the whole story is being stirred up as if
1) it had not been reported before - and recently; and 2) an authoritative Church source
had not already 'debunked' the premise!

So now just to SET THE STORY STRAIGHT ALL OVER and to put it in plain view at the moment,
here are the two items referred to above:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 1/19/06

The recent story that the Catholic Church is preparing to "rehabilitate" Judas Iscariot
was apparently based on a mistaken report in the Times of London. Here is an instructive
account from a well-documented blog by rorate-caeli.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Mea culpa -
Why it is important to directly read mistranslated texts
The wrong Judas article in The Times

A few days ago, The Times [of London] published a story of a "campaign" to "rehabilitate"
Judas. I myself mentioned it here as soon as a friend sent me the link. Naturally, I should
rather have checked the story in the Italian daily which had published it, La Stampa,
since The Times is known to have botched Catholic news before.

The problematic Times quotes are the following:

Vatican moves to clear reviled disciple's name

JUDAS ISCARIOT, the disciple who betrayed Jesus with a kiss, is to be given a makeover
by Vatican scholars.

---

Now, a campaign led by Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee
for Historical Science, is aimed at persuading believers to look kindly at a man
reviled for 2,000 years.

Mgr Brandmuller told fellow scholars it was time for a "re-reading" of the Judas story.
He is supported by Vittorio Messori, a prominent Catholic writer close to both
Pope Benedict XVI and the late John Paul II.

---

Now, The Times is mostly correct in its portrayal of Messori. Both Messori and Brandmüller
are quoted by La Stampa in a sidebox of an article about a "new finding" (not that new,
actually) in Italy of an apocryphal text of the 4th century called "The Gospel of Judas"
(mostly unknown and which had been mentioned only by St. Irenaeus of Lyon) --
but Brandmüller is horribly mistranslated by The Times, in a very serious error,
which has had great repercussion in the past few days.

Brandmüller is quoted in the beginning of the sidebox, commenting on the finding.
These are the words published in La Stampa (Edition of January 11, 2006, p. 25) --
the words in black [underscored in this reproduction] are mine:

[The writings of the "Gospel of Judas"] "are testimonies which are
useful only to historically frame the Christianity of the origins, but their impact
should not be emphasized," explains Monsignor Walter Brandmüller, who presides
over the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences in the Vatican. "The relevance of
such a text is not in the historical level and it seems to me at least uncalled for
to expect some novelties on what is known about the dawn of the Christian age, even
more so as it has no pertinence whatsoever [non c'é alcuna attinenza] to religious
worship or [to a religious] level", Brandmüller details. "It means rather an addition
which may serve to rebuild the circumstances and the context in which the initial preaching
of the teaching of Christ developed."

...That's it. No "Vatican scholars", no "campaign", but very sound, historically precise
and theologically orthodox words by Mgr. Brandmüller, whose opinions on St. Pius V
I had already highly commended here and who has written extremely important texts
on the correct interpretation of Vatican II.

We have no problem in recognizing our mistakes here, even those caused by The Times --
which should better hire a couple of fact checkers.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/01/mea-culpa-why-it-is-important...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Second post on 1/19/06:

The Italian and German services of ZENIT published yesterday an interview with
Monsignor Walter Brandmueller himself to straighten out the Judas story.
Here is a translation -

----------------------------------------------------------------
ROMA,Jan. 17, 2005 - A lot of sensation was raised in Italy by the report that the Maecenas
Foundation for Ancient Art of Basel, Switzerland, and National Geographic magazine plan to
publish this Easter – in French, English and German - the contents of a manuscript
from the first century AD with the apocryphal gospel of Judas. Before this, one had only
known about the manuscript tthrough St. Irinaeus (bishop of the second century).

The announcement started a debate over Judas Iscariot, the apostle who betrayed Jesus
Christ. The newspaper La Stampa, in a January 11 article, reported that some sources
claimed the manuscript would lead to a reevaluation of Judas, as someone who served
a function in the salvific design of God.

Stampa also reported comments by the writer Vittorio Messori and by Mons. Walter
Brandmueller, president of the Pontifical Committee on Historical Sciences.

On the basis of these comments, the Times of London published an article on January 12
claiming that Brandmueller would lead a campaign to convince the faithful that Judas
was, in fact, a good man. The article also claimed that some Biblical scholars are
convinced that the negative image of Judas over the centuries was influenced by
anti-Semitic texts.

To clarify the sense and implications of all this, ZENIT interviewed Mons. Brandmueller.

The Times has written that you are leading a campaign to rehabilitate Judas…
This has absolutely no basis. I found out about it myself when I read the Times and
I do not know how it started. I did not speak to the Times, and I cannot imagine how
this idea could have started. As for the manuscript itself, one must emphasize that
apocrypha belong to a certain literary genre, they are a sort of religious fiction,
that cannot be considered as documentary source for the historical figure of Judas.

Let us wait for the critical edition of this apocryphal gospel, which will certainly be
interesting from the point of view of the history of ancient literature, but it is
impossible to express premature judgments.

What do we know about this apocryphal gospel of Judas?
Ireneus spoke of this first in 180 AD, and later, even Epifanius and a Pseudo
Tertullian also referred to it. According to them, it must have been a Greek text
of gnostic origin written by the Cainist sect (cainiti) In the middle of the second
century AD.

The gnostic sect of the Cainists gave a positive value to all the negative figures
of Hebrew and Christian scriptures, including the serpent-tempter, Cain
(from whom they get their name), Esau and Judas Iscariot. But the discovery of this
manuscript is nevertheless interesting from the point of view of giving us more
knowledge of paleo-Christian literature.

Some claim that the eventual rehabilitation of Judas would improve the dialogue
with the Jews.
The dialogue between the Holy See and the Jews is proceeding very well on other bases,
as the Pope reminded us during his visit to the Cologne Synagogue last August,
and as he referred to again yesterday when he met with the Chief Rabbi of Rome.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments anyone? Should the Vatican Press Office, or some similar authoritative body,
or Mons. Brandmueller himself, e-mail copies of his interview and/or a definitive statement
about this apocrypha to every media outlet in the world to provide an immediate
response-in-context?

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/04/2006 18.00]

I cannot comment on possible modi operandi by the Vatican, but can briefly share what is happening in my country in the more intelligent news papers.

A page long article appeared yesterday, in view of the documentary that will be shown tonight on National Geographic. In South Africa the Afrikaans news media usually quote Protestant theologians, because historically most of its readers are non-Catholic. The two or three professors on ancient Middle Eastern religion, Early Christianity and Church History consulted by the journalist all put the Judas Gospel in its correct historical perspective as a Gnostic gospel (of which we have quite a few now), interesting in its genre, but not the earth shattering find that the sensation press would like to make it. Prof. Cook said the Dead Sea Scrolls are historically and academically a much more important find than this Gospel which is being advertised as the most important find in 60 years etc. And he emphatically denied the conspiracy theories aimed at the early Church and its Councils that are already being put forward by sensation crazy media. You folks would perhaps see it as being aimed at the Roman Catholic Church, but Protestants see the history of Christianity as part of their heritage, therefore Prof. Cook squashed stupid talk about the Vatican and the RCC at the first mention of the usual stories of how the Vatican is quaking because of this Gospel.

IN short, the "message" of this article is: the Judas Gospel is Gnostic; Christianity is not Gnostic. If you know (broadly) what Gnosticism was/is about ( a short explanation was given, you'll understand why this Gospel didn't "make it" into the New Testament.

Thank you, Mag6, for that heartening report, and the important reminder that non-Catholic Christians are equally clear about the place (or rather, lack of it) of the gnostic gospels in the canon and practice of Christianity. Around the time you were posting, I was drafting the following:

Actually, this whole Judas stew is more than just resuscitating a dead duck - moreover one that has been dead for centuries, if we are talking in terms of the validity of the gnostic gospels compared to the canonical gospels.

When the New York Times gets into the act by publishing as many as 5 Op-Ed articles in favor of taking the gnostic gospels seriously, that is the most obvious sign that this is now seriously a MAINSTREAM MEDIA CAMPAIGN!

Which is all of a piece with the willingness and readiness of (most of) the 40-million-or-so readers who have gobbled up Dan Brown's crock in order to believe the worst about the Catholic Church, and worse, to cast doubt on Jesus's Divinity itself!

Catholic writers, far more abreast of current events than I can hope to be, have been listing and calling attention to every other instance of MSM assault on Christianity and Catholicism and our core beliefs.

In the past two weeks alone, two 'curiosities' that have gotten quite a lot of press because they are supposedly 'scientific' studies. One, that Jesus did not really walk on water - he was walking over a piece of ice in the Lake of Galilee, where every 1500-2500 years a phenomenon may occur that some of it freezes! Two, that our image of Jesus nailed to the Cross is probably all wrong, that it was more likely he was hanged from the Cross upside down. Neither of the two studies would stand up to plain old common sense, but Oh, yeah! - great way to make the headlines if I were some obscure 'scientist' laboring away in academe: let me do a study that debunks this Jesus myth!

It's always good if some solid Christian scholarship can refute such 'facts' and 'findings', but faith goes beyond a literal reading of events. And if one has been taught the faith correctly, and has learned it correctly, then as a Catholic and Christian, one should be able to laugh off all this continual battering at the door of one's faith. But how many of us can say and do this?

'Ye of little faith' probably outnumber those who have the faith, at least among those who pride themselves in being 'superior' or even 'intellectual' because they read - never mind if their usual fare is a Dan Brown thriller.

The Pope said something today in his Palm Sunday homily that is very apropos - he spoke about the anawim or 'common' 'humble' folk who surrounded Christ, believed in his ministry, and believed he was the Son of God. I hope with all my heart that it is not the self-described 'intellectuals' but the anawim among us - men of simple, unschooled and unsophisticated but solid faith - who make up the great majority of the world's Catholic and Christian communities.

However, one can only conclude that Christianophobia - Christophobia is probably a more exact term - is becoming more rampant and hysterical. Every day, there is a new anti-Christian absurdity that makes the news in the United States in the name of 'political correctness.' And it seems that anything anti-Christian sells well these days! How did we get to this state of things? [On the other hand, we also read that there's actually a worldwide boom in the sales of Christian literature. Prime case in point: Deus caritas est sold more than 1.5 million copies in book form in the first 2 months following its release. So maybe, God provides to tilt the balance in His favor!]

The other side has been able to muster so-called "experts" with a "Dr." before and after their names, to lend credence to their biases and fondest anti-Christian beliefs, akin to the paid experts trotted up by high-priced defense lawyers in court.

Well, I hope that Catholic writers, scholars and the priests will hold up vigorously for the Church in this battle of words and ideas, while each of us, in his own way, tries our best to live a Christian life, because the witness of Christians living the way Christ wants us to is the best answer to attacks on the Faith.

I thank God we have a Pope who is seeing to it that his flock gets to know, learn and live the essentials of the faith, and I pray that his evangelical passion and simplicity will inspire all his bishops and priests to likewise focus on these essentials in carrying out their ministry.

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

By the way, I should have posted the item on this Forum earlier: A British court decided Friday that Dan Brown was not guilty of violating copyright in lifting ideas, sentences and words from a book called "Holy Grail, Holy Blood", i.e., formally and legally, at least in the eyes of this particular judge, he is not a plagiarist. Big sigh of relief from Sony which will inaugurate this year's Cannes Film Festival on May 17 with the world premiere of the Tom Hanks movie based on the infamous book. Someone has pointed out it happens to be the birthday of St. Josemaria Escriva Balaguer, who founded the Opus Dei that is so maligned in Dan Brown's fiction.

And I am still praying that all who call themselves Catholic or Christian will boycott the movie.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/04/2006 22.42]

It's turning out to be Judas-day on this forum, and perhaps opportunely so, as we are starting Holy Week. I am wondering if Pope Benedict will touch on the question when he preaches his homily on Maundy Thursday, when Judas betrayed Jesus.

From the Italian service of ZENIT, here is a translation of an interview that amplifies on the information given by Mons. Brandemueller in the earlier interview.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The truth about the "Gospel of Judas"
Interview with Fr. Thomas Williams
Professor of Moral Theology

ROME, Friday, April 7, 2006 (ZENIT,org) – The National Geographic Society has announced it will publish within a few weeks an Italian translation of an ancient text identified as the “Gospel of Judas.” [Translations in English, French and German have been released.]

The 31-page manuscript in the Coptic language was first exhibited in Geneva in 1983 but has not been translated till now.

Zenit requested Father Thomas Williams, a Legionary priest who is Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Regina Apostolorum University in Rome, to comment on the significance of this manuscript. Here is the interview:

What is the “Gospel of Judas”?
The manuscript, which still has to be authenticated, probably dates to the 4th or 5th century, and is a copy of an older document composed in the context of a gnostic sect called the Cainists (named after Cain).

The documents describes Judas Iscariot in a positive light, narrating how he supposedly obeyed a divine order to deliver Jesus to the authorities in order to save the world.

It could very well be a copy of the “Gospel of Judas” which St. Irineus of Lyons referred to in his work “Against Heresy” written around 180 A.D.

If this document were found to be authentic, what possible questions could it raise about the Christian faith? Would it be capable of “shaking Christianity at its very base” as some media commentators have claimed?
Certainly not. The gnostic gospels, of which there are many different versions besides this one, are not Christian documents themselves, because they originated from a syncretist sect which incorporated elements taken from different religions including Christianity.

The Christian community has rejected these documents from the time they first appeared because they are incompatible with the Christian faith.

The Judas Gospel would be among such documents, although it would have great historical value for what it could contribute to our knowledge of the gnostic movement. But it does not in any way raise questions about Christianity.

Is it true that the Church has tried to hide these texts and other apocryphal tests?
These are myths circulated by the likes of Dan Brown and other conspiracy theorists. Go into any Catholic bookstore and you can buy a copy of the gnostic gospels. We Christians may not give credence to what they contain, but there has been no attempt to hide them.

But does not an ancient document like this pose a challenge to traditional Christian sources such as the four canonical gospels?
Let us not forget that gnosticism was born in the middle of the second century, and that the Gospel of Judas, if it is an authentic gnostic text, probably dates to the second half of that century.

To give a historical perspective to this issue, it would be as if you or I wrote a text today about the American Civil War, which would then be used as a primary historiographic source. The gnostic gospels could not have been written by eyewitnesses as the case was with at least two of the canonical gospels.

Why would the gnostics have been interested in Judas?
One of the major differences between the Christian creed and gnostic belief concerns the origin of evil in the Universe. Christians believe in a good God, and that, as a result of man’s misuse of free will, sin and corruption came into the world, bringing with it disorder and suffering.

The gnostics, on the other hand, blame God for the evil in this world and impute to him the responsibility of having created a world that is so disordered and imperfect. Consequently, they re-evaluated figures from the Old Testament like Cain, who killed his brother Abel, and Esau, the older brother of Jacob, who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.

Judas fit perfectly into the gnostic canons because he shows a God who wanted to introduce evil into the world. [“Giuda rientra perfettamente nei canoni gnostici perché mostra un Dio che vuole introdurre il male nel mondo.” - I have checked the Italian carefully- this is the literal as well as the ‘sense’ translation of the sentence, and I find it does not make sense.]

But the betrayal of Jesus by Judas – was it not a necessary part of God’s plan as this text leads one to understand?
God, being omniscient, knows very well what choice each of us will make and is able to weave in even our wrong decisions into his provindential plan for the world.

In his last book, Pope John Paul II reflects eloquently on how God continues to have good emerge even in the midst of the worst evils that man is capable of.

This does not mean, howver, that God wants to harm us, or that he wanted Judas to betray Jesus. If it had not been Judas, there would have been somebody else. The authorities had already decided to put Jesus to death – it was only a matter of time.

What is the Church’s position on Judas? Is it possible to rehabilitate him?
The Catholic Church has the ability, through the canonization process, to declare the sainthood of someone. But there is no analogous process to declare someone condemned.

Historically, many have maintained that Judas is probably in hell, on the basis of the serious charge formulated by Jesus in this way: “It would have been better for him that he had not been born.” (Mt 26,24). But even these words do not offer a definitive proof of his destiny.

In his 1994 book, “Crossing the threshold of hope,” Pope John Paul II wrote that the above declaration by Jesus “cannot be understood with certainty in the sense of eternal damnation.”

But if anyone merits hell, would it not be Judas?
Certainly, many persons deserve hell, but we should not forget that God’s mercy is infinitely much greater than our evil.
Peter and Judas, for instance, committed very similar culpable actions: Peter denied Jesus three times, and Judas betrayed him. But we now venerate Peter as a saint while Judas remains a traitor.

The principal difference bteween the two is not in the nature or seriousness of their offense, but their willingness to accept God’s pardon. Peter wept for his sins, he went back to Jesus, and he was pardoned. On the other hand, the Gospels tell us that Judas hanged himself out of desperation.

Why is the Judas Gospel raising so much interest?
Similar theories about Judas have not been lacking before. Just think of the 1973 musical “Jesus Christ Superstar”, in which Judas sings that he never thought about being paid for his act and that he did not get to that point of his own will; or of the novel by Taylor Caldwell in 1977, “I, Judas.”

The enormous success of “The Da Vinci Code” certainly stirred up a dust storm and has provided an economic incentive for reviving theories of this type.

Michael Baigent, one of the authors of the book “Holy Blood, Holy Grail" [which inspired Brown's novel], recently published a book called “The Jesus Papers” which recycles the old myth that Jesus survived the Crucifixion [i.e. he did not die on the Cross, so the resurrection is a myth].

And a recent supposedly scientific study about the Gospel story of Jesus walking on water claims that the meteorological conditions at the time could possibly have been such that he actually walked on ice.

After all is said and done, to those who deny a priori the possibility of miracles, any theory – no matter how far out - would be accepted readily in order to contradict Christian beliefs.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/04/2006 22.34]

I have just seen the documentary "The Gospel of Judas" on National Geographic Channel. It's bed time here in SA, and I would have liked to tell more about it, but am sleepy now. Just a few remarks therefore.
As is pointed out in the post directly above, the Gnostics believed that material existence is a trap. The spirit is housed in the prison of our bodies. They've had a hierarchic view of the cosmos, including "God". For them the creator of the world wasn't the Father Jesus spoke about. HIs Father was the ultimate God, who was perfect. (I'm adding a bit, from previous reading on the subject.)

From a Gnostic perspective Judas helped to relieve Jesus from the prison of the body, and the Gospel of Judas has Jesus himself asking Judas to help him by betrayal, because Judas was the only one of the disciples who understood the "higher" knowledge (Gnosis) that Jesus taught....

What became clear again in this documentary is the variety of views in the first Christian centuries. The Gnostics apparently also called themselves Christians (not Gnostics). Prof. Elaine Pagels and another guy explained that the 4 canonic Gospels became exactly that because they were the gospels that were preferred and used much more than the others by the early Christians. The Gnostic gospels are too esoteric (my word, not hers). Interesting, but not new, is the role the church father Irenaeus played in the final decision with regard to the choice of our canonic gospels.

What I enjoyed in this documentary was the frequent sound of Aramees ("Aramaic"? sorry, don't know the English!) spoken by the characters. They had actors playing the same scenes in the different gospels, also the Gospel of Judas.

Judas hanged himself in one of the New Testament gospels, but in another (can't now remember which)he jumped from a kind of a cliff. The Gospel of Judas ends before the death of Jesus and doesn't say anything about Judas' death.

The documentary was more balanced than I thought it would be.
Although the upstairs post points out that the authenticity of the Judas Gospel is in question, I didn't get that impression from the documentary. Carbon tests affirmed that it dates from 280 AD, give and take 50 years. It is no fake.

A solid and substantial dose of thought-provoking ideas about the Church is a good way to dispel the fluff-and-huff of relative trivia like the Judas Gospel and DVC.

This month's issue of INSIDE THE VATICAN carries a long article based on an interview with British historian Michael Burleigh, who has much to say about the past, present and future role of the Catholic Church in the preservation of Western civilization.

I have excerpted part of the introduction and five specific suggestions made by Mr. Burleigh on how the Church could strengthen itself for its task. The full article is on
www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2006/newsflash-apr0...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent Historian Urges Church:
Speak the Truth in a Time of Evil
by William Doino, Jr.

Calling upon the Catholic Church to "speak the truth in a time of evil," leading British historian Michael Burleigh has spoken out about the grave threats now facing Western civilization, and exhorted the one religious institution he believes can help to "stand tall" and live up to its ideals.

The comments from Burleigh, a prize-winning historian from Great Britain, came in an exclusive interview with Inside the Vatican. In his wide-ranging and extensive conversation, Burleigh, aged 50, discussed his hopes for the revival of Christianity, to be led by an invigorated papacy, and the challenges confronting the modern world.

Burleigh is the author of "Earthly Powers" (Harper-Collins), published this month in America, the first of a two-volume history of religion and politics, from the French Revolution to the present; the second volume "Sacred Causes," is to appear later this year.

After "Earthly Powers" was released in the UK last Fall, it garnered rave reviews, with the "Sunday Telegraph" calling it "a hugely ambitious intellectual undertaking, but one that succeeds magnificently...And the "Chicago Tribune" greeted its American publication by calling it "well-informed and refreshingly provocative...'Earthly Powers' should be required reading for anyone who understands that religion and politics, even when separate, can never be divorced."
....
[The omitted portions discuss Burleigh's formation and intellectual influences, as well as the instances in history when the Catholic Church rose to the occasion when its influence was needed most.]

Burleigh believes the Churches, and in particular the Catholic Church, can serve as a lighthouse to society, leading people out of the darkness, and back to the transcendent truth about God and man.

The Church’s teaching about the dignity of human life, at every stage of its existence; its insistence on objective truth and the four last things - death, judgment, heaven and hell; its opposition to militarism yet rejection of outright pacifism in a dangerous world; its belief in the compatibility of faith and reason - all of these facts, said Burleigh, place the Roman Catholic Church in a unique and pivotal position to make a real difference.

Despite the recent scandals in the Church, and what he calls a "pathological anti-Catholicism" attempting to exploit them, the time is right for the Church of Rome to act: "No other religious body has the strength, the respect and the authority to influence the world for the better...

Although Burleigh is at pains to stress he is not in a position to offer the Holy Father anything so presumptuous as formal ‘advice,’ he did, when asked, offer five suggestions he believes could strengthen the Church’s mission:

"First, the Church should stop apologizing for its past and vigorously defend the Christian heritage, especially the unique Catholic contribution to it. Engaging in repeated self-flagellation only serves to make the Church the doormat of history, and invites contempt.

"The Western heritage, for all its failings, is something to be cherished, not constantly attacked. The reason political religions have defaced mankind is precisely because too many Christians, unwilling to defend their faith, permitted radical anti-Christian ideologues to undermine the fabric of civilization.

"History has proven that the most dangerous place to be is in a radically secular, post-Christian society. The absence of faith creates a vacuum which extremists are all too ready to fill. As the anti-Nazi writer Ernst Junger famously remarked: ‘Deserted altars are inhabited by demons.’

"Second, the Church should never compromise its core teachings and essential beliefs. One of the most admirable qualities about the Church of Rome is its resistance to fads, unnecessary changes and spontaneous ‘innovation.’

"I am not talking here about genuine progress or about the authentic development of Christian doctrine, which has always been a part of Catholic orthodoxy. I’m talking about the constant, spurious demands to force the Church to re-invent itself-- changes which, if accepted, would make the Catholic Church unrecognizable, a pale imitation of itself.

"The surest way for the Catholic Church to become irrelevant would be to follow the path of the Anglican Churches, and become a mere echo chamber of secular society.

"Today, the Anglican community, save for a few brave exceptions, has become an embarrassment. This once distinguished body has made so many doctrinal and moral compromises, and become so fractured, that no one pays any attention to it. The archbishop of Canterbury recently visited the Sudan and said nothing about genocide in Darfur - a remarkable omission, but one not surprising coming from an Anglican divine.

"We have the World Council of Churches constantly talking about the sensitivities of women and the gay community; but, ironically, many gays themselves are far more terrified of Islamic extremism than (they are of) conservative Christians, who, while firmly opposing the practice of homosexuality on moral grounds, respect all gays as children of God; they don’t want to cut their heads off.

"Women, especially young women, are particularly alarmed about the threat militant Islam poses; they realize that they will be on the sharp end of the stick if the jihadists continue to make advances.

"One only has to consider the brutal treatment of women meted out in many Islamic lands: before the United States and NATO overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan, women caught putting on makeup were taken to soccer fields and executed; and the displaced Taliban are still killing anyone presumptuous enough to teach girls in schools.

"But none of this seems to have occurred to the politically-correct mainline Protestant churches, who refuse to stand up to anti-Western militants, and refuse to recognize a real danger like we now see developing in Iran. Roman Catholicism, in contrast-- for all its troubles - has a great deal more institutional courage, and therefore continues to win adherents and converts - not least of whom are many disgruntled Anglicans, finding a steady ship in troubled times.

"Third, the Holy See should step up its opposition to religious and political extremism a hundredfold. The Catholic Church, at its best, has always been universal and consistent in outlook, and Pope Benedict should continue that tradition.

"The selective moral indignation we see from such bodies as the World Council of Churches, who frequently condemn abuses by Western governments, but remain shamefully silent toward crimes by far worse Communist and Islamic regimes, has to be rejected. On the matter of human rights, there is an appalling hypocrisy out there, and Rome should expose it.

"I like the fact that the Vatican has recently served notice to intolerant Islamic governments that inter-religious dialogue is not a one-way street, and that Christians and Jews have to be treated humanely in Islamic countries if this dialogue is to continue - along with the aid that accompanies it.

"I also like the fact that the Vatican keeps up the pressure on Israel, to act lawfully and justly, even as it vigorously defends the right of the Jewish community against anti-Semites and terrorists.

"The Vatican, bearing witness to its Christian tradition, should constantly press for peace and counsel against war: negotiation, diplomacy and dialogue should always be the preferred means for obtaining world stability, but even these have their limits. Working for peace should not be confused with naïve appeasement. Sometimes inaction can invite evils more terrible and costly than a timely and just use of military force.

"The current threat of Iran’s nuclear program, in the hands of a truly dangerous man, presents a real challenge to the civilized world. Coordinated action between the US and its allies -in conjunction with the UN and its nuclear watchdog, the IAEA - will be essential, especially after the controversy provoked by the Iraq War.

"I am opposed to any kind of premature military action against Iran, but it cannot be ruled out under all circumstances. Right now, our financial and moral support should be given to the many pro-Western Iranians working against the mullahs and extremists.

"I think Francis Fukuyama’s thesis about the ‘end of history’ necessarily culminating in democratic capitalism is foolish, but I also reject Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilization’ scenario between Islam and the West.

"History and the future of world civilization is totally unpredictable. You cannot generalize about individuals or entire cultures. There are plenty of good, decent men and women in Iran and Iraq, and Afghanistan and Indonesia, who share the same basic values as Americans and Britains, and who desire the same basic things: peace, prosperity and loving families.

"Nobody is locked into an oppressive culture or ignorant mindset, even if they’ve been born and reared in it. People and societies change, develop and grow. We are not trapped in some kind of Hegelian-Marxist universe where the entire world is heading toward one, inexorable conclusion. We have free will; we are in control of history, not some uncontrollable cosmic force.

"Civilization can go one way or the other. In order to save it, we need to wage an up-front and vociferous campaign against rogue regimes and human rights abusers everywhere, employing every legal and cultural tactic at our disposal. Compared to what the West achieved in the Cold War, our present efforts are modest in the extreme.

"Whenever possible, the Churches, led by Rome, should support the United States, Britain and their many allies in bringing the rule of law and respect for human dignity to oppressive societies. This does not preclude the Churches from denouncing these same governments whenever they do dreadful things - like shooting an innocent Brazilian electrician in the London subway, or detaining an innocent at Guantanamo Bay.

"Fourth, the Church should reach out to Christian intellectuals, and even secular intellectuals open to the Christian tradition, particularly in Europe.

"There is a great deal of criticism these days about the current cultural climate in Europe, and some of it is well-deserved: we know that the Christian birth rate has plummeted, and that an unabashed - and sometimes militant - Islam is on the rise.

"Still - and I say this as someone who lives in Europe, and is keenly aware of its deficiencies - there are a good number of very committed Christians here, particularly old-fashioned and newly-converted Catholics - and many of them work in important places - for example, at leading newspapers and even the BBC.

"There are signs that even heavily secularized countries like the Netherlands, infamous for the legalization of euthanasia, have started to repudiate the ideas of the 1960’s, and begun to realize that something much stronger and deeper is needed to confront the dangers of our times.

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that many Dutchmen, confronted by the abuses of the euthanasia brigade, and the brutal killing, by a jihadist fanatic, of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, (descendant of the painter), who dared to criticize Islamic extremism, have woken up, and are in the process of re-discovering their Christian heritage. If you want to see the possibilities for Europe’s future, study the Netherlands...

"Christian intellectuals may currently be in the minority in Europe, but they are in key positions of power and influence, and they should be encouraged in what is a lonely path.

"Pope Benedict, who is himself an intellectual, is absolutely right to cultivate them, and bring them into the conversation about a renewed and revitalized Europe. He also recognizes the promise of engaging secular intellectuals who have a deep reservoir of respect for the Catholic tradition - and might even be prospective converts themselves.

"I have to commend the pope for not giving up on his fellow Europeans. Benedict realizes, unlike Europe’s current cultural despisers, that there will be no renewal of worldwide Christianity if Europe, the home of Christendom, is abandoned.

"Finally, the Catholic Church should stick to proclaiming its principles in universal terms, and resist the temptation to try to micromanage the world’s affairs.
[I suppose this statement is a well-meaning warning, and not meant to imply that the Church has at any time in the past 200 years, say, tried to do any micromanaging of history! I think also Deus caritas est restated quite clearly once again that the Church "renders unto Caesar what is Caesar's."]

"The Vatican, for all its merits, is simply not equipped to deal with all the complexities of the modern world. Clergy are not especially qualified to talk about economics, diplomacy or military strategy and they should have the humility to listen to people who are qualified.

"The Church can never cede its authority over fundamental moral and religious teachings, but, when it comes down to more worldly issues, it needs the help and support of lay intellectuals and specialists.

"Incorporating and applying the truths which the Catholic Church believes in is a necessary but often-difficult, even perilous, task. It is one thing for the papacy to urge peace and to condemn injustice; and to warn all believers in public office that there will be an ultimate accounting for their actions. It is quite another to lay down or dogmatize precise policy prescriptions for every issue under the sun--especially if clergy are no less immune to what they read in the newspapers or see on TV than anyone else.

"Pope John Paul II, I think, understood this well, going as far as he could in trying to shape the consciences of modern politicians and statesmen, but also drawing back when appropriate. That is why his pontificate was so impressive.

"Pope Benedict XVI’s early pronouncements, which exhort world leaders to act in a Christian manner, without injecting the Church too deeply into ongoing policy disputes - lest it lose its distinctive Christian witness - is evidence that he wants to expand the legacy of John Paul II. In that respect, and looking at it, subjectively, as a 50-year-old British historian of modern Europe, I believe the pontificate of Benedict augurs very well."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript: "Earthly Powers" is now available in bookstores, and online at www.amazon.com, as are Burleigh’s other books mentioned above. For more on the life and work of this distinguished historian, ITV’s readers are encouraged to visit Burleigh’s website: www.michaelburleigh.com

Mag6 - Thanks for a first-hand report on the National Geographic documentary. I am glad you found it "more balanced" than you thought it would be. I hope I see it myself soon.

And now, I truly pray that the Pope will speak of Judas on Maundy Thursday. In one of his recent homilies, he referred to St. Irineus, whom he often quotes, as the first to have presented theology in a systematic way. And Irineus dealt with the Judas Gospel in one his books.

Just two observations - If Elaine Pagels was one of their 'experts', she also happens to be one of those who openly advocates the "validity" of the gnostic gospels, if I am not mistaken, so she may not exactly be an objective or disinterested witness.

The last National Geographic documentary I saw last December was something about trying to trace fact and fiction in the DVC, and I must say it was most unsatisfactory, as it left everything inconclusive! The ubiquitous Dr. Pagels, who is also, I understand, an industrious book writer, was one of the resource persons used - and she defended one of the favorite gnostic theses, namely, about Mary Magdalene having been more than just a disciple of Jesus, even though this conclusion is apparently based on just one word in a fragment of papyrus dealing with the Magdalene, and a word which most linguists have already said most definitely did not mean 'wife.'

As for her view that the canonical gospels became so because they were the versions preferred by the early Christians, the statement should be the other way around. The early Christians 'preferred' (I think perhaps the proper term is simply "used" because there was nothing to prefer them to, at least not for the first century or two!)these four Gospels that became canonical, because they were synoptic - that is, written by eyewitnesses to the events or by someone who transcribed eyewitness accounts of the events of Jesus's life. Not by persons who lived one or two centuries later, as seems to be the case with most of the gnostic gospels.

The second is about authentication. I don't think Fr. Williams implied that the document was a fake, only that it had not yet been "authenticated" - and I assume he used the term in its scholarly sense, meaning not just its physical authentication (i.e., that the material dates to the period when it was supposed to have been produced) but also authentication on other points - context, references, language, terms used, concepts employed, comparisons, etc...

P.S. Can't resist adding on, just for laughs, this unadorned comment by Curt Jester on his blog:
"In other news, the Gospel of Judas has now been authenticated by the team of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes."

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 10/04/2006 5.00]

Pope vows to follow the cross to Sydney

By Desmond O'Grady and Linda Morris
April 10, 2006

POPE Benedict XVI yesterday sent a towering wooden pilgrim's cross on a two-year, cross-continental journey that will conclude in Sydney in 2008 with the promise he would be in Australia to celebrate World Youth Day.

On the steps of St Peter's Square in Rome, after the traditional Palm Sunday Mass, the Pope symbolically handed over the cross to a group of 13 young Australian Catholics to mark Sydney's role in hosting the festival in July 2008.

The event is the world's largest gathering of youth and is expected to bring 500,000 pilgrims to Sydney - including 130,000 international visitors, more than came for the Olympics.

The week-long celebration, from July 14 to 20, will feature a passion play and pilgrims' walk culminating in an overnight vigil before the closing Mass, the first to be held in Australia by John Paul II's successor.

Despite concerns he might not be able to make the trip, Pope Benedict, who will by then be 81, has confirmed to the Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, his intention to travel, said Bishop Anthony Fisher, the event's chief organiser.

In briefings to the Vatican at the weekend, the Premier, Morris Iemma, said the State Government would offer $20 million worth of facilities and logistical help, including transport, security, police and medical services.

The Sydney diocese has not challenged estimates the event will cost more than $80 million.

Mr Iemma said three government ministers would sit on the co-ordinating committee, as well as the Opposition's deputy leader, Barry O'Farrell.

To accommodate Sydney's largest influx of visitors since the Olympics, the Sydney Convention and Visitors Bureau has booked every hotel room in the city. The Catholic Church is organising family billets and school halls to help house pilgrims.

Almost one-third of Sydney's population of 4 million people was Catholic, making Sydney the mother see of Australia, the Premier said. As such, it would warmly embrace the pilgrims.

"The church plays a large and indispensable role in providing vital social services for the poor and the marginalised as well as a ceaseless voice in the promotion of human dignity," he said.

The event's red, yellow and orange logo was unveiled in Rome yesterday. It features the flame of the Holy Spirit, a white cross symbolising Jesus and the shells of the Opera House.

Before the handover of the cross, broadcast live to a large congregation at St Mary's Cathedral, Cardinal Pell said: "It is wonderful to be with youth from every part of Australia on this occasion - Palm Sunday at St Peter's is one of the most beautiful liturgical ceremonies. Its significance is sharpened by Benedict consigning the most powerful symbol of Christianity, the cross, to young people, which underlines that it is a symbol of hope."

The cross will travel to Australia via Africa, Oceania and possibly some South-East Asian nations, Cardinal Pell said.

I thought I'd add Sylvie's photomontage of the press conference to illustrate Benefan's story. Also, there was a nice item in the French section today about the presentation of the Sydney WYD 2008 logo, and I found their shorthand for it very clever - WYDSYD 08 (too bad it's never seen whole in the photos above), and the logo is very well thought out. Weed seeds, anyone? Now, if Christ's parable had been about a weed seed instead of a mustard seed...


So that's the WYDSYD 08 shirt these kids were wearing!

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 10/04/2006 13.43]

to my post upstairs??!! I didn't want it to be underlined! Shucks, I'm sorry girls. It looks quite hysterical...

Teresa, Just before the documentary on the Judas-thing, they had one on the Da Vinci Code. Pagels was one of the people interviewed. Her view was the same as that of a Catholic priest (name forgotten now). They do not think Jesus was married at all. Mary Magdalene according to them was near to Jesus as an "apostle". The priest felt she was in reality the first one, agter having seen the resurrected Christ etc.
Elaine Pagel in the Judas documentary gave some background on the gnostics. I know she is supposed to be a boffin on them, but fortunately she didn't, in this documentary, maintain that they were to be preferred to the 3 synoptic gospels and the Gospel of St. John.
One thing I forgot to mention, but perhaps you folks know about it: apparently a group of Jesuits is lobbying for Judas Iskariot to be made a saint!