Benedict XVI meets the Bush agenda

I found an interesting article by James Hug, SJ on the Center of Concern website (coc.org). The article looks at the current US political spectrum, especially as we face important elections this year, and explores the document of Benedict XVI, God Is Love, as a guide to finding a common faith foundation which will unite rather than further divide the country. An excellent read.

Benedict sets about reawakening Europe's Christian Roots

John Allen is reporting daily on Benedict XVI's trip to Poland, May 25-28. Benedict's first trip is the beginning of his "Take Back Europe" campaign for this summer. The motto for his visit to Poland is: "Stand firm in your faith!" For daily courage visit NCRonline.org.

Mary Ann Glendon on US Immigration Policy

Pontifical Academy President Suggests a Principle to Guide Debate

NEW YORK, MAY 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Part of the solution to the United States' immigration problems will require a renewed commitment to solidarity, says Mary Ann Glendon.

Glendon, the president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and a Harvard law professor, writing in the June/July issue of First Things, argues that such a commitment to solidarity is necessary to maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages of immigration for all involved.

Her comments come amid a national debate, dominated by alarmists on one hand and those who ignore problems associated with liberal immigration policies on the other.

For her part, Glendon observes that the world is experiencing an age of great movement of people. Worldwide, there are some 200 million migrants and refugees.

She states that, despite an ongoing conversation, especially in the United States, about what to do with the great influx of migrants, the debate has been largely silent regarding the relation of this phenomenon to the "demographic winter" occurring in Europe and North America.

Glendon notes that because of social experimentation, as well as what she calls the "culture of self-fulfillment" in these regions, people are having fewer children and the basic social structure of the family is being altered gradually.

Advantages

The point often overlooked is that societies that accept fewer children will have to accept more immigrants. "The issue is not who will fill the jobs Americans don't want," writes Glendon. "The issue is who will fill the ranks of a labor force that the retiring generation failed to replenish."

Nevertheless, America has distinct advantages in solving its demographic problem that Europe does not share.

The United States has a history of pluralism as well as experience absorbing and assimilating millions of immigrants from all over the world. Furthermore, most of America's immigrants come from largely Christian countries, and thus share a similar cultural heritage with the United States.

However, for any assimilation process to be successful, Americans will have to avoid lumping immigrants into multiculturalist subgroups such as "Latino," insists Glendon.

As well, she continues, Americans will have to address the "rule of law" and economic problems associated with the prospects of granting citizenship or amnesty to large numbers of immigrants -- problems that are very different from those faced in the great waves of immigration in the early 20th century.

The call to solidarity

Glendon closes by asking all participants in the debate to re-examine the five principles of the joint statement of the American and Mexican bishops entitled, "Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope."

Those principles are:

1) persons have the right to find opportunities in their homeland;

2) when opportunities are not available at home, persons have the right to migrate to find work;

(3) sovereign nations have the right to control their borders, but economically prosperous nations have the obligation to accommodate migration flows;

(4) refugees and asylum seekers should be protected; and

(5) human dignity and rights of undocumented migrants should be respected.

To these five principles, Glendon advocates a sixth: "the need for a highly diverse, rule-of-law society to be careful about the messages it sends to persons who wish to become part of that society."

Citing Pope John Paul II, Glendon argues that solidarity imposes obligations on the disadvantaged as well as the advantaged. While the advantaged should care for the needs of the disadvantaged, the latter cannot be passive recipients of aid or undermine the social fabric, but must instead contribute all they can to the common good.

While these principles might be somewhat in tension, Glendon argues they are the basis of sound solutions to a heavily charged policy battle.

The Apostle Peter

Benedict XVI is speaking on the personalities of the apostles. Since it is still the Easter Season I thought to include his reflection yesterday on Peter. It was a reflection that deeply touched me:

"Peter's impetuous generosity did not safeguard him from the risks of human weakness. ... The moment came in which even he gave in to fear and crumbled. He betrayed the Master. The school of faith is not a triumphal march but a road beset with suffering and with love, with trials and with faithfulness, to be renewed day after day.

"Peter, who had promised absolute faithfulness, knew the bitterness and humiliation of denial; the proud man learns the cost of humility at his own expense. ... When the mask finally fell and he understood the truth in his weak believing-sinner's heart, he burst into liberating tears of penance, after which he was ready for his mission."

One day, on the shores of Lake Tiberias, "that mission was entrusted to him by the Risen Jesus," as St. John recounts. The dialogue between Peter and Jesus, the Pope observed, "contains a very significant play of verbs. In Greek, the verb 'fileo' expresses the love of friendship, tender but not total, while the verb 'agapao' means unreserved, complete and unconditional love. The first time, Jesus asks Peter: 'Simon, do you love Me? (agapas-me?).'

"Prior to his experience of betrayal, the Apostle would certainly have replied: 'I love You (agapo-se).' Now that he has known the bitter sadness of infidelity, the drama of his own weakness, he simply says: 'Lord, I love you (filo-se),' in other words, 'I love you with my poor love.' ... Simon had understood that his poor love, the only one of which he was capable, was enough for Jesus. ... We could almost say that Jesus had adapted Himself to Peter, rather than Peter to Jesus."

Pope Benedict continued: "It was precisely this divine adaptation that gave hope to the disciple. ... From that day, Peter followed the Master with a specific awareness of his own frailty. But this knowledge did not discourage him; he knew he could count on the presence of the Risen One at his side."

He concluded: "From the ingenuous enthusiasm of the outset, passing through the painful experience of denial and the tears of conversion, Peter came to trust himself to the Jesus Who had adapted Himself to his own poor capacity to love. It was a long journey that made him a reliable witness, because constantly open to the action of the Spirit in Jesus. Peter would describe himself as 'a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed'."

Self-actualization or obedience--which makes us more authentically human?

I ran across this passage taken from "God's Power--Our Hope" in Song for the Lord--Faith in Christ and Liturgy Today (New York: Crossroad 1996). In a world were self-actualization and self-fulfillment are the most important things individuals can achieve for themselves, it is a breath of fresh air to touch again the Word and the blessed gift of obedience. And in a religious environment where people so frequently quote the text of Scripture in opposition to the Church ("Jesus wouldn't do that. Read the Gospels and see."), it is a ray of light in the midst of the confusing dark:

Faith is obedience; it means that we relearn the essential form of our being -- our nature as creatures -- and in this way become authentic. It means that we recognize the relationship of responsibility as the basic form of our lives and that as a result, power changes from being a threat and a danger to hope.

This obedience is directed to God Himself -- on the one hand it presupposes an attentive and vital relationship with God, and on the other hand it makes this possible, for only the obedient person perceives God. To ensure, however, that our obedience becomes concrete and is not inadvertently equated with the projections of our own desires, God has made Himself concrete in many different ways -- to begin with, in His words.

Thus obedience to God is a relationship of obedience to His Word. We have to enter into a relationship of awe and obedience toward the Bible, which nowadays is frequently in danger of being lost. If individuals or different groups continually create their own Bible by means of separating the sources and criticizing the tradition, and then place this Bible in opposition to the unity of Scripture and the Church, this is no longer obedience to God’s Word. It is rather an apotheosis of their own position with the help of a text-montage whose selection and omissions are ultimately based on the positions they want.

Today even Catholics frequently use Scripture as a weapon against the Church. As the Word of God, it certainly does stand above the Church, which must constantly let herself be judged and purified by it. But it does not stand apart from the Body of Christ -- a privatized reading can never penetrate the core of Scripture.

Proper reading of Scripture presupposes that we read it where it has made and still makes history, where it is not witness to the past, but the vital strength of the present: in the Church of the Lord and with her eyes, the eyes of faith.

In this sense, obedience to Scripture is always obedience to the Church; this obedience becomes abstract if we try to remove the Church from the Bible, or even try to play her off against it. Scripture alive in the living Church is also God’s present power in the world today -- a power which remains an inexhaustible source of hope throughout all generations. (Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI

Excellent Analysis of DaVinci Code Movie

The Theology of the Book & the Movie

In order for Dan Brown’s premise to work, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a daughter and that their blood line continues is divine, the Christian believer must suspend any belief in the divinity of Jesus. Dan Brown does so in the book by debunking Jesus’ resurrection from the dead; Academy Award winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man) does so by ignoring the resurrection of Jesus entirely and repeating over and over that Jesus was only a man. This subtle shift between the book and the film is not immediately noticeable; at first it seems that Mary Magdalene is depicted as the Holy Grail, the womb that bore Jesus’ child and not a lowly cup that held the wine he transformed into his blood at the Last Supper. Yet as the film continues, it recounts Mary Magdalene’s escape from Jerusalem, pregnant with Jesus’ child, as he dies on the cross never to be heard from again. The film is concerned with Mary Magdalene’s many and varied burial places, never that of Jesus, who if he did not rise from the dead must have been buried somewhere. Jesus merits little attention in the film except as the father of Mary Magdalene’s child – and the reason for Bishop Aringarosa’s and Silas’ weird and murderous behavior. In fact, Mary Magdalene herself is actually the divine one. According to Teabing in the film, her purpose is to save the oppressed and the poor.

In both the book and the film the key to the conspiracy and the de-divinization of Jesus is Teabing’s prolonged rhetorical explanation of the conspiracy to Langdon and Sophie, as Barbara Murphy explores in her analytical article “Sir Leigh Teabing’s Jesus in The Da Vinci Code” He does away with the authenticity of the four Gospels and Scripture and replaces these with Gnostic texts that emerged later than the Gospels. Among other things, Gnosticism believed that God the Father, an immaterial being and therefore good, created Jesus, a material being, and therefore evil because all matter was considered evil. Gnostic texts were never accepted as revelation by the early Church.

The Fonts of Divine Revelation

How does the average Catholic know with certainty that the Gospels are authentic and divinely inspired? How do we know that the content of the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed (formulated by the Council of Nicea in 325AD) that we pray at Sunday Mass together are true?

Although The Da Vinci Code makes it seem that there is no historical proof to anything Christians believe, a review of the fonts of divine revelation and Church history can reassure us.
Divine Revelation is God’s communication to us about himself, ourselves, and God’s plan for us, made known to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition – the two fonts of Divine Revelation.

Sacred Scripture is the Word of God and the Bible is the book that contains it. The Bible consists of the Old Testament (46 books) and New Testament (27 books, including the four Gospels). The Church believes these are divinely inspired. The canon of the New Testament was formed by the year 220; St. Justin Martyr and other Fathers of the Church were quoting from the Gospels as we have them now by the year 150AD.

The Basic Catechism (Pauline Books & Media; 1999), based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), explains that “Sacred Tradition is the process by which the Church, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, preserves and hands on to all generations, in its teaching, life, and worship, all that it is and believes.” It is the teaching authority of the Pope, the Vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter, who in an unbroken line of “apostolic succession” that is historically verifiable, preserves and helps the Church grow in its understanding of the “heritage or deposit of faith.”

The Film

As a film, I found The Da Vinci Code to be suspenseful and a good watch. The cinematography is admirable. Ron Howard is an excellent director and though he was not able to tell this story with absolute clarity, nonetheless, it’s a better-than-average thriller, including murder and mayhem – and of course, the Vatican. (The Vatican is everywhere these days and is a “character” in The Da Vinci Code, Mission: Impossible III and in the upcoming remake of The Omen.)

One of the problems with the film is that the conspiracy is everything. There is no character development so everyone comes off as rather shallow. There are plenty of bad guys – and they are all members of the Catholic Church that is fronted by Opus Dei, a real religious congregation-like organization approved by the Catholic Church to spread the Gospel. Unfortunately, like the Jesuits before them, members of Opus Dei and the institute itself, make a very large target for the imagination of writers and filmmakers.

Another problem is that the double-stranded inner logic of the film is not integrated. The narrative component does have a beginning, middle, and an end as do most stories. What is illogical and inconsistent is exactly what the characters mean by what they say – and they say a lot. The plot is so full of holes that it takes a leap of faith to believe Teabing’s parallel feminine divinity tale, and he does not believe in faith. In truth, The Da Vinci Code is a fiction. The film’s tag line says: Seek the truth. Good idea.

The biggest difficulty with this story that purports to be “religious” is that there is no transcendence and no – love. Goodness is supposedly found in the feminine divine in the film’s mythology, but the idea is preserved by mostly dead white men. Therefore, I wonder if Dan Brown actually has a point of view about women in the Church and the world or just a good, albeit almost incoherent, storyline?

At the end of the day, without any examples of unconditional love that lays down its life for another, male and female, there is no relationship with God in the story, no reason for the characters to get up in the morning - and certainly no heroes.

A Pastoral Approach to The Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code, book and movie, is entertainment media, and therefore, it’s about big business and will probably produce enough profit to support a small country. Entertainment media are part of our capitalist economic system that has no religion and comes with an ethical framework that is almost non-existent. Millions of people have read the book and will see the movie, and people are talking about it.

I think there are several things we can do as Catholic Christians regarding this cultural phenomenon:

• Be informed about your Catholic faith; read the New Testament and a good book on Church history; find out what each phrase of the Creed means
• Listen to others when they want to talk about The Da Vinci Code; let them finish their thought before jumping in; enter into respectful dialogue
• If you don’t know the answer, find out
• Avoid being defensive
• Respond rather than react
• Build a bridge of understanding
• Think of the film as a table around which we can gather to converse about Jesus
• Don’t talk authoritatively about something you haven’t seen or read: Maybe: “I didn’t see it/read it yet; but what did you think?”

Jesus said in John 10:10: “I came that you may have life and have it to the full” and in Mark 16:15: “Go out into the whole world and preach the Gospel to all creation.” But the best is from John 6:20 “It is I; do not be afraid.” No one in The Da Vinci Code ever says this.

Sr. Rose Pacatte, FSP

Making Sense Out of Bioethics

Concise explanations of the Church's position on crucial issues of bioethics.

http://www.ncbcenter.org/makingsense.asp

New Author on biotechnology

I just discovered tonight a new author in the area of science and faith, particularly biotechnology and in vitro fertilization: Robert A. Brungs, SJ.

The linchpin of his argument lies in the argument that the Church's understanding of sexual difference and activity is connected to worship:

Strictness in reproductive matters arises from the Church's understanding that sexual difference and activity is intimately linked to worship of God in history. Stress should be placed more on its worshipful character than on violation of the natural. Sexuality must be treated as a sacrament symbolic of Christ's love for His Church, as something more significant than, say, digestion.

Read more.

"Da Vinci Code" as an Opportunity for the Church

Interview With Philippe Oswald of Famille Chrétienne

ROME, MAY 16, 2006 (Zenit.org).- This week's release of the film "The Da Vinci Code" could turn out to be positive, says the head of a French weekly magazine.

"An opportunity has been given to us to show the true face of the Church," affirmed Philippe Oswald, editor in chief of Famille Chrétienne.

In this interview, Oswald shared his views about the Dan Brown novel and about the conclusions of a survey on the book's impact on the Church in France.

Q: On the occasion of the release of the film "The Da Vinci Code," you are publishing a survey carried out with IPSOS Institute. What are the important points of this survey?

Oswald: Out of every 10 people, without distinctions of categories, questioned in France by IPSOS on Christ and the Church, three thought that Jesus certainly or probably never existed; one judged that he was an impostor; only two affirmed his divine nature. Seven said he changed nothing in their lives; eight thought the Church was an invention of men.

It is futile to underline how this result confirms the growing distancing of the French from the faith and simple Christian culture.

In this sample, of 1,000 individuals surveyed, 21% had read and 47% had heard talk about the novel "The Da Vinci Code." Adding both, 68% of people surveyed, more than two-thirds, knew more or less what it is about, obviously a considerable ratio!

However, the survey has confirmed some disquieting differences among those who had read or had heard talk about the novel, and those who had no idea of its content.

For example, close to half -- 48% -- of readers of the book do not see in Jesus anything other than a man, as opposed to less than a third -- 29% -- of those who have not read it.

The readers of the book were induced to think that Jesus did not resurrect; among them, the ratio of those who deny the resurrection is 10.7% higher in relation to those who did not know the novel.

They also no longer think that the Church has a positive role -- 14% more than those who do not know the book.

More than one-fourth -- 26.4% -- of those who have not read the book think that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife or mistress; this figure is already impressive. But of those who have read the book, close to half -- 48.3% -- came to this conclusion! Does this not call the Church to an examination of conscience?

Q: How do you explain the passion for this film and the police intrigue invented by Dan Brown?

Oswald: Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained the strange success of a novel obstinately anti-Christian such as "The Da Vinci Code" by noting "the extreme cultural poverty of a good part of Christians who often do not know how to give reasons for their hope."

"The Da Vinci Code" is certainly a "thriller" full of twists. But its success is still strange, if one considers the number of implausibilities it accumulates, not only in regard to the Church but to history in general, including art history -- what it says about Leonardo da Vinci, supposedly affiliated to a "Priory of Sion," founded in fact by an illuminati in 1956, should make it lose all credibility.

Having said this, the enthusiasm is also explained by the masses' fondness for conspiracy theories and the growing challenge to religions, which also affects Christianity, and which is particularly addictive among the old prejudices against the Catholic Church, allegedly "totalitarian" because it is hierarchical. What is more, the Church has the audacity to warn persistently about moral behavior.

The magisterium's positions on unconditional respect for life, from conception until death, and heterosexual and indissoluble marriage, attract a priori challenge or rejection.

However, the Church is "saved" for a majority of people surveyed, whether or not they read the book, because of its humanitarian commitment. At least, this is how we interpret the 63% of positive and very positive answers from the totality of people questioned, but with the 14-point gap as already indicated by the readers of "The Da Vinci Code," compared to those who have not heard talk about the book.

Q: As editor in chief of a Catholic family weekly, why do you feel it is important to report on controversial aspects of Dan Brown's history?

Oswald: Within a few days, on May 17, the manipulation of "The Da Vinci Code" novel will reach new levels with the première in Cannes of the film inspired by it.

Dan Brown's ruminations on the alleged "secrets" of the Church, Jesus' person, his relations with Mary Magdalene, the "invention" of Christianity by Emperor Constantine, or the dark intentions attributed to Opus Dei, will have a redoubled impact on spectators who, in the majority, have but a vague idea of the Catholic religion. It would be discouraging.

But we can also say that an opportunity has been given to us to show the true face of the Church. Not only does it have nothing to hide, but comes out into the open to proclaim salvation in Jesus Christ, true God and true man.

Moreover, our survey also reveals that if 30% of people who read the book think that it is essentially "rather true," 30% judge it "completely false." Without prejudging the effect the film will have, does this not "draw" open avenues for a strategy of communication, or better, of evangelization?

We have conceived our reply to "The Da Vinci Code" in the spirit of judo -- that sport of nonviolent combat, which consists in turning the adversary's force against him. It consists of a series of four numbers [of Famille Chrétienne] -- May 13, 20, 27 and June 4 -- with surveys, interviews, feature articles, etc.

They can be received without charge by requesting them at the site www.davincicode-laverite.com.

Benedict XVI and the respect due to the human embryo

In his meeting with the Pontifical Council for the Family on May 13, Pope Benedict referred to the:

"extremely delicate subject" of "the respect due to the human embryo, which should always be born from an act of love and be treated as a person. Scientific and technological progress in the field of bioethics becomes a threat when man loses the sense of his own limitations and, in effect, aims to take the place of God the Creator." In this context, he recalled Pope Paul VI's Encyclical "Humanae vitae," affirming that "human procreation must always be the fruit of a conjugal act with its dual unitive and procreative significance."

"'Eros, reduced to pure sex," Pope Benedict continued, quoting his own Encyclical "Deus caritas est," becomes "a commodity, a mere thing to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. ... Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body.' Yet thanks to God, many people, especially the young, are rediscovering the value of chastity, which appears ever more clearly as a sure guarantee of authentic love."

Benedict XVI on protecting the family

On May 13 in a meeting with the Pontifical Council for the Family:

Pope Benedict recalled how "the family founded on marriage constitutes a 'heritage of humanity,' a fundamental social institution; it is the vital cell and the pillar of society, and concerns both believers and non-believers. This is something to which all States must give great consideration because, as John Paul II liked to say, 'the future of humanity passes by way of the family'."

After highlighting how separation and divorce are currently on the rise, "breaking family unity and creating no small number of problems for children, the innocent victims of such situations," the Holy Father called for the stability of families to be protected. This, he added, "often means going against the tide," and requires "patience, commitment, sacrifice and the incessant search for mutual understanding." Married couples can overcome their difficulties and remain faithful to their vocation by "relying upon the support of God through prayer and assiduous participation in the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. The unity and strength of families helps society to absorb true human values and to open itself to the Gospel."

Should we boycott The Da Vinci Code movie?

There is a flurry of activity in Christian circles regarding the upcoming release of The Da Vinci Code on May 19th. Some advise boycotting the movie. Others advise seeing it so that you can defend the faith against it. Others advise going on that day to see another movie. I read an excellent article on this question this morning. The question raised by the author was whether this is an opportunity to boycott the culture or to engage the culture. In the long run, we might be more successful in reaching out to evangelize the culture by engaging it.

Will The Da Vinci Code drive millions away from the historic Christian faith? Doubtful. The Barna Research Group reported that less than one-tenth of 1% of the people who watched The Passion of the Christ actually accepted Christ as a result of viewing the film. The gay population won’t spike because of Brokeback Mountain, and I doubt The Da Vinci Code will create a nation of agnostics. What it will do is give us one of the greatest platforms we’ve had in a long time for sharing the story of our faith.

Don’t waste this opportunity by holding a picket sign. Be ready to engage in a spirit of friendship and respect that will begin a conversation that could eventually change the culture.

Historical Errors in Da Vinci Code

You can find a "cheat sheet" for some of the the historical errors in The Da Vinci Code at this address:

http://www.cbn.com/special/DaVinciCode/

Church in China--a delicate situation

History is being made in China. The Catholics are divided between the clandestine Church (those who have remained faithful to the Holy See and are persecuted by the Chinese authorities) and the Official Church (those who against their conscience under the Patriotic Association have acquiesed to the demands of Chinese officials to separate themselves from the Holy See and submit to regulation by the Chinese government, including to bishops chosen and ordained without with the approval of the Holy See). Under John Paul II the response was to ask forgiveness. But Benedict XVI is concerned for the religious liberty, indeed the liberty, of all Chinese Catholics, and has acknowledged in public the massacre in this past century of bishops, priests and religious and t he suffering of all Catholics. Bishops ordained by the Chinese government are generally not accepted by the people.

Relations have improved lately under Benedict XVI. A set back was encounted, however, when the government ordained two new bishops in April and May without the approval of Rome. On May 4 the following statement was released from the Holy See:

“I can inform you of the position of the Holy See regarding the episcopal ordination of the priests Joseph Ma Yinglin e Joseph Liu Xinhong, which took place, respectively, last Sunday, April 30, in Kunming (province of Yunnan) and Wednesday, May 3, in Wuhu (province of Anhui).

“The Holy Father has learned of the news with profound displeasure, since an act so relevant for the life of the Church, such as an episcopal ordination, has been carried out in both cases without respecting the requirements of communion with the pope.

“It is a grave wound to the unity of the Church, for which severe canonical sanctions, as it is known, are foreseen (cfr. canon 1382 from the Code of Canon Law).

“According to the information received, bishops and priests have been subjected – on the part of external entities to the Church – to strong pressures and to threats, so that they take part in the episcopal ordinations which, being without pontifical mandate, are illegitimate and, besides, contrary to their conscience. Various prelates have given a refusal to similar pressures, while others were not able to do anything but submit with great interior suffering. Episodes of this kind produce lacerations not only in the Catholic community but also in the internal conscience itself.

“We are therefore facing a grave violation of religious liberty, notwithstanding that it is sought to present the two episcopal ordinations as a proper act to provide the pastors of vacant dioceses.

“The Holy See follows with attention the troubled path of the Catholic Church in China and although aware of some peculiarities of such a path, believed and hoped that similar, deplorable episodes would by now belong to the past.

“Holy See considers it now her precise duty to give voice to the suffering of the entire Catholic Church, in particular to that of the Catholic community in China and especially to those bishops and priests who have been obligated, against conscience, to carry out or to participate in the episcopal ordination, which neither the candidates or the consecrating bishops want to carry out without having received the pontifical mandate.

“If it is true the news according to which other episcopal ordinations are to take place in the same manner, the Holy See would like to repeat and stress the need for respect of the liberty of the Church and of the autonomy of her institutions from any external interference, and eagerly wishes that such unacceptable acts of violent and inadmissible constrictions are not repeated.

“The Holy See has, on various occasions, stressed her willingness for honest and constructive dialogue with the competent Chinese authorities to find solutions that would satisfy the legitimate needs of both parties.

“Initiatives such as the above mentioned do not favor such dialogue but instead create new obstacles against it.”

AsiaNews has been receiving continuous messages from Chinese priests and bishops, stating their approval for the Vatican stand. Anthony Liu Bainian, the PA deputy chairman, remains the only person defending the decision to go ahead with the ordinations of Kunming and Wuhu. There has been no official reaction from the government so far.

Tomorrow at 9am, in the Cathedral of Shenyang (Liaoning, north-east China), there will be another episcopal ordination: Fr Paul Pei Junmin will be consecrated as coadjutor bishop of Shenyang by the ordinary bishop, Mgr Jin Peixian. The very important fact is that this new ordination takes place with the approval of the Holy See. “Fr Pei Junmin received the approval of the Holy Father,” a Vatican source told AsiaNews. “And he is an excellent candidate from all points of view.”

Fr Pei Junmin, 37 years, entered the seminary when he was 16. He was ordained in 1992 and worked for a year in the parish of the cathedral. Then he was sent by his bishop to Philadelphia in the US to study Sacred Scripture. He was among the first group of Chinese priests sent abroad for studies. So far, he has taught Sacred Scripture and he was dean of studies and vice-rector at the major seminary in Shenyang that has 70 vocations. The diocese of Shenyang has 100,000 faithful.

AsiaNews sent Fr Pei a message of congratulations for his ministry: “Dear Fr Pei, we want to express our happiness and joy about your consecration as bishop of the Catholic Church, Our ties to the Rock of Peter are a guarantee of strength and edification. From Italy and the world, we are praying for you. We are honoured to have met you in Rome. We work ever more closely for the mission of the church in China and for unity with the universal Church.”

Catholics in China deserve our prayers. As late as April 28th, seven Catholics were arrested in Hebei.

Benedict's proposal for Islam's peaceful coexistence globally

For an excellent assessment of Benedict XVI's understanding of Islam and the way he proposes that Islam work toward coexistence with other cultures and religions, read the excellent article on www.chiesa by the Egyptian Jesuit Samir Khalil Samir.

In summary this is how he assesses Benedict's thought:

Benedict XVI is probably one of the few figures to have profoundly understood the ambiguity in which contemporary Islam is being debated and its struggle to find a place in modern society. At the same time, he is proposing a way for Islam to work toward coexistence globally and with religions, based not on religious dialogue, but on dialogue between cultures and civilizations based on rationality and on a vision of man and human nature which comes before any ideology or religion. This choice to wager on cultural dialogue explains his decision to absorb the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue into the larger Pontifical Council for Culture.

While the pope is asking Islam for dialogue based on culture, human rights, the refusal of violence, he is asking the West, at the same time, to go back to a vision of human nature and rationality in which the religious dimension is not excluded. In this way – and perhaps only in this way – a clash of civilizations can be avoided, transforming it instead into a dialogue between civilizations.

Read more

The question: Is the embryo already a person?

In the current bioethical debate, the question is often tossed about: When precisely does the human embryo become a person? In the popular debate, which can be followed on the radio and in newspapers, experts are referred to who pinpoint the moment when the embryo has a moral status according to extrinsic criteria--that is starting with factors external to the embryo itself.

An examples of extrinsic criteria that has been positied is the 1960s idea that the status of the human being and the personality of an individual emerge at the moment of nidation, because this implicates the beginning of a close relationship with the mother.

Another extrinsic criterion is that the embryo becomes a human individual when recognized as such by positive law. "In our pluralistic society, the only possible solution to the controversy over the status of the human embryo is, according to many people, that such status be defined by democratic consensus. However the truth, even that regarding the status of the embryo, cannot be established by statistical survey.

A third criterion makes the status of the embryo depend on the choice of others to give the embryo created by 'in vitro' fertilization the possibility of further development by transplanting it to the uterus. In this case the the personhood of the embryo depends on the choices of others, such as researchers and parents.

The problem with this approach, according to 12th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life which held an international congress on "The Human Embryo," is that "this approach has not proved suitable for truly identifying the moral status of the embryo, since any possible judgment ends by being based on factors that are wholly conventional and arbitrary." Adriano Bompiani,gynecologist and director of the International Scientific Institute of Rome's Sacred Heart Catholic University, stated:

"In order to attribute a 'juridical status' to the embryo," said Adriano Bompiani, "it is necessary to 'understand' its nature." And such understanding, he added, must be based on ontological study.

"Today, it is not enough to examine the embryo under the microscope," he went on. Rather, it is necessary "to use all available means" from the fields of genetics, morphology, biochemistry and molecular biology.

In "recognizing" the embryo, Bompiani continued, "we come up against the concepts of human life, human being, human individual, and person. Reflection on these concepts is, obviously, the aim of ontological study. However, in my opinion, this should be undertaken only after having described and understood what happens in the few hours following the encounter between a living human ovum and a spermatozoon." From a rational standpoint, he concluded, the origin of a new human being lies "in the meeting between a spermatozoon and an ovum of the same species."

In the final communique of the International Congress, issued in March, the researchers and experts at the Congress stated:

It can be concluded from this data that the human embryo in the phase of pre-implantation is already: a) a being of the human species; b) an individual being; c) a being that possesses in itself the finality to develop as a human person together with the intrinsic capacity to achieve such development.

From all this may one conclude that the human embryo in the pre-implantation stage is really already a "person"? It is obvious that since this is a philosophical interpretation, the answer to this question cannot be of a "definite kind," but must remain open, in any case, to further considerations.

Yet, on the precise basis of the available biological data, we maintain that there is no significant reason to deny that the embryo is already a person in this phase.

Of course, this presupposes an interpretation of the concept of the person of a substantial type, referring, that is, to human nature itself as such, rich in potential that will be expressed during the embryo's development and also after birth. To support this position, it should be noted that the theory of immediate animation, applied to every human being who comes into existence, is shown to be fully consistent with his biological reality (in addition to being in "substantial" continuity with the thought of Tradition).

The Psalm states: "For you did form my inward parts, you did knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for you are fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are your works! You know me right well" (Psalm 139[138]:13-14), referring to God's direct intervention in the creation of every new human being's soul.

From the moral viewpoint, moreover, over and above any consideration of the human embryo's personality, the mere fact of being in the presence of a human being (and even the doubt of this would suffice) would demand full respect for the embryo's integrity and dignity: Any conduct that might in some way constitute a threat or an offense to its fundamental rights, and first and foremost the right to life, must be considered as seriously immoral.

Benedict XVI stated in his address at the beginning of the Congress:

“In man, in all men and women, whatever their stage or condition of life, there shines a reflection of God’s own reality,” the Holy Father emphasized. “For this reason, the Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable nature of each human life, from conception to natural end. This moral judgement also holds at the beginning of an embryo’s life, even before it is implanted in the mother’s womb.”

New Vatican Website

The Vatican is planning to launch a new Web site this autumn, aimed at bringing together the faithful so they can interact, says Business Week magazine.

The publication in its May 8 issue reported that the Web site will include personal news updates, e-learning programs, and areas set aside for families, young people and parishes.

It quoted Sister Judith Zoebelein, the editorial director of the Internet office of the Holy See, saying: "People will be able to find each other and work together online, and then go back and use what they have learned or done in their own communities."

Vatican and the debate over condom use

There has been a report that the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care is preparing a document that would provisionally accept the use of condoms in the narrow context of a married couple, where one partner is infected with HIV/AIDS and the other is not, as a means to prevent transmission of the disease.

The tentative conclusion needs to be reviewed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ultimately Pope Benedict XVI. It was the pope who had asked the Congregation to study the subject.

There has been a public discussion of the issue lately among senior church officials: some of whom support the use of condoms in the context of AIDS in one fashion or another, and some of whom do not.

Before this discussion hits the US news it is important to be aware of two things. According to John Allen who spoke with members of the Council for Health Pastoral Care:

First, a finding in favor of condoms in the context of marriage to fight HIV/AIDS would not mark a "change in policy," since the church has never spoken officially on this specific question.

Such a conclusion would not, according to these experts, represent a break with the church's traditional ban on birth control. The aim would be the prevention of disease, not contraception. No matter what happens, according to these Vatican sources, the church is not on the brink of approving condoms or any other "artificial" means for the purpose of limiting births.

Second, if there is eventually a document, how important it might be would depend on what line of reasoning it employs. Specifically, experts would be looking to see if it treats condom use in the context of AIDS simply as a "lesser evil," or takes a more positive view.

In essence, the question boils down to this: Can a condom ever be used without sin?

The "lesser evil" argument goes back to St. Augustine. In summary form, it holds that one may counsel a lesser evil if it is the only way to stop someone from doing a greater harm. A classic example employed in moral theology courses is the mob boss who comes to confession and says he's planning to kill an enemy. The confessor must try to dissuade him, but if it can't be done, he can suggest that the boss beat up his enemy instead.

The beating is obviously not morally acceptable, but it's preferable to murder. In this case, the confessor has not "approved" the action, but rather saw it in a pastoral setting as the best that could be achieved. Neither, obviously, would the church be "recommending" beatings as a matter of policy.

Applied to AIDS and condoms, many theologians regard the "lesser evil" argument as fairly clear. If someone is determined to have intercourse where there is serious risk of infection, and can't be talked out of it, this view holds, it's better to use a condom. Often bishops and theologians phrase this argument in terms of applying both the sixth commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery," and the fifth, "thou shalt not kill."

For those who take this view, the most urgent question is usually not about the logic of the conclusion, but the pastoral wisdom of announcing it publicly, given the risk that people may misunderstand it as a kind of "approval" of condoms.

There is vigorous theological debate, however, on the far more tricky question of whether such use is not merely a "lesser evil," but no sin at all. There are strong views on both sides.

Some Catholic moralists argue that because sexuality must be open to life, intercourse using condoms is, by the physical character of the act, immoral. They point to Paul VI's insistence in Humanae Vitae that sexual activity must be "apt in itself" for the generation of children.

Respected ethicist Luke Gormally, writing in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly in January 2005, put the argument in graphic form.

"A condom is as inappropriate a receptacle for the deposition of semen as the anus," Gormally wrote. "Choosing to ejaculate into either amounts to the choice of a type of act which … plainly detaches sex from its ordering to the good of children. And that, as St. Thomas teaches, is the essence of 'unnatural vice.'"

On this line of reasoning, sexual intercourse with a condom must always be immoral, even for the noble aim of preventing infection with a deadly disease.

Others, however, argue that wearing a condom during intercourse cannot have moral value in itself. It's the intent, they say, that matters.

"It's not sex with a condom that's intrinsically evil, but contraception," Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, a leading moral theologian at Rome's Alphonsian Academy, said in an April 25 interview with NCR.

He argued that use of a condom to prevent AIDS infection within a marriage can be seen as an instance of the "principle of double effect," in the sense that the aim of the action is to block disease, with preventing pregnancy merely an undesired but foreseen consequence.

"From my reading of the Catholic moral tradition, I think it can be justified," he said.

* * *

As Johnstone explained it, the principle of double effect was initially formulated in the 17th century and nuanced further in the 19th and 20th centuries. Generally speaking, it holds that if an act can be foreseen to have both good and evil effects, one can morally commit the act if four circumstances obtain:

* The act is not intrinsically evil
* One intends the good effect, not the bad
* The good effect does not occur by means of the evil effect, since one may not do evil to obtain good
* There's "proportionate reason," meaning, roughly, that the good outweighs the evil

Johnstone believes the case of married couples where one partner has AIDS is a classic example. The couple does not intend to prevent pregnancy, he said, merely to block the disease, and the preservation of life is an obvious good.

Other theologians, however, argue that using condoms violates the first condition, i.e., that the act must not be intrinsically immoral.

"Condomistic intercourse cannot be conjugal intercourse," said Fr. Robert Gahl of Rome's Opus Dei-sponsored Santa Croce University. "Since that's the only licit kind, condomistic intercourse cannot be an affirmation of the love between a man and a woman."

Gahl said that if intercourse between husband and wife poses a risk, then "they ought to express their affection in another way."

Johnstone noted there is at least one precedent for the Vatican considering the intent behind the use of artificial birth control, rather than focusing exclusively on the physical character of the act.

In the early 1960s, Johnstone said, the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.

"It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse," Johnstone said.

Unexplained absence

No, I have not dropped off the face of the earth. I have just been involved in the inventory pruning of our St. Paul Book and Media Centers this past week. I will get return now to my daily blogging.