NOTABLES - People who make the news, not necessarily Church-related

God is not Catholic,
cardinal says
[but who said so, anyway?]

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini has published a book "on the risk of faith," and calls for mistrust of doctrinal definitions,
because God "is beyond."
But this brings the risk of emptying the articles of the Creed, object Professor Pietro De Marco.




It is puzzling, to say the least, that outside of Magister - who first wrote about this on November 3 (see earlier post above), and Giuliano Ferrara in Il Foglio [which I still have to translate), no one in the Italian media (not even L'Osservatore Romano and Avvenire) has reacted to the startling - again to say the least - statements made by the 82-year-old Jesuit in a book that has been out for several months in German but just now published in Italian.

A lesser prelate who was unknown would have elicited volumes of celebratory commentary from the usual suspects in Italy's secular-liberal cosmos, but not this? Why?


ROME, November 12, 2008 – The last book by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini published in Italy, after its publication several months ago in Germany and now also in Spain, immediately went onto the best-sellers list.



It is entitled "Night-time conversations in Jerusalem. On the risk of faith," and is in the form of an interview, with German Jesuit Georg Sporschill.

Whenever Benedict XVI has spoken in public about Cardinal Martini – a famous biblicist and the archbishop of Milan from 1980-2002 – he has always praised him as "a true master of 'lectio divina', who helps others to enter into the heart of Sacred Scripture."

But in his latest book, the cardinal does not seem to be equally magnanimous in judging the teachings and actions of the recent popes, from Paul VI on.

In a previous article, www.chiesa reported on Martini's frontal attack against the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

But there's more than just that in the book. There is a recurring accusation against the Church, of "involution." In opposition to this, Martini calls for a "courageous" and "open" Church, as the titles of the first two chapters of his book say.

There is, above all, a description of Jesus that is connected to a very worldly ideal of justice. The distance between this Jesus and the "Jesus of Nazareth" in the book by Benedict XVI is striking.

The newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference, Avvenire, in reporting on Martini's book on the occasion of its release at the Frankfurt book fair, on October 17, wrote that "many of the considerations expressed in it, understandably, will prompt discussion."

But it said nothing else. Avvenire has not yet reviewed the book, and no one expects it to do so in the future. There is also absolute silence from L'Osservatore Romano.

In private, among the upper ranks of the hierarchy, the criticisms of the the book's author are severe and concerned. But in public, the rule is to be silent. The fear is that publicly disputing the ideas in the book will compound the damage.

But, more analytically, what is the "risk of faith" that Cardinal Martini evokes? Pietro De Marco, A professor at the University of Florence and at the Theological Faculty of Central Italy, brings this to light and subjects it to criticism in the following commentary.

For De Marco, the cardinal's message seems "reticent when it comes to the complete confession of faith." It makes frequent use of the Sacred Scriptures, but the articles of the Creed "don't make a peep, as if it were superfluous to mention them."

It is this avoidance of the foundations of doctrine that has marked not only the journey of a pre-eminent Church leader like Martini, but also a large part of the Catholic Church in recent decades.


Observations on the
"night-time conversations"
of Carlo Maria Martini
and Georg Sporschill
by Pietro De Marco


The form of this book, a well-organized interview divided into chapters with brief introductions, often questions from "young people," provides an important illustration of the mind of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. And of those who follow him, within and outside of the ecclesial confines.

I will highlight the things in the book that I do not feel I can approve of, and especially what seems to me to be a deep contradiction, a contradiction that may characterize the entire public career of this Jesuit, previously the archbishop of Milan.

But I pay homage, even filial homage, to the great personality revealed once again in these pages, written together with Georg Sporschill, also a religious of the Society of Jesus.

I begin from the cardinal's reply to the question: "What should religious education be like today?" (p. 19), meaning how someone should be educated to be a "good Christian."

Shortly before this, the cardinal had said: a good Christian is distinguished "because he believes in God, has trust, knows Christ, learns to get to know him more and more, and listens to him."

In the style of the book, which seems to resolve everything in its mundane dimension, in the truth of the "vital worlds," Martini begins by evoking familiar scenes and "simple customs." It is shocking to see Christmas and Easter included among the latter of these. I will return to this later.

The religious education proposed by the cardinal is that of "listening to the questions and discoveries of young people, and accepting them," in order to arrive at its foundation, the Bible: "Not thinking in a biblical way limits us, it puts blinders on us, and does not permit us to grasp the breadth of the vision of God" (p. 20).

This trusting and well-reasoned primacy given to Scripture must certainly be appreciated, at a time when some in Christianity are proposing a "religion of reason," a search for God that eliminates the Bible as a pile of falsehoods.

But when the cardinal comes to explain what the "breadth of the vision of God" is expressed as revealed by the Scriptures, he sees it in Jesus, who marvels at the faith of the pagans and welcomes the thief into heaven, or in God who protects Cain who has killed his brother.

"In the Bible, God loves foreigners, he helps the weak," the cardinal continues. And with this, he lapses into saying too much, into sermonizing, which continues with the answer to the following question: "We must learn to live the vastness of being Catholic. And we must learn to know others. [. . .] In order to protect this immensity, I know no better way than continuing always to read the Bible. [. . .] If we listen to Jesus and look at the poor, the oppressed, the sick, [. . .] God leads us outside, into the immensity. He teaches us to think in an open way." This contains a compendium of thought that deserves to be commented on.

Meanwhile, if faith/trust in God and knowledge of/listening to Christ are the essence of the Christian condition, this nice formula cannot be used as if it were sufficient in itself.

Simply pointing to biblical reading/thinking and to an "openness" of heart remains entirely indeterminate. The only, minimal definiteness in the cardinal's words is that which proceeds from "openness to others" to the Scriptures, in order to find the same openness in this.

This kind of circularity, as important as it is, is of little significance when compared with the immense treasure of Scripture.

What becomes of the knowledge of divine things? Of the fear and love of God? Of the trinitarian economy?

If Revelation transforms us, it is because this implies "infinitely" more than thinking "openly" in the modern way; an "openness" that is opposed to what Sporschill dismisses as "narrow mindedness."

This horizon, so welcome to the secular and Catholic intelligentsia, also explains the reduction that Martini makes of the great feasts of the liturgical year, to "simple customs." It may be an inadvertent reduction, but it is telling.

When does the meditative and often profound thinking of the cardinal ever display the "lex credendi" and the fullness of the liturgical ministry? He appears to be unaware of the connection between the immensity of "thinking in a biblical way" and the immensity of Christian worship that truly opens us to a cosmic liturgy, even if we are not nor will we become for this reason "open spirits" in the modern way.

This is not a minor question, nor a recent one. Catholics, and the Orthodox even more so, are in this on opposite ends of the Protestant communities, which have not been able to confront modernity solely by reading the Scriptures and "thinking in a biblical way."

Nor is "living the vastness of being Catholic" accomplished by looking at "the poor, the oppressed, the sick." What the cardinal calls the Church's "risk" of presenting itself as an absolute does not seem to me to have been brought up in a pertinent manner.

The absolute nature of the incarnation of the Logos in the cosmos and in history is not a "risk," but the foundation of that "vastness," it is that which truly makes us "open."

Without undervaluing the "vital worlds" of which the cardinal is so fond, it is in absoluteness that Christian universality and responsibility have always been rooted.

Only a few secular thinkers still insist, especially in Italy, on the equivalence of "claims to truth" and intellectual and moral "closure."

I am concerned about the passage in which Martini says: "Men are drawing away from the [. . .] ten commandments and are creating their own religion; this risk also exists for us. You cannot make God Catholic. God is beyond the limitations and definitions that we establish. We need these in our lives, that's obvious, but we must not confuse them with God."

This concerns me because it is very dangerous to say that a positive religion is in itself a deviation from an indeterminate foundation that precedes it and is superior to it. From the viewpoint of the science of religion as well, there is no such thing as an indeterminate, common, primary form of religion. Only religions are religion.

I also find the formula "Catholic God" unfortunate, almost as if the theologies of the "Catholica Ecclesia" represented an undue appropriation and loss of the divine, instead of the loving and jealous spiritual and hierarchical solicitude for what has been revealed in Christ.

Of course God is beyond our definitions; but it is not "for the sake of life," meaning for reasons of practicality, that we establish "definitions"; in fact, it is much more practical not to define, as many modernist and postmodernists prefer to do.

The marvelous trinitarian theology of the councils and the theological "summae" are something other than contingencies, and much more. They are monuments of praise to the God of Jesus Christ, erected by Christian reason. It may be difficult for the modern exegete, perhaps a Catholic of Martini's generation, to understand this.

The whole course of these night-time conversations conceals many dangerous passages. It may be that Martini's old expertise as a rock climber favors them, seeks them out.

In the first chapter alone, on page 18 the cardinal says: "Jesus fought in the name of God so that we might live according to justice."

And on page 24: "Jesus dared to intervene and demonstrate that the love of God must change the world and its conflicts. For this reason, he risked his life, ultimately sacrificing it on the cross. But we can already see his abnegation before this. [. . .] I think that this is his love, which I feel in communion, in prayer, with my friends, in my mission."

I have no fear of unpopularity in saying that this liberationist-style Christology must be helpful in pastoral dealings with young people open to progress, but it appears to me to be seriously deficient.

It is useless for me to remind a great expert on the texts of the New Testament how critically unfounded it is, in addition to being profoundly reductive of the meaning of Revelation, to state that Jesus "fought in the name of God" like one of many rebel religious figures, and that he died on the cross to change the world according to the contingent needs of the world (peace and justice according to whom, and for whom?).

Even admitting that Martini's interpretation of Jesus implies a more spiritual and less "political" antagonism, I nevertheless find almost nothing of the Trinitarian and Christological tradition there.

This tradition, on the other hand, deeply penetrates the Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger, which Fr. Sporschill mocks ("the good Jesus of Ratzinger") without much understanding.

Various passages in chapter five, dedicated to Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, are inappropriate in the realm of theology, and have naturally caused a commotion.

Even the sincere displeasure that the cardinal demonstrates for what he considers a mis-step in the pontificate of Pope Montini finishes with a controversial twist.

The Pope published the encyclical "with a sense of solitary duty, and motivated by a profound personal conviction," Martini says, strongly emphasizing his voluntary isolation.

But we ask: whom could Paul VI trust, outside of Rome, in 1968? Episcopates rocked by the crisis of the post-conciliar period? Or theologians turned into a rebel intelligentsia?

It also seems hardly prudent to allow Fr. Sporschill to write provocatively: "Let us suppose that Benedict XVI apologized and withdrew the encyclical Humanae Vitae." Martini is mistaken to use his authority as a shield for the tendency of ecclesiastical circles to "apologize," not for their own errors of course, but for those of the hierarchy: an irresponsible and undiscerning sport.

Even the metaphor of the forty years after Humanae Vitae, to be understood as the forty years of Israel in the desert (p. 93), is ambiguous.

Who is supposed to have led whom, in this trek strewn with infidelity? Does Cardinal Martini think, as is thought in the scattered pockets of resistance, that it is the people of God who are guiding to the Promised Land a hierarchy that is resistant to the call of the Spirit?

Or does he recognize that just the opposite has happened: a profound confirmation of the irreplaceable nature of the Church as "mother and teacher"?

The courage of Paul VI, rooted in his awareness of the role of Peter, was enormous, and in the long continuation of the Church's solicitude for man, effective, as we can see today after decades of disorientation and modernizing presumption.

In short, while appreciating the many moderate observations of great pastoral delicacy in these pages, I find that the cardinal has too weak an understanding of what is at stake in the current transition of civilization.

What prevails in him is attention to opinion, preoccupations, protests, both inside and outside of the Church, and a systematic agreement with these that is typical of the secular intellectual.

It is worth considering the truly excessive consideration that he reserves for the ideas of the German philosopher Herbert Schnädelbach, in an essay from 2000 on the "faults of Christianity."

I also find Martini's answer to the question of whether he ever was afraid of making the wrong decision to be revealing (p. 64): "One can let life pass by out of fear of making decisions. Those who have decided something hastily or without caution will be helped by God to correct themselves. [. . .] I am not so much afraid of the defects of the Church. What disturbs me, on the other hand, are people who do not think. [. . .] I want individuals who think. [. . .] Only then can one pose the question of whether they are believers or nonbelievers. Those who reflect will be guided on their way. I trust in this."

I glimpse in these formulas a method that may be suitable for men of the Church, and in particular of the Society of Jesus: attracting people who think, no matter whether they believe; not getting upset about the past or present defects of the institution; and having trust in the guidance and correction of God in this kind of enterprise.

This courage often appears to be effective, even if we do not know what it will produce that will be more profound and decisive for formation in the faith, and for the Church itself. But there is something essential that is missing.

Who is it that judges who are "thinking persons"? And what is it that they think? What does the cardinal mean exactly, if we go beyond the general and generous educational formulas and enter into the heart of Christian instruction?

It is evident that what the cardinal has expressed is also a wager on the part of the Church in the long crisis of men and faith in the post-council period. [???? In what way is Martini speaking fort the Church???]

It is also clear what kind of optimism upholds such a pedagogy of providential self-realization in freedom. But this also under-estimates and in the end favors the decimation of the men of the institution, the clergy.

It was not unusual, in recent years, to hear pastoralists say that the shortage of clergy is a false problem, and on the contrary is an opportunity for the renewal of the transmission of the faith and its purification, naturally in a "non-clerical" sense.

The optimism that accompanies the night-time conversations of Cardinal Martini cannot, therefore, be proposed simply for future experimentation. It has already been practiced in the past. And the results of this 'optimism' can be judged by all.

Oje might suspect that, behind the fascination with the formulations and consesus of so many nonbelieving friends, this 'optimism' fostered that deep contradiction of which the cardinal appears to be the bearer: on the one hand, a Christian visibility endowed with an "open" profile, and on the other, reticence in a complete confession of the faith.

In his pedagogical model, there is a glaring lack of balance between reading the Bible and trusting in the articles of the Creed: an imbalance in which Tradition and the Creed are not even mentioned, as if it were superfluous to do so.

Paradoxically, a similar paradox marks the pages by Martini on the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius. For the cardinal, these are "practical and simple exercises that keep love alive. It is a little like family life [. . .] Love of Jesus and intimacy with God also live by daily conduct. I am unable to imagine my life without holy water etc."

I welcome these delicate formulas, and on the basis of them the distinction between the exercises "in their complete form, only for a few," and the "many easy exercises" for all (p. 88).

But why limit ordinary people to the first week, dedicated (if we simplify the matter) to the examination of conscience, and not at least let them go to the second?

The Italian text of 1555, which translates the so-called "vulgate," reads as follows: "The second week is contemplating the kingdom of Jesus Christ by comparing it to that of an earthly king who calls his soldiers to war."

The original version by Ignatius is more straightforward: "El llamamiento del rey temporal ayuda a contemplar la vida del rey eterna" [The call of the temporal king helps us contemplate the life of the eternal king], but the substance does not change.

Is the Kingdom of Christ and his call to it perhaps irrelevant for the "good Christian" and for his life of faith?

Evidently, for Cardinal Martini, it is not essential, and instead it is embarrassing "considerare Christum vocantem omnes suos sub vexillum suum," except perhaps in an entirely spiritual form.

But I believe that there is also part of the Church that has obscured its own "vexilla" too much, and has limited itself to the domestic, in both the family and the community.

Its necessary universal and public profiles have suffered as a consequence. Its very dedication and call to the truth have suffered; because if the private practice of the Our Father and the reading of the Gospels or the Psalms is enough for a family, this is not enough for the faith and for mission.

Nor is it enough, I think, for the Society of Jesus, for its men, for its reason for being.

It has been necessary for the chair of Peter to recall all of this actively and authoritatively, over the past few decades.

A DELAYED REACTION


Rene Girard was born in 1923 [he will turn 85 on Christmas Day], so I will be indulgent about some lapses obvious in the following remarks he made in the First Things interview, but I cannot overlook them:

---

The Church is aware of what it is, and it is constantly asking itself what it needs to do to improve. Reaching the young people, certainly. This explains why John Paul II was so important. He is the only one who seems to have succeeded up to a point in reaching them. The mysterious sympathy of young people toward John Paul II has been greatly emphasized in recounting his papacy. Events like “World Youth Day” are very important. Obviously the new Pope does not have the same charisma as his predecessor, but the great success of his visit in the United States and the recent visit in France was pretty amazing. There were 250,000 people to listen to his Mass and 100,000 of them spent the night there. This was an extremely impressive affair.

---

1) About John Paul's rapport with young people, although Girard mentions World Youth Day, he seems to have completely ignored the evidence of WYD Cologne and WYD Sydney in terms of youth rapport with Benedict XVI, both of which were colossal successes, not to mention 'lesser' events like the youth gatherings in Italy or the one in Yonkers, or the one at Notre Dame in Paris.

2) 'The new Pope does not have the same charisma....' - Well, even a renowned historian-philosopher can have his prejudices.

3) '100,000 of them spent the night there' (at Invalides before the Papal mass on Sept. 13) - Didn't he realize these 100,000 were the young people who were at Notre Dame the night before for the Pope, and took part in the torchlight procession to the Invalides afterwards? And that all the news reports on the Mass in Paris remarked that the 250,000 people who came were predominantly young people?

Serbian 'champion of abortion'
becomes a defender of life:
The story of Stojan Adasevic



In the dismal modern landscape of widespread abortion advocacy, sometimes a story like this casts its light.


Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 (CNA)- The Spanish daily La Razon has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former “champion of abortion.”

Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.

“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported. “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”

In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn’t recognize the name.”

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream. “They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him.

“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.

“That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion — something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby’s heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,”

After this experience, Adasevic “told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university.”

After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.

“You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film ‘The Silent Scream,’ by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times.”

Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

“Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization,” Adasevic wrote in one article. La Razon commented that Adasevic “suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error.” Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.

Cardinal at CUA: Obama is ‘Aggressive, Disruptive and Apocalyptic’

by Elizabeth Grden
Catholic University of America Tower (student newspaper)
November 14, 2008

His Eminence James Francis Cardinal Stafford criticized President-elect Barack Obama as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,“ and said he campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform,” Thursday night in Keane Auditorium during his lecture “Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body and Soul.“

“Because man is a sacred element of secular life,” Stafford remarked, “man should not be held to a supreme power of state, and a person’s life cannot ultimately be controlled by government.”

“For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,” Stafford said, comparing America’s future with Obama as president to Jesus’ agony in the garden. “On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.”

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” by beginning a new sentiment where one is “with Jesus, sick because of love.”

The lecture, hosted by the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, pertained to Humanae Vitae, a papal encyclical written by Pope Paul VI in 1968 and celebrating its 40 anniversary this year.

Stafford also spoke about the decline of a respect for human life and the need for Catholics to return to the original values of marriage and human dignity.

“If 1968 was the year of America’s ‘suicide attempt,’ 2008 is the year of America’s exhaustion,” said Stafford, an American Cardinal and Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See. “In the intervening 40 years since Humanae Vitae, the United States has been thrown upon ruins.”

This destruction and America’s decline is largely in part due to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the life-issue cases of 1973, specifically Roe v. Wade. Stafford asserted these cases undermined respect for human life in the United States.

“Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the unity and integrity of the American republic,” said Stafford.

Humanae Vitae (“On Human Life”) reaffirms traditional Catholic teachings regarding abortion, contraception and other human life issues. Pope Benedict XVI said in May it is “so controversial, yet so crucial for humanity’s future…What was true yesterday is true also today.”

Monsignor Livio Melina, president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, gave the opening address at the lecture and spoke about the importance of agape love to gain knowledge.

“Love itself is a form of knowledge, and this knowledge cannot be objectified,” said Melina. “It is a unique relationship between the believer and God.”

Stafford said the truest reflection of the love between the believer and God is that of the relationship between husband and wife, and that contraceptive use does not fit anywhere within that framework.

According to Stafford, the inner dynamic of a spousal relationship is much like the body itself, which ‘speaks’ in terms of masculinity and femininity.

“The experience of love introduces us in a specific way to moral knowledge,” added Melina.



Here's the graphic of the CUA Tower's headline of the above story.
TERESA

The Chief Justice
of the Catholic Church
Interview by Anita Crane

November 2008




Former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke on his appointment
to the Vatican Supreme Court and the controversies he leaves
behind.


Mons. Burke at the Concluding Mass of the October Synod assembly.


On June 27, Pope Benedict XVI named Archbishop Raymond Burke to the office of prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. Before serving as archbishop of St. Louis, Burke served as bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Now as head of the Vatican's supreme court, he is expected to be elevated to the rank of cardinal.

CWR spoke to him about the appointment and his tenure in St. Louis.


Were you happy about the appointment?
Well, I am always happy to do whatever I am asked to do. And of course, when the Holy Father asks you to do something, it is a great honor. Yes, I am happy to do it. Clearly, it is very difficult to leave my flock here in St. Louis, but I realize that it is God's will and that he will provide another shepherd for St. Louis.


How many judges are on the Signatura?
They don't all sit on each case. Normally, they judge cases in groups of five. The total number of judges is 19, counting me. You always have to have a majority vote for the final decision or definitive sentence in each case.


What kinds of cases does the Apostolic Signatura handle?
The most common cases are called "administrative contentious cases." By that I mean that they are cases in which a member of the Church makes a recourse against an administrative decision, claiming that the administrative act has done an injustice to him or her.

For instance, the transfer of a pastor; the pastor may make a recourse claiming that the transfer was not handled in a just way. Or a religious may have some complaint about an act of her or his religious superior and claim that it has affected him or her unjustly—those kinds of cases.


Among your many scholarly articles on canon law was the 2007 treatise entitled "The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin." Prior to that in 2004, you announced that then-presidential candidate Senator John Kerry would be denied Holy Communion in your archdiocese. Some say that your statements on canon law regarding denial of the Eucharist to those who are manifestly unworthy "risk politicizing the Eucharist." What do you say to that?
It is not a question of politicizing the Eucharist. It is a question of showing the right respect for the Eucharist and also safeguarding individuals from committing sacrilege.

And so we have to refuse Holy Communion to public officials who persist in supporting legislation contrary to the natural moral law, after they have been duly admonished.


If I read your article correctly, you place equal responsibility on both parties: the communicant and the minister, whether he is a priest, deacon, or extraordinary minister.
Yes, that is correct. And it is not a question of my opinion in the matter. Church discipline demands that not only the individual communicant be attentive to respect the Holy Eucharist, but that also the minister of the Holy Eucharist also show respect for the sacredness of the Holy Eucharist—it is the most sacred reality in the Church.


Why do you think that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' documents on worthy reception of the Eucharist only place responsibility on the communicant?
Because the documents are not complete. They do not report the Church's discipline in its completeness.

The conference of Bishops did not want to take up what is clearly the discipline of the universal Church, in canon 915, placing the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the minister of Holy Communion to deny Holy Communion to a person who approaches to receive and whom he knows to be persistent in public and grave sin, after having been admonished.


It seems like you are saying that if a known abortion cooperator, such as a lawmaker, approaches the Eucharist, but has not been publicly admonished by his bishop, the minister should not deny him Holy Communion.
I understand your concern. The discipline of the Church, however, provides that a person who is publicly and gravely sinning be admonished not to approach to receive Holy Communion.

Generally, in my experience, once I admonished, for instance, Catholic legislators who were voting in favor of abortion legislation, they did not presume to approach to receive Holy Communion.

The discipline does not open a way to give Holy Communion to those in public and grave sin by failing to admonish them. The bishop and his priests have the gravest obligation to admonish them. If not, they will answer before God.


Some people see you as controversial, to put it lightly.
Well, that is a creation of the media — the secular media who wanted to discredit the positions I have taken by simply characterizing them as idiosyncratic or as the ideas of a controversial figure.

And I have said repeatedly, when people have asked me about various things that I have said and done, "I am a Catholic priest and a bishop, what else did you expect?"

For instance, when the foundation of the local Catholic children's hospital featured Sheryl Crow as a performer at its annual fundraising dinner, I protested as a member of the board and people tried to construe that as being controversial.

Yet she had openly fought for the passage of an amendment to the Missouri state constitution to guarantee the so-called right to clone human life for the purpose of obtaining stem cells, and she is an open proponent of procured abortion.

And my response to that simply is, "What would you expect a priest or bishop to do?"

[In January, Coach Rick Majerus of St. Louis University made a campaign appearance for then-presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Afterwards, on the anniversary of the US Supreme Court's devastating Roe v. Wade decision, Archbishop Burke said Majerus should be disciplined and he recalled the incident.]
When the head basketball coach of a Catholic university here was openly espousing a position in favor of a "woman's choice" to have a procured abortion, and other things which are contrary, not only to the Church's teaching, but also to the natural moral law, I protested.

The media want to discredit me by saying, "Well, you are just a difficult person or you are not pastoral." It is they who have created the image of me as difficult and unpastoral. It is not the reality.

I am certainly not a perfect priest or bishop, but I do have a pastor's heart. I think that the St. Louis Catholics who have met me and know me, even if they do not agree with me in every decision, understand that.


Indeed, you have the reputation of a kind and fatherly pastor. For example, there was the "Coming Out of Sodom" story in Celebrate Life, the amazing testimony by a man who suffered same-sex attraction, surrendered to it, and renounced the faith to you as bishop of La Crosse, but who returned to the Church and sacraments with your help. Now that you are leaving the United States, would you please offer some counsel to American Catholics?
The counsel I would offer is simply that our nation desperately needs Catholics to live their faith with integrity, with enthusiasm, with energy. In so many ways, what the Church teaches addresses the many trials that our nation is facing.

For example, the whole question of respect for human life. So I just urge Catholics to learn their faith more deeply and to give themselves wholeheartedly to living their faith.

In urging Catholics in our nation to know their faith and live it, I would urge especially the invocation and intercession of the Blessed Mother, under her title Our Lady Guadalupe, the Mother of America, the Star of the New Evangelization.

I just had the great joy to dedicate a beautiful shrine to Our Lady of Guadalupe in La Crosse — a place of pilgrimage, to which I hope that many people will have the occasion to go and to hear the words of the Blessed Mother to Saint Juan Diego, which are really words to all of us.


What were those words?
She told him that she wanted a chapel built in which she would manifest to her children of America and to all her children the mercy and love of God. She asked Saint Juan Diego to be her messenger.

In conversations with Juan Diego, she taught him to be her messenger of God's mercy and love. She taught him that, no matter how poor we may be or how little-gifted we may believe ourselves to be, we are called to give witness to our faith.

She taught him that we should have courage because the Mother of God is calling upon us to be her witnesses to divine mercy and divine love.

[Archbishop Burke initiated the cause for Father John Hardon's canonization. Hardon was a prolific theologian, teacher, author, Vatican advisor, and spiritual advisor to Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The Church has declared Father Hardon a “servant of God,” the first of three degrees in the canonization process. While this cause is left to the next bishop of St. Louis, Archbishop Burke spoke of his friend.]
I worked with [Father Hardon] during the last years of his life, in a number of his apostolates, but principally with the Marian Catechist Apostolate.

We introduced it in the Diocese of La Crosse, where I was bishop, and it actually grew from there. Then I helped Father Hardon to spread the apostolate to other parts of the country….

In the years that I knew him, the servant of God was very sick with cancer. But in those years, I like to say, he was always the quintessential Jesuit — he just would not give up the apostolate.

The last meeting I had with him was late December in 2000 and he died on December 30 of 2000. His last words to me were, "Bishop, will you continue to work with me?"… I saw that and how he devoted himself to caring for the people most in need in the Church, especially people who had, in some way, been alienated by something that happened to them in the Church.

Anita Crane is a freelance writer and former senior editor of Celebrate Life.

The good archbishop has some very interesting things to say about Pope Benedict, today's pressing social issues, and his hope in today's youth.


ISSUES OF "MORAL WEIGHT"

Interview With Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City

By David Hartline

KANSAS CITY, Kansas, NOV. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- While the Church is interested in a wide range of social issues, there are certain issues -- such as the protection of the unborn -- that carry a heavier "moral weight," says the archbishop of Kansas City.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann is one of the 70 heads of dioceses who spoke out this election year to urge voters to support pro-life candidates.

In this interview with ZENIT, the archbishop discusses the changes he has seen in society, and how he see in the youth a strong future for the Church.

Q: Your Excellency, could you tell us about your formative years and the Catholic culture you experienced growing up?

Archbishop Naumann: I grew up in the 50s and early 60s. Life in those years centered on the parish community. God was at the center of our family life and parish life. My father died before my birth and, perhaps, because of that our parish priests took a great interest in my brother and me. Priests were my heroes and role models, so it was natural that I would consider a priestly vocation.

Q: Were the changes you saw in the Church during 1960s and 1970s gradual, or did you notice them immediately?

Archbishop Naumann: The 1960s and 1970s were, in many ways, an exciting time in the Church and society. Like many young Catholics, I was inspired by John F. Kennedy and his challenge to ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I was inspired by the civil rights movement and the efforts to bring about in law and society, equality for people of all races.

The changes in the Church, resulting from the Second Vatican Council, were also exciting. I experienced the reform of the liturgy as an effort to make the Eucharist more accessible to God's people.

Yet, in time, I began to see another side to some of the cultural changes around me. The disastrous consequences of the drug culture and the sexual revolution became more and more apparent. At the time it was issued, I did not appreciate the courageous and prophetic nature of "Humanae Vitae."

In time, I began to appreciate the heroic leadership of Pope Paul VI in protecting the authentic meaning of our sexuality, as well as the meaning of marriage. In the liturgy, I also began to realize, for all of our good intentions with the renewal, some of the experience of the sacred had been diminished.

Q: How did Benedict XVI's visit to the United States in April affect you?

Archbishop Naumann: Pope Benedict's visit was an extraordinary experience. He exceeded in every way my hopes and expectations for the visit. It was beautiful to see firsthand the warm and positive response that the Pope received from not only Catholics, but from all Americans, in both Washington and New York.

Pope Benedict presented himself as a loving and gentle shepherd who spoke the truth with love, serenity and authority. The youth rally in New York was truly extraordinary. It was beautiful to see the young people's enthusiastic reaction to the Holy Father's presence, as well as his response to their affection by challenging them to live heroic lives of faith.

The last night of the visit, I was watching a panel discussion on one of the news stations evaluating the Holy Father's visit. A Jewish member of the panel said that you would have to give the College of Cardinals high marks in the selection of the last two Popes. He said that both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II were extraordinary leaders not just because of their remarkable intelligence and learning, but because of their integrity. They lived what they preached.

He suggested wryly maybe our country should look into this model for selecting leadership.

Q: Your Excellency, do you believe that the United States could be making a sharp turn toward secularism -- following the lead of Canada or Western Europe?

Archbishop Naumann: I do not believe that we have to take a fatalistic view and simply concede that we will inevitably go the same route as Western Europe or Canada. I think there are different dynamics in the make-up of the United States.

However, Europe and Canada are sober reminders of what could happen if the Church and all people of faith are not vigilant. Of course, the Church, in its beginning, found itself in a hostile society and throughout history and in some parts of the world today, the Church has to keep the light of truth burning in difficult cultural environments.

There are those who are constantly trying to write the obituary of the pro-life movement. I remember in the mid-1980's a television commentator reporting on the huge crowd at the annual March for Life as the "dying gasp" of the movement. It is 20 years later and the pro-life movement is growing stronger and younger.

Q: In this election cycle the clergy spoke out as never before for the rights of the unborn. More than one-third of all ordinaries issued statements on the importance of supporting pro-life candidates. Why do you think they spoke out like this?

Archbishop Naumann: Bishops and priests have had the example of Pope John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict XVI, both who have spoken the truth fearlessly with love. I also think that Archbishop [Raymond] Burke, in the last election cycle, calling Catholic politicians to accountability has had a significant impact.

Some Catholic politicians, for many years by their actions, have been contradicting Church teaching on the sanctity of human life, but now several are actually attempting to redefine what the Church teaches. This has compelled bishops to assert their role as the authentic teachers of the faith.

Q: Occasionally, we hear of some priests and even a few bishops who say we shouldn't be a one-issue Church. What should be the response to those critics?

Archbishop Naumann: Of course, the Church cares about a wide range of issues that pertain to the protection of human life and the promotion of the dignity of the human person. However, some issues have by their nature moral weight, particularly those that involve intrinsic evil, such as abortion or efforts to redefine the essence of marriage. These are actions that are by their nature are evil, no matter the circumstances. We have an obligation as Catholic to always oppose these grave evils.

There are other important moral issues, such as care for the poor or a just immigration policy. Catholics have an obligation to care about the plight of the poor or the immigrant, but we can disagree what policies best serve their needs. As priests, it is not our role to give our personal opinions about the best public policy solutions for international affairs or domestic economic issues. Our role is to help people understand the moral priorities and principles from Catholic teaching.

Q: One of the underreported aspects of the Church is the reverence of the young and their respect for the Church and the increase in vocations we are seeing. Is the tide turning in your archdiocese as well?

Archbishop Naumann: It is so encouraging for me, as a bishop, to see the enthusiasm for our Catholic faith among so many of our young adults. In the archdiocese, we have a wonderful Catholic college -- Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. I am edified by the number of students at Benedictine who go to Mass daily, receive the sacrament of penance regularly, and spend time in Eucharistic adoration.

However, it is just not at Benedictine. I witness a similar devotion and enthusiasm with the young men and women who participate in the St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. The Holy Spirit is doing something very powerful with our young people. We have some wonderful young men in the seminary. Currently, there are 21 men in seminary formation for our archdiocese and they are all high quality. Still, we need many more.

Q: I imagine being an archbishop must be somewhat surreal. What is it like?

Archbishop Naumann: Surreal is a good word for it. Becoming a bishop is not something I thought about for most of my priesthood. It is not something that I desired or wanted. My ambition was to be a parish priest and I still think that is the greatest ministry. As I look back, it is amazing to me how God prepares you gradually for what he asks of you. Being a bishop is an awesome responsibility. It is good for your prayer life, because you know that you cannot possibly do it on your own.

I find comfort in the example of Bishop Jean Baptiste Miege, the first bishop of what eventually became the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas. When he was asked to be a bishop, he wrote his brother back in France, saying he would never have come to the United States if he thought they would do “this” to him. Bishop Miege wrote his brother that he could barely take care of his own soul; how could he be responsible for so many others. Bishop Miege was a great bishop.

He shows me what God can do if you humbly submit to his will and offer the little you have trusting, God will bless it and make it sufficient for the needs of his people.

Obama is selecting the most anti-life,
anti-family radicals for his administration;
his website says his plans include repealing
the federal law on defense of marriage
By Kathleen Gilbert



And is this a surprise to anyone? He has never masked his ultra-liberal preferences.


WASHINGTON, D.C., November 20, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In light of further actual and rumored appointments, Obama's future presidential administration is steadily emerging as a regime ominously packed with Obama insiders who promise to help roll out the carpet for the President-elect's radical anti-life and anti-family agenda.

Media outlets recently named Arizona governor Janet Napolitano as Obama's probable choice for secretary of Homeland Security.

An early Obama supporter and campaigner, Napolitano firmly established herself as an extreme abortion supporter by vetoing the partial birth abortion ban, and in one month she vetoed four anti-abortion bills.

In 2005 NARAL warmly praised the governor for vetoing a bill that would have allowed Arizona pharmacies not to distribute the abortifacient morning-after pill due to a moral or religious objection.

Tom Dashcle has recently been named as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), an appointment Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said gives pro-lifers a "frightening glimpse" into the new Cabinet.

The former Democratic Senate majority leader gained notoriety for his liberal views on abortion when he opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, endorsed taxpayer-funded military abortions, and supported taxpayer funding to provide morning-after pills to young public school girls.

Perkins also lamented that Daschle, a man with no experience in public health, is on track to become the ultimate authority on federal health issues.

One of the national co-chairs for Obama's presidential campaign, Daschle warmed early on to Obama and in 2007 gushed that the Illinois senator "personifies the future of Democratic leadership in our country."

Another likely future HHS member is Dr. Robin Alta Charo, a highly liberal professor of law and bioethics and former member of Clinton's Bioethics Advisory Commission, who was appointed to Obama's transition team Friday. Charo had been a member of Obama's pre-election team, where she managed science and health policy matters.

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith took Charo's appointment as a further sign that the Obama administration "is going to push full speed ahead" with destructive embryonic stem-cell research. Charo once called Smith, who is a prominent pro-life advocate in the world of bioethics, a leader of "the endarkenment."

"We are entering very dark days," said Smith on the appointment.

Pro-abortion juggernaut Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose liberal views on just about every possible social issue are no secret, has also emerged as Obama's favored choice for Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is quickly establishing his public solidarity with the homosexual movement.

Obama recently laid out on his website a "civil rights agenda" that includes, to the satisfaction of homosexual lobbyists, the dismantling of legal protections for marriage.

He intends to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, the act that protects natural marriage that is currently enshrined in federal law, and accordingly opposes a federal Constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

Obama has also promised to expand "hate crime" enforcement and legislation by enacting the Matthew Shepard Act, which would allow a perceived bias against homosexuality to be prosecuted.

Obama will also enforce non-discrimination in businesses regarding homosexuality, which could force business owners to hire a certain quota of homosexuals.

Finally, Obama's website confirms that the president-elect will push to open adoption to homosexual couples, and make military service more available to homosexuals.

According to gay news outlets, officials in the president-elect's transition team have so far assigned 7 openly homosexual individuals to transition review panels, 3 of which were high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

Reports also say Obama is considering deputy campaign strategist and open homosexual Steve Hildebrand as the next Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, replacing Howard Dean.

[But appointing homosexuals, if they are qualified for the positions they are appointed to, should not be seen as negative, even though emblematic!]

Another 'the leopard does not lose his spots' story:


Jesuit Superior General says
'give more time' to Liberation Theology





Madrid, Nov 20, 2008 (CNA)- The Superior General of the Jesuits, Father Adolfo Nicolas, said this week he was disappointed that Liberation Theology has not received a “vote of confidence,” and he said the controversial approach should be given more time to mature.

In an interview with El Periodico, Father Nicolas said Liberation Theology “is a courageous and creative response to an unbearable situation of injustice in Latin America. As with any theology, it needs years to mature. It’s a shame that it has not been given a vote of confidence and that soon its wings will be cut before it learns to fly. It needs more time.”

During the interview, Father Nicolas admitted that the Jesuits have diminished in number but he said the Society of Jesus is still “the most theologically and doctrinally visible group” in the Church, and therefore, “It’s only natural that we get more attention,” he said alluding to the supposed vigilance of the Society by the Pope.

Asked about the feeling many have that the Jesuits “look down upon other orders,” Father Nicolas said, “This is a weakness we have and it is quite common. This comes from the fact that in the Society we have always insisted on the concern for quality and in-depth formation. The problem is that we are human beings, and we don’t realize that that capability has been given to us, it’s not because of our pretty face.”

Regarding the hostility of the Spanish government towards the Church in some matters related to social policy, Father Nicolas said, “Because I am used to the climate of moderate secularism that is present in Japan, where I lived for many years, I find the Socialist government to be, with all due respect, immature, in the sense that unemployment, educational and immigration problems are so great that I think time is being wasted in worrying about relations with the Church.”

He said it was “possible” that the Church in Spain has “a tendency to be reprimanding.”

“I’ve always found it bothersome and incomprehensible that a priest lectures his people. What right does he have to do that? It’s a mistake,” Father Nicolas said.


[And where does Fr. Nicolas draw the line between preaching what is right according to Catholic teaching, and 'lecturing'?

As for his comments on Liberation Theology, I hope a full transcript of his interview will show that he makes a distinction between the varieties of Liberation Theology.

If he means the Marxist-inspired varieties which see Catholicism as mere social action, then that is unfortunate. But what about the 'liberation theology' encouraged by the Aparecida document, inspired by Jesus's concern for the poor - but without losing the focus on the spiritual dimension of theology? That is what the bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean - if I understood what the Aparecida conference was about - have committed themselves to promoting, along with the urgently needed new evangelization..]

The context of Cardinal Stafford’s stark language
All Things Catholic
by John L. Allen, Jr.

Friday, November 21, 2008



I’ve been speaking and writing lately about U.S.-Vatican ties under Obama; I was at Colgate University earlier this week, for example, addressing students and faculty on this very subject.

As fate would have it, my appearance coincided with a sharp reminder of the potential pitfalls in that relationship, in the form of some remarkably incendiary language from Cardinal Francis Stafford, an American who heads a Vatican court.



It’s not every day that a senior Vatican official uses loaded words such as "apocalyptic" to describe a new head of state, or says that Catholics cried "hot, angry tears of betrayal" after the election -- especially referring to a President who swept to victory with a solid majority of Catholic votes.

Inevitably, the story has been headlined "Vatican blasts Obama." Both elements of that formula are actually misleading: Stafford was not speaking for the Vatican, and he did not issue a blanket indictment of Obama.

That said, Stafford’s comments nevertheless suggest just how challenging it may be to carve out a modus vivendi between the Catholic church and the new regime in Washington.

Stafford was in Washington on Thursday, Nov. 13, for a lecture at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. It was part of a conference dedicated to Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical affirming the church’s traditional ban on birth control.

Stafford commented at some length on Obama’s victory. Here’s what he said in the key portion of the address -- which, in vintage 21st century fashion, was posted on YouTube by The Tower, the student newspaper at Catholic University [which headlined its corresponding newspaper article 'Cardinal at CUA: Obama is 'apiocalyptic' - see graphic] :

---

"Our exploration this weekend takes place in the context of Nov. 4, 2008. On that date, a cultural earthquake hit America. Senator Barak Obama was elected President of the United States.

He appears to be a relaxed, smiling man. His rhetorical skills, as I mentioned, are very highly developed. He has a way of teasing crowds, and, from all reports, even individuals one-to-one.

Under all of that grace and charm, there is a tautness of will, a clenched jaw, a state of constant alertness to attack and resist any external influence that might threaten his independence. A ‘state of alertness,’ yes … that’s putting it mildly. Beneath each word he speaks, he carries on sapping operations against the enemy city. *

His clenched jaw was seen at his talk before the Planned Parenthood supporters July 17, 2007. There he asserted, and I’m quoting somewhat out of context but not out of his meaning: ‘We are not only going to win this election, but also we are going to transform this nation. … The first thing I’d do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. … I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. … I don’t want my daughters punished by a pregnancy. … On this issue, I will not yield.’

Note the way the president-elect wished to describe the killing of his unborn grandchild. His daughters must not be ‘punished’ - ‘punished’ - by pregnancy.

His rhetoric is post-modernist, and marks an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic.

Catholics weep over these words. We weep over the violence concealed behind the rhetoric of our young president-to-be. What should we do with our hot, angry tears of betrayal?

First, our tears are agonistic. We must acknowledge that. For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden."

---

(As a footnote, Stafford made a small factual error. Obama did not say he wouldn’t want his daughters "punished by a pregnancy" during his speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007.

That comment instead came during a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, in March 2008, when Obama, speaking off the cuff in response to a question, said: "Look, I’ve got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information."

Stafford corrected the reference in the written version of his remarks.)

(One other quick aside: In medieval warfare, a "sapping operation" referred to digging under a city wall in order to weaken the fortifications.)

Whenever a public figure says something explosive, context is usually the first casualty of reporting. Here, therefore, are four bits of context for understanding what Stafford said -- and hence what he meant.

- First, Stafford did not call Obama himself "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic," as was widely suggested by media reports [and by the original Tower headline, don't forget!] , but rather Obama’s rhetoric in one specific setting -- the 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood. Whatever one makes of that, it does not amount to an anathema tout court.

- Second, in that specific context, the terms "aggressive" and "disruptive" seem less jarring. Even the most fervent advocates of the Freedom of Choice Act would concur that it is aggressive, intended to overturn all existing restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels in one fell swoop, and that it is disruptive, in the sense that it elicits strong opposition.

Further, it’s worth noting that the phrase “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic” was not something Stafford invented, but rather a quotation from Francois Mauriac’s description of Andre Gide.

- Third, Stafford himself has provided clarification of what he meant by the term "apocalyptic." Contacted by CNN this week, Stafford said he didn’t intend a literal reference to the end of the world, but rather that Obama’s position on abortion is contrary to "natural and divine" laws regarding human life.

- Fourth, in the same conversation with CNN, Stafford also stressed that he was not speaking for the Vatican.

There’s a natural tendency to assume that every time a Vatican official clears his throat, it’s at the order of the Pope. In reality, officials give speeches and interviews all the time voicing opinions that don’t reflect the corporate line, and which haven’t been cleared or coordinated with anybody.

Here’s the key point: the way the Vatican distances itself from such commentary is by not repeating it, and that’s precisely what’s happened in this case.

I’ll add two other observations about Stafford’s background and personality, which may help flesh out the context for his Nov. 13 remarks.

First, whatever else Stafford was doing, he was not playing partisan politics. He was speaking instead out of a set of theological convictions premised on what he sees as a deep gulf between contemporary American culture and the values of the Gospel.

Over the years, Stafford has used fairly stark language -- some might call it "prophetic speech" -- to express this conviction in ways that have challenged both left and right, and which makes his statement on Obama seem less sui generis.

Stafford’s view is informed by a theological current associated with the Swiss thinker Hans Urs von Balthasar, the Communio school founded after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), and its American interpreters such as David Schindler.

Unlike neo-conservatives such as George Weigel and Michael Novak, who see basic compatibility between Catholic social thought and American-style capitalism and democracy, Communio thinkers tend to find deep differences -- and often feel frustrated that too many Americans, in their view, have been more evangelized by the culture than by their Christian tradition.

I recall a 2003 lecture by Stafford in Rome in which he argued that the icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Statue of Liberty embody two radically different anthropologies.

The Guadalupe image, Stafford said, reflects the view that true liberty means "taking delight in what is right," choosing to orient oneself to God’s truth in a spirit of thanksgiving.

The Statue of Liberty, he said, depicts an abstraction derived from the European Enlightenment, one which exalts the absolute autonomy of the individual. Efforts to artificially harmonize these two philosophies, he suggested, end in ruin.

This week Stafford trained his fire on Obama, but driven by belief that being Catholic in America means being counter-cultural, he’s used comparably dramatic imagery in the past to go after other administrations.

In February 2003, for example, I interviewed Stafford about Bush’s press for war in Iraq.

"I come at this as a Christian and religious leader who celebrates the Eucharist every day," Stafford said then. "It’s not possible for me to celebrate the Eucharist and at the same time to envision or encourage the prospect of war."

Stafford’s conclusions may be open to debate, but his agenda is not simply to position the Catholic church closer to the Republican Party.

Second, it would also be a mistake to think that Stafford is blind to the positive implications of Obama’s success for race relations. On the contrary, Stafford has a long history of commitment to the civil rights movement, dating back to the early 1960s when he studied community organizing and social work at The Catholic University of America.

As a young Baltimore priest in the 1960s, he ran the archdiocese’s charitable efforts in the predominantly African-American inner city. In the 1980s, then-Bishop Stafford of Memphis was considered one of the most outspoken Catholic leaders in the country on racial issues.

Although this is no more than armchair psychology, I suspect part of his disappointment with Obama is precisely that Stafford has long prayed for the day an African-American could be elected President, only for that leader to be on the wrong side, in Stafford’s view, of the towering moral question of our time.

In the full text of his remarks, Stafford said, "Americans were unanimous in their joy over the significance of the election of a black president."

Granted, it probably would have been helpful if he had developed the point, much like Cardinal Francis George of Chicago did in his presidential address to the U.S. bishops in Baltimore.

On the other hand, it’s worth remembering that Stafford had been asked to speak at the John Paul II Institute not on racism or civil rights, but on Humane Vitae, which naturally invited a focus on the "life issues."

* * *

So, where does all this leave us in terms of Vatican/U.S. relations in the Obama age?

Directly, it doesn’t change the calculus at all. Shortly after Obama’s election, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, said the Vatican was interested in working together on Iraq, the Holy Land, Christian minorities in the Middle East and Asia, and the fight against poverty and social inequality. Those open doors were not closed by Stafford’s words.

On the other hand, non-Americans in the Vatican often take their cues on the States from their American colleagues, and Stafford’s broadside is not exactly a glowing recommendation of the new President.

In equal and opposite fashion, his speech may have alienated some Democrats, which could make it harder for Catholics to claim a place at the table when decisions are made in the Obama administration. (The typical Democrat may not make fine distinctions between the personal views of the Major Penitentiary, which is the job Stafford holds, and the corporate position of the Vatican.)

Most immediately, the Stafford episode points to an indisputable political truth: If the new Congress and the Obama White House move forward with the Freedom of Choice Act, then the prospects for collaboration between Church and state will become infinitely more complicated.

A cultural war would likely erupt, with both sides engaged in "sapping operations against the enemy city."

That, surely, is an apocalyptic scenario all would do well to avoid.
[But how can it be avoided if FOCA becomes fact?]



Mr. Allen has posted the entire text of Cardinal Stafford's speech on
ncrcafe.org/node/2294
As it is a very literate, essentially theological reflection, I have posted it in full in READINGS.

Having now seen the full address, Allen's excerpting of the 'quotation' about Obama was misleading in that the paragraph I italicized was Stafford citing what Francois Mauriac said of a contemporary (Andre Gide, it appears), only picking up a phrase from said quotation when he transitions to "Similar characteristics were evident in Senator Obama’s talk before Planned Parenthood supporters on July 17, 2007 - tautness of will, a clenched jaw, etc. - where he asserted...."

Beatles bigger than Jesus?
Just a Lennon joke, the OR says





PARIS, Nov. 22 (AFP) – The Vatican's daily newspaper marked the 40th anniversary of the "White Album" on Friday by dismissing as a "quip" John Lennon's notorious claim that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ.

The legendary double album -- which came out on November 22, 1968 at the height of the Fab Four's influence and popularity -- was "a magical musical anthology" from a band "full of talent," L'Osservatore Romano said.

Rather inevitably, its lengthy article kicked off with Lennon's remark to a London newspaper in March 1966 that "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink ... We're more popular than Jesus now".

"It is a phrase that provoked deep indignation at the time, but which sounds today like a quip from a young man from the English working class overtaken by unexpected success," the newspaper wrote.

The real talent of the Beatles, it said, "rested in their unequalled capacity to write popular songs with a sort of euphoric lightness that constituted a genuine trademark".

"Today," it went on to lament, "recordings seem above all to be standardized and stereotyped -- falling well short of the creativity of the Beatles."


I will translate the entire Beatles article later... Personal footnote: I was at the Beatles news conference after they arrived in Manila in July 1966 when Lennon repeated the statement "We're more popular than Jesus now' [which he also said in Chicago later] - and he said it clearly as a jest, almost ironic even, without a trace of irreverence. I was with a TV news crew filming the entire 'Beatles in Manila' event and we have that interview on film [news videocameras were not yet routine in 1966!] which I later had to watch a number of times during editing, etc.



11/23/08
P.S. I can't believe the news agencies drew yet another item from the OR article on the Beatles - they could have summarized everything in one item - I do have to translate the original article some time today!


Vatican: Beatles music
better than today's songs



VATICAN CITY, Nov. 23 (AP) – Vatican media are praising the Beatles' musical legacy and sounding philosophical about John Lennon's boast that the British band was more popular than Jesus.

Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano recalls that Lennon's comment outraged many when he made it in 1966.

But it says in its Saturday edition that the remark can be written off now as the bragging of a young man wrestling with unexpected success.

The newspaper as well as Vatican Radio last week noted the 40th anniversary of the Beatles' "White Album."

It said the album demonstrated how creative the Beatles were, compared with what it called the "standardized, stereotypical" songs being produced today.


11/24/08
I must confess red-faced that when I turned to my WORD file on 'pending translations', I could not find the Beatles article from OR, which means I obviously did not save it, though I certainly thought I had. The problem is that the OR articles posted online - apart from the Pope's texts, Cardinal Bertone's texts, and selected front-page editorials and editorial commentaries - are not archived at the moment, so if you don't copy an item on the day it is posted, it will be there only until the items for the next issue are posted. I apologize.

Meanwhile, here's how CNS reported it - it seems to be the most extensive Anglophone news item based on it:



Vatican newspaper says Beatles music
is better than today's pop songs
By John Thavis



VATICAN CITY, Nov. 24 (CNS) -- The Vatican newspaper said the musical compositions of the Beatles were far more creative than the "standardized and stereotyped" pop music of today.

The Beatles' songs have demonstrated "remarkable staying power, becoming a source of inspiration for more than one generation of pop musicians," it said.

The newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, published a lengthy and laudatory retrospective on the Beatles Nov. 22 to mark the 40th anniversary of the release of the "White Album," the group's groundbreaking double-record set.

"Forty years later, this album remains a type of magical musical anthology: 30 songs you can go through and listen to at will, certain of finding some pearls that even today remain unparalleled," it said.

With rock songs like "Back in the U.S.S.R." and "Helter Skelter," ballads like "Julia" and "Blackbird," and dreamlike pieces like "Dear Prudence," the album represents the "creative summit" of the Beatles' career, it said.

What characterized the "White Album" and the Beatles best music in general was an inventiveness that stands in stark contrast with popular music today, the newspaper said.

"Record products today seem mostly standardized and stereotyped, far from the creativity of the Beatles," it said. The modern pop music industry is too willing to sacrifice originality and fantasy in order to satisfy the consumer models it has adopted and promoted, it said.

The newspaper also recalled that the Beatles were recording with rudimentary tools compared to those used by the high-tech recording industry today. Even so, "a listening experience like that offered by the Beatles is truly rare," it said.

As for John Lennon's famous quip in 1966 that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, the Vatican newspaper dismissed it as youthful bragging.

"The phrase that provoked profound indignation, especially in the United States, after so many years sounds merely like the boast of a working-class English youth faced with unexpected success," it said.



BTW, as a Beatles fanatic/freak since 1963, I must disagree with the OR reviewer that the White Album was the Fab Four's best. My vote goes to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, any number of which continues to generate a guaranteed musical 'high' whenever I listen to it.

Bolivian capital's elevation
takes its toll on Vatican envoy




Vatican City, Nov. 22 (dpa) - The Vatican on Friday named a new papal nuncio, or ambassador, to Bolivia after his predecessor resigned for health reasons related to Bolivian capital La Paz's high altitude. Monsignor Giambattista Diquattro, 54, is set to take over from Monsignor Luciano Suriani, 51, the Vatican said.

Appointed to La Paz just nine months ago by Pope Benedict XVI, Suriani asked to be transferred due to an inability to cope with the city's high altitude, the ANSA news agency reported, citing Bolivia's Embassy to the Holy See.

The Bolivian capital is situated at 3,640 metres above sea level. Potentially fatal health problems, such as high altitude pulmonary edema and cerebral edema, have been known to occur at levels above 2,200 metres.

Earlier this year, the Vatican disappointed many Mexican Catholics when it announced that the 81-year-old Benedict would not attend a conference on family life scheduled for January 2009 in Mexico City due to the city's 2,240 metre elevation.

In 2007, world football governing body FIFA banned the staging of international matches at venues higher than 2,750 metres, but reversed its decision this year following protests by Bolivian President Evo Morales. Morales was backed by his counterparts in Ecuador and Peru, nations which also have large tracts in the Andes.


One can never under-estimate the potential effects of high altitude on persons with a history of heart problems. La Paz is at 11,700 feet altitude. When I had to join an official delegation for the 150th anniversary of Bolivia's independence in 1975, we were first required to undergo to get medical clearance from a cardiologist.

Once we got to La Paz, even if all of us took the prescribed pills (Diamox) to minimize the potential effects of altitude, all but four of us in a 30-man delegation succumbed in the first few hours to 'altitude sickness' - they call it 'soroche' - whose worst sign is a deadly headache, accompanied by nausea, vomiting and general weakness.

Bolivians advise visitors to drink lots of 'mate', a tea made from an infusion of coca leaves. The natives chew the leaves. It works. Also, provided one does not have underlying heart problems, the body does accommodate to the altitude in a day or two - as long as you don't do anything strenuous.

We should be thankful Pope Benedict's doctors have been prudent enough to advise against a trip to Mexico City. Some may cite that John Paul II travelled to Mexico when he was 81, but I don't think his medical history included a cardiac problem like Pope Bnedict does.

Apparently, altitude sickness can first be manifested at 2000-2500 meters (6000-8000 feet), although the suecpetibility varies according to the person.

Because I survived the altitude of La Paz, I had no second thoughts about getting up to 16,000 feet altitude when travelling with friends through Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet in 1998. Of course, we all religiously took our Diamox first.

MY AFRICA:
Endemic tragedies and
reasons for hope
Interview with Cardinal Arinze
by GIANNI CARDINALE
Translated from

November 22, 2008


Both L'Osservatore Romano and Avvenire yesterday featured
an interview with Cardinal Francis Arinze to mark the Golden
Jubilee of his priesthood. Here first is a translation of the
interview with Avvenire.



Cardinal Arinze with the Holy Father earlier today.



"I welcomed with great joy and satisfaction the news that the Holy Father is visiting Cameroon and Angola in March. I think that all of Africa, Catholic or not, will greet his arrival with acknowledgment. We must hope that it will listen to what he will say."

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who has been Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments since 2002, is visibly happy that Benedict XVI will dedicate his next trip to the continent which has registered the most impetuous growth in the number of faithful and of priestly vocations in the Catholic world.

The Nigerian cardinal is the highest-ranking African in the Roman Curia. Named coadjutor bishop by Paul VI in 1965 - he participated in the last session of the Second Vatican Council - and Archbishop of Onitsha in 1967, John Paul II called him to Rome in 1984 to preside over the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialog and made him cardinal in 1985. In April 2005, Papa Ratzinger named him to succeed him as the titular cardinal-bishop of the suburbican Church of Velletri-Segni.

We met the cardinal on the eve of an important anniversary for him: 50 years of priesthood. He was ordained on November 23, 1958 at the church of the Pontifical Urban College of Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples) in Rome.


Eminence, 2009 could well be designated the Year of Africa for the Catholic Church. The Pope's trip is, in fact, in preparation for the continental Synod which will be held in Rome on October 4-25. In the days before that (Sept. 27-Oct. 3), the Symposium of the Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM)will also be held here in Rome.
Time is of God, and every year should be the year of every continent. Doubtless, however, the events you cited will be particularly significant for us in Africa.

The SECAM meeting is important. It is analogous - but far less known - to the Catholic Episcopal Conferences of Europe or the Latin-American CELAM. It was debated whether to hold the meeting in Africa or in Rome. Then, rightly, it was decided to hold it here in Rome, just before the special Synod assembly on Africa.

With that practical choice, the Church in Africa also expresses its affective and effective link with Rome.


Are you a bit disappointed that the Pope did not choose Nigeria as a destination his first trip to Africa?
If he had chosen my native country, I would have been happy. But I am just as happy that he chose Cameroon and Angola. The important thing is that he is coming to Africa and that he is going there to present the Working Agenda for the Synod - a Synod that John Paul II had planned to call and which Benedict XVI did call. It will be the second Synod on Africa.


The first one was in 1996...
Exactly. It dealt with five topics on evangelization. This time, however, the African bishops wanted to deal with topics about justice and peace. And Pope Benedict approved their choice.


This means that Africa particularly has need of justice and peace....
Certainly. But this does not mean that everything in Africa has been going badly. However, many Westerners take note of our continent only when some tragedy happens - so much so that when there is no news about Africa in the newspapers, the thought is "No news is good news". But there is good news, it just doesn't make it to the newspapers or newscasts.


What would those be?
I would say, for instance, the passage from apartheid in South Africa, which has taken place without vendettas and bloodshed, something that had not been ruled out.

Also, that in some nations of Africa, there have been democratic changes of government, as in Malawi and Zambia. Then, there is Liberia, where a culturally and politically well-prepared lady won out over all her adversaries and was elected President.

Then consider how Kenya a few months back, with the help of neighboring countries - and of Kofi Annan, former UN secretary-general - to overcome a political crisis that could have led to civil war. These are positive signs.


Is that not perhaps an idyllic vision of Africa? There certainly is no lack of problems.
Oh, I am not naive, I am coming to that. Because beside those bright points, there are the shadows, many of which are particularly dark. Think of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the victim of the greed of both national and international powers for its natural resources.

Then Sudan and Darfur. Let us hope that St. Josephine Bakhita, who came from Somalia, will protect her native land.

Then we come to the region of the Great Lakes, very beautiful but severely tried by overweening ethnicisms.

And my own Nigeria, with its oil wealth which sometimes becomes a curse instead of a blessing.

The Church cannot fail to do something about such problems. And I mean not only the clergy but also the laity.


At the recent Synod assembly, some problems affecting the Church in Africa were raised, particularly the face-off with Islam, competition from evangelical sects, and a return to indigenous religions.
They are real problems, but they must not be exaggerated. In sub-Saharan Africa, relations with Islam are much better than in the countries along the Mediterranean and Red Seas. Bear in mind also that often, the conflicts between Christians and Muslims are determined more by political, commercial and economic rivalries rather than by particularly religious questions. A good Christian and a good Muslim do not kill in the name of God.


What about the evangelical sects?
It is undoubtedly a widespread phenomenon. But that too is carried forward more by businessmen in quest of business than by pastors who are zealous to win souls to Jesus. It is a phenomenon that gains ground wherever Catholics are not adequately formed and where there is a shortage of priests. You can see it happening in Brazil and the Philippines. Or consider that even in rich and technologically advanced Europe, New Age sects have made not a few proselytes.

As far back as 1991, the College of Cardinals was called to an Extraordinary Consistory to consider this phenomenon. Among the antidotes discussed was to observe the liturgy with greater care.And that is an invitation that continues to be valid today.


What do yo you say to the fact that not a few African Catholics have been returning to the practices of their indigenous religions?
The underlying culture of a people cannot be cancelled out in a short time. And I would consider traditional African religiosity as a resource rather than a problem.

Respect for older people - they don't send their parents to old age homes so they can go out partying when they want. Children are seen as a blessing, not as a problem to be avoided. Respect for the sacred, a sense of community, belief in the transcendence of God - these are all positive attitudes that are rooted in the African people.

When I was a seminarian and my father was not yet Christian, he regarded met with great respect because he considered me a consecrated person. Of course, we have politicians who are chauvinists and want to recover traditional religions for their own ends, but this worked in the period soon after the end of colonialism, and not so much today.

Then, it is always possible to fall back into superstition - that's understandable. Our Christian history is still young. In Europe after centuries and centuries, for instance, consider the continuing superstition about the number 13...


Africa is the continent with the highest rate of increase in the number of faithful and priestly vocations. That is a wealth for the Church but without some problems, such as observance of celibacy or the risk of careerism...
It is a phenomenon which feels me with joy but also with responsibility. To have 30 seminarians is not the same as having 300. In Nigeria, there is a seminary with more than 400 candidates. Such a wide choice obliges us to particular discernment.

Parishes have a particular duty in this, but also Catholic women, who at times know more than others and know before others and their own bishop if there are problems.

Of course, families with many children facilitate the birth of vocations. That said, we know that human nature has been wounded by original sin - even one of the Twelve Apostles betrayed Christ - and we cannot now claim to be better than the first followers of Jesus.

As to celibacy and the call to evangelical poverty, these are challenges in every continent. In general, the African clergy respond generously, even if we can't rule out that some will fall short.


Eminence, a last question. How does an African cardinal look at the election of the son of a Kenyan as the new President of the United States?
It is undoubtedly historical, especially looking at the past of that great nation. The Americans have elected a President without looking at the color of his skin. And that is positive, even if this does not mean approval for every element of Obama's program.

I hope that the new President will look with benevolence on the continent from which his father came.


Here is a translation of the full interview with OR, about which the news media, including the Italian MSM, only picked out what the Cardinal said about a possible transfer of the Sign of Peace from before Communion to before Offertory, a possibility Pope Benedict already mentioned at the time of his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist:


'Peace and justice
are the future of Africa':
Interview with Cardinal Arinze
by Nicola Gori
Translated from
the 11/22/08 issue of





Pope Benedict looks over the third 'typical' edition of the Roman Missal presented by Cardinal Arinze.


Fifty years of priesthood. For Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, - who celebrates tomorrow at St. Peter's Basilica the Golden Jubilee of his ordination as a priest - it is time to draw a balance.

It starts from the years of his formation in Nigeria to his experience as the head of the Vatican dicastery in charge of liturgy. And looking ahead, especially to the coming Special Assembly of the African Bishops' Synod, which he calls providential because, he underscores, "there is need for more justice and peace in Africa".


What do you remember of your formative years in Africa?
I studied philosophy at the seminary in Enugu, Nigeria, from 1953 to 1955. Our educators were Irish priests of the Holy Spirit who did a great job. Subsequently, my archbishop sent me to Rome to study at the Pontifical Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide, where I earned my degree in theology. I was at the college from 1955-1959.

At that time, the rector was Mons. Felice Cenci, of the Diocese of Rome, whom I remember fondly. On November 23, 1958, I was ordained a priest in the church of the Pontifical College.


When did you return to your homeland?
After earning my doctorate in theology, I was named professor at the Bigard memorial Seminary, where I had trained. I taught there from January 1961 to July 1962. Then I was named to be the regional secretary for Catholic education. After a year, my bishop sent me to London to study pedagogy. I was there from 1963-1964 in London University's Institute of Education. It was a post-graduate course for those who wished to specialize in pedagogy. Back in Nigeria, i resumed by duties as regional secretary for Catholic education.


That was the time of the Second Vatican Council. In what way did that influence your formation?
I would say, directly. Consider that on July 6, 1965, I was named [by Paul VI] coadjutor bishop to the Archbishop of Onitsha- and barely two weeks after my episcopal ordination, I took part in the last session of Vatican-II.

It was a very beautiful experience for me. I was 32 years old, and at that time, the Council documents were in the process of approval. I had the honor to sign many of them, even if I had no hand in drafting them.


Let us turn to your pastoral experience in Africa. How would you describe the years as head of the Archdiocese of Onitsha?
They were certainly not monotonous years, if one considers that two days after I was named archbishop, civil war erupted. The difficulties were already latent - there had been conflicts and problems among various ethnic tribes, between the central government and the regional governments.

The first thing I thought of as archbishop was to save the missionaries, particularly the Irish. When the war directly came to a part of the Archdiocese, I took care of finding shelters for the refugees and the homeless. I entrusted them to the care of priests, and sought international aid to resolve the problem of scarce resources for primary needs. I contacted various organisms and institutions. It was a fruitful period in terms of collaboration with priests, religious and laymen.


Did you ever fear for your safety?
The war respected no one. Missiles and bombs often fell next to our residence. I had to change homes three or five times. The Archbishop's headquarters had been sacked and destroyed. I encouraged the missionaries, especially the foreigners, to carry on, even if many of them were forced to return to their countries of origin.

But despite the war, diocesan life continued. Obviously, in a situation of extreme difficulty. Before the war, there were 80 priests, and after the expulsion of the foreign missionaries, we were left with only 33.


Was it therefore difficult to carry out the decrees of Vatican-II?
It certainly was not easy - it was a great challenge. But when I relive it in my memory, I remember that time with great joy. We started to implement Vatican-II within two years after the civil war started, in January 1970. I was a young bishop. I had seen that Council in person, but I did not have much experience behind me. In that period, to discuss the Vatican-II decrees with my priests and the faithful was a great joy.


In 1984, John Paul II named you pro-President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialog. What did you think of that call?
Honestly, I was happy being Archbishop of Onitsha. But when they called from Rome to find out my availability, I said that I would go where the Pope tells me to go.

I must say I did not have much experience of dialog with non-Christians, for example, with Muslims. On the other hand, in the zone of Onitsha, there were many followers of traditional African religion, which I did know very well.


What memories remain of that experience?
It was a very enriching experience. I remember, for instance the esteem and great interest that the Japanese - who are mostly Buddhists and Shintoists - had for the Pope. And I will not forget the various contacts I had with personalities in the Muslim world, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia.

One thing struck me very much. After the Pope visited Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the Muslims requested that from then on, meetings for the purpose of dialog should be held on or around February 24, in remembrance of the Pope's visit. It was a joy to be like an instrument of God at that historical moment in the life of the Church.


In 2002, you were named Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. What experience did you have in the liturgical field?
I was not unprepared, because I had completed studies in liturgy - studies in depth. The thesis I defended at the Pontifical Collegio Urbano was "Sacrifice in the traditional religion of the Igbo tribe in Nigeria" which I intended an aid to catechesis on the Mass.

At that time, liturgy was already important to me, particularly the Eucharistic liturgy, in which I always had a special interest.


What does the dicastery's activity consist of?
Liturgy is at the heart of the Church. If the Church does not celebrate the Eucharist, it becomes an obsolete institution, almost a museum. If the Church does not pray, the Church does not live. Liturgy is the breath of life for the Church. The Church was born to adore God, to honor him and to praise him. The Mass is the highest activity that the Church can carry out.

I always say that the only thing as great as a Mass is another Mass. The Church does not have anything more elevated. This is essentially the center of the dicastery's activity - to stress this, although we also oversee the other sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours, benedictions and prayers.


Has the liturgical reform of Vatican-II been realized in full?
After an event like the Council, it takes time to understand and apply everything that has come out. Just like after an earthquake, there are always aftershocks from 'resettlement'.

Now, there are persons who have not digested what Vatican-II has said. Others claim to dictate the 'authentic' interpretation of the spirit of the Council. Others even want another Council [e.g., Cardinal Martini]

It is not surprising that after Vatican-II, there have been those who have opened too many windows. Obviously, the fault does not lie with the Council, but with those who have not received it in the right way or who have downright rejected the facts.

But one can say that the situation today is certainly far more tranquil than it was thirty years ago.


What are the major problems that you have encountered regarding the liturgy?
Let us say first that the Congregation is not a kind of ecclesiastical 'police' or 'first aid' for all kinds of problems in the liturgy. The dicastery was born first of all to promote divine worship.

Certainly, we cannot close our eyes to situations that are objectively problematic. We wrote in Redemptionis sacramentum in 2004 that many liturgical abuses are not committed out of malice but from ignorance. Many do not know but they are not aware that they do not know.

They do not know, for instance, that the words and gestures of liturgy are rooted in the tradition of the Church. And so, they think they are being creative and original when they change certain words and actions. In the face of these, we must reaffirm that liturgy is sacred - it is the public prayer of the Church.


Are any liturgical changes under study?
There are a few that derive from the Bishops' Synod on the Eucharist in 2005. Besides the 'Ite, missa est', for instance, the celebrant now has a choice of other formulations to make the faithful better understand that we are all called to live what we have just celebrated, in a way that is more dynamic, more missionary.

Benedict XVI, after a series of studies conducted by us, has approved three alternatives, withouty abolishing the 'Ite, missa est': Ite ad Evangelium Domini annuntiandum (Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord); Ite in pace glorificando vita vostra Dominum (Go and glorify the Lord in your life); and Ite in pace (Go in peace).

Another point of reflection has to do with a different placement of the Sign of Peaxce during the Mass. Oftne, the significance of this gesture is not understood. It is thought to be an occasion to shake hands with your friends and those around you.

Rather, it is a way of saying to those around us that the peace of Christ, who is really present on the altar, is also the peace of all men.

To create a more meditative climate just before Communion, it has been considered to transfer this exchange to the Offertory. The Pope has consulted all the bishops. Then he will decide.


A special Synod for Africa will take place next year. What are the expectations and hopes for this?
The theme of the Synod will be "The Church in Africa in the service of reconciliation, justice and peace: 'You will be the salt of the earth... You will be the light of the world' (Mt 5,13-14)".

The Special Synod for Africa in 1994 had five themes - evangelization, justice and peace, inculturation, means of communication, and dialog. This time, we are focusing only on one theme, because there is great need for more justice and peace in Africa.

But let us be clear. Not everything is bad in Africa. There are peaceful nations and democratic nations. But of course, there is still too much violence among ethnic tribes, massacres, corruption. We cannot pretend not to know.

The Church has no miraculous prescription for resolving such problems, not even political or economic solutions. It is not her mission: she should preach the Gospel, which means respect for the rights of others and a covnersion of hearts. If the heart is converted, then the weapons will fall from the hands of the belligerents.

...AND THE MAN SAID TO BE
CARDINAL ARINZE'S SUCCESSOR AT CDW


A 'strong man' is about
to join the Roman Curia
by Andrea Bevilacqua
Translated from

Nov. 21, 2008



On Thursday morning, Benedict XVI received two cardinals in separate audiences - Giovanni Lajolo, governor of Vatican City State, and Antonio Canizares Llovera, Archbishop of Toledo, Spain.

The second audience was considered by most Vatican observers as significant because it probably means that what something they have considered certain for some time is about to materialize: that Cardinal Canizares will be named before the year ends as the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, succeeding Cardinal Francis Arinze, who is expected to take his canonical retirement.

The Spanish cardinal, 62, besides being head of the small but prestigious Archdiocese of Toledo, which merits him the title Primate of Spain, has always opposed the secularist policies of the current Spanish government with a hard line, supported with massive demonstrations of Catholic support.

For Prime Minister Zapatero, none more than Cardinal Canizares embodies an opposition that cannot be silenced, particularly on abortion and euthanasia, de facto unions and gay marriage - those that are considered ethically sensitive issues.

So his departure for Rome would be a blow to the Church in Spain, but it seems Benedict XVI has decided he needs him at the Vatican 'ministry' in charge of liturgy.

There are of course those who read in this Cardinal Bertone's intention of pursuing a sort of Ostpolitik-like rapprochement with the Zapatero government by taking from the scene one of his greatest foes.

But more simply, one must trace this coming appointment as a sign of the particular friendship that links the Spaniard to the Pope. Canizares was for years - and still is - a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with whom Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger worked very well and who knows both his convictions and that he can run things. [At the CDF, he came to be called the 'little Ratzinger' because of the identity of his views with the then Prefect.]

Benedict XVI needs more like him in the Curia. He is not an expert of liturgy as much as a leader who is loyal to the Pope and capable of taking those decisions, usually inconvenient, that the regulation of divine worship often calls for.

The arrival of Canizares would somehow complete the 'reform' within the Curia that has been underway since the summer, which have been characterized by the naming to important posts of men who enjoy the Pope's unconditional confidence: Fisichella to the Academy for Life, Burke to the Apostolic Segnatura, Ladaria as #2 in the CDF, where the Pope is also expected to name soon an Italian undersecretary to backstop Cardinal Levada and Archbishop Ladaria.


Cop-out! I put off translating a blog entry by Andrea Tornielli on Cardinal Canizares because I spent time yesterday updating my translation of the Pope's recent addresses [See HOMILIES, DISCOURSES, MESSAGES], so let me use a CWN story on it:


Vatican-watcher predicts
key Vatican appointment is imminent



Rome, Nov. 21, 2008 (CWNews.com) - A respected Vatican-watcher is predicting that the Vatican will soon announcement the appointment of a new prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Andrea Tornielli of Il Giornale writes [in his blog] that Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera of Toledo, Spain, will be named the new prefect sometime in early December. Tornielli offered this forecast after Cardinal Canizares met with Pope Benedict XVI in a private audience on November 20.

The appointment of Canizares to head the Vatican dicastery has been rumored for several months. The current prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Francis Arinze, is 76 years old-- more than a year beyond the normative retirement age.

Cardinal Arinze celebrates the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination on November 23, Tornielli notes; the occasion could furnish an appropriate opportunity for colleagues to salute the Nigerian prelate for his 24 years of service at the Vatican.

Cardinal Canizares is regarded as a staunch ally of Pope Benedict XVI on liturgical matters. His appointment could clear the way for a second change: Tornielli predicts that early next year the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, will be given a new assignment as Archbishop of Colombo in his native Sri Lanka. [Also previously much speculated and reported]

Archbishop Ranjith is also seen as a strong papal ally, hand-picked by Benedict XVI for his current Vatican role. Rumors about his possible departure have raised concerns particularly among traditional Catholics, for whom he has shown considerable sympathy.

The arrival of Cardinal Canizares could ease those concerns, paving the way for Archbishop Ranjith's return to his homeland. Tornielli speculates that the Sri Lankan archbishop - who had been quite outspoken during his tenure in Rome, occasionally raising the hackles of other Vatican officials - might also be named to the College of Cardinals in an indication of the Pope's support.

The Vatican has made no announcement about a change in leadership at the Congregation for Divine Worship. However, Tornielli's report has struck a chord because it fits neatly with rumors that have swirled for several months.

Tornielli is acknowledged to have excellent sources within the Vatican. His reputation as a forecaster of appointments to the Roman Curia was strongly reinforced in July of this year, when he predicted that Cardinal Angelo Amato would soon be appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. That appointment was announced just a few days after Tornielli's prediction appeared in print.

INTERESTING QUOTES FROM HANS KUENG

Luigi Accattoli notes this in his blog on November 21:

---

"When a great theologian loses his teeth, then he is ready to become a cardinal" is a mordant saying of Hans Küng in the first volume of his Memoir (published in Italian this year), in which he tellsthe story of the first 40 years of his life. He turns 80 today.

At age 21, Küng, graduating from the Collegio Germanico in Rome, wrote in his journal on Sept. 18, 1949: "Lord, grant that I may always be on the side of the Pope in every thing".

---

I'd have to check the history of theologians who became cardinals, at least in the 20th century, to see how true Kueng's axiom is about theologians. People like Hans Urs von Balthasar [did he die before the consistory or soemthing?] and Yves Congar were definitely recognized rather late in life, while Avery Dulles and Albert Van Hoye were recognized at even older ages. In any case, it's hard not to detect sour grapes somewhere.

And I do not know how unusual it was that Paul VI created Joseph Ratzinger a cardinal at age 50 specifically for his theological work. {More and more, I think that it was one way for Paul VI to deal with the unforeseen waywardness that Catholic theology had taken after Vatican-II - to recognize someone who eminently did things the right way, for a change.]

As for the 21-year-old Hans's wish, what happened? Did he stop praying, or did he secretly become a Jesuit?

In any case, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, FR. KUENG! MAY THE HOLY SPIRIT WORK HIS GRACES ON YOU.

NO COMMENT!

Obama skips Church, heads to gym
By JONATHAN MARTIN & CAROL E. LEE

www.politico.com/
11/23/08


POLITICO is a Virginia-based online service for US political news and commentary which was started in January 2007, and hit full stride with its coverage of the 2008 US presidential campaign.


President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.

On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.

Asked about the president-elect's decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners.

"Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw," said the aide.

Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected.

In November of 1992, Clinton went to services in Little Rock, Ark., on the three weekends following his election, taking pre-church jogs on the first two and attending on the third weekend a Catholic Mass with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, with whom he was trying to smooth over lingering campaign tensions.

In the weeks after the contested 2000 election, Bush regularly attended services at Tarrytown United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, and Al Gore was frequently photographed arriving at and leaving church in Virginia.

On his first day as president-elect, following weeks of Florida recounts and court hearings, Bush went to church with his wife, Laura. They attended an invite-only prayer service [See? There are ways of doing it to avoid the crowd hassle!] on Thursday, Dec. 14, at Tarrytown United Methodist Church. About 300 people attended, including top campaign staff and visiting clergy.

During the service, the Rev. Mark Craig, senior pastor at Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas, told Bush, "You have been chosen by God to lead the people."

Obama was an infrequent churchgoer on the campaign trail, though he did make a series of appearances in the pews and pulpits of South Carolina churches ahead of that heavily religious state's primary.

The issue of where he worships is, of course, fraught. For about two decades, Obama and his family attended Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, with the public disclosure earlier this year of incendiary sermons at Trinity by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama and his wife, Michelle, in June resigned their membership in the large South Side congregation.

At the time, the then-Illinois senator said that he didn't want his "church experience to be a political circus" and expressed regret for the unwanted attention members of the congregation had received, noting that some reporters had taken church bulletins only to call sick members and shut-ins.

During the campaign, Obama returned to Chicago to attend the South Side's Apostolic Church of God on Father's Day Sunday to give a speech aimed at the black community on the importance of fatherhood and family.

A number of Washington, D.C., churches of different denominations and traditions are now competing to become the spiritual home of the new first family.

The Obama aide said the family "look forward to finding a church community in Washington, D.C."