Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Forgive, For Eucharist's Sake

Forgive, For Eucharist's Sake: A Lenten Reflection | Carl E. Olson

"To err is human, to forgive, divine." This well-known phrase, Monsignor Ronald Knox observed, captures two of the greatest mysteries of the Christian life: "That man, being what he is, can rebel against God; and the doctrine that God, being what he is, can forgive man."

Continue reading...

Motu Proprio confirmed?

The Rorate Caeli blog has the news of an interview with Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone in Le Figaro Magazine (weekly magazine of the French national daily Le Figaro), to be published today (but not yet available on the newspaper's website), apparently confirming that a motu proprio regarding the preconciliar Latin rite Mass will be issued soon. Read it here.

For more about the Latin Mass, go here.

"Hans made him do it!"

Believe it or not, I really didn't plan on posting so much this week on Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar. In fact, I didn't believe on Monday that I would be posting so much about him, which I suppose makes me a universalist of sorts. Weak theological jokes aside, I was surprised to find von Balthasar being blamed, in the pages of Commentary, for Pope John Paul II's alleged refusal to talk about hell and, perhaps, not even believe in hell. Daniel Johnson, who is a contributing editor at the New York Sun and was formerly a columnist and senior editor for the Times (London) and Daily Telegraph, has a March 29th post titled, "Pope Benedict, Dr. Johnson, and Hell," which begins in this way:

The Pope says that hell “really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more.” In a Lenten homily at a Roman parish on Monday, reports Richard Owen in the London Times, “Benedict XVI said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to ‘admit blame and promise to sin no more,’ they risked ‘eternal damnation—the Inferno.’”

That the Pope believes in hell may not strike most people as surprising. But when was the last time you heard a senior Catholic churchman talk about it? The last Pope, John Paul II, was much influenced by the great Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, who was a universalist—that is to say, he believed that Christ’s salvation was universal. According to that view, if there is a hell, it is empty. In coming to this conclusion, Balthasar (whom John Paul II promoted to cardinal) was influenced by Edith Stein, the Jewish convert who became a Carmelite nun and was murdered at Auschwitz. She was later canonized by John Paul II as St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. Her view was that God’s love is so great that it embraces even the most obdurate sinner. As she perished in a man-made simulacrum of hell, a place of mass torment beyond anything conceived by the ancient or medieval imagination, Edith Stein’s words carry considerable weight.

Yet the universalism of Stein, Balthasar, and perhaps John Paul II himself has never been the authoritative doctrine of the Church. Pope Benedict adheres to the authoritative 1994 edition of the catechism, which he largely wrote as Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith and which was one of the great landmarks of John Paul II’s pontificate. The catechism is explicit: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. . . . The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God. . . . To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice.”

This is indeed a strange post, with a couple of glaring errors. But, first, what of the question, "When was the last time you heard a senior Catholic churchman talk about it?" Off the top of my head, I recall that John Paul II caused a stir a few years ago—Wednesday, July 28, 1999, to be exact—when he spoke about hell at a General Audience, stating:

God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to  respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once  and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is  precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal  damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of  premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life  "hell".

In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the  ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is  the state of those who definitively reject the Father's mercy, even at the last moment of  their life.

It would seem evident from that Audience that John Paul II believed in hell (as if there was any doubt). There is also the fact (as Johnson notes) that it was John Paul II who approved and promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (From everything I've heard, it's not clear that Ratzinger wrote most, or even large sections, of the Catechism.)  Whatever the case, there is the matter of von Balthasar, who did not teach that hell was/is empty, but that Christians should place their hope in God's mercy regarding all of mankind, and thus hell might be empty (see related post). He wrote:

"...On the other hand, my words were continually twisted with a view to claiming that he who hope for the salvation of all his brothers and sisters ‘hopes hell empty’ (what an expression!). Or that he who voices such a hope advocates the universal redemption (apokatastasis) condemned by the Church—something that I have utterly rejected: we stand completely and utterly under judgment, and have no right, nor is it possible to peer in advance at the Judge’s cards…" (Dare We Hope "That All Me Will Be Saved?", 166. Thanks for Rick for the reference)

But an even more glaring problem in Johnson's post is the insinuation that John Paul II did not speak of hell and was probably a universalist. There is the matter of his General Audience, as noted. But what about John Paul II's widely published and hugely popular book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope? (1994), which was not written for bishops or academics, but for ordinary readers (and sold very well)? Here is what the late Holy Father said in that book about hell:

In fact, people of our time have become insensitive to the Last Things. On the one hand, secularization and secularism promote this insensitivity and lead to a consumer mentality oriented toward the enjoyment of earthly goods. On the other hand, the "hells on earth" created in this century which is now drawing to a close have also contributed to this insensitivity. After the experience of concentration camps, gulags, bombings, not to mention natural catastrophes, can man possibly expect anything worse from this world, an even greater amount of humiliation and contempt? In a word, hell?

To a certain degree, eschatology has become irrelevant to contemporary man, especially in our civilization. Nonetheless, faith in God, as Supreme Justice, has not become irrelevant to man; the expectation remains that there is Someone who, in the end, will be able to speak the truth about the good and evil which man does, Someone able to reward the good and punish the bad. No one else but He is capable of doing it. People continue to have this awareness, which has survived in spite of the horrors of our century. "And so it is appointed that men die once, and then comes judgment" (cf. Heb 9:27).

This awareness also represents, in a certain sense, a common denominator for all monotheistic religions as well as for others. When the Council speaks of the eschatological character of the pilgrim Church it does so on the basis of this awareness. God, who is the just Judge, the Judge who rewards good and punishes evil, is none other than the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Moses, and also of Christ, who is His Son. This God is, above all, Love. Not just Mercy, but Love. Not only the Father of the prodigal son, but the Father who "gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life" (cf. Jn 3:16).

This truth which the Gospel teaches about God requires a certain change in focus with regard to eschatology. First of all, eschatology is not what will take place in the future, something happening only after earthly life is finished. Eschatology has already begun with the coming of Christ. The ultimate eschatological event was His redemptive Death and His Resurrection. This is the beginning of "a new heaven and a new earth" (cf. Rev 21:1). For everyone, life beyond death is connected with the affirmation: "I believe in the resurrection of the body," and then: "I believe in the forgiveness of sins and in life everlasting." This is Christocentric eschatology.

In Christ, God revealed to the world that He desires "everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth" (1 Tm 2:4). This phrase from the First Letter to Timothy is of fundamental importance for understanding and preaching the Last Things. If God desires this-if, for this reason, God has given His Son, who in turn is at work in the Church through the Holy Spirit-can man be damned, can he be rejected by God?

The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apocatastasis," according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.

At the same time, however, there is something in man's moral conscience itself that rebels against any loss of this conviction: Is not God who is Love also ultimate Justice? Can He tolerate these terrible crimes, can they go unpunished? Isn't final punishment in some way necessary in order to reestablish moral equilibrium in the complex history of humanity? Is not hell in a certain sense the ultimate safeguard of man's moral conscience?

To repeat: "In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the 'final apocatastasis,' according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell." Guess what? John Paul rejected universalism!

Finally, Johnson's post becomes even more unfair with the facts when he states, "The catechism leaves open the question of who, if anybody, is damned..." Uh, so when Pope John Paul II and von Balthasar leave open the question, it's because they are "universalists," but when Pope Benedict upholds the Catechism's teaching and thus, implicitly, leaves open the same question, it's because he, unlike them, adheres to authoritative Church teaching. Does this make sense? Nope, I didn't think so. 

Mass of Vatican II booklets

The Mass of Vatican II

The Mass of Vatican II booklet features Latin texts of the Church's Liturgy, but it also includes an unofficial English translation as an aid to understanding the Latin. The Latin prayers and responses of the booklet require no special permission to be used in the Liturgy--they are the already-approved Latin text of the Mass.

BULK DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE!

1-25 copies $2.00 ea
26-100 copies $1.50 ea
101-250 copies and above $1.25 ea
251+ copies $1.00 ea

Click here to order!

The Enduring Costs of John F. Kennedy's Compromise

The Enduring Costs of John F. Kennedy's Compromise

By Colleen Carroll Campbell

What role should a Catholic politician's faith play in his governing decisions? After dominating U.S. headlines during the 2004 presidential contest between Catholic Senator John Kerry and Methodist President George W. Bush, the question has emerged again. The midterm elections of 2006 swept pro-choice Catholic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi into the third-highest position in the U.S. government, cost the pro-life movement more than a dozen House and Senate seats, and found Catholic voters migrating back to the Democratic Party despite its staunch support for legal abortion. Pro-abortion Catholic and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has informally launched a presidential bid, as has pro-life Catholic Senator Sam Brownback. And the U.S. bishops recently released a statement affirming that Catholics must uphold Church teaching in public life if they wish to receive Communion.

The controversy over America's Catholic politicians connects to a more fundamental question confronting dozens of pluralistic democracies today: Should religious convictions and religiously-based moral principles be confined to the private realm, or should they inform our public policy debates? And what role must the Catholic politician play in articulating those beliefs and principles?

The most prominent American Catholic politician to address those questions was President John F. Kennedy, whose landmark 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association indelibly influenced a generation of aspiring Catholic politicians. His speech, and a later address by Catholic New York Governor Mario Cuomo that applied Kennedy's arguments to the abortion debate, go a long way toward explaining the trend toward compartmentalization of faith and politics that prevails among Catholic politicians today—and offer clues about how it can be reversed.

Read the entire Catholic World Report article...

Wilberforce and Baseball

The name of English abolitionist William Wilberforce  (much better known now due to the recent movie, "Amazing Grace") isn't likely to be associated with America's national pasttime. But, as Justice George E. Nicholson III explains in a piece for The Independent Institute, there are important, if not direct, connections:

Branch Rickey was a baseball man, through and through. During more than a half century in the game, he brought remarkable players and World Series championships to three great cities, St. Louis, Brooklyn, and Pittsburgh, and countless innovations to the game of baseball, many of which still abound.

Rickey’s story, however, is not just a baseball story. It is a story of vision, courage, and service, a story not unlike that of the great abolitionist William Wilberforce as will become evident on March 30th, when an historic panel will be held at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. The distinguished panel, moderated by Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree, will focus its attention on baseball and freedom. Rickey’s grandson, also Branch Rickey, is president of the nation’s top minor league, the Pacific Coast League. He will be on the panel too.

On the following day, Major League Baseball will host in Memphis the first Civil Rights Game between the World Champion St. Louis Cardinals and the Cleveland Indians. As Baseball Commissioner Allan Selig notes, “This game is designed to commemorate the Civil Rights Movement, one of the most critical and important eras of our social history. I am proud of the role that Major League Baseball played in the Movement, beginning with Jackie Robinson's entry into the big leagues.” The game will be televised on ESPN, beginning at 4:30 CST.

The panel will be heard and the game will be played in observance of the 60th anniversary Robinson’s first game with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Selig says, “[Rickey] was not only the greatest sports and baseball executive of the 20th century, but his bringing Jackie Robinson to the big leagues will forever stand as baseball’s proudest moment.”

Read the entire piece.

The Everyday Lives of the Early Christians

The Everyday Lives of the Early Christians | An interview with Carl J. Sommers, author of We Look For the Kingdom: The Everyday Lives of the Early Christians | Carl E. Olson                

Carl J. Sommer's newly published book, We Look For a Kingdom, is a fascinating study of the faith, life, and world of the early Christians living in the era between the Apostles and the Emperor Constantine (A.D. 100-313). Using documentary evidence and archaeological records, Sommer reconstructs the lives   of the early Christians in order to "introduce the treasures of early Christianity to a large number of modern readers". IgnatiusInsight.com editor Carl E. Olson recently interviewed Sommer about the book, the lessons to be learned from the first Christians, and how American culture compares to ancient Roman culture.

IgnatiusInsight.com: What is your educational background and what sort of studies prepared you to write this book?

Carl J. Sommer: Years ago, I spent a couple of years in a Catholic Seminary, Conception Abbey (Benedictine) in northwest Missouri. After two years, I decided not to become a priest, but, after years in the business world, I decided to pursue a Masters Degree in theology, with plans to go on for my doctorate. I got the Masters, from Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis, but did not pursue the doctorate, because my wife and I started a family, and I needed to go to work. I have spent time as a parish DRE, and currently do Baptism preparation and RCIA for a parish here in St. Louis. In writing this book, I actually had to unlearn much that I "learned" at Aquinas. The faculty at Aquinas thought, and taught, that the early Church was egalitarian, with women in sacramental ministries, etc. In my research I found that, with the exception of some odd heretical sects (the kind that believed in twelve, or thirty, or a thousand gods), the early Christians were not egalitarian, and though they had substantial roles for women, they did not allow them to fulfill the priestly ministry.

Continue reading...

von Balthasar and the Tarot

A reader mentions Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar and the foreword he wrote for the book Meditations on the Tarot, written by Valentin Tomberg (as "Anonymous", first published in France in 1967), and asks:

Anyone have any helpful information on what on earth the story is there?

I've not read the book (only some excerpts--see below--which I've not yet read closely), so I can only speculate to some degree. The book is, apparently, a detailed work by Valentin Tomberg (1900-1973), who was a Russian Christian mystic who became Catholic in the 1940s. His Méditations sûr les 22 arcanes majeurs du Tarot was a study of the Tarot of Marseilles. Interestingly enough, this book is apparently seen by some esoterics as being hyper-Catholic and even the work of a man under the influence of Jesuits. For example,  a book titled The Case of Valentin Tomberg: Anthroposophy or Jesuitism?, by Sergei O. Prokofieff, is described in this way:

Born in 1900 in Russia, Valentin Tomberg was for many years an enthusiastic student of Anthroposophy, the science of the spirit founded by Rudolf Steiner. In 1945, however, he converted to Roman Catholicism and completely turned his back on the former phase of his life. By the time of his death in 1973 he had written two major works,  Meditations on the Tarot and  Covenant of the Heart, in which he presents much esoteric knowledge, but now under the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church. In these books he also appears as a promoter of Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuit Order, whom Rudolf Steiner characterized as enemies of true Christianity.

What is the mystery behind Tomberg's life, and why did he arrive at such a dramatic change in his thinking? In this forcefully argued and uncompromising book, intended for serious students of Anthroposophy, Prokofieff suggests that behind the work of Valentin Tomberg lies a clear resolve to unite 'esoteric and exoteric Christianity'. In Tomberg's terms, and those who follow his example today, this means bringing modern esoteric Christianity (Anthroposophy) under the hierarchical and dogmatic structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, as Prokofieff demonstrates through his meticulous research, this is the goal of Jesuitism today, that nothing Christian should exist outside the Catholic Church.

Excerpts from the book can be read on this website, which also contains much other info about the book. A page of explanation states:

"The book is written from an orthodox Christian (Roman Catholic) perspective. One of its beauties is the way it draws out the value in many spiritual and cultural phenomena of which Christians have often been wary, without in any way compromising the centrality of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The author uses the Tarot images to help the reader deepen his or her relationship with God through prayer and meditation."

An excerpt from von Balthasar's foreword can be read on the same site. A couple of excerpts:

"A thinking, praying Christian of unmistakable purity reveals to us the symbols of Christian Hermeticism in its various levels of mysticism, gnosis and magic, taking in also the Cabbala and certain elements of astrology and alchemy. These symbols are summarised in the twenty-two so-called "Major Arcana" of the Tarot cards. By way of the Major Arcana the author seeks to lead meditatively into the deeper, all-embracing wisdom of the Catholic Mystery. ....

"The first discussions for or against the secret teachings of the Cabbala go back to the converted or non-converted Spanish Jews of the twelfth century. Among those who later endeavored to understand these teachings were Reuchlin in Germany, Ficino and especially Pico della Mirandola in Italy,[4] whilst the extraordinary Cardinal Giles of Viterbo (1469-1552) wanted to explain the Holy Scripture with the help of the Cabbala "with a method that is not foreign, but which is intrinsic (to it)" (non peregrina sed domestica methodo).[5]. Enjoined by Pope Clement VII, this zealous, reform-hungry Cardinal wrote his ebullient dissertation on the "Shekinah", dedicated to Emperor Charles V.[6]. Alongside these few names resounding from the past, a multitude of lesser predecessors and imitators could be mentioned.

"Here the important point is that although this penetration into the secret teachings of pagan and Jewish origin was pursued in the spirit of humanism, in the hope of bringing new life into rigidified Christian theology through collecting such scattered revelation and illumination, no one for a moment doubted that despite the disparities everything could be accommodated into the true Christian faith. That Pico, in particular, did not aim at syncretism, he himself made quite clear:

"I bear on my brow the name Jesus Christ and would die gladly for the faith in him. I am neither a magician nor a Jew, nor an Ishmaelite nor a heretic. It is Jesus whom I worship and his cross I bear upon my body."[7]. The author of these Meditations' could also have affirmed this oath of allegiance."

Tomberg wrote other books that appear to be in (or similar to) the tradition of Russian mystics/theologians/philosophers such as Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov and Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (both Eastern Orthodox), often described as "Sophiologists", who wrote much the Wisdom of God, and its relationship to Christ. One of Tomberg's books was Christ and Sophia. A page on the Sophia Foundation of North America provides the following info about this connection:

"Valentin Tomberg (1900-1973) was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, into a Lutheran family. Already in his youth he entered upon a serious study of Christian esotericism. He was strongly influenced by the Russian Sophiologist Vladimir Soloviev, and in his early life he was also a student of Rudolf Steiner. He wrote and lectured on spiritual science (Anthroposophy) primarily in relation to Biblical themes. For him Anthroposophy was a bridge to the living Christ. During World War II he joined the Greek Orthodox Church and then the Roman Catholic Church, inspired by the ecumenical ideal espoused by Vladimir Soloviev of the unity of the Christian Church. For the latter part of his life he resided in England, working for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), while pursuing meditation and writing. Valentin Tomberg's writings reveal an extraordinary depth of perception that cannot fail to touch the heart of the meditative reader. His later works were written in the spirit of the great Hermetic tradition of wisdom extending back to Ancient Egypt. These writings, concerning the symbolism of Christian Hermeticism as a fusion of Hermeticism with the Christian tradition, draw not only upon the wisdom of the Bible but also upon many other spiritual and mystical traditions. (An important source work for Christian Hermeticism is Meditations on the Tarot available through the "Bookstore"). Valentin Tomberg is widely acknowledged not only as a leading Sophiologist (teacher concerning Sophia), but also as one of the great mystics of the twentieth century and as the primary inspirer of Christian Hermeticism."

Whether this description of Tomberg's work is entirely accurate or not, I don't know. My limited knowledge of various forms of esoteric belief systems leads me to believe that many folks who embrace such things tend to inflate their claims about ancient history and wide-ranging connections.

It would certainly be helpful to know much more of the story of Tomberg and his connection with von Balthasar (and apparently Pope John Paul II, for that matter). Having said that, I hope the above info might help provide some helpful context, especially since it's not uncommon to read remarks along the lines of "von Balthasar wrote an intro to a New Age book and so he's obviously be a heretic." It seems to me that careful questions should be asked before sending von Balthasar down the proverbial river, including:

• What was the intent of Tomberg's book? Considering the complex history of Tarot cards, which did not not always have occultic connections, how did Tomberg understand them?
• To what degree did Balthasar agree with Tomberg's work? Why did he write the foreword?
• What, exactly, is "Christian Hermiticism," and what did von Balthasar think of it?
• It seems apparent that John Paul II was aware of the book and von Balthasar's foreword to it. What was his view of the book and the foreword?
• Where is the line between studying beliefs that may be incompatible with Catholicism (in some or many ways) and outright syncretism? Did von Balthasar cross that line? If so, how?

The not-so-secret secret behind "The Secret"

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J., interviewed by Emily Stimpson for Our Sunday Visitor, pulls back the curtains on the The Secret of Oz--er, Oprah:

According to Jesuit Father Mitch Pacwa, who hosts EWTN Live and writes extensively on the New Age movement, "The Secret," far from being some long-lost piece of ancient wisdom, is just the same old New Age nonsense dressed up for TV.

"It's a standard New Age idea that all the world's problems would go away if everyone would just be a little more positive," said Father Pacwa. "This is an old scam. It's like a nasty scene from 'Poltergeist': 'They're ba-ack.'"

The roots of "The Secret," however, go further back than the New Age movement. In fact, said Father Pacwa, they go right back to Eden.

"What did the devil say to Eve? 'Eat this, and you'll become like gods.' That's what 'The Secret' really promises."

The promise of "The Secret" does seem to echo the promise of the serpent. It promises that without help from man or God you can control your destiny. It assures you neither grace nor suffering are necessary. It makes you your own god, and leaves no room for a Messiah who hung on a cross.

Of course, the cost of believing those promises is as high as ever, which is why the best way for Catholics to respond to "The Secret" is not to think "lovely, wonderful thoughts" about the phenomenon coming to a quick demise. Rather, Father Pacwa advised, Catholics need to help the culture rediscover their dependence on God's grace and the redemptive power of suffering.

"Suffering isn't easy, but it's profound and powerful," he said. "Our task is to help folks in the culture face their problems instead of looking for the easy way out. It doesn't exist."

Oprah has the bigger television ratings, but I'll happily and readily go with the priest in cowboy boots on this one.

Hans Universalist Balthasar?

It's fairly common for the name of Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar to be associated with those who deny the existence of hell or who believe that everyone will make it to heaven. But, as Michael Joseph points out, this is both inaccurate and unfair to what Balthasar actually wrote:

Unfortunately, there are still many in the Catholic Church who slander Balthasar's name, but not out of any real familiarity with his works. The limits of sheer ignorance are often times set by a fear of the unknown, and many Catholics today, out of ignorance and fear, refuse to grant to Balthasar a fair hearing. Those of us who know Balthasar's works can only be dumbfounded by the foolish attempts of the uninformed to label Balthasar with such ridiculous terms as "liberal" or "heterodox". Would that those who use such labels or even remotely believe in their legitimacy actually read Balthasar!

Thanks to another blogger, I came across an uninformed and slandering article on Balthasar over at SperoNews. What struck me immediately was the scarcity of quotes from Balthasar's works. One would think that any respectable article that would explicitly charge Balthasar with "heresy" and the propagation of "dangerous views" would back up this charge with substantial documentation and evidence. But fear of the unknown overcame poor Susan Beckworth, the author of the article, and instead of reading Balthasar or at least attempting to partially reconstruct Balthasar's position on any given topic, she resorts to vacuous judgments, shoddy theological reasoning and utter misrepresentation. The result? Histrionics masquerading as religious insight.

One of Beckworth's misfired charges against Balthasar is that he promoted a dangerous mode of universalism, the idea that all people will ultimately be saved. Of course, anyone who knows Balthasar recalls the splendid Short Discourse on Hell where Balthasar denies that he ever held such a view. But what about the carefully argued Dare We Hope that All Men Be Saved? where Balthasar asserts that all Christians ought to hope that all people be saved? Beckworth seems utter unfamiliar with the arguments of either work.

Which is not to deny that some of von Balthasar's theological ponderings about hell are very much open to debate. It's simply to note that calling someone a "heretic" who was honored by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI is a bit, well, rash. And doing it without being fair to what the man actually wrote is even worse.

The Latin Mass

The Latin Mass: Old Rites and New Rites in Today's World | Anthony E. Clark, Ph.D. | March 28, 2007

On Sunday, May 12, 1996, Alfons Cardinal Stickler offered a Tridentine Latin Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York in an overfilled church. A strong supporter of the greater use of Latin in the Mass, Cardinal Stickler was visibly happy that day, stating, "I feel privileged that you have requested this Mass be celebrated here in what is your cathedral. . . . All are welcome here. We are one body, one body in Christ." [1] For several thousand lovers of the Latin Mass that day was a rare joy, but it is sadly all too common that whenever one brings up the topic of the "Latin Mass" either an argument or a litany of clarifications ensue.

Continue reading...

Pell!

National Catholic Register has a lengthy and engaging interview with George Cardinal Pell of Melbourne about a host of topics, including the Eucharist, Islam, global warming, the antiChrist, and World Youth Day:

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, in his recent Vatican Lenten meditations, said the Antichrist presents himself as a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist. How much do you agree with this?

(Laughs.) There is a very worthy Christian pacifism. But there is a pacifism where people don’t support anything sufficiently to struggle for, perhaps to fight for. There’s no doubt, too, there can be an ecological enthusiasm that is not religious; it’s a very, very low form of religion. It’s a form of superstition, it’s a religious substitute. And the other one, what is ecumenism? Well a genuine ecumenism recognizes the importance of differences and ecumenism among Christians is the central figure of Christ. Any ecumenism must be not to avoid or escape from the teachings of Christ but to move more deeply into the secret heart of Christianity. Well, the heart of Christianity is not secret.

So all of these good things can be abused and the elusive figure or figures of the Antichrist is something in Christian literature and probably something in history. It’s a danger to try to identify it with any particular individual or movement, but I’ve been much taken by a marvelous contemporary novel by Canadian Catholic writer Michael O’Brien called Father Elijah. It’s an apocalyptic novel; it’s not meant to be an accurate, everyday sort of a book. It speaks about the possibility, the reality of the Antichrist within the Church and within Christianity. Now, he uses the paintings by [Luca] Signorelli in one of the side chapels of the beautiful cathedral of Orvieto. They’re paintings of the Last Judgment. They’re actually the ones Michelangelo went to study before he went to do the painting in the Sistine Chapel. The figure of the Antichrist there is standing behind Christ and puts out his hand from behind Christ and offers it to people as though it is the hand of Christ himself. So the figure of the Antichrist will have many elements that are attractive to humans as well as being deeply, deeply evil.

For those not familiar with O'Brien's work, much of it published by Ignatius Press, consider visiting his IgnatiusInsight.com page, with links to interviews and his books, including the excellent Father Elijah.

What are your more general views of the ecology movement that, rightly or wrongly, has been termed a new religion, but whose science is sometimes regarded as poor?

Like Christians and Muslims, there are ecologists, ecologists and ecologists. There are some forms of deep-green ecology that are deeply pagan and deeply hostile to the special and central place of human beings and especially to Christianity. But as Christians, we must have a reference for nature.

As a generation, we have no right to gobble up the resources of nature disproportionately so there are none left for future generations. There are wonderful Christian ecologists with a genuine respect for God’s creation and also a deep Christian faith, but there are some who are sympathetic to every form of life except human life. They will be very enthusiastic to protect whales and endangered species and be stridently in favor of the abortion of human babies. I mean it’s grotesque.

But on the whole, do you agree with the science behind climate change?

Once again, I think there’s an enormous mixture there, and there’s no unanimity amongst scientists about what is happening. A classic example I give is the Antarctic, whatever one says about the Arctic. Large chunks of ice have broken away, but about 70% of the Antarctic has been surveyed systematically, and it’s getting colder. The ice there is increasing rather than decreasing, and many of what is described in the press sometimes as unprecedented, never seen before, sometimes they’ll say “unprecedented in the last 10 years.” So before we jump to the conclusion that something is radically new, we need to have a good look at the historical record to see just what happened.

You see, people without religion are often looking for something to fear. I can remember high school students 20 years ago being frightened of being destroyed by atomic warfare. And the press, over the last 100 years, you can document their programs, activities, and it’s alternated. They’ve been warning us of global warming, and that’s alternated with warnings of a coming ice-age. There have been gigantic climatic changes in the past and I think almost entirely they’re beyond human control. I don’t think there’s anything like the evidence necessary to say that human pollution is provoking a catastrophic climate change. It’s quite different to say that in different areas we’re influencing the climate for ill. That’s certainly true. One of the best guarantees against too much pollution is a free press, so that the free press can point out just what is happening.

That's a great line—"You see, people without religion are often looking for something to fear"—and I'd say that it could also be put in another way: "People are inclined to fear, for many reasons, and so they look for a religion. Or to create a religion." And for many people, environmentalism becomes a religion, as evidenced by the over-the-top rhetoric often employed by the Right Reverand Albert Gore. While I certainly share the Cardinal's support of a free press, I'm not so sure how free the press often is from the ideological pressures of those who use fear, not facts, to motivate and influence the public.

Cardinal Pell, btw, is author of Issues of Faith and Morals. Ignatius Press also publishes his biography, George Pell: Defender of the Faith Down Under, written by journalist Tess Livingstone. An interview with Livingstone can be read here, and a 2005 IgnatiusInsight.com interview with Cardinal Pell can be read here.

Ten possible objections...

... raised by Anglicans who might cast a glance toward the Catholic Church are presented by former Anglican and now Catholic priest Dwight Longenecker. Fr. Longenecker writes:

I know many individual Anglicans, both clergy and laity, are looking at their options. There are really only four: A. Stay within the Anglican Church and try to be faithful B. create or join some other Anglican ecclesial structure C. Come over to the Catholic Chuch D. become Eastern Orthodox.

As someone who was an Anglican for fifteen years, I think I understand the objections Anglicans have to coming over the the Catholic Church. I would like to outline them, and then answer them. I hope this may spark discussion. Tell me if I left something out.

Read the ten reasons...

Stickler for canonical details

Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler was born in 1910 and, today, celebrates 70 (yes, seventy!) years as a priest. Stickler is a giant in the field of canon law, and Dr. Ed Peters gives the Cardinal his regards over at the In the Light of the Law blog. Cardinal Stickler is the author of many works, including The Case for Clerical Celibacy.  Read an excerpt from that book: "Clerical Celibacy: Concept and Method."  

The Pope believes in what?!

It's always a bit amusing (and, yes, annoying) when people—specifically, media types—get bent out of shape because the Pope articulates, defends, or preaches about this or that Catholic doctrine or dogma. The most recent example is Hell, which Benedict XVI spoke about this past weekend while celebrating Mass at the Parish of St. Felicity and Martyred Sons in the Diocese of Rome (the homily is currently available in Italian only on the Vatican website).

The New York Post featured the breathtaking headline: "POPE PROCLAIMS HELL 'EXISTS AND IS ETERNAL'", and stated, "Hell is a place where sinners burn in an eternal fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said." Hey, nothing against galvanising, but let's be honest: if hell is merely symbolic (that is, if it doesn't exist, which is what the descriptive "symbolic" means here), exactly how much of a stimulation to spiritual reflection might it be? If your guess is "little to none," I'd say you're on the right track. The Post also says:

Vatican officials said that the Pope - who is also the Bishop of Rome - had been speaking in "straightfoward" language "like a parish priest." He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a "state of eternal separation from God," to be understood "symbolically rather than physically."

This didn't sound quite right to me, so I took a look. Nope, the Catechism never talks about Hell as being symbolic, but instead insists on the reality of Hell:

Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.  Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"  and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."  The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. (CCC 1034-36)

Rather than soften (distort?) the Pope's remarks, the Scotsman takes the "He's a jerk!" approach to the story:

POPE BENEDICT XVI has reiterated the existence of Hell and condemned society for not talking about eternal damnation enough.

A furious Pope Benedict unleashed a bitter attack during a sermon while on a visit to a parish church and said: "Hell exists and there is eternal punishment for those who sin and do not repent."

Sounding "more of a parish priest than a Pope" the leader of the world's one billion Roman Catholics added: "The problem today is society does not talk about Hell. It's as if it did not exist, but it does."

Pope Benedict unleashed his fury during a visit to the tiny parish church of St Felicity and the Martyr Children at Fidene on the outskirts of Rome, in his capacity as bishop of the Italian capital.

One churchgoer said: "The Holy Father was really having a go. It was a typical fire-and-brimstone sermon that you would have expected from a parish priest years ago."

That is a helpful qualification ("years ago") since my guess is that most Catholics rarely hear homilies (or even of homilies) that directly broach the topic of Hell. And did the Pope really "condemn society" for not talking about Hell enough? Was he really bitter? And filled with fury? Something tells me that the folks at the Scotsman are editorializing a wee bit, since this not only doesn't sound like Benedict, it doesn't fit the English excerpts of the homily, which emphasize the love of Jesus, as well as the free will of man, who is never coerced by God, but able to reject communion with Him: 

Using the Gospel reading of John where Jesus saves the adulterous woman from death by stoning by saying "let he who is without sin to cast the first stone", Pope Benedict said: "This reading shows us that Christ wants to save souls. He is saying that He wants us in Paradise with Him but He is saying that those who close their hearts to Him will be condemned to eternal damnation.

"Only God's love can change from within the existence of the person and, consequently, the existence of every society, because only His infinite love liberates from sin, the root of every evil."

That same love is reflected in the sacrifice of Christ, who came with the concrete goal of saving souls, he added.

And, from ZENIT:

"Jesus came to tell us that he wants us all in heaven and that hell, of which so little is said in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love.

"Therefore even in this episode, we understand that our true enemy is our attachment to sin, which can lead us to failing our existence."

However, The London Times understands that, in a sense, the Pope's homily is hardly "news", as though he has something new and unheard of:

“Pope says Hell exists” is the sort of headline you might expect to see in a list of similarly self-evident truths; alongside, say, “The Sun is very hot”...

But, not surprisingly, this is treated as yet more evidence of how out of touch and fearful Benedict is:

The Pope is evidently rattled that people today are not as fearful as they ought to be of ending up in Hell, prompting his reminder to them that if  they fail to “admit blame and promise to sin no more” they risk “eternal  damnation”.

I'd say that The Times is evidently trying to ignore what Benedict is saying, which may or may not reflect how rattled they are by the possibility that Hell is real. If only one could get paid for every time a reporter or pundit tries to sweep away an uncomfortable proposition by immediately painting the proposer as "rattled," "afraid," "old fashioned," and so forth, a common and dreary example of ad hominem abusive. And, by the way, anyone who has seriously read Ratzinger/B16 knows how unrattled he is in the face of addressing modern and post-modern skepticism. So, for example, when he writes of Hell in Introduction to Christianity, he refers to the thought of Sartre and Herman Hesse. Likewise, he engages with Sartre again in Truth and Tolerance in discussing freedom and damnation. And in Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, he critiques Hegel while remarking upon the reality of Hell.

In his excellent essay, "Hell," contained in Hell and Other Destinations (Ignatius Press, 2006), Piers Paul Read remarks insightfully on the unpopular status of damnation:

While Pascal's contemporary, René Descartes, made the philosophical lbservation 'I think therefore I am', Pascal would have us say: 'I believe therefore I am forever'. The last item of the Apostles' Creed, life everlasting, is by no means the least because, as Ronald Knox pointed out, 'once a man or woman has attained the age of reason he is bound for one of two ultimate destinies, fixed and eternal - hell or heaven; and this is true even of those myriads of souls which have never had the opportunity or never had full opportunity, to hear the Christian message preached.' (2)

Knox also warned his readers, in the late 1920s, that 'the prevalent irreligion of the age does exercise a continual unconscious pressure upon the pulpit; it makes preachers hesitate to affirm doctrines whose affirmation would be unpopular. And a doctrine which has ceased to be affirmed is doomed, like a disused organ, to atrophy.' As early as 1915 George Bernard Shaw wrote in the Preface to his play Androcles and the Lion that 'belief in . . . hell is fast vanishing. All the leaders of thoughts have lost it; and even for the rank and file it has fled to those parts of Ireland and Scotland which are still in the XVII century.' 'Even there,' he added, 'it is tacitly reserved for the other fellow.' (3)

To insist that some of us may be damned inevitably makes a Christian apologist unpopular: it is something horrible to contemplate and therefore best pushed to the back of the mind or even out of the mind altogether. A belief in damnation is deemed unsophisticated and 'fundamentalist' - viz. not something that could be taken seriously by a contemporary Christian outside Ireland and Scotland, as Shaw said, or - we might now add - the Bible Belt in the United States. Each man is entitled to his opinion and one is as good as another. To suggest that one set of beliefs or mode of behaviour is better than another is deemed 'judgemental'; and while it is right to warn that smoking will cause the death of the body, it is intolerable to point to sins that might lead to the death of the soul.

Read the entire essay here. Other IgnatiusInsight.com pieces on Hell:

• The Brighter Side of Hell | James V. Schall, S.J.
• Socrates Meets Sartre: In Hell? | Peter Kreeft
• Are God's Ways Fair? | Ralph Martin

"A Soldier Surrenders: The Conversion of St. Camillus"

NEW from IGNATIUS PRESS:

A Soldier Surrenders: The Conversion of St. Camillus

by Susan Peek

This is the story of the dramatic conversion and inspiring goodness of the soldier Camillus de Lellis who lived in the late 1500's, and became the founder of the religious order known then as "Ministers of the Sick", and today now called the "Hospitallers". The story of St. Camillus is one that is filled with an intriguing combination of drama, military battles, sickness and disease, conversion to God, and great charity for countless suffering people, be they dying soldiers, prisoners or patients in the hospitals that he founded.

Camillus is a saint that anyone can identitfy with since he was a very worldly man, a huge man at 6 foot 6 inches height, a soldier who fought against the Turks, and one who had a terrible addiction to gambling that continually reduced him to poverty and shame. He also suffered tremendously throughout his life from various ongoing ailments including a crippling leg disease for 46 years, a rupture for 38 years, chronically painful feet problems, and a distaste for food that caused him an inability to retain it. None of his own great sufferings kept him from always thinking of others first, and striving to serve the many sick and dying people under his care.

He eventually conquered his personal weaknesses like gambling, but not without a long and constant struggle, an example of perseverance that will inspire anyone with their own personal moral, spiritual or physical struggles. God rewarded him with many followers who joined his order to serve the sick and dying, as well as great spiritual gifts including prophecy and miracles. St. Camillus was a forerunner of the work of the International Red Cross, and he used that same symbol for his own religious order. Pope Leo XIII canonized him in 1746 and declared Camillus the Patron of the Sick.  Camillus was canonized by Pope Benedict XIV in 1746, and was proclaimed patron of the sick and of hospitals in 1886 by Pope Leo XIII.

Susan Peek attended St. Mary's Academy in Kansas, and after graduation entered the Carmelite convent for a short period, where she learned about St. Camillus and developed a lifelong devotion to him. She later realized her calling to marriage and now lives in New Zealand where she and her husband Jeff home school their ten children. She is the author of another historical novel, Crusader King.

Fr. Groeschel and the Gray Lady

Yesterday's issue of The New York Times has a profile of priest and author Father Benedict Groeschel (ht: Amy Welborn). Turns out (!) to be a fine piece. A couple of excerpts:

Father Groeschel lives in a converted garage next to the retreat house, in a cell-like bedroom that looks out on the Long Island Sound. Beneath his long white beard and kind demeanor is a wise-cracking, street-smart Jersey boy who is unafraid of ruffling feathers. He preaches orthodox Catholicism in the retreats he leads around the world, on his popular show on the Catholic cable network, and in the three dozen religious books he has written — forums in which he is well known for outspoken attacks on hypocrisy, bureaucratic complacency and the news media. ...

Since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, fighting abortion is a top priority for Father Groeschel, who has made it a point of praying outside abortion clinics when he can. He was arrested in 1995 for praying in the driveway of the Women’s Medical Pavilion, a Dobbs Ferry clinic that offered abortions, where demonstrators on both sides of the abortion issue protested weekly for decades until it was closed in 2002.

The church’s views on issues like abortion and homosexuality put Father Groeschel on the opposite side of the political spectrum from many who support his work for social justice.

“I used to be a liberal, if liberal means concern for the other guy,” Father Groeschel said. “Now I consider myself a conservative-liberal-traditional-radical-confused person.”

Father Groeschel, who has written several books published by Ignatius Press, is indeed one of the finest preachers, priests, and authors living today. I've had the great pleasure of spending some time with him on a couple of different occasions, and was struck by his wonderful mixture of holiness, humor, and humility, as evidenced by his description of himself as "a conservative-liberal-traditional-radical-confused person." And I recall having a conversation with him about the influence of Joachim of Fiore on utopian political movements while the two of us emptied the garbage one evening at the Ignatius Press retreat house about four years ago. It would have seemed a bit surreal, excerpt that it was so very normal.

• IgnatiusInsight.com Author Page for Fr. Groeschel
• IgnatiusInsight.com Interview with Fr. Groeschel (June 2004)
• Excerpts from The Rosary: Chain of Hope       

Father Groeschel's books published by Ignatius Press:
       
• The Drama of Reform
• Arise From Darkness: What to Do When Life Doesn't Make Sense
• The Reform of Renewal
• Rosary: The Chain of Hope
• Still Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations
• Praying To Our Lord Jesus Christ: Prayers and Meditations Through the Centuries  

The Priest as Man, Husband, and Father

The Priest as Man, Husband, and Father | Fr. John Cihak, S.T.D. | March 26, 2007
      
Crisis and Renewal in the Priesthood Today

The crisis in the Church in the United States, brought on by the discovery of sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the clergy, indicates the need for clergy reform and renewal. The need for the renewal of the clergy, as for all Christians, is perennial and certain periods of the Church's history have been more intense than others in this regard. Around the year 1000 it was the reform of Pope St. Gregory VII, especially in the area of celibacy among clergy. In the late 1500s, it was the reform spearheaded by the Council of Trent and by St. Charles Borromeo who established the seminary system for the formation of priests. Some have proposed that the current crisis can be solved by having women priests, married priests or part time priests.

The Church proposes another way. The clergy will be renewed in this age, as in previous ages, only through a re-appropriation of the very essence of priesthood.

Continue reading...

Our Daily, Everlasting Bread: A Lenten Reflection

Our Daily, Everlasting Bread: A Lenten Reflection | Carl E. Olson | IgnatiusInsight.com

Have you ever heard of the TANSTAAFL Principle? It’s better known as the "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" principle. Its central premise is that everything worthwhile has a cost. There is a price for everything; there are no free meals or free rides.

Continue reading...

Faith in the Triune God, and Peace in the World | Joseph Ratzinger

Faith in the Triune God, and Peace in the World | Joseph Ratzinger | From Europe: Today and Tomorrow              

 A homily given in the Cathedral of Bayeux on the Feast of the Holy Trinity, June 6, 2004.

The feast of the Holy Trinity is different from all the other feasts of the liturgical year, such as Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, when we celebrate the wondrous works of God in history: the Incarnation, the   Resurrection, the Descent of the Holy Spirit, and consequently the birth of the Church. Today we are not celebrating an event in which "something" of God is made visible; rather, we are celebrating the very mystery of God. We rejoice in God, in the fact that he is the way he is; we thank him for existing; we are grateful that he is what he is and that we can know him and love him and that he knows and loves us and reveals himself to us.

But the existence of God, his being, the fact that he knows us--is that really a cause for joy?

Continue reading...