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

The road is long and dusty.

You are parched… or you just fancy a sip of something.

POLL CLOSED

Patrick Madrid caught that EWTN will air the CatholicVote.org pro-life ad which NBC refused.

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – See the pro-life commercial NBC refused to air during the Super Bowl on EWTN Global Catholic Network this Sunday Feb. 1, beginning at 5:30 p.m. ET and continuing through midnight ET.

The commercial, sponsored by Fidelis and catholicvote.com, centers around the theme: “Life: Imagine the Potential.” It will begin airing during “Faith Bowl II,” an annual Family Theatre made-for-television special, which analyzes the role that the Catholic/Christian Faith plays in professional and collegiate sports. This year, Major League Baseball’s Mark Loretta of the Los Angeles Dodgers will guest along with former professional soccer player Antonio Soave.

The commercials will continue throughout EWTN’s Sunday evening lineup, including the shows with popular series Hosts Father Benedict Groeschel and Father John Corapi, and will conclude at midnight ET.

EWTN also aired this powerful commercial several times during its extensive coverage of the March for Life, which is always Washington D.C.’s largest march of the year. This year, the event conservatively attracted 300,000 marchers (some estimates were as high as 400,000 marchers), even though the price of hotel rooms was sky high due to the Inauguration two days earlier.

 ...

Check John Allen’s piece on the SSPX thing going on.

My friend the nearly ubiquitous John L. Allen, Jr. is, of course, the fair-minded columnist for the ultra-lefty National Catholic Reporter.

Let’s look, with my emphases and comments.

In the meantime, lest you miss this because you are impatient …

I want to put all this on the record, because I don’t want to be accused of over-simplification or partisanship when I submit the following: The way this decision was communicated was a colossal blunder, and one that’s frankly difficult to either understand or excuse.

To be clear, my point has nothing to do with whether the excommunications should have been lifted in the first place. There’s legitimate debate on that front, and not just due to its implications for Catholic/Jewish relations. There’s also intra-Catholic discussion about what it means for the interpretation of Vatican II, and for the broader direction of the church. Instead, my argument is that even granting that the aim of restoring unity in the church justifies this step, its presentation was stunningly inept.

 

But let’s go back to the top.

The Lefebvrite case: What was the Vatican thinking?
By John L Allen Jr Weekly
Created Jan 30 2009 – 12:58

On the lecture circuit, I’m sometimes asked for my opinion about the Vatican’s communications strategy. My glib answer generally is, "As soon as they have one, I’ll be glad to tell you what I think of it."  [He got it right.]

The line usually draws a few chuckles. However, this week’s furor over the lifting of the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, including one who’s a Holocaust denier, offers a reminder that the lack of PR savvy in Rome is actually no laughing matter.

The story has followed a familiar arc, which one might call the "Regensburg syndrome." The pope says or does something obviously destined to set off fireworks; nonetheless, the Vatican purports to be surprised by the reaction; then, damage control follows.  [The premise is that they are not doing this on purpose.]

The containment strategy this time featured a Jan. 27 apology [2] from Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the traditionalist Fraternity of St. Pius X, for the incendiary comments of Bishop Richard Williamson, who denied in an interview with Swedish television that the Nazis used gas chambers and asserted that no more than 300,000 Jews were killed in World War II. In a statement released by the Vatican, Fellay also said that Williamson has been barred from further comment on political or historical subjects.

The next day, Benedict XVI recalled the deaths of "millions of Jews" in the Nazi death camps, and expressed his "full and indisputable solidarity" with the Jews. He also said that lifting the excommunications was an act of "paternal mercy" which he hopes will lead the traditionalists to embrace full communion in the church, including acceptance of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

As welcome as those statements obviously are, they’ve come only in response to a crisis that clearly should have been anticipated. Claims that the Vatican was caught off-guard don’t cut it; well before Williamson appeared on Swedish TV, he had a public record of Holocaust denial and antagonism toward Jews which a 30-second Google search would have unearthed. [right]

At the outset, let’s stipulate several important bits of nuance:

    * First, Benedict XVI sees himself as a friend of the Jewish people, and has no sympathy whatsoever for anti-Semitism or attempts to deny or diminish the Holocaust.
    * Second, Williamson’s views don’t represent the whole traditionalist movement. The vast majority of ordinary Catholics attracted to the Latin Mass, or who harbor reservations about doctrinal innovations in the church, are neither bigots nor crackpots.
    * Third, the motive for lifting the excommunication is the noble end of fostering unity in the church, striving to heal the only formal schism in the wake of Vatican II.
    * Fourth, lifting the excommunication does not mean the Lefebvrites have been "rehabilitated." Canonists say the four prelates remain suspended a divinis, which means they can’t legitimately ordain anyone, establish parishes, and so on. The Fraternity of St. Pius X still has no juridical status. The bottom line, in the words of a Jan. 25 statement from French Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, a member of the Vatican’s "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, is that this marks "not the end, but the beginning of a process of dialogue."
    * Fifth, part of Benedict’s strength as a leader is that he’s not shackled to the short-term considerations of tomorrow’s headlines. No one should expect him to shrink from making a decision simply because some people might misconstrue his motives.

I want to put all this on the record, [HARK] because I don’t want to be accused of over-simplification or partisanship when I submit the following: The way this decision was communicated was a colossal blunder, and one that’s frankly difficult to either understand or excuse.

To be clear, my point has nothing to do with whether the excommunications should have been lifted in the first place. There’s legitimate debate on that front, and not just due to its implications for Catholic/Jewish relations. There’s also intra-Catholic discussion about what it means for the interpretation of Vatican II, and for the broader direction of the church. Instead, my argument is that even granting that the aim of restoring unity in the church justifies this step, its presentation was stunningly inept.

I take at face value the assurances of Vatican officials that they were unaware of Williamson’s interview, but they hardly needed Swedish television to alert them that something was amiss. In 1989, Williamson narrowly escaped prosecution in Canada for praising the writings of Ernst Zundel, a German-born Canadian immigrant whose works include The Hitler We Loved and Why and Did Six Million Really Die?, both mainstays of Holocaust denial literature. All this was documented in press coverage at the time. In 1991, Williamson published an open letter referring to "the false messianic vocation of Jewish world-dominion, to prepare the Anti-Christ’s throne in Jerusalem." In 2000, Williamson went on record asserting that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are legitimate. His reputation was so well-known that in 2008, Shimon Samuels, director of international relations at the Simon Weisenthal Center, told the Catholic Herald in England that Williamson is "the Borat of the schismatic Catholic far-right."  [Remember that whole Google search part?]

Further, it’s not as if the Vatican can claim to have been surprised by Jewish reaction. In September 2006, Benedict set off a similar firestorm in the Muslim world with his lecture at Regensburg, in which he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor to the effect that Muhammad had "brought things only evil and inhuman." Regensburg should have brought home the lesson that when the pope does something likely to cause alarm in another religious community, you have to see the train wreck coming in order to avert it.  [Unless, of course, they did it on purpose that way.]

What might a more effective communications strategy have looked like?  [A valid question.]

Rather than dropping this decree on an unsuspecting world, the Vatican could have called a press conference to present it, with senior officials such as Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews—so that the interpretation would be simultaneous, not after-the-fact. At that time, four key points could have been made:

    * This move is not an endorsement of the personal views of these four bishops. In particular, in light of Williamson’s past comments, the pope wishes to clearly repudiate any attempt to diminish or deny the horror of the Holocaust.
    * Catholicism’s commitment to fighting anti-Semitism, and to good relations with the Jewish people, is unchanged.
    * Lifting the excommunication gets the traditionalists in the door, but it does not mean they have arrived. If they are to be fully reintegrated, they must accept official Catholic teaching, including religious freedom and respect for other religions.
    * The pope feels he’ll have more leverage to nudge traditionalists in this direction by opening a dialogue, rather than keeping them on the outside.

That might not have been enough to short-circuit all the negative reaction, but it surely would have softened the blow. All four points were implied in the Jan. 25 statement from Ricard, as well as the Jan. 28 comments by Benedict XVI, but coming only in the wake of negative public reaction they inevitably smack of spin.

In short, the Vatican under Benedict XVI still has not learned the lessons of Regensburg. The terrible irony of these meltdowns is that they’re a boon for people hostile to the pope or the church, who can cluck about how "I told you so," while they fall hardest on those most inclined to be sympathetic.  [He has a point.]

Of course, if this cycle continues, there may not be many people left in that second category to worry about. [ouch]

* * *

As noted above, Williamson’s views should not be used to discredit every Catholic who feels the tug of classical liturgical forms, or who takes a traditional doctrinal stance. Many of the people drawn to the Society of St. Pius X, or any of the various traditionalist groups already in communion with Rome, are simply Catholics hungry for a clear sense of spiritual identity in a rootless world.

On the other hand, it would be equally misleading to style Williamson as a "lone gunman," an isolated crank with no connection to broader currents of thought in the traditionalist world.

The folly of that view was illustrated on Thursday by Fr. Floriano Abrahamowicz [5], a well-known priest of the Society of St. Pius X in northeastern Italy, who gave an interview to an Italian paper in which he defended Williamson. Abrahamowicz said he wasn’t sure that gas chambers had been used by the Nazis for anything other than "disinfection," seemed to cast doubt on the number of six million Jews killed, complained that the Holocaust has been exalted by Jews at the expense of other acts of genocide, and called the Jews a "people of deicide," referring to the death of Christ.

The fact that Abrahamowicz would voice these sentiments even after Fellay had apologized, and after Fellay insisted that the Society of St. Pius X has no competence to speak on anything other than faith and morals, illustrates how deeply entrenched they are in some quarters of traditionalist Catholicism.

The Abrahamowicz interview prompted the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, to go on Vatican Radio to say that "whoever denies the fact of the Shoah knows nothing of the mystery of God, nor of the Cross of Christ." Holocaust denial is "even more serious," Lombardi said, when it "comes from the mouth of a priest or a bishop, meaning a Christian minister, whether or not he’s in union with the Catholic church."

Meanwhile, Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci, a prior within the Society of St. Pius X, told reporters on Thursday that traditionalists still believe that many aspects of Vatican II "contradict the teaching of previous popes." In particular, Petrucci said the Lefebvrites remain "scandalized" by Pope Benedict XVI’s 2006 trip to Turkey, in which the pope paused for a moment of silent prayer in the Blue Mosque alongside the Grand Mufti of Istanbul. Petrucci said that popes before Vatican II had rejected inter-religious relations as a matter of principle, implying that Benedict XVI (like John Paul before him) is some sort of apostate.

In the wake of all this, the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X in Italy has canceled an upcoming national meeting, in order to avoid "further polemics and confusion." Translation: the leadership wasn’t sure it could keep a lid on what might be said on the floor of the meeting, or around the edges.  [good thinking]

What recent events make clear is that there are two camps in the small universe that rotates around the Society of St. Pius X. The first, represented by Fellay, is composed of traditionalists whose concerns are solely liturgical and doctrinal, and who see the future of their movement as a leaven within the formal structures of the church; the second, represented by Williamson and Abrahamowicz, includes people for whom theological traditionalism bleeds off into far-right politics, xenophobia, and conspiracy theories, and who are far more suspicious of any "deal" with the post-conciliar church. 

Benedict XVI’s calculation seems to be that the former represent the majority, and that the best way to isolate them from the latter is to open the door wide enough that only the real intransigents will refuse to walk through it.The risk, of course, is that the outside world won’t see the pope trying to steer the traditionalists toward moderation; it will instead see the pope rolling out the red carpet for a group that includes Holocaust deniers and hate-mongers.

All the more reason that somebody in the Vatican must think now about how to present the next act in this saga, rather than waiting for misunderstanding and heartache to erupt before cranking into motion.

The e-mail address for John L. Allen Jr. is jallen@ncronline.org

And oldie but a goodie from Creative Minority Report... just to lighten things up a bit.

The excellent blog of the diocesan newspaper of Kansas City, MO, The Catholic Key has an interesting piece.

You remember the Apostolic visitation of seminaries?

Vatican to Visit U.S. Women Religious Institutes

Breaking. Just came across my desk. More to come . . .

Vatican initiates study of Catholic sisters’ institutes in the United States

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has begun an Apostolic Visitation or comprehensive study of institutes of women religious in the United States.

The action was initiated by the Congregation’s prefect, Slovenian Cardinal Franc Rodé, C.M. The decree, issued December 22, 2008, indicated the Visitation is being undertaken ?in order to look into the quality of the life? of the members of these religious institutes.

The Visitation will be conducted under the direction of Mother Mary Clare Millea, A.S.C.J., whom Cardinal Rodé appointed Apostolic Visitator. Mother Millea, a Connecticut native, is superior general of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, an international religious institute headquartered in Rome, with approximately 1250 professed sisters worldwide, including 135 in the United States. She entered religious life in 1965 and professed perpetual vows in 1973.

The Visitation, which will collect and assimilate data and observations about religious life, will be limited to apostolic institutes, those actively engaged in service to Church and society. Cloistered, contemplative sisters, who have distinctly different lifestyles, are excluded from the study. Mother Millea will submit a confidential report to Cardinal Rodé at the conclusion of the task. Though there is no deadline, she hopes to complete the task by 2011.

Catholic women religious have been involved in apostolates such as education, healthcare and a variety of pastoral and social services in the United States since before the nation was founded. According to the Washington-based Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) however, the number of U.S. women religious has been in decline during the past 40 years, while their median age continues to increase.

"I am truly humbled, and a bit overwhelmed," Mother Millea said of her assignment. "While I have visited each of the communities and missions in my own congregation, the thought of gathering facts and findings about nearly 400 institutes across the United States can be daunting in scope."

"I am praying for all the sisters who will be a part of this Visitation, and hoping for their prayers
– both for the good of the process as well as for me in this role," she continued. "I ask the prayers of the American Catholic clergy and faithful too."

Despite her sense of awe at the size of the task, Mother Millea was encouraged by the project.

"I know that the object of this Visitation is to encourage and strengthen apostolic communities of women religious, for the simple reason that these communities are integral to the entire life of the Catholic Church, in the United States and beyond."

Mother Millea indicated that while she is not obliged to visit every community of women religious, she looks forward to learning and better understanding the "multi-faceted dimensions of the sisters’ religious lives, as well as their abundant contributions to the Church and society."

A website, apostolicvisitation.org, has been launched to provide basic information about the project.

 

Biretta tip to KK for the link.

Thanks to Fr. ER of Orthometer for this!



Spurred by this.

From Robert Micken’s of the far-left leaning English weekly, The Tablet.

My emphases and comments.

Benedict’s high risk strategy

Benedict XVI and the Lefebvrists

31 January 2009

Robert Mickens

The Pope has described it as an act of paternal mercy. But while the lifting of the excommunication of rebel Lefebvrist bishops has been praised by arch-traditionalists, it has shocked many Catholics and members of other faiths, especially Jews. Our Rome writer tracks the reasons for the turnaround and its consequences

 It came during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of Pope John XXIII’s announcement of the Second Vatican Council – news that Pope Benedict had decreed that the "Lefebvrists", the four bishops excommunicated for disobedience and who have never fully accepted the Council, could return to the Church.

The Pope instructed the Congregation for Bishops to "remit" the excommunications of four leaders of the schismatic Society of St Pius X (SSPX) otherwise known as Lefebvrists. The four men – Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso del Gallareta – incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication in June 1988 when they were illicitly ordained bishops by renegade Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (d. 1991), who founded the SSPX in 1970 and the Seminary of Ecône in south-west Switzerland.

According to the Vatican statement issued last Saturday, the Pope hopes that full communion would be reached as soon as possible. But the decree has raised many questions about the relationship between the SSPX and the Vatican, concerns among the faithful about the impact on the Church, and shock at the apparent welcome to one of the bishops, Richard Williamson, who has made outrageous anti-Semitic statements (which Vatican officials have roundly condemned).  [Is it the impact of one man that is worrisome? Or is the impact of the whole message from the SSPX that is of concern?]

The decree, which was actually dated and took effect on 21 January, was immediately applauded by the SSPX, which claims to have some 500 priests and between 400,000 and 600,000 followers, half of whom are believed to be in France. [Where there are political dimensions to be considered.]

While the director of the Holy See press office, Fr Federico Lombardi SJ, said soon after that one "could already speak of full communion", the situation is not that simple. The Vatican’s statement indicated the contrary and, even though the one-page decree did not offer any clarification, [The decree was necessarily limited to the point it addressed.] it appears that the whole order of SSPX priests remain suspended from celebrating the sacraments, as decreed by Pope Paul VI in 1976. And what was particularly noticeable in the decree is that there is no indication that the SSPX is repentant for the act of disobedience to Pope John Paul II by which they incurred the excommunication in the first place.  [But that is something they get to present to the Pope, and the Pope get’s to decide.]

Yet Pope Benedict’s decision to take this dramatic step should come as no surprise. It follows other key initiatives that he has undertaken, most specifically a series of actions two years ago to assure traditionalist Catholics that Vatican II did not substantially change Catholic liturgy or doctrine. In 2007 the Pope fully restored use of the Tridentine Rite and also ordered the publication of two doctrinal instructions that, according to a number of theologians, narrowed the interpretation of the council’s teaching on the nature of the Church and its relationship to other religions.

Those actions were all welcomed at the time by Bishop Fellay, the SSPX superior who had private talks with Pope Benedict XVI shortly after his election in 2005. It was that meeting, the Vatican’s press statement of 24 January said, that was the start of the reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome. "On that occasion, the Supreme Pontiff manifested the will to proceed by steps and in reasonable time on such a path," the statement said, and by lifting the excommunications the Pope was acting "benignly" and "with pastoral solicitude and paternal mercy".

It seems that he was also acting on his own initiative and did not widely consult other bishops – with the notable exception of Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos. Sources at the Vatican have told The Tablet that the almost-80-year-old head of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" is intent on healing the Lefebvrist schism before he retires. It was to Cardinal Castrillón that Bishop Fellay wrote on 18 December last year asking for removal of the excommunications and the decree says Pope Benedict acceded to the request. It even quotes part of Bishop Fellay’s letter to the cardinal in which he claims that he and the other three SSPX bishops accept the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings "with a filial spirit" and believe "firmly in the Primacy of Peter and its prerogatives".

But in a note to his followers on 24 January the bishop revealed another section of his December letter to Cardinal Castrillón that the Vatican decree does not mention. "We are ready to write the Creed with our own blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath (and) the profession of faith of Pius IV," he quoted from the letter. "We accept and make our own all the councils up to the Second Vatican Council about which we express some reservations."  [You know… I would like other bishops in the world stand up and say to the whole world "I will write the Creed in my blood and here… just listen as I take the Oath Against Modernism!"  Furthermore, not everything in the documents of Vatican II is crystal clear.  People of good will can differ about how to approach the questions those documents can raise.  "Vatican II" must not be reduced to a "spirit of Vatican II", or transmogrified into a nebulous concept which morphs into a "super-dogma" which must never be questioned.]

Vatican II is mentioned nowhere in the decree that remits the excommunications, and Fr Lombardi would not comment on whether the society was asked to adhere to the council’s teachings. [Notice how vague that is… "the Council’s teachings". ] However, French Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, a member of the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, said in a statement: "At a certain moment the question of the text of the Second Vatican Council, as a document of the Magisterium of primary importance, must be faced." This will evidently be discussed during talks aimed – as the decree states – at resolving "the still open questions, in order to quickly arrive at a full and satisfactory solution at the origin of the problem".

But will the talks really resolve the impasse? Archbishop Lefebvre (who is also not mentioned in the decree) [It is hard to ask the Pope for a remission of a censure when you are DEAD.]  rejected several important teachings of the Council, including those related to religious liberty, ecumenism and liturgy. And his followers have remained in defiance of those teachings. The official SSPX website for the US region says the Fraternity rejects the teaching on the "right to religious freedom" [Doesn’t this make it sound as if the members of the SSPX are against the natural dignity of man and his right to make religious choices?  The issue of religious liberty is more complicated than that.] and a number of other statements in contained in the Vatican II declaration Dignitatis Humanae because they are contrary to Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. [Interesting point.  What will they say about the Syllabus?  Will they come to an understanding about its place among the various types of magisterial documents?] The assertion in the Council declaration Nostra Aetate that the Catholic Church "rejects nothing of what is good and holy" in non-Christian religions, it says, is contrary to tradition. And it also flatly rejects ecumenism as found in the decree Unitatis Redintegratio because it holds to the belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the "unique ark of salvation" and that "Protestants and other non-Catholics do not have the faith". [Does that mean that there is only one possible approach to ecumenism?]

No wonder Cardinal Ricard cautioned that lifting the excommunication was only "the beginning of a process of dialogue" that would "undoubtedly be long". The cardinal noted that talks must resolve "two fundamental questions": the juridical structure of the SSPX and "an agreement on dogmatic and ecclesiological questions". The first could be resolved fairly soon, [as I have been saying…] given that the new decree says Pope Benedict is to reconsider the canonical situation of (the four bishops) concerning their episcopal consecration. But what type of "agreement" can be forged with a group whose only reason for existence is to "achieve a lasting restoration of the Church", namely as it existed before Vatican II? [What kind of agreement indeed?  One which doesn’t require a cookie-cutter approach to really hard questions?]

Many saw the timing of this decree as untoward, given that the Lefebvrists flatly reject ecumenism and most Vatican II reforms. [a bit of a broken record now…] But according to Fr Lombardi, it would be wrong to see the removal of their excommunications as an attack on Vatican II. "On the contrary," he said, "I think it is a beautiful thing that the Council is no longer considered an element of division, but as an element in which every member of the Church can meet."

A front-page editorial in L’Osservatore Romano on 26-27 January bitterly complained that critics of the decree had unfairly attacked the Pope. It said he was "inspired by the new style of Church desired by the council, which prefers the medicine of mercy rather than condemnation".  [Something perhaps which is being lost in amidst the snipping.] Bishop Fellay also saw it as a "unilateral, benevolent and courageous act".

By Wednesday, after the Chief Rabbinate of Israel had announced the breaking off of relations with the Vatican [ho hum… ] following the Pope’s decision to lift the excommunication of Bishop Williamson who denies the Holocaust, Benedict spoke out again. The move was a paternal act of mercy, he said, reiterating his own unequivocal opposition to anti-Semitism. The Vatican’s top ecumenical officer, Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said he was never consulted. "It was the decision of the Pope," the soon-to-retire cardinal told The New York Times last week.

In sharp contrast L’Osservatore Romano defended the remission of the excommunications as a "collegial choice" and not some "sudden and unforeseen gesture" taken unilaterally by the Pope. Some wonder if these attempts to move the Lefebvrist back to Rome could actually end up moving the rest of the Church towards Ecône.  [THERE IT IS!   The question I posed closer to the top.]

In the end, the real concern is whether the progressivists aren’t terrified of the influence within the Church the SSPXers may have once they are integrated.

If they are integrated, then they will have the right to speak their piece.

I can hardly wait for the say when SSPX or former SSPX priests will be attending deanery meetings and perhaps be elected to diocesan presbyteral councils.

 

A reader alerted me to the following from Jesuit magazine America, which I share with my emphases and comments.

The Good Word
A Blog on Scripture and Preaching

South Africa & Liturgical Change
Posted at: 2009-01-27 11:08:00.0
Author: Chris Chatteris, S.J.

In many ways South Africa is a laboratory of social change. Most unexpectedly, our little Catholic community has become an experiment in the minor religious department of that laboratory. I refer of course to the new English texts of the Mass which have generated such surprising friction. [Let’s think about this.  Which sort of friction, and who did it come from?  People who understood that the lame-duck ICEL translations were terribly deficient, even harmful, were barely noticed for decades.  Finally, "friction" brought the changes.  On the other side, "friction" is coming from the nay-sayers, though who resist the Holy See’s change of norms for liturgical translation.] It appears that the South African church has jumped the liturgical gun and we find ourselves well ahead of the rest of the anglophone Church in the process of implementation. [?] Our experience seems to be providing some valuable food for thought.  [Apparently new translations are in use ad experimentum?]

There are some unintended outcomes worth noting. One is that for those people for whom English is a second language this change is simply not their first priority, [Will we be told what their "first priority" is at some point down the line?  Any guesses as to what it will be?] and therefore they are unlikely to assimilate it easily. I was in Zimbabwe recently to give a short retreat to a group of young male religious from all over Africa. When I asked them whether we would be using the new texts, they looked completely blank. Many had never even heard of them. On reflection it was of course obvious that in a country where in some places the sign of peace has been discouraged because of cholera, liturgical language is way down on their present scale of concerns.  [Hmmm… why?  I wonder if this isn’t an echo of the old dichotomy so cherished among progressivists, the division in their world-view between "pastoral" and "traditional" and even "intellectual".  If you make too many distinctions (distinctions which bring you into alignment with Rome, that is) you are somehow not "pastoral".  "Pastoral" people toss the rule-book, or shy from careful distinctions.  They are "pastoral" while others are… well… "mean".]

So it would seem likely that because this second-language group is less concerned about the issue than native speakers, they will keep the old ICEL text as a kind of ‘default’ version. [So, then the new texts fo into force they will break the rules.  See what I mean?] Most probably won’t have enough practice to get the new texts into their heads [Is this suggestion that they aren’t very smart?] even if they think it worthwhile printing the leaflets. [Printing leaflets is a practical concern I can understand in a poor country.] We are actually talking about a lot of people – countries like India, the Philippines and Nigeria where there are substantial populations of second language English-speakers who sometimes do celebrate in English. [Time and again, I have heard from bishops and priests from the countries mentioned that the people appreciate LATIN.  Would that be a good approach?  Use Latin and let people in the pews have whatever translation they want?]

In similar vein, I recently led a workshop for some religious sisters in Johannesburg, most of whom were second-language English-speakers. We didn’t have any leaflets available so we decided to use the old ICEL version with the exception of including the response ‘And with your spirit’. It was an awkward hybrid, and probably not the first or last!  [So… the hybrid was "awkward".  Who decided to do it that way?]

Another potential force for liturgical division lies in the recent permission given to celebrate the Tridentine rite. [Okay… this writer seems to interpret developments through a hermeneutic of rupture.] Among native English speakers I have heard several people remark wryly that if the Latin Mass Society has the right to use the Tridentine version, what is there to stop a ‘Vatican II Society’ claiming their right to stick to the old ICEL Mass?  [Ehem… the Church’s law?  Summorum Pontificum is the law of the Church.  Right now using the lame-duck ICEL version is the law of the Church, except apparently in those places where the new texts are used ad experimentum.] If the Church was unable to resist the demands of a small group like the Latin Mass Society, it’s unlikely to be able to say no to the much larger numbers that might to want to celebrate in the old ICEL version.  [Slick, huh?  Will he suggest, as he did above, that you should be able to get your way by breaking the rules… so you can be "pastoral"?]

I cite these examples point to the possible unintended outcome of a kind of Protestant fragmentation.  [Look how slyly he worked that in.  Instea, couldn’t we consider Original Sin as a reason for fragmentation, as well as the sloppy ministry of shepherds who should have done a better job?] We could end up with four versions of the Roman rite in the English-speaking world – Tridentine, Vatican II Latin, old ICEL and new (Vox Clara) ICEL. Plus hybrids.  [Not if pastors of souls do their jobs properly.]

One also needs to bear in mind here that a widely-spoken language like English tends naturally to break up into dialects.  [I wonder if that is true.  Languages tend to simplify.  But this is a global age, now.  Languages are becoming more homogeneous.  Perhaps in places where media is less dominant…. I dunno.  Interesting.] So when one has a generally accepted text being used over such a broad language group, one has to think quite carefully about how to go about changing it. Chipping away at the statue, even with the admirable aim of improving it, might just cause it to shatter.  [Overly dramatic.] The irony of this is that diversification was definitely not the aim – rather the opposite: a universal use was envisaged, which is precisely what we might lose.

It would seem from reaction so far here in South Africa, that there is considerable unhappiness with the texts themselves among first-language speakers. [I think that says a lot about the situation there.] Perhaps this should have been foreseen. It’s hard enough to be told how to speak one’s own language under the best of circumstances. If those circumstances are that the prescribed speech feels like a clumsy, clinging translation (‘faithful, but not beautiful’ as the French would say), [Who really wouldn’t prefer faithful to beautiful?] and that rather better texts have been sidelined, [Not, apparently, in the opinion of those who actually had the authority chose the texts.  Hmmm… an odd approach from a Jesuit who must make a certain vow to obedience to the Roman Pontiff.] one must expect a reaction. But presumably the assumption was that the reception would be a smooth matter.  [Who assumed that?  I don’t think any one thought it would be easy.  But it will be a lot harder if priests and bishops set out to undermine the Church’s efforts through this sort of grousing.] A miscalculation perhaps, and something to be noted by other English-speaking regions.  ["Take warning!"]

I wonder if the memory of the change from the Tridentine to the vernacular rite may have played a part in the forming of this assumption. Because for all the unhappiness caused for a minority by that change, [Huh?  Were people in the pews clamoring for a change?  Wasn’t the problem more one of implementation?  How have things gone since the changes?   See what sorts of things the writer simply passes over?] the move from Tridentine Latin to vernacular English (and all the other languages of the universal Church), went remarkably smoothly and was generally well received. [And things are been splendid in the Church world-wide…because of the ICEL translations, right?]  I suspect that the theological ‘tide in the affairs of men’ was just right for such a shift. The texts themselves had a simple beauty and power, [What planet has he been on?]  we had been prepared by the Council, the change came with the full authority of that Council.  ["full authority of the Counci".... right.  The Council said that Latin was to be preserved and did so with its full authority.  The Council said no change was to be made unless it was for the true good the faithful.  The Council said Gregorian chant had pride of place.  Look how the writer skips over these details in order to emphases the break with our tradition rather than what the Council said had to be preserved.] Do similar conditions hold today I wonder?

Where to from here? It probably all depends on what happens in the English-speaking ‘big five’ – the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia/New Zealand and Ireland. If the new texts are received with open arms in these countries then fragmentation probably won’t happen or will be limited. On the other hand if there is considerable resistance [Which I assume he is trying subtly to rally.] we could end up with a very messy dog’s breakfast indeed. Any hope of a single international version for the English liturgy could be lost forever.  [I think he is arguing that we should stick with the lame-duck translations.]

It might be prudent, therefore, for the ‘big five’ to do further research to avoid the possibility of worse versions of what is happening here. The liturgical unity of the English-speaking Catholic church might depend on it. [O the drama!] A simple, practical step would be for English-speaking hierarchies to implement the new texts as an experiment in a few selected dioceses and after a year or so gauge the reception. If the new texts get a full and joyful reception among priests and people in those experimental dioceses, all well and good. If not, then there will still be the chance to think again and commission something more suitable.  [Because this is a democracy, and the lowest-common denominator should make these decisions.]

My personal conviction is that the people of God understand that only the best is good enough for the sacred liturgy and that they will recognise that best when they hear it.  [This is a good line, actualy.  But I think that the writer is sowing discontent about what is good, better and best.]

Chris Chatteris, S.J.

 

A reader alerted me to this from The Telegraph.

Priests [not] stage fashion show

The latest fashions among the clergy were on display in Devon as local priests [not] swapped pulpits for the catwalk.

Last Updated: 1:40PM GMT 30 Jan 2009

Clergy Catwalk Show at Westpoint, showing off the cloths form the cloth is – Reverend Wiz Slater, [You wouldn’t be able to make this up fast enough, would you.] curate [curette?] at St Michael’s CofE Stoke Gifford Photo: SWNS  

The ecclesiastical event was a showcase of the latest designs of religious gowns in various colours, patterns, shapes and textures.

Several priests [not] acted as ‘models’ to strut the cat walk in front of hundreds of clergy at the exhibition.

One model, The Rev James Hutchings, said: "I’ve done nothing like this before. [ugh] It has certainly caused lots of laughs in the parish.

"My children thought it was hilarious. They probably won’t ask me back. My pirouette was terrible."

Designers featured in the show including J Wippell Ltd, of Exeter, Juliet Hemingway and Shinglers of Sutton.

Ms Hemingway, who has designed vestments for George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, told the Express and Echo: "Women clergy have brought a fresh look to garments.

"They are not as willing to put up with dirty, worn-out robes. I think this has rubbed off on male clergy."  [This is why we need The Sacristines, not female clergy.]

Reverend Hilary Dawson, Church of England curate in the Netherexe Mission Community, near Exeter, modelled various designs. She told the newspaper she had bought four stoles from Juliet Hemingway.

"My stoles say something about my faith, the place in which I am serving and, most of all, point to the gospel of Christ," she said. "My green stole, for example, reflects the water and hills [blech] of my new home and parishes."

Okay… I can understand how you might have a parish catechesis event where you show children and interested adults vestments and clerical garb so that they understand better what it is… but in a Catholic context this would strikes me as sacrilegious.  

What’s next?  Pole dancing and a return to ritual temple prostitution?

I am reminded of the phrase of the late Fr. Neuhaus, namely, that the C of E exists in order to make irony redundant.  This sort of thing sure bolsters that sad observation.

UPDATE: 23:35 GMT

Some people have freaked out that I posted some fairly well-founded reports that Bp. Williamson was perhaps gravely ill.  I clearly stated where I got the reports and I what my motives were.

If his health is bad, pray for him.  If it is not bad, pray for him anyway.  If the rumor is true, we are right to pray for him.  If not, then we are happy that he isn’t ill and grateful for the clarifications… which would have been far less visible if posted on some blog or source that get less traffic then we do here.

The health of a such a pivotal figure as Bp. Williamson is important for how the Holy See and the SSPX will work things out. 

If he were ill, people of good will would want to know so that we could pray for him in these critical days.

I was happy that the Holy Father remitted the excommunications of all four of the SSPX bishops.

I will be elated if all four will one day be in close and clear unity with the Roman Pontiff in a formal way. 

I would be very sad indeed were any one of them not be able to see that day.

I have shut down the combox and deleted a few comments to keep the knuckle-head stuff off my screen and to preserve whatever corrections to the "rumors" there may have been.

In the meantime, check this out:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/note.html

We have learned from a source in daily contact with Bishop Williamson the following information: “His Excellency is alive and well and rumors of a tumor are a lie and a very transparent attempt to draw Bishop Williamson out into the public arena for some sort of comment or interview. Those who care about him will help resist such attempts.”

____________

ORIGINAL POST

The Italian site Messa In Latino is reporting that perhaps SSPX Bp. Williamson may be suffering, even dying, from cancer.

Among other La Repubblica’s Marco Politti, not my favorite but very well-informed, recounted what Bp. Negri of San Marino said, namely, that Williamson has a tumor and is dying: "Intanto mons. Williamson è chiuso nel seminario di La Reja in Argentina. Il vescovo di San Marino mons. Luigi Negri ha dichiarato a sorpresa a Repubblica-Tv che il presule «ha un tumore e sta morendo."

Also, Card. Castrillon was reported to hav commented on Bp. Williamson’s health.

I bring this to your attention for no other motive than to urge you

a) to offer prayers and even fasting and almsgiving for the swift reconciliation of the SSPX and

b) to offer prayers and other mortifications for Bp. Williamson if, in fact, his condition is grave along these lines.

God is merciful and omniscent and no prayer or act of charity is in vain.

Should all this blow over, your charitable offerings will nevertheless be of benefit to the whole Church, militant and suffering.

 

From the always vigilant Rorate this is the apology sent be SSPX Bp. Williamson to His Eminence Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos, President of the P.Comm. Ecclesia Dei.  It was written to 28 January 2009.

Apology Letter of Bishop Richard Williamson

To His Eminence Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos

Your Eminence

Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.

For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:

"Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you."

Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.

Sincerely yours in Christ 

+Richard Williamson

He manned-up.

Well done.

Sincere WDTPRS kudos.

Now we must all pray that in the near future men of good will can work out differences with humility and charity towards each other.

I’m chillin’ the Widow!

Some say the burger is the perfect food group.

So what’s it gonna be?

A hamburger?  A cheeseburger?

Of course, you can add all sorts of other things, such as lettuce or tomato, or a smear of mustard or mayo.

Call it a "California" Burger.

It can be on a regular bun, or an onion roll, or even open-face, like a patty-melt.

You can have onions raw or grilled or fried or sauteed.

You can have ketchup or … not.

You can even put pickles on it.

But I think the essential difference lies in the addition or subtraction of cheese.

Whatever sort of cheese.

POLL CLOSED

 

The traditional Catholic paper The Remnant has a piece by a frequent comment writer here, Brian Mershon, about a possible reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome perhaps by Candlemas, 2 February.

I will not parse Mershon’s whole piece, for it is pretty long-winded and you should in justice visit the Remnant also.  But here are some salient bits:

Brian Mershon
(Exclusive to The Remnant)

...

In fact, Vatican sources have indicated that the full regularization may occur as early as February 2, 2009, the Feast of the Purification of Our Lady and Candlemas, which, if true, would be quite a Christmas present to the Church and especially traditionalist Catholics worldwide!

Vatican Working on Stable Juridical Structure

Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, chief of Human Life International’s Rome bureau, could not confirm the February 2 date, ["...not confirm…"] but said his Curial source told him that they are currently busy working out the practical arrangements for a fully regularized Society of St. Pius X.

The final solution “cannot depend upon individual diocesan bishops,” [no kidding!] Monsignor Barreiro said, noting the longsuffering many traditionalist Catholics experienced for nearly 20 years under the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta arrangement.

“They would certainly need to have guarantees that where they currently are located, they cannot be touched by the local bishop,” Barreiro said, noting the Society’s chapels being located across the globe, which he described as “de facto parishes.”  Barreiro rightly noted that the Society bishops most likely would not accept any solution that involved jurisdiction by the local territorial Ordinary. [Well… okay.  But the local bishop can’t really be ignored can he?  Even if this winds up being a personal prelature, the local bishop has to have some say.  This will need some creative thinking.  But the Commission has access to some very good canonists.  Very good.]

France’s Seminaries to be Over One-Third Traditionalist

In fact, specific resistance is most prevalent in the dying churches of France with their bishops and priests.  [One French priest I know said Mass attendance in regular churches was about 2%.  In years, he had heard a handful of confessions.  God have mercy.] Upon final regularization, Monsignor Barreiro said, “More than one-third of all seminarians in France will be in traditionalist seminaries.” This would include the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Good Shepherd and the Institute of Christ the King (ICR) as well as some other lesser known traditionalist priestly groups.

“I expect that some structure like a universal Apostolic Administration may be the only solution,” Monsignor Barreiro said, while cautioning that he did not have direct access to the specific details.

...

Vatican II and All the Councils

“They won’t be asked to accept the Council,” Monsignor Barreiro said. “There is nothing dogmatic regarding faith and morals in the Council documents,” he emphasized. “Many have elevated the Council as if it were a superdogma, when in truth, it was not dogmatic at all.”  ["superdogma" ....  sounds familiar these days…]

...

Vatican Will Not Demand SSPX Swallow the Council

In other words, there will be no demand for the SSPX leadership to accept the “Decree on Social Communication” as an infallible, dogmatic document.  [ACK!  NO  Okay… deal’s off…]

And despite the ruminations of certain bishops, cardinals, priests, Cardinal Kasper and even George Weigel, neither will they be asked to accept the Decree on Ecumenism, the Declaration of Religious Liberty, Nostra Aetate or even Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum as dogmatic declarations that can stand alone without reading them in light of Tradition.  [Which would be an unreasonable claim, wouldn’t it.  All the Council’s documents must be interpreted in the light of our Tradition.]

...

I know Msgr. Barriero and know him to be a solid and thoughful source.  He has a good canonical view as well.

Folks… let us repeat this even as we pray over the hopeful developments:

People of good will ought to be free to disagree over things which are not crystal clear, over the difficult questions raised in the Council’s documents.

Humility is needed on both sides, on the part of those who represent the Holy See and Pope Benedict and those of the SSPX who will offer their concerns and perspectives.

At all costs the Council, or it’s "spirit" must not be elevated to a "super-dogma", which can never be questioned or challenged.

Neither should the SSPX see themselves as the sole-saviors of the Church, who have all the answers and need not submit to Peter or give assent to the Church’s teachings.

I received this very interesting note from a staffer of a US Congressman whom I will not identify for obvious reasons.  I have his permission to share this:

My emphases

Fr. Z:

As a Congressional staffer, I am extremely concerned that we pro-lifers are falling into what I am starting to see as the “FOCA Trap.”

If my fellow conservatives in Congress – policy makers who actually know what’s possible and what’s not – were speaking privately, I think they would admit that FOCA doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of ever even getting a committee hearing let alone being passed or signed into law. That is because it’s so radical that even most of the pro-abortion Democrats probably wouldn’t even support it.

Now, all this begs the question: why are all the bishops and most of the pro-life activists singularly focused on it?   [Good question.  Are they falling for a head feint?]

The quick answer is because Obama said at some point that he would sign it into law. Then all the activists, talk radio, the USCCB, etc. all kicked into gear and started on the offense. But is that a good thing?

As I said, anyone serious who knows the Hill knows it will never pass – including Obama. So, while the wagons are all circled around FOCA, Obama, the Democrats and the pro-abortion lobby can pick apart the incremental progress we’ve made over the years on partial-birth, overseas abortion funding, funding for abortions on military bases, embryonic stem cell research, etc. And they’ll do it while we’re all signing post cards in church about FOCA. It’s a brilliant diversion.

[“... a brilliant diversion…”]

Then, one day, Obama will come out against FOCA and say it’s too extreme. Then he’ll be heralded as a moderate, all while our progress is wiped out, and millions more babies are murdered.

Father, unless I’m very wrong, we are falling into the FOCA Trap and we must stop now, protect the gains we have made and fight like mad every time the next Mexico City fight comes instead of just saying “Oh well, we knew he’d do this.”

We need to keep our eyes on the real enemy – and that is not FOCA.

Very interesting!

Calm discussion, please, or I will toss you.

This is too important to clutter with the bone-head stuff that adds nothing of use.

The johnny-on-the-spot site Rorate has two good pieces you would do well to look at.

First, there is an entry called Cardinal Castrillón: Relevant declarations to Corriere della Sera   Also check Corriere.

Here is a salient point or two:

The Holy See did not know about SSPX Bp. Williamson’s interview with a Swedish TV station in which he spoke about the Holocaust.

Also… and this is HUGE…. HUGE:

Full communion will come. In our discussions, Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it theologically. Only a few difficulties remain…

It is precisely about these difficulties that we must pray.  We must pray that people of good will can disagree about points which are not clear and still remain in unity.

Also check out New Fellay interview: "The eventual separations will be minimal"

Key points:

 

Did you expect, Your Excellency, this removal of the excommunication concerning you?

[Fellay:] I expected it since 2005,...

 

After that he dodges around a little, I think mostly for the hard-line followers, but his intention is clear enough.

It is the beginning of something, which had already begun with the Motu proprio [Summorum Pontificum]. I think that the Pope appreciates the work that we do.

And,

In this development, this movement, some have held that you departed too late. Do you believe today that others, especially inside the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, may hold that you are departing too soon?

I cannot rule out everything, but, in case there are separations, they will be extremely minimal.

And more importantly:

 

[Fellay] Up to now, our roadmap has been to clarify first the doctrinal problems – even if it does not mean settling everything, but obtaining a sufficient clarification – or we risk doing things incompletely. Or it may end up badly.

And do you believe that, beyond Rome, your contacts will intensify?

[Fellay] It is the goal, as I explained in Rome, by saying that the situation, as we propose it, is certainly temorary, but it is pacifying, and that it will allow all souls of good will to catch up. This will thus be done gradually. And this will also depend on the reaction on the other side. But there is no a priori, the only a priori is that of Truth and of Charity.

 

As I have been writing repeatedly for day… people of good will ought to be able to disagree on things which are not absolutely clear and still remain in union.   We need a sufficient agreement, not perfect agreement.

This is one of those situation in which we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

Also, anyone truly interesting in the Truth, must be willing to sit and discuss in Charity.

I am very glad for what I have read here.

 

 

And now… another dog bites man story from a washed up dissenter.

This is in from ANSA:

Liberation theologian and dissenter Leonardo Boff has determined that the lifting of the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops was a mistake.

It is obviously part of the Pope’s conservative program and it might lead to a schism on the left!

It is nice to know that Boff agrees with me that Pope Benedict has a program.

I don’t have time or energy to translate this, but some of the highpoints….

• The concession of the remission is surprising, even scandalous!
• It’s part of the conservative viewpoint of the Pope who is distancing himself from Vatican II.
  
• The Pope is trying to create a mono-political unity in the Church which is not open to dialogue.
• He was condemned for his theology when Ratzinger was Prefect of CDF and now this!
• The Pope is trying to revise the Council.
• This isn’t a pastoral approach.  A pastor should be more prudent.
• He is weakening the consensus that formed around the Council.
• And yet he defended the decision about Williamson, who is an isolated voice without significance outside his own fundamentalist world.
• Williamson should have no impact on the Church outside of what the media stirs.
• He likes Pres. Obama and thinks Pres. Bush should be tried for war-crimes.
• Blah blah

» 2009-01-29 21:17
LEFEBVRIANI: BOFF, RATZINGER RISCHIA SCISMA DEI PROGRESSISTI
Di Roberto Cattani

BELEM (BRASILE)- La revoca della scomunica ai vescovi lefebvriani fa parte di un progetto conservatore di Papa Benedetto XVI, che potrebbe portare ad uno scisma in seno alla Chiesa cattolica: lo ha detto all’ANSA il teologo brasiliano Leonardo Boff, uno dei fondatori della Teologia della Liberazione, che partecipa a Belem al World Social Forum. "La concessione del perdono ai lefebvriani è sorprendente, e per molti settori della Chiesa addirittura scandaloso – ha detto Boff -. E’ chiaro che fa parte della logica di Papa Benedetto XVI, che intende unificare la Chiesa conservatrice, tradizionalista, che prende le distanze dal Concilio Vaticano II, e per questo progetto, per lui, i lefebvriani sono alleati naturali". "Così – ha proseguito il teologo francescano – il Papa rafforza le sue posizioni e crea un’unità più monolitica della Chiesa, che non è un’unità aperta al dialogo, un’unità di comunione".

"Posso solo dire – ha aggiunto ancora Boff, che era stato condannato per le sue tesi progressiste da Ratzinger quando questi era prefetto della Congregazione della Fede – che ritengo deprecabile questo passo del Papa, anche perché ho il fondato sospetto che i lefebvriani non si accontenteranno di questa vittoria, passeranno presto ad esigere di più, fino ad arrivare ad una revisione del Concilio Vaticano II. E una cosa del genere, se si dovesse arrivare a tanto, potrebbe portare addirittura ad uno scisma nella Chiesa, perché il Concilio Vaticano II è universale, e una rottura con le sue conquiste è una rottura nel corpo della Chiesa".

E questo nonostante l’appello del Papa ai lefebvriani affinché riconoscano il Concilio. "Ritengo perciò – ha proseguito il teologo, che oggi insegna all’università brasiliana di Petropolis – che si tratti di una politica rischiosa questa che il Papa porta avanti. Innanzitutto non è una prospettiva pastorale, non è prudente, e il pastore dev’essere per forza prudente. E poi indebolisce tutti quelli che vogliono la Chiesa riunita attorno al vero consenso creato di forma ufficiale, che è stato e rimane tuttora il Concilio Vaticano II". Sul vescovo negazionista Williamson, Boff ha invece difeso Benedetto XVI.

 "Quella di Williamson è una coscienza alienata, falsa – ha detto il teologo francescano nell’intervista all’ANSA – D’altronde è stato subito corretto in maniera chiara e inequivocabile dallo stesso Papa, che sull’argomento della Shoah é già tornato più volte senza ambiguità". "Il problema piuttosto è che le assurdità del vescovo inglese sono il segnale più vistoso di un certo livello di fondamentalismo ecclesiastico per il quale non esiste nulla al di fuori della galassia ecclesiale: il mondo finisce con la Chiesa". "Le sparate di Williamson non hanno nessun significato al di là dell’individuo – ha commentato Boff – E’ effettivamente una voce isolata, che non dovrebbe avere nessuna ripercussione al di là del fatto mediatico, non ne vale la pena, mostra solo l’ignoranza della persona, ma non depone certo contro la Chiesa nel suo insieme". Boff ha anche espresso "speranza e fiducia" nel neopresidente americano Barack Obama. "Come teologo a me sembra una figura provvidenziale – ha detto Boff – Sembra proprio che Dio abbia avuto pietà del mondo, dopo gli anni di presidenza di George W. Bush, che invece dovrebbe essere processato per crimini contro l’umanità".

RABBINATO RICEVE RISPOSTA S.SEDE E VALUTA INCONTRO
Segnali di distensione – culminati in uno scambio di lettere – si sono fatti strada tra il Rabbinato di Israele e il Vaticano, dopo le minacce di rottura dei giorni scorsi"Passi avanti" verso la ripresa del dialogo, dicono a Gerusalemme, anche se potrebbero essere necessari "ulteriori chiarimenti". La crisi aperta tra ebrei e cattolici con la revoca della scomunica ai quattro vescovi lefebvriani coincisa con le dichiarazioni negazioniste di uno di questi è una ferita ancora aperta, ma le parole pronunciate ieri dal Papa sulla Shoah, la rinnovata "solidarietà" ai fratelli ebrei e la condanna del negazionismo sono state un balsamo benefico.

 Apprezzate da molti esponenti del mondo ebraico, sono state seguite da uno scambio di lettere tra il Rabbinato di Israele e il presidente del Pontificio consiglio per l’Unità dei cristiani, card.Walter Kasper, e da una serie di dichiarazioni di condanna dell’antisemitismo giunte dal mondo cattolico. Abbastanza per non far prendere troppo sul serio le nuove dichiarazioni negazioniste giunte, stavolta, dall’Italia, dal capo dei lefebfvriani del nordest Don Floriano Abrahamowicz, che restano per gli ebrei e per la stragrande maggioranza dei cattolici, incluso il superiore dei lefebvriani italiani, "inaccettabili" ma che – secondo fonti ebraiche – "non possono e non devono annullare i passi avanti fatti finora nel dialogo tra ebrei e cristiani".

 La lettera inviata da Kasper a nome della S. Sede è stata giudicata dal direttore generale del Gran Rabbinato di Gerusalemme, Oded Wiener, "importante, molto bella e molto seria". "Kasper – riferisce all’ANSA – ribadisce l’importanza che la Chiesa annette al dialogo con noi e chiede che l’incontro fissato per l’inizio di marzo abbia luogo nella data prestabilita". Una richiesta che verrà valutata la prossima settimana in "maniera approfondita".

 "All’inizio della prossima settimana – ha proseguito Wiener – esamineremo la lettera del cardinale Kasper congiuntamente con il testo del discorso pronunciato ieri da papa Benedetto XVI, che pure era molto importante non solo per gli ebrei ma per il mondo intero perché respingeva i negazionisti della Shoah. Quel discorso ha rappresentato un passo avanti per la soluzione della vicenda". Wiener ha aggiunto che è comunque possibile che anche in seguito all’esame di quei documenti il Rabbinato necessiti ulteriori chiarimenti. Del resto, aggiunge Wiener, le esternazioni di Abrahamovicz, secondo il quale le camere a gas "servivano solo a disinfettare", dimostrano "quanto era opportuna la nostra immediata reazione". E chi nega la Shoah "deve essere in carcere, e non fra i leader religiosi". "Da entrambe la parti – ha osservato, riferendosi al mondo ebraico e a quello cattolico – occorre fare ogni sforzo per lottare contro il fenomeno (del negazionismo, ndr) finché è circoscritto, per impedire che il veleno si diffonda". Meno distesi i toni della comunità ebraica tedesca, che ha deciso di interrompere temporaneamente il dialogo con la Chiesa cattolica a causa della revoca della scomunica al vescovo negazionista Williamson, augurandosi "un coro di proteste nella Chiesa contro la decisione del Papa".

La revoca della scomunica viene peraltro criticata anche da duecento sacerdoti e teologi svizzeri, in una lettera aperta alla Conferenza episcopale elvetica. La decisione del Papa viene definita un errore che si iscrive in una serie di decisioni "fortemente regressive" assunte dal Vaticano sotto la guida di papa Benedetto XVI. Della stessa opinione, il teologo della Liberazione Leonardo Boff, secondo il quale l’apertura di credito ai lefebvriani potrebbe condurre addirittura, se fosse messo in discussione il Concilio Vaticano II,ad uno scisma dei cattolici progressisti.