Pope to English & Welsh Bishops: Look to Newman

In this morning's Bolletino we have the Holy Father's address to the Bishops of England and Wales. (The Scots have their own episcopal conference, and the whole of Ireland has a single hierarchy, in case you were wondering.) Damian Thompson has his own take on what the Pope had to say. (Little praise, plenty of coded warnings.) However, I prefer to focus on what the Pope says about Newman:

Make it your concern, then, to draw on the considerable gifts of the lay faithful in England and Wales and see that they are equipped to hand on the faith to new generations comprehensively, accurately, and with a keen awareness that in so doing they are playing their part in the Church’s mission. In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free. Cardinal Newman realized this, and he left us an outstanding example of faithfulness to revealed truth by following that "kindly light" wherever it led him, even at considerable personal cost. Great writers and communicators of his stature and integrity are needed in the Church today, and it is my hope that devotion to him will inspire many to follow in his footsteps.
Much attention has rightly been given to Newman’s scholarship and to his extensive writings, but it is important to remember that he saw himself first and foremost as a priest. In this Annus Sacerdotalis, I urge you to hold up to your priests his example of dedication to prayer, pastoral sensitivity towards the needs of his flock, and passion for preaching the Gospel. You yourselves should set a similar example. Be close to your priests, and rekindle their sense of the enormous privilege and joy of standing among the people of God as alter Christus. In Newman’s words, "Christ’s priests have no priesthood but His … what they do, He does; when they baptize, He is baptizing; when they bless, He is blessing" (Parochial and Plain Sermons, VI 242). Indeed, since the priest plays an irreplaceable role in the life of the Church, spare no effort in encouraging priestly vocations and emphasizing to the faithful the true meaning and necessity of the priesthood. Encourage the lay faithful to express their appreciation of the priests who serve them, and to recognize the difficulties they sometimes face on account of their declining numbers and increasing pressures. The support and understanding of the faithful is particularly necessary when parishes have to be merged or Mass times adjusted. Help them to avoid any temptation to view the clergy as mere functionaries but rather to rejoice in the gift of priestly ministry, a gift that can never be taken for granted.

Long time, no blog...

I'm afraid it's been much too long since I've blogged regularly. I sometimes feel like posting a rant in the key of St Bernard or St Gregory the Great about how the cares of the world and the pastoral life are keeping me from 'blogging. Of course, they complained that their activity was keeping them from contemplation, which is much more worthy and noble, so I guess I'll just keep quiet.
Anyway, Fr Z has dug some interesting stuff out of my archives in order to mark today's feast of St Agnes. The Vatican's Youtube channel has some great footage of the traditional blessing of the lambs.


Since I last blogged, Jane & Lizzy have updated their template, so we look forward to hearing more from them. *Hint-hint*

I should also give a 'shout-out' to Seraphic whose book is being launched shortly.

What else? Deirdre has an excellent post for those who might be considering studying in Rome. The Irish Catholic has a new website. And Cardinal Newman is going to be beatified! (I've long been a fan.)

As I often do when stuck for original content, I'll conclude with an except from one of his Parochial and Plain Sermons. This was written when he was an Anglican, but it certainly has something to say to us as we celebrate the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

[L]et me remind you, my brethren, how nearly the whole doctrine of ecclesiastical order is connected with personal obedience to God's will. Obedience to the rule of order is every where enjoined in Scripture; obedience to it is an act of faith. Were there ten thousand objections to it, yet, supposing unity were clearly and expressly enjoined by Christ, faith would obey in spite of them. But in matter of fact there are no such objections, nor any difficulty of any moment in the way of observing it. What, then, is to be said to the very serious circumstance, that, in spite of the absence of such impediments, vast numbers of men conceive that they may dispense with it at their good pleasure. In all the controversies of fifteen hundred years, the duty of continuing in order and in quietness was professed on all sides, as one of the first principles of the Gospel of Christ. But now multitudes, both in and without the Church, have set it up on high as a great discovery, and glory in it as a great principle, that forms are worth nothing. They allow themselves to wander about from one communion to another, or from church to meeting-house, and make it a boast that they belong to no party and are above all parties; and argue, that provided men agree in some principal doctrines of the Gospel, it matters little whether they agree in any thing besides.

But those who boast of belonging to no party, and think themselves enlightened in this same confident boasting, I would, in all charity, remind that our Saviour Himself constituted what they must, on their principles, admit to be a party; that the Christian Church is simply and literally a party or society instituted by Christ. He bade us keep together. Fellowship with each other, mutual sympathy, and what spectators from without call party-spirit, all this is a prescribed duty; and the sin and the mischief arise, not from having a party, but in having many parties, in separating from that one body or party which He has appointed; for when men split the one Church of Christ into fragments, they are doing their part to destroy it altogether.

But while the Church of Christ is literally what the world calls a party, it is something far higher also. It is not an institution of man, not a mere political establishment, not a creature of the state, depending on the state's breath, made and unmade at its will, but it is a Divine society, a great work of God, a true relic of Christ and His Apostles, as Elijah's mantle upon Elisha, a bequest which He has left us, and which we must keep for His sake; a holy treasure which, like the ark of Israel, looks like a thing of earth, and is exposed to the ill-usage and contempt of the world, but which in its own time, and according to the decree of Him who gave it, displays today, and tomorrow, and the third day, its miracles, as of mercy so of judgment, "lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake and great hail."

Newman Miracle Approved

There have been whispers about this for months, but the Bolletino finally announces:

- un miracolo, attribuito all'intercessione del Venerabile Servo di Dio Giovanni Enrico Newman, Cardinale e Fondatore degli Oratori di San Filippo Neri in Inghilterra; nato a Londra (Inghilterra) il 21 aprile 1801 e morto a Edgbaston (Inghilterra) l'11 agosto 1890;
- a miracle, attributed to the intercession of the Venerable Servant of God John Henry Newman, Cardinal and Founder of the Oratories of St Philip Neri in England; born in London (England) 21 April 1801 and died in Edgebaston (England) 11 August 1890

Followers of the 'blog will know that I have a devotion to Newman and am delighted that his beatification is imminent.
The big question is - will it be held in England or in Rome? Pope Benedict has had a policy of not celebrating beatification ceremonies himself, but rather delegating them and having them celebrated in the local Churches or countries of the Beati. However, Newman has been a significant influence on Pope Benedict and, given his historical and theological stature, the beatification may happen in Rome. We'll wait and see.

Annoying Take on Newman Beatification Moves...

It;s disappointing that the Telegraph has put the following spin on Newman's proposed exhumation.

The final request of Britain's most famous Roman Catholic convert, Cardinal Newman, is to be overriden as the Vatican prepares to make him a saint.
It was Cardinal Newman's dying wish that he be buried with his closest friend in the grounds of the house they had shared as priests.
But now, nearly 120 years after his death, Britain's most famous convert to Roman Catholicism is to be reinterred in a sarcophagus in preparation for his becoming a saint, leaving the remains of his friend behind.
The decision to separate the remains of John Henry Newman and Ambrose St John has upset figures in the Church and led some to question whether it is embarrassed about their relationship.
[snip]
Martin Prendergast, a homosexual campaigner in the Catholic Church, claimed the Cardinal's relationship had caused misgivings in the Vatican and slowed his path to beatification. "I don't think they can just pretend the relationship didn't exist," he said.
"We shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging that he had his trials and torments yet was able to deal with these in a positive manner, without compromising his commitment to celibacy."

That's a most unfair reading...

Via Amy Welborn

Amy's just posted and there are two items that caught my attention.
Firstly, she links to this excellent article by Edmund Oakes SJ on Newman and Conversion.

Secondly, she links to a San Diego organisation that provides "dignified burial for abandoned and unidentified children." It's non-denominational, but the Knights of Columbus play a big part in what they do. It's heart-breaking to think that this service is still needed. It reminds me of the fact that the early Christians would either care for or bury children abandoned by families according to the customs of ancient Rome. Ironically, this led to the charge of infanticide being made against Christians.

A Strange Fudge

This article by Msgr Roderick Strange promises much but delivers little. The headline states Newman has the best answer to Blair’s critics but a close examination reveals that Msgr Strange leaves the substantive issue untouched.
In my mind, the key issue concerning Mr Blair is his recent and proactive pursuit of a social agenda expressly contrary to Catholic principles. As Msgr Strange puts it:

Some saw Tony Blair’s gift as a clear sign that he would soon be received as a Catholic himself. And now that he has been, the news has sparked critical comments, especially concerning the way he made allowance for policies as Prime Minister that clashed with Catholic teaching, for example, on abortion, on stem-cell research, and on same-sex unions. His sincerity has been questioned. How could he have supported those policies then, yet become a Catholic so soon after?

There is a prima facie case that Mr Blair should have renounced these policies when converting. Whether this recantation should have been public or private is, perhaps, open to discussion.
Strange makes use of Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk to address these concerns. Or, at least he claims to do so. Firstly, consider his description of the background to Newman's letter:

Gladstone had lost a general election and he attributed his misfortune in part to the influence that he felt the Pope had exercised in Ireland, an influence, he believed, that had undermined his position. He was mistaken. But smarting from his defeat he produced a popular pamphlet attacking the decrees of the first Vatican Council (1869-70), which had defined Papal Infallibility, and claiming that on account of those decrees Roman Catholics had forfeited their moral and mental freedom and placed their civil loyalty and duty under the Pope. As citizens they were no longer to be trusted.

Already we see that the issues that Newman were confronting do not correspond to the concerns that some Catholics have about Tony Blair's acceptance into the Church. However, let us continue reading to see if we can see what Strange is up to:

At the same time Newman also wanted to offer an alternative view to some of the exaggerated claims for papal authority then prevalent among Catholic extremists. He saw Gladstone’s outburst as a chance to set the record straight. By showing the extent of papal claims, he wanted also to show their limits.

Aha! This is more promising. Despite verging on ultramontanism myself, I realise that it's not healthy to expect every detail of Catholic life throughout the world to be hyper-regulated by Rome.
Strange continues:

One of the questions he discussed was that of divided allegiance. Could Catholics be loyal or were they always untrustworthy? First, there was the general matter of the Pope exercising “the supreme direction” of Catholics. Newman pointed out immediately that “supreme” is not “minute”. Papal authority may be supreme, guiding what Catholics are to believe, their faith, and how they are to behave, their morals, but without intruding minutely into the details of their daily lives. By way of contrast, he observed, consider civil law. That is far more intrusive. “There are”, he pointed out, “numberless laws about property, landed and personal, titles, tenures, trusts, wills, covenants, contracts, partnerships, money transactions, life insurances, taxes, trade, navigation, education, sanitary measures, trespasses, nuisances, all in addition to the criminal law.” Yet these laws, he went on, are not regarded as interfering “either with our comfort or our conscience”. He was writing in 1875. Are we as much at ease with our laws today? But certainly the Pope is not interfering with our ordinary daily life.

Fair enough... But we're not dealing with minutiae here. Much of what excites the scruples of those with questions about Blair's reception are not minor matters. We are dealing with some fundamental issues concerning the shape of society and its institutions. What is more, we are dealing with legislation which is unambiguously and gravely evil. Strange, thankfully, doesn't push the envelope and claim that the issues on which Blair was not kosher fall under the heading of minutae.
So, without explaining the significance of this digression, Strange makes another point:

Then there was a second question, touching the imagined clash between papal teaching and parliamentary legislation. Newman struggled to find an example. We may have less difficulty and refer to the very issues for which Tony Blair has been criticised, abortion, stem-cell research and same-sex unions. But Catholic politicians in raising their concerns about these controversial matters are not simply bowing to Rome in blind obedience. A debate needs to continue. It is not obvious that the tragedy of an unwanted pregnancy is best resolved by the further tragedy of termination; that the ethical issues surrounding the use of stem cells are empty of meaning; and that the way legislation is framed for same-sex unions can do no harm to marriage and family life. Catholic politicians should never seek to impose their views on others, but in a free and democratic society they have the right to argue their case and hope to be heard in an honest, open-minded way.

This would seem to be a non sequitur. Strange defends the right of Catholic politicians to contribute to the public debate, and insists that doing so according to a conscience formed by Catholic teaching is "not simply bowing to Rome in blind obedience." Fair enough. However, this has nothing to do with the criticisms made of Blair. What does the right of a Catholic politician to argue his case have to do with the fact that whilst an Anglican Mr Blair argued for and promoted some decidedly uncatholic and immoral things?
Strange concludes his non-argument with a final point which does have some relevance:

And then there is that third specific issue. Would Tony Blair as a Catholic have been unable to go to war in Iraq given Pope John Paul’s opposition to it? Would his policy have been controlled by the Vatican? Newman raised the question directly. His answer was plain. He refers to members of the Armed Forces, but the point applies to prime ministers as well: “ . . . were I actually a soldier or a sailor in Her Majesty’s service, and sent to take part in a war which I could not in my conscience see to be unjust, and should the Pope suddenly bid all Catholic soldiers and sailors to retire from the service, here again, taking the advice of others, as best I could, I should not obey him.”

This is a much more interesting case. Newman and Strange do have a decent point here. However, differing with the Pope on the prudential judgement of whether a particular war is unjust or not differs greatly from the promotion of a legislation and a social agenda so wholly contrary to Catholic teaching. Additionally, what is at issue is not the correctness of one particular judgement or the other. No one can say that they make the correct moral judgement all the time. Rather, what is at issue is Mr Blair's moral principles. Up to relatively recently, he seemed to be enthusiastically wedded to a whole host of moral principles which are at odds with the teaching of the Church. That is why so many Catholics look on his reception into the Church with scepticism.
Strange concludes as follows:

In fact Newman regarded the notion of a genuine conflict between obedience to Parliament or obedience to the Pope as unreal. He recognised that some exceptional situation could occur, but were it ever to do so, he argued, the individual case would need to be judged on its merits. The irony of the case of the war in Iraq is that many people wish that Tony Blair had been influenced by the Pope rather more.

I suppose this paragraph highlights the huge difference between the Victorian age and ours. It is a sad fact of history that many states (including the United Kingdom) are pushing an evil agenda which Newman would have found incomprehensible. He saw the Established Church and the more-or-less Christian culture of 19th Century Britain as providing a bulwark which would keep his country respectable, decent and more-or-less moral. I doubt that he'd have been able to believe the realities of modern-day legislation and government policies.
I'm at a loss as to what Msgr Strange intended to prove with this article. I sincerely hope that he wasn't trying to bolster Mr Blair's position by linking his position to that of Cardinal Newman by means of a lot of rhetorical hand-waving. He does deal with the question of the war in Iraq, but despite the gravity of the conflict itself, it is far from being the greatest discrepancy in Mr Blair's position. What he does leave untouched is the great contradiction between Mr Blair's moral principles and actions as Prime Minister. There can be no doubt but that he is morally responsible for his actions whilst in public office and that his recently held principles are gravely at odds with the faith he now publicly professes. That is where the problem is for many Catholics - and that is the issue that Msgr Strange seems to be studiously avoiding.
Many Catholics are also concerned about the wisdom and the integrity of the decision of those clergy who admitted Mr Blair to the faith whilst leaving these issues unresolved. To be honest, I've still not made up my mind about this case. I'm torn between my grave concern surrounding Mr Blair's position and the question of the privacy which should be afforded to a convert in matters of conscience. Given that we know the Profession of Faith that he made on entering the Church, shouldn't we, perhaps, give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him (and the Holy Spirit) to manifest his conversion by his words and deeds in the future. That's one debate that I don't want to get involved in. At this stage, I'm just confused by Msgr Strange's article and what he intended to prove by it.

The Death of Stephen; The Conversion of Saul

From The Newman Reader:

When the blood of Stephen was shed, Saul, then a young man, was standing by, "consenting unto his death," and "kept the raiment of them that slew him." [Acts xxii. 20.] Two speeches are recorded of the Martyr in his last moments; one, in which he prayed that God would pardon his murderers,—the other his witness, that he saw the heavens opened, and Jesus on God's right hand. His prayer was wonderfully answered. Stephen saw his Saviour; the next vision of that Saviour to mortal man was vouchsafed to that very young man, even Saul, who shared in his murder and his intercession.

Strange indeed it was; and what would have been St. Stephen's thoughts could he have known it! The prayers of righteous men avail much. The first Martyr had power with God to raise up the greatest Apostle. Such was the honour put upon the first-fruits of those sufferings upon which the Church was entering. Thus from the beginning the blood of the Martyrs was the seed of the Church. Stephen, one man, was put to death for saying that the Jewish people were to have exclusive privileges no longer; but from his very grave rose the favoured instrument by whom the thousands and ten thousands of the Gentiles were brought to the knowledge of the Truth!

Consistory - The Bigletto Speech of Cardinal Newman

It used to be the custom that one who was about to be created Cardinal would take up residence in Rome and wait for the Pope to publish his appointment to the Cardinals gathered in secret consistory. The Cardinal-to-be would, at this time, be waiting for the messenger from the Vatican to bring the bigletto announcing his creation. Via the Newman Reader, one can read about Cardinal Newman's reception of the bigletto.

On Monday morning, May 12, Dr. Newman went to the Palazzo della Pigna, the residence of Cardinal Howard, who had lent him his apartments to receive there the messenger from the Vatican bearing the biglietto from the Cardinal-Secretary of State, informing him that in a secret Consistory held that morning his Holiness had deigned to raise him to the rank of Cardinal. By eleven o'clock the rooms were crowded with English and American Catholics, ecclesiastics and laymen, as well as many members of the Roman nobility and dignitaries of the Church, assembled to witness the ceremony. Soon after midday the consistorial messenger was announced. He handed the biglietto to Dr. Newman, who, having broken the seal, gave it to Dr. Clifford, Bishop of Clifton, who read the contents. The messenger having then informed the newly-created Cardinal that his Holiness would receive him at the Vatican the next morning at ten o'clock to confer the berretta upon him, and having paid the customary compliments, his Eminence replied in what has become known as his "Biglietto Speech"

This speech has become famous as one of the most penetrating and prescient analyses of the theological and ecclesiastical challenge of the Enlightenment and is still worth reading today:

Vi ringrazio, Monsignore, per la participazione che m'avete fatto dell'alto onore che il Santo Padre si è degnato conferire sulla mia umile persona—

And, if I ask your permission to continue my address to you, not in your musical language, but in my own dear mother tongue, it is because in the latter I can better express my feelings on this most gracious announcement which you have brought to me than if I attempted what is above me.

First of all then, I am led to speak of the wonder and profound gratitude which came upon me, and which is upon me still, at the condescension and love towards me of the Holy Father in singling me out for so immense an honour. It was a great surprise. Such an elevation had never come into my thoughts, and seemed to be out of keeping with all my antecedents. I had passed through many trials, but they were over; and now the end of all things had almost come to me, and I was at peace. And was it possible that after all I had lived through so many years for this?

Nor is it easy to see how I could have borne so great a shock, had not the Holy Father resolved on a second act of condescension towards me, which tempered it, and was to all who heard of it a touching evidence of his kindly and generous nature. He felt for me, and he told me the reasons why he raised me to this high position. Besides other words of encouragement, he said his act was a recognition of my zeal and good service for so many years in the Catholic cause; moreover, he judged it would give pleasure to English Catholics, and even to Protestant England, if I received some mark of his favour. After such gracious words from his Holiness, I should have been insensible and heartless if I had had scruples any longer.

This is what he had the kindness to say to me, and what could I want more? In a long course of years I have made many mistakes. I have nothing of that high perfection which belongs to the writings of Saints, viz., that error cannot be found in them; but what I trust that I may claim all through what I have written, is this,—an honest intention, an absence of private ends, a temper of obedience, a willingness to be corrected, a dread of error, a desire to serve Holy Church, and, through Divine mercy, a fair measure of success. And, I rejoice to say, to one great mischief I have from the first opposed myself. For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth; and on this great occasion, when it is natural for one who is in my place to look out upon the world, and upon Holy Church as in it, and upon her future, it will not, I hope, be considered out of place, if I renew the protest against it which I have made so often.

Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man's religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society.

Hitherto the civil Power has been Christian. Even in countries separated from the Church, as in my own, the dictum was in force, when I was young, that: "Christianity was the law of the land". Now, everywhere that goodly framework of society, which is the creation of Christianity, is throwing off Christianity. The dictum to which I have referred, with a hundred others which followed upon it, is gone, or is going everywhere; and, by the end of the century, unless the Almighty interferes, it will be forgotten. Hitherto, it has been considered that religion alone, with its supernatural sanctions, was strong enough to secure submission of the masses of our population to law and order; now the Philosophers and Politicians are bent on satisfying this problem without the aid of Christianity. Instead of the Church's authority and teaching, they would substitute first of all a universal and a thoroughly secular education, calculated to bring home to every individual that to be orderly, industrious, and sober, is his personal interest. Then, for great working principles to take the place of religion, for the use of the masses thus carefully educated, it provides—the broad fundamental ethical truths, of justice, benevolence, veracity, and the like; proved experience; and those natural laws which exist and act spontaneously in society, and in social matters, whether physical or psychological; for instance, in government, trade, finance, sanitary experiments, and the intercourse of nations. As to Religion, it is a private luxury, which a man may have if he will; but which of course he must pay for, and which he must not obtrude upon others, or indulge in to their annoyance.

The general character of this great apostasia is one and the same everywhere; but in detail, and in character, it varies in different countries. For myself, I would rather speak of it in my own country, which I know. There, I think it threatens to have a formidable success; though it is not easy to see what will be its ultimate issue. At first sight it might be thought that Englishmen are too religious for a movement which, on the Continent, seems to be founded on infidelity; but the misfortune with us is, that, though it ends in infidelity as in other places, it does not necessarily arise out of infidelity. It must be recollected that the religious sects, which sprang up in England three centuries ago, and which are so powerful now, have ever been fiercely opposed to the Union of Church and State, and would advocate the un-Christianising of the monarchy and all that belongs to it, under the notion that such a catastrophe would make Christianity much more pure and much more powerful. Next the liberal principle is forced on us from the necessity of the case. Consider what follows from the very fact of these many sects. They constitute the religion, it is supposed, of half the population; and, recollect, our mode of government is popular. Every dozen men taken at random whom you meet in the streets has a share in political power,—when you inquire into their forms of belief, perhaps they represent one or other of as many as seven religions; how can they possibly act together in municipal or in national matters, if each insists on the recognition of his own religious denomination? All action would be at a deadlock unless the subject of religion was ignored. We cannot help ourselves. And, thirdly, it must be borne in mind, that there is much in the liberalistic theory which is good and true; for example, not to say more, the precepts of justice, truthfulness, sobriety, self-command, benevolence, which, as I have already noted, are among its avowed principles, and the natural laws of society. It is not till we find that this array of principles is intended to supersede, to block out, religion, that we pronounce it to be evil. There never was a device of the Enemy so cleverly framed and with such promise of success. And already it has answered to the expectations which have been formed of it. It is sweeping into its own ranks great numbers of able, earnest, virtuous men, elderly men of approved antecedents, young men with a career before them.

Such is the state of things in England, and it is well that it should be realised by all of us; but it must not be supposed for a moment that I am afraid of it. I lament it deeply, because I foresee that it may be the ruin of many souls; but I have no fear at all that it really can do aught of serious harm to the Word of God, to Holy Church, to our Almighty King, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Faithful and True, or to His Vicar on earth. Christianity has been too often in what seemed deadly peril, that we should fear for it any new trial now. So far is certain; on the other hand, what is uncertain, and in these great contests commonly is uncertain, and what is commonly a great surprise, when it is witnessed, is the particular mode by which, in the event, Providence rescues and saves His elect inheritance. Sometimes our enemy is turned into a friend; sometimes he is despoiled of that special virulence of evil which was so threatening; sometimes he falls to pieces of himself; sometimes he does just so much as is beneficial, and then is removed. Commonly the Church has nothing more to do than to go on in her own proper duties, in confidence and peace; to stand still and to see the salvation of God.

Mansueti hereditabunt terram,
Et delectabuntur in multitudine pacis.

On the Holy Spirit

From the Parochial & Plain Sermons:

The Holy Ghost, I have said, dwells in body and soul, as in a temple. Evil spirits indeed have power to possess sinners, but His indwelling is far more perfect; for He is all-knowing and omnipresent, He is able to search into all our thoughts, and penetrate into every motive of the heart. Therefore, He pervades us (if it may be so said) as light pervades a building, or as a sweet perfume the folds of some honourable robe; so that, in Scripture language, we are said to be in Him, and He in us. It is plain that such an inhabitation brings the Christian into a state altogether new and marvellous, far above the possession of mere gifts, exalts him inconceivably in the scale of beings, and gives him a place and an office which he had not before. In St. Peter's forcible language, he becomes "partaker of the Divine Nature," and has "power" or authority, as St. John says, "to become the son of God." Or, to use the words of St. Paul, "he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new." His rank is new; his parentage and service new. He is "of God," and "is not his own," "a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work." [2 Pet. i. 4. John i. 12. 2 Cor. v. 17. 1 John iv. 4. 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20. 2 Tim. ii. 21.]

This wonderful change from darkness to light, through the entrance of the Spirit into the soul, is called Regeneration, or the New Birth; a blessing which, before Christ's coming, not even Prophets and righteous men possessed, but which is now conveyed to all men freely through the Sacrament of Baptism. By nature we are children of wrath; the heart is sold under sin, possessed by evil spirits; and inherits death as its eternal portion. But by the coming of the Holy Ghost, all guilt and pollution are burned away as by fire, the devil is driven forth, sin, original and actual, is forgiven, and the whole man is consecrated to God. And this is the reason why He is called "the earnest" of that Saviour who died for us, and will one day give us the fulness of His own presence in heaven. Hence, too, He is our "seal unto the day of redemption;" for as the potter moulds the clay, so He impresses the Divine image on us members of the household of God. And His work may truly be called Regeneration; for though the original nature of the soul is not destroyed, yet its past transgressions are pardoned once and for ever, and its source of evil staunched and gradually dried up by the pervading health and purity which has set up its abode in it. {224} Instead of its own bitter waters, a spring of health and salvation is brought within it; not the mere streams of that fountain, "clear as crystal," which is before the Throne of God, but, as our Lord says, "a well of water in him," in a man's heart, "springing up into everlasting life." Hence He elsewhere describes the heart as giving forth, not receiving, the streams of grace: "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of Living Water." St. John adds, "this spake He of the Spirit." [John iv. 14; vii. 38, 39.]

V - Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful.
R - And kindle in them the fire of your love.

V - Send forth your spirit, Lord, and they shall be created.
R - And thou shalt renew the face of the earth.

Let us pray,
O God, who by the light of the Holy Spirit did instruct the hearts of your faithful; grant that in the same Spirit we may be truly wise and ever rejoice in his consolation. Through the same Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Mater Amabilis

From Newman's Meditations and Devotions:

WHY is she "Amabilis" thus specially? It is because she was without sin. Sin is something odious in its very nature, and grace is something bright, beautiful, attractive.

However, it may be said that sinlessness was not enough to make others love her, or to make her dear to others, and that for two reasons: first, because we cannot like anyone that is not like ourselves, and we are sinners; and next, because her being holy would not make her pleasant and winning, because holy persons whom we fall in with, are not always agreeable, and we cannot like them, however we may revere them and look up to them.

Now as to the first of these two questions, we may grant that bad men do not, cannot like good men; but our Blessed Virgin Mary is called Amabilis, or lovable, as being such to the children of the Church, not to those outside of it, who know nothing about her; and no child of Holy Church but has some remains of God's grace in his soul which makes him sufficiently like her, however greatly wanting he may be, to allow of his being able to love her. So we may let this question pass.

But as to the second question, viz., How are we sure that our Lady, when she was on earth, attracted people round her, and made them love her merely because she was holy?—considering that holy people sometimes have not that gift of drawing others to them.

To explain this point we must recollect that there is a vast difference between the state of a soul such as that of the Blessed Virgin, which has never sinned, and a soul, however holy, which has once had upon it Adam's sin; for, even after baptism and repentance, it suffers necessarily from the spiritual wounds which are the consequence of that sin. Holy men, indeed, never commit mortal sin; nay, sometimes have never committed even one mortal sin in the whole course of their lives. But Mary's holiness went beyond this. She never committed even a venial sin, and this special privilege is not known to belong to anyone but Mary.

Now, whatever want of amiableness, sweetness, attractiveness, really exists in holy men arises from the remains of sin in them, or again from the want of a holiness powerful enough to overcome the defects of nature, whether of soul or body; but, as to Mary, her holiness was such, that if we saw her, and heard her, we should not be able to tell to those who asked us anything about her except simply that she was angelic and heavenly.

Of course her face was most beautiful; but we should not be able to recollect whether it was beautiful or not; we should not recollect any of her features, because it was her beautiful sinless soul, which looked through her eyes, and spoke through her mouth, and was heard in her voice, and compassed her all about; when she was still, or when she walked, whether she smiled, or was sad, her sinless soul, this it was which would draw all those to her who had any grace in them, any remains of grace, any love of holy things. There was a divine music in all she said and did—in her mien, her air, her deportment, that charmed every true heart that came near her. Her innocence, her humility and modesty, her simplicity, sincerity, and truthfulness, her unselfishness, her unaffected interest in everyone who came to her, her purity—it was these qualities which made her so lovable; and were we to see her now, neither our first thought nor our second thought would be, what she could do for us with her Son (though she can do so much), but our first thought would be, "Oh, how beautiful!" and our second thought would be, "Oh, what ugly hateful creatures are we!"

Pope to Brazilian Bishops: It's about Christ!

Fr Z posts the English translation of Pope Benedict's address to the bishops in São Paolo's cathedral. It's very Benedict, taking up many of the themes he sees as being essential and adapting them to the demands of the Latin American situation. This address will be analysed to death, but the following passages struck me as significant.

2. With its traditional hospitality, Brazil is hosting the participants in the Fifth Conference of Latin American Bishops. I express my gratitude for the kind welcome given to its members, and my deep appreciation for the prayers of the Brazilian people, particularly their prayers for the success of the Bishops’ meeting in Aparecida.
This meeting is a great ecclesial event and part of the missionary outreach which Latin America needs to undertake, beginning here—on Brazilian soil. That is why I wished to speak first to you, the Bishops of Brazil, evoking these words, so rich in content, from the Letter to the Hebrews: Although he was Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Heb 5:8-9). Filled with meaning, these verses speak of God’s compassion for us, as expressed in the passion of his Son. They speak of Christ’s obedience and his free, conscious acceptance of the Father’s plan, which appears most clearly in his prayer on the Mount of Olives: "Not my will, but yours, be done" (Lk 22:42). Jesus himself teaches us that the true way of salvation lies in conforming our will to the will of God. This is what we pray for in the third petition of the "Our Father": that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven, since wherever God’s will reigns, there the Kingdom of God is present. Jesus attracts us by his will, his filial will, and so he leads us to salvation. By freely accepting the will of God, in union with Jesus Christ, we open the world to God’s Kingdom.
We Bishops have come together to manifest this central truth, since we are directly bound to Christ, the Good Shepherd. The mission entrusted to us as teachers of the faith consists in recalling, in the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, that our Saviour "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). This, and nothing else, is the purpose of the Church: the salvation of individual souls. For this reason the Father sent his Son, and in the Lord’s own words transmitted to us in the Gospel of Saint John, "as the Father has sent me, even so I send you" (Jn 20:21). Hence the mandate to preach the Gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:19-20). These words are simple yet sublime; they speak of our duty to proclaim the truth of the faith, the urgent need for the sacramental life, and the promise of Christ’s continual assistance to his Church. These are fundamental realities: they speak of instructing people in the faith and in Christian morality, and of celebrating the sacraments. Wherever God and his will are unknown, wherever faith in Jesus Christ and in his sacramental presence is lacking, the essential element for the solution of pressing social and political problems is also missing. Fidelity to the primacy of God and of his will, known and lived in communion with Jesus Christ, is the essential gift that we Bishops and priests must offer to our people (cf. Populorum Progressio, 21).

I think we can exaggerate the danger of liberation theology as a theological movement. The intellectual figures of the movement seem to have more or less run out of steam. However, it's quite clear that as a pastoral mindset, it's still very powerful and Pope Benedict is unabashedly proposing a clear alternative. It's all about Christ.
It's notable that Benedict says: " wherever God’s will reigns, there the Kingdom of God is present." I wish I had the command of Portuguese to figure out whether he is in his vocabulary making a rather pointed reference to various liberation theology ideas about the 'reign of God' (and they always call it the 'reign', never the 'Kingdom') being understood as some kind of social or material ordering of this world which the Church should be striving to organise - by means of revolution, if necessary. Benedict responds to this with a resounding 'no.' The Kingdom of God has to do with conforming ourselves to God's will.
The role of the Bishop, therefore, is about bringing individual souls to this truth and to the salvation which Christ offers. It's about preaching, teaching and bringing people to the sacraments. That is the primary duty of the Bishop.
It's only if we, as a Church, get this part of the mission correct that we can then talk about 'the pressing social and political problems.' This is a recurring theme and appears in his forthcoming Jesus of Nazareth. Putting it very crudely, Benedict argues that if we don't get God's role right or if we exclude him from our consideration when we try to do good for others, then we find ourselves in a situation where we can't really help our neighbour at all. God has the primacy in all human works and activities. The Church cannot really help the poor, if she is not first and foremost aware of her mission of evangelization. It strikes me as being something like the Augustinian doctrine of grace expressed in social terms.
Now, it should be made clear that by this is not meant any kind of crass neglect of the needs of the poor. Benedict is not saying that we should stop giving bread to the hungry and should instead be giving them Bibles. He means no such thing. Deus Caritas Est makes clear that the charitable activity of the Church is irreplaceable. However, this charitable activity most properly draws its inspiration from Christ and always puts His love and His salvation in first place. This priority we give to Christ enlightens and informs our charity and saves us from the real danger of seeing material assistance to the poor as an end in itself. It cannot be, because that is the same as saying that the material ordering of society is an end in itself and an ultimate value. Charitable activity which does not take Christ as its starting point runs the real risk of regressing into atheistic materialism.
This can and does happen within the Church. I'm sure that for many of my readers it'll only take a little thought to think of well-intentioned priests and religious who gave their all to some worthy project and cause, but ultimately ended up losing their vocation and their faith in the process. From such happenings, may God preserve us!

There is much else in the speech, and it manages to hit many of the big problems facing the Church in Latin America, but this little section in particular caught my eye:

As you know, among the various documents dealing with Christian unity, there is the Directory for Ecumenism published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Ecumenism—or the search for unity among Christians—has become in our time an increasingly urgent task for the Catholic Church, as is evident from the growth of intercultural exchange and the challenge of secularism. Consequently, given the rapidly growing number of new Christian denominations, and especially certain forms of often aggressive proselytism, the work of ecumenism has become more complex. In this context, a good historical and doctrinal formation is absolutely essential, so as to foster necessary discernment and lead to a better understanding of the specific identity of each of these communities, the elements that divide them, and those elements that can be helpful on the road to greater unity. The greatest area of common ground for collaboration should be the defence of fundamental moral values—transmitted by the biblical tradition—against the relativistic and consumerist cultural forces that seek to destroy them. Another such area is faith in God the Creator and in Jesus Christ his incarnate Son. Moreover, there will always be the principle of fraternal love and the search for mutual understanding and rapprochement. Yet we must also be concerned with defending the faith of our people, confirming them in the joyful certitude that "unica Christi Ecclesia…subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata" ["The one Church of Christ…subsists in the Catholic Church which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him"] (Lumen Gentium, 8).

Here, and elsewhere in the speech, the Pope (as a good professor) stresses the importance of a formation that is strong doctrinally and intellectually. A certain intellectual flourishing will be needed if the challenge of the various Protestant sects are to be dealt with. I'm sure that Benedict would agree with Newman that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

The Virgin who is to be Preached

From Newman's Meditations and Devotions:

MARY is the Virgo Prædicanda, that is, the Virgin who to be proclaimed, to be heralded, literally, to be preached.
We are accustomed to preach abroad that which is wonderful, strange, rare, novel, important. Thus, when our Lord was coming, St. John the Baptist preached Him; then, the Apostles went into the wide world, and preached Christ. What is the highest, the rarest, the choicest prerogative of Mary? It is that she was without sin. When a woman in the crowd cried out to our Lord, "Blessed is the womb that bare Thee!" He answered, "More blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it." Those words were fulfilled in Mary. She was filled with grace in order to be the Mother of God. But it was a higher gift than her maternity to be thus sanctified and thus pure. Our Lord indeed would not have become her son unless He had first sanctified her; but still, the greater blessedness was to have that perfect sanctification. This then is why she is the Virgo Prædicanda; she is deserving to be preached abroad because she never committed any sin, even the least; because sin had no part in her; because, through the fulness of God's grace, she never thought a thought, or spoke a word, or did an action, which was displeasing, which was not most pleasing, to Almighty God; because in her was displayed the greatest triumph over the enemy of souls. Wherefore, when all seemed lost, in order to show what He could do for us all by dying for us; in order to show what human nature, His work, was capable of becoming; to show how utterly He could bring to naught the utmost efforts, the most concentrated malice of the foe, and reverse all the consequences of the Fall, our Lord began, even before His coming, to do His most wonderful act of redemption, in the person of her who was to be His Mother. By the merit of that Blood which was to be shed, He interposed to hinder her incurring the sin of Adam, before He had made on the Cross atonement for it. And therefore it is that we preach her who is the subject of this wonderful grace.
But she was the Virgo Prædicanda for another reason. When, why, what things do we preach? We preach what is not known, that it may become known. And hence the Apostles are said in Scripture to "preach Christ." To whom? To those who knew Him not—to the heathen world. Not to those who knew Him, but to those who did not know Him. Preaching is a gradual work: first one lesson, then another. Thus were the heathen brought into the Church gradually. And in like manner, the preaching of Mary to the children of the Church, and the devotion paid to her by them, has grown, grown gradually, with successive ages. Not so much preached about her in early times as in later. First she was preached as the Virgin of Virgins—then as the Mother of God—then as glorious in her Assumption—then as the Advocate of sinners—then as Immaculate in her Conception. And this last has been the special preaching of the present century; and thus that which was earliest in her own history is the latest in the Church's recognition of her.

Newman on Jerome...

Or two occasionally pricklish Cardinals.
A snippet from Newman's Church of the Fathers where he speaks about the honour we owe to saints, even ones we're not fond of...

[...] a word or two about St. Jerome. I do not scruple then to say, that, were he not a saint, there are words and ideas in his writings from which I should shrink; but as he is a saint, I shrink with greater reason from putting myself in opposition, even in minor matters and points of detail, to one who has the magisterium of the Church pledged to his saintly perfection. I cannot, indeed, force myself to approve or like these particulars on my private judgment or feeling; but I can receive things on faith against both the one and the other. And I readily and heartily do take on faith these characteristics, words or acts, of this great Doctor of the Universal Church; and think it is not less acceptable to God or to him to give him my religious homage than my human praise.

I suppose the irony is that there are not a few voices in the Church who would have to say the same if/when Newman is raised to the altars.
More on Iraq
Deacon Scott Dodge sends on this link to an article (in English) in 3 Giorni on the plight of Iraqi Christians:

In the Massaken Barzi district, in the small building refitted as a church and dedicated to Saint Abraham of Ur of the Chaldees, father of all believers, the collective tragedy fragments into individual stories of escape. There is Jalal, who worked in a sports center north of Baghdad and had to sell house and car to pay ransom to his daughter’s kidnappers. There is little Martin, who lost the power of speech for two years after they had tortured him so as to tape his screams and send it to his father. There is Nader, a huge man who worked for the oil companies, also kidnapped and released only after handing over 20,000 dollars. «Our money must have whetted the appetite of our neighbors. They kidnap the Christians because they know that many of us have relatives abroad ready to pay the ransom». But it is not only social visibility that stirs envy and criminal hatred. The husband of Sherma, a thirty-year old widow, was killed because he worked as an interpreter for the American companies. And the religious matrix of the invaders has furnished facile pretexts for the fanatical brutality of the Muslims. «They said we were servants of the Crusaders, they made my daughters wear the veil, they sent threatening letters: either you go or we’ll slit your throats», says Alisha. They say that in the last months the peak of new violence came after the Regensburg speech: «They threatened us: nobody goes into church until the Pope apologises to the Muslims. And they said that for us it was over there: get out, ask your Pope for asylum». Word of mouth spoke of some priests and various young Christians being killed in reprisal after Regensburg. Michel, a taxi-driver escaped from Mossul, is not afraid of appearing homesick: «Believe me, friend: before the war we lived in peace. We worked, and went home safely». Nobody raises objections. Almost all of them agree. «Because every war stirred up around these parts is always a war against the Christians, they are always the first to pay», Robert, a Syro-Catholic, an unsentimental tour operator from Aleppo, says bitterly.

Ye cannot halve the Gospel of God's grace

This is a fascinating poem of John Henry Newman with the most un-poetic title 'Liberalism'.. As an Anglican he travelled to Italy and whilst there fell seriously ill. His recovery lead him to the conclusion that he was spared by Divine Providence for some mission back in England. He believed that he had a role to fight against Liberalism (or the 'Anti-Dogmatic' principle) in the Church of England.
On his return home, he wrote the following verses in Palermo:

Ye cannot halve the Gospel of God's grace;
Men of presumptuous heart! I know you well.
Ye are of those who plan that we should dwell,
Each in his tranquil home and holy place;
Seeing the Word refines all natures rude,
And tames the stirrings of the multitude.

And ye have caught some echoes of its lore,
As heralded amid the joyous choirs;
Ye mark'd it spoke of peace, chastised desires,
Good-will and mercy,—and ye heard no more;
But, as for zeal and quick-eyed sanctity,
And the dread depths of grace, ye pass'd them by.

And so ye halve the Truth; for ye in heart,
At best, are doubters whether it be true,
The theme discarding, as unmeet for you,
Statesmen or Sages. O new-compass'd art
Of the ancient Foe!—but what, if it extends
O'er our own camp, and rules amid our friends?