Ubi Petrus

Continuing my riff of quotes from then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Principles of Catholic Theology (which I swear I’m almost finished with, honest), here’s one that seems both enticingly timely and subtly prophetic (and somewhat long, but bear with me):

I venture to close these reflections with a personal comment that will shed another light on the whole. At the end of a lecture on the historical character of dogma, a student priest remarked to me that, however one may twist and turn it, dogma is still the principle obstacle to every kind of proclamation. This remark seems to me to be symptomatic of the misunderstanding of the priestly function that is so prevalent today. For, in reality, the opposite is true. Today, many Christians, myself included, experience a quiet uneasiness about attending divine services in a strange church; they are appalled at the thought of the half-understood theories, the amazing and tasteless personal opinions of this or that priest that they will have to endure during the homily – to say nothing of the personal liturgical inventions to which they will be subjected. No one goes to church to hear someone else’s personal opinions. I am simply not interested in what fantasies this or that individual priest may have spun for himself regarding questions of Christian faith. They may be appropriate for an evening’s conversation but not for that obligation that brings me to church Sunday after Sunday. Anyone who preaches himself in this way overrates himself and attributes to himself an importance he does not have. When I go to church, it is not to find there my own or anyone else’s innovatinos but what we have all received as the faith of the Church – the faith that spans the centuries and can support us all.

To express that faith gives the words of even the poorest preacher the weight of centuries; to celebrate it in the liturgy of the Church makes it worthwhile to attend even the externally most unlikely liturgical service. Hence the substitution of one’s own invention for the faith of the Church will always prove to be too superficial, however intellectually or technically (seldom aesthetically) impressive this substitution may be.

Certainly, if it is to remain vital, the objective content of the Church’s faith needs the flesh and blood of human beings, the gift of our thinking and willing. But it must be a gift, not just the sacrifice of the moment. The priest always fails in his duty when he wants to stop being a servant: an emissary who knows that it does not depend on him but on what he himself can only receive. Only by letting himself become unimportant can he become truly important, because, in that way, he becomes the gateway of the Lord into this world – of him who is the true Mediator into the immediacy of everlasting Love.

From what has been said, it is clear that all Christian theology, if it is to be true to its origin must be first and foremost a theology of Resurrection. It must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the justification of the sinner; it must be a theology of Resurrection before it is a theology of the metaphysical Sonship of God. It can be a theology of the Cross but only as and within the framework of a theology of Resurrection. Its first and primordial statement is the good tidings that the power of death, the one constant of history, has, in a single instance, been broken by the power of God and that history has thus been imbued with an entirely new hope. In other words, the core of the gospel consists in the good tidings of the Resurrection and, consequently, in the good tidings of God’s action, which precedes all human doing. (Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 184-185)

I’m immediately reminded of the “We are a Resurrection People” movement and the desire of some to encompass all that was and is done as being solely about the Resurrection. From a very superficial aspect it would indeed appear that is what Ratzinger was saying here, but that is a shalow lie indeed. His statement is quite clear, if one has eyes to see: “It can be a theology of the Cross but only as and within the framework of a theology of Resurrection.” Nowhere does it suggest that it is and must be a theology of Resurrection without the Cross, because simply without the Cross the Resurrection does not exist; likewise without the Resurrection the Cross would be a meaningless and futile expression.

It is, in a way, almost akin to the Trinity in nature – where one is, there the other must be. It is only when we as humans attempt to reassert our temporal understanding of nature, to superimpose it over the timeless work of God that we find a temptation to juxtapose the Cross with the Resurrection. But God, simply, is not a time-constrained being. For Him, the Cross and Resurrection are a part of the same act, one fulfilling and I might say filling the other. Plainly, God is not a contradiction; to pose one half of an act against another is to put God against Himself. Christ died that He might rise again, and with Him raise up His creation. I reference, in particular CCC 618 and 651.

Okay, like him or hate him, Bill O’Reilly has an excellent analysis of what leaders need to do in the current times. I know there are some who will turn away in disgust at the mere mention of his name, but this time you should just check it out. Over at his The O’Reilly Factor section of the Fox News site he has observations on leadership. A couple of selected quotes should whet the appetite.

Not only do our elected officials have to make policy, they now have to clearly explain it themselves. And they must do it over and over and over, because we’re a distracted bunch.

and

Long gone are the days when FDR could reach most of the nation on the radio with his fireside chats. Gone are the days when Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkley could nightly define the world for the American public.

I would suggest this advice extends beyond just our elected officials to others, such as our Church leadership. Being given a bully pulpit, be it by popular election or reception of the miter, means one needs to use that bully pulpit for the betterment of those served. One indeed wonders what Bishop Fulton J. Sheen would do in this connected world.

Over at Pontifications, they’ve made a phenomenal collection of posts by Michael Liccione on Authority and Doctrine here. If you haven’t taken the time – and it will take some as it’s a rather long posting – to read this you really should. If you’ve taken to allowing yourself to vacillate on issues because you think the Church position will really come around to yours, you need to read this series to better understand the language the Church uses to make Her statements so that you may properly understand just their intended permanancy. Even if you think you know it all already, it’s a great refresher for the mind.

As one who loves to read and learn, I was caught immediately by a quote from The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A Kempis (a gift from my grandmother), which I’ve just started reading. It’s a good reminder to those of us that love to learn that it is more important to live virtue than to learn it. Wisdom is God’s gift to us, not our gift to God.

To be learned and able to discuss the Trinity will get you nowhere if you do not have humility, and therefore displease the Holy Trinity. Lofty words neither save you nor make you a Saint; only a virtuous life makes you dear to God. It is better to experience contrition than to be able to define it. (Ch. 1.3)

If you do, maybe you should read the below Zenit article. According to the study it references, 71% found they had no friends with the desire to lead a life consecrated to service, and many of them felt they didn’t have sufficient support in their path. The time for supporting vocations “from afar” is over, folks. These folks need active and positive support, and it also needs to come from those they consider their peers.

Praying for “someone else’s son” to become a priest just isn’t going to cut it, if you catch my meaning. I know that’s a hard thing for those who are very concerned about having grand children, but God is less than impressed with people who knowingly convince people to stray from the path He has laid out for them. Just think of the sheer joy of receiving absolution at the hands of your own child, as he becomes a channel for Christ’s great mercy. Just…think about it.

Survey Says Budding Vocations Need Support
One in 10 Youths Feel Call; Forget it Within Months

ROME, JULY 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Lack of support seems to be one of the main reasons why young people do not answer the call to consecrated life.

On Tuesday, the Italian newspaper Avvenire published an article entitled “Young People and Vocations,” based on a survey, conducted by the Italian institute Eurisko, of one thousand young people between 16 to 29 years of age.

The study showed that 10 youths out of 100 feel at some point a call to the priesthood or religious life (male and female), but the majority abandon the idea after a few months.

Among the reasons for so many failed vocations is that 71% of young people said they had no friends who had the desire to consecrate themselves to the Lord.

Twenty-nine percent felt called after a personal experience, such as a visit to a monastery, a pilgrimage or a spiritual retreat.

Avvenire lamented that the data reflected the fact that abandonment of the call was followed above all by “the abandonment suffered by young people.”

Another reason for failed vocations is that young people feel they must give up too many things, for example, marriage, to which is added the fear of loneliness.

The Italian newspaper highlighted young people’s need for someone to support them, as a recent study of the survey revealed that 70% of the young people interviewed could not mention a man or a woman who represented a point of intellectual reference.

Thus, the newspaper concluded, “There is a crisis of vocations also because there is a crisis of credible guides.”
ZE06072001

Could it be? Could the Federal government actually produce something positive and common-sense for us on the abortion front? According to this AP story the Senate is prepared to pass legislation making it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion except in the case of a life-threatening condition.

Of course, the beloved Sen. Feinstein is opposed saying, “We should not criminalize the grandparents or clergy members to whom a teen in trouble might turn for help.” Naturally. And we shouldn’t criminalize them if they take the child to any other elective surgery which could kill them, right? Wait, that’s already a criminal act.

“This is clearly not an issue divided on pro-life or pro-choice lines,” said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., the bill’s original sponsor. “There is broad and consistent support to preserve the rights of parents.” One step closer, we can pray, to preserving the rights of the unborn (or, in another twist of phrase, the “pre-born”). One hopes the recent decision by the Supreme Court to not rule against the New Hampshire parental notification law had some positive bearing on this measure.

…or start typing your letter, depending on your persuasion. I’m told some people do still hand-write letters. According to this story over at Fox News, Amnesty International has raised the ire of several groups over a proposal to make it the organization’s policy that abortion is a fundamental human right. While the currently debated proposal apparently limits the terms to cases of rape and life-threatening pregnancy complications, anyone who has thought for even a minute on this topic realizes that is the top of a very steep, very slippery slope. I infer from the story they are also considering declaring access to artificial contraception to be a fundamental human right as well. One wonders if our dear Pope Paul VI had any idea how prophetic his words in Humanae Vitae would prove to be.

So, regardless your position on Amnesty International, now is the time to convince them that abortion is not a fundamental human right. Now, while the question is still on the table, rather than fighting that Sisyphian rock up the mountain of presumption. Remember, you don’t have to support Amnesty International (and there are offered many valid reasons not to) to support their doing the right thing. Find your local chapter, coordinate with your local Pro-Life organization, and convince them that murder is never a fundamental human right. And while you’re at it, pray for those who would force the situation to be otherwise. Orate, fratres!

From this AP story, we find the following nugget:

But a day after criticizing Israel for “disproportionate” strikes against civilians, U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland accused Hezbollah of “cowardly blending” among Lebanese civilians.

“Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending … among women and children,” Egeland said. “I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”

Maybe it’s just me being hopeful, but is it possible the UN got a backbone for even a split second here? I know their track record of being even-handed in this situation is less than perfect, but maybe the fact most of the Arab states have backed away from Hezbollah is allowing a little sanity to set in. Unfortunately, I’m not sure it’s possible for even pressure from the UN itself to dissuade Hezbollah from its intended path at this point in history. Tomorrow is, indeed, another day.