After my post about Tony Blair and the state of religion in China, I want to post further analyses of his speech to the Rimini Meeting, as I feel there are other aspects of the speech that would stand scrutiny. Meanwhile, I copy as a full post a comment received at my earlier discussion of the rights and wrongs of Tony Blair's being invited to speak at the Rimini Meeting.
Alessandro Giudici said...
Hi, I belong to CL but I also live in the UK. 2 things, from my point of view: 1) Although Meeting Rimini's responsibles are from CL, Meeting Rimini is not equal to CL. 2) In this case, those people who invited Blair to give a speech made a mistake based on their understanding of what Blair thinks in terms of the role of the State etc. I was working at Meeting Rimini as a volunteer and whoever I explained to what Blair does and thinks about abortion, etc was really really surprise. There was a lot of ignorance about the reality in this case. And the debate among our CL friends is fully open...because those who live in the UK knows perfectly the situation...Unfortunately he was invited for other reasons and then he gave a speech full of "beatiful" and false words...just for the applauses...I was so disgusted knowing the reality...
Saturday, 5 September 2009
Friday, 4 September 2009
Bidding farewell to a dynasty
This is the title of Elizabeth Lev's commentary on the deaths of Edward Kennedy and Eunice Shriver, that can be found on the ZENIT website.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Two witnesses
I expect that some will be none to pleased at my putting these two testimonies side-by-side in the same post. But, in both of the events to which these testimonies refer (the awarding of an honorary degree to Barack Obama by Notre Dame university and Senator Kennedy's funeral Mass) I think the appropriate category for evaluation is that of witness. In these situations, what was the witness given to Catholic faith and teaching?
Chronologically, the first witness I am linking to is that of Bishop John D'Arcy in an article in America magazine: The Church and the University. In this article, the Bishop in whose diocese the University of Notre Dame is located gives an account of his own engagement with the controversy surrounding President Obama's visit and articulates his concerns about the failure of those responsible for the governance of the university to fulfil properly its vocation to witness to Catholic faith.
The second witness is that of Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the Archbishop of Boston, explaining in a very careful way his decisions with regard to Senator Kennedy's funeral. After reading this post, it is not possible for anyone to say that, in his attendance at and participation in this funeral, Archbishop O'Malley was in any way condoning or supporting the views and political intentions of Senator Kennedy and President Obama on abortion - indeed, it appears that at the time of the funeral itself, Archbishop O'Malley gave a very clear signal of that to President Obama himself. If they do say that, it is a misrepresentation. I think it is also fair for him to have pointed out that those who did pay respects to Senator Kennedy by watching at the roadside as the hearse passed or visiting during the lying in state did have positive elements of his life to which they could give recognition.
Pope Benedict's response to Senator Kennedy's letter was caring and considerate. I think it indicates the pastoral principle according to which Archbishop O'Malley participated in the funeral Mass. The Apostolic Blessing can appear a kind of routine courtesy of the Holy See - but, in appropriate conditions at the point of death, it is an act to which the Church attaches a plenary indulgence. I was particularly struck by its implications on this occasion.
As some of the comments to Archbshop O'Malley's post suggest, I do think there are still some questions to be answered about the funeral liturgy itself. What exactly was the witness that the liturgy itself gave?
Chronologically, the first witness I am linking to is that of Bishop John D'Arcy in an article in America magazine: The Church and the University. In this article, the Bishop in whose diocese the University of Notre Dame is located gives an account of his own engagement with the controversy surrounding President Obama's visit and articulates his concerns about the failure of those responsible for the governance of the university to fulfil properly its vocation to witness to Catholic faith.
The second witness is that of Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the Archbishop of Boston, explaining in a very careful way his decisions with regard to Senator Kennedy's funeral. After reading this post, it is not possible for anyone to say that, in his attendance at and participation in this funeral, Archbishop O'Malley was in any way condoning or supporting the views and political intentions of Senator Kennedy and President Obama on abortion - indeed, it appears that at the time of the funeral itself, Archbishop O'Malley gave a very clear signal of that to President Obama himself. If they do say that, it is a misrepresentation. I think it is also fair for him to have pointed out that those who did pay respects to Senator Kennedy by watching at the roadside as the hearse passed or visiting during the lying in state did have positive elements of his life to which they could give recognition.
Pope Benedict's response to Senator Kennedy's letter was caring and considerate. I think it indicates the pastoral principle according to which Archbishop O'Malley participated in the funeral Mass. The Apostolic Blessing can appear a kind of routine courtesy of the Holy See - but, in appropriate conditions at the point of death, it is an act to which the Church attaches a plenary indulgence. I was particularly struck by its implications on this occasion.
As some of the comments to Archbshop O'Malley's post suggest, I do think there are still some questions to be answered about the funeral liturgy itself. What exactly was the witness that the liturgy itself gave?
Religious Education in Catholic Schools: catechesis or evangelisation?
We can ask a question about the purpose of Catholic schools; and then, as a kind of sub-set to that general question, we can ask a question about the purpose of religious education in Catholic schools. And, if we answer to this second question that the purpose of religious education is catechesis we do not necessarily mean by that the same thing as if we were to answer instead that it is evangelisation. Which can be quite bemusing!
Before going further, it should be pointed out that when the Church talks about evangelisation, it uses terms in a carefully defined way. At least that is the case in its most careful expressions of that teaching, Pope Paul VI's Evangelii Nuntiandi and the General Directory for Catechesis, though in general discussion the word "evangelisation" is frequently used without differentiating it into its different elements. In the teaching of the Church, the word "evangelisation" is used to refer to the whole complex of activity of spreading the Gospel and enabling people to grow in their knowledge and love of God. "Presence in charity" refers to the witness of Christian living in the world, perhaps through charitable activity or professional engagement and presence. "Primary proclamation" refers to an explicit announcement of the Gospel aimed at leading its hearers to conversion of heart towards belief in Jesus Christ. "Catechesis" refers to the process of systematic teaching of the content and practice of the faith, particularly in preparation for the reception of the sacraments of initiation, but generally aimed at enabling the person who has undergone a first conversion to Christ to grow in their knowledge and communion with him. And finally there is ongoing formation in the life of the Church, which might be related to spiritual growth.
All the different elements inter-relate, and in a particular situation, they do not necessarily follow on one after the other as just described. In the Catholic Church, a need is sometimes identified for an increase in attention to "primary proclamation", focussing on the core of Christian faith - God's saving love for us shown in the Paschal Mystery of his death and resurrection. "Catechesis", at which we probably do better, is not able to achieve its fruit if it is not preceded by a living conversion towards Christ. The reality is that both need to be present in the activity of the Church, and they both grow off each other.
As far as religious education in schools is concerned - where does it fit among these different elements of evangelisation? According to Religious Education: Curriculum Directory for Catholic Schools, published by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and applicable to the Catholic schools in those countries:
According to this view, religious education is seen as an evangelising of the culture represented by the different academic disciplines of the school; its role is that of establishing a unifying synthesis in and of the different academic disciplines. In this view, religious education contributes something to and enters into dialogue with every other curriculum area. This is not to deny the place of "presence in charity", "primary proclamation" and "catechesis" in the life of a Catholic school seen as a whole - that might well be present through the liturgical life and practical charitable action of the school - but it does offer a different view of the part to be played by religious education itself.
I do find that these two different ways of understanding the role of religious education in a Catholic school prompt a challenging reflection on what exactly the RE department is about in a Catholic school. If the first view is to be held, it will not do for an RE department to deny that it has a role in "primary proclamation" and "catechesis" and leave that to families and parishes - it should instead take a careful look at whether or not its examination curricula at KS4 and KS5 deliver on that role (they almost certainly do not). If the second view is held, then the RE department needs to achieve a breadth of vision and inter-disciplinary knowledge to be able to contribute to evangelising a culture both in terms of curriculum content and in terms of the formation that that curriculum content communicates to its students. In either case, the outcome should be pupils who know the Catholic faith and are able to defend it in the contemporary world - and who practice it!
Before going further, it should be pointed out that when the Church talks about evangelisation, it uses terms in a carefully defined way. At least that is the case in its most careful expressions of that teaching, Pope Paul VI's Evangelii Nuntiandi and the General Directory for Catechesis, though in general discussion the word "evangelisation" is frequently used without differentiating it into its different elements. In the teaching of the Church, the word "evangelisation" is used to refer to the whole complex of activity of spreading the Gospel and enabling people to grow in their knowledge and love of God. "Presence in charity" refers to the witness of Christian living in the world, perhaps through charitable activity or professional engagement and presence. "Primary proclamation" refers to an explicit announcement of the Gospel aimed at leading its hearers to conversion of heart towards belief in Jesus Christ. "Catechesis" refers to the process of systematic teaching of the content and practice of the faith, particularly in preparation for the reception of the sacraments of initiation, but generally aimed at enabling the person who has undergone a first conversion to Christ to grow in their knowledge and communion with him. And finally there is ongoing formation in the life of the Church, which might be related to spiritual growth.
All the different elements inter-relate, and in a particular situation, they do not necessarily follow on one after the other as just described. In the Catholic Church, a need is sometimes identified for an increase in attention to "primary proclamation", focussing on the core of Christian faith - God's saving love for us shown in the Paschal Mystery of his death and resurrection. "Catechesis", at which we probably do better, is not able to achieve its fruit if it is not preceded by a living conversion towards Christ. The reality is that both need to be present in the activity of the Church, and they both grow off each other.
As far as religious education in schools is concerned - where does it fit among these different elements of evangelisation? According to Religious Education: Curriculum Directory for Catholic Schools, published by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and applicable to the Catholic schools in those countries:
In May 2009, the Congregation for Catholic Education wrote a circular letter to presidents of Episcopal Conferences on religious education in schools. This letter has been forwarded to headteachers of Catholic schools in this country as the new academic year begins. The letter addresses a number of issues relating to religious education in the world today, but includes a paragraph about the nature of religious education in relation to evangelisation:"In the living and sharing of faith, evangelisation [ie "primary proclamation"], catechesis and religious education are always intertwined. While awareness of the distinctiveness of each makes our witness to the Gospel more effective, the relationship between them should never be lost ...
For those already engaged in the journey of faith religious education will be catechesis, and for some children and young people religious education will be evangelisation [ie "primary proclamation"], the first opportunity to hear the good news of the Gospel."
Religious education in schools fits into the evangelising mission of the Church. It is different from, and complementary to, parish catechesis and other activities such as family Christian education or initiatives of ongoing formation of the faithful. Apart from the different settings in which these are imparted, the aims that they pursue are also different: catechesis aims at fostering personal adherence to Christ and the development of Christian life in its different aspects (cf. Congregation for the Clergy, General Directory for Catechesis [DGC], 15 August 1997, nn. 80-87), whereas religious education in schools gives the pupils knowledge about Christianity’s identity and Christian life. Moreover, Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to religion teachers, pointed out the need “to enlarge the area of our rationality, to reopen it to the larger questions of the truth and the good, to link theology, philosophy and science between them in full respect for the methods proper to them and for their reciprocal autonomy, but also in the awareness of the intrinsic unity that holds them together. The religious dimension is in fact intrinsic to culture. It contributes to the overall formation of the person and makes it possible to transform knowledge into wisdom of life.” Catholic religious education contributes to that goal, in which “school and society are enriched with true laboratories of culture and humanity in which, by deciphering the significant contribution of Christianity, the person is equipped to discover goodness and to grow in responsibility, to seek comparisons and to refine his or her critical sense, to draw from the gifts of the past to understand the present better and to be able to plan wisely for the future” (Address to the Catholic religion teachers, 25 April 2009).
The specific nature of this education does not cause it to fall short of its proper nature as a school discipline. On the contrary, maintaining this status is a condition of its effectiveness: “It is necessary, therefore, that religious instruction in schools appear as a scholastic discipline with the same systematic demands and the same rigour as other disciplines. It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth with which other disciplines present their knowledge. It should not be an accessory alongside of these disciplines, but rather it should engage in a necessary inter-disciplinary dialogue” (DGC 73). ...
- Religious education is different from, and complementary to, catechesis, as it is school education that does not require the assent of faith, but conveys knowledge on the identity of Christianity and Christian life. Moreover, it enriches the Church and humanity with areas for growth, of both culture and humanity.
According to this view, religious education is seen as an evangelising of the culture represented by the different academic disciplines of the school; its role is that of establishing a unifying synthesis in and of the different academic disciplines. In this view, religious education contributes something to and enters into dialogue with every other curriculum area. This is not to deny the place of "presence in charity", "primary proclamation" and "catechesis" in the life of a Catholic school seen as a whole - that might well be present through the liturgical life and practical charitable action of the school - but it does offer a different view of the part to be played by religious education itself.
I do find that these two different ways of understanding the role of religious education in a Catholic school prompt a challenging reflection on what exactly the RE department is about in a Catholic school. If the first view is to be held, it will not do for an RE department to deny that it has a role in "primary proclamation" and "catechesis" and leave that to families and parishes - it should instead take a careful look at whether or not its examination curricula at KS4 and KS5 deliver on that role (they almost certainly do not). If the second view is held, then the RE department needs to achieve a breadth of vision and inter-disciplinary knowledge to be able to contribute to evangelising a culture both in terms of curriculum content and in terms of the formation that that curriculum content communicates to its students. In either case, the outcome should be pupils who know the Catholic faith and are able to defend it in the contemporary world - and who practice it!
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Reform of the Reform?
I was very struck by this post from Catholic Analysis: Liturgical Psychology 101. The last paragraph summarises the point being made:
However, I suspect that different readers will have different responses to the first paragraph:
My own understanding of Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying documentation - reinforced by the letter Ecclesiae Unitatem with its emphasis on unity in the Church and its incorporation of the Ecclesia Dei commission into the Congregation for Doctrine - suggests that the carriages of a train that some people think is setting off from the station have not actually been formed up at all.
Now, thinking about conversion, I had better get myself off to confession soon...
So my counsel to the liturgical reformers is this: preach conversion first and the rest will follow. Truly converted people will have no problems showing reverence or belief in the Real Presence. Once there is authentic conversion, all licit liturgical forms of the Church perform beautifully. The key is not which licit form is used. The key is the kind of hearts engaging those licit liturgical forms. It's time to abandon the "James Theory of Liturgical Reform" and focus on conversion and evangelization first. Conversion will make the liturgical problems and abuses disappear, heart by heart.
However, I suspect that different readers will have different responses to the first paragraph:
Among Catholics, liturgical tinkering and reform are a great past time practiced both by liturgical liberals and liturgical traditionalists. One blogger even claims that saving the liturgy will save the world--a claim which implies, in my opinion, the Pelagian view that we can somehow save ourselves and reach to heaven by building a modern day Tower of Babel "brick by brick." I appreciate the great sincerity and earnestness behind many of these attempts at liturgical reform, but more needs to be said before the train leaves the station.
My own understanding of Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying documentation - reinforced by the letter Ecclesiae Unitatem with its emphasis on unity in the Church and its incorporation of the Ecclesia Dei commission into the Congregation for Doctrine - suggests that the carriages of a train that some people think is setting off from the station have not actually been formed up at all.
Now, thinking about conversion, I had better get myself off to confession soon...
Opening of St Luke's Chapel, Queens Hospital
Queen's Hospital, Romford is part of the view that I have from the back windows of my flat (whatever you might think of the architecture, it is much better than the rusty gas holders which are another part of the view!). It is a new hospital, built under a PFI (Private Finance Initiative) project. It replaced the earlier Oldchurch Hospital, which was located just across the road from the location of the new hospital. "Oldchurch" was named because its site was the site of the old Church, the first Church opened in Romford in 1177. The chapel in Oldchurch Hospital was dedicated to St Luke and, I understand, Mass was said there at one time.
When Queen's Hospital opened in 2006, a multi-faith prayer room was part of the design. This is readily accessible from the Hospital's entrance area. The Department of Spiritual and Pastoral Care (what most people would recognise as the Chaplaincy) have three full time staff and range of supporting staff, including a Catholic chaplain. A team of lay volunteers undertake regular visiting of patients on the wards; a system of "bank" chaplains provide an on-call service at any time of day (Catholic priests are on-call, too); and patients, relatives or ward staff are able to access the service of the department by a referral system.
Today has seen the opening of a Christian chapel at Queens Hospital, making use of a room that otherwise was not being used. The room has an altar, and stained glass windows representing the tree of life whose leaves are for the healing of the nations (cf Revelation 22:1-2): "Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
The text from the hospital magazine describing this event is as follows:
The participation of representatives of a range of Christian denominations in the opening service reflects the ecumenical nature of hospital chaplaincy work, and this was something the Revd David Hawkins referred to in his address. Some time ago now I heard the observation made in the context of port chaplaincy and I think it applies as much to hospital chaplaincy: ecumenical chaplaincy means that more ships (or, in the case of a hospital, more patients) are able to receive visits. It seems to me that it is in practical activity like this that the true nature of ecumenism can be seen.
When Queen's Hospital opened in 2006, a multi-faith prayer room was part of the design. This is readily accessible from the Hospital's entrance area. The Department of Spiritual and Pastoral Care (what most people would recognise as the Chaplaincy) have three full time staff and range of supporting staff, including a Catholic chaplain. A team of lay volunteers undertake regular visiting of patients on the wards; a system of "bank" chaplains provide an on-call service at any time of day (Catholic priests are on-call, too); and patients, relatives or ward staff are able to access the service of the department by a referral system.
Today has seen the opening of a Christian chapel at Queens Hospital, making use of a room that otherwise was not being used. The room has an altar, and stained glass windows representing the tree of life whose leaves are for the healing of the nations (cf Revelation 22:1-2): "Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."
The text from the hospital magazine describing this event is as follows:
The original idea for opening this Chapel came from the Hospital Trust's Director of Nursing who, I understand, has a very strong commitment to spiritual care as part of the care given to patients in the hospital.The Bishop of Barking, the Rt Revd David Hawkins, is coming to Queen’s Hospital to conduct a special service. The Bishop - the most senior in the area - will be given a tour of the building by Hospital Chaplain Tim Coleman before leading a service to dedicate the new St Luke’s Chapel.
Queen’s already has a popular multi-faith prayer room, but it was felt that we needed somewhere more appropriate for Christians to worship. Staff and patients can use the Chapel and the prayer room for worship, or just for some quiet reflection.
The rooms, and our chaplains, are available for everyone, regardless of their beliefs.
The participation of representatives of a range of Christian denominations in the opening service reflects the ecumenical nature of hospital chaplaincy work, and this was something the Revd David Hawkins referred to in his address. Some time ago now I heard the observation made in the context of port chaplaincy and I think it applies as much to hospital chaplaincy: ecumenical chaplaincy means that more ships (or, in the case of a hospital, more patients) are able to receive visits. It seems to me that it is in practical activity like this that the true nature of ecumenism can be seen.
Update on China
Adam has added a series of comments to my post Tony Blair in Rimini: religion in China. These provide some useful additional information. He has also suggested that the Holy Spirit Study Centre, located in Hong Kong, is a useful source of information about Christianity in China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)