My friend John Allen, the nearly ubiquitous fair-minded columnist of the sadly ultra-liberal National Catholic Reporter has good analysis in his regular Friday piece. Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.
Benedict’s ongoing battle against secularism
by John L Allen Jr on Nov. 06, 2009Much has been made lately [by liberals] of Pope Benedict XVI’s apparent lenience for "cafeteria Catholicism" on the right. Two developments have fed the perception: talks between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X, the "Lefebvrites," who broke with Rome in protest of liberalizing currents after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65); and new structures to allow Anglicans to become Catholic while preserving their heritage, with the most likely takers being conservative Anglicans opposed to homosexuality and women’s ordination. [These are both nightmare scenarios for liberals.]
Though it’s not clear how many Lefebvrites or Anglicans will walk through the doors Rome has tried to open, the effect on both fronts will be to inject new pockets of traditionalist believers into the Catholic circulatory system.
What’s the underlying logic for such moves? While it may at first blush seem unrelated, [Allen makes a good connection here…] a controversial decision on Tuesday by the European Court of Human Rights, which held that displaying crucifixes in Italian public school classrooms violates freedom of conscience, can help provide some context.
In effect, Benedict’s outreach to Lefebvrites and dissident Anglicans forms part of a trend I’ve described as "evangelical Catholicism." One cornerstone is to reassert markers of Catholic distinctiveness [good phrase] – such as Mass in Latin, and traditional moral teaching – as a means of ensuring that the church is not assimilated to secularism. At the policy-setting level of the church today, this defense of Catholic identity is job number one. [Mr. Allen is right. Pope Benedict has some goal for this pontificate. If we are going to fight the dictatorship of relativism, we need a strong Catholic identity. If we are going to evangelize, we need a strong Catholic identity. If we are going to engage in true ecumenism, we need a strong Catholic identity. Liturgy is the key component in his "Marshall Plan" for the Church. Remember what the Marshall Plan was supposed to promote. The parallel for the Church is clear.]
Historically, "evangelical Catholicism" is a creative impulse rather than something purely defensive, with roots in the papacy of Leo XIII in the late 19th century and his effort to bring a renewed Catholic tradition to bear on social and political life. [so that we, as Catholics, have an influence in the public square.] Nevertheless, fear that secularism may erode the faith from within is also a powerful current propelling evangelical Catholicism forward.
To over-simplify a bit, Benedict XVI is opening the door to the Lefebvrites and to traditionalist Anglicans in part because whatever else they may be, they are among the Christians least prone to end up, in the memorable phrase of Jacques Maritain, "kneeling before the world," meaning sold out to secularism. [Not to mention the fact that they are Christians who are separated from clear unity with the Church. Pope Benedict stresses the importance of his role as Pope as being one of promoting unity. It is not just that they a Christians who tend to agree with him. They are separated. He is trying to reintegrate them.]
At this stage, some critics may be tempted to ask if the cure is perhaps worse than the disease — in other words, if secularism is really so bad.
Benedict XVI himself has talked about a "healthy secularism," which involves the separation of church and state and recognition of the essentially lay character of politics. Evangelical Catholics such as the late Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris actually see this kind of secularism as a precondition for authentic faith, because it forces Christianity to be a personal choice, rather than something imbibed from religiously homogenous cultures where faith and practice are buttressed by the state.
"We’re really at the dawn of Christianity," Lustiger used to say of the transition to a secular world.
Yet that’s not the perception of secularism that tends to drive the ecclesiastical train these days, especially in Europe. At senior levels of the church, there’s a growing conviction that a tipping point has been reached — that Western secularization is crossing the line from neutrality to outright hostility, toward religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Cardinal Renato Martino, the former President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, put things this way: "It looks like a new Inquisition. It is a lay Inquisition, but it is so nasty. You can freely insult and attack Catholics, and nobody will say anything."
All of which brings us back to the stunner this week from the European Court of Human Rights.
The court, based in Strasbourg, issued its ruling in response to a petition from an Italian woman [Finish woman] named Soile Lautsi, who lives near Padua and who claimed that having crucifixes in the public school classrooms attended by her two children violates the church/state separation provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court agreed, awarding Lautsi 5,000 euros (roughly $7,400) in damages.
The court did not order Italian schools to remove the crucifixes, in part because under European law it had no authority to do so. Lautsi had tried and failed to press the issue in Italian courts, which rejected her claim on the basis that crucifixes are symbols of Italy’s national identity.
The Vatican was predictably dismayed. Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, issued a statement greeting the ruling with "astonishment and sorrow." Lombardi decried the effort to "cast out of the educational world a fundamental sign of the importance of religious values in Italian history and culture."
It’s tough not to regard the ruling as a way for European judges to grind an axe, since whatever else it may mean, it certainly does not augur the end of crucifixes in Italian classrooms. Italian authorities have said they will appeal, [What’s wrong with that statement….] and politicians of the left, right and center tripped over one another denouncing the ruling. Polls have consistently showed overwhelming public support for leaving the crucifixes in place.
"No one, and certainly not an ideological European court, will succeed in erasing our identity," said Italian Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini, a member of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right coalition.
Perhaps the lone indisputable result of Tuesday’s ruling, therefore, is that it will cement impressions among many religious believers, and particularly among Catholics, that Europe’s secular elites are determined to drive religion out of public life — that the "nasty lay inquisition" to which Martino referred continues apace.
In that cultural milieu, one in which Catholic identity is perceived to be under assault — and, given Tuesday’s decision, it’s hard to fault church leaders for drawing that conclusion — it’s no surprise that defense of Catholic identity has become an idée fixe. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?] That includes efforts to welcome groups into the church who are ferociously committed to important markers of identity, such as traditional forms of liturgy and devotion and traditional moral teachings. [Not to mention the fact that they are separated and Christ prayed that we be one.]
One may, of course, dispute the wisdom of Benedict’s open-door policy for the Lefebvrites or disgruntled Anglicans. Yet to pretend that such moves are inexplicable apart from the personal predilections of a conservative pope is to ignore the social reality of contemporary Europe. [And those people are also Christians who should be in unity with the Church.]
It’s not paranoia, in other words, if they really are out to get you.
* * *
I was in Spain this week, speaking at an international symposium organized by the Capuchins on the subject of "What Does Europe Believe In?" with the subtitle, "The Capuchins between Secularization and the Return of Religious Life."
[…]
You can read the rest of Mr. Allen’s article at that place over there.
Yes, there is no question that having the followers of the SSPX and traditional Anglicans will be helpful in bolstering a strong traditional Catholic identity. But let us not simply reduce this to a pragmatic decision. Opening the door to these groups is the right thing to do.
And Pope Benedict is the Pope of Christian Unity.
It has been a bad week for Planned Parenthood, which originated from the eugenecist ravings of Margaret Sanger who wanted an organization to eliminate black people.
ng than the movie, in some ways. But let’s leave that aside.
beginning, I couldn’t help but think of the beginning of the first of the Lord of the Rings movies when Galadriel is filling us in on the past. The music is derivative too, you will hear a little splash of Allegri’s Miserere. At the end of the movie is the eye-roll provoking pop single style song over the credits, in a style that conflicts with the rest of the movie. The style of the filming is that of an early silent movie in some respects. You may be reminded, as I was, of Grapes of Wrath or the classic of the 1920’s The Passion of Saint Joan (of Arc), remastered not long ago with new music sung by the Anonymous 4. Lo and behold in this film, in the credits, you find the Anonymous 4 as well. The bottom line, this is a deft recycling of some things you will have seen before. 
in the film) going up the slope of a hill to a crucifix where he is killed. As a matter of fact, that moment is one of my points of concern for young children. Still, regarding the Third Secret, the film neither dwells on it or ignores it. It is there, but it isn’t given lots of attention. The door is not slammed on the possibility, raised by some, that there is more to the Third Secret than we have been told. Again, the film began with the sight of Sr. Lucia 20 years after than apparitions writing things down at the command of her superiors.
Also, one of the subplots in the film comes from the historical context. The anti-Catholic government is shown to be fearful of these apparitions and pretty hateful, all in all. The reps of the government who try to frighten the children, the reporter who comes for the October apparition, smack of something we are experiencing in our own day. The bubbling undercurrent of potential wars, even the death of Francesco by influenza seems current. 
Senor Quixana on Pagliarani and Leo at Tanagra: “I suspect that most of this could be resolved in an afternoon if, instead of asking for an audience, Pagliarani…”
