Saturday, March 26, 2011

Jesus of Nazareth: "Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection" by Pope Benedict XVI

Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection
Pope Benedict XVI. Ignatius Press (March 10, 2011).

For Christians, Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, who died for the sins of the world, and who rose from the dead in triumph over sin and death. For non-Christians, he is almost anything else-myth, a political revolutionary, a prophet whose teaching was misunderstood or distorted by his followers.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and no myth, revolutionary, or misunderstood prophet, insists Benedict XVI. He thinks that the best of historical scholarship, while it can't "prove" Jesus is the Son of God, certainly doesn't disprove it. Indeed, Benedict maintains that the evidence, fairly considered, brings us face-to-face with the challenge of Jesus-a real man who taught and acted in ways that were tantamount to claims of divine authority, claims not easily dismissed as lunacy or deception.

Benedict XVI presents this challenge in his new book, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, the sequel volume to Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration.

Why was Jesus rejected by the religious leaders of his day? Who was responsible for his death? Did he establish a Church to carry on his work? How did Jesus view his suffering and death? How should we? And, most importantly, did Jesus really rise from the dead and what does his resurrection mean? The story of Jesus raises these and other crucial questions.

Benedict brings to his study the vast learning of a brilliant scholar, the passionate searching of a great mind, and the deep compassion of a pastor's heart. In the end, he dares readers to grapple with the meaning of Jesus' life, teaching, death, and resurrection. Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection challenges both believers and unbelievers to decide who Jesus of Nazareth is and what he means for them.

From the Publishers

Excerpts

Reviews

Audio

News, Commentary, Discussion

Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments
Labels: ,

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Gained Horizons: Regensburg and the Enlargement of Reason

Gained Horizons: Regensburg and the Enlargement of Reason Gained Horizons: Regensburg and the Enlargement of Reason
Edited by Bainard Cowan.
St. Augustines Press; 1 edition (February 10, 2011)

Gained Horizons takes up Pope Benedict XVI’s invitation, issued in his lecture at the University of Regensburg, to enter into the dialogue of cultures by “broadening our concept of reason” to “once more disclose its vast horizons.” Benedict placed in the foreground the notion of God as acting with reason, and said of “this great logos, this breadth of reason,” that “to rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”The contributors to Gained Horizons conduct their inquiries down the paths of their disciplines of thought – philosophy, theology, political thought and literary criticism – examining the broader nature of reason and the forces that oppose it today in politics, culture, and education.

Several of the most distinguished and most stimulating commentators on the public scene come together in Gained Horizons to focus on the challenges and hopes of reason. Jean Bethke Elshtain finds in the conception of a God Who is approachable by reason the root of the subjection of rulers to law, even laws that they themselves have made. To Peter Lawler, Pope Benedict articulates a science adequate to the achievement of the American Founders and thus urgent to recover, since American public opinion tends both to deny reason in the name of freedom and to rigidify reason in the name of democratic science. R. R. Reno looks at the contemporary university and finds not so much a relativism as a loss of intellectual ambition, of the confidence that the disciplines can help us understand how we can live our lives. As Reno points out the dangers of relying on theory without traditional wisdom to solve human problems, Glenn Arbery describes Dostoevsky’s vision of modern man imprisoned in theory and his rescue by reason and grace in the action of Crime and Punishment. Nalin Ranasinghe then sketches out some of the implications of the Regensburg Address for philosophers in particular and the university in general; Pope Benedict challenges the academy to recove the full richness of the gift of reason. These and other contributors combine to launch not only a critique of the contemporary scene but an envisioning of the ever-present sources of logos that stand ready to be regenerated in our time.

Bainard Cowan is Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Louisiana State University. He is the author of Exiled Waters: Moby Dick and the Crisis of Allegory and editor of Poetics of the Americas and Uniting the Liberal Arts: Core and Context.

Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments
Labels:

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Pope Benedict Roundup!

NEWS

Figurines of late pope John Paul II (C) and Benedict XVI are on display at a Vatican shop on January 14, 2011. John Paul II is to be beatified on May 1, 2011, the Vatican announced, after Pope Benedict XVI signed an official decree. Source: Getty | Hat tip: Carlos Echevarria

COMMENTARY

  • A Book in the Backpack. With the Pope's Autograph 02/05/11 - It is the catechism for the very young. It will be launched at the worldwide gathering in Madrid. Benedict XVI is betting on it heavily, and recommending it. "Because it speaks to us of our own destiny," more compelling than a crime novel. Sandro Magister reports on a third edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "aimed at young people between the ages of 14 and 20, in a language expected to be more suited to them."

Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments
Labels:

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Honeymoon with the Pope

If you are planning a trip to Rome within a year of your wedding, you are eligible to receive a special blessing from the Holy Father:
Hello! We are JonMarc and Teresa Grodi, just married in June 2010. We found out about the possibility of meeting the Pope at a general audience few months before our wedding and did everything we could to honeymoon in Europe. We attended the June 30th general audience with Holy Father Benedict XVI and received a special blessing over our marriage. We wore our wedding attire and received special tickets to sit in a section right near the Pope’s platform. At times, the Holy Father will walk over an greet with the Sposi Novelli (newlyweds)with a handshake and a blessing. We were so blessed to be able to attend that we would like to help other couples have the same opportunity.
Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments

Saturday, January 01, 2011

Pope Benedict's 2010 Christmas Address to the Roman Curia

On December 20, 2010, Pope Benedict gave his traditional annual speech and exchange of Christmas greetings to the Roman Curia in the Regia Hall of the Vatican. Here is the full text of the address. To assist in my own belated reading of the document, I found it helpful to break down his talk into various bulleted thoughts/subjects (which might prove helpful for others):

Photo Credit: Reuters December 20, 2010
  • Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni. ["Awaken your power, Lord, and come"] - Pope Benedict calls to mind the Advent prayer, "probably formulated as the Roman Empire was in decline" and is parallel in contemporary times:
    The disintegration of the key principles of law and of the fundamental moral attitudes underpinning them burst open the dams which until that time had protected peaceful coexistence among peoples. The sun was setting over an entire world. ...

    For all its new hopes and possibilities, our world is at the same time troubled by the sense that moral consensus is collapsing, consensus without which juridical and political structures cannot function. Consequently the forces mobilized for the defence of such structures seem doomed to failure.

  • Benedict turns to one of the "great tribulations" plaguing the Church in the past year:
    ... when in this year of all years [The Year for Priests] and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime.

  • The scandal of clergy abuse calls to Benedict's mind Saint Hildegard of Bingen's vision of the Church - "a woman of such beauty that the human mind is unable to comprehend", face shining "with exceeding brightness" and gaze fixed on heaven -- but also "stained with dust, her robe was ripped down the right side, her cloak had lost its sheen of beauty and her shoes had been blackened":
    And she continued: ‘I lay hidden in the heart of the Father until the Son of Man, who was conceived and born in virginity, poured out his blood. With that same blood as his dowry, he made me his betrothed.

    For my Bridegroom’s wounds remain fresh and open as long as the wounds of men’s sins continue to gape. And Christ’s wounds remain open because of the sins of priests. They tear my robe, since they are violators of the Law, the Gospel and their own priesthood; they darken my cloak by neglecting, in every way, the precepts which they are meant to uphold; my shoes too are blackened, since priests do not keep to the straight paths of justice, which are hard and rugged, or set good examples to those beneath them. Nevertheless, in some of them I find the splendour of truth.’

  • The Church's humiliation in this scandal is nothing if not a call to renewal, to rediscover the truth of the gospel and to reaffirm the priestly vocation:
    Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood.

  • According to Benedict, the abuse scandal must be placed within the greater context: the "tyranny of mammon", the enthronement of pleasure above all else -- as evidenced by the increase (and acceptance of) the markets of child pornogoraphy, sexual tourism and the drug trade. "No pleasure is ever enough, and the excess of deceiving intoxication becomes a violence that tears whole regions apart – and all this in the name of a fatal misunderstanding of freedom which actually undermines man’s freedom and ultimately destroys it."

    In addressing these evils, Benedict reminds us that we must look to their ideological foundation, a "fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos":
    ... It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist.
    Supplementary Note: Benedict's remarks here are illustrated by the following report: The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far, by Jan Fleischhauer and Wiebke Hollersen. (Der Spiegel July 2, 2010), which acknowledges:
    In the debate on sexual abuse, one of the elements is confusion as to where the line should be drawn in interactions with children. It is a confusion not limited to the Catholic Church. Indeed, it was precisely in so-called progressive circles that an eroticization of childhood and a gradual lowering of taboos began. It was a shift that even allowed for the possibility of sex with children.

  • The latter part of Benedict's address turns to other matters -- the Synod for the Churches of the Middle East and relations with the Orthodox Church:
    ... Even if full communion is not yet granted to us, we have nevertheless established with joy that the basic form of the ancient Church unites us profoundly with one another: the sacramental office of Bishops as the bearer of apostolic tradition, the reading of Scripture according to the hermeneutic of the Regula fidei, the understanding of Scripture in its manifold unity centred on Christ, developed under divine inspiration, and finally, our faith in the central place of the Eucharist in the Church’s life.
    Benedict laments the turmoil of recent years, where "the tradition of peaceful coexistence" between Christians of various rites, and with other religions as well, has been shattered by increasing tension and violence. "We witness with increasing alarm acts of violence in which there is no longer any respect for what the other holds sacred, in which on the contrary the most elementary rules of humanity collapse." In response, the Synod developed "a grand concept of dialogue, forgiveness and mutual acceptance":
    The human being is one, and humanity is one. Whatever damage is done to another in any one place, ends up by damaging everyone. Thus the words and ideas of the Synod must be a clarion call, addressed to all people with political or religious responsibility, to put a stop to Christianophobia; to rise up in defence of refugees and all who are suffering, and to revitalize the spirit of reconciliation. In the final analysis, healing can only come from deep faith in God’s reconciling love.

  • Benedict turns briefly to his momentous visit to the United Kingdom, and to his meeting with representatives of culture at Westminster Hall -- where the figure of Saint Thomas More provided opportunity to address "the perennial question of the relationship between what is owed to Caesar and what is owed to God, [and] the proper place of religious belief within the political process."

    According to Benedict,
    Each generation, as it seeks to advance the common good, must ask anew: what are the requirements that governments may reasonably impose upon citizens, and how far do they extend? By appeal to what authority can moral dilemmas be resolved? These questions take us directly to the ethical foundations of civil discourse. If the moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident - herein lies the real challenge for democracy. [...]

    The central question at issue, then, is this: where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found?

    Benedict directs the Curia's attention to the observation of the French Catholic political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville:

    that democracy in America had become possible and had worked because there existed a fundamental moral consensus which, transcending individual denominations, united everyone. Only if there is such a consensus on the essentials can constitutions and law function. This fundamental consensus derived from the Christian heritage is at risk wherever its place, the place of moral reasoning, is taken by the purely instrumental rationality of which I spoke earlier. In reality, this makes reason blind to what is essential. To resist this eclipse of reason and to preserve its capacity for seeing the essential, for seeing God and man, for seeing what is good and what is true, is the common interest that must unite all people of good will. The very future of the world is at stake.
    Tangential note: Benedict has cited Tocqueville on a number of occasions. Upon being inducted into the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques of the Institut de France in 1992, then-Cardinal Ratzinger remarked that Tocqueville's "Democracy in America has always made a strong impression on me." Tocqueville was also referenced in Without Roots his published correspondence with Marcello Pera on the question of religion and the state in America and Europe.

    See also Dr. Samuel Gregg's A Tocquevillian in the Vatican (Acton Institute, February 8, 2006) and Pope Benedict's appreciation for America's religious liberty (Roundup: Benedict in America April 9, 2008).

    Benedict last turns his attention to the spiritual example and "three conversions" of Cardinal John Henry Newman, whom he beatified in September. He focuses on Newman's first conversion, from a materialism which reduced "reality" to the merely empirical ("graspable") to faith in the living God:
    In his conversion, Newman recognized that it is exactly the other way round: that God and the soul, man’s spiritual identity, constitute what is genuinely real, what counts. These are much more real than objects that can be grasped. This conversion was a Copernican revolution. What had previously seemed unreal and secondary was now revealed to be the genuinely decisive element. Where such a conversion takes place, it is not just a person’s theory that changes: the fundamental shape of life changes. We are all in constant need of such conversion: then we are on the right path.
    Newman's second conversion involved the matter of conscience and its obligations. Benedict contrasts the modern world's understanding of "conscience" (locating the final authority for moral and religious questions in the individual subject, and the subjective realm) with Newman's own understanding:
    [In the subjective realm], it is said, there are in the final analysis no objective criteria. The ultimate instance that can decide here is therefore the subject alone, and precisely this is what the word “conscience” expresses: in this realm only the individual, with his intuitions and experiences, can decide. Newman’s understanding of conscience is diametrically opposed to this. For him, “conscience” means man’s capacity for truth: the capacity to recognize precisely in the decision-making areas of his life – religion and morals – a truth, the truth. At the same time, conscience – man’s capacity to recognize truth – thereby imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it. Conscience is both capacity for truth and obedience to the truth which manifests itself to anyone who seeks it with an open heart. The path of Newman’s conversions is a path of conscience – not a path of self-asserting subjectivity but, on the contrary, a path of obedience to the truth that was gradually opening up to him.
    Newman's third conversion, of course, is his passage from the Anglican church to Rome. (Do pick up Newman's chronicle of his conversion and defense of his decision, Apologia pro vita Sua). Much is made by liberal Catholics of Newman's toast, "first to conscience and then to the Pope," which seemingly pits one's conscience against the Church -- and identifies Newman's personal understanding of conscience with the modern, subjective one. Benedict disagrees:
    [I]n this statement, “conscience” does not signify the ultimately binding quality of subjective intuition. It is an expression of the accessibility and the binding force of truth: on this its primacy is based. The second toast can be dedicated to the Pope because it is his task to demand obedience to the truth.
  • Benedict concludes with a reiteration of the Advent prayer, Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni. We - "plea for the presence of God’s power in our time and from the experience of his apparent absence." Even in the midst of the present darkness and trying times, "God's power and goodness are present today in many different ways."
    I entrust these prayerful sentiments to the intercession of the Holy Virgin, Mother of the Redeemer, and I impart to all of you and to the great family of the Roman Curia a heartfelt Apostolic Blessing. Happy Christmas!
Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Merry Christmas!

... Saint Luke does not say that the angels sang. He states quite soberly: the heavenly host praised God and said: “Glory to God in the highest” (Lk 2:13f.). But men have always known that the speech of angels is different from human speech, and that above all on this night of joyful proclamation it was in song that they extolled God’s heavenly glory. So this angelic song has been recognized from the earliest days as music proceeding from God, indeed, as an invitation to join in the singing with hearts filled with joy at the fact that we are loved by God. Cantare amantis est, says Saint Augustine: singing belongs to one who loves. Thus, down the centuries, the angels’ song has again and again become a song of love and joy, a song of those who love. At this hour, full of thankfulness, we join in the singing of all the centuries, singing that unites heaven and earth, angels and men. Yes, indeed, we praise you for your glory. We praise you for your love. Grant that we may join with you in love more and more and thus become people of peace.
~ Pope Benedict XVI
Solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord (Midnight Mass)
December 24, 2010

'Mystic Nativity' - 1500, Sandro Botticelli
God in fact does not change: he is faithful to himself. He who created the world is the same one who called Abraham and revealed his name to Moses: “I am who I am … the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob … a God merciful and gracious, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (cf. Ex 3:14-15; 34:6). God does not change; he is Love, ever and always. In himself he is communion, unity in Trinity, and all his words and works are directed to communion. The Incarnation is the culmination of creation. When Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, was formed in the womb of Mary by the will of the Father and the working of the Holy Spirit, creation reached its high point. The ordering principle of the universe, the Logos, began to exist in the world, in a certain time and space.

“The Word became flesh”. The light of this truth is revealed to those who receive it in faith, for it is a mystery of love. Only those who are open to love are enveloped in the light of Christmas. So it was on that night in Bethlehem, and so it is today. The Incarnation of the Son of God is an event which occurred within history, while at the same time transcending history. In the night of the world a new light was kindled, one which lets itself be seen by the simple eyes of faith, by the meek and humble hearts of those who await the Saviour. If the truth were a mere mathematical formula, in some sense it would impose itself by its own power. But if Truth is Love, it calls for faith, for the “yes” of our hearts.

~ Pope Benedict XVI
"Urbi et Orbi" - Christmas Day 2010

Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The CDF issues a "clarification" on condoms - but the debate continues

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has weighed in on the Great Catholic Condom Conundrum of 2010, provoked by the Pope's remarks (and varying interpretations thereof) in Light of the World:
Following the publication of the interview-book "Light of the World" by Benedict XVI, a number of erroneous interpretations have emerged which have caused confusion concerning the position of the Catholic Church regarding certain questions of sexual morality. The thought of the Pope has been repeatedly manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the meaning of his words – a meaning which is evident to anyone who reads the entire chapters in which human sexuality is treated. The intention of the Holy Father is clear: to rediscover the beauty of the divine gift of human sexuality and, in this way, to avoid the cheapening of sexuality which is common today.

Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern – as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church’s stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope – which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. "Light of the World," pp. 117-119) – do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church.

As is clear from an attentive reading of the pages in question, the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception. This norm belongs to the tradition of the Church and was summarized succinctly by Pope Paul VI in paragraph 14 of his Encyclical Letter "Humanae vitae," when he wrote that "also to be excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought. On this issue the Pope proposes instead – and also calls the pastors of the Church to propose more often and more effectively (cf. "Light of the World," p. 147) – humanly and ethically acceptable ways of behaving which respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of every conjugal act, through the possible use of natural family planning in view of responsible procreation.

On the pages in question, the Holy Father refers to the completely different case of prostitution, a type of behaviour which Christian morality has always considered gravely immoral (cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution "Gaudium et spes," n. 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2355). The response of the entire Christian tradition – and indeed not only of the Christian tradition – to the practice of prostitution can be summed up in the words of St. Paul: "Flee from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18). The practice of prostitution should be shunned, and it is the duty of the agencies of the Church, of civil society and of the State to do all they can to liberate those involved from this practice.

In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment – because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute "the real or moral solution" to the problem of AIDS and also that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality" in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom "with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father’s previous statement that this is "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."

Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the "lesser evil". This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Veritatis splendor," n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say – as some people have claimed – that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.

In conclusion, in the battle against AIDS, the Catholic faithful and the agencies of the Catholic Church should be close to those affected, should care for the sick and should encourage all people to live abstinence before and fidelity within marriage. In this regard it is also important to condemn any behaviour which cheapens sexuality because, as the Pope says, such behaviour is the reason why so many people no longer see in sexuality an expression of their love: "This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being" ("Light of the World," p. 119).

Reactions

As David Schütz exclaims, this is a “Clarification” that could have done a bit more “clarifying”:
The clarification of “the lesser evil” theory is a good one, but of course draws on the earlier magisterium of John Paul II. The reference, by the way, is to a lengthy passage in Veritatis Splendor. Paragraph 75 begins by saying that “there exist false solutions, linked in particular to an inadequate understanding of the object of moral action” – and that is certainly pertinent to this discussion. He discusses “teleologism”, (ie. “consequentialism” and “proportionalism”), and rejects the view that “deliberate consent to certain kinds of behaviour declared illicit by traditional moral theology would not imply an objective moral evil”. The rest of the discussion concerns the nature of “the object of the deliberate act” – all pertinent to this discussion.

That’s pretty fundamental, but perhaps more important to a clarification of the Pope’s statements would have been a clarification of whether or not what the Pope did say actually applies also to heterosexual married couples – this has been the main concern of the debate. The Note says:

The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.
But that isn’t quite exactly what the debate has been about in this instance. The question has been whether it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, for a couple to use condoms to avoid an unwanted infection, even if the secondary effect was also to reduce the chance of pregnancy to virtually nil. A clear yes or no on that issue would have been good.

A Select English Language Bibliography for Understanding the Benedict XVI/Condom Debate , compiled by Joe Trabbic (End of the Modern World). "This is a very select (i.e., incomplete) bibliography, arranged in chronological order, to help those interested in understanding the Benedict XVI/condom debate, which, despite the note issued yesterday by the Holy Office, may still (for better or worse) have life left in it."
Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments

Monday, December 20, 2010

Pope Benedict Roundup!

The Benedict Blog features a complete roundup of reviews and discussion of Pope Benedict XVI's new book, Light of the World. Following are some additional links to news and commentary that caught our attention in the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI.

News

Commentary

On a lighter note ...

Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments
Labels:

Pope Benedict, Fr. Rhonheimer, Janet Smith and Steven Long - The "Condom Conundrum" Continues

Granted that there is much more in Light of the World, Pope Benedict's latest book length interview with Peter Seewald. (The Benedict Fan Club has in fact an ongoing compilation of reviews and discussions of the book addressing various topics other than prophylactics. Nevertheless, the great condom controversy surrounding the Pope's remarks (and interpretation thereof) goes on. A few weeks ago I had noted that Catholic responses are coalescing into two particular camps: . Those who interpret the Pope's words as affirming the use of condoms in "exceptional" circumstances -- and those who say he meant nothing of the sort.. George Weigel picks up on this internal debate in "The Pope, the Church, and the Condom: Clarifying the State of the Question" (First Things' "On The Square" 12/17/10):
While the media furor remained, in the main, vulgar (with one prominent Catholic commentator from the port side declaring the Pope’s statements in Light of the World and Father Lombardi’s attempted clarification a “game-changer,” as if these questions involved the sort of games academics and journalists play), one serious debate did break out in the Catholic blogosphere. It centered around the Swiss theologian Martin Rhonheimer, a priest of Opus Dei, who in 2004 had speculated that the use of the condom to prevent HIV/AIDS infection, when motivated by a prophylactic intention, might not fall under the Church’s settled opposition to contraception.

Some (including Fr. Rhonheimer) found echoes of those speculations in the Pope’s book and Fr. Lombardi’s statements. Others, including Dr. Steven Long, found real trouble brewing. As Long put it in an exceptionally thoughtful blog posting, Rhonheimer’s position, no matter how intelligently argued, is intentionalism.

Weigel offers a good summarization of where things stand today, and I whole heartedly agree with his recommendation that "it would seem opportune for an indisputably authoritative voice, capable of speaking in the name of the Church, to publish a substantial clarification of the issues that have surfaced over the past month."

Here is a compilation of recent posts and developments in the debate:

  • From Luke Gormally, Marriage and the Prophylactic Use of Condoms National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. Winter 2005, pp. 735-749. ("The background to this article is a friendly e-mail exchange I had with Fr. Martin Rhonheimer in the late summer of 2004, following an article he published in the July 10, 2004, issue of The Tablet).

  • 12/01/10: Friendly Fire on Benedict XVI. And a Condom's to Blame - According to Sandro Magister, "the pope's openness to the use of condoms is provoking lively reactions from some fervent 'Ratzingerians'" -- including Fr. Joseph Fessio, head of the Pope's North American publishing house Ignatius Press. (Magister himself is of the position that Benedict's remarks reveal an "openness" to the use of condoms in exceptional circumstances).

  • 12/04/10: Church and Condoms. The "No" of the Diehards - Sandro Magister publishes a statement from the Bishops episcopal conference of Kenya asserting that "that the position of the Catholic Church as regards the use of condoms, both as a means of contraception and as a means of addressing the grave issue of HIV/AIDS infection has not changed, and [its use] remains as always unacceptable." In addition, he publishes a responses from Dr. Joseph Fessio, Dr. Steven Long, and Christine de Marcellus Vollmer of the Pontifical Academy for Life -- all of whom take umbrage at Magister's characterization of their remarks as "friendly fire" against the Pope.

  • 12/11/10: On the Condom and AIDS, the Pope Has Come Down from the Cathedra - Sandro Magister publishes an exclusive statement from (and interview with) Martin Rhonheimer of Switzerland (professor at Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, the Roman university of Opus Dei), who clarifies his own position on the matter. Fr. Rhonheimer also reiterates four points about the Pope's teaching in Light of the World:

    1. "It in no way changes Church doctrine on contraception; what he said rather confirms this doctrine as taught by Humanae Vitae."
    2. "His statement does not declare condom use to be morally unproblematic or generally permitted, even for prophylactic purposes. ... What is justified, rather, is the judgment that this can be considered to be a 'first step' and 'a first assumption of responsibility.' Benedict certainly did not want to establish a moral norm justifying exceptions."
    3. "[W]hat Pope Benedict says does not refer to married people: He spoke only about situations which are in themselves intrinsically disordered."
    4. "[T]he pope does not advocate the distribution of condoms, which he believes leads to the 'banalization' of sexuality."

  • 12/18/10: Professor Luke Gormally, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and director emeritus of the London-based Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, pens an open letter to Fr. Martin Rhonheimer (reprinted by Sandro Magister, Chiesa).

  • 12/18/10: A Public Letter to Sandro Magister by Dr. Steven Long (End of the Modern World):
    I print it here because its content is pertinent to the confusion being propounded first by Fr. Rhonheimer, and now by one of his chief critics, Luke Gormally. Evidently the two share one common significant error: that the absence of a public condemnation by the CDF is the same as a public vindication issued by the CDF. Certainly there is need for clarification, as George Weigel has pointed out. But the CDF has never declared the position of Rhonheimer in his famed Tablet article to be wholly unproblematic, much less publicly endorsed it. My further question: should not this significant observation which is a simple matter of fact be acknowledged as such by the parties to the conversation?
  • 12/19/10: Ethicist: Pope intended condom use/AIDS reflection - Our Sunday Visitor's John Norton interviews Fr. Rhonheimer, in which -- regarding his widely-cited article in the Tablet, he states:
    After publishing that article in July 2004 and becoming aware that, unexpectedly for me, it was being heavily criticized by some moral theologians faithful to the Magisterium, I sent the article to the CDF, and was subsequently informed that they had no problem with it. I suppose that Cardinal Ratzinger came to know that article. I don’t recall ever having discussed the topic with him. I assume, however, that the Holy Father was informed about my views, and know that the CDF certainly followed the subsequent debate in scholarly journals. I don’t know, therefore, whether the then Cardinal Ratzinger was supportive of what I wrote in the Tablet article.
    Rhonheimer goes on to criticize what he sees as two erroneous views: 1) that the use of the condom can be adequately described as a "lesser evil" and even a moral duty; 2) that condoms were intrinsically evil and their use could never be justified. He responds to various criticisms of his Tablet article and the development of his position since then.
    What seems to me to be clear after the Holy Father’s statement on condoms is that the question of prophylactic condom use and the moral question of contraception, as a doctrine about marital love, are to be distinguished. To use a condom for prophylactic reasons is not contraception; if it intrinsically deprives marital acts of their procreative meaning, this is not because it embodies a contraceptive choice. If a condom is used by people engaging in intrinsically immoral behavior, such as prostitutes, it might even be, as the pope has now asserted, a first assumption of responsibility and a step towards humanization of sexuality. To see things in this differentiated way, I think, is an important clarification.
    The debate in Our Sunday Visitor (12/19/10) continues with:

  • Rumor that there is No Problem with Fr. Rhonheimer's work, heard by: Fr. Rhonheimer!!! Steven Long protests:
    Whatever a private consultor or associate of the CDF may have confided to Fr. Rhonheimer, surely it is not a formal judgment of the CDF to the effect that the Tablet article from 2004 is wholly unproblematic. Further, for Fr. Rhonheimer to suggest this is to suggest that the Church as such has made its judgments and found his teaching to be unproblematic. Such a judgment requires evidence, and the CDF has made no such public holding, nor does a private remark of someone associated with the CDF constitute evidence.
    Long also comments on Rhonheimer's view that prophylactic use of condoms in heterosexual intercourse need not be contraceptive:
    Of course, this is intentionalism. It is to argue that because one intends prophylaxis, therefore such condom use is not contraceptive. This is precisely the effort to define "direct" and "indirect" with respect to moral action by reference solely to intention while excluding essential reference to the nature of that which is chosen. Yet the putatively good effect achieved through condom use--that of preventing dissemination of disease--is in heterosexual intercourse achieved only by means of the evil effect of a contraceptive blocking of the transmission of procreative matter. Fr. Rhonheimer does not wish to call this "contraception" because for him, not the nature of the act, but rather, exclusively the intention of the agent, determines whether contraception occurs.

  • 12/22/10: Following the official Note on the trivilization of sexuality. Regarding certain interpretations of Light of the World, Sandro Magister issues another column: Professor Rhonheimer Writes. And the Holy Office Agrees, in which Fr. Rhonheimer pens a "reply to the open letter of Luke Gormally" of the Pontifical Academy for Life -- also published by Magister 12/18/10).

    Fr. Rhonheimer first addresses the charge laid against him that he gave the impression that his position was endorsed by the CDF ("I never suggested that my article had been officially examined or its content been formally approved by the Congregation"). With respect to the criticism of Dr. Janet Smith (Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit MI), George Weigel and others, he maintains that they "have sought to give a particular interpretation of the Pope’s remarks which in my view is forced and unsustainable [and] clearly considered the Pope to be mistaken."

    The remainder of his letter he mounts a lengthy rebuttal to Luke Gormally, Steven Long and George Weigel's critique of his (alleged?) position:

    What I said has nothing to do with “intentionalism,” as some claim without having studied – or by clearly misrepresenting – my writings about this subject. Steven A. Long, for example, who has repeated this charge against me on www.chiesa as well as his blog, despite being repeatedly shown by me and others that he was wrong in blaming me for this, and that he gravely misrepresented my views on “object” and “intention.” George Weigel now echoes Long’s charges without apparently having studied my work on this topic; he writes as if my views were the end of Catholic presence in health care institutions. Relying on Steven Long, Weigel makes the following wild assertion on his "First Things" blog: “If the Rhonheimer approach were adopted, [Long] cautioned, that would ‘signal the end of any distinctive Catholic presence in hospitals, or in the bio-medical conversations of the day, because intentionalism is frankly a doctrine that can justify anything...’.” This comes near to slander and is a most regrettable misconstrual of my arguments. These are not methods used in debates but in political campaigns designed to force change through the application of pressure – in this case, by raising the spectre of the Church losing its distinctive witness. Long and Weigel’s remarks are corrosive of the collegiality and mutual respect that should characterize Catholic intellectual life; that they have been published by people with which I am connected in a friendly way causes me both perplexity and additional distress.

    My position on the questions is very far from “intentionalism”: it is the fruit of an analysis of the nature of human acts in studies written during the last 25 years.

    Sandro Magister claims the CDF's statement as vindication of Fr. Rhonheimer:

    "The note agrees completely with Rhonheimer's positions ... Those who - like Luke Gormally of the Pontifical Academy for Life ... were urging the congregation to make a statement that would definitively settle the discussion and quell the "confusion" produced by the pope's words, cannot help but be disappointed."
  • Rhonheimer Cries "Slander" Through Media Megaphone - Response by Dr. Steven Long:
    In his recent letter published by Magister (Dec. 22), Rhonheimer protests that my sense of the nature and implications of his position "comes near to slander". It would be better for Fr. Rhonheimer to answer the question: does the object of the moral act include the integral nature and per se effects of the act, or is it purely a function of intention? I think his position reduces to the latter, and that this is intentionalism. He does not like the imputation and cries "slander". I further think that the practical effect of his analysis, were it to be embraced, would indeed be the death of Catholic witness with respect to bio-medical issues, the Catholic presence in hospitals, etc., all lost under the endless obscurations of the nature of what is done in behalf of exclusive preoccupation with intention. The answer to this is again the imputation of slander. But that is beneath the dignity of a speculative exchange.

A Select English Language Bibliography for Understanding the Benedict XVI/Condom Debate , compiled by Joe Trabbic (End of the Modern World). "This is a very select (i.e., incomplete) bibliography, arranged in chronological order, to help those interested in understanding the Benedict XVI/condom debate, which, despite the note issued yesterday by the Holy Office, may still (for better or worse) have life left in it."
Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments

Friday, November 26, 2010

The Joseph Ratzinger - Benedict XVI Foundation

On Friday, November 26, a press conference was held to announce the establishment of the "Joseph Ratzinger - Benedict XVI" foundation. From the Vatican Information Service:
The conference was presented by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, president of the foundation's academic committee; Msgr. Giuseppe Antonio Scotti, president of the foundation, and Fr. Stephan Otto Horn S.D.S, president of the "Ratzinger Schulerkreis" and of the "Joseph Ratzinger Papst Benedict XVI - Siftung".

Msgr. Scotti explained how on 1 March this year the Holy Father had ordered the creation of a new foundation, with the name of "Vatican Foundation: Joseph Ratzinger - Benedict XVI", in order "to respond to a desire expressed by many scholars over the course of the years". As regards the financing of the new body, he explained, "a first ample contribution will come from the Pontiff himself, who has chosen to devolve a large part of the proceeds from his author rights".

According to Cardinal Ruini, the academic comittee of the Joseph Ratzinger - Benedict XVI Foundation will have three tasks:
"[F]irstly, drawing up criteria and objectives for the annual and long-term programme of the foundation's activities; secondly, establishing criteria of excellence for the creation and conferral of prizes to scholars who have distinguished themselves in academic publications and/or research; and finally, organising cultural and academic initiatives".

"The theology of Joseph Ratzinger moves forward, looking to the present and the future on the basis of an extraordinary knowledge of the origins and history of the Christian faith. His capacity, what I would call his tastefulness, in keeping these two aspects united ... likens Joseph Ratzinger to great teachers of other periods of Christian history. It is no coincidence that the foundation which bears his name will focus particular attention, on the one hand on biblical and patristic studies, and on the other on fundamental theology. The aim is to bring out the truth, significance and beauty of Christianity in its relationship with contemporary culture and society".

Fr. Horn then spoke to explain that, even before Cardinal Ratzinger's election to the papacy, his students had thought of creating a Joseph Ratzinger Foundation. "Not only did they feel profound gratitude towards their teacher", he said, "but they were also deeply convinced of the importance of his theology for the Church. ... In the meeting of the 'Schulerkreis' with the Holy Father at Castelgandolfo in 2007 we received his approval to create an autonomous foundation".

This foundation, Fr. Horn went on, "has a clear direction and broad ranging projects. Its goal is to promote the study of Joseph Ratzinger's theology and spirituality, propagating his ideas in the Church and society, and ensuring they are absorbed. Thus will his memory be conserved for the future".

Among the foundation's projects are the creation of a chair for the visiting professor of theology during the summer term at the University of Regensburg and -- in connection with Casa Balthasar (for those discerning vocations to the priesthood) -- a study center for theology and spirituality. Also collected are more than 40 recollections of Ratzinger's former students for the establishment of an archive.
Posted by Christopher Blosser 0 comments
Subscribe to: Post Feed (RSS)