Pope Benedict's renuntiatio

Benedict XVI is no longer Pope. It has been for me a real bereavement. I loved, I can’t say the man, which is reductive, so let’s say the person. Persona, in Latin, meant originally the mask a man wears in society, the face by which he shows who he is. Now he was the Pope, that was his person.

What is to be a Pope? Pope is the bishop of Rome, as successor of Saint Peter, and Peter was the man invested by Jesus, according to the Gospels, to herd his sheep, the rock on which his ecclesia, the converging of all the people recognizing themselves in him, was to be built. 

And again, who was He? Who was Jesus (the) Christ? The king par excellence, the anointed one (as it was the case with the Old Testament kings), through whom it shines forth the glory of the Lord, real ultimate authority from whom all things come and on whom all things rest.

Moreover, what does a king do? The answer is simple, he represents the people. And don’t take this to mean that there is a people already existing, and afterwards there is a king representing it. No, the people exists only through him who represents all those belonging to it. This makes the king a sacrificial figure.

To live as people we have to recognize each other as men, i.e., conversely, reciprocally to represent each other in our common humanity. A man, though, cannot represent another in what in he has, his properties, which can differ (starting from being male and female, and consequently sons and daughters of a man and a woman converging in marital alliance), but only by giving, which means by stripping himself of the properties he has. Sure, we identify each other by what we give. So, only he who gives all can represent everybody. But to give all means to give one’s life: in a giving exchange, though, in which life is renewed, being given back. This is what the king does: effectively to represent with his person the reciprocal life giving and receiving people are involved in.

I know I have been very short: these lines summarize in fact the common sense of all kind of evidence, historical and ethnographical, of human affairs, collected by some of the best cultural anthropologists and theologians. Everywhere giving takes the ceremonial form of gift, in which the things given expressly stand for the ones who give. And everywhere we find gifts turning decisively into something like sacrifice, i.e. into rituals in which the person feigns a dying and a coming out from death renewed. Even now days there are (in spite of all denials and psychological reductions) actions of which we must say that by them an older self dies and a new one is born. Such are the actions performed by kings. But what is performed elsewhere as a ritual action, becomes full reality with Jesus Christ.  

Here is the universal meaning of the Cross, symbol of a passage in which life is taken and given, of which every Christian is called to share through the sacraments. Anointed with chrisma, he becomes himself a “Christ”. But, for Catholics, the anointment finds a special representations in the person of bishops, and, among bishops, in the bishop of Rome.

Back then to Benedict’s renuntiatio. What was it its meaning? We were all stricken by it, we who love him, and those who don’t love him. Some, mostly among these, have seen in it a kind of surrender to the intrigue of the Curia, and/or to the aggression on the Church by a totalitarian liberal (I prefer to say, instead of the banal “secular”) world. It would be like saying that Jesus Christ didn’t deliver himself voluntarily to his enemies, thus challenging them, but more or less cowardly gave in to them not opposing any resistance. This, however, if anything, is not the story the Gospels tell.

Losing strength – the strength necessary to govern the Church – was the reason given by Benedict for his renuntiatio. He choose with it to live his papal, Christian persona to the very end. In a different way, but meaning the same as his predecessor. With the Parkinson undermining him, John Paul II, asked whether he meant to retire, replied in turn with a question: «Can one descend from the Cross?». Obviously not. Aware that some might have taken in this sense his renuntiatio, Benedict, in one of his last public words, said: «I am not descending from the Cross.». Retiring in clausura, disappearing from the eyes of the world, he showed himself in that very passage symbolized by the Cross, where through death shines forth life.

These long overdue lines of comment on Benedict’s renuntiatio are meant, at the eve of the conclave, as a prayer, to see come out of it a new Pope as saintly as he. Equally endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom and understanding, counsel and strength, knowledge, fear of the Lord and justice.

SENTIRE CUM ECCLESIA: Mission Statement

With regard to the sentire cum ecclesiae blogging initiative, perhaps I jumped too quickly in medias res. I would like to explain a little more fulsomely why I have thought to undertake the experiment, whence my sense of the need or at least usefulness of it comes, and what I hope to learn from it.

1. The experiment in democracy that has engulfed the world needs to be guided by the perennially valid reflection on human action that had its first permanent expression in the philosophical writings of the ancient Greeks. That way of thought has been carried to our day by the Christian tradition of thinking. More to this, and more importantly: the philosophical tradition of thinking that began in pagan Athens has been refined and perfected during the course of its transmission through Christianity, a phenomenon that essentially involves, even though it is not limited to, the synthesis of a particular Hebrew theology of history, with the Greek spirit of inquiry into the ultimate reason of things, and the Roman system of social governance (cf.). Western civilization is incomprehensible outside this tradition.

2. We need to apply the Church's perennially valid way of thinking about politics to the problems that arise in contemporary society; in order to do so, we need to be aware of our present inheritance of the principles of morality is precisely that - an inheritance. This means that it has been developed and refined in history. We need to recover the Church's way of thinking in order to understand and properly apply the known principles of morality in our lives, and especially to our our public intellectual life.

3. The perennially valid principles of morality, as they are authoritatively enunciated and taught by the Catholic Church, are not imposed by the Church on the world. They are proposed by the Church, with Her authority, in order to guide, i.e. inform and perfect our action in the world. In other words, they emerge from the Church's reflection on the concrete conditions of our life, and if we would be good sons and daughters, we must participate in that reflection, must let ourselves be guided by those who have come before us, in a spirit of docile humility. Our participation in the tradition is therefore essentially a matter of education.
   

Therefore, those who would think with the Church must learn how to do so. This is a messy, and often imprecise business (I mean the learning process), that is conducted often (though not only) in the equally messy business of life.

I hope to learn with those who would learn with me, in the hope that our learning together might be of benefit to each other and to the Church.

LD

SENTIRE CUM ECCLESIA #1: Material and Formal Cooperation in an Act

This is part of a new LD blogging initiative, the first in a projected series. We'll see how it goes. I will continue with it if there is interest.

Formal cooperation in an act is a person's (natural or corporate) free participation in the action of a principal agent, including the sharing, on the part of someone involved at some stage of the chain of events that culminates in an act, in the intention of a principal agent to perform that action.

Formal cooperation may be either cooperation in an action for the sake of the action itself, or as a means to some other end.

Material cooperation is of two kinds: direct (immediate); remote (sometimes called mediate).

Immediate material cooperation is the participation of a person in circumstances, including direct performance of or involvement in acts that are essential to the commission of another act, such that the ultimate act could not occur without this participation, commission or involvement.

Remote material cooperation is a person's participation in or commission of an act, or involvement in circumstances that are not essential to the commission of another act, such that the ultimate act could occur even without the cooperation of the person involved in the related act.

****************

The issue arose for me out of a reading of Bishop Joseph Martino's Letter to Sen. Casey
regarding Sen. Casey's vote against the Martinez amendment to a senate bill, the purpose of which was to expand pediatric health care coverage.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf of WDTPRS first posted it there, and there has been lively discussion of it over the past few days.


Here is the text of the letter:


January 30, 2009

Dear Senator Casey:

I wish to thank you for voting in favor of the Hatch Amendment to the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reorganization Act of 2009 which would have made unborn children eligible for child health assistance had it passed. I am grateful for what you have done on behalf of children in America who are without health care.

It is with deep regret, however, that I learned of your vote against the amendment offered by Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) to the same Children’s Health Insurance Act. Senator Martinez’s amendment would have reinstated the Mexico City Policy. That policy, instituted in 1984, required foreign non-governmental organizations “to agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds” that they would “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning . . . .” It also prohibited them from lobbying governments to make abortion legal. In effect, the reversal of the Mexico City policy will mean that over 450 million dollars of American foreign aid will go to organizations that are militant in promoting abortion as a method of population control, particularly in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds. Senator, is not this vote a contradiction of your repeated claim that you support the protection of unborn life?

Contrary to a release issued by your office yesterday, the 1973 Helms Amendment does not provide the same restrictions as the Mexico City Policy. The Helms Amendment prohibits only U.S. funds from being used to pay for abortions or to motivate or coerce anyone to practice abortions. It in no way keeps U.S. federal funds from organizations which use their own money to pay for or support abortions. Nor does it place restrictions on organizations that lobby foreign governments to reverse anti-abortion laws. While I understand that the Helms Amendment is still in place, it does not have the same effect in limiting abortions abroad.

On Respect Life Sunday, October 5, I addressed the faithful of the Diocese of Scranton. In keeping with the obligations of my episcopal office, I called upon my brothers and sisters in faith to be vigilant against the objections to the Church’s teaching on life so prevalent in current political discourse. I vowed to be vigilant in correcting Catholics who are in error with regard to the sanctity of life. Your vote against the Mexico City Policy will mean the deaths of thousands of unborn children. This is an offense against life and a denial of our Catholic teaching on the dignity of every human being. This action is worthy of condemnation by all moral men and women.

Your release also says that you support “family planning . . . specifically because reducing unintended pregnancies reduces the number of abortions.” I remind you that it is never permissible to use immoral means (e.g., artificial contraception) to achieve a good end.

As I have done on several occasions, Senator, I urge you to consider that Church documents speak clearly and compellingly on the special responsibility that falls to you as a lawmaker to oppose abortion and other clear evils, including contraception, infanticide, euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research. To that end, I refer you to two documents:

1. Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life. It says, “Catholics . . . have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life.”

2. Christifideles Laici. It states, “If, indeed everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given a particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, health workers and those who hold economic and political power.”

I remind you further that when he was Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger sent a memo to the bishops of the United States advising them that advocacy of, or participation in, abortion and euthanasia can never be justified by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits or requires it. He said there can be no diversity of opinion among Catholics regarding abortion and euthanasia.

It is my deepest wish, Senator, to convince you of the necessity of rescinding your vote on the Martinez Amendment. It is the height of irony that this amendment was defeated while the Senate passed legislation to provide health insurance for children who would otherwise be without it. What hypocrisy offers health insurance to children in one part of the world when children in another part will be deprived, by the stroke of the same pen, of their first breath?

I recognize and respect the burdens that you bear as a United States Senator; however, I remind you that your responsibilities as a Catholic bound by the faith of the Church exceed even those of your office. Your failure to reverse this vote will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy.

As I have done several times before, I offer to make myself available to you to discuss the grave concerns that I raise here.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.
Bishop of Scranton

Now, before beginning our efforts to parse the moral issues raised by the letter, I need to clarify a point of interpretation.

The explanatory note accompanying the bishop's letter speaks of the senator's rescinding his vote. HE Martino writes of "reversing" the vote. Now, the Rules of the Senate make it very difficult to change a vote, although a senator may be permitted to do so by unanimous consent of his colleagues (cf. 12.1 of the Rules). It is not clear that this rule applies to votes on amendments, and I do not know what the consuetude in the Senate is. In any case there is no guarantee that such permission would be given in the case at hand.

Therefore, the bishop's instruction is to be understood to enjoin the senator to vote, Yea! in future attempts to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, and probably also to work toward bringing an initiative in this regard to a vote in the Senate.

Now, readers, go to work on the problem!

SENTIRE CUM ECCLESIA: A Lazy Disciple Blogging Initiative

I have decided to start a new blog initiative: explanations of moral principles and categories; case study and application will always be involved, though not always in the same way.

I will try to select the matter I intend to discuss from posted items and/or discussion columns I find on the various blogs I frequent.

This exercise is for edification and delight, mine and yours. It will succeed to the extent that there is good participation, so invite your friends.

Check back later today for the first entry.

To all, the very, very best!

L.D.