Don't let Cormac accept a peerage

Memo to Rome - Don't let Cormac Accept a Peerage.

And this in the Guardian.

And there must be more around the interweb ...

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor edits "Today"

This morning, the guest editor on BBC Radio 4's flagship current affairs programme, Today, was Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. This page on the Today programme site, summarises the programme, and includes audio clips of the Cardinal's contributions.

I heard part of the programme, and rather enjoyed it. A visit to the English College in Rome, with the story of the seminarians gathering in the chapel before the Martyrs' Picture to sing the Te Deum ... As I listened to this, it occurred to me that, for many people in England and Wales, this would be an almost unknown part of our history.

The programme included a very useful interview, conducted by the Cardinal, with Gordon Brown.

And I was rather amused by the thought of a Cardinal setting off to learn how to cook for himself - at an Italian restaurant, of course - as he approached retirement. I suspect this is a generational thing, as I expect that the younger clergy now have such hectic lives that a fixed meal time in a day, with a meal prepared by a housekeeper, is rare.

I got the impression that Cardinal Murphy O' Connor had enjoyed the experience of conducting the interviews and producing the packages for the programme. I thought the programme was an excellent example of bringing Catholic life to the attention of a wider public, of the encounter between faith and culture. And, as the Cardinal said in his short review video, there was something about it being radio rather than television. What people hear (and so have to give just that bit more attention and engagement to) is a bit special ...

Not that I (not owning a television) am at all biased ...

Do look at the page on the Today programme site!

Mixed messages ....

I looked this morning at the texts of Cardinal Dias and Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's addresses to the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops. My quotations from the texts of the two addresses are taken from Zenit.

Cardinal Dias subject was "Mission, social justice and evangelisation". The full text is wide ranging, spreading from the missionary mandate, via spiritual warfare to inculturation and inter-religious dialogue as aspects of the Church's evangelising work. It is hard hitting, and the language is not always comfortable to an English sensitivity. However, when it is read as a whole, and the hard hitting paragraphs are seen in the context of the whole rather than in the isolation that is typical of media coverage, it is a very thoughtful presentation.

Cardinal Dias' references to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases caught some adverse coverage in the British media. I offer the full paragraph here, to demonstrate that the analogy was presented more gently than the media coverage suggested, and also because of the contrast that it presents to some of what Cardinal Murphy O'Connor said at the Lambeth Conference later:

Much is spoken today of diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. By analogy, their symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's.

Cardinal Dias ended his address by a very generous invocation of God's blessing on the Lambeth conference, quoting Cardinal Newman:

In communion with the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints, I commend this Lambeth Conference to God Almighty, and I pray that, through it, He may shower countless blessings on the Anglican Communion all over the world. With Cardinal John Henry Newman, an important figure for Anglicans and Catholics alike, I join you in praying the Holy Spirit:

Lead, kindly Light, amid th'encircling gloom,Lead Thou me on!The night is dark, and I am far from home:Lead Thou me on!Keep Thou my feet: I do not ask to see the distant scene:One step enough for me.

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor was reflecting on the progress of Anglican-Catholic doctrinal/theological dialogue, in which he has been very much involved during his priestly life. He does note the "major stumbling blocks" to unity represented by the ordination of women as priests and bishops in the Anglican communion, and the difficulties represented by moral issues, noting that no-one can now be under any illusion that these issues have ecclesiological significance. In being fair to him we should recognise this. However, some other observations seem to contradict these parts of his address.

One thing we have gradually come to realise is that the reception of any dialogue document involves far more than just its publication or even an official response. It takes time and discussion at every level of the life of the Church, as the path taken by your own 1997 Virginia Report and its proposals shows. And some or all of the contents can prove not to be accepted or received. I know some of our Christian partner communions have had anxieties when the Catholic Church has closely analysed or even questioned some of what has been proposed in dialogue statements. But that has to be an integral part of the process of receiving what a dialogue commission may propose.

The difficulty with this paragraph is its apparent acceptance of a theology that teaching gains authoritative status when it is "received" by the people. This does not sit readily with Catholic teaching on the Magisterium, though I am sure some in the Catholic Church would like to apply it to Humanae Vitae. Perhaps the underlying issue is one of how dialogue statements relate to the authoritative teaching of the different Christian denominations - and a theory of "reception" may be comfortable for Anglicans in their system of things, but for the Catholic Church it will become a question of acceptance or rejection by the Magisterium.

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor devotes part of his address to discussing the idea of the Church as communion, showing how this theme is represented across a range of recent documents of dialogue. I found this useful - because the idea of what "communion" is underlies a whole range of issues in Anglican-Catholic dialogue, including the very practical one of inter-communion. However, whether a real common understanding of the term exists is something that I doubt, and the definition cited by Cardinal Murphy O'Connor from the documents appears incomplete from a Catholic point of view.

Moreover, I am sure that the dialogue Statements of ARCIC, whether or not they are accepted in their entirety, do signal real convergence. We now have the substantial consensus between us on Eucharist and about Ministry, indicated by ARCIC’s work.

I find it difficult to agree with this statement, given some of the observations made by Cardinal Murphy O'Connor earlier in his address about the obstacle to unity represented by the ordination of women in the Anglican communion.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor in the Telegraph

ZENIT has carried a report of an article by Cardinal Murphy O'Connor, published in yesterday's Telegraph (a national newspaper normally associated with more conservative political trends). The full text can also be found on the website of the Westminster Archdiocese. I think it makes a very good contribution to the current discussion.

The following paragraph could be seen as a precise clarification of the concerns raised as a result of Archbishop Nichols' remarks on Radio 4, which were the subject of some severe comment elsewhere in the blogosphere:

"Second, the vote to maintain the current status quo on abortion is not the end of the question. The idea of 'viability', prominent in the debate, is a concept dependent on the availability of resources and technology; not one that is able to found a moral distinction between a life that is worth our respect and protection and one that is not."

There is also a section which gives a careful account of the relationship of faith and reason, and how this relationship can play out in public debate. I commented on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's concluding lecture in the "Cardinal's Lectures" series that this was a theme that had not been fully developed.

"But science remains a human activity. It takes place in moral space not a moral vacuum. What we are dealing with are profound ethical judgments which are informed, but not determined, by the insights of science. Our views will be shaped not only by scientific facts but also by our basic understanding of what a human life is, and also our philosophy of life (which may or may not be informed by a religious belief). Science cannot replace ethics.

"I believe there is no conflict between faith and reason, and the positions articulated by people of faith about the ethical basis of law should, like those of anyone else, be tested at the bar of reasoned debate. They should not be excluded or marginalised simply because they come from a religious perspective, and nor should they be given special privilege in democratic debate.

"The Church puts forward its teaching, but does not seek to impose its views nor indeed to tell any individual how to vote. What matters is the appeal to reason and intellectual argument, and the coherence of the vision of human life that we present. Reason and faith go hand in hand, and, for me, faith brings an insight into the truth which helps reason."

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor calls in his article for the establishing of a statutory National Bioethics Committee. I am not sure that this would meet the need that he sees it meeting - it would all depend on who was appointed to the Committee ... Others who have a greater knowledge of the personalities who are likely to be involved in such a body might be able to make a more informed comment about it than I can.

Pope Benedict XVI and Pseudo-Dionysius

My attention was caught a day or two ago by ZENIT's report of a General Audience address on the sixth century writer known as Pseudo-Dionysius. I have had an (unfulfilled) interest in Pseudo-Dionysius since I read a few months ago about his writing on angels, and realised that Edith Stein had made considerable use of it in the section of her book Finite and Eternal Being devoted to created pure spirits.

The first point to arise from the ZENIT report is an understanding of the nature of dialogue in general, and that between Christianity and contemporary culture in particular:

The Holy Father noted how Pseudo-Dionysius wrote, "'I would not like to cause polemics; I simply speak of the truth; I seek the truth.' And the light of truth by itself makes error fade and makes what is good shine. With this principle he purified Greek thought and related it to the Gospel.

"This principle, which he affirms in his seventh letter, is also the expression of a true spirit of dialogue: It is not about seeking the things that separate, one must seek the truth in Truth itself; this, then, shines and causes errors to fall," the Pontiff affirmed.

The second point to emerge is one that is reflected in Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's recent lecture. It is the question of how the greatness of God is related to our ability to talk about Him, and how we can find a proper language in which to talk about this relationship.

Benedict XVI contended that the theology of the sixth-century author is "the first great mystical theology." His teachings use "negative theology," that is the idea that "the most elevated concepts of God never reach his true greatness" and that "it is easier to say what God is not than to express what he really is."

This formulation seems to me a very helpful one. There is no implication that the "most elevated concepts of God" are not true, or are inaccurate - in so far as they may be part of what God has revealed, they are true and certain. However, as the effort of the human mind, even supported by faith, to reach God, they still have a way to go in order to "reach his true greatness".

Pseudo-Dionysius tells us that "in the end, love sees more than reason. Where the light of love is, the shadows of reason fade away. Love sees, love is an eye and experience gives us much more than reflection," the Holy Father added.

Again, there is no implication that reason cannot "see", or is false or inadequate for our knowing something of God. Instead, there is a statement of the "more" that is seen by love. In comparison to the "light of love" reason is "shadows"; but in the comparison, and not in the sense that reason is "shadows" in which nothing can be "seen".

And the final point that emerges is the possibility that Pseudo-Dionysius provides a model that could be followed for dialogue with the eastern religions:

[Pope Benedict] said [Pseudo-Dionysius] has a new relevance as a "great mediator in the modern dialogue between Christianity and the mystical theologies of Asia, marked by the conviction that it is impossible to say who God is, that only negative expressions can be used to speak of him; that God can only be spoken of with 'no,' and that it is only possible to reach him by entering into this experience of 'no.' And here is seen a similarity between the thought of the Areopagite and that of the Asian religions. He can be today a mediator like he was between the Greek spirit and the Gospel."

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor: Faith in Britain today (2)

As previously indicated, here is the further post on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's lecture. An interesting insight that Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's lecture suggests is that the key dialogue that is needed in our society is less a dialogue between the different religions but rather more a dialogue between religious belief and atheism.

In some ways it is a bit nit-picking to select short quotations from the lecture for comment - my apologies to the Cardinal for that; but the need to present a coherent and consistent understanding of what reason is, what faith is and, then, how the two relate to each other, appears to me vital to achieving a proper dialogue with atheism.

"Our faith is not founded on the conclusions of reason, but it is grounded in the Logos, the expressive Word that comes from God, and it is compatible with reasoned thought"

One might want to add to this that "the conclusions of reason" might provide some grounding for our faith, since reason is going to be very much to the fore in a dialogue with atheism, but Cardinal Murphy O'Connor is correct in asserting a decisive grounding in the revelation of God in the Word.

"We should remember that the proper response to God is that of faith, not absolute certainty".

The opposing of faith and certainty in this sentence is, I think, unfortunate; and the following discussion of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine reflects the unfortunate nature of the sentence. First of all, we need to be clear that faith can give a confident and certain knowledge of the truth contained in revelation - but some will read this sentence as a denial of that. That there is something more to be learnt about God, both intellectually and in terms of our lived communion with him, may be the intention of the "not absolute certainty" and be what Aquinas calls "imperfect knowledge", but that is not the same as questioning the confidence that we can have in the knowledge achieved through faith.

In his interview on Radio 4's Today programme, Cardinal Murphy O'Connor said:

"..reason of itself cannot prove the existence of God .."

and

" .. reason is not enough .."

The defined teaching of the Church is that we can come to a confident knowledge of God through the use of reason in studying the world around us. What faith, that is, the knowledge achieved through God's self-revelation, provides is another, complementary way in which this knowledge of God's existence can be known. In their different circumstances, people may in practice rely on one way of knowing more than they do on the other for their knowledge of God's existence, or they may not get there at all. But I think, in dialogue with atheism, religious believers are going to want to insist on the ability of reason to come to knowledge of God's existence.

"If Christians really believed in the mystery of God, we would realise that proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative ... A God who can be spoken about comfortably and clearly by human beings cannot be the true God."

But the reference to God as mystery does not mean that what we say about God should not be said, or that we cannot have confidence in what we say about Him. It recognises that the revealed mystery of God is something to be lived as well as spoken about and known. The difficulty and tentativeness can refer to the what-is-still-to-be-learnt in our intellectual lives, but we need to be careful that it does not make a statement that we cannot really know about God at all.

The last part of this post is slightly adapted from the comment I sent earlier today to the "Debate" forum for this lecture on the Westminster diocesan website.

Reason can come to know things about the physical world around us (the physical sciences), about the human person and his presence in the world (the social sciences) etc. It can address questions about things that are not material - human motivations and consciousness. And from this, it can also address questions about the meaning of life, the universe and everything - and, whilst there is always more to be learnt or discovered, there is a possibility for confidence in this knowledge. And one can equally apply this reason to the phenomena of religion - it being profoundly irrational to deny the existence of religion as a phenomenon. An honesty in this study will not, in my view, permit the characterisation of religious belief as simply personal imaginings, its OK if you need it, invention of the early Church, etc. It is also necessary to understand what the term faith means - and again this has not been fully developed in the Cardinal's lecture. Faith is a knowledge that can be confident of what it knows in the same way that reason can be confident of what it knows, though the source of that knowledge is different. Yes, we can grow into greater knowledge, both reasoned and faith-based knowledge, but that is not the same as denying the confidence that we can have in both.

And, here I would want to endorse Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's call for greater dialogue between believers and non-believers. Let's undertake that through the hard work of applying our reason in all its many different approaches (the physical and social sciences) to the questions of atheism and religious belief. Religious believers are of the view that what we believe and teach can stand up to this challenge of reason; can the atheist position stand up to the same challenge?

As they say these days ... "bring it on".

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor: Faith in Britain today

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's lecture came to my attention when I listened to coverage on Radio 4's Today programme on Friday morning. Professor Richard Dawkins, militant atheist that he is, was interviewed, observing that he didn't think Cardinal O'Connor "had said anything". Cardinal O'Connor was interviewed later in the programme.

One has to give Cardinal O'Connor credit for successfully putting the question of religious belief on the agenda (as I write this post, I have just heard a news item on the radio about today's Mass for 650 married couples at Westminster Cathedral). Whilst not all of the "Cardinal's Lectures" have been of equal value as examples of faith and culture in dialogue, I would perhaps recognise William Hague's and the Cardinal's own lecture as perhaps being the best. The surrounding media coverage, of course, represents part of the dialogue too.

There are some nice things in Cardinal O'Connor's lecture. The full text can be found at the website of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster. Whilst I suspect that contemporary atheism has other roots in addition to the historic background in 17th century Deism and a growing autonomy of science from religious belief described by Cardinal O'Connor, his observation that

"it became no longer necessary to think of God at all because the world can simply be treated as a self-sustaining system"

is very significant. I believe there is a much more substantial discussion to be had around this point, and that it could legitimately become a focal point for the kind of dialogue between Christian belief and atheism that the Cardinal called for. In the lecture, however, it remains undeveloped.

"This is one of the reasons why, for this lecture series, I wanted this Cathedral to be a place for people to listen to matters pertaining to religion in the secular society in which we live here in Britain."

I can understand what Cardinal O'Connor is trying to say here - that the Church should be seen as a place in which encounter with the things of wider society is welcomed and encouraged. However, it may be the case that the Church building as such, dedicated to the worship of God particularly but not exclusively in the Liturgy, should be preserved exactly for that. The rule of St Benedict for monasteries is explicit about the oratory being used only for the Liturgy and private prayer by the brothers. Would this not provide a witness to God's life among his people to which Cardinal O'Connor referred elsewhere in his lecture? I do not intend this to be a major criticism, by the way, more an observation.

Near the beginning of the lecture, there was a rather nice quotation from a Muslim scholar. It is very relevant to an aspect of my own professional work at the moment as my local authority begins the process of revising its Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education (the statutory syllabus that applies to non-denominational schools in the authority). My contriution to discussions so far has been to argue that pupils should have the opportunity to experience religions as precisely religious and not simply as at the service of current secular agendas. The Muslim scholar is reported to have expressed admiration for Pope Benedict XVI:

"Pope Benedict knows that religion is about truth and not social cohesion."

I am going to save some further observations - about the relationship between faith and reason, religion and atheism- that arise from the lecture for another post.