BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

More evidence that Benedict XVI has not given up trying to bring the FSSPX back into the fold, and what was earlier speculated is now clear - that it was the reason he assigned one of his ex-CDF aides, Mons. Augustine Di Noia, to be the vice-president of Ecclesia Dei, the agency directly dealing with the FSSPX. There was no such position before, but it gives Di Noia greater weight to act for Ecclesia Dei, whose ex-officio president is the Prefect of the CDF, Mons. Mueller (and he has quite a history of bad blood with the FSSPX, openly condemning every year the ordination of priests at the FSSPX seminary in Zaitkofen, within the Diocese of Regensburg)... I've swung from initially hopeful about this venture, to being darkly pessimistic in the past year as the FSSPX has sounded more and more stridently combative in their public position (and as they keep raising the bar, outrageously, IMHO, at least in public, regarding their rejection of Vatican II).


An eight-page letter from the Vatican
seeks to reopen discussions with the FSSPX
by Andrea Tornielli
Translated from the Italian service of

January 19, 2012

A new move from the Holy See towards the FSSPX has been disclosed: - Mons. Augustine Di Noia, into whose hands Benedict XVI consigned the difficult FSSPX dossier, wrote the FSSPX Superior-General, Mons. Bernard Fellay last month, and through him, all the priests of the traditionalist holdout fraternity, offering some proposals that would lead to resumption of a dialog that has been stalled since June 2012.

It will be recalled that after almost three years of periodic doctrinal discussions held in Rome, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (of which Ecclesia Dei is an agency) turned over to the FSSPX a doctrinal preamble approved by the Pope which, if signed by the FSSPX, would lead to bringing the latter back into full communion with Rome and a definition of its canonical status.

A definitive written answer never came. The Vatican proposal was discussed within the FSSPX, revealing internal tensions, including the outright objection of the three other FSSPX bishops to continuing any dialog with Rome.

Meanwhile, the new Prefect of the CDF, Archbishop Ludwig Mueller, made harsh statements criticizing the FSSPX positions )though he made more conciliatory statements later). And Mons. Fellay stirred up new concerns when he declared in a November speech to an FSSPX community in the United States naming Jews among the 'enemies of the Church for centurixs', saying Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s”. The obstacles to any rapprochement seemed insuperable.

Archbishop Di Noia's letter is a novelty. The Dominican theologian, an American, is a well-prepared theologian who is also very realistic. In the letter sent to Fellay before Christmas, he asked him to provide copies to all his priests.

Le Figaro's Jean Guenois claims that Benedict XVI himself took the initiative for the eight-page letter, which he reviewed and approved before it was sent.

Guenois says Di Noia expresses the strong desire of the Vatican to 'overcome existing tensions' and summarizes the current situation in three essential points: the actual state of relationships between Econe and Rome, the spirit of this relationship, and a method for resuming the interrupted dialog.

With respect to the interpretation of Vatican-II, Di Noia reportedly says that the discussion remains 'open' and 'hopeful' despite hostile statements made by the Lefebvrians since June 2012.

In a way, Di Noia would be authoritatively confirming for the first time, on the part of the Vatican, that there is a fundamental impasse and the absence of any progress in the dispute over Vatican II.

The second part of the letter reportedly underscores the importance of Church unity and therefore, the need to avoid "pride, anger and impatience", saying the "disagreement over fundamental points should not exclude debating these controversial questions with a spirit of openness".

Finally, the third part of the letter reportedly proposes two ways out of the impasse. The first would be to properly acknowledge the special charism of Mons. Lefebvre and the society he founded, which was primarily intended for 'the formation of priests", not for "counter-p[roductive rhetoric", nor to "pass judgement and correct Church theology", and much less, to "publicly censure and correct what the Church says".

Di Noia reportedly cites a passage from the 1990 CDF document Donum veritatis (The gift of truth), published with regard to the dissidence of progressive theologians, which says that 'theological differences' are recognized by the Church, as long as objections are expressed internally, not in public, in order to stimulate a better 'formulation of what the Magisterium teaches'; and above all, that such objections must never take the form of a 'parallel Magisterium'..

[Other traditionalist groups who have since come back to Rome and who have similar reservations about some teachings of Vatican II have accepted this reasonable condition, of keeping their objections within the Church and not part of public discourse.

It is more difficult with the Lefebvrians, who may agree (that's a major IF) not to be openly subversive, but may insist on teaching within their own community that Vatican II - and with it, the official Church Magisterium - are wrong in advocating religious freedom and respect for the non-Christian faiths as non-negotiable and non-retractable principles of action, even if not articles of faith!]

Rome is awaiting a response, hoping this time for something positive.

[Mons. Fellay can do as he has done since June - not send any formal reply at all, while continuing to criticize the Vatican openly every occasion he has. He revealed last November that Benedict XVI had written him personally to explain the conditions of the Doctrinal Preamble, but he simply rejected them in public, without saying whether he had the courtesy to send the Pope a note acknowledging receipt of his letter without saying anything else (because if he did - and it could only have been NO, thanks - that would have amounted to his response to the June proposal from the CDF).]

January 20, Second Sunday in Ordinary Time

From left: Paintings by Mantegna, Bellini, El Greco; a statue in St. Peter's colonnade; altarpiece, Chapel of St. Sebastian (where John Paul II's tomb is) in St. Peter's Basilica, mosaic executed by Pierpaolo Cristofani in 1736 after a famous painting of St. Sebastian by Domenichino (1631); detail of altarpiece.
ST. SEBASTIAN (Italy, ?257-288), Martyr
Nothing is historically certain about St. Sebastian except that he was a Roman martyr who was venerated in Milan even in the time of St. Ambrose, and was buried on the Appian Way, near the Catacombs that bear his name. Devotion to him spread rapidly, and he is mentioned in martyrologies as early as 350 AD. The legend of St. Sebastian became a popular subject in art. The familiar image of the saint pierced by arrows comes from the story that under Diocletian, he was exposed as an impostor in the Roman army and sentenced to be shot to death by archers. He survived to continue denouncing persecution of Christians to the emperor himself. He was clubbed to death.
Readings for today's Mass: www.usccb.org/bible/readings/012013.cfm


AT THE VATICAN TODAY

Sunday Angelus -Reflecting on today's Gospel reading about the wedding in Cana, where Jesus
performed his first miracle in public, the Holy Father said it completed the trio of events
manifesting Jesus's epiphany to the world, following the celebration of his birth - namely, the visit
of the Magi, his baptism on the Jordan, and the first miracle in Cana. He also spoke of the current
Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, saying the continuing division among Christians remains one of
the worst circumstances defacing the image of the Church. He asked the faithful to continue praying
for Christian unity as well as for peace in our day, that dialog and negotiations may take the place
of armed conflict.


@Pontifex 1/20/13

With the first tweet in Latin (same message in all languages). The Latin seems to be a more specific message than the 'original' English, if only because of a mire elegant way of saying "What does the Lord want of us as we work for Christian unity?", and the striking verbs used in the second sentence. I will wait until a Latinist translates it professionally...




- The full text of the letter of Mons. Di Noia to the FSSPX Superior-General has been posted online by the French Catholic portal,

which says the copy was furnished by Le Figaro's Jean Guenois who managed to get it somehow...It's lengthy but it deserves to be translated.
I just don't know how soon I will get around to it.
P.S. The supposedly original English text of the letter has been published in an Italian blog and has now been posted on Rorate caeli
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noias-letter-full-text-in-fre...
(Ignore the tag - the full English text is posted on that site)...
I will post it on this thread, anyway, for the record.

The Pope blesses
pallium lambs
Adapted from

January 21, 2013

Pope Benedict XVI marked the Feast of St. Agnes Monday with a centuries-old rite: the blessing of the lambs, from whose wool the pallium imposed by the Pope on metropolitan archbishops will be made.

Two small lambs, traditionally less than a year old, were carried to the Pope in flower-decorated baskets, by the Canons Regular of the Cathedral of St John Lateran.

Reared by religious sisters in the Saint Lawrence convent in Panisperna, Rome, these lambs and their 'flockmates' will soon be brought to the Saint Cecilia convent in Trastevere. There in another cdenturies-old custom, they will be shorn to supply the wool from which the religious sisters will weave the palliums for the Vatican.

The name Agnes derives from the word for “lamb” in Latin. St. Agnes was a martyr of the early 4th century, known for her consecrated virginity. She was killed when she was between 12-13, for refusing to worship pagan gods. She is buried in the basilica named for her, located on Rome’s Via Nomentana. To symbolize St. Agnes’s purity, one of the lambs wears a crown of white flowers, while the other wears a red floral wreath to recall her faithful witness even unto death.

The bishop's pallium is a white woollen stole, decorated with six black crosses, worn by metropolitan archbishops around their necks as a symbol of their authority and unity with the Pope, whose pallium alone has crosses in red. Once woven, the palliums are kept in an urn by the tomb of St Peter until the Holy Father presents them to newly-appointed metropolitan archbishops on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

I've been searching German sites for the past two days to look for the interview on which Ambrogetti based this story, in order to translate it in full, if possible, but to no avail (though I did turn up quite a few articles of the German media reaction to the now-'notorious' Vanity Fair cover photo of Georg Gaenswein). Perhaps I am just an inept Net trawler, but how can you not turn up anything as specific as the search term "BILD AM SONNTAG 20 JANUAR 2013 - INTERVIEW GEORG GAENSWEIN"? So here is Ms. Ambrogetti's piece for korazym.org which was posted yesterday:

Archbishop Gaenswein is appalled
he is described as '#2 at the Vatican'
by Angela Ambrogetti

January 20, 2012

"Me the number-2 man at the Vatican? Whoever says that does not know the internal workings of the Vatican".

Thus did Archbishop Georg Gaenswein comment to BILD AM SONNTAG (Sunday edition of BILD) a claim made by the Italian edition o0f Vanity Fair in its article accompanying its cover photo of him last week. The article also compares him to the fictional Father Ralph de Bricassart of the 'Thorn Birds' (best-selling Australian novel and popular TV mini-series in the 1980s).

"I was not really familiar with the magazine," the Pope's secretary and newest chief of an office in the Roman Curia tells BILD. "I saw the issue after my attention was called to it by so many people. And my first impression was 'Mamma mia, how is this possible?' I was not asked for an interview nor to have photographs taken. I knew nothing about it beforehand. And my second impression was, 'Well, it's relatively innocuous', sometimes even positive, even if the article contains so many irritating statements. Besides, that cover photograph is old. It was taken about three years ago in Castel Gandolfo when I was interviewed by your newspaper (BILD)."

The cover caption describes you as "the Number 2 man in the Vatican"...
Sheer folly! Anyone who says that does not really know how the Vatican works. The reality is something else completely.

Having just been made an archbishop, and being the secretary of the Pope, and then to be compared with Father Ralph in the 'Thorn Birds' must be paradoxical..
I just take that comparison with humour! The article itself is written with irony. And when it quotes me on what I have previously said about women, I do repeat that I have always had a natural and relaxed attitude with women.

Also, all this media tempest in a teapot does not really create a genuine problem. As long as reality is not distorted. Or to put it in a more positive way, as long as it contributes to stir up curiosity about Christ and his Church. The good God writes straight even on crooked lines. Clearly, man is not the center of all this, certainly not me. Everything should be about the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the Pope’s recent essay in
the London 'Financial Times'
“Christians render to Caesar
only what belongs to Caesar,
not what belongs to God.”
By James V. Schall, S.J.

January 21, 2013

I.

On December 20, at their request, the Editors of the London Financial Times published a column by Benedict XVI. In the L’Osservatore Romano reprint (January 3, 2013), it was entitled “Christians Without Compromise.”

At the end of the column, the Financial Times editors amusingly, in my view, succinctly identify the author as “The Bishop of Rome and author of Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives.” Obviously, the title “Bishop of Rome” is accurate. But it is also in conformity with Anglican theology, which does not recognize the Primacy Office of Peter continuing in the present Pope.

The Pope began his comments by citing what is certainly the most famous and consequential passage in the New Testament about politics, namely, the “Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” (see Mt 22:15-22).

Benedict immediately pointed out that this response had to do with the legitimacy of paying taxes. It was asked to “trap” Jesus. The Pharisees wanted to draw Christ into current politics by presenting Him with a dilemma. If He was the awaited Messiah, surely He would oppose Roman occupation of Palestine. Thus He was “either a threat to the regime or a fraud.”

Jesus’s response avoided the trap. At the same time, He raised the level of discourse for both the Romans and the Jews. Implicitly, Jesus warned about the “politicizing of religion and the deification of the state.” Both politics and religion have a proper place. They need not be enemies except when either politicization or deification occurs.

The Jews needed to recognize their Messiah would not be a Caesar. The Romans needed to know their Caesar was not God. Jesus did come to establish a “Kingdom.” But it would be of a “higher order.” At His trial, He told Pilate bluntly that His Kingdom was not “of this world.”

Next, Benedict turns to the “Christmas stories in the New Testament.” A similar message is found here. Jesus’s birth takes place in Bethlehem because of a census edict of Caesar Augustus, the first emperor of the Romans. He brought all the conquered lands into some form of higher administrative unity.

Christ is born in an obscure place in this Empire. He would open to the world a “far greater peace” than that of the Pax Romana. The peace that Christ offers “transcends the limitations of space and time.”

How so? How is Jesus presented in the New Testament? He is the “heir” of King David.” His liberation is not about armies and conquering enemies. Rather it deals with freeing us from “sin and death forever.” The birth of Christ causes us to question our priorities and values. Christmas is a time of glad tidings, of “great joy.”

But Christmas should also cause reflection, even “examination of conscience.” The Pope then notes that the year ending has brought economic hardships, so what can we learn from a man born in poverty in a manger? We can use Christmas time to read afresh the Gospels where this same Child is “recognized as God made Man.” Here the Pope, qua Pope, is affirming, reminding us what in fact happened in Bethlehem, and to whom it happened..

The inspiration for our “daily affairs” — be it in the Houses of Parliament or the Stock Exchange — comes to Christians from this same Gospel. To engage in political or economic life is to be encouraged but in a way that “transcends every form of ideology.”

This latter avoidance in our day, of course, is not easy. An ideology is an explanation of things that usually does not leave itself open to any real transcendence or openness to what is.

II.

In fighting poverty, Benedict explains, Christians begin not with the fact of poverty but by recognizing “the supreme dignity of every human being created in God’s image and destined for eternal life.”

This recognition in the poor, rich, and those in-between is the real basis for the Christian presence in the world. It transcends every political and economic form. It includes the individual persons of all stages of growth and rank in any place or any worldly condition whether they accept it or not.

Benedict adds that “Christians should work for a more equitable sharing of the earth’s resources out of a belief that, as stewards of God’s creation, we have a duty to care for the weaker and most vulnerable.”

When I read a sentence like this, especially in a place like the Financial Times, it strikes me as approaching the problem from the wrong, that is, “sharing” or “distribution” side and not from the production or creation side. Moreover, the “sharing” itself should not primarily be understood as a simple giving or taking care. It should be seen as the result of normal work and markets wherein everyone is involved.

There is nothing socialists of all stripes love more than the notion of their being in charge, and hence gaining the glory, of distributing other people’s goods to the poor through state benevolence as if the goods come without effort.

The Pope adds that “Christians oppose greed and exploitation out of a conviction that generosity and selfless love, as taught by Jesus of Nazareth, are the way that leads to the fullness of life.” But it is not only generosity and selfless love that are opposed to greed and exploitation. The latter are also opposed by innovation and normal work that provide the basic conditions of everyone earning their own way.

Benedict recognizes that others who are not Christian understand many of these things. But Christians draw a line. “Christians render to Caesar only what belongs to Caesar, not what belongs to God.”

In many eras in history, Christians have been “unable” to do what Caesar demanded. The Pope brings this principle up-to-date. “When Christians refuse to bow down before the false gods proposed today, it is not because of an antiquated world view.”

In both subtle and overt ways, we are more and more asked — and threatened — by the state to embrace principles and deeds that are objectively immoral. We never thought it would come to this situation, but it has. Since Christians are “free from ideology,” they can reject the rationale given for obeying only Caesar.

Benedict ends his column in the Financial Times with an interesting take on the crib scenes in Italy. There Christ is pictured as being born amidst the ruins of ancient Rome. “This shows that the birth of the child, Jesus, marks the end of the old order, the pagan world, in which Caesar’s claim was virtually unchallenged.”

In the ruins a new King is seen arising. He has no arms. He does have love. He brings hope to all, even the lowliest. We are to live as “citizens of His heavenly Kingdom.”

The Pope ends with these words: This is a Kingdom “all people of good will can help to build here on earth.” The “building of the Kingdom of God on earth,” in the history of political philosophy, has been frequently used, as Augustine saw, to justify elevation politics over religion.

What Benedict is saying here, in effect, is that the legitimate goals of politics and economics will not come about even on earth until the issue of the transcendent purpose and destiny of each human person is recognized.

As he said in Spe Salvi, the whole ethos of the modern age has been driven by the effort to replace the eschatological ends of faith with political, social, scientific, and economic accomplishments in this world.

Benedict argues, to the contrary, that much improvement will come to the world itself only when it has its priorities right about what we can hope for in this world and what is our eternal destiny. This relationship is what he wanted to readers of the Financial Times to understand and embrace.

Surprisingly, there were hardly any commentaries in the Anglophone world - or in the Italian media, as far as I could determine - to this gem of a historical contribution by a Pope - the first ever - to a major newspaper in the West, an institution in its field. It is hard to imagine a more direct and concise presentation of Christian ethics in general and how it must shape the relationship of Christians with the state.

That the Financial Times happens to be one of the Western world's 'newspapers of record' on economy and finance makes it even more remarkable that the FT editors even thought to ask the Pope to write something for them. Perhaps it was an overt secular acknowledgment that purely pragmatic considerations on finance and the economy have led the world to the brink of disaster in what is supposed to be the most affluent time in human history, and that a transcendent viewpoint may be helpful to everyone, especially those who shape and move the destinies of the global village.

Benedict says so many great and good and useful things all the time, so that each of us may take something to heart that strikes us most directly in what we do and what we are - educator or student, businessman or laborer, charity volunteer or general do-gooder, priest or bishop, man or woman, spouse or parent, son or daughter... For instance, it is breathtaking that he could turn what could otherwise have been a routine address to Cor Unum into a terse disquisition on the cultural threats that obscure or ignore the wellsprings of genuine charity, Christian caritas, and the Christian view of man...

'Liberty and justice for all'?
Roe v Wade, its cultural and legal legacy
40 years and 50 million lives later
Interview by Jim Graves

Issue of January 2013

Robert P. George, 57, a Roman Catholic and a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, has long been a respected intellectual and defender of natural law.

He served on the drafting committee of the 2009 Manhattan Declaration, which defended the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty, and was signed by more than 150 prominent Christian leaders.

He has been outspoken in defense of the unborn and traditional marriage, and has influenced many well-known political leaders. The New York Times has dubbed him “the reigning brain of the Christian right”; Archbishop of Newark John Myers describes him as “the pre-eminent Catholic intellectual.”

In a recent interview with CWR, he shared his thoughts on the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down the nation’s anti= abortion laws. The 40th anniversary of the decision is January 22, 2013.

As we mark the 40th anniversary of Roe, what is your opinion of the decision and how firmly entrenched is it in the legal community’s thinking?
Roe has never been accepted by the American people as a whole as a valid constitutional decision. It is widely regarded, even among liberal academics, as poorly reasoned—at best. Many scholars and others (including more than a few who are not pro-life in their moral and political convictions) regard it as a glaring (and even embarrassing) example of the judicial usurpation of authority left by the Constitution in the hands of the people and their elected representatives.

Even Roe’s diehard supporters tend to defend it on the grounds that it is an “established precedent,” not on the grounds that it is correct as a matter of constitutional interpretation.

Do you think there is a possibility of overturning Roe and sending the abortion issue back to the states?
Yes, but it will entirely depend on the election of a Republican president in 2016. President Obama’s appointees, present and future, will vote to uphold Roe. They will not have very good arguments for doing so, but they will do it. I believe that currently four justices on the Supreme Court would overturn Roe if given the opportunity.

If none of these justices retires or dies during the second Obama term, and if the next president is a Republican who nominates a faithful constitutionalist judge to replace one of the current pro-Roe justices, then Roe would finally go the way of Plessy v. Ferguson [the 1896 US Supreme Court decision that upheld state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities; it established the so-called “separate but equal” principle] and other shameful decisions that blot the Supreme Court’s historical record.

In the years since you began publicly supporting the pro-life cause, how has the debate over abortion changed?
People, including abortion’s supporters, have been forced to confront the truth about the humanity of the child in the womb. It is simply no longer possible to pretend not to know “when life begins” or whether abortion takes the life of a human being.

The facts of human embryogenesis and early intrauterine development are not only clear, but reasonably well known. And sonography has given all of us a window into the beautiful life of the child in the womb. That, I believe, is why a majority of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life — for the first time since Roe v. Wade was handed down.

Do you see more support now for the pro-life position among your students? Your colleagues? People involved in politics?
Yes, the pro-life cause has greater support now among all age groups, especially younger people. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of professors cling to the “old-time religion” of a “right to abortion,” but academics these days are so deeply committed to social liberalism that I’m afraid they will be among the last to see the light. We need to keep working on them, though! They claim to be committed to science, evidence, and reason. Let’s hold them to those commitments.

Among politicians, the most important development regarding abortion in the past few decades has been partisan polarization. When Roe was handed down, there were many pro-life Democrats and more than a few Republicans who favored legal abortion. Today, pro-life Democrats are nearly extinct. The party is a pro-abortion party from top to bottom. There are still some Republicans who regard themselves as “pro-choice,” but they are nothing like the force in their party they used to be, and it is doubtful that someone who did not oppose abortions in most cases could be selected as the Republican nominee for president or vice president.

How does your Catholic faith motivate you in speaking out on behalf of the unborn?
I am Catholic. Of course, one needn’t be a Catholic or Christian of any kind or even a religious believer to understand that abortion is a grave injustice and a violation of human rights.

Still, I’m proud that the Church has been, from the beginning of the debate about abortion, outspoken in its proclamation of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family, beginning with the precious child in the womb.

The Catholic bishops in particular deserve commendation for their strong and consistent pro-life witness. They deserve commendation, too, for their willingness to join hands and work together with our brothers and sisters of other traditions (Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical Protestants, traditional Anglicans, LDS, Orthodox Jews) in the cause of the unborn child.

For those of us who are believing Christians and Jews, there is a special reason to respect the life and dignity of every human being, for we believe that each one is a creature fashioned in the very image and likeness of God. Each is of inestimable worth. None is inherently superior or inferior to any other. All must be, in the words of my late and very great friend Father Richard John Neuhaus, “protected by law and welcomed in life.”

If I were to go out publicly and defend the pro-life position, how would you advise me to present the issue?
The pro-life position should be presented as exactly what it is: a matter of justice and fundamental human rights.

Religions such as Catholicism rightly teach that abortion is a grave moral evil, but the question is not fundamentally a matter of religious doctrine. Like slavery, it is a matter of natural justice.

The governing principle of political morality is the principle of the equal protection of the laws. To uphold that principle and insist on it in our political practice is not to “impose religious dogma,” it is to fulfill our basic moral obligations as a society dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.”

For a political order to withdraw the law’s protections from any class of human beings for any reason (race, sex, ethnicity, age, size, stage of development, condition of dependency, or whatever) is to commit a grave injustice against them. That’s what Roe v. Wade did. [The 'pro-choice' legions get around that by claiming that the baby in the womb is not even a 'person' = which makes the feel free to do whatever they want to a conceptus, even up to brutal 'partial abortion' in which the skull of a viable fetus is cracked open by the abortionist. These are the very same people who would stage marches and raise funds to save some endangered animal or plant species, but do not see harm in extinguishing a human life just because it is still in the womb

For us, as Americans, Roe is not just bad constitutional law, it is a betrayal of a hard-won constitutional principle. That is why Roe must be overturned and why we must fight in the domain of politics, and not merely in the domain of culture (though there, too), for the protection of unborn members of the human family.



I cannot help but think of Roe v Wade in 1973 as the institutionalization of the culture of death (or anti-life), which is one of the more evil consequences of the 1968 counter-cultural revolution. This truly inaugurated the current age of me-myself-and-I extremism in which the individual's existential criteria are limited only to his own narrow personal interests with no transcending values.

For this reason, Pope Paul VI set an admirable example of courage in standing up for what is right - against the recommendation of a committee he head assigned to study the question of artificial means of birth control - when he issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae precisely in 1968.

On this Roe v Wade anniversary, I offer a silent prayer to and for the Venerable Paul VI, even if I found his overhaul of the liturgy just two years later too rash and unduly conceding to liberals, but at least not irredeemable.

I have never had any sympathy for the former Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, who all but flaunted his ueber-liberal interpretation of the Magisterium. Now he shows up as the major protagonist (or villain) in newly released personnel files which the diocese of Los Angeles was compelled to produce to a court in connection with the investigation of sex abuses bv priests.

The story that emerges of how he and his auxiliaries dealt with the problem is very instructive. It illustrates how the conventional mentality among Church hierarchy of keeping any embarrassing information under wraps was so ingrained as to be second nature, even if people like Mahony were apparently uneasy with what they 'had to do'. The information revealed is most embarrassing, indeed, for Mahony and his associates, and inevitably, for the Church. This is all guaranteed to revive the perverted-priests-and-permissive bishops narrative in the MSM...


Files show how Mons. Mahony kept
a protective lid over abusive priests
in the LA archdiocese for almost two decades
By GILLIAN FLACCUS


LOS ANGELES, January 21 (AP) — Retired Cardinal Roger Mahony and other top Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles officials maneuvered behind the scenes to shield molester priests, provide damage control for the Church and keep parishioners in the dark, according to Church personnel files.

The confidential records filed in a lawsuit against the archdiocese disclose how the Church handled abuse allegations for decades and also reveal dissent from a top Mahony aide who criticized his superiors for covering up allegations of abuse rather than protecting children.

Notes inked by Mahony demonstrate he was disturbed about abuse and sent problem priests for treatment, but there also were lengthy delays or oversights in some cases. Mahony received psychological reports on some priests that mentioned the possibility of many other victims, for example, but there is no indication that he or other church leaders investigated further.

"This is all intolerable and unacceptable to me," Mahony wrote in 1991 on a file of the Rev. Lynn Caffoe, a priest suspected of locking boys in his room, videotaping their crotches and running up a $100 phone sex bill while with a boy. Caffoe was sent for therapy and removed from ministry, but Mahony didn't move to defrock him until 2004, a decade after the archdiocese lost track of him. [One would expect the reporter to have sought out an explanation of this 10-year delay!]

"He is a fugitive from justice," Mahony wrote to the Vatican's Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI. "A check of the Social Security index discloses no report of his demise, so presumably he is alive somewhere."

Caffoe died in 2009, six years after a newspaper reporter found him working at a homeless mission two blocks from a Salinas elementary school.

Mahony was out of town but issued a statement Monday apologizing for his mistakes and saying he had been "naive" about the lasting impacts of abuse. He has since met with 90 abuse victims privately and keeps an index card with each victim's name in his private chapel, where he prays for them daily, he said. The card also includes the name of the molesting priest "lest I forget that real priests created this appalling harm."

"It remains my daily and fervent prayer that God's grace will flood the heart and soul of each victim, and that their life journey continues forward with ever greater healing," Mahony wrote. "I am sorry."

The apology stands in contrast to letters Mahony was writing to accused priests more than two decades ago.

In 1987, he wrote to the Rev. Michael Wempe — who would ultimately admit to abusing 13 boys — while the priest was undergoing in-patient therapy at a New Mexico treatment center.

"Each of you there at Jemez Springs is very much in my prayers and I call you to mind each day during my celebration of the Eucharist," Mahony wrote to the priest, adding that he supported him in the experience.

The Church's sex abuse policy was evolving and Mahony inherited some of the worst cases from his predecessor when he took over in 1985, J. Michael Hennigan, an archdiocese attorney, said in a separate series of emails. Priests were sent out of state for psychological treatment because they revealed more when their therapists were not required to report child abuse to law enforcement, as they were in California, he said.

At the time, clergy were not mandated sex abuse reporters and the Church let the victims' families decide whether to contact police, he added.

In at least one case, a priest victimized the children of illegal immigrants and threatened to have them deported if they told, the files show.

The files are attached to a motion seeking punitive damages in a case involving a Mexican priest sent to Los Angeles in 1987 after he was brutally beaten in his parish south of Mexico City.

When parents complained the Rev. Nicholas Aguilar Rivera molested in LA, church officials told the priest but waited two days to call police — allowing him to flee to Mexico, court papers allege. At least 26 children told police they were abused during his 10 months in Los Angeles. The now-defrocked priest is believed to be in Mexico and remains a fugitive.

The personnel files of 13 other clerics were attached to the motion to show a cover-up pattern, said attorney Anthony De Marco, who represents the 35-year-old plaintiff. In one instance, a memo to Mahony discusses sending a cleric to a therapist who also is an attorney so any incriminating evidence is protected from authorities by lawyer-client privilege. In another instance, archdiocese officials paid a secret salary to a priest exiled to the Philippines after he and six other clerics were accused of having sex with a teen and impregnating her.

The exhibits offer a glimpse at some 30,000 pages to be made public as part of a record-setting $660 million settlement. The archdiocese agreed to give the files to more than 500 victims of priest abuse in 2007, but a lawyer for about 30 of the priests fought to keep records sealed. A judge recently ordered the Church to release them without blacking out the names of Church higher-ups after The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times intervened.

They echo similar releases from other dioceses nationwide that have shown how Church leaders for decades shuffled problem priests from parish to parish, covered up reports of abuse and didn't contact law enforcement. Top Church officials in Missouri and Pennsylvania were criminally convicted last year for their roles in covering up abuse, more than a decade after the clergy sex abuse scandal began to unfold in Boston. [Note the deliberate failure to provide perspective here. The Philadelphia bishop was convicted in connection with a priest under his supervision who had pleaded guilty and was convicted for abusing an altar boy. The convicted priest recently recanted and said he only made the admission in order to get a lighter sentence. The bishop in Missouri was convicted for failing to report to police that one of his priests was a child-porn addict who indulged himself by amassing videos and photos on his PC; he was not accused of molesting any child. There are degrees of guilt, especially if you are just an 'accessory' to the commission of abuse rather than the perpetrator of the abuse.]

Mahony, who retired in 2011 after 26 years at the helm of the 4.3-million person archdiocese, has been particularly hounded by the case of the Rev. Michael Baker, who was sentenced to prison in 2007 for molestation — two decades after the priest confessed his abuse to Mahony.

Mahony noted the "extremely grave and serious situation" when he sent Baker for psychological treatment after the priest told him in 1986 that he had molested two brothers over seven years.

Baker returned to ministry the next year with a doctor's recommendation that he be defrocked immediately if he spent any time with minors. Despite several documented instances of being alone with boys, the priest wasn't removed from ministry until 2000. Around the same time, the Church learned he was conducting baptisms without permission.

Church officials discussed announcing Baker's abuse in churches where he had worked, but Mahony rejected the idea.

"We could open up another firestorm — and it takes us years to recover from those," Mahony wrote in an Oct. 6, 2000, memo. "Is there no alternative to public announcements at all the Masses in 15 parishes??? Wow — that really scares the daylights out of me!!"

The aide, Msgr. Richard Loomis, noted his dismay over the matter when he retired in 2001 as vicar for clergy, the top Church official who handled priestly discipline. In a memo to his successor, Loomis said Baker's attorney disclosed the priest had at least 10 other victims.

"We've stepped back 20 years and are being driven by the need to cover-up and to keep the presbyteriate & public happily ignorant rather than the need to protect children," Loomis wrote.

"The only other option is to sit and wait until another victim comes forward. Then someone else will end up owning the archdiocese of Los Angeles. The liability issues involved aside, I think that course of complete (in)action would be immoral and unethical." [One must consider, however, that Loomis was saying this in 2001, when the scandal was already rearing its ugly head in Boston, so he had the benefit of hindsight in a way! Would he have said these things two years earlier? The whole Church was in a learning curve that effectively started in 2001-2002, about how to deal with abusive priests and their seeming proliferation. BTW, what no one seems to notice is that the Irish bishops were a few years ahead of everyone in seeking to deal with the problem as early as 1997 when they first drew up internal guidelines which already considered mandatory reporting of priestly abuses by the bishops to the police - although it turns out that some of them decided they would do as they pleased, such as the infamous Mons. Magee, who had been private secretary to three Popes! Watch out, Georg Gaenswein - you have a notorious predecessor.]

Mahony preferred targeted warnings at schools and youth groups rather than a warning read at Masses, Hennigan said. Parish announcements were made two years later.

Baker, who was paroled in 2011, is alleged to have molested 20 children in his 26-year career. He could not be reached for comment.

The files also show Mahony corresponded with abusive priests while they underwent treatment out of state and worked to keep them out of California to avoid criminal and civil trouble.

One case involved the Msgr. Peter Garcia, a molester whom Mahony's predecessor sent for treatment in New Mexico. Mahony kept Garcia there after a lawyer warned in 1986 that the archdiocese could face "severe civil liability" if he returned and reoffended. Garcia had admitted raping an 11-year-old boy and later told a psychologist he molested 15 to 17 young boys.

"If Monsignor Garcia were to reappear here within the archdiocese, we might very well have some type of legal action filed in both the criminal and civil sectors," Mahony wrote to the director of Garcia's New Mexico treatment program.

Mahony then sent Garcia to another treatment center, but Garcia returned to LA in 1988 after being removed from ministry. He then contacted a victim's mother and asked to spend time with her younger son, according to a letter in the file.

Mahony moved to defrock him in 1989, and Garcia died a decade later.

Think what a new blow this is for the Holy Father, not that it will necessarily be news to him, except in the time-, place- and person-specific details (he knew more than enough to decry the filth in the Church openly at the 2005 Via Crucis0. But the kind of detail we have sampled from the LA records is exactly the kind of detail that AP, the New York Times and Der Spiegel - in the frenzy of their 2010 witch hunt - were desperate to obtain about Joseph Ratzinger's service as Archbishop of Munich.

Now that there is legal precedent in the US for the release of Church records to the public, who knows what this will lead to? It's like having putrid boils or leprous sores erupting on the face of the Church, the holy Church of Christ whose members are sinners are ever in need of purification and healing.

I was preparing to post the following brief 'calendar item' when I came across the AP report above... This is a follow-up to the Churchwide symposium on abuse held last year at the Gregorian University, and shows that sectors of the Church are keeping up Benedict XVI's open war against abuses by priests and inaction by enabling bishops. Meanwhile, I must remind myself daily to pray for God's grace to descend on wayward priests and bishops, and especially, on their victims.


Reviewing the first year
of a landmark symposium
Translated from

January 21, 2013

One year since the International Symposium for Catholic bishops and religious superiors on the issue of sex abuses within the Catholic Church, held at the Pontifical Gregorian University,on February 5-9, 2012, the commitment to continue after that important first step will be reconfirmed..

The meeting “On the way to healing and renewal” on February 5, 2013, at the Gregorian will not really be a new conference, as much as an exposition and a verification of the activities that have been promoted in the past 12 months.

In the first place, the Acts of the Symposium will be presented in various languages (Polish, Italian, Hungarian, German, English, Spanish, Croatian and Ukrainian) and will soon be available also in French, Portuguese, Slovakian and Rumanian.

Then the activities of the Center for the Protection of Minors (CCP) will be presented, among them its first annual conference which took place in Freising last autumn on the theme, “Communications and Empowerment among Victims of Child Sexual Abuse”. Center officials will also discuss their visits to the affiliate centers that have been established in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe.

Finally, a presentation of the Munich-based E-learning Program developed by the center which offers training in the prevention, identification and management of abuse cases, and of the ongoing programs to train operators in dioceses worldwide.

The meeting will be preceded by a news conference during which the resource persons will be Fr. Hans Zollner, SJ, president of the executive committee of the CCP, Dr. Hubert LIebhart, CCP Director, and Rev. Robert Oliver, the new Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.


P.S. HALLELUJAH! i just realized after posting this that the Forum is back to 'normal' - no more abnormal, unintended and totally uncalled-for 'centering' of all the texts and smaller pictures found in a post!...I hope we don't get any more unpleasant surprises for some time. The involuntary logout can get to be an occasion for teeth-gnashing!

PPS - I obviously cheered too soon. The return to normal only lasted a few hours, apparently. We're back to SNAFU (which stands, remember, for 'situation normal - all fouled up')....

As mentioned earlier, the original English text of Mons. Di Noia's letter to the FSSPX is now available online, thanks to an Italian blogspot called Il Sismografo, and reproduced in Rorate caeli. Here is the text that is surprising for its bluntness in pointing out - in so many ways, supported by Scriptural and Patristic references - how the public actions of the FSSPX (in presenting themselves as the only ones who see the truth about Vatican II) have been counter-pruductive, selfish and closed to any other views but theirs. The arguments he presents are uimpeachable to any reasonable Catholic, but not to anyone who persists in thinking that the Popes have been wrong - and therefore, anti-faith - in espousing the Magieterium of Vatican II. Mons. Di Noia's letter all but asks, "Who appointed you to usurp the universal teaching authority of the Popes?" We must not forget that this letter was said to have been odered, reviewed and approved by Benedict XVI.

Mons. Di Noia's letter
to the FSSPX:
An olive branch, a rap
on the knuckles, or both?

---

Advent 2012

Your Excellency and dear Priestly Brothers of the Fraternity of St. Pius X,

Our recent declaration (28 October 2012) affirmed in a public and authoritative manner that the Holy See’s relations with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X remain open and hopeful.

Until now, apart from its official pronouncements, the Holy See has for various reasons refrained from correcting certain inaccurate assertions regarding its conduct and competence in these interactions.

A time is rapidly approaching, however, when in the interest of truth the Holy See will be compelled to address some of these inaccuracies. Particularly dolorous are statements that impugn the office, and person, of the Holy Father and that, at some point, would demand some response.

Recent assertions by persons holding significant positions of authority within the Fraternity cannot but cause concern about the realistic prospects for reconciliation.

One thinks in particular of interviews given by the District Superior for Germany, formerly General Superior of the Fraternity (18 September 2012) and by the First Assistant General of the Fraternity (16 October 2012), and a recent sermon of the General Superior (1 November 2012).

The tone and content of these interventions have given rise to a certain perplexity about the seriousness and, indeed, the very possibility of straightforward conversation between us.

While the Holy See patiently awaits an official response from the Fraternity, some of its superiors employ language, in unofficial communications, that to all the world appears to reject the very provisions, assumed to be still under study, that are required for the reconciliation and for the canonical regularization of the Fraternity within the Catholic Church.

What is more, a review of the history of our relations since the 1970s leads to the sobering realization that the terms of our disagreement concerning Vatican Council II have remained, in effect, unchanged.

With magisterial authority, the Holy See has consistently maintained that the documents of the Council must be interpreted in the light of Tradition and the Magisterium and not vice versa, while the Fraternity has insisted that certain teachings of the Council are erroneous and are thus not susceptible to an interpretation in line with the Tradition and the Magisterium.

Over the years, this stalemate has remained more or less in place. The three years of doctrinal dialogues just concluded, though permitting a fruitful airing of views on specific issues, did not fundamentally alter this situation.

In these circumstances, while hope remains strong, it is clear that something new must be injected into our conversations if we are not to appear to the Church, to the general public, and indeed to ourselves, to be engaged in a well-meaning but unending and fruitless exchange.

Some new considerations of a more spiritual and theological nature are needed, considerations that transcend the important but seemingly intractable disagreements over the authority and interpretation of Vatican Council II that now divide us, considerations that focus rather on our duty to preserve and cherish the divinely willed unity and peace of the Church.

It seems opportune that I should introduce these new considerations in the form of a personal Advent letter addressed to you as well as to the members of the Priestly Fraternity. Nothing less than the unity of the Church is at stake.

The Preservation of the Unity of the Church
In this context, the words of St. Paul spring to mind: “I, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace: one Body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:1-6).

With these words, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to maintain the unity of the Church, the unity that is given by the Spirit and which unites us to the one God “who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:6). True unity is a gift of the Spirit, not something of our own making.

Nevertheless, through our actions and decisions we are able to cooperate in the unity of the Spirit, or to act against the Spirit’s promptings. Therefore, St. Paul exhorts us to “live in a manner worthy of the call you have received” (Eph 4:1) to live so that we may preserve this precious gift of unity.

In order to persevere in the unity of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas notes that, according to St. Paul, “four virtues must be cultivated, and their four opposite vices shunned” (Commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians §191).

What gets in the way of unity? Pride, anger, impatience, and inordinate zeal. According to Aquinas, “the first vice which he [St. Paul] rejects is pride. When one arrogant person decides to rule others, while the other proud individuals do not want to submit, dissension arises in the society and peace disappears. ... Anger is the second vice. For an angry person is inclined to inflict injury, whether verbal or physical, from which disturbances occur. ... The third is impatience. Occasionally, someone who himself is humble and mild, refraining from causing trouble, nevertheless will not endure patiently the real or attempted wrongs done to himself. ... An inordinate zeal is the fourth vice. Inordinately zealous about everything, men will pass judgment on whatever they see, not waiting for the proper time and place; and a turmoil arises in society” (ibid).

How are we to overcome these vices? St. Paul says: “With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love” (Eph 4:2).

According to Aquinas, humility, by recognizing the goodness in others and accurately acknowledging our own strengths and weaknesses, helps us to avoid contention in our interactions with others.

Mildness “softens arguments and preserves peace” (Commentary on the Letter to the Ephesians, §191). It helps us to avoid inordinate displays of anger by giving us the serenity to do what we are called to do in a spirit of equanimity and peace.

Patience enables us to endure suffering when it is necessary for the sake of the good we seek, especially in the case of a difficult or arduous good or when external circumstances militate against the achievement of the goal.

Charity casts out inordinate zeal by allowing us to support one another in charity, “mutually bearing with the defects of others out of charity” (ibid.). St. Thomas counsels: “When someone falls he should not be immediately corrected — unless it is the time and the place for it. With mercy these should be awaited since charity bears all things (1 Cor 13:7). Not that these things are tolerated out of negligence or consent, nor from familiarity or carnal friendship, but from charity. ... Now, we that are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak (Rom 15:1)” (ibid.).

The prudent counsel of St. Thomas may be of assistance to us if we can allow ourselves to be formed by his wisdom. In the past forty years, has there at times been a lack of humility, mildness, patience, and charity in our mutual relations?

Consider these words Pope Benedict wrote to his brother bishops to explain why he promulgated the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum: “Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew” (Letter of 7 July 2007).

How might the virtues of humility, mildness, patience, and charity shape our thoughts and actions?

First, by humbly striving to recognize the goodness that exists in others with whom we may disagree, even on seemingly fundamental issues, we are able to approach contested issues in a spirit of openness and good faith.

Secondly, by practicing true mildness we may maintain a spirit of serenity, avoiding the introduction of a divisive tone or imprudent statements that will offend rather than promote peace and mutual understanding.

Thirdly, by true patience we will recognize that in our striving after the arduous good we seek, we must be willing, when necessary, to accept suffering while waiting.

Finally, even when we still feel the need to correct our brothers it must be with charity, in the proper time and place.

In the life of the Church, all of these virtues are aimed at preserving “the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). If our interactions are marked by pride, anger, impatience, and inordinate zeal, our intemperate striving for the good of the Church will lead to nothing but bitterness.

If, on the other hand, through the grace of God we grow in true humility, mildness, patience, and charity, our unity in the Spirit will be maintained and we will grow deeper in our love of God and of our neighbors, fulfilling the whole of God’s law for us.

We place such emphasis on the unity of the Church because it reflects and is constituted by the communion of the Holy Trinity. As we read in a sermon of St. Augustine: “Both the Father and the Son wished us to have communion both with them and among ourselves; by this gift which they both possess as one, they wished to gather us together and make us one, that is to say, by the Holy Spirit who is God and the gift of God” (Sermon 71.18).

The unity of the Church is not something that we grasp for ourselves by our own power, but is a gift of divine grace. It is in recognition of this gift that Augustine is able to say: “But one who is an enemy of unity has no share in the love of God. Those, therefore, who are outside the Church do not have the Holy Spirit” (Epistle 185 §50).

These are chilling words: one who is an enemy of unity becomes an enemy of God, for he rejects the gift that God has bestowed on us. “What proof is there that we love the brotherhood?” St. Augustine asks. “That we don’t sever its unity, because we maintain charity” (Homilies on the First Letter of John, 2.3).

Hear what Augustine has to say to those who divide the Church: “You don’t have charity because, for the sake of your honor, you cause divisions in unity. Understand from this, then, that the spirit is from God. ... You are removing yourself from the world’s unity, you are dividing the Church with schisms, you are tearing to pieces the body of Christ. He came in the flesh so as to bring it together; you are crying out so as to scatter it” (ibid. 6.13).

How can we avoid becoming enemies of God? “Let each one question his heart. If a person loves his brother, the Spirit of God is abiding in him. Let him look, let him probe himself before God’s eyes. Let him see if there is in him a love of peace and unity, a love of the Church spread throughout the earth” (ibid. 6.10).

What about those with whom fellowship is difficult? Listen to St. Augustine: “Love your enemies in such a way that you wish them to be brothers; love your enemies in such a way that they are brought into your fellowship” (ibid. 1.9).

For Augustine, this authentic form of love can only come as God’s gift: “Ask God that you may love one another. You should love all people, even your enemies, not because they are your brothers but so that they may become your brothers, so that you may always be aflame with brotherly love, whether towards one who has become your brother or towards your enemy, so that by loving him he may become your brother” (ibid.10.7).

The example for loving our enemies so that they might become our friends ultimately comes from Christ himself: “Let us love, because he loved us first (4:19). For how would we love if he had not loved us first? By his love we were made his friends, but he loved us as enemies so that we would become his friends. He loved us first and bestowed on us the means of loving him” (ibid. 9.9).

For St. Augustine, then, the unity of the Church flows from the communion of the Blessed Trinity and must be maintained if we are to remain in communion with God himself. Through God’s grace, we must preserve this unity with great determination, even if it involves suffering and patient endurance:

“Let us endure the world, let us endure tribulations, let us endure the scandals of trials. Let us not turn aside from the way. Let us hold onto the unity of the Church, let us hold onto Christ, let us hold onto charity. Let us not be torn away from the members of his bride, let us not be torn away from the faith, so that we may glory in his presence, and we shall remain secure in him, now through faith and then through sight, the pledge of which we have as the gift of the Holy Spirit” (ibid. 9.11).

The place for the Priestly Fraternity in the Church
What, then, is being asked of the Priestly Fraternity in the present situation? Not to abandon the zeal of your founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Far from it! Rather you are being asked to renew the flame of his ardent zeal to form men in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Surely, the time has come to abandon the harsh and counterproductive rhetoric that has emerged over the past years.

That original charism entrusted to Archbishop Lefebvre must be recaptured, the charism of the formation of priests in the fullness of Catholic Tradition for the sake of undertaking an apostolate to the faithful that flows from this priestly formation.

This was the charism the Church discerned when the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X was first approved in 1970. We recall Cardinal Gagnon’s favorable judgment of your seminary at Ecône in 1987.

The authentic charism of the Fraternity is to form priests for the service of the people of God, not the usurpation of the office of judging and correcting the theology or discipline of others within the Church.

Your focus should be on the inculcation of sound philosophical, theological, pastoral, spiritual, and human formation for your candidates so that they may preach the word of Christ and act as instruments of God’s grace in the world, especially through the solemn celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Attention should certainly be paid to the passages of the Magisterium that seem difficult to reconcile with magisterial teaching, but these theological questions should not be the focus of your preaching or of your formation.

With respect to the competence to correct, we might well consider the example of St. Pius X and his interventions on the question of sacred music. In 1903, St. Pius promulgated the famous motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini, promoting throughout the Church a reform of ecclesiastical music.

This document, however, was in a sense the culmination of two earlier initiatives of the then Giuseppe Sarto: a votum on sacred music written at the request of the Congregation of Sacred Rites in 1893, and a pastoral letter on the reform of sacred music to the Church of Venice published in 1895.

These three documents essentially contained the same message, and yet the first was a suggestion for the Roman Curia, the next was an instruction for the faithful under his jurisdiction as Patriarch of Venice, and the third was a command for the universal Church.

As Pope, St. Pius X had the authority to address abuses in ecclesiastical music throughout the world, whereas as bishop he could only intervene within his diocese.

St. Pius X was able to address problems in the Church on a universal level in his disciplinary and doctrinal prescriptions, precisely because of his universal authority.

Even if we are convinced that our perspective on a particular disputed question is the true one, we cannot usurp the office of the universal Pontiff by presuming publicly to correct others within the Church.

We may propose and seek to exert influence, but we must not disrespect or act against legitimate local authorities. We need to respect the proper fora of different types of issues: it is the faith that should be preached from our pulpits, not the latest interpretation of what we take to be problematic about a magisterial document.

It has been a mistake to make every difficult point in the theological interpretation of Vatican II a matter of public controversy, trying to sway those who are not theologically sophisticated into adopting one’s own point of view regarding subtle theological matters.

The Instruction Donum Veritatis on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1990) states that a theologian “may raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions” (§24), although “the willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.”

But a theologian should “not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33). For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them” (§27).

If, after intense reflection on the part of a theologian, difficulties persist, he “has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth” (§30).

This part of the task of a theologian, acting with a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, can at times be a difficult trial. “It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail” (§31).

Nevertheless, critical engagement with the acts of the Magisterium must never become a sort of “parallel magisterium” of theologians [/G](cf. §34), for it must be submitted to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, who has “the duty to safeguard the unity of the Church with concern to offer help to all in order to respond appropriately to this vocation and divine grace” (Apostolic Letter, Ecclesiae Unitatem, §1).

Thus we can see that for those within the Church who have the canonical mandate or mission to teach, there is room for a truly theological and non-polemical engagement with the Magisterium.

Intellectually speaking, however, we cannot be satisfied merely with generating and sustaining controversy. Difficult theological problems can only be adequately dealt with through the analogy of faith, that is, the synthesis of all that the Lord has revealed to us. We must see each doctrine and article of faith as supporting the others, and learn to understand the inner connections between each element of our faith.

To engage in the study of theology, we must have adequate cultural, biblical, and philosophical training. I think for instance of a passage from the 1917 Code of Canon Law that is printed in the introduction to the 1947 Benziger English edition of the Summa Theologiae: “Religious who have already studied their humanities should devote themselves for two years at least to philosophy, and four years to theology, following the teaching of St. Thomas in accordance with the instructions of the Holy See” (CIC 1917, can. 589).

Consider the wisdom embodied in this directive: theology is to be undertaken only by those who have been adequately formed both in the humanities and philosophy. Recently, the Congregation for Catholic Education has required that the study of philosophy continue for three years during priestly formation.

Without this breadth of learning, our theological inquiry will not have the rich soil of culture in which the faith took root and which is indispensable for fully understanding both the philosophical concepts and terms that underlie the doctrinal formulations of the Church.

If we concentrate only on the most difficult and most controversial questions — which, by all means, need to receive careful attention — we might over time lose a sense of the analogy of faith and begin to see theology mainly as a sort of intellectual dialectic of competing claims, rather than as a sapiential engagement with the living God who has revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ and who inspires our study, our preaching, our pastoral care through the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion
Pope Benedict XVI, in his magnanimous exercise of the munus Petrinum, is striving to overcome the tensions that have existed between the Church and your Fraternity. Would a full ecclesial reconciliation bring about an immediate end to the suspicion and bad feeling we have experienced? Perhaps not so readily.

But what we are seeking is not a human work: we are seeking reconciliation and healing by God’s grace under the loving guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let us recall the effects of grace articulated by St. Thomas: to heal the soul, to desire good, to carry into effect the good proposed, to persevere in good, and finally, to reach glory (cf. Summa theologiae 1a.2ae, 111, 3).

Our souls need first to be healed, to be cleansed of the bitterness and resentment that comes from thirty years of suspicion and anguish on both sides.

We need to pray that the Lord may heal us of any imperfections that have come about precisely because of the difficulties, especially the desire for an autonomy that is in fact outside the traditional forms of governance of the Church.

The Lord gives us the grace to desire certain goods, in this case the good of full ecclesial unity and communion. This is a desire that many of us share humanly speaking, but what we need from the Lord is for him to let this desire suffuse our souls, so that we may desire with the same desire of Christ ut unum sint.

Only then does God’s grace allow us to carry into effect the good proposed. It is He who prompts us to seek reconciliation and brings it to completion.

This is a moment of tremendous grace: let us embrace it with our whole heart and mind. As we prepare for the coming of the Savior of the world during this Advent season of the Year of Faith, let us pray and hope boldly: may we not also anticipate the longed for reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter?

The only imaginable future for the Priestly Fraternity lies along the path of full communion with the Holy See, with the acceptance of an unqualified profession of the faith in its fullness, and thus with a properly ordered ecclesial, sacramental and pastoral life.

Having received from the Successor of Peter this charge to be an instrument in the reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity, I dare to make my own the words of the Apostle Pau in urging us “to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

Sincerely yours in Christ,

AUGUSTINE DI NOIA, O.P.
Vice President
Ecclesia Dei

---

IMHO I do not think that the text should have been made public - but it is now - because it amounts to a kindly berating of the FSSPX for their selfishness and stubbornness, but a berating nonetheless. Who knows how the FSSPX -who have never been known for humility - will react to this public chastisement, despite the abundant references to Saints Paul, Augustine and Thomas ?

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/01/2013 14:14]

January 22, Tuseday of the Second Week in Ordinary Time
In the United States,
DAY OF PRAYER FOR UNBORN BABIES
(Anniversary of the 1973 v Wade decision that legalized abortion on demand in the USA)

Center photo: Sculpture of St. Vincent on the gridiron, Museum of Valencia.
ST. VICENTE DE ZARAGOZA [San Vicente Martir] (Spain, d 304)
Deacon and Martyr, Patron Saint of Lisbon
Like San Lorenzo (Lawrence), the first deacon saint, Vincent was born in Huesca, northern
Spain, but served in Zaragoza, where he was ordained a deacon by Bishop (later Saint)
Valerius. In the Diocletian persecutions, Valerius and his deacon were imprisoned in
Valencia, but Valerius was later exiled, leaving Vincent behind. He is said to have
resisted many tortures, and when offered release if he would burn Sacred Scriptures,
he refused. He was then condemned to die on the gridiron, an element probably borrowed
from the story of St. Lawrence. His hagiography is based on the work of Prudentius
(348-413), a Spanish Christian, who wrote a book on the early Roman and Hispanic martyrs.
It is said Vincent's remains were protected by ravens until his followers could bury him
in what is now Cape St. Vincent, Portugal, the most southwestern point of the European
continent. His remains were exhumed and transferred by a 12th century Portuguese king
to Lisbon, an event commemorated in the city's coat of arms.
Readings for today's Mass:
www.usccb.org/bible/readings/012213.cfm


AT THE VATICAN TODAY

The Holy Father met with

- H.E. Nguyên Phu Trong, Secretary General of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam,
and his delegation.

The Vatican announced two changes involving Vatican communications officials:

- Fr.Federico Lombardi, SJ, has stepped down as director of CTV, but remains director of the Press Office
and Vatican Radio. At CTV, he will be replaced by Mons. Dario Edoardo Viganò, of the Milan clergy, and
currently a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University's Istituto Pastorale Redemptor Hominis. He was
also named to the Administrative Council of CTV.

- Layman Angelo Scelzo, who has been till now Undersecretary of the Pontifical Council for Social
Communications, has been named a Deputy Director of the Press Office and will be in charge of accrediting
journalists. The first Deputy Director has been Fr. Ciro Benedettini, who has taken over as spokesman
when Fr. Lombardi is not available.


Which gives me an occasion to mount my soapbox on a familiar theme: Let us hope that Fr. Lombardi's lighter work load will mean he will now exercise editorial supervision over his staff which have been on autopilot too long. You cannot be more lax in supervision when neither you nor your deputy even noticed that the Press Office staff had cribbed from Wikipedia the biodata they handed out to newsmen when the Pope announced a new consistory this time last year. Wikicheats was almost as disgraceful as Vatileaks.

And what to do about the staff at Vatican Radio's English service whose reports are completely unedited and sometimes have to be corrected for reporting wrong data as facts, or for grammatical and syntactical errors that violate the basic rules of writing for radio (say what you have to say with the least number of direct and simple words, and do not embellish your reporting with airy-fairy personal indulgences!)? Their persistent and frequent deficiencies bring out the editor in me, which is why I have tended more and more to adapt their reports to incorporate stylistic, grammatical and vocabulary improvements. (For instance, the RV story yesterday about the pallium lamb said that the palliums were 'custodied' in an urn near St. Peter's tomb! 'Custody' is now a verb???? What's wrong with using 'kept' - which is direct, correct, and is only one syllable!)

Or why sometimes I do not post their reports at all. I think I can summarize what the Pope says much better and more efficiently than their often circumlocutory and clunky translations. Especially since I do follow it with a full translation of the Pope's text - my translation, not RV's. (I only use Vatican translations if they are.)official ones.)

Call me arrogant, but I also know whereof I speak, and it pains me to realize that a whole generation of broadcasters and journalists is allowed to coast blithely along, without any guidance from anyone but their own ego, and will never realize the many ways they could improve themselves. And I'm only talking of the English service, because even if I sometimes translate from the Italian service, I don't really follow their daily reporting closely. Does Greg Burke not read RV online at all? And if he does, why does he not intervene?

In the grand scheme of things, these concerns may be of little matter, but if you can't do the small and simple things right, how can you be trusted about the more important tasks? Great oaks from little acorns grow, and pity the gnarled trees these unsupervised persons will become!



- There's a really malicious story in yesterday's Guardian (UK) entitled "How the Vatican built a secret property empire using Mussolini's millions"
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/21/vatican-secret-property-empire-m...
claiming that the Vatican has been profiting for decades from 'millions' supposedly paid by Benito Mussolini in 1929 in exchange for Vatican recognition of his regime.

Without having to check into their 'facts' (and having had to read about the Lateran Agreements these past seven years on more than one occasion), one can only point out that, in negotiating the Lateran Agreements, 'the Vatican' obviously had to 'recognise Mussolini's regime'. Which was not really 'his' regime, because at the time, Italy was a monarchy under King Vittorio Emmanuele, but Mussolini had been Prime Minister, and therefore Head of Government, since 1922, shortly after he founded the Fascist Party. According to Wikipedia, he did not consolidate his dictatorship till 1930, one year after the Lateran Agreements between the Kingdom of Italy and the incipient Vatican City State whose creation was one of the major outcomes of the agreements.

Vatican City State was established as the sovereign territory that would allow the Popes an internationally recognized locus for their activities, though stipulating that they should observe perpetual neutrality in international relations. An attached financial agreement was meant to settle all the claims of the Holy See against Italy arising from the invasion and annexation of the former Papal States by Italy in the decade between 1860-1870.

Are these then the 'Mussolini millions' that the Guardian claims? They were not Mussolini's personal funds but the the Kingdom of Italy's. Obiously, Mussolini did not have to 'buy' recognition of his government since he was negotiating with the Vatican on behalf of the King of Italy. Besides, as compensation for all papal and Church properties seized by the Italian government, any payments made were necessarily more token than 'true value'. How do you assess a cultural patrimony accrued over centuries that left its mark all over Italy and shaped its history?

Indeed, the reason for the so-called 'otto per mille' paid by the Italian government yearly to the Church in Italy (eight-thousandths of Italian revenues in income taxes) is in continuing payment of this 'debt'. [It must be noted that all the democratic governments of Italy after Mussolini have not questioned the validity of the Lateran Agreements, which were renegotiated in 1984.

So the Vatican invested some of the money paid to it by the Kingdom of Italy in 1929. What's wrong with that? Just because the Guardian claims that 'Mussolini's millions' now amount to about 700 million euro is a tribute to the Vatican's management of its investments.

The malicious intent is obvious: To make it appear that the Vatican has been using tainted money - i.e., personal funds from a person who would eventually be counted among the worst villains of the 20th century, who was a Fascist, to boot, no pun intended - in order to pad its fortunes. The newspaper must trust few of its readers know their history or would bother to check!

Meanwhile, Fr. Lombardi has gotten around to answer the questions raised by the article:

"I am amazed by the Guardian article," said Vatican spokesman Fr. Federcio Lombardi to newsmen today. "It seems to have been written from someone who dwells among the asterits".

He added: "These are facts that have been known for 80 years about the Lateran agreements [the fact that the Vatican was paid compensation by the Kingdom of Italy, yes, not that the money was Mussolini's, much less that he was trying to buy Vatican recognition of his regime!]. Whoever wants more information on this subject on the popular level should read the new book Finanze Vaticane by Benny Lai [dean of Vaticanistas)".

He also said that the fact that the Vatican's Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) has a special branch dealing with specific investments is no secret - it is listed even in the Vatican telephone directory.

That no other news agency has so far picked up the Guardian story more than 24 hours after it came out may indicate perhaps that at least other editors know their history better. It's an embarrassment to journalism to create a whole tale - with visions of Vatileaks-style headlines dancing in their heads - out of what is basically a distortion of historical fact masquerading as a 'Eureka! What a scandal" expose!

Benedict XVI writes about
the infancy of Jesus under
the protection of Mary
by Alain Besançon
Member, Institut de France
Translated from the 1/23/13 issue of


Besancon belongs to the Institut de France's Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, to which Cardinal Ratzinger was elected in 1992 to take the seat vacated by the death of Soviet physicist=peace activist Andrei Sakharov.

After the masterful JESUS OF NAZARETH, Vol. 2, dedicated to the last week of Christ's earthly life, nothing was more awaited than his account of the first week, as it were, of that life.

The Passion of Christ is narrated in all its smallest details in various chapters of the four Gospels. But the account of Jesus's birth is contained in only one page of Matthew, and two in Luke - which is practically all we know about it.

And yet, those scant accounts are the basis for some of the most popular feasts of Christian devotion, which are also dear even to those who may no longer have any memories of religion: the Annunciation, the Visitation, Christmas, Holy Innocents Day, the Epiphany, the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple.

And what a commanding space these events occupy in Western art and iconography, Painters immersed themselves literally with great joy into depicting these events that have come to be called 'the joyful mysteries'.

The infancy of Jesus is a difficult subject. It is understandable that the Pope left it for the end of his work on JESUS OF NAZARETH. Such scant documentation in the Gospels lends itself to every fantasy, to every error, and God knows how many have been perpetrated in the past 20 centuries.

It's a delectable game bag for 'historico-critical' exegetes who can advance countless arguments taken from universal history, the comparative history of religions, mythological studies, and even from a philological acquaintance with Scriptures and the practices of the Jewish world.

The stake is decisive, because it has to do with the central mystery of the faith, the Incarnation. Either the Baby Jesus is God (and man) from his conception, or he was just as particularly good man who met a tragic end.

Thus it is with some anxiety that one takes up this book that once again, the Pope signs in his double persona as Supreme Pontiff and as a 'private' theologian. It is quite different from the earlier two volumes.

It is not presented as a treatise, but rather as a succession of homilies and spiritual meditations that have the common thread of faith. This virtue is the necessary foundation for an authentic understanding of the text.

'Praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui' ('Faith supplements defective senses'). [To those who may not be familiar with it, the line comes from the Benediction hymn Tantum ergo by St. Thomas Aquinas.] Without the intelligence of the faith, the narrative would emerge as a legend woven out of absurdities.

But there is also science. With the method that is characteristic of Benedict XVI, he weaves together the Old Testament with the New as one single Revelation.

He is not content, like Matthew, to justify the words of the Gospel by citing the Psalms and the Prophets. Indeed, in the eyes of Jews or modern exegetes, those prophetio words do not singularly and clearly describe future events - they were not predictions.

Nor do the facts illustrate the ancient words. To use an expression by Joseph Ratzinger, the ancient words are 'senza padrone' - unattributable. And that the reality they contain is not directly recognizable, but only derive significance from the event in which they are realized. Without the event, we are only left with a midrash haggadico, an interpretation of Scripture through narration.

Luke, on the other hand, has not constructed just another pious account, he refers to actual facts, and he has researched their significance through words that are clear - or, at least, 'waiting' to be heard and understood - in the light of faith. This is what the Church has always maintained.

Once he has established this methodological framework, Benedict XVI minutiously examines the few available verses, the few words that the evangelists considered enough information for the salvation of the world. It is up to us to find out up to what point they are inexhaustible. Nothing is ignored, and nothing is passed over.

Here's an example: The announcement of the birth and the virgin delivery. All the possible senses that Matthew and Luke could have meant are passed through a sieve.

What did Isaiah mean when he said, "And the virgin will conceive and deliver a son who will be called Emmanuel"? Is it addressed to King Ahaz, which therefore contains a political meaning for a specific historical circumstance? Or is it one of those 'expectant' words addressed to Israel and all men?

At the end of his inquiry, at the end of a word-by-word analysis and an exegesis which intends to be scientific, theological and spiritual, at the same time, the young girl from Nazareth is identified as the Seat of the Shekinah, throne of Wisdom, Ark of the Covenant, and all the titles that the Church has always attributed to the Mother of God, ever virgin.

One question has beleaguered Christians for some time. Because of the expression 'brothers of Jesus' in the Bible, many have asked - Why couldn't Mary have had other children?Is it not natural as well as conforming to the Torah?

One might have expected therefore, that without getting into an exegetical debate, the Pope would declare with authority that according to every theological evidence, such a supposition is unthinkable. Because that would send the dogma of the Incarnation crashing down, and therefore, the entire Catholic faith.

The Pope does not do so. He leaves the faithful to deduce for themselves that considering who the Virgin Mary is, as he has presented her, and who Joseph is, such a supposition would simply be impossible. Luther and Calvin thought so, too.

The Pope is so convinced of this that he applies an aphorism by Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

The entire book is immersed in serenity. No polemics. Simply a calm reflection of great density that is also of great gentleness. Obviously in writing it, the Pope did so under the protection of the Virgin Mary, who is his principal subject.

Pope has historic first meeting
with Vietnam Communist Party's leader

January 22, 2013



On Tuesday morning Pope Benedict XVI received the Secretary General of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, His Nguyen Phu Trong.

The Secretary General was accompanied by a delegation of ten members of the Vietnamese Communist Party, including Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc.

The delegation arrived through St. Peter's Square and the Arch of bells, a privilege reserved for Heads of State and Government. After the meeting with the Pope, they were then received by the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone.

A communiqué described the meetings as “cordial” and said they dealt with topics of interest to Vietnam and the Holy See. Hopes were also expressed “that some pending situations may be resolved and that the existing fruitful cooperation may be strengthened”.

The audience at the Vatican was exceptional, marking the first time the Pope and a Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party have met. It also further underlined recent progress in relations between Hanoi and the Holy See since dialogue resumed in 2007.

Last November, a Vietnamese delegation from the office in charge of Religious Affairs also visited the Vatican. In January 2011, a non-resident representative of the Vatican to the Hanoi government was appointed in the person of Archbishop Leopoldo Girelli. In February 2012, a bilateral meeting was held in Hanoi.

The visit of Nguyen Phu Trong, who has led the Communist Party of Vietnam since January 2011, comes within the framework of a wider European tour. Moreover, it is the first visit by a leader of the Vietnamese Communist Party to Western Europe for many years.

On Monday, the Secretary General met with Italian authorities, including President Giorgio Napolitano. His tour will end with a visit to London on January 24th






Current statistics estimate that there are 5,658,000 Catholics in Vietnam, representing 6.87% of the total population. The majority religion is Buddhist.

The Vietnamese are devoted to Our Lady of LaVang, who they believe saved many Vietnamese lives during the persecution of Christioans in the 16th-17th century. She appeared to refugees who had fled to a jungle to escape persecution and she told them to use the herb 'la vang' for healing. Since then, numerous miracles have been attributed to her. A basilica was built for her but the Vietcong destroyed it in 1972, and today only the church's belfry remains. A modest glass-and-steel structure has replaced it for now.

P.S. Our Papino looked to be literally in the pink of health today, Deo gratias.

I usually post Fr. Lombardi's weekly editorials in which he offers his brief reflections on a current issue or event, but I ignored his piece last weekend for more than just the fact that I disagreee with his facile conclusions about gun control. I also feel, that, like the OR's Vian, his take on US affairs is informed by a clear bias in favor of President Obama, and not necessarily by a real understanding of how things really are out here. (What do you expect -= their view is shaped by what they read in the MSM, which has completely lost all objectivity in reporting about Obama who, in their eyes, can do absolutely no wrong - despite the mess the US is in right now). So rather than have to fisk what he said, I simply did not use it. Besides, I've beaten up enough on Lombardi already for his dereliction of editorial and supervisory duties at Vatican Radio. It turns out, however, that Phil Lawler (who is the director of Catholic Culture.org and editor of Catholic World News) has written exactly the objections that I had to the gun control piece, and in a much better way, so here it is...

Vatican spokesman's misguided
statement on gun control
By Phil Lawler

January 21, 2013

Let’s make something clear right away. Pope Benedict has not endorsed the Obama administration’s gun-control plans. The Pope has said nothing on the subject.

But Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, has released a statement on gun control, in his weekly editorial commentary for Vatican Radio.

Inevitably his editorial will be portrayed by careless reporters as an official statement of the Vatican’s position. It is not; Father Lombardi does not set policy for the Vatican, or make authoritative statements for the Catholic Church.

Nor does the Catholic Church make authoritative statements about partisan political matters — especially partisan political matters in a country far from Rome, a country whose political affairs Vatican officials do not understand.

”The initiatives announced by the United States government in view of limiting and controlling the diffusion and use of arms are certainly a step in the right direction,” Father Lombardi pronounced as he began his commentary.

Obviously he was referring to the executive orders issued by President Obama (who, by the way, is not “the United States government”) last week. The wording of the editorial is vague; we don’t know which initiatives in particular met with Father Lombardi’s approval. We don’t know, actually, whether the Vatican spokesman is actually acquainted with the specifics of the White House plans.

In short — let’s not mince words — we don’t know whether Father Lombardi knows what he’s talking about.

Still, notice the word “certainly” in that opening sentence. Father Lombardi would have his listeners believe not only that the Obama plans are laudable, but that they are certainly good public policy. How can he possibly justify that claim?

Is Father Lombardi an expert on American constitutional law and/or on the history of gun-control efforts in the US? Has he studied the results of previous efforts to restrict ownership of assault weapons? Has he listened in on the current debates in Washington, and weighed alternative proposals? If not, on what basis does he proclaim—with certainty!—that the Obama plans deserve support?

Later in his editorial Father Lombardi makes another remarkably sweeping claim: "Therefore, it is necessary to repeat tirelessly our calls for disarmament, to oppose the production, trade, and smuggling of arms of all types, fueled by dishonorable interests for power or financial gain."

Certainly the smuggling of arms is morally suspect. (But even there, is the prohibition absolute? Could it be just to smuggle arms to oppressed citizens hoping to overthrow a tyrannical government?) And we can all agree that the trade in arms—or in anything else—is wrong when it is “fueled by dishonorable interests.”

But Father Lombardi seems to be arguing that all production and sale of weapons should be banned. Just a few sentences earlier he conceded that guns can be “instruments for legitimate defense.” Now we would deny those instruments — not only to civilians, but also to soldiers and police officers!

Father Lombardi appears badly informed about the American debate on gun control, and his argument is badly framed. He goes well beyond what the Church teaches on the use of arms and the limits of legitimate self-defense, and offers instead his own ill-formed opinion. This is an unfortunate misuse of his position as spokesman for the Vatican.

The Catholic Church does not claim any special expertise on matters of public policy. Rather, the teaching authority of the Church sets forth general moral principles by which political leaders should be guided.

Father Lombardi’s editorial is short on general principles and long on political prescriptions. As someone who deals with reporters daily, he should have foreseen that it would be interpreted as an endorsement of President Obama. How else could it be interpreted?

If he were attuned to the realities of the American political scene, Father Lombardi would have remembered that this week brings the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. This week tens of thousands of pro-life Americans will descend on Washington for the annual March for Life.

This week of all weeks, the pro-life movement wants the attention of Washington focused on abortion. Instead the Vatican spokesman helps the White House to keep the gun-control issue in the headlines. This week of all weeks, pro-lifers want President Obama called to account for the policies he has espoused to protect the abortion industry. Instead Father Lombardi praises Obama’s work on an unrelated matter.

The timing of the Vatican Radio editorial, as well as its content, shows that Father Lombardi has a tin ear when it comes to American political affairs.

The last consideration, about the unfortunate timing of Lombardi's editorial in relation to the Roe v Wade 40th anniversary, is something I had not thought about, so thanks, Mr. Lawler, for pointing it out.

Wednesday, January 23, Second Week in Ordinary Time

Right photo: Blessed Marianne's beatification rites in St. Peter's Basilica.
ST. MARIANNE COPE (b Germany 1838, d Hawaii 1918)
Virgin, Professed Franciscan of the Third Order, Missionary
Born Maria Anna Barbara Koob in Darmstadt, Germany. Her parents migrated to the United States when she
was a baby and settled in Syracuse, New York. She joined the Third Order Franciscan nuns and was taught in
schools for immigrants. She was assigned as superior to several places, during which she helped found
the first two Catholic hospitals in the US, gaining the experience she would later use in Hawaii. In 1877,
she was elected Mother Provincial of her order and re-elected in 1881. In 1883, she and some of her fellow
nuns answered a bid from the Hawaiian government to run a center for receiving leprosy patients in Maui.
In 1888, she went to Molokai to help Father Damien (now St. Damien) run the leper colony during his final
months. She took over after he died and served the lepers for the rest of her life, gaining fame for her
holiness as Mother Marianne of Molokai. It was considered a miracle that she did not catch the disease in
the 30 years she spent there. She was one of the first two persons beatified under Benedict XVI in rites
at St. Peter's Basilica on May 14, 2005, and was canonized along with six others last October.
Readings for today's Mass: www.usccb.org/bible/readings/012313.cfm


AT THE VATICAN TODAY

General Audience - In his catecheses for the Year of Faith, the Holy Father today began reflections on
the articles of the Creed, starting with the first affirmation "I believe in God". Afterwards, he offered
his prayers and sympathy for the victims of a terrible flood that left Jakarta, capital of Indonesia, as
much as two meters under water.

The Holy Father also met with
- Six more bishops from the Italian region of Calabria (Group 2) on ad-limina visit.


@Pontifex 1/23/13



Is the Forum back to normal now without the crazy 'centering'? I've been fooled before....

P.S. I just realized that the arbitrary 'centering' of posts occurs only when one is using Internet Explorer - it doesn't occur on Mozilla or GoogleChrome. Serves me right for sticking to Explorer - I am probably their only user by now! I have adhered longer than I should to Explorer, only because it enables me to do multiple text enhancements of a single element without having to highlight the entire thing all over for each enhancement. I use this feature very often for writing the headlines, subheads, and parenthetical comments in the posts - they generally involve the size of the font; whether it is bold, italic or regular; what color it should be; whether it should be enclosed in a quotation box. With Mozilla, where the 'centering' does not occur, I must highlight the element as many times as the number of enhancements I need.

One advantage I have now found out that Mozilla has over Explorer is that it does a running spelling check on the text, so one can immediately correct the errors - and this is very helpful for me when I do translations since I have 'fat fingers' and am very prone to typos. The spell-check feature in Explorer is cumbersome.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/01/2013 19:18]

In a twist on the expression "It's the culture, stupid!", this piece passes on the latest reflections of a Nobel laureate in literature, Mario Vargas Llosa, about the disappearance of genuine culture - as something that contributes meaningfully to the human patrimony - to be replaced by a mindless, unguided but global non-culture of the transient and the spectacular, a stupid culture, in fact. More significantly, Vargas Llosa underscores the indispensable role of religion - the transcendent - in the formation and promotion of genuine culture. Though he was born and raised Catholic, Vargas Llosa has been a free thinker most of his adult life, but his Catholic roots showed when he wrote that famous essay in praise of the WYD in Madrid in 2011, in which he declared that as long as religion does not intervene in politics, it is indispensable for the survival of a democratic society.

It’s the stupid culture
By Robert Royal

21 January 2013

Everyone today complains about the culture. From liberals who think it promotes gun violence and “hate crimes”, to conservatives who believe it’s taking us on a high-speed luxury liner to Hell. Perhaps the only thing that rivals this agreement across ideological lines is the utter bewilderment at what to do about the whole sad mess.

I have been reading a fascinating little book, La Civilizacion del Espectaculo (The Civilization of the Spectacle), by Mario Vargas Llosa, the novelist who once ran for president in Peru. I’ve always liked him because his books combine rare literary gifts with a firm rejection of the kinds of nonsense that radicals in Latin America and elsewhere have been peddling for decades (try The War at the End of the World). [Oh yes, please do, if you can! After Proust's A la Recherche du Temps Perdu, it's been the 2oth-century novel that I have loved and admired the most! In the welter of great Latin American novels in the second half of the past century, that unique book - far less heralded than Gabriel Garcia Marquez's classics of 'magic realism' - stunned me, who was already very sold on MVL after his earlier classics like El Jefe y Los Perros, La Casa Verde and Conversacion en la Catedral, and the hilarious comic masterpieces Pantaleon y Las Visitadoras and La Tia Julia y el Ecribidor (MVL is arguably the only contemporary literatteur who has succeeded in fashioning genuine LOL=ROFL farces that do not read like farce but the best of comic story-telling), after which I swore I would buy every book of his as soon as it came out. And I have. Besides writing novels, MVL also writes plays, literary criticism,and regularly publishes collections of his essays on culture and politics that have appeared in various newspapers. The book referred to in this piece is available as an e-book online.]



He’s so good that he won the 2010 Nobel Prize for literature [IMHO, more than two decades too late! Gabriel Garcia Marquez got the Nobel in 1982, and every year after that, I kept hoping it would be Vargas Llosa's turn! I had just about given up hope that the Nobel people might even consider him when they decided to give him the Prize in 2010], even though the selection committee admires – and sometimes honors – those very radicals, and usually passes over their critics, however talented.

His latest effort (unfortunately, still only available in Spanish), opens with a bold thesis:

---

Probably never in history have so many treatises, essays, theories, and analyses been written on culture as in our time. This fact is even more surprising inasmuch as culture, in the traditional sense of this word, stands in our day on the point of disappearing. And maybe it’s already disappeared, discretely emptied of content and replaced with another that has denatured the one it once had.

---

He adds: It’s more than the fact, universally admitted, that the culture is decadent. The very nature of “culture” has changed to the point that maybe today we have no culture worthy of the name.

Sixty years, ago, T.S. Eliot wrote a well-known essay “Notes Towards the Definition of Culture.” Eliot argued that a healthy culture is articulated into three parts: a few at the high end, a significant middle, and a large number of common folk. And back then, it was clear that culture did not coincide with social class (as Chesterton observed, many of the rich are “born tired”).

There was exchange among the three – which some of us can still remember – in everything from music to religion. Family and church were and must be key carriers of culture – not universities (to say nothing of the current art scene, theater, etc.), says Vargas Llosa, because knowledge is not culture.

Knowledge is useful, but what it’s useful for depends on religion and culture. Besides, universities have stopped teaching about religion:

---

...which for good and ill, in history, philosophy, architecture, art, literature is indispensable to keep culture from degenerating at its current pace and to see that the world of the future will not be divided between functional illiterates and ignorant or heartless specialists.

---

Without religious knowledge, new generations will be, “bound hand and foot to the civilization of the spectacle, which is to say, to frivolousness, superficiality, ignorance, gossip, and bad taste.” {And, one must add, narcissism! All this are precisely what the so-called social networks promote, which is why I have never seen the point of this now global obsession, which has spread like a persistent and pernicious invasion of crabgrass, only it's not your lawn that is overwhelmed. The only reason I have not expressed more reservations about the Pontifex Twitter initiative is that, a) by its very nature, it cannot be narcissistic - the Pope's messages are never about himself - and, of course, that it may help him reach more people, though 2.5 million followers is not exactly phenomenal; and b) I do not have to follow reactions to the messages, many of which will necessarily be illustrations of the 'frivolousness, superficiality, ignorance, gossip, and bad taste' of contemporary 'culture' that not just Vargas Llosa, but Benedict XVI himself, has often decried. I think the Russians have a good term for this - 'nekulturniy' - to describe anything that has no class and no culture.]

Recent theorists have used Marxism, sociology, political theory in efforts to understand culture. But all of that has been eclipsed by what is now a global standard culture that requires no personal cultivation, makes no special demands on anyone, anywhere. Its primary vehicles are pop music and movies – reinforced and spread by the Internet and social media.

Vargas Llosa notes that this situation does not equally empower all, as is often claimed. Quite the opposite. Without independent cultural bases, it’s very difficult for anyone – whether your “culture” is Hollywood or Bollywood – to maintain real freedom.

The worldwide civilization of the spectacle promises endless diversions. The very definition of what counts culturally is what is commercially successful because it “diverts” enough people around the world.

Another characteristic is that culture objects are consumed in the enjoyment. So one film follows another, one rock concert or album replaces the last, and maybe soon one digitized text by another. Very little is intended – or expected – to survive passing enjoyment.

When he was living in London in the 1960s, Vargas Llosa noticed that the counterculture partly turned even religion into a superficial self-indulgence to go along with promiscuity, drugs, and dropping-out.

But real religion has survived: In bad forms in al Qaeda, fundamentalisms of various kinds, but also in ways eminently human. Despite the intellectual attacks of the Dawkinses and Hitchenses, he says, all human cultures have valued transcendence, in their different ways, and not solely out of ignorance. The New Atheists are merely repeating the old theory that secularization inevitably following education, which has not proven to be the case.

Every civilization has embraced something beyond itself, partly as a bulwark against present suffering and hope of future justice. But Vargas Llosa notes that it’s an obscure – and sound – human intuition that without something that transcends us – that envelops and gives us reliable guiding stars – the worst human evils will inevitably follow. That something, for most people, is religion. We’re already bad enough, even with the transcendent.

Let’s hope that this little book will soon appear in English, because it’s time to figure out why several distinguished non-believers – Jürgen Habermas in Germany, Marcello Pera in Italy (both of whom have done books with the current Pope), and now Vargas Llosa – are arguing that you can’t have high democratic culture and, maybe even a moral economy and stable democracy, without religion.

En route, he also gets important things wrong about the compatibility of faith and freedom. But to understand culture in such lucid and deep terms is a great step forward. Others have suggested it will take “creative minorities” (Benedict XVI) and communities of meaning (Alasdair MacIntyre) to escape our current morass.

It’s no small matter for a Nobel Prize winning novelist to come to the realization that culture has passed – and must pass – through family and Church rather than what we assume are the usual “cultural” institutions. (The decay of family and Church is a subject for another day.) It may mean that, even in secular precincts, all is not lost for us yet.

GENERAL AUDIENCE TODAY




Pope Benedict XVI began today his catecheses on the articles of faith in the Creed that Catholics profess, as part of his catechetical cycle for the Year of Faith.

In English, he said:

---

In our catechesis for this Year of Faith, we now turn to the Creed, the solemn profession of our faith as Christians.

At the beginning of the Creed, we say "I believe in God". Faith is our response to the God who first speaks to us, makes himself known and calls us to enter into communion with him. We hear God speaking to us in the Scriptures, which recount the history of his revelation, culminating in the coming of his Son, Jesus Christ.

A central figure in this history of revelation is Abraham, the father and model of all believers (cf. Rom 4:11-12). Sustained by God’s blessing and trusting in his promises, Abraham set off into the unknown.

Like Abraham, we too are called to let faith shape our thoughts and actions in accordance with God’s saving word, even when this runs contrary to the thinking and ways of this world.

With the eyes of faith, we discern God’s presence and his promise of eternal life beyond the realities of this present existence. In opening ourselves to God’s blessing, we become in turn a blessing for others.

---

After his plurilingual greetings, he reminded the Italian faithful of Friday Vespers on The Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul:

---

On Friday, we shall celebrate the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. Dear young people, may the Apostle Paul be for you a model of integrity in life and of radical faith. Dear persons who are sick, offer your sufferings for the cause of unity in the Church of Christ. And dear newlyweds, be inspired by the life of the Apostle of the Gentiles, by acknowledging the primacy of God and his love in your family life.

---

He ended by expressing sympathy for the victims of monsoon floods and a dike collapse in the capital of Indonesia:

---

I am following with concern the news from Indonesia, where a major flood has devastated the capital of Jakarta, resulting in many deaths, thousands of homeless, and great damage.

I wish to express my closeness to the people struck by this natural calamity, assuring them of my prayers, and encouraging solidarity so that no one may lack for necessary aid.

---

Here is a full translation of the catechesis today:

---

Dear brothers and sisters,

In this Year of Faith, I wish to start reflecting with you today on the Credo, the solemn profession of faith that accompanies our life as believers.

The Credo begins with “I believe in God”. It is a fundamental affirmation, apparently simple in its essentiality, but which opens to the infinite world of relating to the Lord and his mystery, To believe in God implies adhesion to him, acceptance of his Word, and obedience to his Revelation.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Faith is a personal act. It is man’s free response to the initiative of God who reveals himself” (No. 166). To be able to say one believes in God is therefore both a gift – God reveals himself, he comes to us – and a commitment. It is divine grace and human responsibility, the experience of a dialog with God who, out of love, “speaks to men as to friends” (Dei verbum, 2), he speaks to us so that, in the faith and with faith, we can enter into communion with him.

Where can we listen to God and his Word? Sacred Scripture is fundamental, in which the Word of God makes itself audible to us and nourishes our life as ‘friends’ of God. All of the Bible recounts God revealing himself to mankind. All of the Bible speaks of faith and teaches us the faith by narrating a story in which God carries forward his plan of redemption and makes himself close to men, through so many luminous figures of persons who believed in him and entrusted themselves to him, up to the fullness of his Revelation in the Lord Jesus.

In this regard, Chapter 11 of the Letter to the Hebrews which we just heard is very beautiful. It speaks about faith and brings to light the great Biblical figures who lived their faith, becoming models for all believers. The first verse says: “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen” (11,1).

The eyes of faith are therefore capable of seeing the invisible, and the heart of the believer can hope beyond hope, just like Abraham, of whom Paul says in the Letter to the Romans, “he believed, hoping against hope” (4,18). And it is on Abraham that I wish to dwell and focus our attention, because he is the first great figure of reference in speaking about faith in God. Abraham, the great patriarch, exemplary model, father of all believers(cfr Rm 4,11-12).

The Letter to the Hebrews presents him thus: “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the promised land as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs of the same promise; for he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and maker is God.” (11,8-10).

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews is referring here to the calling of Abraham, narrated in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, What did God ask of this patriarch? He asked him to leave and abandon his homeland to go towards a place that he would show him. “Go forth from your land, your relatives, and from your father’s house to a land that I will show you” (Gen 12,1).

How would we have responded to a similar call? It meant, in fact, going off into the unknown, not knowing where God would lead him, on a journey that required radical obedience and faith, one to which only faith would accede. But the darkness of the unknown – to which Abraham was going - was lit up by a promise.

God adds to his command a reassuring word which opens to Abraham a future life of fullness. “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. .. All the families of the earth will find blessing in you.” (Gen 12,2,3).

A blessing in Sacred Scripture is primarily linked to the gift of life that comes from God and is manifested above all in fecundity, in life that multiplies, from generation to generation. Also linked to blessing is the experience of possessing land, a stable place in which to live and grow in freedom and security, fearing God and constructing a society of men faithful to the Covenant, “a kingdom of priests and holy nation” (cfr Ex 19,6).

And so, Abraham, in the divine plan, is destined to become ‘father of a multitude of peoples’ (Gen 17,5; cfr Rm 4,17-18) and to inhabit a new land. And yet his wife Sarah is sterile, she cannot have children, and the place towards which God would lead him was far from his place of origin – already inhabited by other peoples, and one that would never really belong to him.

The Biblical narrator underscores, though very discreetly, that when Abraham reached the place promised by God, “The Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen 12,6). The land that God gave Abraham did not belong to him, he would be a stranger there and so he would remain, with all that this meant: no prospects of possession, always feeling his poverty, seeing everything as a gift.

This too is the spiritual condition of whoever accepts to follow the Lord, who decides to set off, heeding his call, under the sign of his invisible but powerful blessing. And Abraham, ‘father of believers’, accepts this call, in faith.

St Paul writes in the Letter to the Romans: “He believed, hoping against hope, that he would become 'the father of many nations', according to what was said, ‘Thus shall your descendants be’. He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body as [already] dead (for he was almost a hundred years old) and the dead womb of Sarah. He did not doubt God’s promise in unbelief; rather, he was empowered by faith and gave glory to God and was fully convinced that what he had promised he was also able to do.” (Rm 4,18-21).

Faith led Abraham towards a paradoxical journey. He would be blessed but without the visible signs of blessing. He received the promise that his descendants would be a great people, but his life was marked by the sterility of his wife Sarah, He was led to a new land where he had to live as a stranger; and the only piece of land he would be allowed to own was that where he would bury Sarah (cfr Gen 23,1-20).

Abraham is blessed because, in his faith, he could discern the divine blessing beyond all appearances, confiding in the presence of God even when his ways appeared mysterious. What does this mean for us?

When we say, “I believe in God”, we are saying as Abraham did: “I trust you, I entrust myself to you, Lord”, but not as to someone to whom we only turn to in times of difficulty, or for whom we only find some time during the day or during the week. To say “I believe in God” means founding my life on him, allowing his Word to orient it every day, in concrete choices, without fear of losing something of myself.

When, in the baptismal rite, the question is asked three times, “Do you believe…” - in God, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit; in the Holy Catholic Church and other truths of faith – the triple response is in the singular, “I believe”. Because it is my personal existence that must receive a turning-point with the gift of faith, it is my existence that needs to change, to be converted. Everytime that we take part in a Baptism, we must ask ourselves how to live this great gift of faith daily.

Abraham, the believer, teaches us faith; and as a stranger on the land, he shows us the true homeland. Faith makes us pilgrims on earth, placed in the world and in history, but on a journey towards the celestial homeland.

To believe in God therefore makes us bearers of values that often do not conform to the fashion and opinion of the da. It asks us to adopt criteria and behavior that do not fit into the common way of thinking.

The Christian should not be afraid to go ‘against the current’ in order to live his faith, and must resist the temptation to ‘be uniform’ with everyone else. In so many of our societies, God has become the ‘great absentee’ and in his place are many idols, a whole array of idols, most especially, possession and the autonomous “I”.

Even the remarkable and positive progress in science and technology has induced in man the illusion of omnipotence and self-sufficiency, and growing egocentrism has created not a few imbalances in interpersonal relationships and social behavior.

And yet, the thirst for God (cfr Ps 63,2) has not been extinguished, and the Gospel message continues to resonate through the words and work of so many men and women of faith.

Abraham, the father of all believers, continues to be the father of many sons who have chosen to walk in his footsteps and have set off in obedience to divine calling, trusting in the benevolent presence of the Lord, and accepting his blessing in order to be, in turn, a blessing to all.

It is the blessed world of faith to which we are called, to walk fearlessly following the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a journey that is occasionally difficult, that knows trials and even death, but which opens us to life, in a radical transformation of reality that only the eyes of faith can see and enjoy in fullness.

To say “I believe in God” urges us, then, to set forth, to get out of ourselves continually, as Abraham did, in order to bring to the daily reality in which we live that certainty that comes to us from faith: the certainty of the presence of God in history, even today – a presence that brings life and salvation, and which opens to us a future with him for a fullness of life that will never end.

---