Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 330

Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., on "FoxNews.com Live" on Good Friday

Fr. Fessio, founder and publisher of Ignatius Press, will appear on FoxNews.com Live on Good Friday, April 22nd, for an interview with Lauren Green, Fox News chief religion correspondent, on the topics of Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week by Pope Benedict XVI, as well as the upcoming beatification of The Venerable Pope John Paul II. I don't yet know what time Fr. Fessio will be on, but FoxNews.com Live apparently airs live from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm EST.

Read the first six chapters of "Toward the Gleam" online—for free!

That's right, folks: you can go to the Toward the Gleam website and read the first hundred pages of T. M. Doran's new novel, freshly printed and minted by Ignatius Press and available in hardcover and in e-book format.

The site also has information about the author, endorsements of the novel, reviews (coming soon), and a media kit. And a trailer will soon be up on the home page.

Check it all out at www.TowardTheGleam.com:

Fr. Robert Barron on Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth" and the historical-critical method

Fr. Barron comments on the Holy Father's views of the historical-critical method(s) and the dangers of a one-sided, imbalanced use of the historical-critical method:

Related Ignatius Insight Articles, Excerpts, and Interviews:

• Historical-Critical Scripture Studies and the Catholic Faith | Michael Waldstein
• Introduction to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's God's Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office | Peter Hünermann and Thomas Södin
• God, The Author of Scripture | Preface to God and His Image: An Outline of Biblical Theology | Fr. Dominique Barthélemy, O.P.
• Going Deeper Into the Old Testament | An Interview with Aidan Nichols, O.P.
• The Pattern of Revelation: A Contentious Issue | From Lovely Like Jerusalem | Aidan Nichols, O.P.
• Origen and Allegory | Introduction to History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen | Henri de Lubac
• How To Read The Bible | From You Can Understand the Bible | Peter Kreeft
• Introduction to The Meaning of Tradition | Yves Congar, O.P.
• The Bible Gap: Spanning the Distance Between Scripture and Theology | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
• The Divine Authority of Scripture vs. the "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" | James Hitchcock
• Enter Modernism | From Truth and Turmoil: The Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church | Philip Trower
• Singing the Song of Songs | Blaise Armnijon, S.J.

Pope Benedict XVI was elected six years ago today

Today is the sixth anniversary of the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to be the successor of Pope John Paul II. Here is a short clip from "Rome Reports" of that day six years ago, when Pope Benedict XVI first appeared before the crowd at Saint Peter's Square:

 

Here are some thoughts from then-Cardinal Ratzinger about the nature of the papacy, from God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald (Ignatius Press, 2002): 

On the Pope and the Papacy:

Many people have the idea that the Church is an enormous apparatus of power.

Yes, but you must first of all see that these structures are supposed to be those of service. The pope is thus not the chief ruler–he calls himself, since Gregory the Great, "Servant of the servants of God"–but he ought, this is the way I usually put it, to be the guarantor of obedience, so that the Church cannot simply do as she likes. The pope himself cannot even say, I am the Church, or I am tradition, but he is, on the contrary, under constraint; he incarnates this constraint laid upon the Church. Whenever temptations arise in the Church to do things differently now, more comfortably, he has to ask, Can we do that at all?

The pope is thus not the instrument through which one could, so to speak, call a different Church into existence, but is a protective barrier against arbitrary action. To mention one example: We know from the New Testament that sacramental, consummated marriage is irreversible, indivisible. Now, there are movements who say the Pope could of course change that. No, that is what he cannot change. And in January 2000, in an important address to Roman judges, he declared that in response to this movement in favor of changing the indissolubility of marriage, he can only say that the Pope cannot do anything he wants, but he must on the contrary continually rekindle our sense of obedience; it is in this way, so to speak, that he has to continue the gesture of washing people's feet

The papacy is one of the most fascinating institutions in history. Besides all the instances of greatness, the history of the popes certainly does include some dramatic and abysmal low points. Benedict IX, for example, reigned, even after being deposed, as the 145th pope, as well as the 147th and the 150th. He first mounted the throne of Peter when he was just twelve years old. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church holds fast, with no exceptions, to this office of the vicar of Christ upon earth.

Simply from a historical point of view, the papacy is indeed a quite marvelous phenomenon. It is the only monarchy, as people often put it, that has held out for over two thousand years, and this in itself is quite incomprehensible.

I would say that one of the mysteries that point to something greater is quite certainly the survival of the Jewish people. On the other hand, the endurance of the papacy is also something astonishing and thought provoking. You have already suggested, with one example, how much failure has been involved and how much damage the office has had to suffer, so that by all the rules of historical probability it should have collapsed on more than one occasion. I think it was Voltaire who said, now is the time when this Dalai Lama of Europe will finally disappear, and mankind will be freed from him. But, you see, it carried on. So that's something that makes you feel: This is not the result of the competence of these people–many of them have done everything possible to run the thing into the ground–but there is another kind of power at work behind this. In fact, exactly the power that was promised to Peter. The powers of the underworld, of death, will not overcome the Church. ...

And this, from his first address, given on April 20, 2005 to the College of Cardinals:

Nourished and sustained by the Eucharist, Catholics cannot but feel encouraged to strive for the full unity for which Christ expressed so ardent a hope in the Upper Room. The Successor of Peter knows that he must make himself especially responsible for his Divine Master's supreme aspiration. Indeed, he is entrusted with the task of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22: 32).

With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty. He is aware that good intentions do not suffice for this. Concrete gestures that enter hearts and stir consciences are essential, inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress.

Theological dialogue is necessary; the investigation of the historical reasons for the decisions made in the past is also indispensable. But what is most urgently needed is that "purification of memory", so often recalled by John Paul II, which alone can dispose souls to accept the full truth of Christ. Each one of us must come before him, the supreme Judge of every living person, and render an account to him of all we have done or have failed to do to further the great good of the full and visible unity of all his disciples.

The current Successor of Peter is allowing himself to be called in the first person by this requirement and is prepared to do everything in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism. Following the example of his Predecessors, he is fully determined to encourage every initiative that seems appropriate for promoting contacts and understanding with the representatives of the different Churches and Ecclesial Communities. Indeed, on this occasion he sends them his most cordial greeting in Christ, the one Lord of us all.

6. I am thinking back at this time to the unforgettable experience seen by all of us on the occasion of the death and funeral of the late John Paul II. The Heads of Nations, people from every social class and especially young people gathered round his mortal remains, laid on the bare ground, in an unforgettable embrace of love and admiration. The whole world looked to him with trust. To many it seemed that this intense participation, amplified by the media to reach the very ends of the planet, was like a unanimous appeal for help addressed to the Pope by today's humanity which, upset by uncertainties and fears, was questioning itself on its future.

The Church of today must revive her awareness of the duty to repropose to the world the voice of the One who said:  "I am the light of the world. No follower of mine shall ever walk in darkness; no, he shall possess the light of life" (Jn 8: 12). In carrying out his ministry, the new Pope knows that his task is to make Christ's light shine out before the men and women of today:  not his own light, but Christ's.

• Biography of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
• Jesus of Nazareth (Part 2)
• Other Recent Books by Pope Benedict XVI
• All books by or about Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
• Excerpts from books by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI
• Articles about Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI

The Pope, the "time of the Gentiles", and the "mission of Israel"

Mark Brumley, President of Ignatius Press, takes a look at one of the more challenging and (in my mind) intriguing passages in Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week:

Pope Benedict writes nothing new in Jesus of Nazareth: Part 2 when he states that the Jewish people are not collectively responsible for Jesus' death. Readers will be pardoned if they think otherwise, since some media outlets have treated the Holy Father's statements as if they were revelations. Perhaps that's understandable, given the history of the relations between Christians and Jews. But it's still not news.

Likewise, readers may think Pope Benedict has said something novel about a related topic — the conversion (or non-conversion) of Jews to Christianity. According to some reports, Christians shouldn't try to convert Jews, in Benedict's view. Is that so? What does Benedict actually say?

Let's begin with what he doesn't say. He doesn't say that Jews shouldn't become Christians, that Jews shouldn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Nor does he say Christians shouldn't try to convert Jews.

Some background should help. In speaking of Jesus' discourse about the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 and the end of the world, Pope Benedict explains the place of evangelization in the unfolding of history. He quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux's words to Pope Eugene III that he needn't concern himself with the conversion of the Jewish people; God has left the matter until the time when "the full number of the Gentiles" to become Christians has been reached (pp. 44-45). Benedict then quotes commentator Hildegard Brem, who says that Bernard's comments reflect Roman 11:25, which Brem interprets to mean that "the Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God, 'until the full number of the Gentiles come in'" (p. 45).

It's clear that Benedict thinks Israel, in some sense, "retains its own mission" (p. 46). The Church's mission, on the other hand, is to focus on the Gentiles. He interprets the Lord's teaching about the destruction of the Temple as linked to the "times of the Gentiles" — an unspecified period between the time of Jesus and the end of the world. During the "times of the Gentiles," "the evangelization of the Gentiles" is "the disciples' particular task — thanks above all to the special commission given to Paul as a duty and a grace" (p. 46). In other words, the age of the Church stresses converting the Gentiles to the message of Jesus, not converting Jews.

Read the entire piece, "Jesus For Jews?", on the National Catholic Register site. Mark is co-author, with Curtis Mitch and Laura Dittus, of the Study Guide for Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week.

"I Invite You to Meet A Warrior for Life" by Peter Kreeft

I Invite You to Meet A Warrior for Life | Peter Kreeft | The Introduction to The Appalling Strangeness of the Mercy of God: The Story of Ruth Pakaluk: Covert, Mother, Pro-life Activist, edited by Michael Pakaluk

In this book you will meet a truly wonderful person. There are few things in life more precious than that. Even meeting a great fictional character enriches your life. But this one is real.

Since Ruth was a woman who loved God and loved life, this book of her letters and speeches is a book for everyone who loves God and who loves life. But it is especially helpful for mothers, especially stay-at-home mothers, homemakers, people with cancer, parents faced with leaving their children through death, and people who care about abortion.

How to describe it in a few words? All the following adjectives describe Ruth herself as well as her letters and her book.

Utterly honest, human, "homely", and humble. Simple. Direct. Full of the ordinary, but full of a light that shines on or through ordinary life, a light that most of us simply don't see twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

And always cheerful. Surrounded by many small children; infected by cancer; suffering in continual pain for seven years; facing uncertainties about death and then certainties (which is worse?); maligned and misunderstood for converting to Catholicism, for having "too many" children, for being consistently pro-life; working harder for the culture of life while in poor health than most people ever work when in perfect health—yet always cheerful. Like Mother Teresa. Like John Paul II.

They show us that cheerfulness is neither a temporary feeling nor a genetic predisposition but a choice. A matter of free choice-of will, not emotion. This cheerfulness is not a teeth-gritting, "stiff upper lip" cheerfulness but one grounded in truth and in fact, in the certainty of the goodness and wisdom and power of God. (From these three nonnegotiable premises logically follows the astonishing conclusion of Romans 8:28, [1] and the cheerfulness it generates.)

Full of faith, in all its senses: personal trust, personal fidelity, theological orthodoxy, and immediate acceptance of revealed data. Ruth had a brilliant mind, but I'm sure she would have loved the Southern Baptist preacher's famous definition of faith: "If God said it, I believe it and that settles it." Honesty often expresses itself in simplicity, even (especially!) in brilliant minds. (Read Saint Thomas Aquinas.) This simplicity was one of the secrets of her cheerfulness.

Full of hope, especially when things are most hopeless. (That's the whole hard heroism and preciousness of hope.)

Full of charity, of love. The real thing, not imitations. Full of the love of God, which is so immediately translated into love of neighbor that its heavenly origin becomes invisible, like air full of light. Yet also hardheaded, rational, clear. (Why did I say "yet", as if there were some tension? Exactly the opposite: it is all of a piece.) Brilliant, even-in the sense that a light is brilliant, not in the sense that an overly clever scholar is "brilliant". What was her secret? It's no secret. It's all here in print. Just meet her and see.

Read the entire Introduction on Ignatius Insight...

Listen to Mark Brumley and Tim Gray talk...

... with Al Kresta about Pope Benedict XVI's book, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, especially regarding the Holy Father's insights into the meaning of the most sacred week of the year. Access the audio on the Ave Maria Radio site, under "April 18, 2011".

The argument over marriage and the poisoning of public discourse

There has been some discussion lately on this blog about the nature of marriage and who—the State? the Church? voters? Donald Trump?—decides what marriage is and who can be married. The most recent issue of First Things has a really excellent essay on the topic, "Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage" (May, 2011), by Matthew J. Franck, director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton. Here is the intro and another short except:

In the contemporary debate on the future of marriage, there appears to be, amid many uncertainties, one sure thing. Those who publicly defend traditional marriage can count on being denounced as haters, bigots, or irrational theocrats—and perhaps all of these at once. So I learned after publishing an article in the Washington Post last December titled "On Gay Marriage, Stop Playing the Hate Card." I was not making a full-fledged argument against same-sex marriage—only urging Post readers to reject the use of reckless charges of "hate" to shut down debate, and asking them to respect the defenders of marriage as people in possession of an argument. Sadly, many readers leapt to the challenge of confirming my thesis, writing e-mails or commenting online that I must indeed be a hating, bigoted, irrational theocrat.

Lying behind this poisoning of our public discourse is some notably flawed reasoning that it is worth our while to consider in some detail.

In briefly rehearsing well-known defenses of conjugal marriage that others have elaborated elsewhere, I noted in the Post that marriage "has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers" and that same-sex unions are "not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution." The response of some readers was not merely that I had not fully fleshed out this argument (which I could readily admit) but that such statements did not even bear the marks of rationality—that they were so obviously wrong that only those in the grip of unreasoning hatred or bigotry could put them forward.

Some of our high public officials, unfortunately, have encouraged this kind of flattening and coarsening of our public discussion. ...

And, further down:

It is of course the case that when religious people bring their beliefs about morality into the public square and attempt to enact them as law, it is fair to expect them to argue in terms that do not require others to share their faith commitment in order to grasp the reasons for their view. (Note that I say "to grasp the reasons," not "to accept the reasons." Nobody is going to concede the veto of obstinate opponents over their right even to make their argument.)

So while it is not surprising to hear religious people begin by saying, "The Bible tells us X"—and it is not illegitimate for them to speak in this way—they should be prepared to give reasons that others can grasp who do not share their view that the Bible is the authoritative source of morality or who read the Bible differently. This is a Christian-majority society, but, as Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput said in March at Georgetown University, "We never have been and never will be a Christian confessional state." Indeed, there are so many varieties of Christianity in the United States that any effort to behave as though we were a confessional state would only incite intersectarian conflict.

But Christians have a common language for moral argument across their sectarian differences, a language distinct from Scripture though not wholly apart from its purposes, that is also a common language of all mankind, supplying points of reference accessible in principle to anyone. This is the language of natural law, which Thomas Aquinas said is that part of God's law for us that we can know on our own, by the use of our own reason (which He of course gave us), without any special aid of revelation, prophecy, or Scripture.

Even those who resist any notion that God gave us our reason, or that He is the source of law for us, will nonetheless admit (most of them, anyway) that we are rational creatures and that by using our reason we can distinguish justice from injustice. On that shared ground, all citizens can meet who have not made a prior commitment to the self-contradiction of relativism. But—and this is important—the religious participants in this shared deliberation on the just and the unjust are not required to stop talking about their faith or about how important it is to them. Many believers, after all, believe that their religious faith makes them better, more moral persons and better able to make useful contributions to the debates we inevitably have over public morality. Therefore our constitutional obligation to respect their freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience means it would be an imposition of a secular orthodoxy on them to require that they "privatize" their faith commitments and keep them out of the public square.

Definitely worth reading and mentioning to others.

Related Ignatius Insight Articles and Book Excerpts:

• The Mystery of Marriage | Jorge Cardinal Medina Estévez | From Chapter One of "Male and Female He Created Them": On Marriage and the Family
• Marital and Family Commitment: A Personalist View | Monsignor Cormac Burke
• The Challenge of Marriage Preparation | Dr. Janet E. Smith
• Focus Groups and Marriage: A Match Made for Heartache | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Entering Marriage with Eyes Wide Open | Edward Peters
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci | Introduction to The Conjugal Act as a Personal Act
• Who Is Married? | Edward Peters
• Marriage and the Family in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae | Reverend Michael Hull, S.T.D.
• Male and Female He Created Them | Cardinal Estevez
• The Meaning and Necessity of Spiritual Fatherhood | Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers, MTS
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley | An excerpt from Sex and the Marriage Covenant

Kids gloves for the Koran. Public burning for the Bible.

Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion, looks at the double standard being promoted and enforced by the U.S. government (a double standard that began with Bush II and is continuing under the Obama administration):

The U.S. government under Barack Obama is deeply committed to battling any belittlement, criticism, or questioning of Islam. ("I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States," he said, "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.")

At the same time, however, it is OK, in the Obama regime [SEE BELOW FOR AN UPDATE],  for the U.S. government to burn Bibles. Yes, that's right. Bibles were sent to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. But the U.S. government determined that  the presence of Bibles in this "devoutly Muslim country" might inflame the natives.  So they burned them. Why did they burn them? Because it is military policy to burn its trash.

So, the Bibles, according to U.S. policy, are trash, garbage, and it's OK to burn them.

Read his entire post, which is generating a lot of conversation, on the Pajamas Media site.

New from Ignatius Press: "Anglicans And The Roman Catholic Church"

Now available from Ignatius Press:

Anglicans And The Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments

by Stephen E. Cavanaugh

The beginning of a specifically Anglican liturgy and culture within the Roman Catholic Church was established in the United Sates by Pope John Paul II. Since then, Anglican Use parishes have been worshipping in a distinctively Anglican style within several American dioceses. Thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, these communities are now able to form into personal ordinariates led by bishops who were previously Anglican clergy. As a result, even more Anglicans seeking full communion with Rome can find a home within the Catholic Church.

The twelve essays in this book discuss the reasons Anglicans have sought reconciliation with the Holy See, while retaining elements of their own liturgy and traditions. They explore the history and scope of Pope John Paul II's Pastoral Provision and Pope Benedict XVI's Apostolic Constitution and examine the needs of the new ordinariates if they are to flourish. Also considered are the changes to the Roman liturgy since the Second Vatican Council and the specific patrimony that Anglicans bring to Catholic worship.

Many of these essays have been written by erstwhile Anglican clergymen who have been ordained into the Catholic priesthood (and one into the episcopate). A few are by Catholic experts on this topic. There is also a contribution from a woman who had been an ordained Episcopal priest before becoming a Catholic.

Here is a wealth of information for anyone interested in the Anglican communities within the Catholic Church, the "reform of the reform" of the Roman liturgy or the testimonies of Anglicans who have become Roman Catholics.

A keen interest in traditional chant and hymnody led editor Stephen Cavanaugh to Boston's Anglican Use congregation of St. Athanasius, where he has happily remained as a worshipper. He has been the editor of Anglican Embers, journal of the Anglican Use Society, since 2007.