What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

Fed up?

Nothing gives quite the same sensation as popping bubblewrap.

Go ahead… click... and then come back to let us know how it went.

"Must have mooorrre ! ! !" ... a new WDTPRS motto!

I got a question via e-mail: 

Hi Father.

At the end of Mass today in Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan, the EF Mass taking place this Sunday was announced – however, we were told that if we were going to attend, we would have to fast for three hours.  I have attended many Masses in the extraordinary form in the past few months – here at St. Peter’s in Steubenville and in Chicago – but I have never heard this before.  Please clarify!

What you were told was wrong.

The Church’s legislation asks that we fast for 1 hour before the reception of Holy Communion.  That is, one hour before Communion, not one hour before the beginning of Mass.

That said, I am always pleased to hear that people might want to fast a little longer.  But they don’t have to.

Summorum Pontificum did not resurrect all the old laws, now superceded by today’s legislation. 

The length of time for fasting is given in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  That is the law in force, even for those who prefer the TLM.

The same thing goes for other issues, such as the obligation under law that women wear chapel veils.  I really like it when women wear chapel veils.  I think they should.  But women are no longer obliged by canon law to do so.  Summorum Pontificum did not revive the old Code that obliged women to wear chapel veils.

The same can be said for reception of Holy Communion.  Where it is permitted by conferences of bishops and not forbidden by bishops, people may receive on the tongue or in the hand (sadly).  I don’t think they should receive in the hand.  I don’t like it when they do.  But the present law gives them the right to do so in most places.

Summorum Pontificum applies to the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum and not other things which fall under the present legislation.

Darío Card. Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, gave an interview to L’Osservatore Romano.

I am thinking that this does two things.  First, he is shoring up what the Holy Father has been saying about ad orientem worship and he is getting people thinking about Summorum Pontificum again, in anticipation of the Holy Father’s explanatory letter.

Some points to watch for.

• Notice how the Cardinal states very strongly that priests of the SSPX are not excommunicated.  That must mean that when they adhered to the SSPX, by accepting ordination from excommunicated bishops, by taking orders and wages from them, they did not adhere to schism.
• Also, take careful note that the Cardinal made the effort to build up ad orientem celebration of Mass, also for the Novus Ordo.
• He also pressed the possibility of celebration of the Novus Ordo in Latin.
• He made points important for music and architecture.
• He affirmed that priests do NOT need permission from their bishops.  But he spoke about adequate preparation.  His comments about that make me think that the Holy Father’s letter must address this.

Here is my own translation.

 

The sense of Catholicity and unity in the liturgy

by Gianluca Biccini

"Benedict XVI’s apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman liturgy before the reform effected in 1970 is causing to return also some non-Catholics into full communion with Rome.  Requests are being received for this after the Pope renewed the possibility of celebrating according to the old rite".  Thus affirmed Darío Card. Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, who in this interview with our newspaper, after the publication of the pontifical document in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, clarified some of its contents and underscored its importance as a tool to preserve the treasury of the liturgy that comes from the time of St. Gregory the Great and for a renewed dialogue with those who, because of the liturgical reform, were distanced from the Church of Rome.  The publication in the Acta preceded by a few days the nomination by Benedict XVI the preceding Secretary Camille Perl as Vice President of Ecclesia Dei, and of the adjunct Secretary Mario Marini as Secretary.

The Letter, in the form of a Motu Proprio, does not refer to the normal contemporary form, the ordinary form – of the Eucharistic liturgy, which is the one published in the Missale Romanum by Paul VI and then reedited on two occasions by John Paul II; instead this refers to the use of the extraordinary for, which is the one in the Missale Romanum before the Council, published in 1962 on the authority of John XXIII.  This doesn’t deal with two different rites, but of a two-fold use of one Roman Rite.  "This was the form celebrated", the Columbian Cardinal explained, "that was used for more than 1400 years.  This rite, which we could call ‘Gregorian’, inspired the Masses of Palestrina, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, great cathedrals and marvelous works of painting and sculpture."

"Thanks to the Motu Proprio, not a few people have asked to return to full communion and some have already returned," the President of Ecclesia Dei added.  In Spain, the "Oasis of Jesus the Priest", an entire cloistered monastery with thirty sisters guided by their founder, has already been regularized by the Pontifical Commission; also there are groups of Americans, Germans and French on the path to regularization.  And finally there are individual priests and many lay people who have contacted us, writing to us and asking us for reconciliation and, on the other hand, there are many other faithful who have manifested their gratitude to the Pope and their pleasure in the Motu Proprio."

Some have accused the Pope of wanting to impose a liturgical model in which language and gestures of the rite seem to be monopolized exclusively by the priest, while the faithful wind up marginalized and thus excluded from a direct relationship with God.

On the occasion of the Baptism of the Lord, for example, Benedict XVI basically celebrate in the Sistine Chapel facing toward the Crucifix.  The Pope celebrated in Italian according the ordinary form, that does not exclude, however, the possibility of celebrating toward an altar not versus populum and that foresees also celebration in Latin.  Let’s remember that the ordinary form is the Mass that normally all priests priests say, according to the post-Conciliar reform; while the extraordinary for is the Mass from before the liturgical reform which, according to the norms of the Motu Proprio today all can celebrate and was never prohibited.

But some criticisms seem to be coming also from bishops?

A few have problems, but we’re dealing with a few exceptions, because the large part are in agreement with the Pope.  Rather, there are showing up some practical difficulties.  It is necessary to make this clear: we are not dealing with a return to the past, but rather a progress, because this way we have two riches, instead of one only.  Furthermore, this wealth is offered respecting the rights of those who are especially bound to the older liturgy.  Here we can get into some problems in a positive sense.  For example, it can happen that a priest doesn’t have the training and the adequate cultural sensibility.  It’s enough to think about priests who are from areas where the language is far different from Latin.  But we aren’t always talking about refusal: it is the presentation of a real difficulty which must be overcome.

Our Commission itself is thinking to organize a form of help for seminaries, dioceses and episcopal conferences.  Another facet of the study is to promote multimedia aids for the understanding of and learning of the extraordinary form with all its theological, spiritual and artistic richness bound up also with the old liturgy.  Moreover, is seems important that there be involved groups of priests who are already using the extraordinary form, who are offering themselves to celebrate, to demonstrate, to teach celebration according to the 1962 Missale.

So, there isn’t a problem?

It is rather a controversy born from a certain lack of understanding.  Some, for example, ask permission, as if we were dealing with a concession or an exceptional case, but there isn’t any need for this.  The Pope was clear.  It is an error on the part of some and some journalists, to maintain that the use of the Latin language concerns only the older rite, while instead it is foreseen also in the Missal of Paul VI. 

Through the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum the Pope offers all priests the possibility of celebrating Mass also in the traditional form and to the faithful to exercise their right to have this rite when there are the conditions specified in the Motu Proprio.

How have groups like the Society of St. Pius X reacted, who refused to celebrate Mass with the Novus Ordo established after Vatican II?

The Lefevbrites from the very beginning affirmed that the old form was never abolished.  It is clear that it was never abrogated, even if before the Motu Proprio not a few considered it prohibited.  Now, instead, it can be offered for all the faithful who wish it according as it is possible.  But it is also clear that if there are not priests who are adequately prepared, it can’t be offered, because we are dealing with not only with the Latin language, but also knowledge of the old rite as such.  Finding some quiet time today is for our culture a necessity which is not only religious.  I remember I that as a bishop I participated in a course for high level management, where they spoke of the need for managers to have at their disposition a semi-dark room in which they could sit and think things over before making decisions.  Silence and contemplation are necessary attitudes even today, above all when dealing with the mysteries of God.

Eight months have passes since the promulgation of the document.  Is it true that it has aroused agreement also in other ecclesial entities?

The Pope offered to the Church a treasure which is spiritual, cultural, religious and Catholic.  We received letters of agreement also from prelates of Orthodox Churches, from Anglican and Protestant faithful.  Also, there are some priests of the Society of St. Pius X who, individually, are seeking regularization of their position.  Some of them have already signed a formula of adhesion.  We are informed that there are traditionalist lay faithful, close the Society, who have begin to attend Masses in the old rite offered in the churches of their dioceses.

How is return to "full communion" possible for people who are excommunicated?

The excommunication regarded only the four bishops, because they were ordained without the mandate of the Pope and against his will, while the priests are only suspended.  The Mass they celebrate is without question valid, but not licit and, therefore, participation is not recommended, at least when on Sunday there are not other possibilities.  Certainly neither the priests nor the faithful are excommunicated.  I would like to underscore the importance of clear understanding of these things to be able to judge them correctly.

Aren’t you worried that the attempt to bring into the Church men and women who don’t recognize the Second Vatican Council might not provoke a distancing of the faithful who instead see Vatican II as a compass by which we navigate the barque of Peter, above all in these times of continuous change?

Above all the problem about the Council is not, in my opinion, as grave as it would seem.  In fact, the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, with their head Mons. Bernad Fellay, have expressly recognized Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council and Mons. Fellay underscored this in a meeting with John Paul II, and more explicitly in an audience of 29 August 2005 with Benedict XVI. Nor can we forget that Mons. Marcel Lefebvre signed all the documents of the Council.

I think that their criticism of the Council regarding above all the clarity of some texts, in the absence of which the road to interpretations out of accord with traditional doctrine is opened up.  The biggest difficulties are of an interpretive nature or they have to do with some gestures on the ecumenical plane, but not with the doctrine of Vatican II.  We are dealing with theological discussions, which can have their place within the Church, where in fact there exist different discussions of interpretation of conciliar texts, discussion which can go on also with groups who return to full communion.

So, the Church is reaching out a hand, even through this Motu Proprio on the old liturgy?

Yes, without question, because it is precisely in the liturgy that the meaning of catholicity is expressed and that is the source of unity.  I very much like the Novus Ordo which I celebrate daily.  I had not celebrated according to the Missal of 1962 after the post-conciliar liturgical reform.  Today, in taking up again sometimes the extraordinary rite, I also have discovered the richness of the old liturgy which the Pope wanted to maintain as living, preserving that centuries old form of the Roman tradition.

We must never forget that the supreme point of reference in the liturgy, as in life, is always Christ.  Therefore we are not afraid, even in liturgical ritual, to direct ourselves toward Him, toward the Crucifix, together with the faithful, to celebrate the holy Sacrifice, in an unbloody way, as the Council of Trent defined the Mass.

 

 

Fr. Guy Selvester, a blogger I respect who often comments here, I am glad to say, has taken WDTPRS and others to task for supporting the hearing of confessions on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.

He states acknowledges that it is not forbidden receive during the Triduum, but he says it is a bad idea to hear confessions during the Triduum.

I think it is a good idea to hear confessions during the Triduum, when it is reasonable to do so.

Let’s look at a couple excerpts of what Fr. Selvester wrote.  I will add my own emphases and comments as usual.  I do so with great respect.

Confession

Now that Holy Week is over and we are enjoying the happy days of Easter it is a time to look back over Holy Week and how it went. In my parish we always have a post-Holy Week meeting to go over the good and bad points and make suggestions on possible improvement for next year. [Good idea!]

One of the things that I note with keen interest is that fact that this year there were no confessions heard by the Pope on Good Friday as there had been in the past. This was something discussed quite a bit on the blogosphere prior to Holy Week. Many commentators made a point of underscoring [correctly] that it is a myth that confessions are forbidden during the Triduum. They went on to make the point that they thought it was most fitting to have confessions on Good Friday or Holy Saturday and as proof of the "correctness" of this practice they pointed out that even the Pope hears confessions on Good Friday thus giving good example to the Church.

But, Pope Benedict didn’t hear confessions on Good Friday. Those who made bold predictions that it definitely would happen were wrong. It was Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, who used to do that. Instead, Pope Benedict held a Penance Service in the week prior to Holy Week and heard confessions at that time.  [What just happened here.  Fr. Selvester points out that the Holy Father did not hear confessions on Good Friday.  I think we have to ask, "So what?"  First, this doesn’t change the fact that it is not forbidden to hear confessions during the Triduum.  It doesn’t change the fact that Pope John Paul II did hear confessions on Good Friday.  So, if Father is using the non-example of Pope Benedict in support of not hearing confession during the Triduum, we must respond.  First, the adage is tacere est consentire: if Benedict did not do something or say something you cannot use his silence or non-action against hearing confessions in the Triduum (which remains lawful).  Also, Father has pitted Benedict XVI against John Paul II.  I prefer a to see a greater continuity, rather than a rupture.  Third, and this must be taken into consideration, it shouldn’t suprise anyone that an octogenarian might not, during the Triduum, choose to add something else to his already draining schedule on one of the busiest days of the year.  When Pope John Paul was too weak to do certain things, was he changing his practice in a prescriptive way?]

Now, when I pointed out to some of my esteemed colleagues in the blogosphere that the Bishops’ Conference of my country, while not forbidding confessions in Holy Week or even during the Triduum, strongly discourages them one priest went so far as to say that priests should feel free to ignore such a teaching! Funny how those among us who are normally rather traditional suddenly feel no compunction whatsoever towards being blatantly disobedient when something comes along with which we don’t agree, isn’t it? [ ... "blatant disobedience" ... I find this statement to be over the top.  First, it is sad that any conference of bishops would ever suggest that there are times when priests should avoid hearing confessions.  When did "discourages" come to equal "forbids"?  It sounds like "discourage" is to offer "advice", express a preference, rather than make a "command".  I am also not sure how "thanks for the advice, but I will do differently" becomes "disobedience".  Perhaps the way priests in that country understand how they are to interact with that particular episcopal conference has its own nuances that I don’t understand.]

In addition, many many people love to point out that there are all sorts of changes happening at the Vatican these days under Pope Benedict that are showing a distinctly different style from the way things were done under John Paul II. So, in churches all over the world priests were quick to put six candles on the altar and a crucifix in the center because, "That’s they way they’re doing it at the Vatican now". But, when Pope Benedict changes the practice of his Venerable predecessor concerning confessions on Good Friday they just ignore that and point out that John Paul’s practice was better.  [Here is the argument: because the Pope chose not to hear confessions on Good Friday, neither should other priests.  This must be the "monkey see monkey don’t" approach to the celebration of sacraments.  Here is the problem.  Rearranging the altar with a Crucifix, etc., strikes me as an act of expansion, or enlarging, or making sacrament life and worship larger and richer.  It is also perfectly lawful, even before the Pope did it.  But saying that you shouldn’t hear confessions on Good Friday, which is lawful, seeks to make the sacramental life of the Church smaller.  And I can’t get my head around taking such an inflexible position about this.  Can individual priests not exercise freedom and prudence?  The Church says priests can hear confessions during the Triduum.  It may or may not be good to do so, depending on the circumstances.  In most cases, it probably is a good idea.  What is hard about this?]

Hmmmm.

Pope Benedict gave us all a very good example this year regarding what to do about confessions as we approach Holy Week: leave them out. [Again: despite the disclaimer above, he essentially is pitting Benedict XVI against John Paul II.] Have a Penance Service prior to Holy Week [A very good idea!  If you can greatly reduce the number of potential "latecomers", wonderful!] so that the Sacred Triduum, which is really one three-day liturgy, can occur uninterupted as it should be. ["Sorry… I am Triduuming right now… can’t hear your confession…so sorry… must stay focused… "] What a pity that everyone ["everyone"?] who is happy to jump on board and support the Pope’s example in so many other liturgical areas simply glossed over this one because it didn’t suit their personal tastes or piety. [HUH? "everyone" has "glossed over" this issue?  Pretty unfair, I think.  This is pretty much an accusation of shallowness.] Careful now: [I should say so!] that’s starting to smack of the kind of thing the so-called "progressives" are accused of all the time.  [Father’s critique now smacks of what most progressivists critics of Pope Benedict and more traditional Catholics do when they attack Summorum Pontificum.  They infer that when they make choices, even legitimate one, they are simply acting on their own personal "taste", as if they don’t have legitimate motives for their choices.  I think I don’t like that implication very much.]

Confessions may not be forbidden [right] in the Triduum but it is decidedly NOT a good idea to have them there. [That is an opinion.  And it may be the correct one too … in Fr. Selvester’s parish!  Is it therefore a bad idea everywhere?  Hardly.] It seems obvious from his own practices that the Pope goes along with that line of thinking. [Now that is an impossible stretch!] And as one of my professors in the seminary used to say, "If it is good enough for the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church and the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth…it should be good enough for you too."

A couple points.

Fr. Selvester is saying that some people are defending their choices and changes by picking and choosing what they like about Pope Benedict’s choices.  Okay, so far so good.  However, in his examination of the

Father must administer to his parish in the best way determines, always within the law.  It is possible to hear confessions during the Triduum.  If he doesn’t want to do that, fine.  That doesn’t mean no one else should.

Also, the idea that just because Pope Benedict didn’t hear confession on Good Friday that means no one should hear confessions on Good Friday is fraught with problems.  First, the Pope is an old man in a terribly difficult office.  Father’s argument doesn’t take into consideration the simplest explanation: he is prudently husbanding his reserves of energy.  It is clear that Pope Benedict has been doing so all along.  He has significantly reduced his number of public appearances and private audiences and trips.  Whatever other reasons he might have had not to hear confessions on Good Friday, let’s not ignore the simplest.
Lastly, I think Father’s argument falls into the trap of pitting one Pope against another.  That doesn’t seem fair.  Even in the matter of old men being careful with their schedules: Pope John Paul wasn’t to careful and this Pope is.  So what?  Either way it was for both of them a legitimate choice… just as hearing confessions during the Triduum is a legitimate choice, depending on the circumstances. I will not have the combox on for this, for obvious reasons. 

If people want to send me comments, I will look at them and perhaps post them. 

 

I am just now started to get more interested in this story.

As you know the Holy Father baptized a Muslim at the Easter Vigil, Magdi Allam, vice-director of the Italian daily Corriere della Sera. 

Some reactions have been harsh… big surprise.

However, it seems that Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, of the Holy See Press Office has made some observations… which are really not being reported by the Italian press, which still for the most part is publishing critical comments about baptism.


Here is what Fr. Lombardi said, in my rapid translation, for Vatican Radio:

The debate about the baptism imparted by the Pope at the Easter Vigil on the vice-director of Corriere della Sera, Magdi Allam, who converted from Islam to Catholicism after a long personal journey, is still alive.  Among the reactions of the Islamic world, of note are those of the well-known Prof. Aref ali Nayed, director of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center and a key figure in the new direction of Islamic-Christian dialogue begun with the "Letter of 138 scholars".  It is a critical comment which merits attentive consideration and to which our director, Fr. Federico Lombardi, responds with some observations:

Above all, the most significant affirmation is without doubt the confirmation of the desire of the writer to continue dialogue of greater awareness and reciprocal understanding between Muslims and Christians, and in no way puts into question the journey begun with correspondence and contacts established during the last year and a half between Muslim scholars who signed the well-known letters and the Vatican, especially through the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.  This path must continue, it is of extreme importance, it must not be interrupted, and it is of priority in respect to the episodes which could be an occasion of misunderstanding.

In the second place, administering baptism on a person implies recognizing that he accepted the Christian faith freely and sincerely, in its fundamental articles expressed in the "profession of faith".  This comes to be publicly proclaimed on the occasion of baptism.  Naturally every believer is free to conserve his own ideas on a vast gamut of question and problems about which there is a legitimate pluralism among Christians.  To receive a new believer in the Church does not, clearly, mean embracing all the ideas and positions, especially on political or social themes.

The baptism of Magdi Cristiano Allam is a good occasion expressly to reinforce this fundamental point.  He has the right to express his own ideas, which remain his personal ideas, clearly without them becoming in any way the official expressions of the positions of the Pope or the Holy See.

Regarding the debate on the Regensburg Address, the explanations of the correct interpretation of the intentions of the Pope were given long ago and there is no reason to call them into question again.  At the same time, some of the themes already touched upon, like the relationship between faith and reason, between religion and violence, naturally remain the object of reflection and debate and of divergent positions, given that reference is being made to problems that cannot be resolved once and for all.

In the third place, the liturgy of the Easter Vigil is celebrated every year, and the symbolism of light and of darkness is always a part of it.  Certainly it is a solemn liturgy and the celebration in St. Peter’s by the Pope is a very special occasion.

But to launch the accusation of "Manichaeism" at the Pope’s explanation of the liturgical symbolism – which he does each time he presides – perhaps manifests somewhat a lack of comprehension of Catholic liturgy which is a critically pertinent aspect of the discourse of Benedict XVI.

At last, let it be permitted to show on our part displeasure regarding what Prof. Nayed says about education in Christian schools in countries of Muslim majority, objecting to the risk of proselytism.

It seems that the very great tradition of education efforts of the Catholic Church also in countries with a non-Christian majority (not only in Egypt, but also India , Japan, etc.) where very often the great majority of students in schools and Catholic universities are not Catholic, and who have tranquilly remained so, even with true esteem for for the education received, merit an entirely different interpretation.  We do not think an accusation of lack of respect for the dignity and freedom of the human person is merited today on the part of the Church.  An entirely different question about the violations of it, to which special attention is to be given.  Perhaps also for which reason the Pope assumed the risk of this baptism: to affirm the freedom of religious choice which is the consequence of the dignity of every human person.

In any case, Prof. Aref Ali Nayed is an interlocutor for whom we preserve the highest esteem and with whom it is always worth while to engage by the book. This permits us to have faith in the continuation of dialogue.

What ANSA did with this:

(ANSA)- ROMA, 27 MAR - ‘Accogliere nella Chiesa un nuovo credente non significa sposarne tutte le idee’. Cosi’ la Santa Sede sulle posizioni di Magdi Allam. ‘Magdi Allam ha il diritto ad esprimere le proprie idee, senza diventare espressione ufficiale delle posizioni del Papa’. Cosi’ il portavoce della Santa Sede, padre Lombardi, ha risposto oggi alle critiche fatte sul battesimo di Allam dal prof.Ali Nayed, portavoce dei ‘138 saggi’ musulmani promotori di una nuova fase di dialogo con il mondo cristiano.

UPDATE 27 March 2008 – 1807 GMT

Vatican Radio’s translation:

 

Professor Aref Al Nayed has complained about the baptism by Pope Benedict XVI of Magdi Allam on the Easter Vigil. the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, issued this note in response…

27.3.08. 14.00h.

The note by Professor Aref Ali Nayed concerning the Baptism administered by the Pope to Magdi Allam on the Easter vigil merits close consideration.

Let us, then, make a few observations.

Firstly, the most significant statement is without doubt the author’s affirmation of his will to continue the dialogue towards a more profound mutual knowledge between Muslims and Christians. He in no way questions the journey that began with the correspondence and the contacts established over the last year and a half, between the Muslim signatories of the well-known letters and the Vatican, in particular through the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. This process must continue, it is extremely important, it must not be interrupted, and has priority over episodes that may be the subject of misunderstandings.

Secondly, administering Baptism to someone implies a recognition that that person has freely and sincerely accepted the Christian faith in its fundamental articles, as expressed in the "profession of faith" which is publicly proclaimed during the ceremony of Baptism. Of course, believers are free to maintain their own ideas on a vast range of questions and problems, on which legitimate pluralism exists among Christians. Welcoming a new believer into the Church clearly does not mean wedding all that person’s ideas and opinions, especially on political and social matters.

The Baptism of Magdi Cristiano Allam provides a good opportunity specifically to underline this fundamental principle. He has the right to express his own ideas. They remain his personal opinions without in any way becoming the official expression of the positions of the Pope or of the Holy See.

As for the debate concerning the Pope’s lecture at Regensburg, explanations for interpreting it correctly in accordance with the Pope’s intentions were given some time ago and there is no reason to question them once more. At the same time, some of the themes touched upon then, such as the relationship between faith and reason, between religion and violence, are naturally still the subject of reflection and debate, and of differing points of view, because they concern problems that cannot be resolved once and for all.

Thirdly, the liturgy of the Easter vigil was celebrated as it is every year, and the symbolism of light and darkness has always been a part of it. It is a solemn liturgy and its celebration by the Pope in St. Peter’s Square is a very special occasion. But to accuse the Pope’s explanation of the liturgical symbols – something he always does and in which he is a master – of "Manichaeism" reveals perhaps a misunderstanding of Catholic liturgy rather than a pertinent criticism of Benedict XVI’s words.


Finally, let us in turn express our own displeasure at what Professor Nayed says concerning education in Christian schools in Muslim-majority countries, where he objects to the risk of proselytism. We feel that the Catholic Church’s great educational efforts, also in countries with a non-Christian majority (not just Egypt but also India, Japan, etc.) where for a very long time the majority of students in Catholic schools and universities are non-Christian and have happily remained so (while showing great appreciation for the education they have received), deserves a quite different evaluation. We do not think the Church today merits the accusation of lack of respect for the dignity and freedom of the human person; these suffer entirely different violations to which priority attention must be given. Perhaps the Pope accepted the risk of this Baptism also for this reason: to affirm the freedom of religious choice which derives from the dignity of the human person.

In any case, Professor Aref Ali Nayed is an interlocutor for whom we maintain the highest respect and with whom a faithful exchange of views is always worthwhile. This allows us to trust in the continuation of dialogue.

UPDATE 20:04 GMT

 

Apparently wedding bells will be chiming…

Muslim convert baptized by the Pope to marry in the Church

ROME, Mar 27, 2008 / 02:35 pm (CNA).- The Muslim journalist Magdi Allam, who was received into the Church during the Easter Vigil by Pope Benedict XVI, plans to marry Valentina Colombo in the Church on April 22, according to the Italian daily Libero.

The couple’s son, Davide, who is nine months old, was baptized a month ago, when Allam’s journey to the Catholic faith was in its final phase.

Allam is 55 and is associate director of the newspaper Il Corriere della Sera. During the last five years he has lived under police protection due to death threats over his conversion to Christianity and his positions against Islamic fundamentalism.

During the interview, Allam said he is not afraid of death and that he will continue moving “forward” on “the road of truth, freedom and affirmation of life.”

His baptism has been criticized by both Islamic fundamentalists and Islamic moderates, including the Muslim intellectuals who attended a meeting at the Vatican this month to promote inter-religious dialogue.

The director of L’Osservatore Romano, Gian Maria Vian, said yesterday in an editorial that Magdi Allam’s baptism was “not intended to be hostile towards the great Islamic religion.”

Allam took this step “after a long personal search and the necessary preparation for taking this step,” Vian said.  “Benedict XVI’s gesture has important meaning because it affirms religious freedom in a humble and clear way” and shows that “anyone who requests baptism without constrictions has the right to receive it,” he emphasized.

This just in from The Earth Times:

Washington – Most Americans have a positive view of the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI, ahead of his visit to the United States next month, despite years of negative publicity resulting from the US priest abuse scandal, a survey said Tuesday. "Some of the results may be a bit surprising to those who tend to assume that the church’s critics are representative of American public opinion as a whole," said Carl Anderson, head of the lay organization Knights of Columbus, which commissioned the poll.

The survey conducted in late February and early March showed 65 per cent of Americans have a positive view of the Catholic Church, while 28 per cent have a negative view. Hispanics, people over 65 and regular church attendees had the most favourable views of the church.

Fifty-eight per cent of respondents had a positive view of Benedict, and 13 per cent had a negative opinion of him, but the vast majority admitted they knew little about him and fully 17 per cent had never heard of him.

Still, there appeared to be large interest in his visit with 42 per cent interested in attending one of his public events in the US and 66 per cent of Catholics saying they would like to do so.

"The bottom line is that despite years of very negative stories about the Catholic Church scandals … affecting views of the pope … the American people have a very sensible and balanced view of Benedict and of the Catholic Church and they are very open of hearing his views on matters and how they might live their faith and put it to practice in their daily lives," Anderson concluded.