Monday, 8 April 2013
Is Pope Francis inaugurating the third millennium?
by Leonardo Boff
Theologian-Philosopher
Earthcharter Commission
The first millennium of Christianity was marked by the paradigm of community. The Churches had relative autonomy regarding their own rites: Orthodox, Coptic, Ambrosian from Milan, Mozarabic, from Spain, and others. They venerated their own martyrs and confessors and had their own theologies, as seen in the flourishing Christianity of North Africa with Saint Augustine, Saint Cyprian and the lay theologian Tertullian. Those Churches recognized each other, and even though a mostly juridical vision in Rome was already appearing, the primacy of charity predominated .
The second millennium was characterized by the paradigm of the Church as a perfect and hierarchichal society: an absolutist monarchy centered in the figure of the Pope as supreme head (cephalic), endowed with unlimited powers and, most recently, with infallibility, when he makes declarations as such in matters of faith and morality. The Pontifical State was created, with an army, a financial system and legislation that included the death penalty. A body of experts of the institution was created, the Roman Curia, responsible for the world ecclesiastical administration. This centralization produced the Romanization of all of Christianity. The evangelization of Latin America, Asia and Africa was accomplished within a process of colonial conquest of the world, and meant that the Roman model was transplanted, practically annulling the embodiment of the local cultures. The strict separation between the clergy and the lay was made official. The lay had no power of decision, (in the first millennium the lay participated in the election of bishops and even of the Pope), and were turned into childlike non-entities, in law and fact.
The palatial ways of the priests, bishops, cardinals and popes were affirmed. The titles of power of the Roman emperors, starting with those of Pope and Sumo Pontiff, were transferred to the bishop of Rome. The cardinals, princes of the Church, dressed up as the high Renaissance nobility, and so it has remained until now, scandalizing more than a few Christians, who were used to seeing Jesus of Nazareth as poor, a man of the people, persecuted, tortured and executed on the cross.
All indications are that this model of Church ended with the resignation of Benedict XVI, the last Pope from this monarchical model, in the tragic context of scandals that have touched the very heart of the credibility of the Christian message.
The election of Pope Francis, who comes «from the end of the world», as he presented himself, from the periphery of Christianity, from the Great South where 60% of Roman Catholics live, will inaugurate the ecclesiastic paradigm of the Third Millennium: the Church as a vast network of Christian communities, rooted in the various cultures, some more ancient than the Western cultures, such as the Chinese, Indian and Japanese, the tribal cultures of Africa and the communities of Latin America. It is also embodied in the modern culture of the technologically advanced countries, with a faith that is also lived out in small communities. All these incarnations have something in common: the urbanization of humanity, where more than the 80% of the population live in huge conglomerates of millions and millions of persons.
In this context, it will be impossible to talk of territorial parishes, but of neighborhood communities, of the buildings, of the streets nearby. In that Christianity, the lay will be protagonists, encouraged by priests who may or may not be married, or by women priests or women bishops, bound more by spirituality than administration. The Churches will have different faces.
The Reformation will not be restricted to the Roman curia, that is in a calamitous state, but will be extended to the entire institution of the Church. Perhaps only by convoking a new Council, with representatives from all of Christendom, will the Pope have the security and the master lines of the Church of the Third Millennium. May the Spirit not fail him.
Leonardo Boff
04-05-2013
Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, cybermelinaalfaro@bandalibre.com,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.
Monday, 1 April 2013
Losing my religion for equality…by Jimmy Carter
Women's Press brings us this article by USA President Jimmy Carter.
Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.
I HAVE been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.
This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries.
Sunday, 31 March 2013
The Pope who pays his own bills
Leonardo Boff
Theologian-Philosopher
Earthcharter Commission
What has marked the new Pope Francis, the one «who comes from the end of the world», namely, from outside the European frame of reference, so charged with traditions, palaces, royal spectacles and internal power struggles, are the simple, popular gestures, obvious to those who appreciate a good common sense of life. Pope Francis is breaking protocols and showing that power is always a mask and theater, as sociologist Peter Berger pointed out so well, even when the power purports to be of divine origin.
Pope Francis simply obeys the command of Jesus of Nazareth who explicitly said that the great of this world give orders and dominate, “but it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" (Mark,10,43-45). Very well, if Jesus said that, how can the Pope, guarantor of His message, act otherwise?
Certainly with the establishment of the absolutist monarchy of the popes, especially beginning with the second millennium, the ecclesiastic institution inherited the symbols of Roman imperial power and of the feudal nobility: colorful clothing (such as the Cardinals'), tinsel, crucifixes and rings of silver and gold and palatial habits. In the great religious convents of the Middle Ages, life occurred in regal spaces.
In the room where I stayed, as a student, in the Franciscan Convent of Munich, that dates back to the times of William of Ockham (XIV century), one Renaissance painting on the wall was itself worth several thousand Euros. How can one reconcile the poverty of the Nazarene, who did not have a corner where to rest his head, with the miters, golden bishop's staffs and the stoles and prince-like vestments of present day prelates? That is honestly not possible. And people who are not ignorant, but fine observers, notice the contradiction. All this ostentation has nothing to do with the Tradition of Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles.
According to some newspaper accounts, when the Secretary of the Conclave tried to place on the shoulders of Pope Francis the «muceta», the little richly adorned cape, the symbol of papal power, Francis only said: “The carnival is over, put those clothes away". And he appeared dressed in white, as did Dom Helder Camara, who left the colonial palace of Olinda and went to live under a humble roof in the Church of Las Candelas, in the periphery; as Cardinal Dom Paulo Evaristo Arns had done, not to mention Dom Pedro Casaldaliga, who lives in a poor little house, sharing the room with a guest.
To me, the most simple, honest and common gesture of Pope Francis was when he went to the hotel where he had stayed (he never stayed in the big central house of the Jesuits in Rome) to pay his bill of 90 Euros per day. Pope Francis walked in, and he personally gathered his clothes, packed his suitcase, greeted the staff of the hotel, and left. What civil potentate, opulent millionaire, what famous artist would do such thing? It would be a betrayal of the intent of the Bishop of Rome not to see in this gesture, so normal for all mortals, a populist intent.
Did he not do the same when he was the Cardinal of Buenos Aires and went to get the newspaper, went shopping, used the metro or the bus and preferred to introduce himself as, «father Bergoglio»?
Frei Betto coined an expression that is a great truth: «the head thinks from where the feet step». In effect, someone who always walks in palaces and sumptuous cathedrals, ends up thinking according to the logic of the palaces and cathedrals. For this reason, Pope Francis celebrated Sunday Mass in the Chapel of Saint Anne, inside the Vatican, considered the Roman parish of the Pope. And after Mass he went outside to greet the faithful.
It is worthy of note, and charged of theological content, that he did not present himself as the Pope, but as «the bishop of Rome». He asked for prayers not for the Emeritus Pope, Benedict XVI, but for the Emeritus Bishop of Rome, Joseph Ratzinger. With this Francis retook the most primordial tradition of the Church, that of considering the Bishop of Rome «first among equals». Because Peter and Paul were buried there, Rome acquired special preeminence. But that symbolic and spiritual power was exercised in the style of charity, and not as juridical power over the other Churches, as occurred in the second millennium. I will not be at all surprised if, as John Paul I had wanted, Francis decided to leave the Vatican and go live in a simpler place, with a great exterior space to receive the visits of the faithful. The time is ripe for this type of revolution in papal customs. And what a challenge is presented for the other prelates of the Church to live in voluntary simplicity and shared sobriety.
Leonardo Boff
03-25-2013
Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, volar@fibertel.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.
Tuesday, 19 March 2013
Was the Collapse of his Theology the Main Reason for the Resignation of Benedict XVI?
by Leonardo Boff
Theologian-Philosopher
Earthcharter Commission
It is always risky to choose a theologian to be pope. He can turn his particular theology into the universal theology of the Church and impose it on the whole world. I suspect this has been the case with Benedict XVI, first as a Cardinal, appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (ex-Inquisition), and later, chosen as Pope. This was not legitimate and became the source of unjust condemnations. In effect, he condemned more than one hundred men and women theologians, for not being in tune with his theological reading of the Church and of the world.
Reasons of health and feelings of impotence in the face of the gravity of the crisis in the Church led him to resign. But not only that. The text of his resignation speaks of the “diminution of vigor of the body and of the spirit” and of “his incapacity” to confront the questions that made the exercise of his mission difficult. Behind these words, I believe there hides the more profound reason for his resignation: the awareness of the collapse of his theology and of the failure of the model of Church he wanted to implement. An absolutist monarchy is not so absolute that it can overcome the inertia of the aged curial structures.
The central theses of his theology were always problematic for the theological community. Three of them ended up being rebutted by the facts: the concept of the Church as a «small reconciled world»; that the City of Men only acquires value before God by going through the mediation of the City of God, and the famous «subsistit» that means: only in the Catholic Church does the true Church of Christ subsist, no other Churches can be called Churches. This narrow conception comes from a sharp intelligence that is hostage to itself, not having sufficient intrinsic strength or the necessary following to be implemented. Did Benedict recognize this collapse and coherently resign? There are reasons for this hypothesis.
The Pontiff Emeritus found in Saint Augustine his teacher and inspiration. In fact, Augustine was the subject of personal conversations with him. From Saint Augustine he took his basic perspective, starting from his theory of original sin (transmitted by the sexual act of procreation). This causes all of humanity to be a «condemned mass». But inside humanity, God, through Christ, set up a saving cell, represented by the Church. The Church is «a small reconciled world» that carries the representation (Vertretung) of the rest of the lost humanity. It is not necessary for the Church to have many members. A few suffice, so long as they are pure and holy. Ratzinger incorporated this vision. He complemented it with the following reflection: the Church is made up of Christ and the twelve apostles. This is why she is apostolic. She is just this small group. This excludes the disciples, the women, and the masses that followed Jesus of Nazareth. To him, they do not count. They are reached by the representation (Vertretung) that «the small reconciled world» assumes. This eclesiastical model does not take into consideration the vast globalized world. Benedict wanted to make Europe into «the reconciled world» to again conquer humanity. He failed because no-one undertook this project, and it was even ridiculed.
The second thesis is also taken from Saint Augustine and his reading of history: the confrontation between the City of God and the City of Men. In the City of God there is grace and salvation: she is the only path that leads to salvation. The City of Men is built by human effort. But, since it is already contaminated by humanism and her other values, it does not obtain salvation because it has not passed through the mediation of the City of God (the Church). This is why she is plagued by relativism. Consequently Cardinal Ratzinger harshly condemned the Theology of Liberation, because it sought liberation by the poor themselves, and made the poor the autonomous subjects of their own history. But since the Theology of Liberation was not created within the City of God and her cell, the Church, it is insufficient and vain.
The third is a very personal interpretation that Benedict gives to Vatican Council II when talking of the Church of Christ. The first Counciliar draft said that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. The debates searching for ecumenism, changed is to subsists, to make room for other Christian Churches that, in their own way, also realize the Church of Christ. This interpretation, as maintained in my doctoral dissertation, earned an explicit condemnation from Cardinal Ratzinger in his famous document Dominus Jesus, (2000), where he affirms that subsists comes from «subsistence» that there can be only one, and it is found in the Catholic Church. The other «churches» present «solely» ecclesiastic elements. This «solely» is an arbitrary attachment he makes to the official text of the Council. Some notable theologians and I, myself, have shown that this essentialist reading does not exist in Latin. The meaning is always concrete: «to have body», «to objectively realize». This was the «sensus Patrum», the meaning of the Fathers of the Council.
These three central theses have been refuted by the facts: inside the «small reconciled world» there are too many pedophiles, even among the Cardinals, and thieves of money from the Vatican Bank. The second, that the City of Men does not have saving gravity in front of God, is built on the error of limiting the action of the City of God solely to the realm of the Church. Within the City of Men the City of God is also found, not in the form of religious consciousness but in the form of ethics and humanitarian values. Vatican Cuncil II guaranteed autonomy to the terrestrial realities (another name for secularization) that have value independently of the Church. They are of value to God. The City of God (the Church) is realized by the explicit faith, by the celebration and by the sacraments. The City of Men is realized by ethics and politics.
The third, that the Catholic Church is the unique and exclusive Church of Christ and, even worse, that outside of her there is no salvation, a medieval thesis resurrected by Cardinal Ratzinger, was simply ignored as offensive by other Churches. Instead of «outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation», in the discourse of popes and theologians was introduced, «the universal offer of salvation to all human beings and the world».
I have a serious suspicion that this failure and the collapse of his theological structure took away his “necessary vigor of body and spirit” to the point, as he confesses, of “feeling incapable of exercising his ministry”. Captive to his own theology, he had no alternative other than to honestly resign.
03-09-2013
Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.
Theologian-Philosopher
Earthcharter Commission
It is always risky to choose a theologian to be pope. He can turn his particular theology into the universal theology of the Church and impose it on the whole world. I suspect this has been the case with Benedict XVI, first as a Cardinal, appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (ex-Inquisition), and later, chosen as Pope. This was not legitimate and became the source of unjust condemnations. In effect, he condemned more than one hundred men and women theologians, for not being in tune with his theological reading of the Church and of the world.
Reasons of health and feelings of impotence in the face of the gravity of the crisis in the Church led him to resign. But not only that. The text of his resignation speaks of the “diminution of vigor of the body and of the spirit” and of “his incapacity” to confront the questions that made the exercise of his mission difficult. Behind these words, I believe there hides the more profound reason for his resignation: the awareness of the collapse of his theology and of the failure of the model of Church he wanted to implement. An absolutist monarchy is not so absolute that it can overcome the inertia of the aged curial structures.
The central theses of his theology were always problematic for the theological community. Three of them ended up being rebutted by the facts: the concept of the Church as a «small reconciled world»; that the City of Men only acquires value before God by going through the mediation of the City of God, and the famous «subsistit» that means: only in the Catholic Church does the true Church of Christ subsist, no other Churches can be called Churches. This narrow conception comes from a sharp intelligence that is hostage to itself, not having sufficient intrinsic strength or the necessary following to be implemented. Did Benedict recognize this collapse and coherently resign? There are reasons for this hypothesis.
The Pontiff Emeritus found in Saint Augustine his teacher and inspiration. In fact, Augustine was the subject of personal conversations with him. From Saint Augustine he took his basic perspective, starting from his theory of original sin (transmitted by the sexual act of procreation). This causes all of humanity to be a «condemned mass». But inside humanity, God, through Christ, set up a saving cell, represented by the Church. The Church is «a small reconciled world» that carries the representation (Vertretung) of the rest of the lost humanity. It is not necessary for the Church to have many members. A few suffice, so long as they are pure and holy. Ratzinger incorporated this vision. He complemented it with the following reflection: the Church is made up of Christ and the twelve apostles. This is why she is apostolic. She is just this small group. This excludes the disciples, the women, and the masses that followed Jesus of Nazareth. To him, they do not count. They are reached by the representation (Vertretung) that «the small reconciled world» assumes. This eclesiastical model does not take into consideration the vast globalized world. Benedict wanted to make Europe into «the reconciled world» to again conquer humanity. He failed because no-one undertook this project, and it was even ridiculed.
The second thesis is also taken from Saint Augustine and his reading of history: the confrontation between the City of God and the City of Men. In the City of God there is grace and salvation: she is the only path that leads to salvation. The City of Men is built by human effort. But, since it is already contaminated by humanism and her other values, it does not obtain salvation because it has not passed through the mediation of the City of God (the Church). This is why she is plagued by relativism. Consequently Cardinal Ratzinger harshly condemned the Theology of Liberation, because it sought liberation by the poor themselves, and made the poor the autonomous subjects of their own history. But since the Theology of Liberation was not created within the City of God and her cell, the Church, it is insufficient and vain.
The third is a very personal interpretation that Benedict gives to Vatican Council II when talking of the Church of Christ. The first Counciliar draft said that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. The debates searching for ecumenism, changed is to subsists, to make room for other Christian Churches that, in their own way, also realize the Church of Christ. This interpretation, as maintained in my doctoral dissertation, earned an explicit condemnation from Cardinal Ratzinger in his famous document Dominus Jesus, (2000), where he affirms that subsists comes from «subsistence» that there can be only one, and it is found in the Catholic Church. The other «churches» present «solely» ecclesiastic elements. This «solely» is an arbitrary attachment he makes to the official text of the Council. Some notable theologians and I, myself, have shown that this essentialist reading does not exist in Latin. The meaning is always concrete: «to have body», «to objectively realize». This was the «sensus Patrum», the meaning of the Fathers of the Council.
These three central theses have been refuted by the facts: inside the «small reconciled world» there are too many pedophiles, even among the Cardinals, and thieves of money from the Vatican Bank. The second, that the City of Men does not have saving gravity in front of God, is built on the error of limiting the action of the City of God solely to the realm of the Church. Within the City of Men the City of God is also found, not in the form of religious consciousness but in the form of ethics and humanitarian values. Vatican Cuncil II guaranteed autonomy to the terrestrial realities (another name for secularization) that have value independently of the Church. They are of value to God. The City of God (the Church) is realized by the explicit faith, by the celebration and by the sacraments. The City of Men is realized by ethics and politics.
The third, that the Catholic Church is the unique and exclusive Church of Christ and, even worse, that outside of her there is no salvation, a medieval thesis resurrected by Cardinal Ratzinger, was simply ignored as offensive by other Churches. Instead of «outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation», in the discourse of popes and theologians was introduced, «the universal offer of salvation to all human beings and the world».
I have a serious suspicion that this failure and the collapse of his theological structure took away his “necessary vigor of body and spirit” to the point, as he confesses, of “feeling incapable of exercising his ministry”. Captive to his own theology, he had no alternative other than to honestly resign.
03-09-2013
Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar,
done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.
Sunday, 3 February 2013
Saving it for what?
Thank you, John, for these thought provoking words:
Save My Soul?
Why are some people
trying to
Save their Souls,
for what I’m not sure?
For some future reward,
I guess.
Rather than trying to
Save my Soul
for some future reward
I’m trying
to Expend my Soul
in Love and Compassion
for others.
Jesus
did not try
to Save
His body or Soul
for anything;
He Expended Himself
totally
for
Love of Others,
bringing
Love and Compassion
into every one of
His life experiences.
If we go through Life
never having expended ourselves,
never having Loved or been Loved,
saving ourselves
for something,
we’ve missed
the whole point of it all,
the whole point of
this great gift of life.
Don’t Save it;
Use it
or Lose it.
Why are some people
trying to
Save their Souls,
for what I’m not sure?
For some future reward,
I guess.
Rather than trying to
Save my Soul
for some future reward
I’m trying
to Expend my Soul
in Love and Compassion
for others.
Jesus
did not try
to Save
His body or Soul
for anything;
He Expended Himself
totally
for
Love of Others,
bringing
Love and Compassion
into every one of
His life experiences.
If we go through Life
never having expended ourselves,
never having Loved or been Loved,
saving ourselves
for something,
we’ve missed
the whole point of it all,
the whole point of
this great gift of life.
Don’t Save it;
Use it
or Lose it.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
Sorry Luke, I'm rewriting your chapter 4 - Sunday Readings 4th Sun. Yr C
We would like to thank CathyT and Catholica for this reflection. Please read Luke 4: 14-30 and consider Cathy's reflection.
The original may be read here and you will be very welcome to comment on the Catholica forum.
The original may be read here and you will be very welcome to comment on the Catholica forum.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. What could be more natural, more appropriate, than that Jesus should “officially” begin his mission in his home town?
It was not the actual beginning of his mission, of course. It was hard to pinpoint when that was. For a very long time now, Jesus had been convinced that God was calling him to something out of the ordinary. He had decided to go and receive baptism from this new preacher called John (who, he had been told, was a distant kinsman of his). He fully expected that this would be followed by a period as John’s disciple, during which time, he hoped, his own calling would become clearer. And yet, at the moment of baptism, Jesus became aware of –of what? Surely it must have been the voice of God! In that moment he knew, he just knew, that the path he was being called down was something different, unexpected, a path where only he could be the leader.
He knew he had no option but to trust in God, and to follow where God led. Or where God was driving him rather, such was the compulsion he felt. And so, he found himself alone in the wilderness. Well, not quite alone: there was a “presence” there, something that seemed stronger than just his own inner struggles, something tempting him away from the ways of God. And yet, this experience simply confirmed his sense of having a special call from God. As he travelled around the Galilean countryside, his mission was becoming clearer still.
To begin with, he had set out simply to preach, rather like John had. It was in Capernaum that he discovered he had the power to heal, to put an end to people’s sufferings of both the body and the spirit. Well, of course, the power came from God really. Yet there was more to it than that. He could not bear to see anyone suffering; he had been like that even as a child. When his elders told him that suffering was sometimes God’s will, that maybe the person had even done something to deserve it, he could not bring himself to believe them. And now, it seemed, God was giving him power over suffering, although, he suddenly realised it was not a case of God simply healing through him. What enabled the healing was a sort of “connection”, a relationship. He opened himself up to the suffering person’s predicament, and allowed his unlimited compassion to flow upon them, and this, in turn, inspired and encouraged them to believe that God would heal them. He knew now that God wanted him to do more than to encourage people to live good lives, God wanted him to liberate people from all that enslaved them and oppressed them. But he had learnt in the desert that he had to do it God’s way: not by using the tools of power and privilege which this world offered, but through a life of love and service. God’s reign was at hand.
As he started off towards his home town of Nazareth, he felt excitement and hope bubbling up in him.
Then he began to have doubts. It all seemed to happen so easily in Capernaum, but could it also happen in his native village, among his kinsfolk and the other villagers who had known him from babyhood? News travelled fast in the Galilean countryside; they would have heard about what he’d been doing, and they would expect him to do it for them too. Yes, ever since he was old enough, he had been expected to do things to help the old ones, the sick and the incapacitated, it was what one did. Could they, would they understand that this time, this was something he couldn’t just “do” for them, there had to be that “connection”… And in any case, they were so used to him being the son of the carpenter, just an ordinary villager: could they accept him as a prophet? But he knew that his recent experiences had changed him, and he felt sure it must show. He decided he would read that passage he loved in Isaiah, the one about bringing good news and healing and liberation. Surely that would make them see him in a different light. He wanted so much to free them from sufferings of any kind. In fact, did he want that too much? Would it be hard for him, as well as for them, to accept that he no longer belonged solely to them? God was calling him on a journey, a journey whose ending he was not yet certain of…
There was utter silence in the synagogue. Jesus had just finished reading the Isaiah passage as he had planned, and quietly, yet with great strength of purpose, applied it to himself. Every eye was on him, as though nothing else existed in the world. Then people began to talk. At first, they all seemed favourably impressed. Then someone said, in a loud voice, the words Jesus had been dreading: “But isn’t this just Joseph’s son?” The mood in the synagogue changed, and Jesus could no longer keep quiet: “This is not going to work! You do not understand the calling I have received, not when I’m ‘just one of you”. You will think I have special obligations just to you, but what does our Scripture say? What about that widow in Sidon in Elijah’s time…Naaman the Syrian leper in Elisha’s time.. our God is a God for all!” Naturally, they reacted angrily, but he was unprepared for the violence of their reaction. Just about every adult male in the synagogue was suddenly rushing at him, forcing him out the door, and not stopping there, either. With a flash of panic, he realised these men meant business, and there was no mistaking where they were taking him…that cliff at the edge of the town…as a child, he had always been frightened of going too close to the edge, and there had been stories…
“God help me!” he prayed silently. “You protected the prophet Jeremiah from those who wished him harm…is it really all over for me already?”
The crowd around him were undeniably intent on their violent purpose – so intent, he suddenly realised, that their eyes were fixed on their object up ahead, and they were not really watching him. It actually turned out to be quite easy to slip through the crowd and get away.
Capernaum was starting to look like a very good place to make his home base.
Monday, 28 January 2013
Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI RIP
January 17, 2013 — A radical and innovative Asian theologian passes away
A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission
Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI, a Sri Lankan Catholic priest who once came to the attention of the world due to his excommunication by Rome which was later lifted, passed away yesterday in Colombo. He had been unwell for some time and was 89 years of age at the time of his death.
He was a trained economist and was ordained as a priest in 1953. He worked in many capacities such as the rector of the Aquinas University College, which was developed as an alternative for those who could not attend University, for many years and was the founder of the Centre for Religion and Society in Colombo. He played a prominent role in developing close links with all other religions and participated jointly with others in many progressive initiatives relating to various issues in Sri Lanka.
Beginning his career as a conservative priest growing under the tutelage of the then well renowned Fr. Peter Pillai, Fr. Balasuriya responded to the social changes that were taking place in Sri Lanka and began to call upon the Catholic Church to understand these changes positively and not to take a reactionary stance. His political acumen was, in fact, recognised by SWRD Bandaranayke, who later became a prime minister who invited Fr. Balasuriya to work with him. He refused and wanted to respond to the changes in Sri Lanka in his own way.
When Pope John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council in the early 60s Fr. Balasuriya and a few others such as Bishop Leo Nanayakkara responded positively and, in fact, this Council’s teachings were to change their world views and their lifestyles. Later, other prominent persons like Fr. Michael Rodrigo, who was assassinated in 1987 and Fr. Alloy Peiris and many others took the same teachings as their guiding light for their lives and work.
Perhaps some of Fr. Balasuriya’s most active years in life were those immediately following the Vatican Council where he devoted his time to introduce these ideas to Sri Lanka and, in fact, to Asia as a whole. He was one of the pioneers of the Asian theological groups who were to approach the problems of religion with a deep commitment to society, particularly to the issues of justice. He also gained recognition as one of the most prominent writers on theological issues from this perspective in Asia.
His passionate pursuit of the Vatican perspectives led him to engage with the most progressive social thought of his time in many fields. He took the issue of gender seriously and studied feminist thinkers and theologians. It was his engagement on this issue which led to his excommunication relating to a book he wrote entitled Mary and Human Liberation . Though attacked on some technical expressions close observers say that the actual attack was on his agreement of the ordination of women as priests.
When the excommunication was announced he openly challenged it and demanded to be shown the issues on which he had erred theologically. This challenge was never answered. However, he was under severe pressure due to one of the most intense international campaigns in his favour which caused severe embarrassment to the Catholic Church. A team of theologians of his religious order arrived in Sri Lanka and had several days of negotiations with him and he was requested to make some statement for the sake of compromise. Later his excommunication was lifted. Perhaps this is the only excommunication in the Catholic Church which was to be lifted in such a very short period.
Fr. Balasuriya was essentially a thinker. He tried to provoke thought on national issues and also theological issues within the Church.
He lived the last years of his life very much in quietness as the overall environment within the Catholic Church had become hostile to the theological positions of the Vatican Council. However, to the last he remained a disciple and promoter of these teachings.
His work and writings will survive him and may contribute to the development of discourse in the future.
Fr. Tissa Balasuriya was a friend of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The AHRC played a very active role in creating a global protest against his excommunication.
May he rest in peace
Read more about Fr Tissa
A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission
Fr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI, a Sri Lankan Catholic priest who once came to the attention of the world due to his excommunication by Rome which was later lifted, passed away yesterday in Colombo. He had been unwell for some time and was 89 years of age at the time of his death.
He was a trained economist and was ordained as a priest in 1953. He worked in many capacities such as the rector of the Aquinas University College, which was developed as an alternative for those who could not attend University, for many years and was the founder of the Centre for Religion and Society in Colombo. He played a prominent role in developing close links with all other religions and participated jointly with others in many progressive initiatives relating to various issues in Sri Lanka.
Beginning his career as a conservative priest growing under the tutelage of the then well renowned Fr. Peter Pillai, Fr. Balasuriya responded to the social changes that were taking place in Sri Lanka and began to call upon the Catholic Church to understand these changes positively and not to take a reactionary stance. His political acumen was, in fact, recognised by SWRD Bandaranayke, who later became a prime minister who invited Fr. Balasuriya to work with him. He refused and wanted to respond to the changes in Sri Lanka in his own way.
When Pope John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council in the early 60s Fr. Balasuriya and a few others such as Bishop Leo Nanayakkara responded positively and, in fact, this Council’s teachings were to change their world views and their lifestyles. Later, other prominent persons like Fr. Michael Rodrigo, who was assassinated in 1987 and Fr. Alloy Peiris and many others took the same teachings as their guiding light for their lives and work.
Perhaps some of Fr. Balasuriya’s most active years in life were those immediately following the Vatican Council where he devoted his time to introduce these ideas to Sri Lanka and, in fact, to Asia as a whole. He was one of the pioneers of the Asian theological groups who were to approach the problems of religion with a deep commitment to society, particularly to the issues of justice. He also gained recognition as one of the most prominent writers on theological issues from this perspective in Asia.
His passionate pursuit of the Vatican perspectives led him to engage with the most progressive social thought of his time in many fields. He took the issue of gender seriously and studied feminist thinkers and theologians. It was his engagement on this issue which led to his excommunication relating to a book he wrote entitled Mary and Human Liberation . Though attacked on some technical expressions close observers say that the actual attack was on his agreement of the ordination of women as priests.
When the excommunication was announced he openly challenged it and demanded to be shown the issues on which he had erred theologically. This challenge was never answered. However, he was under severe pressure due to one of the most intense international campaigns in his favour which caused severe embarrassment to the Catholic Church. A team of theologians of his religious order arrived in Sri Lanka and had several days of negotiations with him and he was requested to make some statement for the sake of compromise. Later his excommunication was lifted. Perhaps this is the only excommunication in the Catholic Church which was to be lifted in such a very short period.
Fr. Balasuriya was essentially a thinker. He tried to provoke thought on national issues and also theological issues within the Church.
He lived the last years of his life very much in quietness as the overall environment within the Catholic Church had become hostile to the theological positions of the Vatican Council. However, to the last he remained a disciple and promoter of these teachings.
His work and writings will survive him and may contribute to the development of discourse in the future.
Fr. Tissa Balasuriya was a friend of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The AHRC played a very active role in creating a global protest against his excommunication.
May he rest in peace
Read more about Fr Tissa
Sunday, 27 January 2013
Today's Readings - The Law of Love
Third Sunday of Ordinary Time / Third Sunday after Epiphany – 27 January 2013
Book of Nehemiah 8:2-6, 8-10
Psalms 19:8-10,15
1 Corinthians 12:12-30
Luke 1:1-4, 4:14-21
The readings for today struck me in a most unusual way. At first I did not see the connection; at first I did not see the relevance to today’s world (particularly if these readings are all taken together). Actually, I was drawn up short by the apparent irony in these selections.
In Nehemiah we hear how the people had just come back from the Babylonian Captivity and how they listened to Ezra read the LAW from morning to mid-afternoon. I thought there might be a theme with the audience. After all, Nehemiah tells us all the men, all the women, and all the children old enough to understand were there. That should tell us something, I thought. No discrimination when it comes to listening to the law.
But WHY were they listening to the LAW? The Pharisees must have loved this passage. People were crying with joy over having to listen to hours of reading of the LAW.
My confusion continued as I saw that the Psalm centered about the Law of the Lord being perfect. I am so used to hearing the “Thou shalt nots” from the Old Testament that I had trouble focusing on what the Law of the Lord might be.
The reading from First Corinthians is a discourse on the Body of Christ and on how each person is a part of that Body of Christ and each person is important to the functioning of the whole body. How does that ever relate to people crying about hearing the LAW?
In the gospel, we find Jesus teaching in the temple. Jesus firmly proclaims that the passage he quoted from Isaiah was fulfilled – in him. He came to bring glad tidings, liberty, sight, freedom, and so forth. How does that ever relate to people crying about hearing the LAW?
Suddenly I could see a relationship. Look at it with me for a moment. It all fits so beautifully!
Nehemiah’s people were indeed crying for joy because they were back from captivity and they could hear the essence of their faith system. The Jewish LAW set these people apart from their neighbors. That is why they had their dietary restrictions, why they had certain codes, why they had certain prayer requirements, and why they had countless other obligations. It was their IDENTITY.
But, the LAW of Judaism was imperfect from a Christian perspective. Jesus came to FULFILL the LAW. He did not negate it; he fulfilled it. He got to the essence of the law and that is what he taught.
The Psalm tells us that the Law of the Lord is perfect. Indeed it is perfect in every way! The people about whom Nehemiah was writing did not know their LAW was imperfect. They were just grateful to have their identity. It seems that the Psalm is almost prophetic because the LAW as Jesus taught it was indeed perfect – even if the Jewish law was imperfect. Perhaps imperfect is not the best term. Perhaps we should say that the LAW of the Old Testament was incomplete because Jesus had not yet come to complete it or to pull it all completely together.
In a way, the reading from First Corinthians is juxtaposed with the gospel. In First Corinthians we see how each person has a role in the Body of Christ. But we don’t quite know yet what that means.
Picture Jesus in the gospel; he must have had a commanding presence because people certainly paid attention to him. He walked into the Temple (which was his right as a Jew) and he asked for a scroll. Now envision him reading that passage from the scroll and then with piercing eyes telling everyone present that that passage had been fulfilled. Can you hear his monologue? Perhaps he was waiting for a response but there was none. If you were in the crowd there, would you have wondered what Jesus meant?
Does the passage from Isaiah seem strange? Glad tidings, liberty, sight, freedom, and so forth? That doesn’t sound like the LAW as described in Nehemiah. That doesn’t sound like that perfect law of the Psalm. Ah, but wait! We need Jesus to fulfill the LAW – to make the LAW perfect.
The ancients loved their incomplete LAW and that was good. The ancients recognized that the LAW of the Lord was perfect and they rejoiced in that. But the ancient LAW was not perfect in the way we think today.
All of the good things that Jesus promised as a fulfillment of the prophesy were actually a fulfillment of the ultimate LAW of God – the ultimate LAW that Jesus gave us. That LAW is the LAW of LOVE. That fulfillment is not the list of “Thou shalt nots.” That LAW that was fulfilled – with freedom and glad tidings and sight and a myriad of other good things – was the LAW that Jesus came to fulfill, the LAW of LOVE.
The ancients had this LAW of LOVE but Jesus summarized it. Next week’s gospel is the great love passage from First Corinthians. It all fits in perfectly. And how many times did Jesus say he had come to fulfill the law? And how many times did Jesus say that the LAW of LOVE was the summary of the LAW and that therein we would find all of the LAW and the prophets. It is truly all there.
Now, let’s skip back to the reading from Nehemiah. ALL the people – men, women, and children old enough to understand – were ecstatic over hearing the LAW (albeit the imperfect or incomplete LAW). That must mean that the whole LAW applies to everyone old enough to understand. In other words, all are equal with this LAW of LOVE and there is no discrimination with this LAW of LOVE.
How does this Body of Christ fit into this scheme? Well, if we do what we are called to do, we are immersed in love. We give love, we radiate love. We are – or we become – that part of the Body of Christ that we are supposed to be. We fulfill that mandate that is given to us. And, in the process, we experience that freedom and that tremendous sight that Jesus has promised.
What is the Body of Christ besides a communion of believers, each of whom has a task and each of whom has been granted the absolute liberty and glad tidings found in the fulfillment of Jesus’ LAW of LOVE, which was, in essence, the completion of the LAW given to our ancestors and read to the people by Ezra in the Book of Nehemiah? That was true then; and it is true now. And this is our faith system – the LAW of LOVE.
-- Roberta
Book of Nehemiah 8:2-6, 8-10
Psalms 19:8-10,15
1 Corinthians 12:12-30
Luke 1:1-4, 4:14-21
The readings for today struck me in a most unusual way. At first I did not see the connection; at first I did not see the relevance to today’s world (particularly if these readings are all taken together). Actually, I was drawn up short by the apparent irony in these selections.
In Nehemiah we hear how the people had just come back from the Babylonian Captivity and how they listened to Ezra read the LAW from morning to mid-afternoon. I thought there might be a theme with the audience. After all, Nehemiah tells us all the men, all the women, and all the children old enough to understand were there. That should tell us something, I thought. No discrimination when it comes to listening to the law.
But WHY were they listening to the LAW? The Pharisees must have loved this passage. People were crying with joy over having to listen to hours of reading of the LAW.
My confusion continued as I saw that the Psalm centered about the Law of the Lord being perfect. I am so used to hearing the “Thou shalt nots” from the Old Testament that I had trouble focusing on what the Law of the Lord might be.
The reading from First Corinthians is a discourse on the Body of Christ and on how each person is a part of that Body of Christ and each person is important to the functioning of the whole body. How does that ever relate to people crying about hearing the LAW?
In the gospel, we find Jesus teaching in the temple. Jesus firmly proclaims that the passage he quoted from Isaiah was fulfilled – in him. He came to bring glad tidings, liberty, sight, freedom, and so forth. How does that ever relate to people crying about hearing the LAW?
Suddenly I could see a relationship. Look at it with me for a moment. It all fits so beautifully!
Nehemiah’s people were indeed crying for joy because they were back from captivity and they could hear the essence of their faith system. The Jewish LAW set these people apart from their neighbors. That is why they had their dietary restrictions, why they had certain codes, why they had certain prayer requirements, and why they had countless other obligations. It was their IDENTITY.
But, the LAW of Judaism was imperfect from a Christian perspective. Jesus came to FULFILL the LAW. He did not negate it; he fulfilled it. He got to the essence of the law and that is what he taught.
The Psalm tells us that the Law of the Lord is perfect. Indeed it is perfect in every way! The people about whom Nehemiah was writing did not know their LAW was imperfect. They were just grateful to have their identity. It seems that the Psalm is almost prophetic because the LAW as Jesus taught it was indeed perfect – even if the Jewish law was imperfect. Perhaps imperfect is not the best term. Perhaps we should say that the LAW of the Old Testament was incomplete because Jesus had not yet come to complete it or to pull it all completely together.
In a way, the reading from First Corinthians is juxtaposed with the gospel. In First Corinthians we see how each person has a role in the Body of Christ. But we don’t quite know yet what that means.
Picture Jesus in the gospel; he must have had a commanding presence because people certainly paid attention to him. He walked into the Temple (which was his right as a Jew) and he asked for a scroll. Now envision him reading that passage from the scroll and then with piercing eyes telling everyone present that that passage had been fulfilled. Can you hear his monologue? Perhaps he was waiting for a response but there was none. If you were in the crowd there, would you have wondered what Jesus meant?
Does the passage from Isaiah seem strange? Glad tidings, liberty, sight, freedom, and so forth? That doesn’t sound like the LAW as described in Nehemiah. That doesn’t sound like that perfect law of the Psalm. Ah, but wait! We need Jesus to fulfill the LAW – to make the LAW perfect.
The ancients loved their incomplete LAW and that was good. The ancients recognized that the LAW of the Lord was perfect and they rejoiced in that. But the ancient LAW was not perfect in the way we think today.
All of the good things that Jesus promised as a fulfillment of the prophesy were actually a fulfillment of the ultimate LAW of God – the ultimate LAW that Jesus gave us. That LAW is the LAW of LOVE. That fulfillment is not the list of “Thou shalt nots.” That LAW that was fulfilled – with freedom and glad tidings and sight and a myriad of other good things – was the LAW that Jesus came to fulfill, the LAW of LOVE.
The ancients had this LAW of LOVE but Jesus summarized it. Next week’s gospel is the great love passage from First Corinthians. It all fits in perfectly. And how many times did Jesus say he had come to fulfill the law? And how many times did Jesus say that the LAW of LOVE was the summary of the LAW and that therein we would find all of the LAW and the prophets. It is truly all there.
Now, let’s skip back to the reading from Nehemiah. ALL the people – men, women, and children old enough to understand – were ecstatic over hearing the LAW (albeit the imperfect or incomplete LAW). That must mean that the whole LAW applies to everyone old enough to understand. In other words, all are equal with this LAW of LOVE and there is no discrimination with this LAW of LOVE.
How does this Body of Christ fit into this scheme? Well, if we do what we are called to do, we are immersed in love. We give love, we radiate love. We are – or we become – that part of the Body of Christ that we are supposed to be. We fulfill that mandate that is given to us. And, in the process, we experience that freedom and that tremendous sight that Jesus has promised.
What is the Body of Christ besides a communion of believers, each of whom has a task and each of whom has been granted the absolute liberty and glad tidings found in the fulfillment of Jesus’ LAW of LOVE, which was, in essence, the completion of the LAW given to our ancestors and read to the people by Ezra in the Book of Nehemiah? That was true then; and it is true now. And this is our faith system – the LAW of LOVE.
-- Roberta
Monday, 21 January 2013
Attitudes for confronting the current crisis
by Leonardo Boff
Theologian-Philosopher
Earthcharter Commission
No one can be indifferent to the present crisis. Decisions and finding a liberating solution are urgent. To avoid being mistaken, we will present here a few possibilities, and see which is best.
The first attitude is that of the catastrophists: the flight to the depth. They emphasize the chaotic aspect that inheres in every crisis. They see the crisis as a catastrophe, a decomposition and the end of the current order. To them, the current crisis is something abnormal that must be avoided at all cost. They accept only certain adjustments and changes within the same structure. But they make them with so many objections that they undermine any innovative change.
The good pope John XXIII already said about catastrophists, referring to the Church, but applicable to any field: «Real life is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. One lives to progress, learning from the experiences of the past, but always going forward».
The generalized crisis does not have to end with a fall into the abyss. As Pierre Furter, a Swiss philosopher and pedagogue who loves Brazil very much, wrote: «To characterize the crisis as a sign of a universal collapse is a subtle and perfidious way that the powerful and privileged avoid changes, by devaluing them beforehand».
The second attitude is that of the conservatives: the flight backwards. They point to the past, looking through the rear view mirror. Instead of taking advantage of the forces contained in the present crisis, they fly to the past and seek old solutions for new problems. That is why they are archaic and ineffective.
A large portion of the political institutions and world economic organisms, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the OMC, the G-20, but also most Churches and religions, seek to solve the grave problems of the world with the same old principles. They favor inertia and slow down innovative solutions.
Leaving things as they are will inevitably lead us to failure, to an unimaginable ecological and humanitarian crisis. Since the old formulas have exhausted their ability to convince and to innovate, they will end up turning the crisis into a tragedy.
The third attitude is of the utopists: the flight ahead. They try to solve the crisis-situation by flying towards the future. They are on the same plane as the conservatives, but facing the opposite direction. Therefore, utopists and conservatives can easily reach agreement.
They are generally headstrong and forget that in history only those revolutions that are made take place. The last slogan is not a new thought. The most audacious critics can also be the most sterile. It is not uncommon for audacious non-conformism to be nothing but evasiveness in facing hard reality.
There are presently all types of futurist utopias around. Many are of an esoteric character, such as those who speak of the alignment of cosmic energies that affect our minds. Others project utopias founded in the dream that biotechnology and nano-technology will solve all our problems and make human life immortal.
A fourth attitude is of the escapists: they flee within. They see the darkening of the horizon and of the fundamental convictions, but ignore the ecological alarms and the cries of the oppressed. They avoid confrontation, preferring not to know, not to hear, not to read and not to question themselves. These people do not want to coexist. They prefer the solitude of the individual, but are generally connected to the Internet and social networks.
Finally, there is a fifth attitude: that of the responsible: they face the here and now. They are those who develop answers, which is why I call them responsible. They are not afraid, nor do they run away, in order to avoid. Rather, they assume the risk of developing new paths. They seek to strengthen the positive forces contained within the crisis, and formulate answers to problems. They do not reject the past simply because it is the past. They learn from the past as the repository of great experience that should not be wasted, but not as an excuse for not undergoing their own experiences.
The responsible define themselves as being in favor of and not simply by being against. Nor do they waste their time in sterile polemics. They work and are profoundly committed to developing a model that corresponds to the needs of the time. They are open to criticism and self-criticism, always ready to learn.
What is most in demand now are politicians, leaders, groups, and others who feel responsible, and who force the passage from the olden times to the new.
Leonardo Boff
01-11-2013
Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar, done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU
Theologian-Philosopher
Earthcharter Commission
No one can be indifferent to the present crisis. Decisions and finding a liberating solution are urgent. To avoid being mistaken, we will present here a few possibilities, and see which is best.
The first attitude is that of the catastrophists: the flight to the depth. They emphasize the chaotic aspect that inheres in every crisis. They see the crisis as a catastrophe, a decomposition and the end of the current order. To them, the current crisis is something abnormal that must be avoided at all cost. They accept only certain adjustments and changes within the same structure. But they make them with so many objections that they undermine any innovative change.
The good pope John XXIII already said about catastrophists, referring to the Church, but applicable to any field: «Real life is not a collection of antiquities. It is not about visiting a museum or an academy of the past. One lives to progress, learning from the experiences of the past, but always going forward».
The generalized crisis does not have to end with a fall into the abyss. As Pierre Furter, a Swiss philosopher and pedagogue who loves Brazil very much, wrote: «To characterize the crisis as a sign of a universal collapse is a subtle and perfidious way that the powerful and privileged avoid changes, by devaluing them beforehand».
The second attitude is that of the conservatives: the flight backwards. They point to the past, looking through the rear view mirror. Instead of taking advantage of the forces contained in the present crisis, they fly to the past and seek old solutions for new problems. That is why they are archaic and ineffective.
A large portion of the political institutions and world economic organisms, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the OMC, the G-20, but also most Churches and religions, seek to solve the grave problems of the world with the same old principles. They favor inertia and slow down innovative solutions.
Leaving things as they are will inevitably lead us to failure, to an unimaginable ecological and humanitarian crisis. Since the old formulas have exhausted their ability to convince and to innovate, they will end up turning the crisis into a tragedy.
The third attitude is of the utopists: the flight ahead. They try to solve the crisis-situation by flying towards the future. They are on the same plane as the conservatives, but facing the opposite direction. Therefore, utopists and conservatives can easily reach agreement.
They are generally headstrong and forget that in history only those revolutions that are made take place. The last slogan is not a new thought. The most audacious critics can also be the most sterile. It is not uncommon for audacious non-conformism to be nothing but evasiveness in facing hard reality.
There are presently all types of futurist utopias around. Many are of an esoteric character, such as those who speak of the alignment of cosmic energies that affect our minds. Others project utopias founded in the dream that biotechnology and nano-technology will solve all our problems and make human life immortal.
A fourth attitude is of the escapists: they flee within. They see the darkening of the horizon and of the fundamental convictions, but ignore the ecological alarms and the cries of the oppressed. They avoid confrontation, preferring not to know, not to hear, not to read and not to question themselves. These people do not want to coexist. They prefer the solitude of the individual, but are generally connected to the Internet and social networks.
Finally, there is a fifth attitude: that of the responsible: they face the here and now. They are those who develop answers, which is why I call them responsible. They are not afraid, nor do they run away, in order to avoid. Rather, they assume the risk of developing new paths. They seek to strengthen the positive forces contained within the crisis, and formulate answers to problems. They do not reject the past simply because it is the past. They learn from the past as the repository of great experience that should not be wasted, but not as an excuse for not undergoing their own experiences.
The responsible define themselves as being in favor of and not simply by being against. Nor do they waste their time in sterile polemics. They work and are profoundly committed to developing a model that corresponds to the needs of the time. They are open to criticism and self-criticism, always ready to learn.
What is most in demand now are politicians, leaders, groups, and others who feel responsible, and who force the passage from the olden times to the new.
Leonardo Boff
01-11-2013
Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar, done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU
Sunday, 25 November 2012
Report of "A Call to Action" meeting on 10 October 2012
We are pleased to make this report more widely available. More information about the "A Call to Action" group
Meeting of the ‘A Call to Action’ group and its supporters, October 10th 2012.
Meeting of the ‘A Call to Action’ group and its supporters, October 10th 2012.
St Mary Abbot church, Kensington.
After enrolment at Heythrop College, the meeting of about 350 people gathered at St Mary Abbot church, Kensington. Derek Reeve gave a brief introduction with the story of the group from its inspiration for the Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland through to today’s meeting, the numbers attending exceeding all expectations.
Derek led us in a song to the Holy Spirit and a moment of prayer to make the day a positive and spiritual encounter.
The Rev Gillean Craig, the vicar welcomed us to his church, and passed some complimentary remarks about the Catholics concerning the great social mix who came to Sunday Mass, the attachment to the life of the church rather than to a particular individual priest in most cases, and the astonishing commitment of many Catholic people with sacrifices given for what they hold dear. He described Vatican II as a great act of courage and gave thanks for our commitment and vision. He wished God’s blessing on our day.
Joe Ryan then reported on the meeting he and Pat McLoughlin had had with Archbishop Nichols. The archbishop recognised that something needs to be done, and after a fruitful conversation said he would like to observe and see how the group develops.
We moved on to the four guest speakers.
Chris McDonnell, head teacher, spoke of the dream of Vatican II, which had not come true. He also remarked on the dangerous times in the world as the Council began, e.g. with the Cuban missile crisis, the US move towards the Vietnam war etc. It was also a decade of excess and of confusion and doubt. Humanae Vitae, 1968, was a big stumbling block to the vision of Vatican II. Many priests felt unable to comply, and its issues remain contentious still with many people following their consciences. Two great changes were Episcopal collegiality and the use of the vernacular. Great strides were made from the simple Dialogue Mass that was in use just before the Council. Some people today want to return to that perceived security. But we are a pilgrim Church in a pilgrim society.
Pot-shots continue to be taken against theologians such as E.Schillebeeckx. Hans Kung has become dispirited. However, Kevin Kelly saw the Council as a continuing exercise. He suggested that the bishops were not supporting the people in their pain at the new translation of the Mass (this received to spontaneous applause). Church teaching continues to be from a historical perspective and distorts reality, something Cardinal Martini had said before he died.
He concluded by asking how we make the Church, our Church, the Church of our children? This is our responsibility.
Two questions were invited. The first queried the lack of mention of the Pastoral Congress of 1980. Christ replied that it had been an event that was followed by nothing. It could have implemented Vatican II better, but in reality it fizzled out.
The second noted that there had been no mention of women priests in his talk. Chris replied that he had been working on what might be achievable this year.
Catherine O’Donovan spoke next, and gave an account of her personal experience of the times of the Council and thereafter, which would also be from a female point of view. During Vatican II she had lived in Rome as a Salvatorean sister. She had lived through some years of the pontificate of the fairly remote Pius XII, and then that of John XXIII, who promulgated the Council, and who was far from remote as he visited people rather than giving only audiences in his Palace. There were many tears in Rome when this irreplaceable pope died. She had experienced the very positive time of liturgical changes, new habits and broader social life. But at this time, women’s position did not change, as can be seen in that part of Paul VI’s speech which closed the Council referring to women.
During the Council, a Belgian cardinal had asked why no women were represented in the Council Chamber, in response to which a token number were invited. Women are still not sufficiently involved in the real life of the Church (i.e. beyond flower arranging and cleaning)
The first question to Catherine enquired whether the ordination of women should not be included in the agenda of today’s meeting. Catherine suggested that C/E female clergy often show something men lack when helping with personal situations. She also said that Cardinal Koenig had encouraged women to get out and to speak up.. She agreed that women’s ordination should be on the agenda.
She also suggested that Rome is living in the past. She herself is now a teacher, and she felt that the Vatican does not appreciate how people are suffering, what they are missing, etc.
Catherine was followed by Tom O’Loughlin, professor of historical theology at Nottingham, who specialises in the early Church. He began by mentioning that Catholics are not so well represented in the academic life of his university, and then made three points:
1. There is a distinction to be drawn between Church as corporation and as community. It is wrong to see it primarily as corporation. The Church only works if it is made up of human communities. More than 100/150 in a group and it suffers; but the 100/150 size prospers. Better tiny churches in villages or towns than great basilica-sized bodies of people. There is tension between the corporation and the community, and the clergy have to cope with this and join in the struggle.
2. Evangelisation is just one model for spreading the Gospel. It is a structured thing. But the Church grows and reform happens when people make a decision. There is a personal journey of discovery. This second takes the form of a one to one encounter and is on a small scale. Evangelisation is structured but it doesn’t become real until it is personal. Matthew ends his Gospel by telling his disciples to go out and make disciples, Mt 28:16ff. And also, in this personal encounter, the teacher changes and there is organic growth.
3. The Holy Spirit is seen by some as only coming within the Church. But Pacem in Terris presupposes the presence of the Spirit in the world. We should assume the Spirit is there already. Paul sees the ‘unknown god’ as testimony to the presence of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not tied to the corporation, nor to a past (probably imaginary) ‘golden age’. And this all moves us to witness.
The first question asked about ordaining married men at this time when married C/E convert clergy can be ordained. Tom replied with saying how St Paul appointed presbyters in his pastoral journey to be presiders. The corporation of the Church puts celibacy and personal sanctity ahead of the responsibility of presiding, whereas the first job is that of presiding, and where the Holy Spirit would call someone (i.e.anyone).
The second question asked whether the Church should know more about the role of women in the early Church.. Tom noted how we are all creatures of the times in which we live, and how in the first days of the Church it would have been unthinkable for anyone but a man to be host at a dinner; (he would be the presider). But our understanding of host and presider has changed radically and there is space to bring this to the question of an ordained woman presider at Mass.
Fr Gerry Hughes SJ, former philosophy teacher and now at Oxford, then spoke.At the time of Vatican II there was the great notion that the Spirit was breathing everywhere and on everyone. This squared well with subsidiarity and with local solutions being the best. But our over-centralised Church does not help this.
Today there is fear. Many parishioners are afraid to talk frankly to their parish priest, and vice versa. The ‘simple faithful’ have so much to tell and share! Such sharing is more important than grandiose schemes. Rome has recently taken concrete steps to keep control, e.g. the dismissal of an Australian bishop. There are many other instances of this also.
We should try and create an atmosphere where people and priests and bishops will talk with each other. ‘Call to Action’ should look for and diagnose solutions without looking for grandiose schemes. It should organise meetings where people can say what they think and expect to be heard. Authoritarianism is rife in the Church, and it is the enemy of truth. Fear keeps the lid on things.
Call to Action could start with non-theological questions, such as
1. What to do with untended parishes. Celebrate Eucharistic services? Place of women in them? Local people might take charge of local questions.
2. How can a foreign country impose a translation of the Mass on the English-speaking world?
3. Concerning the appointment of a bishop, the people of a diocese should have a major say.
But seeking permission concerning subsidiarity is pandering to an authoritarian culture. The answer is to recognise that dialogue needs openness with everyone respected.
Martin Pendergast, who lives in a parish where there is no resident priest, told us how they celebrate services there, but added that he felt sub secreto correspondence between Rome and bishops was excessive. Gerry contributed that this sub secreto method was a powerful instrument in the hands of power: truth suffers, respect for others too; it is contrary to the Holy Spirit.
Groups were sorted out; lunch was taken; groups formed in various places and discussions followed, until,
Plenary session
Everyone present was thanked for their presence and contribution and asked to be careful to refer to the group’s website: www.acalltoaction.org.uk
Chris McDonnell spoke again. He said how a lot of listening needs to be done, and how there are many people who feel they have a right to speak. Priests vary from their openness to this through to their refusal to discuss anything. So, how can we talk to each other, including with those who have different views. When we do we will discover the problems are we are facing.
Why, he asked, are we bothered about upsetting people? Why are we concerned about being frank? But often people are lone voices and will not speak out. Not enough forums exist for dialogue/conversation.. And also, you need to be able to anticipate that when you speak you will be listened to, which often does not happen.
Concerning structures at national level, Chris acknowledged that they can be good, but that more local structures might be better because there you can identify where and why the blocks exist. Slow, gradual steps and possibly are more possible at the more local level and more likely to produce fruit. Also, there is more the idea of come and talk. A national structure would serve more just to give publicity.
There is evidence of the Holy Spirit among young people in parishes, and also in our society – more indeed than in the Church.
Society shows great commitment to the poor – where the Church may be more concerned with sex. Gay people and women’s issues receive more attention outside the Church than inside. The Olympic and Paralympic Games had shown the Spirit at work among people. There is the way the nation responds to crises.
The hope was expressed that the Spirit had been present at St Mary Abbot, and it appreciated how much He was needed so that the day did not stop in Kensington. The Church needs to be more open and to talk about many things, e.g. sexuality, because it is wanting in responding to life situations.
Tom reflected on why Christianity was so successful during the first 350 years. We tend to think of structural unity in the early Church and not much diversity. But the early Church was as varied as you could imagine. Diversity allowed it to put deep roots in very disparate communities. And the trade routes kept Christians in touch with each other and gave them unity. The Church should exist in the diversity of the groups it produces, and its unity flow from that. And this gives a different notion of the problems seen in the Church today.
(I haven’t attributed some of the above to Gerry Hughes, as I should have done.)
Pat McLoughlin wound things up. He described the core group, now of 9 members, emphasised that we are a lay as well as clerical group, how we need to lose fear and how blind loyalty to the pope is not healthy. We pray for the work of the synod now meeting in Rome. We are not an issues group and seek to help the bishops. There is need of conversation/dialogue. We should start work on the diocesan level and form groups.
A personal post script. We 350 present were probably from the 5% in each parish etc who generally get involved. As or more important (and challenging) than meeting with bishops is to galvanise the remainder of the 5% and convert some of the 95% (who since the time of our Lord went with the flow wherever it
went).
More information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)