Zenit Interview With Syro-Malabar Cardinal Vithayathil

5th Dogma a Marian Antidote

Interview With Syro-Malabar Cardinal Vithayathil

KERALA, India, MAY 21, 2008 (Zenit.org).- An antidote to the challenges facing the Church and society today is the glorification of Mary through the proclamation of a fifth Marian dogma, says Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.

Cardinal Vithayathil, major archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly, is one of the five cardinals who sent a letter in January inviting prelates worldwide to join them in petitioning Benedict XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma they said would "proclaim the full Christian truth about Mary."

The text includes the petition that asks the Pope to proclaim Mary as "the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race."

In this interview with ZENIT, Cardinal Vithayathil, who turns 81 on May 29, comments on the effect the proclamation of the dogma could have on interreligious and ecumenical dialogue, and the possible fruits he foresees could result.

The Syro-Malabar Church is made up of about 3.5 million of India's 16 million Catholics.

Q: Does the Syro-Malabar rite have a particularly generous devotion to Our Lady?

Cardinal Vithayathil: Yes, the Syro-Malabar Catholics have a great tradition of intense devotion to Our Lady. There is a belief among them that the apostle St. Thomas who first preached the Gospel to their ancestors had brought with him a replica of the picture of the Blessed Virgin supposedly painted by the Evangelist Luke. Centuries before the Portuguese missionaries arrived, there were many churches dedicated to Our Lady in Malabar.

It is true that some of the liturgical books brought down from Babylon by some of the Chaldean bishops contained certain Nestorian formulae, but these in no way lessened the Marian devotion of the Syro-Malabar Catholics who were never greatly concerned with the great theological and Christological disputes.

Pope John Paul II has asserted that the Syro-Malabar Catholics were never formally separated from the Sea of St. Peter during the 20 centuries of their existence.

During the three centuries that the Latin Carmelite bishops from Europe ruled the Syro-Malabar Church, there was a deepening of devotion to Our Lady among the Syro-Malabars. Practically every member of the community wore the brown Carmelite scapular and recited the family rosary everyday.

In the apostolic constitution "Romani Pontifices," which erected the Syro-Malabar hierarchy, Pope Pius XI gives as a reason for the flourishing of the community the singular devotion of the Syro-Malabar faithful toward the Blessed Virgin Mary ("Singularem erga Beatissimam Virginem Mariam pietatem").

I believe that this Marian devotion is the reason why today 70% of all missionaries in India are children of the Syro-Malabar Church, and this Church with a population of only 3.8 million faithful can ordain 250 priests every year.

Q: Why do you think that the time is opportune for the declaration of a fifth Marian dogma?

Cardinal Vithayathil: Mary has through private revelations like those at Lourdes, Fatima, etc., made known that in the sad situations of the world today God wishes as an antidote the glorification of his mother through the recitation of the holy rosary, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, etc.

The fifth Marian dogma would certainly improve the world situation through the prayers of Mary to her divine Son. Many believe that the danger of Marxist Communism was averted by the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes, Fatima, etc., and the consequent increase in devotion to Mary.

The greatest threat that the Catholic Church faces today is consumerist relativism that has greatly affected the Western Church and even the Churches in Asia. I believe that it can be overcome by honoring Our Lady with the proposed dogma.

Q: The principal objection posed against the solemn definition of a fifth Marian dogma is the Church’s mission of ecumenism. Do you think this Marian declaration would hurt the ecumenical cause for the Church?

Cardinal Vithayathil: Not only will the solemn definition never hurt the ecumenical movement, but it will positively enhance it. I feel that it is God’s will that we should honor Our Lady in a special way at this juncture of world history. Only good can come out of doing God’s will. We should follow prudence born out of faith and not merely worldly prudence.

Almighty God is the Lord of history and he can always overcome the effects of disunity caused by human weakness. The Hindu communities in India are extremely open to the concept of "Mother," and they enthusiastically participate in the Marian devotions of the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Churches with whom we live together, already believe in this doctrine.

Q: As major archbishop of an Eastern Church, do you believe a new Marian dogma would hurt East-West relations, or distance our relationship with the Orthodox Church?

Cardinal Vithayathil: I can say that any honor given to Mary short of adoration given only to God will not cause any setback in Catholic-Orthodox relations because the contents of the proposed dogma is already part of the faith of the Orthodox Christians, though not dogmatically expressed. It may sour Catholic-Protestant relations, but Our Lady knows how to heal this.

The truth of the proposed definition is in a true sense derived from God’s choice of Mary as the mother of God and the mother of all human beings.

Q: What fruits do you foresee for the Church and the world coming from a solemn definition of Mary’s spiritual motherhood in her roles as co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate?

Cardinal Vithayathil: I foresee many fruits for the Church and the world as a result of the solemn definition of this dogma. It will bring more peace built on justice in the world. It will give a new spurt to evangelization. It will bring about greater devotion to Mary and confidence in her intercessory power.

It will make Catholics realize that just as Mary, through the merits of Jesus Christ, has become co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate for the whole human race, we too share in Mary’s threefold roles for the salvation of humankind.

Even though the content of the proposed definition is clearly taught by the Fathers and doctors of the Church, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori in his work “Glories of Mary,” an infallible definition by the Pope will help deepen the confidence of the people of God in Mary’s role as co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate.

Sylvia Berryman

Sylvia Berryman :: UBC Department of Philosophy

Cambridge, HPS Seminar Abstracts:

15 May

Sylvia Berryman (University of British Columbia) The 'mechanical hypothesis' in Ancient Greek natural philosophy

I argue that the impact of the mechanics of the Hellenistic period on ancient natural philosophy has been underappreciated, and that the reasons for its rejection by the philosophical schools of late antiquity need to be re-examined. Traces of a 'mechanical hypothesis' can be found in late antiquity; attention to this helps us understand the role of the discipline of mechanics in the history of natural philosophy. The reason for the Neoplatonist rejection of the generality of mechanical theory stem from some unsolved problems and counter evidence, rather than a blanket rejection of mechanics as mere art, as marvellous, or as working 'against nature'.

Sylvia Berryman - The Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman ...
O'Keefe's comments on Sylvia Berryman, "Ancient Automata and ...
Metaphysics, Soul, and Ethics in Ancient Thought: Themes from the ... - Google Books Result
Phronesis Vol. 48, No. 4 August 2003
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy: Volume XXIII: Winter 2002 - Google Books Result
Vision Of Humanity Democritus by Sylvia Berryman

PcH recommends the following site: Notes on the Septuagint.

Aquinas on ius

I had an exchange over at Taki Mag about ius and right. That post is here. Here is a summary of some points that I was trying to make:

1.ius: For Aquinas, ius is the object of the virtue of justice. It is an external act which gives what is due to the other, in accordance with equality. Or to simplify, it is an external action which equalizes—in the case of commutative justice, it equalizes thing with thing or action and passion, in the case of distributive justice, it equalizes thing to person.

2. Ius can be used to name different things; the medievals, and the neoscholastics gave various lists of the things that could be named by ius. Prummer, for example, gives at least 4 different things.

3. Aquinas does not deal explicitly with subjective passive rights, although it can be maintained with little difficulty that an account of subjective passive rights (having a claim on someone doing x or giving y) can be extracted from Aquinas’ works.

It can be the case that the “right to life” and the “right to property” are correlates that can be derived from what Aquinas writes about ius and justice. Or they might be derived from a different framework, such as one based on dignity or sovereignty. Aquinas does not talk about the “right to life” or the “right to property.”

For Aquinas subjective passive rights would be defined by law or logically posterior to law--it is wrong for me to kill someone, and therefore it may be said he has a right to life. This is opposed to a certain understanding of rights in which rights are prior to law--I have a right to life, therefore it is wrong for you to kill me.

Murder is prohibited because it is unjust. If one believes that capital punishment is legitimatae then he concedes the right to life is not absolute, but is restricted by other precepts and moral considerations. Hence the “right to life” is delimited by law and not the other way around.

4. For an action to violate ius-titia, it must violate ius, right?

Is an act unjust because it violates "ius?" No. An act is judged to be unjust because it is in discord with the mean determined by reason through the form of equality specific to the particular justice involved (commutative or distributive). Aquinas does not say that something is unjust because it violates “ius.”

Do not kill the innocent is a precept of the natural law.

Aquinas would also point out that within the precept, as it is worded, the violation of the mean is implied by the use of the word “innocent.” One could restate it as “Do not kill someone unless that person has committed a crime deserving of that punishment, or retaliation, or that form of re-establishing equality.” The foundation of Aquinas’ conception of justice is not “rights to x” but equality, as mentioned above.

The scales of justice are not balancing ius (against something else), but some concrete thing with another thing (as you see in commercial exchange), or a thing with a person (as in distributive justice); or some passion with some action, in particular some injury that has been done (as in retributive justice). The possible exception might be ius as legal title or claim or legally conferred or recognized license to do something (the "right" to pursue further litigation, for example), which is exchanged with something else (for example, in a court settlement).

Aquinas would not say that because I have killed someone I therefore forfeit the "right to life", or that I must do something for him because this is in accordance with, or equal to, his ius. Ius is the action that I must perform in order to satisfy the debt in accordance with equality. Ius is not the same thing as what is owed, debitum, though it does include what is owed within its definition.

5. Justice requires an acknowledgement that someone else is a human being (or that he has "value" or "worth" or "dignity"); but it is specifically different from charity and has a different reason (ratio). Otherwise, the love of neighbor, taken by itself from any other moral considerations, would not permit such a thing as capital punishment, and justice would be the same as charity.

So to say:

In order for justice to work, humans need some God-given intrinsic value that is being protected, something to which just actions are madeto conform.

is insufficient, because it does not show how justice is distinguished from charity. What justice also includes is the notion of equality, which is included in the mean of justice.Hence Aquinas speaks of murder being opposed to not charity, but to justice, because it goes beyond the mean or what is equal.

6. So the "Thomistic" view is that goods and law are prior to subjective passive rights; in some other accounts of subjective passive rights, goods and rights prior to law.

7. If rights were only named subjective passive rights, which are in turn defined by natural [or positive] law, it would not be problematic to endorse this sort of “rights talk.” But these are not the only things which “right” or “ius” names.

One needs to be aware that the word “right” is used differently by people. There is a reason to avoid talking about “rights” in Aquinas, because his ius is not the same thing as subjective passive right; rather it is a correlate to duty, or obligation, and by extension to Aquinas's ius. And what notion of subjective passive right can be derived from Aquinas is not the same as the things called "rights" by those contemporary accounts--subjective active rights.

Rights are not real entities like us or plants or the elements--they’re logical beings constructed through reason, and hence one cannot say that this logical being is the same as that one if they have different causes, especially if they have a different relationship to law. I believe that one should avoid using the name "right" when in dialogue unless both parties are willing to establish a definition and see how they differ or agree.

The use of ius to name subjective passive rights does occur in papal encyclicals and other Church documents, but one must remember that these are not necessarily infallible, or have the same weight as more authoritative documents. As far as I remember, the explanation behind rights has not been done in those encyclicals, though I will have to check the Compendium of Social Doctrine to see what it offers. Those rights need to be understood in light of Tradition, and it can be done, but the necessary theological work has rarely been put forth.

Things get even trickier when it comes to subjective active rights, since these are not discussed by Aquinas as well, and at first glance are not related to his ius. It may be possible to give an explanation of subjective active rights based upon Thomistic principles, but one will need include among those principles his understanding of authority, law, and the common good.

There is this objection from Caper:

You are objecting to a perfectly valid translation of a word because of how people misuse the word. You are attributing to the word only a false definition, then rejecting the word on that basis. There is nothing wrong with the word in its traditional usage, but you privelege modern definitions over the traditional one.

I respond that language does not have normativity built into it. What words name is determined by convention. I will concede that if a majority uses a word to name x and not something else, then it might be possible to say that someone using that same word to name y is "wrong." But if a significant number of people wish to name something else by using the same word, you either live with it and talk accordingly, or you can tell them that they’re “wrong,” but that would be unproductive and not really true. How words are used is bound by convention, and if a significant number, even a majority of people decide to use a word in a different way than you would like, it’s better to concede that to them and work around it, than to keep telling them that they’re wrong. If you have to engage with their definition and the arguments behind the definition either way, then it’s much better to avoid the fight over who is using a word “correctly.”

Edit:

The popular understanding of the CA Supreme Court decision shows a different understanding of rights--all people are the same, and it would be wrong to deny same-sex couples the "right to marry" since that would violate their "equality." Right is prior to [positive] law. In this understanding, is right prior to [natural] law? I would have to look up a more technical exposition of the view, but I do not think that natural law even comes into play. What is foundational are certain 'natural' rights. If there is a natural law, it is that one should respect and not infringe upon these 'natural' rights.

Last Things: The Event That Is Christianity
James V. Schall, S.J. - 05/14/08

A review of Ratzinger's Faith by Tracey Rowland.

Is the universe infinite?

Is this question useful in determining how well someone reasons? If that is the case, is it unfair to think that Nicholas of Cusa, while being a unique philosopher during the medieval period, might not be good enough to be a master of those seeking to know?

From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, by Alexander Koyré, [1957], at sacred-texts.com,
(here):

Nicholas of Cusa denies the finitude of the world and its enclosure by the walls of the heavenly spheres. But he does not assert its positive infinity; as a matter of fact he avoids as carefully and as consistently as Descartes himself the attribution to the universe of the qualification "infinite," which he reserves for God, and for God alone. His universe is not infinite (infinitum) but "interminate" (interminatum), which means not only that it is boundless and is not terminated by an outside shell, but also that it is not "terminated" in its constituents, that is, that it utterly lacks precision and strict determination. It never reaches the "limit"; it is, in the full sense of the word, indetermined. It cannot, therefore, be the object of total and precise knowledge, but only that of a partial and conjectural one.9 It is the recognition of this necessarily partial—and relative—character of our knowledge, of the impossibility of building a univocal and objective representation of the universe, that constitutes—in one of its aspects—the docta ignorantia, the learned ignorance, advocated by Nicholas of Cusa as a means of transcending the limitations of our rational thought. (7-8)

Of course this judgment presumes that Aristotle and his followers are right in holding that the universe is finite.

And:

The universe of Nicholas of Cusa is an expression or a development (explicatio), though, of course, necessarily imperfect and inadequate, of God—imperfect and inadequate because it displays in the realm of multiplicity and

p. 9

separation what in God is present in an indissoluble and intimate unity (complicatio), a unity which embraces not only the different, but even the opposite, qualities or determinations of being. In its turn, every singular thing in the universe represents it—the universe—and thus also God, in its own particular manner; each in a manner different from that of all others, by "contracting" (contractio) the wealth of the universe in accordance with its own unique individuality.

The metaphysical and epistemological conceptions of Nicholas of Cuss, his idea of the coincidence of the opposites in the absolute which transcends them, as well as the correlative concept of learned ignorance as the intellectual act that grasps this relationship which transcends discursive, rational thought, follow and develop the pattern of the mathematical paradoxes involved in the infinitization of certain relations valid for finite objects. Thus, for instance, nothing is more opposed in geometry than "straightness" and "curvilinearity"; and yet in the infinitely great circle the circumference coincides with the tangent, and in the infinitely small one, with the diameter. In both cases, moreover, the center loses its unique, determinate position; it coincides with the circumference; it is nowhere, or everywhere. But "great" and "small" are themselves a pair of opposed concepts that are valid and meaningful only in the realm of finite quantity, the realm of relative being, where there are no "great" or "small" objects, but only "greater" and "smaller" ones, and where, therefore, there is no "greatest," as well as no "smallest." Compared with the infinite there is nothing that is greater or smaller than anything else. The absolute, infinite maximum does not, any more

p. 10

than the absolute, infinite minimum, belong to the series of the great and small. They are outside it, and therefore, as Nicholas of Cusa boldly concludes, they coincide.

Another example can be provided by kinematics. No two things, indeed, are more opposed than motion and rest. A body in motion is never in the same place; a body at rest is never outside it. And yet a body moving with infinite velocity along a circular path will always be in the place of its departure, and at the same time will always be elsewhere, a good proof that motion is a relative concept embracing the oppositions of "speedy" and "slow." Thus it follows that, just as in the sphere of purely geometrical quantity, there is no minimum and no maximum of motion, no slowest and no quickest, and that the absolute maximum of velocity (infinite speed) as well as its absolute minimum (infinite slowness or rest) are both outside it, and, as we have seen, coincide.

Nicholas of Cusa is well aware of the originality of his thought and even more so of the rather paradoxical and strange character of the conclusion to which he is led by learned ignorance.11

It is possible [he states] that those who will read things previously unheard of, and now established by Learned Ignorance, will be astonished.

Nicholas of Cusa cannot help it: it has, indeed, been established by learned ignorance12

. . . that the universe is triune; and that there is nothing that is not a unity of potentiality, actuality and connecting motion; that no one of these can subsist absolutely without the other; and that all these are in all [things] in different degrees, so different that in the universe no two [things]

p. 11

can be completely equal to each other in everything. Accordingly, if we consider the diverse motions of the [celestial] orbs, [we find that] it is impossible for the machine of the world to have any fixed and motionless center; be it this sensible earth, or the air, or fire or anything else. For there can be found no absolute minimum in motion, that is, no fixed center, because the minimum must necessarily coincide with the maximum]

[paragraph continues] Thus the centrum of the world coincides with the circumference and, as we shall see, it is not a physical, but a metaphysical "centrum," which does not belong to the world. This "centrum," which is the same as the "circumference," that is, beginning and end, foundation and limit, the "place" that "contains" it, is nothing other than the Absolute Being or God.

From Constantinople to Rome: Why I did not join the Eastern Orthodox Church by Brian W. Harrison

You will remember that my spiritual search had by this time led me to the conviction that a genuine Christian revelation directed to the whole of humanity would require the existence of a stable institution of some sort, endowed permanently with the charism of infallibility. The purpose of this gift would be, quite simply, to enable Christians to distinguish with certainty true doctrine from false doctrine (heresy) Now, clearly, if God has given the gift of infallibility to his Church, there must be some identifiable authority or agent within her capable of exercising that gift – of putting it to work, so to speak. And Catholics, as is well known, believe that the ‘college of bishops’ – the successors of the Apostles, led by the Pope, the successor of St. Peter – constitute that authority. They can exercise the gift in several ways (as explained by Vatican Council II in article 25 of Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). The whole group (the ‘college of bishops’) can teach infallibly, either gathered together in Councils that their leader, the Pope, recognizes as “ecumenical” (that is, sufficiently representative of the whole Church), or even, under certain conditions, while remaining dispersed around the world. Finally, the Pope even when speaking alone is guaranteed the charism of infallibility in his most formal (ex cathedra) pronouncements.

Now, what does the Eastern Orthodox communion see as the agent of the infallibility it claims for itself? In fact, it recognizes only one of those forms of teaching mentioned above. Let us highlight this answer:

Proposition 1: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of ecumenical councils.

However, does this mean that the Orthodox recognize the authority of all the same ecumenical councils that we Catholics recognize? Unfortunately not. While our separated Eastern brethren claim that, in principle, any ecumenical council between Pentecost and Judgment Day would enjoy the charism of being able to issue infallible dogmatic decrees, they in fact recognize as ecumenical only the first seven councils: those that took place in the first Christian millennium, before the rupture between East and West. Indeed, even though they claim theirs is the true Church, they have never, since that medieval split, attempted to convoke and celebrate any ecumenical council of their own. For they still recognize as a valid part of ancient tradition the role of the See of Peter as enjoying a certain primacy – at least of honor or precedence – over the other ancient centers of Christianity (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria). After all, the first-millennium historical evidence is abundantly clear to practically all historians that confirmation (not necessarily convocation) by the Bishop of Rome was seen by both Eastern and Western Christians as essential in order for a council to qualify as being truly ecumenical.

Does this mean, then, that the Orthodox theology falls into the same illogical trap which we discussed yesterday in connection with certain Protestant and Anglican theories, namely, the absurd postulation of a merely temporary church infallibility? Not quite. For mainstream Orthodox theologians, as I understand them, would prefer to say, rather, that for a thousand years we have had a situation of interrupted infallibility. The interruption, they would maintain, has been caused above all by the ‘ambition’, ‘intransigence’ or ‘hubris’ of the bishops of the See of Peter, who are said to have gradually exaggerated their privileges to the point of seriously overstepping the due limits of the very modest primacy bestowed on them by Jesus. However (it is said), once the papacy comes to recognize this grave error and so renounces its claims to personal infallibility and universal jurisdiction over all Christians – ‘novel’ doctrines solemnly defined only as recently as 1870 – why, then the deplorable schism will at last be healed and the whole Church, with due representation for both East and West, will once again be able to hold ecumenical councils. As such, these will be endowed, as before, with the capacity to issue infallible dogmatic decrees.

Now, while this position might seem plausible at first sight, or at least, not obviously unreasonable, it involves serious problems. Our separated Eastern brethren are acknowledging that any truly ecumenical council will need to include not only their own representatives, but also those of the Bishop of Rome, whose confirmation of its decrees would in due course be needed, as it was in those first seven councils of antiquity. Well, so far so good. But does this mean the Orthodox acknowledge that the Pope’s confirmation of a council in which they participate will not only be necessary, but also sufficient, as a condition for their own recognition of it as ecumenical and infallible? Unfortunately, the answer here is again in the negative. And it is the Easterners’ own history which has, as we shall now see, re-shaped their theology on this point during the last half-millennium.

After the East-West rupture that hardened as a result of the mutual excommunications of 1054 and the brutal sack of Constantinople itself by Latin crusaders in 1204, two ecumenical councils were convoked by Rome for the purpose of healing the breach. They were held, respectively, at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439, with Eastern Christendom being duly represented at both councils by bishops and theologians sent from Constantinople. And in both cases these representatives ended up fully accepting, on behalf of the Eastern Church, the decrees, promulgated by these councils, that professed the true, divinely ordained jurisdiction of the Successors of Peter over the universal Church of Christ – something much more than a mere primacy of honor. And these decrees were of course confirmed by the then reigning popes.

Why, then, did neither of these two councils effectively put an end to the tragic and long-standing schism? Basically because the Eastern delegations to Lyons and Florence, upon returning to their own constituency, were unable to make the newly decreed union ‘stick’ and take practical effect. At Constantinople, the nerve-center of the Byzantine Empire, deep suspicion and even passionate hostility toward the Latin ‘enemies’ were still very strongly ingrained in the hearts and minds of many citizens – great and small alike. The result was that politics and public opinion trumped the conciliar agreements. The Eastern Christians as a whole simply refused to acquiesce in the idea of allowing that man – the widely feared and detested Bishop of Rome – to hold any kind of real jurisdiction over their spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs.

As a result, in order to justify this continued separation from Rome, the Orthodox have had to nuance their position on the infallibility of ecumenical councils. They have had to maintain that the participation in a given council of bishops representing the whole Church and the confirmation of their decrees by the Pope, while undoubtedly necessary, is still not sufficient to guarantee the true ecumenical status and infallibility of that council. For over and above the fulfilment of those conditions, it is also necessary (according to standard Orthodox ecclesiology of recent centuries) for the faithful as a whole in both East and West – not just the pope and bishops or even the entire clergy – to accept that council’s decrees as expressing the true faith.³ So the simple Proposition 1 set out above now becomes:

Proposition 2: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of those Councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole Church.

In the post-Enlightenment Western world wherein opposition to ‘clericalism’ (real or imagined), and the ideas of democracy and popular sovereignty have long enjoyed great political popularity, this Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, with its emphasis on the role of the laity, will inevitably sound attractive to many. Indeed, some neo-modernist, dissident Catholic advocates of ‘liberation theology’ and a ‘People’s Church’ have in recent decades been advocating some such ‘democratization’ of church structures and procedures as a remedy for so-called ‘Roman centralism’. But on closer inspection a fatal logical flaw in the Orthodox theory comes to light. For if the crucial factor in deciding whether a given council’s teaching is infallible or not depends on how it is received by the rank-and-file membership of “the whole Church”, then it becomes critically important to know who, precisely, constitutes “the whole Church”. How are her members to be identified? Who has ‘voting’ rights, as it were, in this monumental communal decision whether to accept or reject a given council’s doctrinal decrees?

In answer to this question, our Eastern friends certainly cannot say that for these purposes “the whole Church” consists of all who profess faith in Christ, or all the baptized. For on that basis the Orthodox would rule out as ‘un-ecumenical’ (and thus, non-infallible) not only the second-millennium councils recognized by Rome and the Western Church, but also the seven great councils of the first millennium which they themselves recognize in common with Catholics! For each one of those councils was rejected by significant minorities of baptized persons (Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, etc.) who professed Christianity. It is equally clear that they cannot define “the whole Church” as Catholics do, namely, as consisting of all those Christians who are in communion with Rome, the See of Peter, Prince of the Apostles. For on that basis the Orthodox would disqualify themselves as being part of “the whole Church”, given that they have not been in communion with Rome for the best part of a thousand years. Could they perhaps try to define “the whole Church” in terms of communion with their own present patriarchal See of Constantinople? As far as I know, no Orthodox theologians themselves would dare to go that far, not only because they cannot deny that this See was itself in heresy at certain periods of antiquity, but above all because it did not even exist for three centuries after Christ was on earth. So it could not possibly claim – and never has claimed – any privileged status at the level of revelation and divine law. (The Orthodox agree with Catholics, and with nearly all other professing Christians except the Mormons, that revelation was completed in the first century A.D., at the time of Christ and the Apostles.)

In short, any Orthodox attempt to formulate a theological definition of “the whole Church” in terms of any empirically verifiable criterion – for instance, as the community of those who have undergone the visible, audible and tangible sacrament of baptism, or of those who visibly and audibly call themselves Christians, or of those who visibly and audibly profess their communion with certain publicly identifiable prelates who in turn hold ecclesiastical office at some fixed, highly visible and publicly identified city – any such attempt will land our Eastern brethren in impossible absurdities. So the only other course open to them, logically, is to attempt to define “the whole Church” in terms of an empirically unverifiable criterion, namely, adherence to true, orthodox doctrine. Unlike cities, sayings and sacraments, doctrinal orthodoxy cannot be recognized as such by any of the five senses. It cannot, as such, be seen, touched or heard, only discerned in the mind and heart.

Having inevitably resorted to this seemingly reasonable criterion – trying to define the true Church as that which teaches true doctrine – it is no accident that the main body of Eastern Christians began to call their communion the “Orthodox” Church after their rupture with Rome. Why do they not recognize as constituent parts of the “whole Church” those baptized, Christ-professing Aryans, Nestorians, etc., who rejected one or more of the seven first-millennium councils? The answer is deceptively simple: “Why, because they were unorthodox, of course! They lapsed into heresy while we – and up till that time the Latin Church under Rome as well – maintained the true faith.”

Now that the Orthodox position regarding infallibility and ecumenical councils has been further specified, we can reformulate it a third time, replacing the expression “the whole Church” at the end of Proposition 2 with another which clarifies what is meant by those three words:

Proposition 3: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of those Councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.

But here, I am afraid, we come face to face with the fundamental logical flaw in the whole Eastern Orthodox account of how we can know what – if anything – God has revealed to mankind. Since Christ founded his Church on earth to be a visible community, we cannot define her in terms of an invisible criterion – possession of doctrinal truth – without falling into absurdity. The flaw this involves is that of a circular argument – or, if you like, including the term to be defined within the definition itself. This results in a mere tautology: a self-repeating affirmation that provides no information at all.

We can see this more clearly if we recall once again the basic purpose of all the above three Eastern Orthodox propositions in bold type: they aim to identify and point out to us the organ of that infallible church teaching which needs to exist – and to be clearly recognizable – if there is to be any credible public divine revelation. For the very concept of divine revelation implies the communication of clear and certain knowledge of something (even if that ‘something’ is itself – like the Trinity and the Incarnation – profoundly mysterious and not fully comprehensible to our finite minds). But suppose the Supreme Being were to “reveal” some message to humanity in general through the agency of avowedly fallible messengers – modest prophets who could announce their message to us (whether in speech or in writing) only in something like the following terms: “Well, I think God has said and done such-and-such, and I’m personally pretty confident that such-and-such is what he means by what he has said; but, mind you, I could be wrong”. In that case, of course, the rest of us could have no clear and certain knowledge at all of the divine mind and intention. God would in fact be revealing to us nothing at all – certainly nothing which we could accept with that firm, unconditional faith which the Scriptures take for granted as the appropriate response of Christians to God’s Word.

Keeping in mind, then, that the whole purpose of an infallible church authority is simply to enable Christians to distinguish revealed truth clearly and certainly from falsehood and heresy, we can formulate once again the Eastern Orthodox proposition, rewording Proposition 3 above so as to ‘unpack’ the word “infallible”, spelling out its epistemological import:

Proposition 4: Christians can come to know with certainty what is true doctrine by recognizing the solemn doctrinal decisions of those Councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.

The words italicized above lay bare the underlying circularity – the tautology – that vitiates the logical coherence of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, therefore destroying its rational credibility. We want to know how to identify true Christian doctrine with certainty; but the proffered answer to our problem assumes we already know the very thing we are seeking to discover! We are being told, “To discover what is true Christian doctrine, you must pay heed to the teaching of those who adhere to true Christian doctrine”!

Not long after I came to the firm conclusion that Eastern Orthodoxy was illogical, so that its claim to infallibility could not be sustained, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church at the Mass of the Easter Vigil in 1972. My long journey had been completed, something for which I continue daily to give thanks to God.

It remains only to add that, in the thirty-five years since I returned to full communion with the one Church founded by Christ, my conviction as a Catholic has only become stronger. For the Orthodox Church today is by no means in the same condition as it was then. The very features which had most attracted me to it back then have now largely faded into a twilight of doubt and confusion. For some centuries the tenacity of the Orthodox in adhering strictly to their ancient, stable liturgical traditions, together with their relative isolation from the post-Enlightenment West, combined to act as a quite powerful antidote, in practice, to the effects of the ingrained ‘virus’ of illogicality that we have just exposed. But in recent decades, with more extensive cultural and ecumenical contacts, and with an increasingly large and active Eastern diaspora in Western countries, Orthodoxy’s underlying vulnerability to the same liberal and secularizing tendencies in faith, morals and worship that have devastated the West is becoming more apparent. That virus – an inevitable result of breaking communion with the visible ‘Rock’ of truth and unity constituted by the See of Peter – is now inexorably prodding Orthodoxy toward doctrinal pluralism and disintegration.

From my reading on Eastern church affairs in recent years, I have the impression that many Orthodox theologians and bishops have now severely qualified or even surrendered any serious claim to infallibility on the part of their Church. Also, there is no longer any unity, any identifiable “official” position of Orthodoxy as such, in regard to unnatural methods of birth control. Some authorities continue to reprobate these practices, while others – probably the majority by now – condone them. Increasingly, Orthodox married couples are advised just to follow their own conscience on this issue – in dialogue, if possible, with a priest who is trusted as ‘spiritual father’.⁴

A traditionally-minded Orthodox apologist might reply, of course, that confusion and dissent on these and many other matters are also rampant within Roman Catholicism, and indeed, to a large extent have spread to Orthodoxy as a result of powerful liberal and neo-modernist influences going virtually unchecked in our own communion, especially since Vatican Council II. This objection, unfortunately, is all too well-founded as far as it goes. But it misses the vital point for present purposes, which is that the admittedly grave confusion in contemporary Catholicism is not due to its own underlying epistemic structure – its own fundamental theology of revelation. It is due rather to what many of us Catholics would see as a temporary weakness at the practical level: the level of Church discipline and government. We have witnessed a failure of many bishops, and arguably even recent popes, at times, to guard and enforce with sufficient resolve that doctrine which remains coherently and infallibly taught in theory and in principle by the Catholic magisterium. A solution to the present problems will not require the reversal of any Catholic doctrine; on the contrary, it will involve the more resolute insistence, in theory and in practice, on our existing doctrines. (This insistence, it is true, will probably need to include further authoritative papal interpretations of certain Vatican II texts whose ambiguity or lack of clarity betray something of the conflicting pastoral, philosophical and theological tendencies that were all too apparent among the Council Fathers themselves.)

In Eastern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, the currently growing problem of internal confusion and division goes down to a deeper level. It is rooted in unsound principle, not just defective practice. It is a problem involving the essential defining feature of the Orthodox communion over against Catholicism, namely, its fateful medieval decision to repudiate the full primacy and authority of that ‘Rock’ established by Christ in the person of Blessed Peter and his successors in the See of Rome. Perhaps, if more of our Orthodox brethren can come to recognize the underlying logical flaw in their ecclesiology that I have tried to pinpoint and explain in this talk, we shall see more fruitful ecumenical progress toward the restoration of full communion.

Stratford Caldecott, Beyond Left and Right: Awaiting the Pope’s Next Encyclical

Beyond Left and Right: Awaiting the Pope’s Next Encyclical
Will Pope Benedict XVI's upcoming social encyclical be understood by a culture that divides everything into Left and Right?

Magister, Saint Pius X, a Backward Pope? No, an Unprecedented Cyclone of Reform

Saint Pius X, a Backward Pope? No, an Unprecedented Cyclone of Reform

Saint Pius X, a Backward Pope? No, an Unprecedented Cyclone of Reform A 1300-page study treatise written by a great scholar overturns judgments of the antimodernist pope. The new Code of Canon Law he created had tremendous effects. It reinforced more than ever the public role and freedom of the Church with respect to the world

Cornerstone on the Culture of Life Conference

A discussion of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae (eng) on Saturday, August 9th, 2008 in Oakland--conference website. Dr. Ralph McInerny will be giving a talk at the pre-conference banquet, which is on August 8th. His profile at the website.

Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology

Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology (Second Edition): Death and Eternal Life

Previous edition
Joseph Ratzinger Eschatology (paper - 978-0-8132-0633-2)
Joseph Ratzinger Eschatology (cloth - 978-0-8132-0632-5)

8 Keys to Reading Joseph Ratzinger's Work

Suggested by Archbishop Forte

ROME, JUNE 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Archbishop Bruno Forte of Chieti-Vasto recently presented eight keys for reading Joseph Ratzinger's theological work.

The archbishop, a member of the International Theological Commission, presented his ideas at the closing the first course of Specialization in Religious Information, organized by the University of the Holy Cross.

The prelate began his address June 17 by presenting, as the first key, an analysis of the historical and cultural context in which the theological work matured of the man who today is Benedict XVI.

After 1968, when the "age of utopia" and its vision of an essentially "useless" God came to the fore, Ratzinger's work began to develop its anti-ideological conviction, said Archbishop Forte, 56.

Moreover, after 1989, when the "age of disenchantment" and the idea of the "death" of God prevailed, Ratzinger's challenge was to "propose horizons of meaning, joy and hope," the Italian archbishop said.

During this period, Joseph Ratzinger elaborated the concept of "Deus caritas," which shows that the topic of his first encyclical was "long in maturing," observed Archbishop Forte.

The second key is the task Joseph Ratzinger assumed with his theology: "to give witness with the service of the intelligence to the Word amid the words of men," that is, "a 'diakonia' [service] to truth in the house of truth," namely, the Church.

In fact, "God is not found in solitude" but in a "community that remembers and narrates and which, at the same time, interprets the truth that has been transmitted to us," said Archbishop Forte.

Abandoning ourselves

The third key is the meaning of believing. Quoting Ratzinger himself, in his "Introduction to Christianity," Archbishop Forte said that to believe "means to give one's assent to that sense that we are not capable of building ourselves, but only to receive it as a gift, so that it is enough to accept him and abandon ourselves to him."

Illustrating the fourth key to the reading, the archbishop said that the God in whom one believes, can only be a personal god, God the Father, who is revealed in biblical history as the living God, that is, the God of Jesus Christ. An unknown God cannot be loved. Only a personal one can be loved, one who addresses us and who, at the same time, we can address.

In this context, the relationship between man and God must be characterized by the move from "dualism," which has opposed the human and the divine, faith and reason, in many periods of the modern spirit, to "meeting" and correspondence.

According to the fifth key of Ratzinger's thought, "the human and divine meet but are not confused in Jesus Christ," noted the prelate. God is not the answer to man's expectation, but is always superior; "he is the beyond who overtakes, disconcerts and troubles us."

The sixth key is the vision of the Church as the place where God dwells. "The Church must always live in docility to the Spirit and must be ready to acknowledge resistances to the Spirit," Archbishop Forte observed, indicating the importance of admitting faults of the past.

Eschatology

The seventh key, the vision of the beyond, eschatology, is a "dominant theme in Ratzinger's thought" and affects first of all the identity of the Christian: "a prisoner of the future of God," who must measure his decisions on the horizon of the infinite God, according to the archbishop.

In this connection, "the Christian lives in an anticipated and anticipating experience of the last things," through faith and the sacraments, but is also "critical reserve" because at times the Christian goes against the current.

The last stage illustrated by Archbishop Forte was the image that summarizes this theological work -- Mary -- synthesis of ecclesiology: "a concrete and personal icon in which the coordinates of Christian thought are expressed."

The archbishop concluded his address highlighting the differences between Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. If Pope Karol Wojtyla was a personalist anthropologist, he said, then Pope Joseph Ratzinger is a theologian who is "almost a catechist," bearer of the possibility of the meeting of different traditions and cultures.

The course of Specialization in Religious Information took place March 3-June 16. During the course, professors of several pontifical universities and athenaeums of Rome alternated in addressing topics relative to religious information, to offer some keys to its reading in order to understand the Catholic Church better.

Another copy of Biblical Interpretation in Crisis by Joseph Ratzinger

Virginia Declaration of Rights

I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

IV That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.

V That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

VI That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.

IX That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

X That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

XIV That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason

From The Avalon Project

Other links:
Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US ...
Virginia Declaration of Rights - 1776
Virginia Declaration of Rights: Primary Documents of American ...
Bill of Rights
The Virginia Declaration of Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online ...
Gunston Hall Plantation Historic Human Rights Documents
Draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, May 1776
Historical Documents and Speeches - The Virginia Declaration of ...
The Virginia Declaration of Rights
The Virginia Declaration of Rights: Its Place in History

James V. Schall, Reflections on the Natural Law

Reflections on the Natural Law
James V. Schall, S.J. - 05/08/08

Almost every mention of “natural rights” unfortunately requires careful and subtle qualification or caution to protect this very slippery notion from being taken to mean just the opposite of what it appears to affirm. The terms “rights” and “values” are modern terms originating in and solidly grounded in modern political philosophy. They do not mean what the old Latin word justum or jus (words sometimes translated as “right”) meant in their original context. . . .

St Augustine — a male chauvinist? by fr. Edmund Hill, OP

ICMS 2008 - International Congress on Medieval Studies

ICMS 2008 - International Congress on Medieval Studies

Sessions:

Thursday, May 8 [Sessions 1-184]
Friday, May 9 [Sessions 185-351]
Saturday, May 10 [Sessions 352-512]
Sunday, May 11 [Sessions 513-602]
Full Schedule

Zenit: Pontiff Praises Promoter of Faith-Reason Dialogue

Pontiff Praises Promoter of Faith-Reason Dialogue

Polish Priest Wins Templeton Prize

VATICAN CITY, MAY 7, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is congratulating a Polish priest and cosmologist who won the Templeton Prize for his contribution to the dialogue between religion and science.

In a message sent through Archbishop Fernando Filoni, "sostituto" for general affairs at the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Pope congratulated Monsignor Michael Heller, a professor of theoretical physics, cosmology and philosophy of science at the Pontifical Academy of Theology.

The message said, "The Holy Father was pleased to learn that you have been awarded the Templeton Prize in recognition of your outstanding contribution to the dialogue between science and religion, and he sends you his warmest congratulations and good wishes."

Citing the encyclical "Fides et Ratio," the note continued, "As you know, His Holiness has repeatedly underlined the importance of a fruitful encounter between faith and reason, the two wings on which the human spirit rises to contemplation of the truth, and he wishes to encourage all those who devote their lives to exploring the profound insights to be gained from scientific research in the context of religious belief."

Referring to Psalm 18, the papal message added: "He prays that your work in the fields of cosmology and philosophy will help to make known the message that "the heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth the work of his hands.

"As this prestigious award is conferred upon you in London on May 7, 2008, the Holy Father will remember you particularly in his prayers. Invoking upon you and all those whose work serves to promote a deeper understanding of the relationship between religion and science, His Holiness cordially imparts his apostolic blessing."

The writings of Monsignor Heller, 72, "have evoked new and important consideration of some of humankind's most profound concepts," the Templeton Foundation said. "Heller's examination of fundamental questions such as 'does the universe need to have a cause?' engages a wide range of sources who might otherwise find little in common.

"By drawing together mathematicians, philosophers, cosmologists and theologians who pursue these topics, he also allows each to share insights that may edify the other without any violence to their respective methodologies."

The Templeton Prize honors a living person considered to have made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery or practical works.

Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body

His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches

wiki for the author, Laurent Cleenewerck
Google Books

via Eirenikon

Related:
Euclid University Consortium / Extension - Pôle d'Extension ...

Zenit: Cardinal Cordes on "Deus Caritas Est"

Cardinal Cordes on "Deus Caritas Est"

"Jesus Shows God as He Who Loves"

LEEDS, England, MAY 4, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of the April 7 address given by Cardinal Paul Cordes, president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, to the spring meeting of the bishops' council of England and Wales.

* * *

President of the Vatican's Human and Christian Development council speaks to bishops of England and Wales.

At the invitation of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, joined the Bishops of England and Wales at their spring meeting in Leeds to talk about Pope Benedict's first Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love).

"Anyone looking at society today can only be filled with joy that Christ's commandment to love one's neighbour finds concrete expression in extensive charitable outreach. On the other hand, the global popularisation of an idea also unfortunately often leads to its dilution. Inflation goes hand-in-hand with a reduction in value. For this reason, it falls still today to Christians, and, in a special way the Church's Pastors, to be attentive." Cardinal Cordes

Paul Josef Cardinal Cordes

Bishops of England & Wales Plenary

Hinsley Hall, Leeds

President, Pontifical Council Cor Unum

7 April 2008



Deus Caritas Est

THE SPLENDOUR OF CHARITY

Your Eminence, Your Excellencies,

My Dear Brother Bishops,

As you well know, Cor Unum, my Dicastery at the Vatican is entrusted by the Holy Father with giving concrete signs of love and charity. It was a great joy for us then that Pope Benedict XVI chose for his first Encyclical the theme, "Deus caritas est." In this, he gave decisive direction for his Pontificate. At the same time, he describes Cor Unum as "the agency of the Holy See responsible for orienting and coordinating the organisations and charitable activities promoted by the Catholic Church" (n. 32).

The Catholic Church in Britain has a long history of charitable outreach. Secular historians refer to the "nationalisation" of charity some 400 years ago through the Charitable Uses Act of 1601, but the Church much before and still today has recognised and fostered this virtue in word and deed through a plethora of initiatives - schools, hospitals, care homes for the elderly and dying, and prison outreach, to cite just a few examples. Many of these have gained a national reputation for the excellence achieved and the modern state has sought to emulate them. Even though Britain boasts of a national welfare system, this is no safety net for the very poor. In future years, their numbers are likely to increase, given the large influx of migrants coming to these shores.

I cannot forget the plea of Mother Teresa to Margaret Thatcher to help Londoners sleeping out in the bitter cold beneath railway arches in what she chillingly described as "little cardboard coffins."

My personal presence among you provides the opportunity to express the Pope's encouragement and gratitude to those numerous witnesses of charity in this land who provide for our brothers and sisters in need: those agencies directly sponsored by the Bishops, and also religious institutes and associations, entities for human development and missionary service, groups involved in the civil sphere, and organisations for social, educational and cultural work.

I. HELPING: A SIGN OF THE TIMES

The charitable spirit of the British people is impressive. It is claimed that in the United Kingdom alone, there are almost 200,000 charities, diffusing over 25 billion pounds in charitable aid each year. In terms of giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, Britain ranks second only to the people of the United States. Each year, individuals generously donate billions to charitable causes - 9.5 billion pounds in 2006.

To this, we must add the extensive hours spent in voluntary service. Some 20 million citizens in England and Wales are said to volunteer either formally or informally at least once a month, equivalent to 25 billion pounds of work hours. Recent years, I am told, have seen a significant increase in charitable giving to religious causes. 16 percent of all money donated to charity in 2006-07 was given to religious groups, the highest figure after medical research (17 percent).

It is clear then, also from my experience worldwide, that the willingness of people to alleviate misery has become a "sign of our times." A few years ago, as I arrived at the airport of Saigon, one of the largest cities of the still communist country of Vietnam, I saw a huge, brightly illuminated billboard with the headline, "Charity." I was pleasantly surprised. Even in a Communist country, "charity" is trendy. In some Western nations, the Caritas confederation has grown into an impressive service industry. Caritas Germany, for example, employs an incredible 500,000 professional staff, making it the second largest employer in Germany after the State. In 2006, the annual working budget for assistance to underdeveloped nations of Catholic Relief Services - the U.S. Bishops agency for international outreach - exceeded US$400 million.

In a word: charity has expanded on virtually every level of society. Certainly, one cannot but rejoice over this development. Pope Benedict does so in Deus caritas est. But the Holy Father also cautions us: in the face of growth, "it is very important," he says, "that the Church's charitable activity maintains all of its splendour and does not become just another form of social assistance" (n. 31). It seems to me that this advice is especially significant for a nation such as yours, given its rapidly changing social and religious fabric. The Servant of God Pope John Paul II underlined precisely this challenge for you in his address at your last ad limina visit: "England and Wales, despite being steeped in a rich Christian tradition, today face the pervasive advance of secularism. At the root of this situation is the attempt to promote a vision of humanity apart from God and removed from Christ ... The faithful look to you, the Bishops, with great expectation to preach and teach the Gospel which dispels the darkness and illuminates the way of life" (23 October 2003).

II. CHRIST: THE MODEL OF CHARITY

Dear brothers in Christ: I give thanks to God for the opportunity today to reflect with you on the charitable mission of the Church. I am grateful to His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor for his kind invitation. For some time, I have considered it important to meet with the Pastors of England and Wales. Your bearing on the whole English-speaking world is significant. How pleased I am that the first Encyclical of Pope Benedict has made real this intention!

Our moment of communion and dialogue has been preceded by similar encounters with other Episcopal conferences, including Spain, the Ukraine, Austria, Russia and Poland, the Fourth General Assembly of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean last May in Aparecida, and most recently the Catholic Bishops Conference of India. In the coming months, I shall travel to the Philippines, Australia and France. Encouraged by the Holy Father himself, my wish has been to give Deus caritas est the echo it rightly deserves as the first doctrinal letter ever written specifically on the theme of love and charity.

The Church's responsibility to fight against all kinds of misery is given to us by the Lord Himself. Jesus instituted love of neighbour as the first commandment for behaviour among His disciples, acting Himself as a witness of this love. The Acts of the Apostles spoke of Him thus: "He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him" (Acts 10:38). This is His unmistakable description.

For this reason, the young Christian community made its own the mission and example of Jesus. In various places in the New Testament, we find concrete instances of help (cf. Acts 2:45; 4:32; 6:1; Rom 12:13; Jam 1:27; Mt 25:36). But not only material ones. The attentive reader of Sacred Scripture clearly sees that the charitable gestures of Jesus and the compassion of the first Christians were always intended to point to the loving-kindness of the heavenly Father. The multiplication of loaves and healing of the sick, the expelling of demons and raising the dead were always Christianity's way to move people to believe in Jesus, the Messiah and the Servant of Yahweh. The Gospel of John then, does not even speak of "miracles," but has another concept: it calls Jesus' healing deeds semeia, that is, signs, pointers to something else. This indication is
significant. The Church should never underplay the sense of good works that point to God. A double purpose of engagement must always remain impressed at least in our consciousness: the concrete action and the meaning beyond it.


III. PROTECTING THE HERITAGE

As I indicated earlier, anyone looking at society today can only be filled with joy that Christ's commandment to love one's neighbour finds concrete expression in extensive charitable outreach. On the other hand, the global popularisation of an idea also unfortunately often leads to its dilution. Inflation goes hand-in-hand with a reduction in value. For this reason, it falls still today to Christians, and, in a special way the Church's Pastors, to be attentive. In other words: Catholic charitable organisations should be careful not to forget the meaning of their activity, influenced perhaps by the present climate or excessive reliance on public funds. The question is one of fostering the Christian roots of the Church's activity and so preserving the "splendour" of our identity as Catholic charitable institutions.

This is especially important for a nation where the secular national welfare system has become pervasive and predominant. For centuries, care for the poor through charitable works was seen as a complement to the primary task of winning souls for God.

This was a natural progression from the early Church, where both the preaching of the Word and caritas remained tied together. In this country, the Catholic Church guaranteed this essentially through religious men and women; other denominations through the establishment of a specific charitable organization such as Barnardo's, born from the Church of Ireland, with its provision of education for the very poorest, or the Salvation Army, whose determining factor for charitable outreach was signified in its very name.

But with the growing view since the start of the 20th century that government needed to supplant the charitable efforts of organisations through the provision of welfare, even among Christian groups concern for earthly improvement of the poor began to take first place over the previously primary task of proclaiming the Gospel. When the Welfare State was created after the Second World War, the role of charity was thrown into crisis, further deepened by the decline of the religious orders. The philosophy of organisations such as Greenpeace and Oxfam, born in the 1960's with politically driven mandates, sometimes infiltrated Church-sponsored agencies. Today, there is yet another challenge.

In order to remain "competitive" in the provision of services, the Church's charitable organisations have become more and more dependent upon government funding. While, as you well know, their good works are usually welcomed - and almost always needed - often their faith and beliefs are rejected by the authorities.

As Bishops of England and Wales, you are certainly aware of this question. You have faced challenges to the faith-identity of our agencies from government legislation that impinges on the provision of services, such as adoption or education. Even in the case of some so-called "Catholic" institutions, primarily in healthcare, that do not uphold moral teaching, you have been called to speak out courageously and decisively as prophets in the desert of secularism.

This, in part, is linked to the question of funding. In Britain, the largest source of income for charities in general comes from the public sector (37 percent). For Church run organisations, this is a sea change from the support of charitable works largely through religious congregations in previous centuries. Reliance on public funding invariably means external supervision and regulations, and necessitates bureaucratic procedures that can give charitable organisations a certain modus operandi in such areas as the employment of personnel, work contracts and the type of projects that can be funded.

This movement can have consequences on the motivation for charitable helpers: if what counts is the efficiency of the action, one can easily forget that for Christians the action should carry a deeper meaning as a sign not only of human compassion but also of God's goodness. Where the bishops do not exercise oversight, Catholic agencies, little by little, can become indistinguishable from secular organisations, such as the Red Cross or Oxfam.

This rooting of the Church's engagement in God was undoubtedly one of the deepest motivations that led Benedict XVI to write as his first official doctrinal work the Encyclical Deus caritas est. I do not need to repeat the surprising commentaries all over the world that accompanied the text - the fact that the "Panzer Cardinal" would choose "love" as the subject of his first major teaching. Perhaps the history of the text's writing is less familiar to you. It shows clearly what was of most importance to the Pope.

Since Cor Unum is directly concerned with the praxis of the Church's love for our fellow human beings, Pope John Paul II had asked that I prepare for him a preliminary draft of a papal writing on charity. My intention was to begin with an inductive presentation: reflections on the general willingness of people to provide help today, followed by a description of Christian initiatives that exist, moving in the end to the rooting of love of neighbour in God. The former Cardinal Ratzinger was aware of my writings. When he was elected Pope, he decided to publish an Encyclical on charity, but he totally reversed my intended order. His starting point is Revelation's central message:

"God is love." He initiates the Encyclical with a drumbeat, proclaiming the absolute precedence of Him "Who has first loved us" (1Jn 4:10), both in the order of time and in the scale of values.



IV. CHANGE OF PARADIGM

In my conversations on Deus caritas est with other Episcopal Conferences, the Pastors and those responsible for Caritas have been predominantly or exclusively interested in the second part of the Encyclical, "The Practice of Love by the Church as a ‘Community of Love'." This section is important for offering structural and practical guidelines for the Church's charitable engagement, which are based on global experience and call for an observance of the papal teaching. When one delves into the details of this section, however, one discovers an important change of perspective. Namely, the Encyclical seems to present in this section a new message. Until now, the Church's teaching on the struggle against misery - like the social encyclicals - dealt with public defects, goals and programs; they addressed factual problems and they insisted on concrete changes outside of oneself. Besides all this, Deus caritas est turns now decisively to committed persons: the Pope wishes to shape the life of the actors through a "formation of the heart" (n. 31a). So, for the first time, he formulates basic guidelines for a "spirituality" of those working in help-agencies.

Clearly the first preoccupation of Caritas cannot intend to change society and unjust structures. It is the human heart that makes the structures. Therefore, the essential requirement for action - as the Pope says - is to "be persons moved by Christ's love, persons whose hearts Christ has conquered with his love, awakening them with a love of neighbour" (n. 33). This is the new "standard" that Jesus proclaims in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt 5-7). It is the justice of love that surpasses the political and social dimensions without negating them. We cannot then reduce or collapse charity into "social justice"; to do so would be to rob charity of its specificity and splendour. God certainly requires the actualisation of justice in societal relationships, as the Old Testament prophets repeatedly remind us: "Make justice your aim," Isaiah affirms, "redress the
wronged, hear the orphan's plea, defend the widow" (Is 1:16ff). But ultimately this comes through conversion in the heart of the human person, whose self-giving example and source is the charity of Christ. As St. Paul affirms: Caritas Christi urget nos (2 Cor 5:14)!

Service to our neighbours, therefore, has not only its universally recognized technical and practical side; it also makes demands of the heart, not primarily in the emotional sense, but in the very rational decision to desire the best for the other person, even at the price of self-abnegation. Whoever dedicates himself to diakonia thus takes on the opposite of reputation, power, and rank that leaders and political entities claim for themselves. Benedict encourages us: "My deep personal sharing in the needs and sufferings of others becomes a sharing of my very self with them: if my gift is not to prove a source of humiliation, I must give to others not only something that is not my own, but my very self; I must be personally present in my gift" (n. 34). In the gift, the giver provides his material contribution; in loving service, his self-dedication. Diakonia is the antithesis of the egocentric society; Jesus with his self-oblation for the "ransom of
many" is its model and prototype.

The source for this "spirituality of diakonia" is prayer. It is telling that, in this relatively short Encyclical, two quite detailed paragraphs are dedicated to prayer as the motor for charitable action. In a culture as frenetic as Britain or Germany, the Pope points to the need for prayer, not action alone: "People who pray are not wasting their time even though the situation seems desperate and calls for action alone." And he offers concrete advice for those countries and people with an excessively "economic" mindset: "It is time to reaffirm the importance of prayer in the face of activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work" (n. 37).

You have a wonderful example of what Pope Benedict describes in Saint Thomas More. Allow me to quote from the famous biography written on him, "The King's Good Servant but God's First" (James Monti, p. 77):

More's love of God found expression not only in his prayer life but also in his fulfilment of Christ's command, "Love one another; even as I have loved you" (Jn 13:34). The poor were regularly welcome guests at his table; he would also go to them himself, visiting indigent families and bring them financial support as needed ... The infirm and the elderly were particularly singled out for his favours; for these he provided a special home in his own parish of Chelsea where they could be lodged and cared for at his expense. To widows and orphans he provided his legal services gratis; a widow named Paula who had exhausted all her savings in the courts he took into his family and sustained as if she were his kinswoman.

V. THE PRIMARY ROLE OF THE PASTORS

There is no doubt that Deus caritas est directs itself to various groups in the Church. Nevertheless, the main burden of responsibility for its implementation in dioceses and parishes is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Bishops. It is not only the pastoral realism of the Pope, but also theological reasons that make the ordained Pastors the principle target group for the Encyclical.

Ever since her foundation, a threefold mission has been entrusted to the Church: she must proclaim Redemption through Christ; she must bear witness to this in her good deeds toward humanity; and she must celebrate the salvation offered through Christ in the Liturgy. Martyria, Diakonia and Leitourgia are therefore the three basic functions of the Church that express her deepest nature. In Deus caritas est, the Pope declares strongly:

"The Church cannot neglect the service of charity any more than she can neglect the sacraments and the word" (n. 22). Indeed, the three are inextricably linked. Good deeds as the expression of the evangelical love proclaimed in the Word and celebrated in the sacraments, most especially the Eucharist, occupy a central place in the evangelising mission of the Church. This connection may well warrant further reflection, given the declining numbers of indigenous Catholics in our pews. As numerous saints have shown us, most recently Mother Teresa, in the witness of love a seed of belief can be sown in the fallen away, non-Christians and even the most sceptical.

In terms of the mission of diakonia, Benedict speaks emphatically in the Encyclical of the Bishop's overriding responsibility. He reminds these of the Rite of the Sacrament of Episcopal Ordination, in which the Bishop receives, through the imposition of hands, the full authority of the Spirit for the government of the Church. Prior to the act of Consecration itself, the candidate must respond to a series of questions posed by the presiding Bishop, which, as the Pope writes, "express the essential elements of his office and recall the duties of his future ministry." So the candidate is asked to pledge his special responsibility for individual services. He is called to promise "expressly to be, in the Lord's name, welcoming and merciful to the poor and to all those in need of consolation and assistance." Of course, this obligation incumbent on the Bishop does not prevent him from seeking assistance from others in his charitable mission, but he cannot set aside his ultimate responsibility for this essential service, placing it simply on others' shoulders. Neither can those who practice the service of charity, either individually or institutionally, disregard the Bishop's burden of leadership and this ultimate responsibility that belongs to him. Some Catholic aid agencies actively avoid acknowledging this fact and sometimes Bishops themselves fail to exercise their legitimate and necessary oversight, leading to approaches that are predominantly political or economic to the neglect of revealing through love of neighbour the love of the God of Jesus Christ.

The importance that Pope Benedict attaches to this responsibility of the Bishops may be further gauged by the gentle criticism he makes in Deus caritas est of the Code of Canon Law. The Encyclical remarks that in the canons on the ministry of the Bishop, the Code "does not expressly mention charity as a specific sector of Episcopal activity" (n. 32), implying that it lacks precision on this point. Indeed, we should remain surprised - as does the Pope - that Canon Law devotes many paragraphs to the Bishop's role in martyria and leitourgia, but nothing regarding diakonia. Clearly, Deus caritas est envisages a need for clarification in this important area.



VI. THE QUESTION OF GOD

In speaking about the Encyclical, it is not seldom that the administrative concern leads many responsibles of charitable agencies to focus principally or even perhaps exclusively on the second part. Such a focus would be to grossly ignore the fundamental vision of the author. It is not by accident that Pope Benedict, through this fantastic text about God as the source, lays down the foundation for the incontestable criteria of all charitable love. What is more: clearly, in the cultural context, he would like to establish the strongly felt love of neighbour as a way to bring contemporary man closer again to the love of God. In his preaching, hardly an occasion goes by that he does not attempt to reach his listeners through proclaiming this love for God, the Father of Jesus Christ. Just a few weeks ago on Palm Sunday, I was in St. Peter's Square when the Pope
made exactly this point in his homily. He spoke of how Jesus entered Jerusalem and cleansed the Temple atrium, where the pagans gathered, of the animal vendors and moneychangers who had occupied the place of prayer with their own business. From this episode, Pope Benedict draws a parallel with the atria of faith today where non-Christians look for an answer to the deepest longings of their hearts. "Is our faith pure and open enough," he asks, "so that on this basis even the ‘pagans,' the people who today are seeking and questioning, can glimpse the light of the one God, join in our prayer in the atria of faith, and through their questioning, perhaps, become worshipers themselves? Are we aware of how greed and idolatry affect even our own hearts and way of life?" And then the Pope turns yet again to Jesus' saving deeds, good works that infallibly point to God even when everything else seems hopeless. "Immediately after Jesus' words about
the house of prayer for all peoples, the evangelist [Matthew] continues in this way: ‘The blind and the lame approached him in the temple area, and he cured them.' To the selling of animals and the business of the moneychangers, Jesus opposes his own healing goodness. This is the true purification of the temple ... Jesus comes with the gift of healing. He dedicates himself to those who because of their infirmity are driven to the extremes of their life and to the margin of society. Jesus shows God as He who loves, and His power as the power of love."

Thank you very much.

Zenit: Cardinal Toppo on a Proposed Marian Dogma

Cardinal Toppo on a Proposed Marian Dogma

A Look at What It Could Mean for Dialogue

RANCHI, India, MAY 5, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Proclaiming Mary as the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity would benefit ecumenical and interreligious dialogue because it would help non-Catholics to understand many things about the Mother of God, says Cardinal Telesphore Toppo.

The archbishop of Ranchi and former president of the episcopal conference of India is one of the five cardinal co-sponsors of the 2005 International Symposium on Marian Co-redemption, held in Fatima, who are asking Benedict XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma.

The petition urges the Pope to proclaim Mary "the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race."

In this interview with ZENIT, Cardinal Toppo discusses his views in favor of the proposed dogma.

Q: Previously this year, you and four other cardinals sent out a letter to the world's cardinals and bishops, inviting them to join in your petition for a new dogma of the spiritual motherhood of Mary. How did they respond?

Cardinal Toppo: Although the majority of cardinals and bishops sent their letters of support for the fifth Marian dogma directly to the Holy Father, we also received numerous copies of enthusiastic letters of support for this dogma from cardinals and bishops from all five continents. Many of the letters spoke of the need for the dogma and Our Lady's greatest possible intercession for the troubled situation for the world today, including the rampant war and terrorism, religious persecution, moral depravity, family breakdown and even natural disasters.

The general consensus of the letters from my brother cardinals and bishops is that now is the time for this fifth Marian dogma as a remedy for the unique difficulties facing the world. As she did in the Upper Room and in the early Church, Our Lady can intercede like no one else for a new release of the Holy Spirit to bring new grace, peace and protection for the Church and for the world.

Q: Have you spoken directly to Benedict XVI regarding the petition for the fifth Marian dogma?

Cardinal Toppo: On June 3, 2006, on the eve of Pentecost, I was privileged to have a private audience with His Holiness, during which I presented the Holy Father the "acta" of theological presentations from the 2005 Fatima symposium on Mary as the co-redemptrix. I also presented him with the Latin "votum" -- or petition -- for the solemn papal definition of Our Lady as the spiritual mother of all peoples, co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate, which already at that time was signed by a significant number of cardinals, archbishops and bishops.

During our 15-minute audience, the Holy Father received the acta and votum with keen interest. He was surprised that so many cardinals and bishops had already signed the votum. He then stated that he would read the acta of theological presentations on the co-redemptrix. In the last few months, he has received still many more petitions for this Marian dogma from the present College of Cardinals and bishops.

Q: A principal objection posed against the proclamation of a new Marian dogma is that it would be counterproductive to the Church's mission of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. And yet, in the presentations submitted to Benedict XVI, your own presentation was titled "Mary Co-redemptrix as a Help in the Pursuit of Interreligious Dialogue." Can you explain why you believe this dogma could actually help ecumenism and dialogue with other faiths?

Cardinal Toppo: In interreligious dialogue, it is of the utmost importance that both sides come to know each other's faith position as accurately as possible. Now it is my contention that a Catholic's presentation and explanation of Mary's title as co-redemptrix would greatly help his or her dialogue partner to understand correctly some basics of the Church's teaching.

The title co-redemptrix would naturally provide the occasion to present our doctrine concerning the redeemer and the mystery of redemption, the primacy of God's initiative, and the absolutely uncontestable role of the uniqueness of Jesus as the divine redeemer.

That being the true position, the question will surely be raised as to how then we can speak of Mary as co-redemptrix. This truth concerning Redemption is to be complemented with the indispensable need for the cooperation of the human beneficiary. Humans can sin by themselves, but they cannot save by themselves.

In other words, cooperation is required, for each one according to the freely designed and chosen plan of God. This being the case, we can help our partners in dialogue understand many things about Mary: her cooperation with and submission to the plan of God, leading her to become the Mother of Jesus; her closeness to Jesus at the crucifixion as co-redemptrix; her intercessory advocacy and influence with Jesus on our behalf; her being Mother of the Church, Queen of Heaven and Mediatrix of All Graces.

Mary's cooperation helps all Christians and even non-Christians to understand our own required cooperation with Jesus and with his grace for our salvation.

Q: How do you think non-Catholic Christians would respond to a dogma of Mary's spiritual motherhood of all peoples, and what do you think would be the response of the large Hindu population within your region?

Cardinal Toppo: I have no doubt that non-Catholic Christians participating in ecumenical dialogue, either will find this position acceptable or at least will have no valid or convincing argument against it.

For example, this is what happened in the past to a Lutheran tribal girl of Ranchi in 1890 when she discovered that Catholics actually do not worship Mary as a goddess, though they honor her because of her being the mother of Jesus. She -- Ruth Kispotta -- joined the Catholic Church and founded our first indigenous congregation: the Daughters of St. Anne, Ranchi.

Adherents and followers of non-Christian faiths readily understand our position in this matter. This would also explain how it is that so many non-Christians flock to shrines of Our Lady all over the world, including within the vast continent of Asia. They felt drawn to Mary because of her proximity to Jesus.

There is an Indian shrine in honor of "Dhori Ma," also known as the Lady of the Mines, based on a statue discovered by Hindu coal miners at Dhori. Today this statue of Our Lady is venerated by tens of thousands: Christians, Hindus, Muslims. All appreciate the Mother who takes care of her children and who is entirely at their service.

Q: How do you think a new Marian dogma would affect our present relationship with the Muslim community and our dialogue with them?

Cardinal Toppo: A presentation of Mary as co-redemptrix would be especially appreciated in dialogue with Muslims, for the simple reason that Mary is already well known to them from the Quran itself. Muslims revere Mary as the "greatest of women," sinless and ever virgin. She is a woman of great dignity and her role and significance is acknowledged in the Quran, in the Hadith and in the piety of daily Muslim life.

One can say, without hesitation, that Mary has been, is and remains a true role model for both Muslims and Christians. She is a wonderful help in our interreligious dialogue. The correct presentation of Mary co-redemptrix provides a smooth path to the discovery of Catholic truth and encourages all sincere persons to cooperate with the initiatives of the loving and attractive God whose mercy is from age to age.