Ah! The old science v theology chestnut...

...makes an appearance in this article in the Independent. It's headlined Science bows to theology as the Pope dismantles Vatican observatory and goes on to see the pretty innocuous relocation of the Vatican Observatory in the context of a long-standing conflict between science and theology. *Rolls eyes*

The eviction [!] of the astronomers and their instruments, reported by the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, and their removal to a disused convent a mile away, marks the end of a period of intimacy between popes and priest-astronomers that has lasted well over a century.
Father Jose G Funes, the present director of the observatory, known as the Specola Vaticana, insisted that there was no sinister significance in the move. "It is not a downgrading of science in the Vatican," he said. "To remain within the palace would have had only a symbolic significance, whereas where we are going we will be even more comfortable. Nearly everybody is in agreement with the move even though I realise that every change produces disquiet." His predecessor, Father George Coyne, said, "I agree completely with Father Funes. We have discussed the issues many times together and with the rest of our Jesuit staff."
But symbolism is exactly what close watchers [unnamed close watchers!] of Pope Benedict XVI see in the move: confirmation of the view that he is far less receptive to what scientists – including scientists in dog collars – want to tell him than his recent predecessors. [!] He has, for example, spoken in favour of intelligent design, in flat contradiction of the views of the observatory's former director.

The article goes on to give a rather simplistic account of the relationship between astronomy and the Papcy.
The sting is, of course, in the tail:

In 1978, Father Coyne was appointed director of the Specola Vaticana. He held the job throughout the long reign of Pope John Paul II. The theological conservatism of the Polish pope cohabited oddly with an enthusiastic acceptance of the findings of science. [Yawn! That old stereotype.] In a speech in 1996, for instance, he came close to accepting the theory of evolution.
Father Coyne's tenure did not long outlast the reign of John Paul. When Coyne retired in August 2006, it was rumoured that hostility to intelligent design had been his undoing. Benedict's rejection of the Enlightenment, and the reign of scientific truth which it ushered in, is well established. [That's a gross over-simplification.]
And now Father Coyne's former domain is to be dismantled. The two astronomical domes which crown the roof of the lakeside palace are to remain – to be transformed into museums. [The suggestion is that this is some kind of petty papal manouvering, rather than a practical question of how they use the limited space at Castel Gandolfo]

More Irish Jesuit News

In response to my post about the Limerick Jesuits, an Irish reader sends me this link with a decidedly weird news story. Thankfully, in this case, it's not the Jesuits who are being weird:

A "passionate environmentalist" who caused damage totalling €3m in an arson attack on the Irish headquarters of the Jesuit Order has had his sentence adjourned.
Noah Bunn (aged 26), a former clerical employee of the Jesuits and member of environmental group Friends of the Earth, set the fire on Good Friday last because he believed the order were not using their "moral authority" to alert the world to the dangers of climate change.
[snip]
Garda [Irish Police Officer] Brian Flannery told Mr Sean Gillane BL, prosecuting, that after extinguishing the blaze at the building, Dublin Fire Brigade alerted gardaí to suspicions that the fire had been started deliberately.
Gardaí carried out a technical examination of the scene and spoke to the sole resident, a Korean priest, who told them he had observed Bunn deliberately set the fire.
Gda Flannery said Bunn, who had moved to live in Ireland from England, was working for a recruitment agency filling clerical roles around Dublin. He was observed on CCTV purchasing petrol and a lighter near the house prior to the incident.
[snip]
He called out to see if there was anybody in the house and told the Korean priest that he planned to burn it down. He said he shouted at the priest to get out and pointed to his knife which was stuck under his belt to let him know he would not be stopped.
Gda Flannery said that Bunn revealed that when he ignited the lighter the flames "went like a firebomb up the walls."
He left the building and sat on the steps outside the building with the priest. He did not tell him why he set the fire, but gave him the telephone number for the emergency services.
[snip]
Gda Flannery said Bunn, who had no previous convictions, had caused damage totalling €3,042,000.
Gda Flannery agreed with defence counsel, Mr Martin Giblin SC, that Bunn had fully co-operated with gardaí after handing himself in and had never applied for bail
Mr Giblin said Bunn was a "passionate environmentalist who was overly concerned at the time with climate change".
His only explanation was that he had been drinking and formed the idea that "the Jesuits were not using their moral authority to alert the world sufficiently to the dangers of climate change."
He said this was no longer Bunn’s view and he had given an undertaking that he would never commit an offence again no matter how strongly he felt about an issue.

I'm sure that many of my readers are reeling at the irony of the Jesuits being persecuted for not being sufficiently involved in environmentalism. I'm sure that many of you are angry that the Jesuits are not using their moral authority to alert the world to more sinister forces than global warming.
Incidentally, whilst very worried about the Jesuits as an order, I don't have a general anti-Jesuit prejudice. I've met too many exceptional Jesuits for that. When Jesuits are good, they're very very good.

Sense and Sensibility

There's a moderately interesting article about Sense and Sensibility in the Telegraph which is inspired by the BBC's new adaptation of the book. Quite rightly, it seeks to set the record straight about the darkness that Jane Austen was capable of:

Yet I can never read Sense and Sensibility without it sending a shiver down my spine. I don't recognise this as a "wonderfully entertaining tale of flirtation and folly", as one edition bills it.
Instead absent fathers, inadequate mothers, ambitious women on the make, financial insecurity, near-fatal illness and abandonment stalk this book. It should be taken only with a large glass of whisky on a stormy night, when Dostoevsky seems too much of a giggle.
Of course, Sense and Sensibility can be very funny: Marianne's conviction that her would-be suitor Col Brandon, a flannel- waistcoat-wearing 35-year-old, is ancient and decrepit skewers the workings of the 17-year-old mind exactly - Austen began a version of this novel in 1795, at just 20. But from the beginning, poverty, desertion and grief lurk darkly at the edges.
The Dashwoods are thrown out of a home they love, become dependent on the charity of a distant relation, and Elinor's love affair with Edward Ferrars is thwarted. All before we reach Chapter Five.

I recently re-watched the most excellent BBC version of Pride and Prejudice and found myself more struck than ever by the elements darkness. Maybe it's due to my advancing years, but Lydia's downfall and the seduction of Darcy's sister disturbed me more than normally, and characters such as Lady de Bourgh and Mr Collins came across as grotesque rather than humorous. I'm also gradually seeing a darker side to Mr Bennet too.
For those who like such things, there's also a Sense and Sensibility quiz in the Telegraph:

1 - A possible suitor is 35 years old. You think he is:
a) Wise, interesting and kind, with much to commend him
b) Far too ancient, feeble and infirm at that age to be interested in romance
c) He's a man. What's not to like?

Churches and Bath-houses

Fr Finegan has the unfortunate news of the fate of the Jesuit Church in the Irish city of Limerick:

The article outlines Architect John Kennedy's plans for the Church. They will involve "very little alteration to the church" and "virtually all of the fabric of the existing structure" will be retained, including all five altars. The nave of the Church will become a swimming pool surrounded by a glass wall so that people can still see the High Altar. also at ground level will be a restaurant and juice bar. The gym itself will be on a new floor, five metres above ground level.

I'm curious about the canonical aspects of this case.

Can. 1212 Sacred places lose their dedication or blessing if they have been destroyed in large part, or have been turned over permanently to profane use by decree of the competent ordinary or in fact.
Can. 1220 §1. All those responsible are to take care that in churches such cleanliness and beauty are preserved as befit a house of God and that whatever is inappropriate to the holiness of the place is excluded.
Can. 1222 §1. If a church cannot be used in any way for divine worship and there is no possibility of repairing it, the diocesan bishop can relegate it to profane but not sordid use.
§2. Where other grave causes suggest that a church no longer be used for divine worship, the diocesan bishop, after having heard the presbyteral council, can relegate it to profane but not sordid use, with the consent of those who legitimately claim rights for themselves in the church and provided that the good of souls suffers no detriment thereby.

Question: Does the conversion of a church in this manner require the consent of the diocesan bishop?
Question: Are the Jesuits exempt from the oversight/approval of the Diocesan Bishop in the alienation of Church property?

Ironically, one of Rome's finest churches is the Basilica of S.Maria degli Angeli. It is constructed from the ruins of the Baths of Diocletian:

The thermae of Diocletian dominated the Quirinal Hill with their ruined mass and had successfully resisted Christianization. Michelangelo Buonarroti worked from 1563 to 1566 to adapt a section of the remaining structure of the baths to enclose a church. Some later construction directed by Luigi Vanvitelli in 1749 only superficially distracts from the grand and harmonious Michelangelesque volumes. At Santa Maria degli Angeli Michelangelo archieved an unexampled sequence of shaped architectural spaces. with few precedents or followers. There is no true facade (illustration): the simple entrance is set within one of the coved apses of a main space of the thermae. The plan is developed from a Greek cross, with a transept so dominant, with its cubical chapels at each end, that the effect is of a transverse nave.

That is how it's supposed to be done.

Aesthetic Sensibilites of the Reich

There's an interesting article (with photograph) in the Telegraph. It's about some rare colour photographs of Hitler and opens with the following paragraphs:

As an arch propagandist, Adolf Hitler was happy to see his life recorded in dark shades of grey.

The Nazi leader believed that traditional black and white photographs best highlighted the sinister nature of his regime, presenting dramatic images which were both powerful and menacing.

Now, however, an altogether more colourful view of the Fuhrer has emerged.

More than 62 years after his death in a Berlin bunker, images from a newly opened Paris archive show him relaxing with children in the Eagle’s Nest, his mountain top chalet in the Alps near Berchtesgaden, Bavaria.

The piece that I've highlighted reminds me of the following comedy sketch. (Warning: Mild anatomical swearing near the end)

Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God

Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria

Today's gospel...

... reminded me of the following joke:

Father was visiting the infants' class and the children were showing him their Christmas drawings. One had drawn the baby Jesus, another the Wise Men and a third the shepherds. The fourth gave Father a picture of an aeroplane. "What's that?" he asked. "That's the flight into Egypt. There's Jesus, there's Mary and that's Joseph."
"Who's that up front?" the bemused priest asked.
"That's Pontius Pilot."

Medieval Nativity Scene?

Via The Times:

Books on medieval art will have to be rewritten after an ivory carving long dismissed as a forgery was confirmed as a masterpiece of the 12th or 13th century.
For more than a century, scholars could not believe that the exquisite Nativity and Last Judgment diptych was genuine. They assumed it to have been carved in the 18th or 19th centuries, when Gothic-style ivories were made. Carbon14 dating tests done in Britain and France have now placed it firmly in the 12th or 13th century.
John Lowden, of the Courtauld Institute of Art, London – where it will have its first public display next month – said: “There was nothing else like it, therefore it wasn’t medieval.”
Throughout the 20th century it was in a private collection. Its previous provenance is unknown. In 1924 it was published by the great scholar Raymond Koechlin, who thought it too architectural to be medieval.
Professor Lowden said: “If you accept as genuine something that’s a fake, you distort the historical record. If you reject something that is genuine, that does more damage to historical records. What you’re saying, in this case, is that because it’s so beautifully carved, it can’t be medieval. If it is medieval, we have to change our view of ivory carving. It is really beautiful, extraordinarily detailed and lively. It draws you in to construct a narrative.”
He pointed to details such as angels announcing the birth of Christ to the shepherds, one of whom has been playing bagpipes: “He has taken the pipe out of his mouth and turned to express astonishment.” There are remarkable carvings of figures rising from tombs.
Two years after it was sold in Paris for €3,000 to the former owner of The Times, the late Lord Thomson of Fleet, it is now worth millions. Its first public show will be as part of an exhibition drawing on Lord Thomson’s magnificent collection formed over more than half a century. The display will feature about 45 of the finest medieval ivories.
There include statuettes of the Virgin and Child intended to stand on altars in chapels, small versions for the home and folding tablets or diptychs with scenes from the life of Christ, and a richly narrative 15th-century ivory comb, decorated with a carriage drawn by horse and mule, taking two couples to the fountain of youth.
A folding ivory tabernacle would have been used for personal devotion while travelling. Working with a block of ivory taken from the centre of the tusk, the sculptor cut away the material to form a standing Virgin and Child under a canopy supported on columns.
He then sliced thin panels off the sides and front of the block and carved them with scenes from Christ’s life in low relief. The hinged panels serve as small to protect the carved surfaces when closed and act as wings of a miniature altarpiece when open.

My scepticism about the media and their expertise means that I suspect the impact of this discovery is being somewhat exaggerated, however it's an interesting story. I'm also curious as to whether the Carbon 14 tests actually prove this to be medieval work.

On the Feast of the Holy Innocents

Herod was furious when he realised that he had been outwitted by the wise men, and in Bethlehem and its surrounding district he had all the male children killed who were two years old or under, reckoning by the date he had been careful to ask the wise men. It was then that the words spoken through the prophet Jeremiah were fulfilled:
A voice was heard in Ramah,
sobbing and loudly lamenting:
it was Rachel weeping for her children,
refusing to be comforted because they were no more.

I've spent this morning in a mostly meditative mood because of today's feast. It seems to pose a lot of tough questions when we look at the overall picture. Certainly the Church venerates them as martyrs and for that reason we celebrate their entry into eternal glory, but I wonder whether we have the courage to face the awful reality that their martyrdom represents.
One might consider their birth into eternal life as being an example of predestination and wholly unmerited grace. These infants had done nothing in their lives to deserve the honour of martyrdom; they did not preach the Good News, they knew nothing of Christ, but in utter passivity they were baptised in their own blood as they died due to Herod's hatred and fear of the Infant Christ.
We see in their slaughter the fact that to those He has predestined for eternal life, God gives the means for salvation. But what means we see in the deaths of the Holy Innocents! If I might push the baptism imagery a little further, one might ask whether Herod's solders were the ministers of this Baptism, whether their sword thrusts were the form and the blood of the infants was the matter of this gruesome sacrament. I'm sure you can see how this is disturbing. To what extent can we describe the massacre of the Holy Innocents as being part of God's plan?
Consider the sorrow of their parents. It would have seemed to them fantastical, absurd and grotesque to argue that there was anything good about the deaths of their little ones. They would have seen simply the brutality of Herod and wept for their slain babies. However, we realise that these children have entered into Heavenly Glory with the unique dignity of having been slain in place of Christ.
I'm not sure what conclusions we should draw from all this. I think, however, that the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents should remind us that we should be very humble when we try to speak of providence, God's plan for us, and His ability to bring good out of the evil which surrounds us. We should be very careful about speaking too definitively about how we see or don't see God's hand at work in the world.

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!

The Preaching of St Stephen (Carpaccio)

Wishing you the Blessings of Christmas

May the Infant Jesus make His home in the hearts of my readers this Christmas and may He bless you abundantly in the New Year.

In God's Name

We're used to associating the name 'Allah' with Islam, but that's because it's the Arabic word for 'God'. There are, in fact, a number of languages where the word 'Allah' means God and is used by Christians - a fact which sometimes surprises some anglophone Christians. However, this is the first time I've heard of this particular situation - Via CNA:

A senior government official in Malaysia has ordered a Catholic newspaper to drop the use of the word “Allah” in its Malay language section if it wants its publishing permit renewed, the Associated Press reports.
The Herald, published by Malaysia’s Catholic Church, has translated the word God as “Allah.” Che Din Yusoff, a senior official at the Internal Security Ministry’s publications control unit, has said this usage is erroneous because “Allah” refers to the Muslim God.
"Christians cannot use the word Allah. It is only applicable to Muslims. Allah is only for the Muslim god. This is a design to confuse the Muslim people," Che Din told the Associated Press.
Che Din said that the newspaper should use the general term for God, the word “Tuhan.”
Father Lawrence Andrew, editor of the Herald, explained the newspaper’s usage of the controversial word:
"We follow the Bible. The Malay-language Bible uses Allah for God and Tuhan for Lord. In our prayers and in church during Malay mass, we use the word Allah," Father Andrew said. "This is not something new. The word Allah has been used in Malaysia for a long time. There is no confusion," he continued.
Che Din said that since Christians don’t use the word “Allah” in English-language worship, they shouldn’t use it in the Malay language. In addition to “Allah,” Che Din said three other Malay words ought not be used by non-Muslims: "solat" for prayers, "kaabah" for the place of Muslim worship in Mecca and "baitula" the house of Allah.

That comment about Catholics not calling God 'Allah' in English is a decided non sequitur. Someone should tell him that Maltese and Arabic-speaking Catholics do however call Him 'Allah'.

Crucified Santa

Via the Houston Chronicle:

BREMERTON, Wash. — Art Conrad has an issue with the commercialism of Christmas, and his protest has gone way beyond just shunning the malls or turning off his television.
The Bremerton resident nailed Santa Claus to a 15-foot crucifix in front of his house.
"Santa has been perverted from who he started out to be," Conrad said. "Now he's the person being used by corporations to get us to buy more stuff."
A photo of the crucified Santa adorns his Christmas cards, with the message "Santa died for your MasterCard."

Lessons in Pelagianism

A friend recently mentioned the 'blog of the Seraphic Single and reading through the archives I've found it to be some of the most thoughtful, reflective and witty writing in the Catholic Blogosphere. This post, amongst others, caught my attention:

This week the parish was celebrating the graduate students in particular, and so two graduate students gave short addresses. One was by a sweet young woman who said when she arrived in Cambridge she was 'just some kid from South Carolina' and was very intimidated. But then she found out that, thanks to a priest friend, a whole impoverished village in Latin America was praying for her every week. This was heartwarming. But then a sleek young man took over and lectured us on Success.

Standing a little to the side of a huge wooden crucifix, where Christ was dying the death of a slave, the speaker reflected on what had made him, the speaker, such a success. He told us about how impressed and proud he had been to be working in a top Manhatten office over the summer, but when his wife gave birth, he realized that he was more than a top Mahatten office worker but a Co-Creator. (Blah blah blah.) True Success comes about through Catholic Virtues, he told us, making Catholic Virtues sounding like the handmaids of Capitalism.

"But what else brings Success?" he asked.

Being Catholics listening to a sermon, we waited obediently for the answer.

"Work!" he shouted.

"Acck!" I replied.

"He's a Pelagian!" I told Volker 2.

Volker 2, who had been well aware of my shifting and muttering, sighed sympathetically.

The reflection didn't get better than that. The theology was atrocious, and I began to really dislike this Rich Young Ruler. He counselled us to get to know our Faith better, and I imagined what would happen if St. Francis confronted him at the door, never mind St. Augustine. But then I also realized that I was envious of this young man. He has a very marketable degree. He has worked the classy office job. He has a beautiful wife. He has a beautiful baby. He really looks like he has everything---except a grasp of Catholic theology, of course.

Of course, this touches on an interesting problem for anyone who tries to live by and preach the Gospel - so much of being Catholic seems to be both good practical sense and yet also a particular sort of divine foolishness.

Blair Popes!

Via the Telegraph:

Tony Blair has completed his long anticipated conversion to Catholicism.
The former prime minister joined the faith at a service in a chapel in Westminster, after years of speculation that he would convert after leaving Downing Street.
Mr Blair, whose wife Cherie and four children are Catholic, met Pope Benedict XVI on an official visit in June - his third trip to the Vatican in four years.
Now a Middle-East peace envoy, he was reluctant to convert while in office because it could have caused a potential conflict with his role in choosing Church of England bishops.
His views on abortion, gay rights and stem cell research were also at odds with Catholic teaching, and his parish priest Fr Timothy Russ commented that he had “some way to go” on important moral issues.

Now, that's putting it mildly! I don't doubt the sincerity of Blair's desire to be Catholic, but he and the Church Catholic have been poorly served by ignoring the several elephants in the chapel and downplaying the extent to which his position on several issues put him outside the pale.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor has welcomed Mr Blair into the faith. He said: “For a long time he has been a regular worshipper at Mass with his family and in recent months he has been following a programme of formation to prepare for his reception into full communion."
The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has also wished the former Prime Minister well in his spiritual journey: "Tony Blair has my prayers and good wishes as he takes this step in his Christian pilgrimage."

Frankly, the whole thing leaves me speechless.
Damien Thompson comments:

Yesterday the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster received into the Catholic Church a politician who consistently voted in favour of abortion and, as Prime Minister, refused to countenance any reduction in the time limit for “terminations”. In the eyes of the Church, he has the blood of innocents on his hands.
Don’t ask me for an explanation: I simply don’t understand. Has Tony Blair changed his mind about abortion? If so, why has he not said so publicly?
I repeat: I do not understand what has happened. Can anyone enlighten me?

Edited to add:
I'm thinking that maybe my initial reaction doesn't do sufficient justice to the power of the Holy Spirit; I pray that the grace of Christ may work within Mr Blair. May he be a holy and faithful member of the Church.

Who is primary?

A Shakespearean take on a comedic classic - very mild bawdiness at the beginning.

Poor Rowan Williams

There's going to be a lot 'blogged about what the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury said on the radio yesterday. The Times headlines the story Archbishop says nativity 'a legend' and begins with the paragraph:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, dismissed the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men yesterday as nothing but “legend”.

Damien Thompson's take on this is:

Does Rowan Williams EVER think before opening his mouth? He waits until the week before Christmas before describing the nativity as a “legend” and condemning the poor wise men, asses and oxen to the realms of fantasy.
Yes, it’s true that most biblical scholars agree with him. But really – has the Archbishop of Canterbury got nothing better to do than dismantle the Christmas story on Radio Five Live, for God’s sake? Can you imagine Pope Benedict XVI going on Simon Mayo’s show to chip away at the naïve beliefs of millions of Christians?

I agree with Thompson that Williams was certainly unwise in what he was saying, but I don't think the reportage fairly represents what he actually said. I would suggest actually reading a transcript of the interview in question before making up one's mind about him.
Firstly, note that the question he is being asked relates not to the accuracy of the infancy narratives in the Gospels, but rather the classical Christmas card images.
So, he points out that there's nothing in the Gospesl about the ox and the ass, and notes that the Wise Men and the shepherds probably weren't there at the same time and doubts that it was snowing. So far as I can see, he doesn't deny the historicity of the Magi.

Simon Mayo: And the wise men with the gold, frankincense, and Myrrh - with one of the wise men normally being black and the other two being white, for some reason?

Archbishop of Canterbury: Well Matthew's gospel doesn't tell us that there were three of them, doesn't tell us they were kings, doesn't tell us where they came from, it says they're astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire. That's all we're really told so, yes, 'the three kings with the one from Africa' - that's legend; it works quite well as legend.

SM But would they have been there?

ABC Not with the shepherds, they wouldn't. So if you've got shepherds on one side and three kings on the other, there's a bit of conflation going on.

SM And pulling back further - snow on the ground?

ABC Very unlikely I think; it can be pretty damn cold in Bethlehem at this time of the year, but we don't know that it was this time of year because again the Gospels don't tell us what time of year it was; Christmas is the time it is because it fitted very well with the winter festival.

SM Just as a side issue on the kings and the wise bit; do you have a problem with astrologers being seen as wise men; there'd be many people in your church who would think, actually, astrology is bunk and should be exposed as bunk and the idea of saying that they are wise is somewhat farcical.?

ABC Well I 'm inclined to agree that astrology is bunk but you're dealing there with a world in which people watched the stars in order to get a sort of heads up on significant matters and astrologers were quite a growth industry; people who were respected and had a kind of professional technical skill and were respected as such., the thing here if course is what's the skill about? Well it's all bringing them to Jesus; it's not about fortune telling or telling the future, it's about a skill of watching the universe which leads them inexorably towards this event, so I don't think it's a justification of astrology.

It seems to me that what Williams is saying is that their depiction as 'three Kings, one of them from Africa' works well as legend; he doesn't say that the Magi themselves were legendary, and indeed continues to speak of them as though they did come to pay their homage.
It's worth reading what he has to say about the Virgin Birth as well. Again, this is an area where he will be misunderstood.
I'm certainly not one to see eye-to-eye with the Archbishop of Canterbury in many matters theological, but it really is unfortunate to see him misunderstood and pilloried because of this interview.
By the way, if you've ever wondered about the animals traditionally shown in nativity scences, the answer can be found in Is 1:3:

The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath not understood.

Some of the Fathers associate the ox with the people of Israel and the ass with the gentiles.

The Name that Saves

Something stuck me about today's gospel. The Angel of the Lord appears to St Joseph and says to him: ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because she has conceived what is in her by the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins.’

The Fathers of the Church frequently commented on the significance of the name of Jesus. They saw in the figure of Joshua (the names are the same in Hebrew) a prefiguration of Christ, but more especially, they picked up on this fact which is recorded in St Matthew's Gospel that the name means Saviour.

Indeed, I seem to recall [I can't chase down the exact reference at the moment] that St Augustine accused one of his Pelagian opponents of forgetting that Christ (the anointed one) is also Jesus (the Saviour). He didn't think that Pelagian theology did justice to the saving work of Jesus Christ.

Now, Cardinal Ratzinger (as was) used to point out his discomfort with people referring to 'Jesus' whilst pointedly not calling him Christ. That, he pointed out, was frequently done to promote an inadequate low Christology. By speaking about Jesus, they were trying to obscure that very fact which makes Christ more than just 'one of us'. I agree with the Cardinal on this point and another one could be added. There's a certain natural reserve amongst the faithful about using the name Jesus. When we reflect on what the name means and the fact that it was divinely given, then this reserve seems fitting. The name of Jesus is sacred and casually using it as an implicit denial of His divinity is ironic, not to mention disrespectful. Thus, preferring to say Christ instead of Jesus mirrors the Jewish custom of not pronouncing the Divine Name. Now, I wouldn't suggest that we should never use Our Lord's given name. That wouldn't be right either. But we could certainly take care to see that we do so respectfully because today's Gospel tells us that there's something special about the Holy Name of 'Jesus'. It wasn't simply something that Our Lady and St Joseph plucked out of the 'big Book of Jewish Baby Names'. It was a name that was given by God and means 'Saviour'. Indeed, considered as a divinely given title, one could conceivably argue that 'Jesus'/'Saviour' is a higher and more crucial title than 'Christ'/'Anointed'.

Henry VIII's Bible

The Times has a fascinating article about an edition of the Bible that I'd not heard of before:

In July 1535 the industrious London stationer Thomas Berthelet, who also served as “King’s Printer” to Henry VIII, published a selective text of the Latin Old and New Testaments, in the Vulgate version of St Jerome: this seems to have been, perhaps surprisingly, the very first bible to have been printed in the British Isles.
[Snip]
Berthelet’s isolated novelty, a stout but handy small quarto, laid out in double columns, is titled Sacrae Bibliae Tomus Primus (ie, the first volume – only – of the Holy Bible); it consists of the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges, Psalms, Proverbs and the Sapientia or Wisdom of Solomon (a late Greek text now consigned to the Apocrypha), plus the entire New Testament, including Revelation. A preface addressed to the devout reader, headed “Pio Lectori”, apologizes none too humbly for the apparent eccentricity of leaving out more than half the canonical Old Testament, and promises to collect all the omissions in a supplementary volume, which either never appeared or (far less likely) has perished.
[Snip]
One might assume at first that the writer of such a preface, who begins by routinely puffing the product – the Scriptures – as “true riches” valuable beyond any worldly goods, but also takes specific credit for its selection, arrangement and issue, was the publisher Berthelet himself, [...] However, a second look reveals that the author, hence the conceiver or designer of this idiosyncratic recension and its robust apologist, was not Thomas Berthelet, nor any of his corresponding or in-house scholars or “correctors of the press”, but his own royal patron, Henry VIII.
[Snip]
You know well”, the prefacer declares,
how our Lord God, whose words or scriptures we are discussing, ordered that when a king sat on the throne of his kingdom, he should write for himself the law of God, and having it with him, should read it every day of his life, so that he should thus learn to fear the Lord his God, and guard His words."
This is a reference to Deuteronomy 17:18–19, employed to justify (as only a king could) the present reordering and selection of scriptural materials, offered to the pious but perhaps obstinate reader who found any “departure, however slight, from ancient practice or established form . . . an offence to religious scruple”.