An invitation

As it has been awfully quiet on both the e-mail and comment front since just before Christmas, I find myself wondering, once again, who, if anybody, is reading Καθολικός διάκονος. Call it insecurity, vanity, curiosity, whatever. In all honesty, it is probably some of all those things, plus a few of which I am not fully conscious. I really have to write that what I most want to know is if the things I write about are of any interest to anybody, if they are instructive, or inspirational, infuriating, or, if, to borrow a phrase from Frederick Buechner, I am whistling in the dark. I am loath to put a counter on this blog, as it would only prove to be a distraction I do not need.

Now, do not misunderstand, this is not a pathetic plea for affirmation- Okay, maybe it is, a bit. It is a request for readers to check in, and to sound off, to provide feedback of whatever kind you choose. Please do not waste your time commenting with anything that is inappropriate or uncharitable (Yes, I have received such comments- they are not posted, as I moderate comments). I am not above posting critical comments, or even making corrections should I err. After giving why I undertake this endeavor a lot of thought, I have concluded that it is worth doing for its own sake. If nothing else, it is a bit of an electronic journal, a forum in which I can clarify and make linkages between faith and the world, as well as an aspect of ministry that I think, given the amount of time people spend on-line, is a vital one, which is why I post so much, fresh content being vital to anything you want people to visit frequently. As with most things, there is an overlap between my desire to continue blogging (I can keep a journal on my own) and the level of interest people have in reading what I am writing. Besides, there is the parish blog, which is a joint endeavor, to which I regularly contribute.

This is a good time to discuss the distinction between this weblog and the The People of St. Mary Magdalene. It is quite simple; this blog is much more of a personal endeavor. It allows me to get more in-depth. It is where I can write in a more provocative and challenging way, giving my considered view on a number of issues, like Iraq, the environment, the death penalty, liturgical reform, Fridays as days of penance, inter-religious encounters, etc. I can also write about popular culture, post funny videos, etc. By contrast, the quasi-official nature of the parish blog causes me to be a bit more reticent about what I write and post. It is kind of like the difference between preaching and teaching. When I teach I can say things and engage questions I would not say or engage in the pulpit. I am not referring to heresy, dissent, or teaching off-the-wall stuff contra the Church. Those who come to classes know this is not the case. It is just that I can discuss issues in more detail because I can put what I say into context, give it the proper nuance, introduce the history and the current state of the question, etc.

So, if you value this forum, please pitch in your (metaphorical) $.02, even it is just: Hey, keep doing what you're doing, or Please, for the love of God and all things holy, Stop! I am also interested in having readers share their favorite post or two. Sharing that will give me some good feedback and help me narrow the focus a bit.

Embracing reality . . . At last!

Energy Secretary Sam Bodman yesterday stated that the Bush Administration no longer doubts humanity's contribution to global warming. Speaking of the IPPC's report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, he said: "We're very pleased with it. We're embracing it. We agree with it". He continued with the acknowledgement that "Human activity is contributing to changes in our Earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate." This is good news. However, it turns out that the new approach of the Administration is really an old canard. It is the same one used when refusing to sign to the Kyoto Protocols. To wit, the new spin is that, while conceding human activity is contributing to global warming, the U.S. contribution to the problem is minimal. This willfully ignorant position is demonstrated by Bodman's comment, when referring to greenhouse gas emissions, that: "We are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world". With a straight face, he followed this with the almost jaw-droppingly bold statement that "It's really got to be a global discussion".

Is it true that we are a small contributor when it comes to emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? By all accounts, the United States, with around 5% of the world's population, is responsible for one-quarter of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide and uses one-quarter of the world's crude oil. So, while Bodman is correct that there has to be a global discussion, it is also time for action, even unilateral action, which, on other issues, is this Administration's favorite kind of action. Besides, there was a global discussion. It took place in Kyoto, Japan. The discussion resulted in a treaty, which this Adminstration, skeptical at the time of the impact human activity was making on the environment, declined sign, or even to discuss again when the other signatory countries offered to renegotiate those parts of the treaty about which the U.S. expressed concern.

In other comments, Bodman seemed to privilege the U.S. economy over the habitat we all share and on which we depend, an issue taken up in my first post on the matter, Stewardship, not devastation. He took the opportunity to reiterate the administration's opposition to mandatory caps on the emission of carbon dioxide, the release of which into the atmosphere is a by-product of coal-fired power plants and petroleum-fueled vehicles, as well as from other sources. Now, don't get me wrong, industry needs to be included in our national discussion about how to reduce emissions, but there is no way around mandatory limits that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce them rapidly. We need to introduce these caps in a way that creates the least drag on the economy. We must keep in mind that one of the key conclusions of the report is that, even if we eliminated green house gas emissions immediately, the effects of the amounts we have already expelled into the atmosphere will continue for a century and beyond, resulting in increased global temperatures, scarcity of fresh water, rising ocean levels, severe weather, etc.

It seems a given that the increase in the number of violent storm, like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita from last year and events, like the tornado that killed 19 people in Central Florida early yesterday morning, are the result of rising ocean temperatures, caused by climate change, in turn, brought about by human activity.

All my data for this post was derived from Reuters, specifically an article co-written by Deborah Zabarenko and Chris Baltimore.

The other side of the liturgical dialogue

In all my recent posts on the liturgy and its direction under Pope Benedict XVI, beginning with my post on what I proposed as the basis of Pope Benedict XVI's liturgical agenda, I have stated that there is another side of this dialogue within the Church. Today, with a diaconal nod to Rocco over at Whispers, I can provide the other side, including the background and basis for rendering the Latin pro multis as for all, instead of the more literal for many. The response comes from the much maligned Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, who is doing his second tour of duty as chairman U.S. Bishops' Committee for Divine Worship (BCDW), a thankless job, that requires a selfless servant, like Bishop Trautman, in an article from this week's Tablet (Rocco is the Tablet's U.S. correspondent), entitled A pastoral deficit. In which, commenting on the newly approved English translation of the Order of the Mass, he asks, How truly pastoral is it?"

For example, examing the pro multis controversy, Bishop Trautman writes:

"Other changes have profound theological implications. The Pope announced recently that in the new Missal the words prayed over the cup will be changed. Now we pray: 'This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant; it will be shed for you and for all'. These words will be changed to 'for you and for many'. It is the clear, certain teaching of the Catholic Church that Christ died for all. So what is behind the change? The reason given is that 'for many' represents a more accurate translation of the Latin phrase pro multis....

"the term 'many' is a Hebrew word that means 'for everyone', since there was no Hebrew word 'for all'. The term was originally inclusive and signified 'everybody'. The Jesuit scholar Max Zerwick's Philological Analysis of the Greek New Testament is still an unsurpassed authority. On Matthew 26: 28 Zerwick explains that polloi, the Greek for 'the many', translates a Semitic expression that can signify a multitude and at the same time a totality. It means 'all (who are many)'.

This was strongly affirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1970 when the Congregation commissioned Zerwick to research and write an article on the meaning of pro multis. That article was published in the official organ of that Congregation (Notitiae) in May 1970 (pages 138-140). It states: 'According to exegetes, the Aramaic word which in Latin is translated ‘pro multis' means "pro omnibus": the multitude for whom Christ died is unbounded, which is the same as saying: Christ died for all. St Augustine will help recall this: "You see what He hath given; find out then what He bought. The Blood of Christ was the price. What is equal to this? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?" '

"In 1970 the Congregation for Divine Worship made a definitive judgement and published it in its official organ. What reasons now compel the Holy See to reverse itself? The English word 'many' is normally taken to exclude some. The Pope's decision to revert to this literal translation does not seem to express in English the true meaning of the phrase. 'Many' does not mean everyone. On a pastoral level we must have from the Vatican a better rationale for this major change than what has been given. With full respect and love for the Holy See, we need a pastoral explanation for the people. Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, concedes that 'for many' does not convey at face value the Lord's universal salvific intent, but that this belongs to catechesis. Is not the liturgy the best form of catechesis? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: 'The liturgy is the privileged place for catechising the people of God' (Paragraph 1074)...."

The article is well worth reading and considering. Just as I am critical of those who want undo what has been done, including some who want to return the Latin Mass, it does not seem that Bishop Trautman fully addresses the liturgical silliness that abounds. Again, it seems to me that the liturgical positions of Msgr. M. Francis Mannion, expounded throughout most of the 1990s, are the most well-balanced of those with which I am familiar, which is by no means all.

The witness of Hrant Dink

The most appropriate words spoken last week at the funeral of Hrant Dink, were not by the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Mesrob II Mutafian, who presided at the liturgy, but by Dink's wife, Rakel afterwords. These are her words, translated by Asia News, the news service provided by the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions, to the hundreds of thousands, Jew, Christian, and Muslim who paid tribute to this silenced voice of conscience.

On the day of his funeral, before hundreds of thousands, Rakel stepped to the microphone and with great courage spoke words from chapter 15 of St. John's Gospel which brought the entire gathering to tears: "No-one has a greater love than this. To lay down his life for his friends".

"It is from these words of Christ and from this deeply held belief that we today find our strength our peace," she said in a broken voice. She continued, "Thank you for your silence which sustains and comforts us. Thank you for not having made slogans. Today our love for Hrant is shown by our silence without ideological or religious slogans. You tell me that Hrant was a great man. Yes he was great because his thoughts were great, his dreams were great, his heart was great…

"In silence, you are recounting out loud his love and his dedication and in this way you are making his voice heard. Continue fearless in your loving. Do not close your hearts and minds. Insist on your freedom to the very end. For a love that does not humiliate that does not despise or envy, that forgets fear, that does not crush or kill but rather lets itself be killed: it is by living this love that you will encounter eternity just as the soul which has left the body that lies before you now, a body separated from its children its nieces and nephews, friends, separated from my arms, but not from its nation."

After her brief words, she and their children all wearing white scarves, in a moving gesture, released four white doves in memory of their husband and father who, as beautifully described by Mavi Zambak of Asia News, "two weeks ago described himself as a dove who picks his way among the crowds in fear of being crushed but who is free and able to lift himself in flight to soar above all others." Rest in the Peace of Christ and, with your fellow martyr, Fr. Andrea Santoro, pray for Turkey, for the triumph of love and peace, for truth-telling that must always precede any reconciliation.

Some thoughts for Friday

A few months ago, prior to being received into the Order of Catechumens, one of the young women going through RCIA this year wrote to me expressing some of her thoughts that arose from a conversation she and I had about matters spiritual. Of course, it is with her permission that I post her thoughts on this Friday.

"In our one on one meetings a few weeks ago I expressed my hesitation or doubts about religion in general and maybe subconsciously with myself." She goes on to relate, "I realized that a lot of my actions did not reflect a good relationship with God. I was having struggles with valuing myself which of course makes it impossible to value God. Once you begin to have a relationship and make God a central part of your life then everything else falls into place. Once I realized this all my struggles immediately didn't feel as heavy. It makes good decisions seem like such a logical choice that you feel silly having thought any other way. In a recent blog post you quoted from another..."

Then referring to a post in which I quoted Frederica Mathewes-Green, she quotes her:

"sins are not 'bad deeds' that must be made up in order to satisfy justice. They are instead like bad fruit, which indicates a sickness inside the tree the analogy Jesus uses in (Matthew 7:7–8). Sin is infection, not infraction. And God not only forgives freely but also sent his Son to rescue us when we were helpless."

She concludes with this insight,

"I cannot think of a more perfect way metaphorically to describe [the psychology of] sin. We sin because we don't respect ourselves. I had told you that I had felt that maybe I was doing charity work for selfish reasons. I felt this way because for some reason I didn't feel the compassion I felt I should. In further developing a relationship with God true compassion, respect and interest in others and patience are things that almost come naturally. The realization that valuing yourself as God values each and everyone of us is not self absorption and selfish. It actually brings you closer to God and therefore gives you the ability to love others purely."

On a personal note, since this particular Friday marks the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, I am abstaining from meat, but not fasting in honor of this feast of our Lord, Jesus Christ! Let us not neglect praying for those in Central Florida who lost their lives in this morning's storms, their families and survivors, and for those who lost their homes and livelihoods. On this Friday, perhaps our work of charity should, in the spirit of almsgiving, take the form of making a donation to an agency, like the Red Cross, to assist these injured and hurting communities.

Consciousness leading us to action

Some leading scientists, according to the same report quoted yesterday by the IPCC, say that getting the water to cool, sticking with the frog-boiling metaphor, could take awhile. According to Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press, "the scientists — using their strongest language yet on the issue — said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level 'would continue for centuries' no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes."

Becoming Even More Conscious . . .

Revisiting the Bush Administration's refusal to place mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions (which was this same Administration's primary objection to the Kyoto Protocols), Tom Yuslman of the University of Colorado's Center for Environmental Journalism, this morning's guest on KCPW's Midday Utah , in a post on the Prometheus blog, which is sponsored by the Center, drew my attention recently to the fact that "a day before the State of the Union address, the heads of 10 major U.S. corporations called on the president to support mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. The group included the chief executives of GE, Duke Energy, DuPont, PG&E, Alcoa and others. The corporations have joined together with leading environmental organizations, including Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the World Resources Institute, to form the United States Climate Action Partnership. USCAP has put forward a plan designed to cut U.S. annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 70 to 90 percent of today’s production in just 15 years" (emphasis mine).

In this same post Yuslman reports on an hour-and-a-half teleconference that was held by Ken Cohen, ExxonMobil’s vice president for public affairs, with bloggers. In the session Cohen brings up the issue of a carbon tax, as opposed to the current trade cap system, which at its very best is only capable of holding emissions at current levels, but not reducing them. I was troubled, however, by Cohen's insistence that a carbon tax would be regressive because it would have to be passed on to the consumer. I must admit to some ambivalence, one effect of passing the cost on to consumers, regressive as it may be, is that is would probably result in reduced consumption. I bothers me that Cohen could be so apparently nonchalant about automatically passing the entire cost of the tax onto consumers, especially in light of the fact that, despite record prices for crude oil, which reached a high of $78 per barrel during the conflict between Israel and Lebanon, ExxonMobile, the world's largest oil company, reported a record net profit for 2006 of $39.5 billion on total gross revenues of $377.6 billion. The net profit is a 9% increase over the 2005 record of $36.1 billion and a $91.6 billion increase in total revenues, which is 32% increase.

In the words of Al Gore, "We have to save the frog".