Archive for January, 2009

A Blessing to No One

Friday, January 30th, 2009

What did you think of Pope Benedict’s decision to reverse the excommunications of four ultra-traditionalist bishops last week, especially the Holocaust-denying Richard Williamson? Does it undo the advances made in Jewish-Catholic dialogue in recent years by the Catholic Church and things like the Blessing To One Another exhibit that spent the summer in downtown Rapid City, courtesy of Stan Adelstein?

Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

In morning prayer every day we pray Psalm 148: “He (The Lord) raised up a horn for His people, praise for all his saints, for the people of Israel who are near to Him. Praise the Lord.”

“ … the people of Israel who are near to Him.”  In one of the few times Jesus left the land of Israel, when He was in the region of Tyre and Sidon, He clearly states why He is on earth to the Syro-Phonecian woman: “I was not sent, except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” He is equally clear  when he speaks to the Samaritan woman at the well: “You (Samaritans) worship what you do not know; we (Jews) know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.”

These words of God should always be in the hearts of all Christians, for while Jesus bestowed healing and the gift of Himself on Gentiles, repeating what had been done among Jews, He did it that the God of Israel might be glorified.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, affirmed that valid revelation comes from Judaism. One of the Church Fathers, St. Athanasius, affirms that “the commonwealth of Israel was the school of the knowledge of God for all the nations,” (and not Athens of the philosophers). We must never forget that the Messiah was prophesied within Judaism; the Incarnation took place among the Jewish people, and God’s universal gift of salvation arises within the context of His promises to the Jews and their religious tradition.

“…the People of Israel who are near to Him.”

Dr. William Bogaard  — Jewish

Why should a Jew be surprised by Pope Benedict’s decision to reverse the excommunication of Holocaust denying Richard Williamson?

Sure, Williamson has expressed a number of controversial and idiotic views: he has called Jews “enemies of Christ,” urged their conversion to Catholicism, argued that Jews aim at world dominion, believes “The Prototols of the Elders of Zion” to be authentic, and argued the September 11 attacks were staged by the U.S. government. He also denied the existence of gas chambers and claimed that not six million but “only” 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in the Nazi concentration camps—and those death resulted from natural diseases during wartime. Williamson was also quoted in a British newspaper that, in accordance with their false messianic vocation of the Jewish world domination, “the Jews are preparing the anti-Christ’s throne in Jerusalem.” Of course, he an anti-Semite. He’s just your run of the mill, kindly, religious nut job. Luther, also, argued that Synagogues should be burned, Rabbis persecuted, Jews made second-class citizens—all in the name of Jesus.

But the question presented is not Williamson’s mental stability, moral voice, or intellectual honesty.

Rather, the question is whether the Pope, who according to Catholic dogma  represents the voice of Jesus when he speaks ex cathedra, should reverse the good Bishop’s communication and welcome him back in the good graces of the hierarchy of Church leaders? And, more specifically, does the Pope’s embrace of Bishop “Goofball” undo the advances made in Jewish-Catholic dialogue in recent years by the Catholic Church?

My answer to both is simply a shrug. I wouldn’t expect anything less of this pope. For years, before he was elevated to the St.Peter’s chair, the good German Cardinal was known as “the Pope’s Pit Bull,” and was the Right Wing enforcer in The Curia. Does anyone believe that he honestly accepts that Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, and Hindus will “attain” heaven? Does the Pope accept that those other than Christians practice a “completed” religion, equally true and founded upon the Eternal voice? Of course not. I may be a bit disappointed that the Pope has decided to reject recent public position statements promulgated by the more progressive church leaders regarding Jewish-Catholic dialogue. But I’m not so naïve as to believe that the Church has ever stopped believing or teaching that there is but “one way,” and that is through the acceptance of Jesus as the Son of G-d—and all others will perish and not have everlasting life. (See John 3:16)

And the Pope, of course, is not unique. Last month, for example, the Rapid City Journal continued for days to print an opinion-page letter that stated that all the evils experienced by the Jews throughout history was a result of their “Christ Killing” and rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. The Jews, in short,  deserved everything they received during the last two thousand years. And not a single Christian leader voiced their disagreement.

So, I will just respond by a big yawn.  I could not care less.

 

Don Jones - Buddhist
I’m having a hard time understanding the target audience for this kind of thinking.  The various machinations of the Papal hierarchy don’t give me much pause but the holocaust denial crowd bothers me some. Who are they talking to? Other anti-Semites? Other potential converts?
It is very anti-Buddhist thinking to worry about who we should hate next.  The saying goes that hate is like swallowing poison in the hopes that another will die.  However, hate in combination with power is dangerous and must be addressed.
Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–humanities professor

I think that Dr. Bogard pretty much hit the nail on the head. There are, of course, legitimate concerns over what occurred in Vatican II. No doubt, in many ways, Catholicism was changed forever and, in my opinion, deeply harmed. But Pope Benedict’s decision to reverse the excommunication of Holocaust-denying Richard Williamson brings to mind (and would seem to reverse) some of the goodwill toward Jews that came out of the Church from the early 1960s onward. One can no doubt imagine that, least among his sins, Williamson wishes the Church had not taken out of the Mass the phrase referring to the “perfidious Jews.” And this whole sad episode reminds us that Williamson’s type of anti-Semitism is not just confined to portions of northern Idaho. The Church, has, of course, a long and horrific history of anti-Semitism, and we need only invoke the name of Joseph Campbell to see how deeply and popularly it penetrates the Church. Pope John Paul II did wonderful things for Catholic-Jewish dialogue, and we must remember that JPII had a Jew as best friend when he was growing up in Poland. I suppose a simplistic response, yet accurate, would be to realize that, sadly, Ratzinger is no John Paul II.

 

Brian Carpenter– Presbyterian Church in America

I confess that I was a bit flummoxed as to what was going on when I read this.  It certainly does not look good for a German Pope who joined the Hitler Youth in 1941, to be cozying up to Holocaust-deniers.

I wonder if there is not more going on behind the scenes.  Perhaps the offending renegade bishop is preparing to retract his previous statements.  Perhaps he has a terminal illness and under his own belief system must be reconciled to the church before he dies.  I do not know.  I do know that it is a public relations disaster for the Vatican.

As far as “advances in Jewish-Catholic dialogue” I do not fully understand the purpose of such dialogue, nor the goals that have been set for it.  So therefore I cannot gauge whether it has been harmful or not, though one cannot imagine that this could possibly push things forward.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Common ground: Promise or pipe dream?

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

The 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in America on Jan. 22 got little notice during the inauguration week of President Obama, who is often referred to by anti-abortion groups as the most pro-choice politician in America.

Is he? Do you think the Obama administration will work to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, as U.S. Catholic bishops worried shortly after his election? Why or why not? And in light of the defeat of South Dakota’s Measure 11 abortion ban in the same November election that swept Obama into office, what do you think the future of the abortion battle is here in South Dakota, in the U.S.? Is finding any common ground possible or just a pipe dream?

Brian Carpenter– Presbyterian Church in America

One of the chief heresies that had to be repeatedly addressed in Ancient Israel was the worship of the Canaanite deity, Baal.  The equivalent deity of the Philistines was Molech.  Whereas the LORD was often seen to be a “generalist” God, or a God of the Mountains, Baal was believed to be a specialist.  He and his consort, Asherah, were in the wealth management business.  They were fertility gods who you went to when you were concerned about preserving and advancing your position in the world.  Baal was thought to bring the rains in season and make sure you flocks and herds and wives and concubines were fertile.  Plus, Baal worship was just a lot of fun.  The man got to go to his temple and engage in making “god porn” each spring.  You had sex with the temple prostitutes, which Baal looked upon, and got aroused by.   Hopefully he then went straight into Mrs. Baal’s bedroom for a little otherworldly hanky-panky.  This is what brought fertility to the land each spring in this religion’s belief.

From time to time things got a little desperate.  Drought or famine or some other disaster threatened.  From time to time an individual might need to see a dramatic increase in his wealth over a short period of time.  For the serious and aspiring Baal worshiper, those times called for a more costly sacrifice than usual.

According to Archaeologists and biblical historians, it was in those sorts of times that the sacrifice of one’s own child was required.  A fire was built either inside the hollow statue of the Calf-headed god, Baal, or underneath the statue’s outstretched arms.  The statue was heated to a terrific temperature, and an infant was laid on Baal’s outstretched arms to be burned alive. In Jeremiah 32:35 the Prophet Jeremiah writes:

And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire l’Molech; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Some of the Rabbinic commentary on Jeremiah 7 is as follows:

The 12th century rabbi Rashi, commenting on  Jeremiah 7:31 stated:

Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.

A rabbinical tradition attributed to the Yalkout of Rabbi Simeon, says that the idol was hollow and was divided into seven compartments, in one of which they put flour, in the second turtle doves, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child, which were all burned together by heating the statue inside.

We’re still sacrificing our children in the pursuit of material wellbeing and material gain today.  It no longer takes place on high places.  It takes place in the sterile privacy of a clinic surgery room.  The screams are silenced, not by the beating of a drum, but by amniotic fluid.  The High Priest who executes the sacrifice wears a surgical gown and mask instead of a carved calf-head.  It looks different on the outside, but God is not fooled by externals.  Abortion will be the law and practice in this land until men and women stop worshiping Baal, which is another way of saying, until they stop worshiping themselves and their selfish desires.

Do a little research on the so-called “extreme cases,” one type of which Dr. Wallerstein mentions.  Read the testimonies of surgical nurses whose own consciences demanded that they cradle tiny, crying, aborted babies who accidentally survived the procedure and were left to die in dirty linen closets.  See what those women have to say about what they used to do for a living.  Abortion is evil.  No compromise can be had on this issue, ever.

Ben Eicher, Catholic

Hmmm.  Good question!

I count myself among those who are 100% against abortion, in any form, and for any reason.  That was not always the case.  For many years, I had a quite different, if not opposite, view.  I had always considered myself to be “pro-life,” in the sense that I was (and remain) 100% against capital punishment, 100% for civil rights, 100% against hate and violence, and racism, and classism, and exploitation, and subjugation, in all forms. In trying to be 100% for life, I couldn’t help but eventually see abortion as being against life.  It was a self-confrontation that floored me.  I began to see things quite differently.

And as for a woman’s right to choose?  To me the answer came down to this: If we as a culture, a society, a government, or a religious people have made women feel that the one and only thing they can have and hold for themselves as their own is the right to kill their unborn children, then to be truly “pro-life” we need to address women’s issues in a new way, whether that be in terms of the economic idea of comparable worth, financial assistance for low income mothers, or … whatever.  I don’t know the answer.  But I sure hope we find it!  I don’t want a world where women feel the only thing they really have as their own is the right to take an innocent life.

Theologically, there is yet another consideration.  For me as a Christian who fervently believes that Jesus of Nazareth is, was and always will be God, and that in his Incarnation there was never at any time a point when he was not God, this meant that he was God from the very moment of his own conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  So, to deny that life begins at the very moment of conception is to in some manner deny, or at least fundamentally question, the eternal deity of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.  It would mean that at some point (for a few moments?  through the first or second trimester? until he was “viable outside the womb”?), Jesus the zygote, Jesus the embryo, Jesus the fetus was not a life.  Or, it strikes at the very notion of when a soul exists.  If life comes into being at conception, then that life has a soul at conception.  Contrarily, if life does not come into being at conception, then the soul is not there until life is.  That also would deny that Jesus of Nazareth was at all moments within the womb, from his very conception, a life, and a life with a soul. For me, these notions make abortion impossible to see as merely a choice.

Speaking only for myself, in the final analysis being against abortion is really a sub-part of being truly “pro-life.”  Not the other way around.  I am not “pro-life” because I am against abortion.  Rather, I am against abortion because I am “pro-life.”  If I begin from the prospect of being “pro-life,” it necessarily follows that I am against abortion.  It must also then follow that I have to carry out being “pro-life” in a consistent manner.  Theologically, socially, culturally, and politically. And whether it benefits me, or whether it causes me to sacrifice what otherwise would be to my own benefit.

I am saddened that President Obama, or anyone, who sincerely sees himself or herself as “pro-life” in a true meaning, also supports the death of the unborn, in any form, and for any reason.  I remember why I supported the right to abortion.  I wish I had understood the issue as I became able to later in life.  I pray that President Obama finds a different view, just like I prayed that President Bush would find a different view on many things that I did not believe were “pro-life.”

I certainly have no idea what President Obama, or the Congress, will specifically do about abortion.  Quite frankly, my own opinion is that those of us who put our faith in politicians to correct the abortion problem will always end up disappointed.  Let’s face it, for plenty of years the U.S. Supreme Court has had a sufficient number of supposedly “pro-life” judges to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Yet, they haven’t.  The Congress could have legislated abortion out.  The citizens of the U.S. could have.  The citizens of South Dakota could have.  None of them have.

Hearts and minds need to change.  Hate-filled rants, from either side, sure don’t seem to work.  In a world of true love and true family and true unity, the last thing anyone would want to do is kill an unborn child.  I pray for such a world.  I pray that someday even if only one abortion doctor existed on Planet Earth, he would go bankrupt from lack of patients.

Maybe I’ll be praying for a very long time.

Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

The words of Jeremiah applied by Matthew to the death of the Holy Innocents ring as true today as they did in the time of Herod:

“A voice was heard in Ramah,

Lamentation, great weeping and great mourning,

Rachael weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted,

Because they are no more.”

Since 1973, more than 43 million lives have been aborted. It is the view of our country and government that it is the choice of the mother to decide the future of her unborn child. For Orthodox Christians and the faithful of many other religions, abortion is considered murder.  From the moment of conception, the Church, in keeping with Biblical teaching, holds that human life exists.  The Church professes that there is a God-given sacred life inside the mother, and no one but God has the right to decide the future of that child.

Abortion advocates will argue this point and say that abortion is the mother’s choice because it is her body, her child, her womb, and her life.  But it is God’s body, God’s child, God’s womb, and God’s life, for all life is from God.

Unfortunately, there is no common ground with those who would kill a child.

On the Iconastasis in front of the Holy Altar in every Orthodox church in the world there is an icon of the Holy Virgin embracing the Christ-child, and at the same time offering Him to the world as the world’s source of life and salvation. Prayer to Him in conjunction with the selfless work and sacrifice by His faithful to stem the tide of the rampant death of innocents in our country is our hope at this time.

Don Jones - Buddhist

I think you are right on the mark Ben with this statement: “I certainly have no idea what President Obama, or the Congress, will specifically do about abortion.  Quite frankly, my own opinion is that those of us who put our faith in politicians to correct the abortion problem will always end up disappointed. ”

I would go several steps further and state that those who put their faith in politicians to solve any moral issue is wasting their time and money.  Every bad action is illegal in this country within certain frameworks. Killing is not universally wrong since the exceptions are war, (baby-killing included) , self-defense, and capital punishment.  This list goes on.  Lying (slander and purgery),  stealing, substance abuse, prostitution, etc.  These are all moral issues and crimes as well.  Every law conceivable has been passed against them and yet they still persist.  The prisons are full and the crimes keep getting committed.

As a Buddhist, the answer is never outside of yourself.  You cannot look to others to solve it.  No book will solve it.  Just one’s own hard effort ,faith in the solution, and resolve. Remove the plank from your own eye first.  Religious organizations are not refuges from these sins either.  Witness the child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, the financial and adulturous behavior in the Televangelists etc. No institution is free from bad behavior.  Each person must examine and stop their own bad behavior.  One at a time, one group at a time;  there is no quick fix like: passing a law and hoping the punishment will make it go away.

I have posted this opinion before and I need to do it again.  If you feel that there is no common ground among those who would kill a child then you need to examine the consequences of getting your way.  If first degree murder is the crime then that is pretty serious stuff to be handing down to teenage girls and doctors.  A year or two of that and it will go underground.   Then the real bad stuff will start again.  Babies and women will die.   Be careful how you talk to your daughters.  If you put up a religious,dogmatic wall in front of them, they might stop talking to you about solutions or anything for that matter.   Then it will be YOUR daughter being tried for murder.

Societies change one person at a time and only with love and forgiveness.

Nicholas Wallerstein–religions professor

Is “finding any common ground possible” on the abortion issue? Not much, that’s for sure, though clearly a concensus has emerged that “partial birth” or “late-term” abortion goes too far. Delivering a nine-month-old fetus up to the head, crushing the head while it’s still in the vaginal canal (and thus still in the woman’s body), and delivering a dead baby seems rather drastic. Even the late, great (and pro-choice Democrat) Daniel Patrick Moynihan said ”this comes close to infanticide.” However, radical abortion rights proponents support partial birth abortion, saying it saves women’s lives. Unfortunately, evidence shows that the vast majority of partial birth abortions are like early-term abortions: for other reasons, including convenience and as a form of birth control. But many radical abortionists still support partial birth abortion absolutely. I don’t know for sure, but I assume Obama does as well. I imagine that, if push came to shove, he would err in this direction.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Prayers for a president

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

It seems everyone  has the upcoming presidential inauguration on their minds this past week. The Rev. Susan Huffman at First Congregational UCC said her thoughts turned, in particular, to the new president’s two young daughters. The result was a “Prayer for Our Children” (below), which Huffman penned in a prayerful moment for Malia, Sasha and all the children of this nation who are so in need of the kind of White House role models that Huffman hopes the Obamas will become.

The news media has fixated on the inaugural prayers that will be delivered Tuesday by Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback megachurch, and Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop who was invited to offer a prayer at another inaugural event. What would your prayer be for the new president and this nation as he takes office?

Here is Rev. Huffman’s:

A Prayer for Our Children:

Caroline Kennedy and her brother John lived in the White House when I was a child. That was long before the internet, cell phone cameras and social networking sites made it possible to track every celebrity move. Yet, my sisters and I were captivated by the Kennedy kids, especially since my sister Carol was the same age as Caroline Kennedy. We loved to look at their pictures in McCall’s and Life magazines. Their father was our President and they were “our” children. They were like us and we identified with them.

As I grew up, I watched the Johnson girls and then the Nixon girls as they took their turns in the public eye. All born in the late ‘40’s, those four young women were just enough older to be intriguing. They were dating, going to college and marrying at the time I was considering my own future. Luci Johnson was just 19 when she got married. Tricia and Julie Nixon chose to go to all-girls colleges. Lynda Johnson dated a movie star. Oh, how my friends and I giggled at the thought of going on dates with the Secret Service tagging along! They were young women coming of age, facing the same decisions we were facing. They were like us and we identified with them.

Now, a new pair of sisters is moving into the White House. I hope a new generation of children—black, white and Lakota–will feel a connection to these girls as we did to the Presidents’ children when we were growing up. I hope that today’s children will grow up saying, “They are like us. . . ” and that they will be inspired to work toward their goals, believing that the doors of opportunity will be open regardless of gender or race.

As our new President begins his work, I offer my prayers: I pray for our President. May his love for his little girls guide him as he considers the future of our nation’s children. I pray for our First Lady. May her role as “mom-in-chief” and her background in the healthcare field help her to be an advocate for the health and well-being of the children in this country.

And I pray for “our children.” I pray for their safety. I pray that in the midst of the public attention, they will find the courage and integrity to be themselves. And I pray that these girls may be an inspiration to a new generation of children, helping them to feel that they belong.

I pray for Malia, for Sasha, for all our children:  May they be safe and strong. May they be filled with courage and hope. May they grow up saying, “this is my country and I am an important part of it.”

Loving God, bless our children. Keep them safe. Grant them courage and integrity. Help them to grow to love and serve others. May they be guided by your wisdom and blessed by your love. Amen.

 

Brian Carpenter- Presbyterian Church in America

I would like to take this opportunity to invite any interested parties to the monthly meeting of the CS Lewis Society of the Black Hills, tonight at Dunn Bros in Rapid City, from 7-9 PM.  That is our usual meeting place. We will be discussing the essay “The Inner Ring” from Lewis’s book “The Weight of Glory.” Our next meeting will be Feb 12 at a member’s home in Sturgis.  We will begin discussions on “The Four Loves.”  Please email me at bouletheou@hotmail.com for more information.

When I pray for Mr. Obama (I originally wrote “if I were to pray for Mr. Obama…” but erased it.  I am commanded to pray for him in scripture, of course, and will do so)  I will beseech God first of all for great strength and endurance.  The burdens of this office must often become very nearly crushing.

I will also ask God to bless him with wisdom, for in the conflicting cacophany of voices advising him what to do, he must choose a path and follow it without wavering, and yet have the flexibility to change course when a new situation arises, or the chosen path doesn’t work as intended.

I will also ask on his behalf for a moral rectitude, so that the temptations of power do not overwhelm him.

I will ask for protection from those who would do him, his family, and this nation harm.

FInally, I will ask that he be given such a spirit that he will neither command what God has forbidden, nor forbid what God has commanded, but will lead and rule with righteousness and justice.

Don Jones - Buddhist

Thank you Mary and Brian for thinking of both the president elect and his wife and daughters as well.  As long as we can plug our own meetings on this blog here goes:

The Rapid City Meditation Group meets on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th Tuesdays at 6:45 p.m. for meditation and group discussion of some aspect of  Vipassana teachings.  Starting Feb 10, on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays is guided meditation and introductory questions/answers to Buddhist teachings in this tradition. Please email me: djartist@rap.midco.net  for location and more information.

The Buddhist prayer is called Metta and (if applied exclusively to the President) goes as follows: 

May he be free from danger, May he be happy, May he be healthy, May he live with ease.

May his wife and daughters be free from danger, May they be happy….etc

Buddhist pray for all living beings in the same way that includes animals, enemies, and loved ones.

I would like to say something about what “God” wants and doesn’t want.  I believe this can be a trap that leaders of all civilizations have fallen into past and present.  The assumption that “God” is on our side or that whatever our leaders decide with good intentions is doing the will of “God” is seductive and dangerous.  The reason being that leaders who follow a different book or “God”  can rationalize almost any action against other nations is doing something righteous in the end.  History has shown where this has led and I think (for a change) we can govern our respective nations with respect, cooperation, courtesy, kindness, and awareness that each person is essentially the same regardless of what “God” we follow.

Most Buddhists do not believe in or think much about a creator God.  Not as something somehow heretical in this world but rather we believe that there is much work to do without arguing about or looking for things outside of us and beyond our control.  This statement raises eyebrows in every context and public forum but there it is.  The Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu are close friends and often lecture together and this difference (often mentioned) does not bother them.  It should not bother anyone else either.

We’ll see LOL

Nicholas Wallerstein–religions teacher

I would like to second what has been said thus far. Foremost on my mind, and yours, and I think millions of Americans, is the safety of Mr. Obama and his family. Any prayer I would make would begin and end with the hope for the physical safety of the First Family, and that the Secret Service be able to provide the protection needed at this most unusual and magnificent time. I have spent my 25-year college career teaching the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. I was five when John Kennedy was killed, nine the spring when ML King was killed. Robert Kennedy was shot the night of my tenth birthday. I can’t begin to figure what could happen to our nation should Mr. Obama be harmed. It is a horror past imagining. 

Pax vobiscum.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Neuhaus’ legacy

Thursday, January 8th, 2009

The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, the influential Roman Catholic priest and writer for First Things, died Jan. 8 of complications from cancer at age 72. Neuhaus was a major force behind the coming together of the evangelical and Catholic Christian communities. In your opinion, how have those two groups grown closer, politically and spiritually, in recent times, and what differences  (will evangelicals ever get past the Virgin Mary thing?) are likely to remain unresolved?

Brian Carpenter– Presbyterian Church in America

I have great respect for Fr. Neuhaus.  He was a first rate thinker, and I often profited from his contributions to First Things, the magazine he edited. (www.firsthings.com)  As CS Lewis said, “When all is said (and truly said) about the divisions of Christendom, there remains, by God’s mercy, an enormous common ground.”

However, I was and will remain a staunch opponent of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document he sponsored, for the simple reason that the issues that sparked the Protestant Reformation have not been resolved, and probably never will be.  I cannot speak for the Roman Catholic contributors, but much of what was happening on the Protestant side seemed (at least on the surface) to be the product of theological and historical ignorance.  The fact that back in 2001, John Paul went out of his way to publicly reiterate what Rome has always proclaimed concerning their view of Protestantism, indicates to me that the same sort of dynamic was present on the Catholic side as well.

The main divide between Rome and orthodox Protestantism of all stripes is not the “Virgin Mary Thing.”  That is a symptom of a deeper issue.  There are many smaller issues, of course, but there are three areas that are of most importance.  They are the issue of Justification, the nature and authority of Tradition (formally known as the Magisterium in the Roman Catholic Church) and the issue of the nature of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Space only permits me to deal with the first one, and that only briefly.

The material cause of the Reformation was the sale of Indulgences by Johann Tetzel.  An Indulgence is basically a measure of grace applied to a person’s “account” from another source in exchange for some action on that person’s part.  Tetzel is said to have boasted that his Indulgences were so powerful they could even get you off the hook for committing adultery with the Virgin Mary.

The formal cause of the Refomation (i.e. the “issue behind the issue”)  was the Doctrine of Justification.  What is at stake here is nothing less than human salvation.  Both Rome and classical Protestantism agree that all human beings are sinful from birth in their essential orientation, and are thus “damnable.”   As we progress through life, we go on to commit actual sins as soon as we are able.  We must be reconciled to God or suffer his wrath.  We must be “justified.”

Rome and Protestantism quibble first of all about the very definition of the word “justification.”  Protestants insist that the Greek word used in the New Testament, “dikaiosune” means “to be declared righteous.”  Rome, following the Latin usage of the word (justificare) insists it means “to be made righteous.”  The question is one concerning the objective state of the justified person.  Is the justified person objectively “better” (i.e. more pleasing to God) in their own person than the non-justified person at the moment of justification?  Protestants say no.  Rome says yes.  That doesn’t seem like such an obstacle until you get to the issue of the what a person might have to do to regain that justification if it were to be lost because of mortal sin.  In other words, if you’ve sinned your way back onto the road to hell, what does it take to get back on the road to heaven?

Secondly, Rome insists that the instrument of justification is sacramental.  Baptism imparts grace and justifies the sinner, fitting him or her for heaven.  But if a mortal sin is committed by that person after baptism, then the grace in that individual’s soul has been killed, and they are back on their way to hell unless they make use of another sacrament.  That sacrament is the Sacrament of Penance, which the Council of Trent called “the second plank of justification for those who have made a shipwreck of their souls.”

Luther sparked the Reformation by coming to the conclusion, after studying the book of Romans in preparation for teaching it, that the instrument of justification is not sacramental, but is rather a specific kind of faith, which he called “saving faith.”  When a Protestant implores an person to be “born again” he means that this individual should exercise saving faith if he is able.  It is a direct interaction between the individual and God.  The church and her sacraments are, strictly speaking, not needed to mediate God’s grace to the soul.  Luther also denied that there was any need of or biblical warrant for the Sacrament of Penance.  All Protestants have agreed with him on that.  We have disagreed among ourselves as to whether or not a Christian could lose their justification, but regardless of that fact we have all agreed that there is no need of a sacramental remedy to address that situation were it a possibility.

Therefore, we only have two sacraments.  Rome has seven and teaches that all seven contribute in some way to the process of salvation.  Since Protestants are without the Sacrament of Penance, and are “defective” in our understanding of the two we’ve got, Roman Catholics who believe their own theology must conclude that we are not true churches and therefore salvation cannot be had among us.

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html)

Even if they allowed for the validity of our baptisms (which sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t) we have no way in their scheme of sacramentally addressing sins committed after baptism.  If Rome is right, I’m going straight to hell when I die.  That’s how serious the issue is.

Protestants, on the other hand, generally believe that it’s possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved in spite of their church’s teaching, but that anyone who looks to the sacrament of a church to impart necessary grace, instead of directly to the Living Lord Jesus, is placing their trust in the wrong place and will not receive the grace they desire.

Those issues are not going away.  Rome, by definition, cannnot change her theology in this area.  Silly Protestants who don’t understand their own doctrine, and Liberal Protestants who don’t understand it either, but wouldn’t believe it even if they did understand it, may make noises of reconciliation.  But Rome has not materially changed her position, so the motion is all in one direction. All attempts at finding a Via Media really don’t work.  We are at an impasse, and have been for 500 years.

Father Thomas Williams, St. John’s Orthodox Church

May his memory be eternal. May God grant Father Richard eternal rest, and may his work for reunification of the Church be blessed.

Those who have served in this life as His priests and ministers of the Church will certainly be asked at the dread judgment seat of Our Holy Lord Jesus Christ  what work they did in this life to heal His broken Body, the Church.; For It was torn asunder by men’s foolish pride and remains that way today.

Regarding the Holy Virgin Mary: Max Thurian, a monk of the Reformed Monastery of Taize, whose life was also dedicated to ecumenism, reminded us that the common scriptural source  that all churches embrace teach us clearly about the Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. The words of Mary in St. Luke’s Gospel: “All generations shall call me blessed,” establishes the presence of the Mother of the Lord in the liturgy and the preaching of the Church. For how else could she be called blessed than by the ordinary means of preaching and worship of the Word  of God in Church?

The Incarnation is a truly human event. God in becoming man does not simply use a human person as a neutral instrument. He gives it worth and dignifies the human person by becoming the truly human Son of a truly human mother, who plays a personal role in the Incarnation. The “moi” of the Holy Virgin in her cantlcle, the Magnificat, is one more sign of the reality of the Incarnation and the truth of the humanity of Christ.

Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–religions professor

I agree with the Reverend Carpenter that the Roman Church and American evangelicals remain at an impasse, despite the attempts at ecumenical reconciliation by men like Father Neuhaus. My conclusion on this is far less theologically deep compared to the Reverend Carpenter, whose analysis is very nuanced, learned, and eloquent. Here’s my brief take on the issue: If one were to sit in on my Western Religions class, or my Biblical Literature class, one wouldn’t have to be Sigmund Freud to detect deep mistrust between my Catholic students and my Protestant students. Their mistrust (bordering on dislike, even at times hatred) has none of the intellectual rigor of the Reverend Carpenter’s analysis. It seems to me to be pure unthinking bias and ignorant prejudice. My Protestant students seem to believe the jingoistic and superficial beliefs of their parents, that the pope is the Anti-Christ and that the Roman Church is the Whore of Babylon. My Catholic students seem to believe what they claim their priests have told them, to wit, that only Catholics can go to Heaven because the Roman Church is the one True Church. I guess my point is that the Reverend Carpenter provides profound theological differences as the root cause of the gap between Rome and the Protestant West. He is, of course, accurate. I merely wish that my students would grapple with the theological arguments in the same way. But I must admit, they seem unwilling and quite uninterested. They know they are correct (because it’s what they’ve been told), and that’s that. Unfortunately, their “knowledge” is highly suspect. My feeble attempts to bring the dialogue between the groups to a higher level don’t seem to make any difference. This is to say, I suppose, that the work of someone like Father Neuhaus is for naught, when it comes to 19-22 year old college students in western South Dakota. The Reverend Carpenter is able to give a reasoned response to the question at issue. My students are not. Their unenlightened chauvinism is rather disheartening.

A few thoughts on the Virgin Mary controversy: the earliest Christians, who were Jewish, needed to make Jewish concepts of bodily resurrection palatable to the Greek world, which believed only the soul was immortal. The old Hellenistic mystery cults had taught that the soul came from a divine world above, and was good, and that the body came from the prison of the material world below, and was bad. The early Jewish Christians needed to explain to the Hellenic world that the incarnation, whereby God becomes flesh, allows God to be united with the flesh of all humanity. Mary, the human vessel through whom God enters the world as human, therefore was important for allowing the Hellenized world to understand the meaning of Jesus’s death and resurrection. Father Williams put it better than I, but I remain convinced that if we are to view the dual nature of Christ as fully man and fully God, Mary must remain central.

 Ben Eicher — Catholic

I weigh in on this topic perhaps a bit differently than may others who have posted and will post on this blog, and I do so with a particularly heavy heart. 

Father Richard John Neuhaus was my friend.  He was my late father’s classmate at Concordia-St. Louis Seminary (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Class of 1960).  In the 1960s, Richard John Neuhaus frequently preached at the LCMS parish my father founded, Holy Faith Lutheran Church in West Milford, NJ.  My dad and Richard participated as the two Lutheran pastors in a then-earth shattering (or so it seemed) concelebration of Lutheran and Catholic clergy in 1967 at Our Lady of the Valley Roman Catholic Church in Wayne, NJ.  Father Richard was a significant influence upon me in my own path to coming into full communion with the Catholic Church, here in Rapid City.  I was received into the Church with my Confirmation in 1994.  (Coincidentally, I learned from our then-Bishop Charles Chaput that his favorite Scripture professor at the U. of San Francisco was a Lutheran theologian named John Elliott, who also happened to be a graduate of that 1960 Concordia-St. Louis seminary class.) 

For these reasons, I hope you will allow me a bit of patience as I present my response to the blog topic.

Ecumenism is a vital work, and few strived for it longer or better than did Richard John Neuhaus.

In the words of LCMS Professor Jaroslav Pelikan (editor of the seminal 50-plus volume English translation of Luther’s Works), taken from his 1958 award-winning book, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism, he stated that “Protestants cannot get by with the repetition of Reformation slogans today.”  He then quoted a noted Protestant churchman, Bishop Hanns Lilje of Hannover, Germany as to why this is true: “Each generation of Protestants must re-think the decision of the 16th century.  We must be able to say why we today are not Roman Catholics.  We want the truth—even if it is unpleasant.”

This concept is echoed in the ecumenical work of noted Lutheran theologians Dr. Carl Braaten and Dr. Robert Jenson, who established The Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology, upon whose Board of Directors I sit—primarly due to the encouragement of Father Richard John Neuhaus and another Concordia-St. Louis seminary classmate, the esteemed Dr. Robert Wilken (chairman of The Center), who is the William R. Kenan Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, and who is past president of the American Academy of Religion. 

In the The Center’s book The Catholicity of the Reformation (1996 Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co.), the concept of ecumenism—a true Christian unity—is asserted as a necessity under Jesus’ fervent prayer for visible unity of his Church (John Chapter 17).  Ecumenism is not to be a mere exercise in an agreement not to sheep-steal, or as a truce against trading polemical attacks.  As Dr. Braaten writes, “The Reformers did not set out to create a new church.  They aimed to reform a church that lived in continuity with the church the Creed calls ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic.’  The Reformation gave rise to Protestant churches that have not always understood themselves as catholic.  Some Protestants have avoided the very word. … In spite of Luther’s vitriolic attacks on Rome, he never denied that it was the church catholic.  In his commentary on Galatians, he wrote: Although the city Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorra, nevertheless there remain Baptism, Sacraments, the Words of the Gospel, the Holy Scriptures, the Ministry of the Church, the name of Christ and the name of God … Therefore, the Roman Church is holy, because she has the holy name of God, the Gospel, the Baptism, etc. …”

At Concordia-St. Louis during the 1950s and 1960s, Professor Arthur Carl Piepkorn mentored many young men entering the Lutheran pastorate.  Dr. Piepkorn took seriously the idea that “Reformation” meant reforming (i.e., remedying) not re-forming (i.e., starting over) the Church Catholic (i.e., the Catholic Church).  For Dr. Piepkorn and those most influenced by him, the Reformation was not a movement over against the Catholic Church, but rather a movement within and for the Catholic Church.  Polemical arguments and name-calling that were perhaps even grotesquely hyperbolic for the 1500’s, are hardly a worthy basis for 20th and 21st century cool-headed discourse.  Indeed, to cry “Johann Tetzel!” today is to move toward retreading those misunderstandings.  [Here I mean no disrespect to Brian Carpenter.  It must be remembered, though, that all current serious Protestant discourse about Tetzel and his sale of indulgences agrees that to the extent that anti-Catholic propoganda has not muddied precisely what Tetzel did or did not say, it is patently clear that his version of indulgences was not, is not, and never will be consistent with actual Catholic doctrine on such matters.]  For a group of Dr. Piepkorn’s Lutheran pastors-in-training within the class of 1960, men such as Richard John Neuhaus, Robert Wilken, and my father, it became a life’s work to further the cause of doctrinal recognition of what catholicity (universal belief) really means, and how it must be realized within an increasingly fractured world of non-Catholic Christianity (over 30,000 Protestant denominations, with wildly divergent teachings derived from the very same New Testament that Catholics and Protestants share).  In the diaspora of Protestant Christianity that has been epidemic in the wake of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, Church History is often seen and depicted as a story of constant apostacy throughout the centuries.  The Gospel message that we are saved by God’s grace alone, through a living faith in the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is shared by Catholics and much of non-Catholic Christianity.  Christian unity derives from our brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ through Baptism.  As Dr. Piepkorn once wrote, chidingly, non-Catholics are not saved through a joint belief that the papacy is the antichrist.

Polemical anti-Catholicism in America was strong in the early and middle stages of the 20th Century.  It gained notoriety especially within the Evangelical and non-denominational world that was paying increasing attention to eschatological predictions of the end of the world, and later through books like Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth, where personifications of Book of Revelation-drawn descriptions abound. 

Immigration fears, or where an isolationist “America First” viewpoint saw a “one world government” as evil as a “one world church,” gave rise to hate.  Here in Rapid City, the KKK marched down St. Joseph Street protesting immigration and Catholicism (the targeted immigrants then were Irish and Italians, who were Catholic, just like today the targeted immigrants, Latinos, are heavily Catholic).  Similarly, segregation of races was comfortable, but to many integration—another form of human unity—was plain intolerable.  The KKK became active even here in western South Dakota, but the hate attention was not as much based on race as it was religion: crosses were burned on the lawn of a Catholic convent in Sturgis.  In 1960, a group of prominent Protestant and Evangelical church leaders issued a joint statement in New York vigorously opposing the presidential campaign of JFK because he was Catholic, the idea being that no Catholic should ever be president.  In the late 1980’s Tim LaHaye, popular writer of the Left Behind series, had to step down from Jack Kemp’s political campaign staff after he called Catholicism a “false religion.”  In this most recent presidential campaign, TV Evangelist John Hagee made disparaging remarks against Catholicism.  It is not unusual to hear certain eschatologicaly-fixated groups claim that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” or the pope is “The Beast” of the Book of Revelation.

The ecumenical drive of men like Richard John Neuhaus was born of the concept that unity of humanity was a good, not an evil thing, and something desired by God in His love for His children.  Richard John Neuhaus carried that belief out with great seriousness and vigor.  He became pastor in 1961 of an inner city Brooklyn, NY Lutheran Church that was predominantly African-American.  In the May 30, 1961 news clipping announcing that installation, this paragraph appears: “Pastor Neuhaus has assumed the pastorate for an integrated congregation in Brooklyn.  This church offers weekly Communion to colored and white people at the same altar rail.”  Neuhaus became an associate of Martin Luther King, Jr., including marching with MLK in Birmingham, and organizing the Eastern U.S. clergy (including my father) to attend the 1963 March on Washington.  When MLK said in his “I Have a Dream” speech that the unity he hoped for would also someday include that of Protestants and Catholics, one could imagine Richard John Neuhaus’ influence within the exhortation.  At the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Richard John Neuhaus and actor Paul Newman led the minority plank’s anti-Vietnam War effort.  Richard John Neuhaus was indefatigable in his efforts at uniting people.

It was in the late 1980s that Richard John Neuhaus had what he called his “Catholic Moment,” which became the title of a 1987 book, written while he was still a Lutheran pastor and an influential editor of Lutheran journals.  In 1990 Richard John Neuhaus was received into full communion with the Catholic Church, and received his ministerial orders a year later.  His theological journal, First Things, was (and continues to be) a well-known and welcoming place for intelligent discourse of ecumenism and related topics.  It offered Father Richard a frequent opportunity to press pro-life issues and discussions, and to present topical treatments on matters affecting the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.  (The last time I visited Father Richard at his NYC office, I was delighted to learn that his secretary was a former Rapid Citian.)  A few years ago, Father Richard John Neuhaus was included in TIME or Newsweek’s list of the “25 Most Influential Evangelicals.”

Father Neuhaus was also extremely active in a group he helped found called Evangelicals and Catholics Together.  In 1995 he and Charles Colson, an Evangelical, edited a book, Evangelicals & Catholics: Toward a Common Mission.  Endorsers of the ECT statement from among the Evangelical world included Pat Robertson, Dr. Jesse Miranda of the Assemblies of God, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ, Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary, Dr. Mark Knoll of Wheaton College, and Dr. Thomas Oden of Drew University. 

The ECT movement has continued on a number of ecumenical topics, and with controversy among those who see it as a sell-out of “the Gospel.”  It spurred the publication of two books I have read.  There is Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie’s book titled, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, which was generous in tone to all the viewpoints involved.  The other is far less generous, and in fact quite mean in its content, that being John Ankerberg and John Weldon’s book, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree?”

Many Lutherans—particularly within the LCMS—were aghast at Richard John Neuhaus’ swimming of the Tiber.  Soon to follow were Dr. Robert Wilken, and even Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan (to Orthodoxy).  What some Lutherans (LCMS and ELCA) were seeing as betrayal at worst or precipitousness at best, Father Richard saw as the inevitability of Christ’s prayer in John 17, and the true work of the Holy Spirit through the Reformation’s best intentions.  As Father Richard was often heard to say, “I merely became the Catholic I always was.”

My prayer today is for Father Richard, and for all who knew and loved him and will miss him greatly, and for visible Christian unity.  Christian thought, Christian togetherness, and the ecumenical movement has suffered a tremendous loss. 

“I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to … [strive] to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

Richard John Neuhaus, may the angels and the Communion of Saints greet you in Heaven with the embrace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and may you celebrate having run the race as Christ’s good and faithful servant.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »