Sunday Newsletter

Masses Today

6.30: Desmond Donovan, (Anniv).
11.00: Laurence Spelman, (Anniv).
6.30: Una & Michael Beatty, (Anniv).


As I Was Saying...

Five years ago tomorrow, on April 19th, 2005, Joseph Ratzinger (78) was elected pope after a surprisingly short two-day deliberation. Whatever they may think of Benedict today, the Cardinals can never say that they didn't know what they were getting, or who they were electing. As head of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith, Ratzinger enhanced his reputation as a doctrinaire disciplinarian.

At a pre-conclave Mass attended by the cardinals, Ratzinger delivered what amounted to a 'programme for retrenchment.' He left his esteemed congregation in no doubt whatsoever as to where he stood on matters of faith and morals: "A dictatorship of relativism is established that recognizes nothing definite and leaves only one's own ego and one's own desires as the final measure. An adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelty."

Ratzinger was once regarded as a liberal, even a radical. As theological adviser at the Second Vatican Council, he played a key role in awakening his church from centuries of reactionary slumber. He embraced the council's support for ecumenism, its adoption of a liturgy in which worshippers could participate more actively, and its endorsement of greater internal democracy. In 1966, he wrote a book that was translated into English as "Theological Highlights of Vatican II", an absolutely brilliant exposition of 'the spirit of the Council'. "This is a man on fire," wrote one enthusiastic English reviewer!

By 1972, however, the flames kindling Ratzinger's intellect were different ones. In between, Europe had been shaken by an eruption of student protest that began on the streets of Paris and raced across the continent, soon reaching the tranquil university town of Tübingen. Its revolutionary implications profoundly alarmed Professor Ratzinger. The following year he fled Tübingen for the more traditionalist Regensburg.

Ever since, mistrust of the 'spirit of the age' has been one of Benedict's main intellectual characteristics. He has never forgotten that he was born into a society that inflicted untold suffering on the world precisely because it fell into unthinking conformity. Among his favourite passages from the scriptures is Romans 12:2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

Despite this (or because of it?), he is a difficult man to pigeon-hole. His position on several issues is more left than right. He condemned the invasion of Iraq. He has been a stern critic of the unregulated free market. Not surprisingly, just like all his predecessors before him, he is hostile to abortion and contraception. He deplores the death penalty, he is antipathetic to homosexuality and dismissive of the idea of women priests. He is convinced that Europe, in opting for secular liberalism, has abandoned its heritage and civilisation.

I wonder how Benedict will be viewed in a hundred years' time? Will it be as a reactionary, or a prophet? He may be behind his time, or ahead of his time, but one thing is certain: he is not of his time! Happy anniversary!

-Dick Lyng


Items of Great Interest


A Loving Church

If our Church is to be a Christ centred Church then it must also be a loving Church. 'By this shall all people know that you are my disciples if you love one another.'

It seems to me that Christ's commandment of love at the very least demands that I respect the dignity of every other person no matter what differences may arise between us.

At a very basic level our Church often presents as less than loving to those whose lives are in some way in conflict with official teaching. I have in mind people in second/irregular unions, people of homosexual orientation, people who feel alienated by teaching on family planning.

This raises the issue of preaching ideals and yet respecting those who for any of a variety of reasons may be unable at this time to live by those ideals. For example the couple in an irregular union may well subscribe to the Church teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment but may be unable to live out that ideal because one of them married at a very young age and found themselves in an intolerable relationship which they had to leave.

Can we reconcile the ideal of marriage as a life long commitment and yet treat with respect and with tangible love the couple who are unable to live that ideal in their lives right now? Is it consistent with a Church which is forgiving, loving, compassionate to permanently exclude them from full participation in the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist?

Precisely the same dilemma arises for many couples in relation to family planning.

-Dr Willie Walsh, Killaloe.


"Quotable quotes..."


Top

Valid HTML 4.01 Strict