Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Making lemonade out of lemons...

Opus Dei says that The Da Vinci Code could eventually prove beneficial to the prelature. A December 31, 2005 ZENIT interview with Marc Carroggio, who oversees Opus Dei's relationship with international journalists in Rome, provides further details. Neither Dan Brown or Silas, Brown's albino Opus Dei monk character, could be reached for comment.

Pope Benedict's Lent Message

The text of Pope Benedict XVI's Lenten Message can be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/lent/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20050929_lent-2006_en.html.

Secular humanist author: There is much intolerance in the world. And secular humanists are responsible for a lot of it.

Frank Furedi, the author of Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right (which I've not read), is a self-described "secular humanist" who is puzzled and alarmed by the intensifying intolerance shown toward Christians and Christianity. In an article for Spiked!, "The curious rise of anti-religious hysteria," he writes:

First there was the controversy provoked by Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ in 2004, and now there is this censorious dismissal of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Both are testaments to a potent mood of intolerance towards expressions of religious faith in popular culture today. The artistic representation of religious conviction is frequently stigmatised with terms such as 'fundamentalist', 'intolerant', 'dogmatic', 'exclusive', 'irrational' or 'right-wing'. As a secular humanist who is instinctively uncomfortable with zealot-like moralism, I am suspicious of the motives behind these doctrinaire denunciations of films with a religious message. Such fervour reminds me of the way that reactionaries in the past policed Hollywood for hints of blasphemy or expressions of 'Un-American values'. Replacing the zealotry of religious intolerance with a secular version is hardly an enlightened alternative.

Although I disagree with some of Furedi's analysis and, of couse, his core beliefs, his piece is refreshingly honest and balanced. It substantiates many of the points that I made in my December 2005 piece for IgnatiusInsight.com, "Is Religion Evil? Secularism's Pride and Irrational Prejudice." Unfortunately, I'm inclined to think that Furedi's calm and careful perspective is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to avowed secularists.

Vatican Observatory Director Jesuit Father George V. Coyne equates ID to "crude creationism"

Catholic.org has posted the text of a talk by the Vatican Observatory director, titled "Science Does Not Need God. Or Does it? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution." The abstract states:

I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry; (2) that our scientific understanding of the universe, untainted by religious considerations, provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs. Please note carefully that I distinguish, and will continue to do so in this presentation, that science and religion are totally separate human pursuits. Science is completely neutral with respect to theistic or atheistic implications which may be drawn from scientific results.

After providing some historical background, Fr. Coyne refers to Cardinal Schonborn's recent remarks about evolution and Intelligent Design (ID) as "tragic" and erroneous. Fair enough. But does Fr. Coyne accurately and fairly present the views of proponents of ID? I readily admit my lack of scientific expertise, but must say I'm less than impressed by the (confused, it seems to me) arguments/assertions made by Fr. Coyne. For example:

How are we to interpret the scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief. Do we need God to explain this? Very succinctly my answer is no. In fact, to need God would be a very denial of God. God is not the response to a need. One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God. This is the exact opposite of what human intelligence is all about. We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation. We should not need God; we should accept her/him when he comes to us.

But the personal God I have described is also God, creator of the universe. It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.

This latter paragraph is especially strange in how it seems to somehow equates the creationism of certain Fundamentalists with pantheism. Even if that is not the intention, there is the matter of Fr. Coyne implying (if not outrightly asserting) that ID is a form of this literalistic, Fundamentalist type of creationism -- a truly absurd notion. And, in concluding, he states " that Intelligent Design diminishes God, makes her/him an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover." But if ID were to propose that God is "a lover," it would rightly be criticized for interjecting theological notions into scientific theories. Besides, ID does not make an argument for the Judeo-Christian God, but for intelligent design (hence its name!). As I noted back in October 2005:

Intelligent Design is not synonymous with the belief in a literal 7-day creation, nor even with an ardent, evangelical Christianity. As one of its key proponents, William A. Dembski, writes in his book Intelligent Design (IVP, 1999): "Within biology, intelligent design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. ... Intelligent design properly formulated is a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of intelligent causation as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin and tracing its flow. Intelligent design is therefore not the study of intelligent causes per se but of informational pathways induced by intelligent causes. As a result, intelligent design presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent design is theologically minimalist." (pp. 106-7; emphasis added).

Please feel free to disagree with this approach and its arguments/premises, but at least accurately convey what it does and does not assert. Finally, Fr. Coyne's talk only substantiates my impression that opponents of ID, whether they be Catholic, agnostic, or atheist, almost always present this issue in terms of enlightened evolution vs. fundamentalistic, hyper-literalistic creationism. Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope I am. But this latest salvo appears to be only creating more straw men and simplistic stereotypes. Isn't it about time to evolve to a higher level of discussion and discourse?

Fr. James Schall and Fr. Joseph Fessio comment on "Deus Caritas Est"

I've just posted essays by the great Jesuit priests Fr. James V. Schall and Fr. Joseph Fessio, both remarking and reflecting upon Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est. Fr. Schall's piece is titled "God's Eros Is Agape", and Fr. Fessio's is titled "First Musings on Benedict XVI's First Encyclical."  Don't miss 'em!

Singing the Song of Songs | Blaise Arminjon, S.J. | The Introduction to "The Cantata of Love"

Editor's Note: The common wisdom in many quarters is that Christianity "has a problem with sex" and that Christians — especially the uptight, orthodox ones — really don't like talking about it or even acknowledging the existence of sex. (Ironically, some of the same folks who say the Church is "anti-sex" also get upset when they see a Catholic family with four, six, or more children. Go figure.) So the Holy Father's first enyclical, Deus Caritas Est, raised some eyebrows because of its positive affirmation of eros, or sexual love. The New York Times, for example, thought the topic was unusual:

But in contrast to his public reputation, Benedict, 78, who was elected in April, began his encyclical with a perhaps surprising first premise: conceding that the church has at times viewed sexuality as something "negative," he placed erotic love between married men and women at the center of God's plan.

Of course, anyone familiar with Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body (not to mention other works, such as Love and Responsibility), knows that the marital embrace has hardly been ignored by popes and other theologians. And it's not as though such frankness is a recent development (although B16 admits that some Christians have had poor attitudes toward sex at different times in the past). One example of the ancient interest in the relationship between the love between husband and wife and the love between God and mankind is found in The Song of Songs. As Fr. Blaise Arminjon, S.J., notes in the introduction to The Cantata of Love: A Verse by Verse Reading of The Song of Songs, both Jews and Christians have read the book as both a depiction of human love and the love of God for His people:

Rather than making a celebration of human love, which would then be permitted to extend to the love of God, the first and literal meaning, this third school of interpretation on the contrary sees the love of God as the first and direct object of the sacred author of the Song, making it then legitimately applicable to love between man and woman because, as Paul explains to the Ephesians, marriage's vocation is to signify the union between Christ and the Church.

Arminjon's entire introduction is now available over at IgnatiusInsight.com. Here is some info about the book:

The Cantata of Love: A Verse by Verse Reading of The Song of Songs by Blaise Arminjon, S.J.

What book of the Old or New Testament has generated the most commentaries in the history of the Church? Not John’s Gospel, not Paul’s letter to the Romans, not the prophet Isaiah, no, it is the Song of Songs. It is a book that is unknown to many Catholics, and shocking to those who discover it for the first time because of its descriptions of a lover and his beloved—God is only mentioned once and that is at the very end.

And yet the greatest of the Fathers have commented on it. Origen’s is the classic and St. Jerome says of it: “Origen, having surpassed all of the interpreters of all the books of Scripture, surpassed himself in this interpretation of the Canticle.” St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis de Sales, St. John of the Cross, all have added to the great tradition of interpreting this book for they see it as God’s love for Israel and the Church, Christ’s love for Mary, for the Church, and for each of us. The author draws on all these classics of Catholic tradition to give us a verse by verse reading of the Song of Songs which will deepen the spiritual lives of all of us—a deepening rooted in God’s word and the most profound Catholic tradition.

“A marvelous book of inspiration. It will touch many a heart with the message of God’s love that the Canticle brings. Reading it was a revelation to me. It will do an enormous amount of good.” — Bishop Patrick V. Ahern, Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus of New York

“This work offers us whole treatise on the spiritual life. It was slowly brought to maturity, lovingly polished and solidly built. The dramatic realism will be a great help to all who might be tempted to give up somewhere along the way.” — Henri Cardinal de Lubac, S.J.

Read the introduction to The Cantata of Love...

Lawyers in love with the Coded Craziness

"I can't keep up with what's been going on/I think my heart must just be slowing down
Among the human beings in their designer jeans/Am I the only one who hears the screams
And the strangled cries of lawyers in love" -- Jackson Browne, "Lawyers In Love"

Last weekend, while in Corpus Christi, Texas, to give a talk about the Coded Craziness, I was told by the young priest who was my host how amazed he was by the number of professionals — including one especially fervent lawyer — who have told him how much they looooooooooooved reading The Da Vinci Code. "Why is it that many people who are well-educated are so gullible about the claims of the novel?" he wondered.

A glimpse at part of the answer might be found in this anecdote: Two friends of mine — a husband and wife — recently obtained, respectively, a PhD in history and an MA in art/architecture from a major university. The husband told me that many students and teachers in the history department were enamored by TDVC and its claims about art and architecture, but laughed off most of the claims made about historical events and figures. Meanwhile, his wife said that students and teachers in the art/architecture departmens laughed off the novel's silly claims about Leonardo da Vinci and his paintings, but were seriously taken by the historical assertions about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, early Christianity, and the Catholic Church.

Which brings me to a well-educated lawyer, who is in love with the Code. Her name is Connie Veneracion, she lives in Manila, and she is apparently a well-known blogger and columnist. She is also a lawyer who writes a regular column, "Sassy Lawyer," for Manila Standard Today. Her most recent column is filled with strangled logic about The Da Vinci Code. Exhibit A:

When Dan Brown’s book was first published, it was clearly labeled FICTION.   That’s why it was so funny when the Vatican created a commission to debunk   the theories raised in The Da Vinci Code. Debunking fiction? Ridiculous! Why   should anyone be afraid of fiction? That is so immature, really, just like   being afraid of the boogeyman. But, of course, many are aware by now that   many scholars agree that at least parts of Mr. Brown’s claims are historically   accurate and that puts the Catholic Church in a very bad light indeed. In   that context, one can almost understand why the Vatican got spooked.

I call this a variation on the "It's just fiction — but it's true!" argument that is just as convoluted as it is commonplace. All the elements are here:

1). Mock your opponents' intelligence: Critics of Dan Brown's novel are morons! It's obviously fiction!
2). Make an unfounded, but sensational claim: Yet the Vatican has been tirelessly working to debunk the novel!
3). Mock your opponents' emotional state: Critics are fearful babies! It's just fiction!
4). Quickly drop a broad and breathless stunner: Many of the novel's claims are true! Scholars agree! The Vatican is hiding something!

This is indeed the strangulation of basic logic, since #4 clearly undermines the mockery of #1 and #3, and, in turn, puts #2 in a more understandable light (although it must be noted that the Vatican has not formed a commission nor made a formal remark about TDVCode. But why would lawyers be interested in facts, huh?). This is bad enough, of course, but Veneracion further destroys her flimsy case in her next paragraph, completely blocking the wind pipes of reason:

As with many novels of this genre, The Da Vinci Code is a mixture of historical   research and the author’s interpretations of pieces of information that   he had unearthed. As such, it cannot be classified as an authority in history.   However, the book raises enough issues to make a Catholic wonder at the accuracy   of some parts of Christian history and at the truthfulness of the Catholic   Church in portraying historical figures. At the center of it all is the attempt   to derogate the role of women in society. In a nutshell, the book emphasizes   that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. Mr. Brown’s theory is that   she was Jesus’ wife.

Hmmm...so the novel does make historical claims that are true? And some people are confused about those claims? And some people, including Veneracion, take those claims seriously — even though the book is just fiction? Oh, most certainly:

For me, the truth about Jesus marriage to Mary Magdalene is beside the point.   The point is that Mary Magdalene, a very influential figure in Jesus’   circle, was labeled a prostitute by the Catholic Church itself. ...

Whatever inaccuracies there may be in Mr. Brown’s interpretation of   other historical data, that part is not controverted. Nowhere in the New Testament   is there any reference to Mary Magdalene as being a prostitute. Yet, the officialdom   of the Catholic Church saw it fit to label her as a whore and let the label   stay on for centuries. If only for that, Dan Brown’s book is worth reading.   The best thing, of course, is to use his theories as a jump off point and   do one’s own research.

Well, isn't this strange: people who criticize the claims of the novel are morons who don't understand it's just fiction, but people who embrace certain claims of the novel are intellectual giants because...well...they say so (in related news, Dan Brown should be trusted because...he believes the claims in the novel). After all, Veneracion did her own research: she watched "a feature titled 'Unlocking   Da Vinci’s Code' shown locally on National Geographic Channel a   few months ago."

Am I the only one who hears the screams
And the strangled cries of lawyers in love

Sigh. There's more nonsense in the esophagu—er, column, all of which is cleared up in The Da Vinci Hoax, which, if I might shamelessly say so, brings some fresh air and objective oxygen to a topic that is intellectually polluted — and that's putting it politely. The point of all of this is that specialists are often tempted to think their expertise and intelligence in one field somehow makes them all the more knowledgeable in other fields and disciplines. Put more simply: "I'm a [enter specialization here], so I'm too smart to be snookered by a novel. After all, it's FICTION! But some of it is true. Why? Because I said so. And I watch television. Cable television."

A Columnist Has a Real Revelation about B 16's Encyclical

Perhaps we were all duped. Perhaps Joseph Ratzinger's time as Grand Inquisitor of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was really a set up. "A set up for what?", you naively ask. To which I patiently reply, "Must I explain the obvious to you? A set up for an easier go of things once he ascended the papal throne, of course". 

Perhaps all the negative press about Cardinal Ratzinger as the Panzerkardinal and the Cardinal Archbishop of Crackdown was part of a vast, rightwing Opus Dei conspiracy, one to set expectations so low that when his first encyclical was released giving us love, love, love everyone is perplexed.  How can Pope Ratzinger write about God's love? This must be a trick. Or possibly he has changed.  The office has changed him.  That's it. He has become The Love Pope.

Clintonesque?  More like the plot for the next Dan Brown novel.  Even satirically outlining such a notion risks fueling speculation of the world of pundits.  The fact is, my wild theory probably would go a long way toward explaining in certain commentators' minds why we got what we got in Deus Caritas Est.  Consider Ruth Gledhill of the Timesonline, who writes:

I started reading Deus Caritas Est expecting to be disappointed, chastised and generally laid low. An encyclical on love from a right-wing pope could only contain more damning condemnations of our materialistic, westernised society, more evocations of the “intrinsic evil” of contraception, married priests, homosexuality. It would surely continue the Church’s grand tradition of contempt for the erotic, a tradition that ensures a guilty hangover in any Roman Catholic who dares to indulge in lovemaking for any reason other than the primary one of reproduction. How wonderful it is to be proven wrong.

Here is the rest: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2010463,00.html.

Please don't misunderstand.  I am nothing if not pleased with Ruth Gledhill's surprise. It is always good to see bigotry and prejudice destroyed--or at least diminished.  More helpful still would be for commentator Gledhill to get biblical and pause (selah) to consider how it is that her expectations could have been so far off the mark (hamartia) to begin with and whether, perhaps, it isn't really Benedict XVI's fault that they were.

We all want to hear excellent homilies. But do we bother to be excellent hearers of homilies?

A fair question, and a topic addressed by Fr. Philip N. Powell, OP, in this new post over at his "Domine, da mihi hanc aquam!" blog. Good stuff!

Oprah to Frey: "I really feel duped."

No word, however, if she'll mention the entire Frey fray when she writes her memoir, "A Million Little Episodes." (For background info, go to this previous Insight Scoop post.)

Are Newspapers Doomed?

The answer is: Yes. As John Maynard Keynes observed, "In the long run, we're all dead".

Next question.

For a more detailed, nuanced response, though, please see Joseph Epstein's analysis in Commentary, which begins:

“Clearly,” said Adam to Eve as they departed the Garden of Eden, “we’re living in an age of transition.” A joke, of course—but also not quite a joke, because when has the history of the world been anything other than one damned transition after another? Yet sometimes, in certain realms, transitions seem to stand out with utter distinctiveness, and this seems to be the case with the fortune of printed newspapers at the present moment. As a medium and as an institution, the newspaper is going through an age of transition in excelsis, and nobody can confidently say how it will end or what will come next.

Go here: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12101048_1.

Did I read the same encyclical as The New York Times?

I assume we did. And this January 25th article does refer to "Benedict's first encyclical", which is "titled 'God Is Love.'" Sounds right. What confuses me (well, not really, but stick with me), first of all, is the article's headline: "Benedict's First Encyclical Shuns Strictures of Orthodoxy". Quick! — define the "strictures of orthodoxy" in fifty words or less. It sounds so ... strict. And harsh. Not to mention uptight and nasty. Does Ian Fisher, the author of the piece, say anything that might give us a clue into this curious phrase?

Pope Benedict XVI issued an erudite meditation on love and charity on Wednesday in a long-awaited first encyclical that presented Roman Catholicism's potential for good rather than imposing firm, potentially divisive rules for orthodoxy.

The encyclical, titled "God Is Love," did not mention abortion, homosexuality, contraception or divorce, issues that often divide Catholics. But in gentle, often poetic language, Benedict nonetheless portrayed a tough-minded church that is "duty bound," he wrote, to intervene at times in secular politics for "the attainment for what is just."

Ah-ha! So "orthodoxy" is apparently imposing, divisive, tough-minded, and obsessed with closely monitoring the sexual activities and marital situations of Catholics. In case readers missed these subtle clues, Fisher reinforces how vaguely disturbing orthodoxy is a bit later, again using the "d" word (that's "divisive," not "delicious"):

Before becoming pope, when he was known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict was often seen as a divisive figure, lauded by conservative Catholics for his devotion to orthodoxy and criticized by liberal ones for not sharing their vision for a changing, more modern church.

But there is hope, Times readers are told, because "Benedict's elaboration on love and charity was largely praised across the church on Wednesday as a document that sought to express what is common to all Catholics." Yes, that's true — common to all Catholics who are orthodox. That is — to quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's Truth and Tolerance — to those who seek "to know and to practice the right way in which God wishes to be glorified" (pp. 124-5), which is how he defines "orthodoxy" in that book. And in that same book, he makes the key point that orthopraxy (right practice) flows from orthodoxy (right thinking). This is significant because the Holy Father begins Deus Caritas Est with this explanation of its contents:

For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others. That, in essence, is what the two main parts of this Letter are about, and they are profoundly interconnected. The first part is more speculative, since I wanted here—at the beginning of my Pontificate—to clarify some essential facts concerning the love which God mysteriously and gratuitously offers to man, together with the intrinsic link between that Love and the reality of human love. The second part is more concrete, since it treats the ecclesial exercise of the commandment of love of neighbour. (par 1)

In other words, the first part presents an orthodox, theological reflection on the nature and meaning of love, while the second part explains how this love is to be practiced and lived. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Right thinking and right living. Holy thinking and holy living. Godly thinking and godly living.

Some of the news stories about the encyclical that I've seen are basically saying: 1) it's about love, and 2) it's not nearly as rigorous, theological, and orthodox as many thought it would be. That's true enough, on the surface. But the impression given (intentionally or not) is that this Pope might be far more lenient and open to "progress" and hip thinking. The Times reports:

Christian Weisner, spokesman for the German chapter of the liberal Catholic group We Are Church, called the encyclical "a sign of hope" that Benedict would prove to be a "human face for Christianity and for the Catholic Church. He said, however, that he hoped that the pope's emphasis on love would make him more open to opposing views. "Loving your neighbors also means loving critical theologians, he said. "He also has to apply these ideas within the church itself."

This is silliness. Worse, it is a silliness that appears to be based on the following logic: 1) The Pope wrote his first encyclical about love; 2) I think that "love" means letting me do whatever I want; 3) So the Pope should let me do whatever I want. But love does not make you "more open" to falsehood, and loving someone does not mean affirming them in falsehood. Among other things, Benedict explains, true love involves conforming our will to God, based in our realization that He not only desires the best for us, He is the only One who can fulfull our deepest needs and longing:

The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28). (par 17)

This is, not surprisingly, very Augustinian in tone, drawing as it does from The Confessions. Speaking of surprising (or, not surprising), I'm not sure why some are expressing such surprise at the topic and accessible style of Deus Caritas Est. Sure, some folks (at the Times!) probably thought the Holy Father was going to produce a long, mean-spirited rant about homosexuality, abortion, and the need for a 7:00 p.m. curfew. But Cardinal Ratzinger's books — even the dense and difficult ones — are nuanced, thoughtful, often pastoral (even when academic) and even (to borrow from Fisher) poetic. They are also clear and inviting, just as this encyclical is. And they are most certainly orthodox. But there is no "stricture of orthodoxy" to be found since that phrase is a semantic smokescreen and because orthodoxy is not narrow or restricting. As Chesterton famously wrote nearly a hundred years ago:

People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe.  There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.  It was sanity:  and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. ...  It is easy to be a madman:  it is easy to be a heretic.  It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom--that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. (Orthodoxy, chapter 6)

Finally, if there is any doubt about the type of love and charity that Benedict is writing about — and about the moral content and context of that charity — paragraph 39 of the encyclical sums it up very well:

Faith, hope and charity go together. Hope is practised through the virtue of patience, which continues to do good even in the face of apparent failure, and through the virtue of humility, which accepts God's mystery and trusts him even at times of darkness. Faith tells us that God has given his Son for our sakes and gives us the victorious certainty that it is really true: God is love! It thus transforms our impatience and our doubts into the sure hope that God holds the world in his hands and that, as the dramatic imagery of the end of the Book of Revelation points out, in spite of all darkness he ultimately triumphs in glory. Faith, which sees the love of God revealed in the pierced heart of Jesus on the Cross, gives rise to love. Love is the light—and in the end, the only light—that can always illuminate a world grown dim and give us the courage needed to keep living and working. Love is possible, and we are able to practise it because we are created in the image of God. To experience love and in this way to cause the light of God to enter into the world—this is the invitation I would like to extend with the present Encyclical.

So, I assume that I read the same encyclical as The New York Times. But it's safe to say we read it with different eyes, minds, biases and purposes. Cardinal Ratzinger has been one of my favorite theologians for many years. I doubt anyone at the Gray Lady will say that. And without pretending to be an expert on the work and thought of Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, I know that the Holy Father has produced his encyclical within the context of a Tradition, Church, and body of work so that he need not repeat every piece of moral teaching of the Church to reassure readers that those teachings have not been set aside or abandoned because he does not explicitly mention them. It is only in those who adhere to the strictures of sophistry who might make such a mistake, even if the mistake is purposeful and for an uncharitable end.

Carl's "Culture" Watch: The Passions of Kanye West

I haven't read Rolling Stone magazine for a long time. That's a good thing, considering that it stopped covering music back in, um, the day. But I saw the most recent cover, via this Yahoo! article, (see the RS excerpt here) and wondered at a couple of things: First, that the magazine would so cynically make Kanye West, a foul-mouthed rapper (redundant, I know) whose most recent album has received eight Grammy nominations, into a Christ figure. This surprised me because I didn't think anyone at Rolling Stone knew about Jesus Christ or had seen The Passion of the Christ. Secondly, it was surprising that Rolling Stone could still create a cover that doesn't feature a half-naked starlet lounging on it (Jennifer Aniston, for example). Bravo!

So why the Christ complex for Mr. West? Apparently he has suffered in ways that Jesus never suffered:

"In America, they want you to accomplish these great feats, to pull off these David Copperfield-type stunts," he says. "You want me to be great, but you don't ever want me to say I'm great?" West also says his hit song "Gold Digger" was the best song last year and that it should have been nominated for the Grammy's best rap song category: "That's a gimme Grammy."

West, if you somehow missed it, is the brilliant 28-year-old producer, rapper, and artist (oooooh!) who eloquently argu--er, blathered--that "George Bush doesn't care about black people" during a telethon for Hurricane Katrina victims. This, too, was the action of a great man who has embraced suffering with a stiff upper lip and a fat bank account: "If I was more complacent and I let things slide, my life would be easier, but you all wouldn't be as entertained," he says. "My misery is your pleasure." Take note that this misery is being endured while West "is lounging in a well-appointed suite in Manhattan's swanky Mercer Hotel." I doubt his misery. Perhaps this is why someone once described rap (as I recall the conversation) predominately being a product created by upper-class artists for middle-class kids who want to be lower-class losers.

To top it off, West says that he's addicted to pornography. And based on the lyrics of the rap titled "Addiction," he's having a hard time with it. Sad, yes; serious, certainly. Just as sad and serious is the fact that West is selling millions of albums (he is, RS says, "America's most provocative pop star") and creating "music" that will shape the attitudes and manipulate the emotions of millions of listeners — all while playing the victim card, mocking Christianity, and desecrating the English language. And sometimes all in the same "song", as in "Crack Music":

Our father, give us this day our daily bread ...give us these days and take our daily bread,
See I done did all this ole bulls---
And to attone I throw a little somethin, somethin on the pulpit.
We took that s---, measured it and then cooked that s---
And what we gave back was crack music
And now we ooze it through they nooks and crannies
So our mammas aint got to be they cooks and nannies
And we gonna repo everything they ever took from grammy
Now the former slaves trade hooks for grammies
This dark diction has become America's addiction those who ain't even black use it.

Please, Rolling Stone: bring back CCR. Or Van Morrison. Please, lose the Passion and show some compassion. And taste.   

New articles from HPR

The February HPR table of contents and two selected articles are now available online...

Reading Genesis with Cardinal Ratzinger, by Fr. Nicanor P.G. Austriaco, O.P....

In this essay, I respond to the Catholic creationist movement by arguing that contemporary exegetes have sufficient reason to move beyond a literalist reading of the Genesis text. I will begin by summarizing the three hermeneutical principles employed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, in his non-literalist interpretation of the six-day account of Genesis, traditionally called the Hexaemeron. I will then show that his method is faithful both to the teaching of the Catholic Church most recently articulated in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, and to the teaching of his predecessor, Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus. Thus, I propose that Cardinal Ratzinger’s approach to reading Genesis, as a particularly noteworthy example of the hermeneutical method endorsed by Vatican II, should be paradigmatic for the contemporary Catholic exegete seeking to be faithful to the Catholic tradition.

And the first in a series of reports from the editor, Father Baker, on the Synod 2005:

Synod 2005: The Eucharist, by Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ...

In his homily during the Mass on the first day, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about the importance of the Eucharist for the Church and the world. He also spoke rather strongly about the loss of faith in Europe. He referred to God’s punishment of Israel in the Old Testament and intimated that the same thing could happen to Europe and the West in general if the nations continue their drift away from God and the acknowledgement of God as Creator and Redeemer. There was an echo in his homily of the strong language he had used in his talk to the Cardinals just before the conclave in which he was elected to succeed John Paul II.

You weren't able to join the Walk for Life West Coast last weekend? No problem...

... since dozens of photos — some of them inspiring and many of them disturbing — can be see in this three-page photographic record of the event from start to finish. I know that I'm talking to the choir here, but in viewing these photos (and a couple of short video clips), I marvel at the level of hatred, ugliness, and barbarism displayed by those claiming to be "pro-choice." WARNING: Some of these photos contain vulgar language and some offensive images (and, no, none of the offensive images are carried by the pro-life folks from WFLWC).

Also, the Walk for Life WC website has a number of links to news articles about the walk and reaction to it.

Some Comments on Deus Caritas Est

The Holy Father's first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, is probably one of the most easily understandable papal encyclicals I have read. It is divided into two main parts, the first dealing with the nature of love understood from a philosophical and theological perspective and the second with concrete expressions of love in the Church's charitable works. The second section is supposed to have begun as a draft of a document by John Paul II.

This encyclical is at once basic and profound. It is marked by a deceptive lucidity that comes through even in translation from German.  The orderly German theological mind of its author reveals itself and we, the readers, are all the better for it.

The encyclical's treatment of the kinds of love, the nature of God's love, and the love of man for God is highly pertinent and very accessible. I think many people will be surprised at how relatively easy a read it is.  The discussion of sexual love will get most of the attention--the headlines are already pitching this as about sex--although that isn't the main topic of the letter. 

Interestingly enough, Benedict XVI has a few things in his discussion of divine love that will get the theologians' tongues moving.

The discussion of the Church's charitable work, including the relationship of charity and justice and the role of the state with respect to charity and justice is extremely well presented. I'll use it in my social ethics teaching. Benedict's teaching here is apt also to generate some controversy, especially with respect to the state's role, and the limitations on government activity. In a sense, that's not the main point but in a politicized world, some people won't see anything else.

The relationship between love of God and love of man is elegantly stated. It takes what is often a presented as a cliche and helps us understand its profound and necessary truth. Likewise, the relationship between love of God and the communion of the Church in love is explained in a manner that moves beyond the platitudes to the underlying reality.

There's much more to say, of course.  But that will have to come later.  Oh, one more thing: it's relatively short--some 16,000 words in translation. I'm of two minds about that.  I like what was there so much I wish he would have expanded on certain points. Yet long encyclicals discourage many readers.

Anyway, as I say, more to come.

Benedict's First Encyclical

Introduction

1. “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.

Continue here.

What was Christoph Cardinal Schonborn up to in 2005?

Plenty. And the Schonborn Site has an overview of the Cardinal's year, while the Schonborn Sightings blog has an ongoing and comprehensive listing of the Cardinal's various talks, articles, and interviews, including his various comments on evolution and Intelligent Design.

Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code | Excerpts from The Da Vinci Hoax | Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel

Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code | Excerpts from The Da Vinci Hoax | Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel

(Note: Footnotes for these selected excerpts have been removed.)

Introduction: The Da Vinci Code Phenomenon

The immense success of The Da Vinci Code and its strong language about early Christianity and the Catholic Church has resulted in substantial controversy over many of the "facts" within its pages. Not only is the novel influencing the views of non-Christian readers, it is raising difficult questions in the minds of many Christians, some of whom are being asked about Brown’s interpretation of Church history and theology. One such reader recently wrote to us, saying: "I own a Catholic bookstore. We are getting bombarded daily by people who are buying into the garbage in this book. You cannot believe how many people have been exposed to this book. . . . We even had an elderly aunt talking about Opus Dei tonight and yelling at us that the book is true or it couldn’t be printed." Another reader openly admitted the doubts that The Da Vinci Code has raised in his mind:

"Honestly, [reading the book] shook my whole faith. I realize that the book is fiction, but much of what he wrote about seemed like it was based on historical facts aside from the characters. Since I am not a Christian scholar I don’t even know where to begin to refute these claims. As the Catholic church holds much of the evidence that would refute the drivel in The Da Vinci Code, I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction to a scholarly non-Christian book that might help me make better sense of the whole historical chain of events. If Christianity is nothing more than a big accommodation, it becomes relegated to a lifestyle choice and not a religion, which I do not want to believe."

We’ve heard many similar stories in recent months and expect to hear more, which is the main reason this book has been written. Just as the Left Behind books have been used to promote a premillennial dispensationalist understanding of Scripture and the end times, The Da Vinci Code has proven to be an effective tool for attacking Christian doctrine and undermining the faith of those uncertain of how to respond to the many accusations leveled against the Church.

Continue reading...

Jimmy Akin Having Too Much Fun

My friend Jimmy Akin is having too much fun at his blog site.  Proof? Well, read it regularly and you'll see what I mean.  The evidence is too overwhelming to exhaust here, so I will give you only Exhibit A: The Beatles Just Got Back Together.

I repent for not calling attention more often to Jimmy's stuff.