Please click here to vote for us in the Catholic New Media Awards 2009 - thanks!

Archive for January, 2009



23
Jan

“You know the one with all the well- meaning rules that don’t work out in real life.”

Hey tell you what, I’ve got a great idea. Mass attendance is down across the board, and people are getting disillusioned by the ‘hard line’ approach taken by the Church. Gee why can’t getting to heaven be easy? By jingo I should be allowed to believe and practice however I want. Tradition be damned, let’s just do it whatever way is that gets the crowds in. It’s all about the crowds afer all. How can you be a legitimate religion without a mass following?

I reckon for a bit of entertainment, perhaps we should introduce cheerleaders to rev the crowd up during the sermon. Perhaps snacks could be introduced as people may find it restrictive being in Church for close to an hour without food. And who needs vestments? Stuffy old things they are, surely to get in touch with today’s youth perhaps a more urban wardrobe could be adopted. Oh and don’t forget, anything goes now because we need people to feel like they’re included. What use is it going to Church if you don’t get that nice warm fuzzy feeling?

Don’t agree with the Church’s teachings? No worries! No one really notices anyway. Leave your inhibitions at the door and come right in for your warm fuzzies.

So anyway. If I hear another American interviewed on TV congratulating the country on “being such a great country because we now have a black President” I’m going to start advocating for mimes to be involved at Mass. I’m sure you voted for Obama because he represented the best chance for change, not because of his race.

Oh in the NZ Catholic too was something that caught my eye. Someone complaining about the new recomended position to assume (kneeling) during various parts of the Eucharistic prayer. Said complainant then goes on to say that most people are at church “because they love God and wish to pay homage. How does the position of the body interfere with that?” Really? Then why bother complaining?? And if you truly believe that the Lord God is present in the Eucharist, surely kneeling is the least you would do. “Oh but the pain in my knees!” When did we Catholics get so soft.

22
Jan

The Modern Cross?

I was thinking the other day…(yeah I know, very dangerous for me :P ) about the modern issues with Catholic liturgy and what happened to Christ during His Passion – because I think there is an analogy and a link for us to spiritually draw from.

Jesus endured a violent death; a death amidst a frenetic external chaos, where disorder, disarray, and disorientation reigned; a death where He was abandoned by His friends – except by a faithful few, including His Mother – and handed over to His enemies; a death where He let go, and gave Himself over to blasphemy, mockery, insults, ridicule, hatred, abuse, and intense suffering – all for love of us.

Christ’s Body was lashed, smashed, ripped apart, torn asunder, and finally nailed to the Cross where He allowed His arms to be tied, and His Body to be bound to a Tree – completely vulnerable, and receptive to that final piercing – which would open to us the secrets of His Heart.

And Mary “follows the Lamb” (Rev 14:4) – living her own agony – watching as they victimize, torture, and finally crucify Her innocent Son. She follows in the darkness of faith – with a contemplative gaze of love – through abandonment in hope to the will of the Father. She keeps silence – an interior and exterior silence – as she offers Her own oblation of love, to the Father, through Jesus Her Son. But this occurs for Her in an extreme radical poverty where, with incredible hope, She depends and relies utterly upon God in everything for Her strength, as she adheres in faith to the will of the Father, and perpetuates Her loving ‘yes’.

She receives no other consolation in this agonizing piercing of Her soul.

Christ, being true God, remains eternally united to the Father, and in a certain way, in the summit of His soul lives an interior peace through this chaos and trauma; He lives an interior contemplation and silence of love, as he runs to the Cross with joy. But in another way, being true man, He lives an intense agony at the level of His sensitivity and body, in his humanity, where every evil is hurled against Him; and in this He suffers a traumatic moral sensation of being abandoned, through the extreme physical pain of the Passion and Crucifixion. But Christ is ultimately victorious. Good Friday is where the victory is won – and it is the Victory of Love – of Infinite Merciful Love – offered in a double offering – firstly to the Father in atonement for our sins, and secondarily to humanity, to draw us into the victory of Christ, and into the very life of God. Sunday is when we see the fruits of that victory – Resurrection.

Some spiritual writers in these times have seen a particular insight for us to draw from, which actually links us with the vision found in the Apocalypse: It is that of the Church passing by Her own Passion, and being crucified with Christ, as She now enters Her final phase, Her final week (Romans 8:17).

In that sense, as we approach the last times, one can discern the demon agitating violently against the Church, and within the Church, making war against the Woman and Her offspring (Rev 12:17); and one can discern certain key characteristics of this escalating assault. In a new way, Satan is extending, intensifying, re-creating, and re-inserting us, into that chaotic environment, that disorder, that violence, that atmosphere of mockery, rebellion, abuse and insult towards God – that occurred on Calvary – not only in a broad extended sense in our modern secular world through the current atheistic ideologies (the Beast of the Earth, Rev 13) – but in an acute pointed sense – in the liturgy – in the sanctuary of the Church where Christ is offered to the Father (Rev11:1-2). It is here where there is a massive battle playing out, and we must discern it to live it well. This is one of the reasons that Pope Benedict has liberated the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite for the Church, and interestingly, the Pope’s motu proprio was published on the 7th of the 7th of the 7th (read what you will into that).

Because for us, that is where we are present at the Mystery of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice which is re-presented to the Father, by the Church on her Altars. We kneel mystically at the foot of the Cross, and receive the fruits of that Sacrifice, as the Blood and the Water are poured out over us; and we are drawn more deeply into the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Our Lord – into that superabundance of Divine Mercy offered to the world – through our reception of the Eucharist. In that reception of Him, it is us who are received by the One who loves us; and in this God gifted divine exchange, the liturgy has become the frenetic battle ground of Calvary, and is where there is a specifically pointed attack of the devil in these times – since the post Vatican Council liturgical reform of Paul VI.

The Second Vatican Council opened and finished with great fanfare, optimism, and acclaim, with many thinking that this was the greatest event in the history of the Church, as She turned to face the modern world. Indeed Paul VI had said, “It was believed that after the Council a sunny day in the Church’s history would dawn.” It was believed by many as such, but was it as we or they imagined or hoped it would be? Can we not discern a parallel here? Upon entry into Jerusalem, Christ is received triumphantly, with many acclaiming the great moment for Israel, as she welcomed her Messiah, and deliverance was expected. A week later they string Him up and cruelly murder Him.

Since the Vatican Council, what has unfolded, especially in the liturgy, to use the words of Paul VI, has been like a “disturbed period” of “self-demolition” with “the opening to the world… [becoming] …a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking” where “we have perhaps been too weak and imprudent” allowing the “smoke of Satan” to enter “through some strange crack into the Temple of God” where in the Church a “state of uncertainty reigns.” **

Indeed, “…it was believed that after the Council a sunny day in the Church’s history would dawn, but instead there came a day of clouds, storms, and darkness.” ***

As Christ entered His final week with His entry into Jerusalem, is it possible that the Church has entered Her own with the inauguration of the Second Vatican Council?…And now we seem to be in the throws of the confusion and mayhem of the dolorous Passion of the Body of Christ, the Church, as She heads towards a seeming defeat, amidst the great apostasy prophesized in Scripture and the Third Secret of Fatima. But from this purification and seeming failure, victory and renewal will come.

To combat this, so as to personally and collectively emerge victorious, we must urgently rediscover the sense of adoration in the Liturgy, living it well so as to enter into silent contemplation, in a gaze of love towards the Crucified Lord. For us who are members of the Church, we must take Mary, figure and prototype of the Church, as our guide in this regard, and look to how She lived her compassion on Calvary in union with Jesus. She who “was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she could fly to the desert”: The two wings of Adoration and Contemplation. ‘Flying to the desert’ – symbolic language revealing a key aspect of the mystery of interior poverty: In the desert one is stripped of one’s attachments, consolations, strengths, and supports; one must live completely in dependence upon God (Rev 12:14).

We must ask Her to help us to pray the Mass deeply, to adore Him, and to gaze with love upon the Pierced One; even when He is pierced over and over and over again by widespread serious liturgical abuse and neglect (even from Christ’s own ministers, implicitly sanctioned by local bishops) which is expressed all around us in a type of liturgical chaos and turbulence; where brazen noise, flippancy, casualness, carelessness, negligence, and indifference insult Our Lord, Who, in a certain way, is mystically crucified afresh by our ill-treatment. We must not allow this betrayal of others in internals and externals (sometimes through ignorance) to lead us to our own interior (heart and mind) betrayal of the Lord – in our own personal living of the Liturgy. This is not easy to ensure or endure, but we can take consolation that it wasn’t easy for Mary either; but She trusted and gave Herself over to the will of the Father.

This is a great mystery, where Christ has given Himself, in His Body, and in the Liturgy, over to the possibility of insults, mockery, abuse, chaos, confusion, and seeming defeat in the Church, where one constantly wonders with the disciples on that night of all nights: “How could this happen to Christ?…” and we could add “…in the Liturgy?”

With the liturgical reforms on Pope Benedict well under way, and more to come, and greater freedom given to the extra-ordinary form of Mass, we have hopefully begun to emerge from this ‘40 years in the liturgical desert’ (1967-2007)… and the Church will express more fully in Her prayer what She believes.

This truth was first enunciated by Pope Celestine I in 422 when he addressed some bishops from Gaul: “Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi”“let the law of prayer establish/express the law of belief”: often simplified to “lex orandi lex credendi”. If, in our Liturgies we don’t authentically express, in a beautiful and deep way, what the Church believes, people will begin to lose the Faith. Has not a great apostasy already taken place? Pope John Paul II, in 2003, spoke of a silent apostasy taking place in Europe.

But it is when everything seems most lost, that Christ will save the Church and the world, and the victory and restoration will come. But the suffering passion of the Body of Christ and all that that entails must come first…and in that we must suffer faithfully with Jesus and Mary.

In and through all of this, we must look to plunge ourselves into Christ’s merciful Heart, the pierced Heart of the Lamb, to receive that Mercy that He offers from the Cross, and therefore from the Altar. But in these times, the Immaculate Heart of Mary is offered to us in a special way for us to achieve this. Hidden in Her Heart, we have to go further in love, beyond the bewilderment of the often stupefying accidental externals – further than the turmoil around us – and by the aid of grace, penetrate further into the Mystery of the Liturgy – which is the Mystery of the Trinity’s salvific work in time, the work and fruit of Infinite Mercy for us – accomplished at the Cross by Jesus and Mary. We must pray to be able to pass beyond the abuse, ignorance, banal festivity, misplaced cultural plays, tacky dances, silly skits, and a general lack of respect and prayer, to be able to contemplate Christ in His last hours, and, like Mary and John, remain with Him in fidelity.

But to do this, to enter Christ’s Heart and be faithful to Him amidst this ruckus, we need Mary’s help. We need to rest in Her Heart, to be close to Jesus, to be able to look upon Him with love, and guard that union, amidst the distracting chaos going on all around us. We must give ourselves to Her during this time of Passion and Crucifixion of the Body of Christ, especially in the Liturgy. This doesn’t mean that it will be easy. It will still be a type of interior agony – but with Her and in Her – we can cultivate authentic adoration of Christ, and enter contemplation – that union with our ultimate finality – God – and therefore find peace, and especially rest.

Let us ask Her to draw us into Her Immaculate Heart, to live of Her silent gaze of contemplation in a deep love for Her Son and the Father; so that in the depths of our intelligences and hearts, we remain humble, poor, serene, recollected, and tranquil in the Liturgy – as we offer ourselves in love – and draw of its sweet fruits – even though, before our very eyes it is often torn apart, abused, and subjected to a type of Roman-era pagan anarchy; sometimes even by bishops, legitimate successors of Apostles.

Let us follow Mary, as She contemplates Her Son. Let us enter Her Heart, be enshrined in Her, and in that sacred temple of the Holy Spirit, we can live of Her merits and virtues, participate in the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart that has been prophesized so many times, and enter more deeply into Christ’s victory of Love. In Her, like in the Church our Mother in grace, she gives birth to the victory of Christ in us; we can be born more deeply in the Holy Spirit, and live of Christ’s union with the Father (Rev 12); and in that Mystery of Love, bear lasting fruit for the Kingdom.

Mary, our hope, our Mother, our peace, pray for us.

Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for the Liturgy, and protect your priests.

** quoted words are of Paul VI from 1968, 1972, and 1973. See also here

**“The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one might even say of self-destruction. It is like an acute and complex interior upheaval, which no one expected after the Council. One thought of a blossoming, a serene expansion of the mature concepts of the Council. The Church still has this aspect of blossoming. But since “bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu,” the aspect of sorrow has become most notable. The Church is also being wounded by those who are part of her.”

(Paul VI, Allocution to the students of the Lombard Seminary, Dec. 7, 1968).

***This does not mean that the Second Vatican Council is necessarily at fault. The official intentions and authentic spirit (properly understood) of the Council were excellent – to renew and present the Mystery and Mercy of Christ to the world in a beautiful way; the documents, by and large, were very good (of course any church document can be prudentially expressed better, be structured more coherently, or be developed more beautifully), but many of the interpretations of the Council, have been defective, or false. However, legitimate questions can be asked about the wisdom, prudence, and juridical legitimacy of the Liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI.

21
Jan

Beauty, beauty, how we need thee…

There is nothing quite like something beautiful. And I’m not talking the cover of Vogue beautiful, but pure, glorious, awe-inspiring beauty, to lift the heart to God. I think as Kiwis, as casual and sometimes minimalistic that we can be, we can forget that easily…whilst wallowing in a wealth of false beauty among our consumer society.

However, this week in Africa I came across two beautiful churches – the Consolata Shrine and St Jude’s, the church of a local Franciscan community – both in suburban Nairobi, Kenya.

Beauty can be sensed in many ways…natural beauty, moral beauty, the beauty of truth…

The CCC says (33) The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”, can have its origin only in God.

Truly beautiful things can lead us to ponder the existence of this great mysterious God, Abba, Father…our whole origin. Pretty cool.

A beautiful church is a work of art in itself…and: (2501) Created “in the image of God,” man also expresses the truth of his relationship with God the Creator by the beauty of his artistic works. Indeed, art is a distinctively human form of expression; beyond the search for the necessities of life which is common to all living creatures, art is a freely given superabundance of the human being’s inner riches. Arising from talent given by the Creator and from man’s own effort, art is a form of practical wisdom, uniting knowledge and skill, to give form to the truth of reality in a language accessible to sight or hearing. To the extent that it is inspired by truth and love of beings, art bears a certain likeness to God’s activity in what he has created. Like any other human activity, art is not an absolute end in itself, but is ordered to and ennobled by the ultimate end of man.

Art can bear a certain likeness to God’s activity…so…build beautiful churches, works of art, worthy of the God to whom worshipped is offered within. None of these ‘budget saving’ jobs!!

And a final note, may the soul of Fr Joseph Bertaina rest in peace. Fr Joseph, a Consolata priest of 82 years old, was found dead in his office in Nairobi last week, brutally murdered by three men and a women. He is an Italian missionary who has been in Kenya since the 1950s, evangelising the Gospel in a radical way. They announced at Mass this morning that one of his murderers was a former Vincentian Seminarian – all the more tragic. It reminds us that no one is free from the snares of the devil, even those who were on the path to a life of service for God can find themselves falling greatly. Pray for the soul of Fr Joseph, and for those who sent him to his death for the mere sake of stealing some petty cash.

20
Jan

Orgies?!

I was speaking to a friend of mine earlier today who was telling me that they went along to Mass at the Auckland Catherdal on Sunday night.

My friend related to me how surprised they were to hear the priest state, during his homily, that he sometimes engages in sexual fantasies about orgies with groups of women.

I was also told about another incident at a recent homily in an Auckland Mass where another priest started his homily with a variation of the “get out of there Rover before he s#*!s on you” joke.

Am I wrong to be concerned about this sort of stuff being presented during a homily, and in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, or am I just being overly precious?

I’d be interested to hear what others here feel about this issue.

I’d also be keen to hear what others think should be done about this issue.

18
Jan

Decoding the Divinity Code

(NB: While I still didn’t get a totally complete answer from my post last week on the great Our Father debate, I’d like to move on. However, any comments directly related to that post will be considered sort of on-topic and not deleted. But that’s related to that topic, not some of the crazy tangents we shot off into last week! ;) )

A couple of weeks ago, I posted about some of my holiday reading – specifically “The Divinity Code” by Ian Wishart. As I said in that post, the book raised some interesting points that I’d be keen to discuss with the BF community, to get your take on them as well. So, this week, I have a couple of questions to get the ball rolling…

  1. In Chapter 7, entitled “Are all religions equal?”, Wishart posits that, in fact, no they’re not. He systematically moves through the “big note” Eastern religions – Hinduism and Buddhism – and points to the fundamental difference between them and Western religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism – being one of objective truth (or lack thereof). Basically, those in the Eastern religions believe that each person “finds their own truth”, whereas the Western religions believe in a moral code provided by God that lays out right from wrong. As case in point, he talks about some pretty terrible atrocities. He notes that there are plenty of atrocities caused over the ages by Christians, but these have always been in contradiction to the teaching of our faith, unlike the Eastern religions where such things can be justified against a relative code of ethics. In the chapter, he talks of a number of things I had never heard before, and I was wondering whether or not these were common knowledge:
    • Up until 1948, many Hindu temples maintained pools of child prostitutes as part of their workship facilities as having sex with a temple prostitutes was one means of getting enlightenment!?!
    • Some supposedly celibate Tibetan Buddhist monks engage in tantric sex with secret consorts, who are little more than slaves, as a way to reach higher enlightenment!?
    • There are still cases of child sacrifice in India as part of Hindu rituals!?!?!?!?!
    • The current Dalai Lama (who is supposed to be emobody non-materialism) owns a huge amount of land and houses and “6,170 field serfs and 102 house slaves”!
    • There are plenty of documented examples of torture and sacrifice in Tibet, prior to the invasion of the Chinese, as practiced by those high up in Buddhism!?!?!

    What the? Anyone heard of any of this kind of stuff before?

  2. In Chapter 16, entitled “Darkness at the edge of town”, Wishart talks about the infiltration of Wiccan (witchcraft) and New Age practices into churches – including the Catholic Church. He quotes a number of sources and refers to the somewhat wacky Womenspace in the Archdiocese of Brisbane. I’ve done a bit of reading on the ‘net about this place which is ostensibly a “sacred place” for women to come together and share stories and whatnot. It was founded and is owned by three Catholic orders of nuns – the Josephites, the Sisters of Mercy and the Presentation Sisters – but it seems pretty far from Catholic from what I can see. It was officially censured in 2001 by the Archbishop of Brisbane for non-Catholic practices, such as seminars on the “Dark Goddess” and allowing meetings of a pro-abortion group to take place on the grounds. Looking at their website now and having a read of their newsletter, it doesn’t seem like much has improved. Anyone want to go along to one of their “dream baking” seminars? No? How about “Working with Animal Spirits”? Not your cup of tea?

    Wishart continues and talks about some pretty concerning stuff here in NZ as well. There’s a whole bunch of stuff about “Sophia”. Now, as best as I can understand this, Sophia is a heresy that has been introduced by people who don’t like the fact that Jesus was a man, not a woman, and all these references to God as father. So, they talk about the “Divine Feminine” and Sophia, the “goddess” – stars of the ever so well-written “Da Vinci Code”. All sounds pretty wacky to me.

    And so my question: how widespread/well-known is all of this? How serious is it? On the face of it, it sounds pretty serious. Wishart also quotes the Van Holland report, written by Simon Dennerly who sometimes comments on this blog. So, Simon, if you’re reading this, what’s the executive summary of your report on all this Sophia/Wicca nonense? And for anyone else who has read the report in detail, shed some light on this stuff for me please? Should I be a concerned Catholic given that this stuff is so apparently going on in my “backyard” that Ian Wishart knows about it enough to mention it in a book….and he’s not Catholic (I don’t think?)

Those are the two main “hot button” questions from my point of view, but if there was some other stuff in the book that others have read and would like to discuss, either bring it up in the comments, or drop me a line through the Contact page and I’ll see about bringing it in next week.

18
Jan

Simple shattering realisations that are really really hard to learn

I think we all know that the happiest people are those that give without thinking about themselves. But it is harder to let go and put that into practice – we have a control freak tendency to worry. Yet I know for a fact my happiest, most content friends are those that trust in God and think about others more than they think about their own happiness. Perhaps trusting more could be added to your new year’s resolutions?

This post I’m going to regurgitate someone else’s ideas – but if you’re going to steal from someone else’s ideas Peter Kreft is a good person to steal from! (By the way if you are looking for something new to read, he’s a very good Catholic writer). Here’s what he has to say:

The Way to Happiness Is Self-forgetful Love.

This took half a lifetime to appreciate, through a million experiments, every one of which proved the same result: that the way to happiness is self-forgetful love and the way to unhappiness is self-regard, self-worry, and the search for personal happiness. Our happiness comes to us only when we do not seek for it. It comes to us when we seek others’ happiness instead.

It is an embarrassingly common lesson to take so long to learn, but most of us are incredibly slow learners here. We constantly try other ways, thinking that perhaps the happiness that did not come to us the last time through selfishness will do so next time. It never does. The truth is blindingly clear, but we are clearly blind.

The secret of love is not hidden, for “God is love,” and God is not hidden. God said through his prophet Isaiah: “I did not speak in secret, / in a land of darkness; / I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, / ‘Seek me in chaos.’ / I the LORD speak the truth, / I declare what is right” (Is 45:19).

Of course God’s secret plans, which we do not need to know, are hidden. And God’s infinite nature, which finite minds cannot know, is hidden. But the thing that we need to know, God does not hide from us. He offers it to us publicly and freely. Jesus invited prospective disciples to “come and see” (In 1:39). We are told by the apostle Paul to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thes 5:21).

This lesson is so well known that even a pagan like Buddha knew it profoundly, or at least its negative half. His “second noble truth” is that the source of all unhappiness and suffering (dukkha) is selfishness (tanha). All who teach the opposite—that selfishness is the way to happiness—are unhappy souls. “By their fruits you shall know them,” as Jesus tells us. Who are the happiest people on earth? People like Mother Teresa and her nuns who have nothing, give everything, and “rejoice in the Lord always” (Phil 4:4).

“In Everything God Works for Good with Those Who Love Him.”

Another shattering realization was that Romans 8:28 was literally true: “In everything God works for good with those who love him.” This is surely the most astonishing verse in the Bible, for it certainly doesn’t look as if all things work for good. What awful things our lives contain! But if God, the all-powerful Creator and Designer and Provider of our lives, is 100 percent love, then it necessarily follows, as the night the day, that everything in his world, from birth to death, from kisses to slaps, from candy to cancer, comes to us out of God’s active or permissive love.

It is incredibly simple and perfectly reasonable. It is only our adult complexity that makes it look murky. As G.K. Chesterton says, life is always complicated for someone without principles. Here is the shining simplicity: if God is total love, then everything he wills for me must come from his love and be for my good. For that what love is, the willing of the beloved’s good. And if this God of sheer love is also omnipotent and can do anything he wills, then it follows that all things must work together for my ultimate good.

Not necessarily for my immediate good, for short-range harm may be the necessary road to long-range good. And not necessarily for my apparent good, for appearances may be deceiving. Thus suffering does not seem good. But it can always work for my real and ultimate good. Even the bad things I and others do, though they do not come from God, are allowed by God because they are included in his plan. You can’t checkmate, corner, surprise, or beat him. “He’s got the whole world in his hands,” as the old gospel chorus tells us. And he’s got my whole life in his hands, too. He could take away any evil—natural, human, or demonic—like swatting a fly. He allows it only because it works out for our greater good in the end, just as it did with Job.

In fact, every atom in the universe moves exactly as it does only because omnipotent Love designed it so. Dante was right: it is “the love that moves the sun and all the stars.” This is not poetic fancy but sober, logical fact. Therefore, the most profound thing you can say really is this simple children’s grace for meals: “God is great and God is good; let us thank him for our food. Amen!” I had always believed in God’s love and God’s omnipotence. But once I put the two ideas together, saw the unavoidable logical conclusion (Rom 8:28), and applied this truth to my life, I could never again see the world the same way. If God is great (omnipotent) and God is good (loving), then everything that happens is our spiritual food; and we can and should thank him for it. Yet how often we fail to recognize and appreciate this simple but profound truth.

Source: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/three-ideas.htm

17
Jan

Pope + Ecology + Human Dignity = Outrage

I found this article by Michael Cook on MercatorNet and wanted to share it with you.

Gays angered by Pope’s stand on ecology

If nominations for the best bright idea of 2008 are still open, I’m voting for Pope Benedict XVI’s “ecology of man”. It goes without saying that this will not pass unchallenged. His intriguing suggestion surfaced in a speech to his staff a couple of days before Christmas — and instantly the gay lobby had conniptions.

An Anglican priest in London, Giles Fraser, founder of the pro-gay Inclusive Church movement, told the London Times: “I thought the Christmas angels said, ‘Fear not’. Instead, the Pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet. And that’s just absurd. As always, this sort of religious homophobia will be an alibi for all those who would do gay people harm.”

What did the Pope actually say?

He was discrete, but it doesn’t take much to read between the lines. He said that the Church had a duty to “protect Man from destroying himself”. The Church “ought to safeguard not only the earth, water, and air as gifts of creation, belonging to everyone. It ought also to protect man against the destruction of himself” by gender-bending. True, it was a critique of homosexuality, but it was not based on the yuck factor or even primarily on the Bible.

He did not intend to insult gays, either. Even the gay Australian writer David Marr acknowledged that. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, he scolded his over-sensitive buddies: “But poofs who love the planet more than themselves should acknowledge the pontiff was onto something here: not just saving homosexuals from their ‘own destruction’ but announcing a new role for the church defending ‘the earth, water, air, as gifts of the creation that belongs to all of us’”.

Marr’s reaction suggests that the notion that man is part of the ecological web could be fruitful and persuasive. It could, in fact, lead to a better understanding of why homosexuality is wrong and a violation of human dignity.

But to grasp why, you have to read the original text,not just scraps from jaded Vatican journos. These were not just off-the-cuff remarks. Instead, they represent a consistent theme in Benedict’s teaching: that because nature has been created by God, it is rational, orderly and ultimately comprehensible. Hence it is possible to carry on a rational dialogue with people like David Marr.

This is an idea that Benedict visits again and again, and it is very similar to his critique of Islam in his Regensburg address a couple of years ago. In that controversial speech he declared that “The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby.”

In his Christmas speech, Benedict plays the same tune. Human bodies, having been created by God, are evidence for an authentic sexual morality: “The fact that the earth, the cosmos, mirror the Creator Spirit, clearly means that their rational structures which, transcending the mathematical order, become almost palpable in our experience, bear within themselves an ethical orientation.” If the biology of male and female sexuality are complementary, there must be an ultimate reason for it. A rational person searches for that reason and draws ethical conclusions.

He also appeals to a principle that now seems self-evident, at least in the Western world: that we trash the environment at our peril. Why? Because “the earth is not simply our possession which we can plunder according to our interests and desires. It is rather a gift of the Creator who has designed its intrinsic laws and with this has given us the basic directions for us to adhere as stewards of his creation.”

Man, even though he has a spiritual element, is part of this ecology. He may not – he cannot – reshape himself without risking his own destruction, just as abusing the atmosphere, the earth or the sea could lead to catastrophe.

“When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman and asks that this order of creation be respected, it is not the result of an outdated metaphysics. It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term ‘gender’, results finally in the self-emancipation of man from creation and from the Creator. Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him.”

Admittedly, this will not be easy for supporters of homosexuality to accept. What they feel is that biology is less important than the longings of the heart, or the desire to conquer and manipulate nature. They are unwitting disciples of Francis Bacon, the English Renaissance philosopher who argued that the destiny of science and technology was to remake and triumph over nature. In his recent encyclical Spe Salvi, Benedict treated Bacon as an important figure, whose naïve enthusiasm for scientific progress ended up justifying the terrifying and destructive potential of modern technology. Not long ago Bacon was worshipped as a visionary thinker, but contemporary philosophers are less complimentary. They regard him as a forerunner of Western science’s continuing legacy of alienation, exploitation, and ecological oppression. Someday, the Pope hints, we will realise that the gay culture is just an extension of this.

The inescapable fact of human existence is that we are both rational and animal. As W.B. Yeats put it in one of his great poems, we live “sick with desire / And fastened to a dying animal”. Even if our reason transcends it, we are as much part of the ecology as beetles and sea gulls. We can no more defy the laws of nature than they can.

Will the Pope’s brief words, just a couple of dense paragraphs actually, convince people that homosexuality is “unnatural”? Absolutely not. But they could spark a realisation that it is inconsistent to demand respect for the laws of ecology with the single exception of man himself. When that philosophy was adopted by the Industrial Revolution, it turned forests into deserts, fields into wastelands and seas into stagnant ponds. Benedict wants us to see that the Sexual Revolution could do much the same.