Friday 30 October 2015

All Saints (Year B)

Mersey Leven Catholic Parish




Parish Priest:  Fr Mike Delaney
Mob: 0417 279 437; mdelaney@netspace.net.au
Assistant Priest:  Fr Alexander Obiorah 
Mob: 0447 478 297; alexchuksobi@yahoo.co.uk
Postal Address: PO Box 362, Devonport 7310
Parish Office:
90 Stewart Street, Devonport 7310 
(Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 10am - 3pm)
Office Phone: 6424 2783 Fax: 6423 5160 
Email: mlcathparish-dsl@keypoint.com.au
Secretary: Annie Davies / Anne Fisher  
Pastoral Council Chair:  Mary Davies
Mersey Leven Catholic Parish Weekly Newsletter: mlcathparish.blogspot.com.au
Parish Mass Times: mlcpmasstimes.blogspot.com.au
Weekly Homily Podcast: podomatic.com/mikedelaney    
Parish Magazine: mlcathparishnewsletter.blogspot.com.au



Our Parish Sacramental Life
Baptism: Parents are asked to contact the Parish Office to make arrangements for attending a Baptismal Preparation Session and booking a Baptism date.
Reconciliation, Confirmation and Eucharist: Are received following a Family–centred, Parish-based, School-supported Preparation Program.
Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults: prepares adults for reception into the Catholic community.
Marriage: arrangements are made by contacting one of our priests - couples attend a Pre-marriage Program
Anointing of the Sick: please contact one of our priests
Reconciliation:  Ulverstone - Fridays (10am - 10:30am)
                        Devonport - Saturday (5:15pm– 5.45pm)
                        Penguin    - Saturday (5:15pm - 5:45pm)
Care and Concern: If you are aware of anyone who is in need of assistance and has given permission to be contacted by Care and Concern, please phone the Parish Office.


Weekday Masses 2nd - 7th November, 2015
Monday:       9:30am - Ulverstone
                      12noon - Devonport
Tuesday:       9:30am - Penguin
Wednesday:  9:30am - Latrobe … St Charles Borromeo
                      7:00pm - Ulverstone
Thursday:     12noon - Devonport
Friday:          9:30am - Ulverstone
                      9:30am - Devonport
Saturday:      9:00am - Ulverstone                    
                        
Next Weekend 7th & 8th November, 2015
Saturday Vigil:  6:00pm Penguin
                                       Devonport
Sunday Mass:   8:30am Port Sorell                                                                                 
                         9:00am Ulverstone
                       10:30am Devonport
                       11:00am Sheffield   
                         5:00pm Latrobe  

Eucharistic Adoration:
Devonport:  Every Friday 10am - 12noon, concluding with Stations of the Cross and Angelus
Devonport:  Benediction with Adoration - first Friday of each month.

Prayer Groups:
Charismatic Renewal – Devonport Emmaus House Thursdays commencing 7.30pm

DO YOU LONG FOR SOME SPACE AND STILLNESS IN YOUR LIFE AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR? 
Christian Meditation - Devonport, Emmaus House Wednesdays 7pm.
30 minutes of silent prayer could change the rest of your week!  There is an opportunity for this each Wednesday evening at 7pm at 88 Stewart Street, Devonport.  Why not come along and meditate with a small group of people and see what happens?                         For further information see www.wccm.org or talk with Sr Carmel.


Ministry Rosters 7th & 8th November, 2015
Devonport:

Readers Vigil: A McIntyre, M Williams, C Kiely-Hoye
10:30am:  J Phillips, K Pearce, P Piccolo
Ministers of Communion - 
Vigil: B&B Windebank, T Bird, J Kelly, T Muir, Beau Windebank
10:30am: J DiPietro, S Riley, F Sly, M Sherriff
Cleaners 6th November:  M.W.C
13th November:   B Bailey, A Harrison, M Greenhill
Piety Shop 7th November:  H Thompson 
8th November:  O McGinley Flowers: M O’Brien-Evans

Ulverstone:
Reader: K McKenzie 
Ministers of Communion: E Reilly, M McKenzie, K McKenzie, M O’Halloran
Cleaners: M McKenzie, M Singh, N Pearce   Flowers: E Beard Hospitality: M McLaren

Penguin:
Greeters: J Garnsey, S Ewing   Commentator:             Readers:  Y Downes
Procession: S Ewing, J Barker Ministers of Communion: T Clayton, A Guest
Liturgy: Penguin   Setting Up: E Nickols Care of Church: Y & R Downes

Latrobe:
Reader: S Ritchie   Ministers of Communion:  B Ritchie, H Lim   Procession: M Clarke Music: Jenny

 Readings this Week: All Saints
First Reading: Apocalypse 7:2-4, 9-14 
Second Reading: 1 John 3:1-3 
Gospel: Matthew 5:1-12



PREGO REFLECTION:
I begin my prayer by trying to become relaxed and still in presence of Jesus, ready to listen to all that he has to say to me today. I may like to imagine myself sitting down with him, along with his other disciples. When I am ready, I read the gospel passage slowly, perhaps several times, noticing any particular line or image that seems to stand out for me. To which gift or way of being am I attracted - for myself… or when I see it in others? I listen to Jesus in the words of the gospel, and respond in whatever way seems right for me. Which ways of being seem more challenging or difficult for me at this time? I talk with the Lord as I ponder my reactions. I may want to ask for whatever gift or grace I need at this moment to live the way of the gospel even more fully: I end my prayer with gratitude, thanking our Lord for this time I have spent with him.




Readings Next Week: 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time
First Reading: 1 Kings 17:10-16 
Second Reading: Hebrews 9:24-28 
Gospel: Mark 12:38-44



          Your prayers are asked for the sick:

Betty Broadbent, Little Archer, Barbara Hancock,
Kevin Bagley, Iolanthe Hannavy, Joy Carter, 
Geraldine Roden, Debbie Morris, Harry Cartwright & …

Let us pray for those who have died recently:
       Pat Harris, Robert Grantham, Ena Robinson, 
       Esma Mibus, Shirley Stafford, Vicki Glashower, 
       Audrey Taylor, Peter Hays, John Stanford and 
       Dr John Walker.


Let us pray for those whose anniversary occurs about this time:
28th October – 3rd November
Lawrence McGuire, Margaret Doody, Bernard P Marshall, Cyril Allford, Allan Fay and Edith McCormack.

May they rest in Peace


WEEKLY RAMBLINGS:

Before we knew it November has arrived – at least that’s how it seems to me. A reminder that a copy of the November Mass List will be at each Mass Centre for the whole of the month and our Masses will be celebrated to remember our deceased relatives and friends. There are three extra Masses this week – two on Monday (All Souls) and on Wednesday – please check the Bulletin for further details.

Have you been to one of the Open Houses yet? The last one for 2015 is on next Friday evening at the Parish House at Devonport from 6.30pm – if you would like to come for a BBQ tea with the children and families from the 2015 Sacramental Program. Otherwise you are more than welcome to come from 7.30pm until late (well late for me anyway!)

Also next weekend there is an opportunity for the children, younger members, of our Parish to participate at the 10.30am Mass at Devonport. Fr Alex has been involved with the preparation of this celebration and children and families are encouraged to come along and join in this celebration.


Gardens! Has anyone noticed that the gardens around the Parish Houses at Devonport and Ulverstone are looking a little bit tired at present. If anyone can spare some time to assist in cleaning up the gardens then your help would be greatly appreciated. Working Bees will be organised within the next few weeks.

So please take care on the roads and in your homes.
                                                                   


MacKillop Hill Spirituality Centre:

Phone: 6428:3095      Email: mackillophill.forth@sosj.org.au

                          
MELBOURNE CUP LUNCH:

We are up and running again! 

 Come and join in the fun!

**Cup Sweep, **Lucky Saddle, **Best Hat, **Raffle
- Tuesday 3rd November - 12.30pm start
Bookings by this Monday please to help with catering arrangements. 
Phone Mary 6425:2781
or contact the Centre
 on the above number.



SPIRITUALITY FOR JUSTICE   Presented by Belinda & Richard Chapman
Thursday 12th November 7.30pm – 9pm. Cost by donation.
Exploring the 2015 Social Justice Statement and discerning its challenges for each of us in regards refugees and asylum seekers.


OLOL LITURGY MEETING:
The Liturgy meeting will be held Thursday 5th November. If you have any items you would like the committee to discuss, please call Kath Pearce 6424:6504 or Felicity Sly 6424:1933.


HELP NEEDED:
Our Sacramental Program for 2016 will commence early February. With the transfer of Richard and Belinda Chapman to Georgetown the position of co-ordinator of the Sacramental Program now needs to be filled. Any teacher, parent, interested parishioner who feels they may be able to assist, is invited to contact Fr Mike to find out what it entails to be the co-ordinator. Otherwise Fr Mike will be on the look out to tap someone on the shoulder!!!!

There will be an occasion before the end of the year when we will publicly thank Belinda for the great work she has done as Sacramental Co-ordinator (and her wonderful family for putting up with the demands of the job!) 


HEALING MASS:
Catholic Charismatic Renewal, are sponsoring a HEALING MASS at St Mary’s Church Penguin Thursday 19th November at 7.30pm. All denominations are welcome to come and celebrate the liturgy in a vibrant and dynamic way using charismatic praise and worship, with the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing. After Mass, teams will be available for individual prayer. Please bring a friend and a plate for supper and fellowship in the adjacent hall. If you wish to know more or require local transport, please contact Celestine Whiteley  6424:2043, Michael Gaffney 0447 018 068,  Zoe Smith 6426:3073, Tom Knaap 6425:2442.




CWL ULVERSTONE: Meeting Friday 13th November, Community Room Ulverstone at 2pm.

CWL Christmas luncheon will be held at the Lighthouse Hotel Ulverstone on Friday 11th December, 12noon for 12:30pm. Cost $25. All parishioners are very welcome to join us! RSVP 30th November to Marie Byrne on 6425:5774





Thursday Nights OLOL Hall D’port. Eyes down 7.30pm.
Callers 5th Nov John Halley & Merv Tippett


NEWS FROM ACROSS THE ARCHDIOCESE:

   
WORLD YOUTH DAY 2016, KRAKOW FACEBOOK PAGE:
CYM have launched our facebook page so that you can follow along and support the Tasmanian Pilgrimage to World Youth Day 2016. Please ‘like’ our page to show your support and share in this journey with our young Tasmanians from the beginning. We need the support of all our parishioners and friends. Visit: www.facebook.com/taswyd16
If you are 16-35 and interested in joining the WYD16 Pilgrimage please contact Rachelle Smith: rachelle.smith@aohtas.org.au or 0400 045 368

PINTS OF FAITH: HUMAN TRAFFICKING – A GLOBAL PHENOMENON:   Human Trafficking occurs in nearly every country in the world. What can we do to stop modern day slavery? Young adults (& interested young-at-heart) are invited to join us along with our special guest Sr Carole McDonald from Melbourne and member of ACRATH (Australian Catholic Religious Against Trafficking of Humans). Join us Wednesday 4th November 6.30pm at the Cock N Bull British Pub, Launceston. Book: rachelle.smith@aohtas.org.au   

COUPLES FOR CHRIST SEMINAR:  St Paul’s Church Paice Street, Bridgwater 7th November from 9am - 5pm Married couples invited to attend. Lunch and snacks provided. For more information please phone Fr. Leo 6263:6242

WORLD YOUTH DAY 2016, KRAKOW:  Registrations are now open to young Tasmanians aged 16 – 35 years as at 31st December 2016. For all your information and to register go to: www.wydtas.org.au

STAR WARS EPISODE VII: THE FORCE AWAKENS FUNDRAISER:   Come and see the highly anticipated release of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens on Opening Night: Thursday 17th December at 6.00pm. Catholic Youth Ministry are holding a special viewing of this film at Village Cinemas as a World Youth Day fundraiser. Get all your friends and family together for one brilliant evening! Come dressed for the occasion and be in the running for the best-dressed competition, as well as other give-aways before the film begins. Tickets are $30 pp and include: movie ticket, small popcorn and a 600ml drink (as well as chances for give-aways!). This event is being held at Village Cinemas Eastlands and Village Cinemas Launceston. We appreciate early bookings! Book your ticket online now at: www.cymtas.org.au or by contacting Rachelle Smith on 0400 045 368

A MESSAGE FROM RACHEL’S VINEYARD - “He heals the broken hearted…” – Psalm 147:3
If your heart is broken after abortion, wholeness and healing are available. Attend a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat for healing after abortion. Contact Anne Sherston on the confidential phone line 03 62298739 or 0478599241


Laudato Si': On the Care of Our Common Home Pope Francis' Encyclical Laudato Si': 

On the Care for Our Common Home is a call for global action as well as an appeal for deep inner conversion. He points to numerous ways world organisations, nations and communities must move forward and the way individuals -- believers and people of good will -- should see, think, feel and act. Each week, we offer one of the Pope's suggestions, with the paragraph numbers to indicate its place in the Encyclical. “Sweat it out. Increasing use and power of air-conditioning seems ‘self-destructive.” (Par 55) 



Saint of the Week – St Nicholas Tavelic and companions (November 6)

St Nicholas and his three companions are among the 158 Franciscans who have been martyred in the Holy Land since the friars became custodians of the shrines in 1335. St Nicholas was born in 1340 to a wealthy and noble family in Croatia. He joined the Franciscans and was sent with Deodat of Rodez to preach in Bosnia. In 1384, they volunteered for the Holy Land missions and were sent there. They looked after the holy places, cared for the Christian pilgrims and studied Arabic. In 1391 St Nicholas, Deodat, Peter of Narbonne and Stephen of Cuneo decided to take a direct approach to converting the Muslims. On November 11, 1391, they went to the huge Mosque of Omar in Jerusalem and asked to see the Qadi (Muslim official). Reading from a prepared statement, they said that all people must accept the gospel of Jesus. When they were ordered to retract their statement, they refused. After beatings and imprisonment, they were beheaded before a large crowd. St Nicholas and his three companions were canonised in 1970. They are the only Franciscans martyred in the Holy Land to be canonised. 






Words of Wisdom – The Inward Disciplines During November, Bulletin Notes is presenting a series of quotes on some of the spiritual disciplines. Last month, we highlighted four inward disciplines (meditation, prayer, fasting and study). This month, we will focus on the outer spiritual disciplines, including simplicity, solitude, submission and service 













Meme of the week






                                                                              


RELIGION, SECULAR THOUGHT, AND HEALTH AND HAPPINESS

An article by Fr Ron Rolheiser OMI. The original can be found here


There is no such a thing as pure objectivity, a view that is free of all bias.

Yet that’s the claim often made by non-religious, secular thinkers in debates about values and public policy. They argue that their views, unlike those who admit that their views are grounded in religious principles, are objective and free from bias. Their underlying assumption is that a purely rational argument, a view in effect from nowhere, is objective in a way that religious arguments, based upon someone’s faith and religious perspective, can never be, as if there was such a thing as a purely objective starting point. There isn’t.

We all have a bias. The late Langdon Gilkey used to put this in a gentle, more-palatable way. We don’t have a bias, he says, but rather a “pre-ontology”, a subjective stance from which we look at reality. And that stance includes both the place where we stand, outside, when we look into any reality, as well as the software through which we perceive and reason as we look at anything. He’s right. There’s no view from nowhere, no view that’s unbiased, and no view that’s purely objective.  Everyone has a bias. The religious person and the secular person simply stand at different subjective places and process things through different subjective, mental software.

Does this mean then that all views are equally subjective and that everything is relative?  Can we not then distinguish between science and superstition?  No. There are clearly degrees of objectivity, even if no one can claim absolute objectivity.  To admit that even the strictest empirical scientific research will always contain a degree of subjectivity is not to put science on the same level as superstition or even of faith. Empirical science and rational thought must be given their due. It is medical doctors, not faith-healers, who cure physical diseases. Likewise, the scientific theory of evolution and the fundamentalist religious belief that our world was made in seven days are not to be given an equal claim.  Much as religious thinkers are sometimes irritated by the absolutist claims of some secularists, science and critical rational thinking must be given their due.

But religious thinking must also be given its due, especially in our debates about values and politics. Religious opinion also needs to be respected, not least with the more-explicit acknowledgement that secular reasoning too operates out of a certain faith, as well as by the acknowledgement that, like its scientific and philosophical counterparts, religious thinking also brings invaluable and needed perspectives to any debate. A lot of the world’s knowledge is contained within science and philosophy, but most of the world’s wisdom is contained in its religious and faith perspectives. Just as we cannot live on religion alone, we too cannot live on science and philosophy alone.  Wisdom needs knowledge and knowledge needs wisdom. Science and religion need to more deeply befriend each other.

More important however than having a proper apologetic about the place of faith and religion inside of public policy is an understanding of this for our own health and happiness.  We need to understand how subjectivity colors everything, not so much so that we might eventually convince secularists that religious perspectives are important in any discussion, but so that we can more deliberately choose the right pre-ontology so as to see the world through better eyes and make better judgments on the world.

The 12th century mystic, Hugo of St. Victor, gives us, I believe, the right pre-ontology out of which to operate: Love is the eye!  For Hugo, we see most accurately when our eyesight works through the lens of love and altruism, just as we see most inaccurately when our eyesight is colored by suspicion and self-interest. And this isn’t an abstract idea. Experience tells us this. When we look at someone in love, beyond of course those periods when love is overly-obsessed with romantic attraction, we see straight.  We then see the other as he or she really is, with full recognition of his or her virtues and faults. That’s as accurate as we will ever see. Conversely, when we see someone through the eyes of suspicion or self-interest our vision is clouded and there’s not as fair a perception.

Jesus says as much with the first words that comes out of his mouth in the Synoptic Gospels. In his very first remarks, he invites us, in one word, to see the world as it really is. His first word? Metanoia. This is a Greek word that is generally translated in English bibles, as Repent, but it literally means “to enter a different, higher mind”. And that connotation is highlighted when we contrast it to another Greek word which we already know, namely, Paranoia.  Metanoia is the opposite of paranoia.


When we look at the world through the eyes of paranoia, we are not seeing straight. Conversely, when we look at the world through eyes of metanoia, we are seeing straight, religiously and scientifically.  Love, indeed, is the eye.
                                                                                     

Jung: Week 2
A collation of the daily email series on Spirituality and it's Influences by Fr Richard Rohr. You can subscribe to the Daily emails here


Becoming Whole                

I find that using geometric diagrams sometimes helps us to clarify ideas. In that respect, I'm being quite Jungian, because C. G. Jung emphasizes the importance of images in the work of transformation. This circular diagram of the human self may help you understand some of the concepts we'll be covering this week.

Most people live out of the top third of the circle, which is ironically called "consciousness." This is what I know, what I think, what I have experienced, what I consider to be "me." The ego, shown here as a bold red line, is that part of the self structure that wants to be significant, central, important, and right. It is highly defended and self-protective by its very nature. The irony and paradox is that if you stay above this line, you are largely unconscious, and not truly conscious at all!

The ego wants to eliminate all bothersome, humiliating, or negative information in order to "look good" at all costs. Jesus calls this self an "actor," a word he uses fifteen times in Matthew's Gospel. This is usually translated from the Greek as "hypocrite." The ego wants to keep you tied to your easy and acceptable levels of knowledge. It encourages you to live only from this conscious self, which as we said, is really not conscious at all. Therapy, suffering, prayer, and mysticism encourage you to drop into the personal and collective unconscious.

The ego does not want you going down into the "personal unconscious" or, as Jung would call it, your "shadow self." The shadow includes all those things about yourself that you don't want to see, are not yet ready to see, and you don't want others to see. Our tendency is to try to hide or deny this shadow part of ourselves, even and most especially from ourselves. [1] Jung questions: "How can I be substantial if I do not cast a shadow?" [2] He makes clear that the unconscious is not bad or evil, it is just hidden from us. Jung describes shadow also as "the source of the highest good: not only dark, but also light; not only bestial, semi-human and demonic, but superhuman, spiritual" and, in Jung's word, "numinous." [3] So that is why you dare not avoid the deep self. The wild beasts and the angels reside in the same wilderness, and it takes the Spirit to "drive" you there (Mark 1:13). You see why the mystics so emphasize going into the "darkness," which can only be done by faith and immense courage. "It takes more courage to examine the dark corners of your own soul than it does for a soldier to fight on a battlefield," says William Butler Yeats.

The bottom part of the circle is the deep unconscious, or what Jung calls the collective unconscious. There you are connected to everything and experience things in their unity. The collective unconscious holds images that fascinate people in all cultures, across times and places. Jung calls these universal truths and symbols--that are just waiting to be revealed--archetypes or ruling images. Here Jung breaks significantly with Freud, who seems to think that sex or the pleasure principle underlies everything else. Jung instead believes that when you go deep enough you will find the numinous, the God archetype, the place where you are complete and whole. This may be what most people think of as the soul.

Truly conscious people are in touch with their unconscious, at least to some good degree. People who try to remain simply on the "conscious" level, overly defended by their ego, end up being very superficial and thus even dangerous--to themselves and all around them. Denying your shadow self allows you to unknowingly do very selfish and evil things--and even call it virtue (John 16:2-3). [4]

References:
[1] Adapted from Richard Rohr, Things Hidden: Scripture as Spirituality (Franciscan Media: 2008), 75-76.
[2] C. J. Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul (Harvest Book: 1933), 35.
[3] C. J. Jung, translated by R. F. C. Hull, edited by H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, and William McGuire, Collected Works, Vol. 16, Bollingen Series XX, (Princeton University Press: 1976), 389.
[4] Adapted from Richard Rohr, unpublished "Rhine" talks (2015).

The Two Halves of Life                 

One cannot live the afternoon of life according to the program of life's morning; for what was great in the morning will be of little importance in the evening, and what in the morning was true will at evening become a lie. --C. G. Jung [1]

It was Carl Jung who first popularized the phrase "the two halves of life" to describe the two major tangents and tasks of any human life. [2] The first half of life is spent building our sense of identity, importance, and security--what I would call the false self and Freud might call the ego self. Jung emphasizes the importance and value of a healthy ego structure. But inevitably you discover, often through failure or a significant loss, that your conscious self is not all of you, but only the acceptable you. You will find your real purpose and identity at a much deeper level than the positive image you present to the world.

In the second half of life, the ego still has a place, but now in the service of the True Self or soul, your inner and inherent identity. Your ego is the container that holds you all together, so now its strength is an advantage. Someone who can see their ego in this way is probably what we mean by a "grounded" person.

Jung writes of his own experience: "It was only after the illness that I understood how important it is to affirm one's own destiny. In this way we forge an ego that does not break down when incomprehensible things happen; an ego that endures, that endures the truth, and that is capable of coping with the world and with fate. Then, to experience defeat is also to experience victory." [3]

In the second half of life we discover that it is no longer sufficient to find meaning in being successful or healthy. We need a deeper source of purpose. According to Jung, "Meaning makes a great many things endurable--perhaps everything. No science will ever replace myth [the communicator of meaning], and a myth cannot be made out of any science. . . . [Myth] is the revelation of a divine life in man. It is not we who invent myth, rather it speaks to us as a Word of God." [4] Science gives us explanations, and that is a good start, but myth and religion give us meaning which alone satisfies the soul.

Jung says that during the second half of life our various problems are not solved so much by psychotherapy as by authentic religious experience. Jung had a significant influence on Bill Wilson, co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. Thus, Wilson also emphasizes that a "vital spiritual experience" is the best therapy of all. A vital spiritual experience, according to Wilson, is the foundational healing of addiction, much more than mere "recovery"--which is just getting you started. In the classical three stages of spiritual life, recovery of itself is purgation, but not yet true illumination or divine union.

The unitive encounter with a Power greater than you resituates the self inside of a safe universe where you don't need to be special, rich, or famous to feel alive. Those questions are resolved once and for all. The hall of mirrors that most people live in becomes unhelpful and even bothersome. Now aliveness comes from the inside out. This is what we mean when we say "God saves you."

Jung believes we can do damage, therefore, by "petrifying" our spiritual experience when we try to name it, to express God as an abstract idea. Before you explain your encounter with the Divine as an idea or a name that then must be defended, proven, or believed, simply stay with the naked experience itself--the numinous, transcendent experience of allurement, longing, and intimacy within you. This is the inner God image breaking through! No idea of God is God of itself, but the experience of God's action in you is what grounds you and breaks you wide open at the same time. Hear a few of our mystics in this regard:
God is more intimate to me than I am to myself. --Augustine
Between God and the soul there is no distance. --Meister Eckhart
My deepest me is God. --Catherine of Genoa

This is both a transcendent God and also my deepest me at the same time. To discover one is to discover the other. This is why good theology and good psychology work together so well. You have touched upon the soul, the unshakable reality of my True Self, where "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). The second half of life is about learning to recognize, honor, and love this voice and this indwelling Presence, which feels like your own voice too. All love is now one. [5]

References:
[1] C. G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche (Routledge and Kegan Paul: 1960), 399.
[2] Adapted from Richard Rohr, Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life (Jossey-Bass: 2011), 8.
[3] C. G. Jung, recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe, translated by Richard and Clara Winston, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Vintage Books: 1989), 297.
[4] Ibid., 340.
[5] Adapted from Richard Rohr, unpublished "Rhine" talks (2015).

Making the Unconscious Conscious                  

As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. [1]

That is the meaning of divine service, of the service which man can render to God, that light may emerge from the darkness, that the Creator may become conscious of His creation, and man conscious of himself. [2]
--C. G. Jung

Edward Edinger writes, "Our whole unconscious is in an uproar from the God who wants to know and to be known." [3] To love is to be conscious, and to be fully conscious would mean you are capable of loving. Sin always proceeds from lack of consciousness. I don't think most people are sinners; most people are just not aware and not fully living in their own present moment. When Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they don't know what they're doing" (Luke 23:34), he was absolutely right. Most people are on cruise control, and most of their reactions are habituated brain responses--not fully conscious choices.

We may have moments when we are conscious of our real motivations and actual goals, but it takes years of practice, honesty, and humility to be consistently awake. Whenever you do not love, you are at that moment unconscious. If you consistently choose to defend your state of separateness, then spiritually speaking, you are unconscious, or in religious language you are "in sin." [4] As has often been said, "Unless you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will think of it as fate."

We avoid reality and the depth of our own souls because big truths initially disturb the comfortable and small self. For example, all countries are special, not just mine; all religions are good, not just mine. By definition, the small self wants to be both separate and superior. But in fact, we suffer because we are not truly whole. Our life is then ruled by the invisible, unknown parts of our psyche.

Spiritual maturity is to become aware that we are not the persona (mask) we have been presenting to others. That is why saints are always humble and scoundrels are always arrogant. We must become intentional about recognizing and embracing our shadows. Religion's word for this is quite simply forgiveness, which is pivotal and central on the path of transformation.

This can be painful as we realize that even when we thought we were loving, we often really weren't. And when we thought we were bad and sinful, we often weren't that either! Facing reality is also liberating because we recognize that our manufactured self-image is nothing substantial or lasting; it is just created out of our own mind, desire, and choice--and everyone else's opinions of us! The movement to second-half-of-life wisdom requires serious shadow work and the emergence of healthy self-critical thinking--but without condemning or shaming that same self. That is the truly "narrow gate and hard road that few follow upon" (Matthew 7:14). [4]

There is no shortage of opportunities to discover your personal or corporate shadow. As Jung says, "Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." [6] Jung sees the forgiving ("integrating") of our shadow self as an essential task of every life; it is a political, social, and spiritual task to withdraw the projection of our shadow onto others. In the end, the face you turn toward yourself is the face you will turn toward the outer world.

References:
[1] C. G. Jung, recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe, translated by Richard and Clara Winston, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Vintage Books: 1989), 326.
[2] Ibid., 338.
[3] Edward F. Edinger, The Creation of Consciousness: Jung's Myths for Modern Man (Inner City Books: 1995), 86.
[4] Adapted from Richard Rohr, unpublished "Rhine" talks (2015).
[5] Adapted from Richard Rohr, Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life (Jossey-Bass: 2011), 129-130.
[6] Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, 247.

Healing Images                   

In his classic book, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Carl Jung talks about being a young man at the outbreak of World War I and how the experience of massive destruction and slaughter was impacting him and so many Europeans. Through this trauma, Jung found, "To the extent that I managed to translate the emotions into images--that is to say, to find the images which were concealed in the emotions--I was inwardly calmed and reassured. Had I left those images hidden in the emotions, I might have been torn to pieces by them. . . . As a result of my experiment, I learned how helpful it can be, from the therapeutic point of view, to find the particular images which lie behind emotions." [1]

One of Jung's foundational ideas is that mere words and concepts do not give us access to the unconscious. Certain sculptures, biographies, images, art, and stories can have such a striking effect on you because what your unconscious has already half-known is brought home to conscious awareness by gazing upon them rather than analyzing them. Analysis, if it remains dominant, is merely a control mechanism of the ego. Let the images do something with you before you try to do something with them is the principle here.

I believe that good art and good images (Jung would call some of them archetypal images) have the power to evoke an epiphany in you and to transform you at deeper levels. That's why I think good art is absolutely essential for good religion. The iconoclastic nature of the Protestant Reformation might have been its greatest fault. Sometimes you don't know what you're experiencing in a logical, rational way, but you can't take your eyes off of a picture or a piece of art. You're drawn to it because the epiphany is happening as the unconscious is being ferried across to your conscious mind--but unconsciously!

One of my own encounters with good art has stayed with me for many years. On one of my first speaking trips in the mid-seventies, I went by myself to the St. Louis Art Museum where they had an extended exhibit of Monet's water lilies. I went from room to room and found myself getting quieter and happier, and when I walked out into the sunshine, I felt I floated home! Now, I don't know that I had a new piece of doctrinal information or theological insight, but the experience connected to something deep and true within.

I believe that's what good art, poetry, and mythology do. They tell you, without you knowing it, that life is not just a series of isolated, meaningless events, as postmodernism sees reality. The great truths--when they can be visualized in images--reveal to you the deep patterns, and tell you that you are a part of the course of history and all humanity. That deeply heals you. It is less informational than transformational. And it largely happens beneath your conscious awareness that it is even happening. You only see the fruits later. [2]

Jung also believed that God speaks through dreams. Dreams can bring the unconscious into the conscious because the ego's defenses are down when you are sleeping. Truth that might seem threatening to your ego when it's awake, and therefore not be allowed in, can slip undetected into your dreams. In Jung's words, "Myths which day has forgotten continue to be told at night." [3]

I hope you will now have permission to trust good art and "great dreams" (not all are) as messages being lifted from the unconscious, and not just your personal unconscious but the Great Collective where all things are one and shared. If I ever write, preach, or teach anything well, I am always drawing from that broader field and deeper well, and that is why I must honestly say, "I did not do it. It is not my idea."

References:
[1] C. G. Jung, recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe, translated by Richard and Clara Winston, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Vintage Books: 1989), 177.
[2] Adapted from Richard Rohr, unpublished talk (Center for Action and Contemplation: 2015).
[3] C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, 282.

One Suffering

They will gaze on the one they have pierced. --Zachariah 12:10a, quoted in John 19:37
Let me use our classic Christian logo, the cross, to illustrate what Jung is trying to say about the transformative power of images. The cross is a deeply disturbing image of a naked bleeding man, with arms nailed open, dying on a crossbeam--a most unlikely logo for anything. It has probably been cheapened, and the shock taken away, by reason of too much familiarity. But perhaps this is because we do not gaze long enough or deep enough. Jung says the cross might be the most significant image in Western civilization. The very fact that we keep repainting and sculpting this now ubiquitous image tells us that the soul must need to see it. Those who never gaze upon the cross, allowing it to work its metamorphosis, miss out on a huge healing secret, a divine disclosure that most humans would never dare to imagine on their own.

One of my favorite lines from Jung is revealing here. He says, "The whole world is God's suffering." [1] This is not poetry but precisely the fruit of mystical seeing, or gazing until a deeper message comes through. Mystics see things in wholes. They connect smaller anecdotes and images to see bigger patterns. Jung saw every act of human suffering as a participation in what Christians would call the eternal crucifixion of the One Christ. There is only one suffering, as it were, and we are all participants in it. [2]

When the single image morphs into a universal image, you get its archetypal significance, and as the prophet Zechariah says, "You will weep for him as you would weep for your only child, you will mourn for him as if he is every child" (Zechariah 12:10b). That is how images can transform us, but only if we can move beyond the mere literal, specific image to the universal and always true image. Fundamentalists find this very hard to do; mystics and great poets seem to be able to do nothing else. Mystics wait for experiential knowledge of the Divine and are not satisfied with mere memorized answers.

In the heart of the mystic there arises an actual empathy with the suffering of God, which is sort of unthinkable to most of us. Read the memoirs of Etty Hillesum and Anne Frank to catch a glimpse of this shared suffering. Does God suffer? With us and in us? Did you ever think of it that way? I believe we are invited to gaze upon the image of the crucified to soften our hearts toward God, and to know that God's heart has always been softened toward us, even and most especially in our suffering.

Christian saints are often pictured gazing empathetically at the cross. Why? Because it is a soul-shattering image of the willing suffering of God in solidarity with every single "shedding of blood since the foundation of the world" (Luke 11:50). It is the only half-satisfying answer to the whole human tragedy. [3] But it does not satisfy the rational mind, only the empty and seeking soul.

After true gazing, the cross becomes a two-way mirror. We see our own suffering, the suffering of the world, and God's suffering as all one and the same. The 14th century unknown author of the classic Cloud of Unknowing uses a most striking metaphor. He or she says that in God's eyes all evil, suffering, and death are "one lump" and that Jesus on the cross deals with it all "in one lump." The entire human journey, including resurrection, is revealed in Jesus' course of life, which Jung says is "an almost perfect map" of human transformation. Jesus is "The One Single New Human" (Ephesians 2:15, 4:13), as the school of Paul puts it. At least for Christians, the Christ image is the Archetype of Everything. Both Paul and Carl Jung, along with every true mystic, see things in wholes and not just in parts.

References:
[1] C. G. Jung, edited by Sir Herbert Read, The Collected Works, Volume I-XX (Routledge: 2014), 5063.
[2] Adapted from Richard Rohr, unpublished "Rhine" talks (2015).
[3] See the "Postscript" in Richard Rohr's book, Breathing Under Water (Franciscan Media: 2011), which addresses the issue of theodicy and human suffering in a more extended way.

The Sacred Wound 

Only the wounded physician heals. --C. G. Jung [1]

When life is hard, we are primed to learn something absolutely central. I call it God's special hiding place. The huge surprise of the Christian revelation is that the place of the wound is the place of the greatest gift. Our code phrase for this whole process is "cross and resurrection," revealing that our very wounds can become sacred wounds, if we let them.

No surprise that an unjustly wounded man became the central transformative symbol of Christianity. Once "the killing of God" becomes the very "redemption of the world," the pathway was revealed. Forevermore the very worst things have the power to become the very best things. Henceforth, nothing can be a permanent dead end; everything is capable of new shape and meaning. There is no advantage to playing the victim, and we are forever warned against victimizing others. Henceforth, we are indeed saved by gazing upon the wounded one--and loving there our own woundedness and everybody else's wounds too (John 3:14, 12:32, 19:37). One's world is henceforth grounded in mutual vulnerability instead of any need to have power over one another.

This is the core meaning of the Christian doctrine of Trinity--the inner shape of God is mutual deference and honoring among three, not self-assertion or autonomy by one. [2] God is "an event of communion" and perfect vulnerability, not an old man sitting on a throne. All creation is a replication of that foundational pattern. When Pope Francis first bowed to receive the blessing of the people instead of just giving his own blessing, he was bodily illustrating this wondrous divine revelation, which the church itself has seldom understood.

I usually find that most great people still carry a significant personality flaw. It is fairly predictable. St. Paul himself, clearly flawed, humbly recognized that God had given him a "thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me" (2 Corinthians 12:7), which he says was necessary "to keep me from getting too proud." In most wise people I know, their authority and wisdom comes from the struggle with their wound or some essential conflict. Material moves from the unconscious to the conscious through conflict and struggle, hardly ever through perfect coherence or ideal performance. The Jungian aphorism holds true: "The greater light you have, the greater shadow you cast." The search for the supposedly perfect is very often the enemy of the truly good. [3] All "important" people must daily recognize their own imperfection and sin or they become dangerous to themselves and others.

All scapegoating, the process of both denying and projecting our fears and hates elsewhere, only perpetuates suffering. The scapegoat mechanism is hidden in the unconscious; it proceeds from our unrecognized but real need to project our anxiety elsewhere. [4] Unfortunately, there is no elsewhere in the spiritual world. Either you transform pain within yourself or it is always an outflowing wound. You are transformed when you can refuse to project your anxieties elsewhere, and learn to hold and forgive them within yourself, which can only be done by the grace of God--and which grace is always given.

Jesus didn't project the problem on to any other group, race, or religion; he held it and suffered it and thus transformed it into medicine for the world. He neither played the victim nor created victims, which is the modus operandi of much of the world. Jesus revealed the redemptive pattern, the "third way," or what we call the Paschal Mystery. The significance of Jesus' wounded body is his deliberate and conscious holding of the pain of the world and refusing to send it elsewhere. Jesus' wounds were not necessary to convince God that we were loveable (atonement theory); his wounds are to convince us of the path and the price of transformation.

Jesus agrees to be the Universal Wounded One and thus to reveal God's willingness to share in our plight. Christians are the strange believers in a wounded healer, even though they seldom seem to appreciate the implications of this for themselves. If I were to name the Christian religion, I would probably call it "The Way of the Wound." Surprise of surprises, Christianity is saying that we come to God not by doing it right (which teaches you very little), but invariably by doing it wrong and responding to our failures and suffering with openness and awareness.

Jesus' wounded body is an icon for what we are all doing to one another and to the world.
Jesus' resurrected body is an icon of God's promise, response, and victory over these crucifixions.
The two images contain the whole transformative message of the Gospel. [5]

References:
[1] C. G. Jung, recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe, translated by Richard and Clara Winston, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Vintage Books: 1989), 134.
[2] Adapted from Richard Rohr, Adam's Return: The Five Promises of Male Initiation (The Crossroad Publishing Company: 2004), 46.
[3] Ibid., 82.
[4] Rene Girard has unpacked the momentous implications of scapegoating for human culture and for understanding the core meaning of Jesus on the cross. Try The Girard Reader, edited by James Williams (Crossroad: 1996, 69ff). Rene Girard is a monumental thinker, and I predict that one day his name will be broadly known and appreciated.

[5] Adapted from Richard Rohr, Dancing Standing Still: Healing the World from a Place of Prayer (Paulist Press: 2014), 76-78.


                                                                                            



FIVE CORE VALUES OF A HEALTHY CHURCH

A weekly blog by Fr MIchael White, Pastor of the Church of the Navitity, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.  You can read the weekly blog here or by going here

The Church is a living thing. It’s a body, not a building. When we talk about a healthy church, it’s important we make that distinction, because often our plan for growing healthy churches is aimed more at the latter than the former. And they are very different in practice.

Think of some healthy churches and other organizations, places where the people seem happy, committed, respected in the community, and growing. What do they all do that makes them different from unhealthy bodies? In the different churches, charities, and groups across the country we’ve learned from, a few core values seem to consistently show up across a wide range of people and places. There are plenty of others, but here’s five that really stand out.

Focused Leadership

Leadership is essential for healthy churches. Unhealthy churches rise and fall on the authority, competency, or charisma of just one person. It’s a lie that leaders do it all. Leaders inspire and equip those called to many forms of ministry. They understand and leverage the irreplaceable value of a team.

Clear Vision

A vision is not some impractical, ill-defined private revelation. Every healthy, successful organization has a clear vision they are relentlessly faithful to. Vision is about learning to see the world and Church through God’s eyes. Some churches have a strong vision and identity, but it’s just poorly communicated so nobody can follow it. It’s the leader’s responsibility to make the vision clear. And your vision is only clear to your community when it’s practiced. If you can’t make your vision practical, re-consider what your vision really is.

Attention to Gifts

One of the reasons people don’t get involved in ministry is they don’t feel there’s an opportunity to use their God-given gifts. Maybe they’re right. Churches that don’t actively call people and use their gifts foster a “leave it to the pros” kind of Christianity where people end up spectators, not participators. Like any gift or talent, if it’s buried, it can’t grow and honor God. I think we should honestly ask ourselves if we as church leaders sometimes inadvertently bury the talents sitting in our pews. People are less inclined to serve to fill a spot, but enthused about fulfilling their potential.

Practical, Gospel-Centered Preaching

People don’t want a dumbed-down message, just a practical one. Jesus’ preaching was rarely “easy” but it was always practical. As a pastor, a homily doesn’t have to pander to a consumer mentality to connect with people’s needs. Start where they are and over time, lead them where God wants. This goes for any catechesis that goes on in your church. Practical preaching gives people a real way to practice what you preach.

Rooted in Prayer


Growing a healthy parish is, first and last, an exercise in prayer. A Christ-centered spirit, anchored in the Eucharist, is the source and summit of health and growth.


                                                                               


Nostra Aetate – the moral heart of the Second Vatican Council

An Article by Author: Michael Barnes SJ from Thinking Faith. The original article can be found here

(The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions was promulgated fifty years ago, on 28 October 1965. Michael Barnes SJ explains why the process of Nostra Aetate’s development is as important as the text itself. ‘Perhaps more than any other document, and despite its obvious weaknesses, it encapsulates the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit that characterised the Council’.)
I sit down to write this article fifty years to the day after the bishops of the Catholic Church voted on the text of Nostra Aetate, Vatican II’s celebrated Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. The shortest of the Council’s documents, it marks an extraordinary experience of real learning on the part of the Church.
What did the Church learn then – and what does Nostra Aetate inspire today? Since those heady days many people of faith have come to see the Declaration as a magna carta for dialogue and have responded with generous and open statements of their own. In 2008 an initiative of the Anglican Communion, Generous Love, structuring mission in a pluralist world around a Trinitarian vision, acknowledged its debt to Nostra Aetate.[1] In 2000 over 150 Jewish scholars and rabbis published Dabru Emet, a series of statements about what Jews and Christians hold together.[2] In 2007 Muslim scholars responded to Pope Benedict’s ill-fated Regensburg lecture with A Common Word, a much longer meditation on the theme of the love of God that unites Muslims and Christians.[3]
But what about the Declaration’s effect on the Catholic Church itself? Nostra Aetate’s amazingly prophetic imperatives to Catholics to ‘encourage, preserve and promote’ the spiritual values of other religions have certainly raised the profile of interreligious dialogue from a niche concern for a few specialists to something that everyone is expected to do – and can do. Dialogues of common life and common action flourish as people get to know and appreciate their neighbours. What is often called the dialogue of spiritual experience is more muted – and controversial; yet plenty of people are deepening their faith by reading the texts of other religions, and even learning how to meditate by using yoga or Buddhist practices. The dialogue of theological exchange is yet more difficult – and not just because Nostra Aetate left so much unsaid. In a thoroughly pluralist age, in which the curse of bad religion seems to outweigh the blessings of the good, the Declaration reads at best like a few worthy statements of the obvious, at worst a patronising summary of rich and complex sources of ancient wisdom. It would, however, be an enormous mistake to dismiss Nostra Aetate as a bland bit of 1960s optimism. Perhaps more than any other document, and despite its obvious weaknesses, it encapsulates the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit that characterised the Council.

Small beginnings

In this article I make no apologies for telling the ‘Nostra Aetate story’ again because stories of deep transformation always bear repetition. The fact that it also records another side of the Council – a debate with a sharp political dimension, hammered out at times in the full glare of media publicity – only adds to the significance of the lesson that Nostra Aetate continues to teach people of good will everywhere, both inside and outside the Church.
The first sign of transformation went almost unnoticed at the time. On Good Friday 1959 Pope John XXIII spontaneously eliminated the expression ‘perfidious Jews’ from the liturgical prayers. The move, which was extended to the universal Church soon afterwards, was more than a gesture. A friend reminded me recently that the rubric for the altar servers had been to kneel during the prayers.  ‘Flectamus genua … levate’, intoned the deacon, and we all obeyed like clockwork.  But during the prayer for the Jews, he said, ‘we were expected to stand, as if to ponder the tragic fate of people who had refused to recognise the coming of the Messiah’.
In 1959 no one expected a rapprochement with the Jews to become one of the major achievements of the Council, let alone a positive statement about the truths and values of other religions. The omission of a single word seems a small enough shift, but liturgy filters scripture into the religious consciousness, forming faith and generating thought – sometimes even among distracted altar servers. It was a small indication of what was beginning to happen elsewhere as a traumatised world began to take stock of the darkness of Nazi atrocities.
At a conference of the nascent International Council of Christians and Jews held at Seelisberg in Switzerland in July and August 1947, a group of Jewish, Catholic and Protestant theologians produced a series of ten points. Their deliberations were summed up as five calls to remember what Jews and Christians share (eg. that there is one God of Old and New Testaments, that Jesus was born a Jew, that the commandment to love God and one’s neighbour is binding on both Christians and Jews), and five to avoid certain anti-Jewish attitudes and actions (eg. ‘distorting or misrepresenting biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the object of extolling Christianity’, or teaching that ‘the Jewish people are reprobate, accursed, reserved for a destiny of suffering’). The conference participants were responding to the growing realisation that an unchecked history of anti-Jewish theology had created the climate in which anti-semitism could flourish. A year later the first general assembly of the World Council of Churches was a lot more blunt, declaring that: ‘The Churches in the past have helped to foster an image of the Jews as the sole enemies of Christ which has contributed to anti-semitism in the secular world’.[4]
It’s important, of course, to distinguish anti-semitism from anti-Judaism. The former uses racial categories, the latter theological. The question is about the relationship between them and how certain theological presuppositions can hide the sort of anti-Jewish prejudice that breeds a much more virulent anti-semitism. Seelisberg did not take place in a theological vacuum. The issue was a subject of intense debate in the 1930s, not least among circles that included the likes of Jacques Maritain and Karl Barth. In Britain, the Anglican James Parkes drew attention to how a whole culture of anti-Jewish prejudice had infected historical and scripture studies.[5] Seemingly innocuous phrases such as ‘late Judaism’ to describe the 1st Century world of Jesus were made to support uncritical supersessionist or replacement theologies. In the wake of the Holocaust his words seemed prophetic. It took the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem in 1961 for the full horror of the ‘Final Solution’ to be talked about openly. By that stage, many Christian theologians, especially in Germany, were beginning to reckon with the power of dismissive and uncritical language to destroy the delicate web of human relations – and much worse.

The politics behind the text

Only nine Catholics attended Seelisberg and to that extent Nostra Aetate represents a massive bit of catching up on the part of the Catholic Church. John Connelly, in his detailed study of Catholic anti-Judaism, notes the disappearance of overt hostility in the 1950s but ‘an absence of ideas of how to relate to Jews’.[6]  Only a handful of activists, many of them Jewish converts, kept up the pressure that began with Seelisberg. A year after Pope John’s ban on the word ‘perfidious’, a petition from the Jesuits at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, closely followed by another from the Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, asked for the Council to address the implicit anti-Judaism of much traditional Catholic thought, especially as it affected the interpretation of scripture.
The Holocaust was hovering in the background. A little later that summer, on 13 June 1960, the great Jewish historian, Jules Isaac, author of The Teaching of Contempt, visited the pope.[7] With the authority of the Holocaust survivor, Isaac spoke about three interlocking dimensions of a negative account of Judaism: the diaspora as a punishment for Jewish lack of faith; the degeneracy of 1st Century Judaism; and the charge of deicide. Isaac traced this theology back to the pages of the New Testament or, rather, to tendentious exegesis of key passages that were read as stereotyping ‘the Jews’ as a corrupt opposition to Jesus and the first Christians.
At the meeting with Pope John, Isaac focussed on the deicide charge and quoted the Catechism of the Council of Trent. He drew attention to the section on the Fourth Article of the Creed, on the passion and death of Jesus. In that section of this monumental work, intended as a sort of theological vade mecum for parish priests, Jews are not mentioned except in combination with Gentiles who together are described as ‘advisors and perpetrators of the passion’. Who bears the responsibility for the death of Jesus? The answer is given in terms of human sin, the original sin of our first parents and the ‘vices and crimes which people have committed from the beginning of the world to the present day and will go on committing until the end of time’.[8] Not a word about deicide; indeed hardly a word about Jews or ‘Hebrews’ in the entire text. Pope John, who as papal nuncio in Bulgaria during the war had been instrumental in rescuing many Jews from deportation to the death camps, felt an instinctive rapport with what Isaac was telling him. Soon afterwards, Cardinal Bea was asked to add ‘problems concerning the Jews’ to his in-tray at the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. It was, however, an odd ‘home’ and immediately aroused Jewish suspicions.
Opposition to a text that began as ‘De Iudaeis’ (‘On the Jews’) seems to have come from three directions: from the Roman curia and those within the Council itself who sought to defend the integrity of Catholic tradition; from bishops in the Middle East who were mindful of Arab sensitivities and feared any positive account of Judaism would make the life and mission of Christians there more difficult; and – politically the most difficult – from Jews themselves and the still very young State of Israel. Notorious in this regard was the ‘Wardi affair’ which blew up in the summer of 1962 over press reports that a senior Israeli diplomat, Chaim Wardi, was to be invited to attend the Council sessions. Powerful voices in the wider Jewish diaspora, such as orthodox Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik in the USA, expressed concern at the Vatican’s motives, fearing that ‘ecumenism’ was code for a covert form of Christian proselytism.

The Declaration and the Council

Managing the unease felt by bishops on the Council floor presented its own problems. Gavin D’Costa’s meticulous outline of the debate that began with De Iudaeis focuses on three issues: Jewish collective guilt for the death of Jesus; the constancy of the God who calls Israel into a covenantal relationship; and – the issue that so exercised Soloveitchik – mission to the Jewish people.[9] All of these touched on knotty issues of scriptural exegesis; finding a formula that satisfied a range of opinions, some of which insisted that serious matters of doctrine were being compromised, was not easy. But it’s easy to miss a more substantive issue, namely the role played by the process dedicated to the Declaration in the Council’s debates and deliberations as a whole.
Compared with shifting some well-entrenched positions, the question of where De Iudaeisshould be situated in the scheme of work of the Council may seem trivial but it sheds interesting light on the status of Nostra Aetate, which is contested even today. The process began, as we have seen, as an addition to the Secretariat’s main concern, for intra-Christian ecumenism, then found a temporary place as an appendix to the document on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Later suggestions for a ‘home’ included Dei Verbum and Gaudium et Spes. There was also an opinion that the whole thing be postponed until after the Council. Only at the end of the third session, in November 1964, did it assume the status of a Declaration in its own right.
It is certainly correct, as D’Costa points out, that as a Declaration dealing with specific pastoral issues, Nostra Aetate needs to be interpreted in accord with the theological teaching laid out in the Dogmatic Constitutions. But this is not to deny that a ‘pastoral document’ is also theological in the sense that it says something about the ways of God with human beings. Given the level of suspicion it occasioned in various quarters, the shift from sorting out a ‘problem’ to opening up a new opportunity for Christian witness in a pluralist world is nothing short of remarkable and carries its own moral authority within the life of the Church.
That prospect seemed unlikely at the end of the first session of the Council, in December 1962, when the original draft was withdrawn in the wake of the ‘Wardi affair’, and even bleaker the following year when a second draft suffered a similar fate. Pope John died in 1963 but his successor, Paul VI, committed himself to finish the major tasks the Council had set. In January 1964, he made an unprecedented and highly successful visit to the Holy Land where his speeches to Jewish and Muslim audiences prepared the way for a certain rapprochement. In August of that year he issued his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, a powerful evocation of the relationship of Church and World in terms of the concept of ‘dialogue’. It was this great meditation on the religions as so many concentric circles set around the central axis of the truth manifested in Christ, that is reflected in Lumen Gentium §14-16, where the religions are similarly ‘orientated’ to the Church.[10]
The ideas behind the encyclical and Paul VI’s personal influence breathed new life into theNostra Aetate project. A revised text came back to the Council in September 1964, still as part of the decree on ecumenism but now including a brief section on Islam. Two months later, Cardinal Bea presented the first completely independent text, with new introductory material about the history and phenomenology of religion, references to Hinduism and Buddhism, and an expanded section on Islam. The thorny issue of the charge of deicide against the Jews, which had been in and out of drafts since the process began, was finally dropped. The explicit line on mission to the Jews was replaced by a much more eschatological hope. The balance of the sections, following the order of the ‘concentric circles’ in Ecclesiam Suam, caught the mood of the moment. After a few more smaller changes, the text came back to the Council for the concluding session a year later. Nostra Aetate, the result of a process that at times seemed to be teetering on the verge of collapse, received overwhelming approval. ‘After that point’, comments Connelly, ‘it was impossible to portray hostility to the Jews as compatible with Catholic doctrine. Jews were not enemies of God or Christians.’[11]

Pastoral and theological

I hope that even the briefest of overviews is enough to show how Nostra Aetate was subject to enormous pressures – not to say prejudice and political intrigue. This raises the question of its real significance. Is it a pragmatic bit of theological realpolitik, reaching out to the Jews in order to make amends for the Holocaust? Or is it more the record of an extraordinary conversion of the Catholic soul, a coming to terms with a history of anti-Judaism? At one level the shift from the ‘Jewish problem’ to include reference to other religions gives support to the view that the Declaration grew in response to purely pastoral concerns, firstly to avoid a stand-off between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East by bringing a statement on Islam to complement that on the Jews, secondly in response to missionary bishops in Asia and Africa who argued that the religious communities which most concerned them should be specifically named. But in the theological vision the Council was seeking to build up are there any ‘purely’ pastoral concerns? Perhaps there is something else going on, something more richly theological?
This takes us back to the question of what I called above the ‘moral authority’ of the Declaration.Nostra Aetate did not say the last word, nor even the only word, on religious pluralism. Nor did it make any major doctrinal innovations. Even the most powerful statement about the Jews, that they ‘still remain most beloved of God’, does not say anything explicit about the continuing validity of the Covenant. That was to come some years later when Pope John Paul II, during a visit to the synagogue in Mainz, spoke about the ‘covenant that has never been revoked’.[12]Similarly, in the period since the Council, several magisterial documents have taken the initial promptings of Nostra Aetate forward. Judaism is recognised as a living tradition with its own integrity of faith and practice, not an ossified relic which stopped growing with the advent of the Christian Church. This, of course, is to say nothing of advances that have been made at the official level between the Catholic Church and other people of faith, such as Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.
In other words, Nostra Aetate set in motion a process of learning in the Church. The voice of the Spirit does not only sound in drafting commissions and in the carefully related hierarchies of Vatican documents. This is where it is important to set Nostra Aetate within the wider framework of the Council’s overall vision and purpose. Behind all the great themes and ideas – revelation and the Word of God, renewal of the liturgy and sacramental practice, dialogue between Church and World, the Church as a people called to a life of holiness – was a gathering insistence on a renewal of theology itself in more pastoral and dialogical terms.
A principle established itself early on at the Council: if age-old truths are to be communicated in today’s world, then the Church needs to go back to the sources and rediscover the roots of its own inner life. Taking account not just of the content but of the style that the texts share, whether authoritative Constitutions or more pastorally inspired Declarations, is essential in understanding the spirit or ‘mystery’ of Vatican II. As John O’Malley convincingly argues, the primary literary genre is the inspirational meditation, not the juridical canon.[13]
My point is that Nostra Aetate made an enormous contribution to that spirit, not because it turned out to be a wonderfully innovative dogmatic treatise, but because it encapsulated in a few words something of the energy and passion of the people who made it possible. The influence of Jews on the genesis of the text was enormous. In the pre-war years it was Jewish converts to Catholicism who fought to have a true account of the faith of their forefathers recognised by the Church. Bea met a number of Jewish leaders and thinkers, sharing many lengthy conversations which had a profound influence on his own thinking. The great theologian, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, for instance, became not just a casual acquaintance but a trusted confidante who challenged much of the Cardinal’s thinking about the inner life of contemporary Judaism. For the erudite Bea, too, the Nostra Aetate process was a significant learning experience. Nor should it be forgotten that in the final revised text, the new Chapter 4 which took its stand on the necessary theological link between the Church and the Jewish people was the responsibility of a small group of theologians, Gregory Baum, Bruno Hussar and John Oesterreicher, all of whom were converts from Judaism.

Learning how to remember

Let me conclude by recalling that melancholy image of altar servers standing during the prayer for the ‘perfidious Jews’. It is not, of course, inevitable that Isaac’s ‘teaching of contempt’ will spring fully formed from the odd bit of anti-Jewish thoughtlessness. Nevertheless religious practices, beginning in well-meaning innocence, can become a breeding ground for the demonic if not properly discerned. That is one lesson to take from the Nazi Holocaust and from more recent examples of barbaric fundamentalism. If there is one constant theme joining Jews and Christians together in the Biblical revelation it is memory. And memory has to be assiduously cultivated and renewed if it is not to turn the life-giving richness of human relations in which God is mysteriously present as its life-giving centre into chauvinist oppositions that reduce God to the talisman of the tribe.
Memory can be so selective, and sometimes we need someone else, someone overlooked, even ignored, to remind us of what we have forgotten. That other great Jewish prophet of Nostra Aetate, Abraham Heschel, would say that the only thing Jews want is to be taken seriously as Jews, not as candidates for conversion. To do that requires a commitment to remember – and learn. Nostra Aetate has reason to be considered the moral heart of the Council because it demanded – and got – real integrity from those who worked on it. There is, of course, a lot missing in the text: Hinduism and Buddhism feel like gratuitous asides; there is no mention of the prophet Muhammad; the more contentious issues between Christians and Jews are either played down or left out. There is a degree of implicit agnosticism about the status of the religions, whether they are ways of salvation or carry some truth or revelation to which Christians can assent. It is but a beginning, a ‘pastoral document’ that records a theological moment in the life of the Church.
What Nostra Aetate has inspired amongst people of faith has been quite extraordinary in terms of interreligious dialogue at various levels. The lesson it goes on teaching the Catholic Church is to remain faithful to its inner spirit of collaboration and dialogue. Like all good theology, the Declaration does not aim to provide answers to every question that human endeavour throws up; rather it inspires a more humble yet creative speech that speaks with integrity of what God has revealed to God’s people. That is by no means to counsel a hesitant silence but to commend a truth-filled remembrance of what is always Holy Mystery, wherever it is discerned.

Michael Barnes SJ is Professor of Interreligious Relations at Heythrop College, University of London.


[1] Generous Love: an Anglican Theology of Inter Faith Relations, published by the Anglican Consultative Council (London, 2008).
[2] Dabru Emet (Zechariah 8:16: ‘Speak Truth’), was originally published as a full-page advert in the The New York Times, just before Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, 10 September 2000.
[3] An open letter to Pope Benedict from 38 Muslim scholars, 13 October 2006, led to an expansion which was issued as A Common Word and published 13 October 2007. For text and responses from Pope Benedict and the Archbishop of Canterbury see the official website:www.acommonword.com.
[4] Held in Amsterdam from 22 August to 4 September 1948; see especially the report of Committee IV, ‘Concerns of the Churches’, chapter 3: ‘The Christian Approach to the Jews’.
[5] James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue: a study in the origins of anti-semitism(London: Soncino Press, 1934).
[6] John Connelly, From Enemy to Brother: the Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), p. 181.
[7] Jules Isaac, The Teaching of Contempt: the Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964).
[8] Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos, promulgated by Pope Pius V; 1566. It is worth noting that no reference is made to the notorious Matthew 27.25: ‘His sins be upon us and upon our children.’
[9] Gavin D’Costa, Vatican II: Catholic Doctrines on Jews and Muslims (Oxford: OUP, 2014)
[10] Lumen Gentium, following Aquinas’s idea, uses the word ‘ordinantur’ (§14).
[11] Connelly, From Enemy, p. 265.
[12] Mainz, 17 November 1980. See discussion in Norbert Lohfink, The Covenant Never Revoked(New York: Paulist, 1991).
[13] John O’Malley, What Happened at Vatican II, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).



No comments:

Post a Comment