Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 270

"The best way to counter the Halloween juggernaut is..."

... to take the two great Feasts associated with it with proper seriousness: All Saints and All Souls. I am not sure why the old phrase "the Church Suffering", to denote those holy souls still in Purgatory, has been changed to "the Church Expectant"; perhaps because the word 'Suffering' sounds too harsh and gets confused with the permanent suffering of Hell. But "Expectant" leaves out the idea of "suffering" altogether – when the testimony of the saints has always been that the suffering of Purgatory is greater than anything we can experience on earth. That is a scary thought, though not as scary as knowing that the Evil One still wanders the world for the ruin of souls.

Food for thought from Francis Phillips in today's edition of The Catholic Herald. Here are some further thoughts on purgatory, from Fr. Anthony Zimmerman:

Purgatory is the service shop where repair work is done, and where books are balanced. The Poor Souls must wait for entrance into heaven, but they sense God's assistance while they make their final preparation. They already know what he will say finally: "Well done, good and faithful servant! Enter into the joys of the Lord." They understand and accept God's kindness as well as his concern that justice be done. ...

We do not know how long some souls are detained in purgatory, but we do know that when they emerge from the darkness into the light of God's presence, they are perfect. Every angle is perfect. Every facet is clear, like cut and mounted diamonds. The dazzling beam of God's light renders them incandescent without causing pain, resistance, or distortion. His light now lights up the thousand angles of their rich characters developed via life's experiences. The wealth of their talents reflects his light into brilliant rainbow colors. The saints are all lovely in their beauty. Swept up by the Spirit, they flow with elation in the stream of God's love for himself. Like Moses, they jubilate in the endless wealth of the I AM, of God's boundless love, truth, and beauty, of essential Splendor pulsing with Life:

The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abound ing in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation (Gen. 34:6-7).

The blessed participate not only in God's affirmation of himself, they also affirm themselves and their company with his approval. They luxuriate in their friendship with Christ first of all:

The blessed see in God, in the Word, also the holy humanity which the Son assumed for our salvation. They contemplate the hypostatic union, the plenitude of grace, of glory, and of charity in the holy soul of Jesus. They see the infinite value of His theandric acts, of the mystery of the Redemption. They see the radiations of that Redeemer: the infinite value of each Mass, the supernatural vitality of the mystical body, of the Church, triumphant, suffering, and militant. They see with admiration what belongs to Christ, as priest for all eternity, as judge of the living and the dead, as universal king of all creatures, as father of the poor (Garrigou-Lagrange, in Life Everlasting, Tan Books, 1991, pp. 228-9).

They salute also the Mother of God who meets them as Queen and as Mother, managing to be both at once. With the other beatified they join the celebration of joy, a fortissimo of what Beethoven strove to express it in his Ninth Symphony.

Read his entire essay on Ignatius Insight:

New: "Praying with Saint Mark's Gospel" by Fr. Peter Cameron, O.P.

Now available from Magnificat and Ignatius Press:

Praying with Saint Mark's Gospel: Daily Reflections on the Gospel of St. Mark

by Fr. Peter Cameron, O.P.

Delve deeply into Mark's Gospel, which is read during the liturgical year 2011-2012. Edited by Magnificat's Fr. Peter Cameron, O.P., this book is a clear-cut and effective way to meditate daily on Saint Mark's Gospel.

Read the entire Gospel within one year! An entry for each day of the calendar year includes:

• a short quotation from Saint Mark's Gospel

• an original, down-to-earth reflection composed by one of the book's twenty-three gifted spiritual authors, including Anthony Esolen, Fr. Vincent Nagle, Fr. George Rutler, and Fr. Joseph Lienhard, S.J.

• a thought-provoking final prayer

An ideal way to incorporate Scripture reading into your daily prayer life.

"Religious liberty is also prior to the state itself. ..."

... It is not merely a privilege that the government grants us and so may take away at will. Instead, religious liberty is inherent in our very humanity, hard-wired into each and every one of us by our Creator. Thus government has a perennial obligation to acknowledge and protect religious liberty as fundamental, no matter the moral and political trends of the moment. This insight as well is reflected in the laws and traditions of our country from its very inception. The Declaration of Independence boldly proclaimed as a self-evident truth that our inalienable rights are "endowed by our Creator"—not by the State.

Religious freedom is most commonly understood as an individual right, and it certainly is that. Religious freedom proceeds from the dignity of each person, and so protects each person individually. "[T]he exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God" (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 3). Therefore individuals are "not to be forced to act in manner contrary to [their] conscience," nor "restrained from acting in accordance with [their] conscience." (Ibid.) Congress has shown special vigilance in protecting these individual rights of conscience, for example, in the form of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which forbids the federal government from imposing any "substantial burdens" on religious exercise absent the most compelling reasons.

But religious freedom also belongs to churches and other religious institutions, comprised of citizens who are believers and who seek, not to create a theocracy, but rather to influence their culture from within. The distinction between Church and State, between God and Caesar, remains "fundamental to Christianity" (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est, No. 28). We look to the State not to impose religion but to guarantee religious freedom, and to promote harmony among followers of different religions. The Church has "a proper independence and is structured on the basis of her faith as a community the State must recognize" (Ibid.). An indispensable element of this independence is the right of churches "not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers" (Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, No. 4). We are grateful that federal courts in the United States—at least to date—have uniformly recognized this core protection under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. ...

Regrettably, now is the time for such self-correction and repair. In the recent past, the Bishops of the United States have watched with increasing alarm as this great national legacy of religious liberty, so profoundly in harmony with our own teachings, has been subject to ever more frequent assault and ever more rapid erosion.

From "Testimony of Most Reverend William E. Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Before the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on the Constitution (October 26, 2011)" (PDF copy of full testimony available on USCCB site).

"Make a Concerted Effort to Silence the Noise in Your Life" (from "Extreme Makeover")

The following is an excerpt from Chapter 7 of Teresa Tomeo's book, Extreme Makeover: Women Transformed by Christ, Not Conformed to the Culture (also available in electronic book format):

Make a Concerted Effort to Silence the Noise in Your Life | Teresa Tomeo

On the cover of my first book, Noise: How Our Media-Saturated Culture Dominates Lives and Dismantles Families (mentioned in chapter 1), I have a thought-provoking quote from Pope Benedict XVI: "We are no longer able to hear God. There are too many different frequencies filling our ears."

Think about that. The first thing we should be doing when we awaken is get down on our knees or bow our heads in a prayer of thanksgiving for another day. Instead, most of us hop out of bed and turn on the TV, the radio, or both. Many also hop on the Internet to check email and turn on their cell phones to start calling or texting a friend or a coworker about this, that or the other thing.

Given the fact that, as we discussed in Chapter 2, children are using media on average 53 hours a week, it's not a stretch to say that your son or daughter is probably online or in front of the television set before leaving for school. So now you have all the noise from the media plus the inherent noise of one of the busiest parts of the day coming at you full speed ahead – noise, noise and more noise.

We rush to work and to school with the radio blaring and the cell phone ringing; and before we know it, the day is well under way and we haven't even taken time to hear what God has to say to us. Then we get angry with God or frustrated when life doesn't go our way.

We have to silence the noise in our lives if we want to hear from God and live a more peaceful and less stressful life.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta said that God cannot be found in noise and restlessness: "God is the friend of silence…. See how nature, the trees, the flowers, the grass grow in deep silence…. We need this silence in order to touch souls."

This is where our "media reality check" enters the picture. Silencing some of the noise in your life will help you in your prayer life and allow you, as well as your family, to have some beneficial quiet time.

Wouldn't it be nice to just walk into the house and not have to shout over the television? When was the last time you ate dinner with your family without some interference from modern media technology?

This media reality check, if you're honest with yourself, will help you and your loved ones assess just how much time you spend watching TV or "friending" people on Facebook. It will help you detox in terms of learning to limit the amount of time spent with media.

The media is a great tool for evangelization, communication, and faith education; unfortunately, most Catholics are not spending their media time listening to Catholic radio or visiting Catholic websites. That's why most of us can benefit from applying a media reality check:

• Build a "media-free zone" into your daily routine at home or at work. Silence the noise and allow yourself quiet time (start with 15-30 minutes) with God.

• Take control of the media outlets in your home by taking TVs and computers out of the bedrooms (including yours) and putting them in a central area that allows regular monitoring.

• Set and keep media guidelines in terms of time limits. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no more than two hours a day of TV for children in grade school and high school, and no TV for children younger than two years of age.

• Keep Family meals completely media free. Turn off the TV and the cell phones. Let voice mail handle your calls.

• Don't make the TV or the computer the main focal point of your home.

• Think WWJW, or what would Jesus watch? Spending time soaking up movies or TV programs loaded with sexual or violent content is offensive to God and offensive to your spirit.

What we take from the media on a regular basis can impact our thoughts and behavior. Garbage in, garbage out, is the best way to put it. That means that our media habits, if they're more negative than positive, could lead to our not taking our faith or our time with God as seriously.

Conducting a media reality check at least once or twice a year can really boost that spiritual makeover and make it last for a long time to come. Advent and Lent are great liturgical seasons to do this. If you have children, why not make the media reality check a family event? This will help instill solid habits in your children, habits that just might prevent them from needing a major spiritual makeover later in life.

(© 2011 Ignatius Press, San Francisco – All rights reserved. This excerpt can be downloaded as a PDF file from the book's website.)

A little quiz for Richard Dawkins, super-duper Scripture scholar

You may have heard that the illustrious Scripture scholar, Richard Dawkins (also known in some circles as Richard Dawkins, bedazzling philosopher, ahem), recently pronounced the following finding, based on years of, well, being a humility-challenged atheist:

"Jesus was a great moral teacher," Dawkins said. "Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist if he had known what we know today."

That's surely debatable, especially since it's not evident in the least that the sinless Son of God would be willing to sacrifice his perfect humility for a pot of prideful porridge made by the preening professor (Quick! Say that ten times, very quickly: "A pot of prideful porridge made by the preening professor".)

William Oddie remarks in The Catholic Herald about Dawkins' most recent statement:

I love this kind of thing; I have a taste for the grotesque. Here is Jesus, a "moral teacher", the authority of whose entire teaching derived, from the beginning, from the fact that he didn't just believe in the existence of God the Father as a kind of add-on, compulsory at the time, but from the fact that he Himself and the Father were one: and Dawkins says that if Jesus had only known what we know today, he would have been an atheist. Of course, he is well aware of the "oxymoronic" nature of his statement; as he explained in an essaywritten in 2006, "In a society where the majority of theists are at least nominally Christian, the two words are treated as near synonyms. Bertrand Russell's famous advocacy of atheism was called Why I am not a Christian rather than, as it probably should have been, Why I am not a theist. All Christians are theists, it seems to go without saying." (He later points to the example of an atheist bishop, the former Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, to prove that it ain't necessarily so, though the preposterous Holloway describes himself as a "post-Christian", even as a "recovering Chistian").

Oddie points to a 2006 essay by Dawkins in which the British biologist/Biblical scholar wrote the following:

Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh's vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him.

I did a search for "niceness" and "nice" in various translations of the Bible, but couldn't find any examples. However, a search for "kindness" did turn up several results, including:

• "He who withholds kindness from a friend forsakes the fear of the Almighty."
• "He who pursues righteousness and kindness will find life and honor."
• "He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
• ""Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy each to his brother..."

Of course, those are from the lips of Jesus, who—uh, no, wait a second. Actually, those are from the Old Testament: Job 6:14, Proverbs 21:21, Micah 6:8; and Zechariah. 7:9, respectively. And, to take just one of many possible examples, here is an example of the "Sharia-like" utterances found in the Pentateuch:

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him and cleave to him, and by his name you shall swear. (Deut. 10:17-20)

Granted, the phrase "fear of the Lord" (and variations thereof) usually causes a knee-jerk reaction among those who immediately think of the "Old Testament God" as a hulking, angry spirit-being who simpy cannot wait to destroy, pillage, and otherwise do away with everything and everyone in sight. Yet this fear of the Lord is closely connected in the Old Testament (and the New, as well) with a true and abiding love of the Lord. A foundational text is Deuteronomy 6, in which the Hebrews are told three times to "fear the Lord your God" (Dt 6:2, 13, 24), but are also commanded to love the one true God: "… and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" (Dt 6:5). This loving fear of God is also closely intertwined with wisdom—"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov 1:7) and with true life—"The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life" (Prov 14:27; cf. Prov 19:23). It is, as a note in the New American Bible explains (Prov. 1:7), this fear is "primarily a disposition rather than the emotion of fear; reverential awe and respect toward God combined with obedience to God's will."

But, I slightly digress. I actually wanted to re-present a little quiz I first posted a few months ago in response to the claim that hell is an Old Testament idea and that the tolerant, loving Jesus would have no part of it. In fact, in that same post, I mentioned Dawkins:

The ol' "nasty God of the OT vs. the non-judgmental Jesus of the NT" is common fare among skeptics, liberals, and people who never read the Bible, which includes, alas, a lot of self-described Christians.

One of the more memorable instances of this is the description by atheist Richard Dawkins in his best-selling book The God Delusion of the God of the Old Testament as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." As I wrote in one of my "Opening the Word" columns, "That remark indicates far more familiarity with the dictionary than with the Bible." To make this point, here's a quick quiz: which of the following statements is made by or about God in the OT and which were made by or about Jesus in the Gospels?

1. "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire."

2. "But thou, O Lord, art a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness."

3. "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell..."

4. "Light rises in the darkness for the upright; the LORD is gracious, merciful, and righteous."

5. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell..."

6. "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness..."

7. "And you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

8. "I will recount the steadfast love of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD has granted us, and the great goodness to the house of Israel which he has granted them according to his mercy, according to the abundance of his steadfast love."

9."There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out."

10. "Nevertheless in thy great mercies thou didst not make an end of them or forsake them; for thou art a gracious and merciful God."

Yep, you guessed it: 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are statements made by Jesus in the Gospels, and 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are statements by or about God found in the Old Testament. The basic point is that both the Old and New Testaments speak of judgment and mercy, punishment and love, communion with God and separation from God. And the word "hell" is just one way of describing or referring to eternal separation from the presence, life, and love of God, just as "heaven" is one of many ways to refer to everlasting communion with God. While the Old Testament does not contain the word "hell", it most certainly describes the painful, everlasting punishment that comes upon those who rebel against God and reject his commandments.

Now, there is no doubt that Jesus interpreted and understood the Law and the Prophets in ways that were viewed as radical or unsettling by his first-century Jewish audiences. But—and this is crucial—it wasn't because he "publicly advocated niceness" or rebelled against the "Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac"; on the contrary, he said, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and he also made the startling claim, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am", thus claiming divinity and aligning himself fully with the afore-mentioned "Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac".

The key point is this: the radical and startling nature of Jesus' statements about the Law and Prophets is rooted in his clear claim to be the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, his insistence that he was the definitive and final interpreter of the same; and his belief, in sum, that he was, in his very person, the New Law and the final and great Prophet promised by Moses. In other words, the "interesting and remarkable about Jesus" was not that he rebelled against aspects or characteristics of Yahweh (since he didn't), but that he claimed to be one with Yahweh, who he addressed as "Abba": "I and the Father are one" (Jn. 10:30). And the reaction to such words?

The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?" The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God." (Jn. 10:31-33)

Those angry Jewish scholars and religious leaders, in other words, understood Jesus far better than the learned Prof. Dawkins. Let's put it this way: if Jesus had been a mere mortal and a mere moral teacher, we would not know of him today. Christianity would not exist. Period. He would have died, and his little band of followers would have dispersed. End of story. The question is: why didn't that happen? But I'm sure that is something that Richard Dawkins, preeminant historian, will address soon enough.

• Professor Dawkins and the Origins of Religion | Thomas Crean, O.P. | From God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins
• Dawkins' Delusions | An interview with Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P., author of God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins 

The U.S Bishops' Committee responds again to Elizabeth Johnson...

... and Mark Brumley reflects on the matter:

Many non-theologians have followed the issues regarding theologian Elizabeth Johnson and her conflict with the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine regarding her book, The Quest for the Living God. The Committee has responded to Professor Johnson's criticisms of her work.

Of course it is not surprising that theologians will, from time to time, have some tension with bishops over new theological formulations, even though those formulations are faithful to Catholic tradition. However, as the U.S. Bishops' Committee statement above makes clear, it is also possible to provide new formulations that are, in fact, at odds with Catholic tradition. That tradition is not, after all, infinitely malleable or compatible with just anything. Some ways of putting things are false. Some ways of putting things lack important qualifications or give the wrong impression. New formulations are sometimes rejected not because they are new but because they are false or significantly incomplete.

Many reasonably informed Catholics who have read Elizabeth Johnson's book have found it misleading and otherwise deficient in many important respects, notwithstanding helpful elements within it. The fact that the work was written for a common readership, not simply for specialists in theology, has made the situation worse. The initial statement of the U.S. Bishops' Committee was helpful in showing that such findings are not simply the personal judgment of unsophisticated readers or even of particular theologians but reflect a substantial theological judgment of devoted scholars, including some scholars with direct pastoral responsibility. Johnson's counter observations were helpful in that they gave the committee the opportunity to interact with the author's claims and make further clarifications. Those further clarifications are found in the document linked to above.

Read his entire post on the Catholic World Report blog. And here is a Catholic News Service article about the latest response.

Here are a key passage from the Committee's response:

When the book speaks of the traditional masculine language for God, however, it is to denounce it as a tool of patriarchal oppression "religiously inadequate" for our times (Quest, 96). According to Quest, when this language is used exclusively, it is taken literally and becomes an "idol" (Quest, 98-99, 110). The counterpart to the critique of male names and metaphors is the extended discussion of the theological fittingness of female names and images and the importance of using them in order to release "divine mystery" from "its age-old patriarchal cage so that God can be truly God" (Quest, 99). Is it unreasonable for the reader to find in these pages a call to replace inadequate, though traditional, language for God with feminine language?

While one could say that the book does not call for the replacement of traditional language in the narrow sense of proscribing the use of male imagery at any time and in any context, it clearly advocates the replacement of traditional masculine language in certain unspecified, but evidently important, contexts. The problem is that there is no recognition of the central role that the names of "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" play in the divine revelation given to us about the relationship among the three Persons of the Trinity.

The Observations ask whether the Committee believes it is permissible to use female imagery for God. In its statement, the Committee does not exclude all possibility of using feminine imagery. The concern of the Committee was not the use of female or feminine imagery but the insinuation that traditional language based on divine revelation, such as "Father," obscures the truth about God. Certain language belongs to the deposit of divine revelation and may not be replaced, even if human reason might find some indications that to do so might be socially useful.

And here is an essay,, by Deborah Belonick (a chapter from the book The Politics of Prayer: Feminist Language and the Worship of God, edited by Helen Hull Hitchcock), which demonstrates that referring to God as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is not rooted in hatred of women or narrowmindedness, but in the very nature of the Triune God.

Fr. Joseph Fessio and Joseph Pearce discuss, "Who really was William Shakespeare?"

Today marks the debut of the controversial film, Anonymous, which seeks to make the case (the cinematic case, anyhow) that the true author of William Shakespeare's works was actually Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.

In the following video, Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and head editor of Ignatius Press, interviews Joseph Pearce, author of three books on Shakespeare—The Quest for Shakespeare: The Bard of Avon and the Church of Rome (Ignatius Press, 2008), Through Shakespeare's Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays (Ignatius Press, 2010), and Shakespeare On Love (Ignatius Press; to be published in 2012)—about the real Shakespeare. Joseph is also the head editor of the Ignatius Critical Editions, for which he has written many introductions and essays, including for editions of Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Merchant of Venice, and Romeo and Juliet.

Related on Ignatius Insight:

• A "Bard's-eye" View | The Preface and Prologue to Through Shakespeare's Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays | Joseph Pearce
• Finding Shakespeare and Reclaiming the Classics | Joseph Pearce
• Will the Real Shakespeare Please Stand Up? | The opening chapter of The Quest for Shakespeare
• Fr. Joseph Fessio and Joseph Pearce Talk About Shakespeare | A video interview (Sept. 8, 2008)
• The Quest for Shakespeare website (includes a PDF version of this excerpt from The Quest for Shakespeare)

Links, quotes, lines, and anecdotes

I've been building up a backlog of links and stories to comment on, rave upon rashly, and otherwise blather about with abandon, and the dam is breaking. So, in no particular order, here are some things that have caught, held, and kept my interest in the past week or two.

• Archbishop Joseph Naumann on SNAP: "My take is that they have a hatred toward the Church. Their mission is no longer to assist victims, but is to strike at the Church and wound the Church." And: "In my experience, they have never acknowledged a false accusation. As far as they are concerned, if you are accused, you are guilty. They don't take anyone off the list. They don't serve themselves well by insisting that every accusation is true." Read the entire interview.

• Some Muslim students at Catholic University are complaining that the school is so, uh, Catholic:

The complaint was filed by John Banzhaf, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School. Banzhaf has been involved in previous litigation against the school involving the same-sex residence halls. He also alleged in his complaint involving Muslim students that women at the university were being discriminated against. You can read more on those allegations by clicking here.

Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school's chapels "and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception."

I suppose this makes perfect sense in light of how countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran go out of their way to help Christians build churches and have safe places of worship. Perhaps the students can transfer to Georgetown, a school that happilly covered up references to its Catholic roots when asked to do so by a lawyer-turned-POTUS.

• Dr. Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican, has a good piece about the Holy Father's address earlier today at Assisi. He writes:

The paradox: Benedict was speaking to a group of religious leaders, men and women representing nearly all the major religions of the world, but instead of praising religious faith unreservedly, and calling for more of it, he criticized it for often going radically off track in acts of violence, war, and terror.

 In short, at a meeting of religious believers, he criticized religious believers for losing sight of the very faith they professed, criticized them, essentially, for falling into error about the nature of God.

I've now read the Assisi speech a couple of times and am inclined to think that it is short and powerful presentation of some key themes explored at length in Benedict XVI's 2006 Regensburg Address.

• I thought Huff-and-Puff commenters, in general, were the most rude, ignorant, sophomoric, and pathetic group of commenters on things Catholics until I read the comments in this CNN piece about Rep. Paul Ryan being asked about Catholic social teaching. Goodness. Stupidity that toxic makes nuclear waste look like maple syrup.

• The September/October 2011 issue of Saint Austin Review is about religion and poltics. A free article can be downloaded from the magazine's site.

• WhyImCatholic.com has some wonderful stories about conversion, including this one by Lorraine V. Murray, author of several books, including Confessions of an Ex-Feminist (Ignatius Press, 2008).

• DarwinCatholic has one of the longest and most detailed commentaries on the recent note from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace on global economics.

• And Fr. Robert A. Sirico of Action Institute writes in the Wall Street Journal about the same document, which he finds to be good at locating the problems but poor at providing solutions.

• Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line, by Abbey Johnson, is now available in paperback.

• The wonderful, wise, and witty Rev. Fr. John Trigilio, has a great post titled, "Why Priests are Happy and Sometimes Not". I'll give you the conclusion and encourage you to read everything that leads up to it:

When the human element of the Church is fair and just, that enables the rank and file to busy themselves with the pastoral work that has to be done. When there is cronyism, politics, skullduggery and intrigue among the clergy (upper and lower), then the zeal can be robbed from those who find it distasteful and inappropriate. Happiness is the natural object of the human person that is why we seek eternal happiness in the next life. Happiness is like joy. It comes from having inner peace which is tranquility of order. When our will conforms to the Divine Will, there is harmony and peace in our soul and that creates a sense of happiness. Knowing you are doing what the Lord wants you to do makes you happy. But human beings can also bring unhappiness when they distort the truth and when they deny justice to fellow human beings. A former bishop told me that he loved to get letters of support for his priests since most people only write their bishop when they want to complain about a priest and rarely to compliment him. We have all had the experience of the nasty letter from the irate parishioner who feels mistreated. Whenever a positive letter came in, this bishop made the same effort to call the priest in and share the contents. If more parishioners wrote supportive letters before their pastor got transferred or before he leaves this earth, it might help keep more guys happy on the job. When you doubt that your efforts have any effect, that there may be no fruit to your labor, it can be discouraging. Hence, I always tell people when I visit other parishes that they need to express their satisfaction from time to time, to their priest and to their bishop. No need to remind them to complain when he is not doing what he is supposed to do, people react immediately and rightfully so. Jesus often gave encouragement and so should all of us.   

• Father Paul Check, executive director of Courage, which was founded by the late Rev. John Harvey, is interviewed by Matthew A. Rarey for National Catholic Register:

How is Courage seeking to correct the chastity problem, especially as it relates to the manner in which homosexuality is addressed among Catholics?

Well, in general, there is resolute opposition to the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Well-funded and strident groups in the media and culture are pitted against the Church on this issue. We all know that. But I think the greater problem is misplaced compassion, even among Catholics. I think that's a more difficult challenge to overcome. Here again, we have to return to the question of our theological anthropology. Who is man in Jesus Christ? What has Jesus Christ revealed to us about ourselves? He spoke plainly about chastity in the Sermon on the Mount and in Matthew 19 when he addressed marriage. So these things are clear and guide us to the truth. God comes into the world in the person of Jesus Christ to restore lost love and joy. And it's possible for us to know with confidence the route to Christ and happiness through the Church.

Read the entire interview. For books by Fr. Harvey, visit www.Ignatius.com.

• My friend, Dr. Bradley Birzer, who teaches history at Hillsdale, ponders the question: "What is the role of true education in twenty-first century America?", with references to Newman, Eliot, Dawson, Kirk, and many others.

• The prolific Russell Shaw asks, "Why don't Catholics read or even know about important Church documents?"

• From the Dominicana blog:

In a delightful passage from his little novel The Quiet Light, Louis de Wohl imagines a meeting between St. Thomas Aquinas and his beloved sister. Many years have passed since they saw one another last, and the difference between them when they reunite is striking. As their conversation comes to a close, the tired woman turns to her brother and asks, almost pleadingly, "Thomas, how can I be a Saint?"

The response that de Wohl places in Aquinas' mouth is marvelous and true. And how does he have the Church's greatest theologian, indeed, one of the most powerful thinkers of all time, respond? Not with "I answer that . . ." Instead, St. Thomas looks at his sister with love and intensely whispers but two simple words: desire it.

The Quiet Light and several other de Wohl novels have been republished in recent years by Ignatius Press.
•

• Ignatius Press recently published an edition of The Song at the Scaffold: A Novel by Gertrud von le Fort. Here is some background to the novel:

Despite its gruesome historical context of the French Revolution, The Song at the Scaffold by Gertrud von le Fort is a exquisite little gem of a book.  It's only 110 pages so even the busiest reader can pick it up.  Reading it is almost like going on retreat at a cloister – a charming break from the every day routine and grind.

Le Fort based her story on the historical martyrdom of sixteen Carmelite nuns in the last days of the Reign of Terror.  She, however, invented the main character of Blanche de la Force whom she admitted was based in some ways on her own experiences, especially of the horrors of war.  Blanche is a fearful, timid, anxious child not altogether suited to the difficult, ascetic life of Carmel.  She joins the cloister partially because she believes it is a place where she will find peace.  But distress follows her, for the Revolution begins soon after she enters, and with it persecution of clergy and religious in France.  Blanche has a crisis of vocation and abandons the convent before it is raided and the other Carmelite sisters arrested, tried and sentenced to the guillotine.  Blanche secretly attends the execution and while the nuns ascend the scaffold, a miracle happens.  As the introduction to the English translation states "The Divine purpose, we seem to understand, could not have been achieved without the service of the weakness of fear.  A timid girl seeks refuge in flight, and out of that running away come victory and unforgettable beauty."

• Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, who was recently chosen to be head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, has been in the news a bit as he recently visited Chicago to preside at the 50th anniversary celebration of the Eparchy of St. Nicholas. Archbishop Shevchuk is young (forty-one years old, if I'm not mistaken), fluent in English, and very bright. From a National Catholic Register interview:

Unifying the Church doesn't mean uniformity of Church: building a unique structure under the Pope. It's not like that. Christ's Church is the communion of the different local Churches. That communion doesn't mean the dissolution of one Church inside of another. From our point of view, we need to restore the life of the Church of the first millennium of Christianity: one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Not a uniform, unifying Church, but one in communion with Rome — and also restoring regional ways of being Christians.

Before the division of the Great Schism in the 11th century, the Church of Kiev had double communion — with the See of Constantinople and the pope of Rome — so it was united with East and West. The Church of Kiev, you see, existed before that division. So, in order to restore the communion with the Churches in Ukraine, we don't have to invent something strange or different, but restore the original unity of the Church of Christ. And this process, this ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox: Is it easier now when the patriarch of Moscow is Kirill? That is hard to say. I would say it is different, because he is a different person. But we are trying, first of all, to restore this unity of action, not the unity in structure.

Read the full interview.

• On a related note, Orthodox priest Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse writes about the possibility of a 2013 meeting between Pope Benedict and Patriarch Kyrill of the Russian Orthodox Church.

• Yet another poll finds that cafeteria Catholicism is alive and, well, widespread. In related news, the Pope wrote, "For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" That would be the first Pope, Saint Peter.

Who was Rev. Louis Bouyer?

Ignatius Press has just published its edition of The Church of God: Body of Christ and Temple of the Holy Spirit by Fr. Louis Bouyer (first published in English by Franciscan Herald Press in 1982). And Bouyer's book on Newman, Newman: An Intellectual & Spiritual Biography of John Henry Newman, will be available soon, and my understanding is that Ignatius Press will be publishing other works by Bouyer in the years to come.

The first book by Bouyer that I bought and read was the short book, The Liturgy Revived (University of Notre Dame, 1964), which I took up shortly before becoming Catholic in 1997. I soon read what is perhaps his best-known book (at least in many circles), The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. The Church of God was one of the texts for a course in ecclesiology in my MTS program, and it is one of my favorite works by Bouyer—at least of those I've read—along with the wonderful work, The Meaning of Sacred Scripture (University of Notre Dame, 1958).

Bouyer was prolific and wrote on a wide range of topics. And he is regarded by many (including myself, for what it's worth) to be one of the most important Catholic theologians of the 20th century, even if he isn't as well known as Ratzinger, de Lubac, Rahner, von Balthasar, and others.

Last year, I interviewed Dr. Keith Lemna, Visiting Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at Saint Meinrad School of Theology, who has studied the life and thought of Bouyer for many years. Here is part of that interview:

Ignatius Insight: Who was Fr. Louis Bouyer?

Dr. Lemna: Louis Bouyer was a priest of the Oratory, a convert to Catholicism from Lutheranism, which he had served as a minister, an eminent liturgiologist and historian of spirituality, an influential scholar of Newman (whose studies of Newman helped to pave the way for Newman's eventual beatification), and, perhaps most importantly of all, one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the twentieth century.

Ignatius Insight: What were some of Fr. Bouyer's significant contributions in the realm of Catholic theology?

Dr. Lemna: Fr. Bouyer is known most of all as a scholar of liturgy and spirituality, and it is in these areas that his work has exercised its most overt impact on the course of Catholic theology as a whole. In the area of liturgy, Bouyer, himself drawing on the work of Dom Odo Casel, is the figure who is most responsible for the emphasis that has been placed in recent decades on the theme of the "Paschal Mystery" as central for understanding the mystery of the faith, and he, as much or more than anyone, oriented sacramental theologians to a focus on the liturgical event as the basis for theological reflection on the nature and meaning of the sacraments.

[image error]Bouyer was also one of the great ecumenical theologians of the twentieth century, who was committed to dialogue with Protestants, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, although always with a firm commitment to the Catholic Church as the fullness of Christ's sacramental presence on earth. Bouyer's book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism is one of the most illuminating studies on the relationship of Protestantism to Catholicism to have ever been written.

Many converts to Catholicism have noted that this book was of inestimable value to them on their journey to the Catholic Church. Bouyer sees aspects of the Protestant Reformation in a positive light, but he notes that the positive goals of the Reformation can only be truly met if they are carried out in the communion of the Catholic Church. At the same time, he fully unmasks the problems with the nominalism adopted by Luther and the Reformers and the concomitant repudiation of analogical thinking. This leads, he shows, to a rigid either-or approach to theology and to the hardened positions of faith alone, Scripture alone, and grace alone.

Moreover, Bouyer was close friends with Sergei Bulgakov and Vladimir Lossky, the two greatest Russian Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century. Bulgakov was a "sophiologist" greatly influenced by Vladimir Soloviev (19th century). Lossky, who rejected Bulgavkov's approach to theology, was a "neo-Patristic" theologian who sought to root theology in the concepts developed by the Church Fathers. Bouyer's corpus bears the influence of both of these men. One might wonder if any Catholic theologian in the twentieth century was as deeply knowledgeable and sympathetic to the Christian East as Bouyer, while remaining firmly rooted in the Western tradition. It is no coincidence that Hans Urs von Balthasar, the eminent Swiss theologian, dedicated his famous study of the great Eastern Patristic theologian Maximus the Confessor (Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor [Ignatius Press, 2003]) to Bouyer. Bouyer travelled in the Christian East and held that the modern Western Church should seek to integrate its life with liturgy in the way that was still, at the time of Bouyer's travels, commonplace in the East. In liturgical matters, Bouyer was a proponent of what one might call "high sacrality," and he was greatly disappointed with the practical implementation of the liturgical reform after the council.

Bouyer's knowledge of the Anglican tradition was no less formidable than his knowledge of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. More than any single influence, Bouyer was marked by his study of the theology and biography of Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman. Indeed, if there is such a thing as a "Newman School" in systematic theology, Bouyer would surely be its pre-eminent advocate. As early as the 1970s, Bouyer was calling for the sorts of provisions for Anglican converts that Pope Benedict XVI has given us with Anglicanorum Coetibus. Bouyer was steeped in Anglophone thought and culture. He read deeply in the tradition of English Christian Platonist theology, and he was personal friends with both J.R.R. Tolkien and T.S. Eliot. His use of the early modern English tradition of theology in his works on systematic theology is unique and worthy of further exploration and development.

It is important to note, in this regard, that Bouyer composed and published a nine-volume treatise on systematic theology, one of the most powerful syntheses (though he refused to label it or even to think of it as such) of Catholic doctrine to have appeared in the twentieth century. Unfortunately, it has been too little noticed by Catholic theologians. It is immensely stimulating for theological reflection. Bouyer writes very much in the style of Newman, that is, in a flowing, even poetic manner, basing himself, like Newman, in historical theology but, at least in Bouyer's case, without neglecting the importance of metaphysics. On the other hand, Bouyer's approach to the theological discipline in these volumes is very much influenced by the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, in that he seeks most of all only to bring to display, in the context of modern thought, the surpassing love of God revealed in the Cross and Resurrection of Christ.

Read the entire interview on Ignatius Insight.

Benedict XVI's address today at Assisi can be read...

... on the Chiesa site:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Distinguished Heads and Representatives of Churches, Ecclesial Communities and World Religions,
Dear Friends,

Twenty-five years have passed since Blessed Pope John Paul II first invited representatives of the world's religions to Assisi to pray for peace. What has happened in the meantime? What is the state of play with regard to peace today?

At that time the great threat to world peace came from the division of the earth into two mutually opposed blocs. A conspicuous symbol of this division was the Berlin Wall which traced the border between two worlds right through the heart of the city.

In 1989, three years after Assisi, the wall came down, without bloodshed. Suddenly the vast arsenals that stood behind the wall were no longer significant. They had lost their terror. The peoples' will to freedom was stronger than the arsenals of violence. The question as to the causes of this dramatic change is complex and cannot be answered with simple formulae. But in addition to economic and political factors, the deepest reason for the event is a spiritual one: behind material might there were no longer any spiritual convictions.

The will to freedom was ultimately stronger than the fear of violence, which now lacked any spiritual veneer. For this victory of freedom, which was also, above all, a victory of peace, we give thanks. What is more, this was not merely, nor even primarily, about the freedom to believe, although it did include this. To that extent we may in some way link all this to our prayer for peace.

But what happened next? Unfortunately, we cannot say that freedom and peace have characterized the situation ever since. Even if there is no threat of a great war hanging over us at present, nevertheless the world is unfortunately full of discord. It is not only that sporadic wars are continually being fought – violence as such is potentially ever present and it is a characteristic feature of our world. Freedom is a great good. But the world of freedom has proved to be largely directionless, and not a few have misinterpreted freedom as somehow including freedom for violence. Discord has taken on new and frightening guises, and the struggle for freedom must engage us all in a new way.

Let us try to identify the new faces of violence and discord more closely. It seems to me that, in broad strokes, we may distinguish two types of the new forms of violence, which are the very antithesis of each other in terms of their motivation and manifest a number of differences in detail.

Continue reading.