About this time each year, Vatican-watchers begin speculating as to whether or not the Pope will make a series of personnel changes at the Vatican before he begins his summer vacation. Sometimes there is a spate of announcements; sometimes not. If the changes don't come soon, there will be another round of speculation at the end of the summer--when, historically, changes are more frequent.

We have no special information about the Pope's plans. But if and when he considers personnel changes, here are some relevant facts.

First the guidelines: 

• All bishops are expected to submit their resignations when they reach their 75 birthdays. The Pope can accept those resignations or not, at his own discretion and on his own schedule. In practice, Benedict XVI has regularly allowed prelates to remain in place for a year or two, and sometimes considerably longer. 
• At the age of 80, cardinals are no longer eligible to participate in a papal conclave. When they reach that age, with rare exceptions, cardinals relinquish whatever Vatican posts they hold-- even if those posts are not particularly demanding. 

Now the cast of characters:

• Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission, celebrates his 80th birthday on Saturday, July 4. A new motu proprio, following up on the papal document granting broader access to the traditional Latin liturgy, has reportedly been on the Pontiff's desk for months. Traditionalists are anxiously watching for new developments, wondering whether the document will be released before the Colombian cardinal leaves the scene.
• Cardinal Renato Martino, the outspoken president of the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace, marked his 76th birthday last November. With the publication of the Pope's new social encyclical, the most pressing item on his "to-do list" will be finished. 
• Cardinal Walter Kasper, the equally outspoken president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, celebrated his own 76th birthday in March. 
• Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, turned 75 in January. Ordinarily he could be expected to remain in place for a while, but there are reports that the Pope has not been happy with the work of that congregation.
• Cardinal Bernard Law, who was brought to Rome as archpriest of St. Mary Major basilica after resigning as Archbishop of Boston at the height of the sex-abuse scandal, will be 78 in November. 

And last but certainly not least:

• Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who retains enormous influence within the Roman Curia three years after it was announced that he was stepping down as Secretary of State, is still holding onto his position as dean of the College of Cardinals as he closes in on his 82nd birthday. The post is mostly ceremonial, but the dean takes on a highly visible leadership role on the death of a Roman Pontiff. The last two deans-- not counting Cardinal Ratzinger-- resigned shortly after turning 80. By the way, the vice-dean of the College, Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, is 86.

 Because of an error in translation, the original version of yesterday's CWN news story about the resignation of Bishop Francisco Barbosa da Silveira of Minas, Uruguay, contained a factual error. The story has been corrected, and the version that appears on our news page now is accurate. 

Bishop Barbosa did not deny the charge that he had engaged in homosexual activities. In fact the charges were undeniable, since the activities were captured on videotape. Rather than asserting his innocence, the bishop had complained that he was being blackmailed the men who recorded those activities. That is true; it was the extortion demands made by two ex-convicts that eventually brought the bishop's affairs to public notice.

We regret the inaccuracy in our original report.

One of the most important questions with which CatholicCulture.org is supposed to grapple is the question of how to form a Catholic culture. If the answer involves setting forth a specific program, a sure-fire series of steps that will take our current overall culture and make it Catholic, then the “right” answer simply isn’t possible. But if we understand that culture is operative at every conceivable level and in every conceivable circumstance, then we begin to see a fundamental truth about human culture in general, and Catholic culture in particular.

Wherever human persons repeatedly think and act in a consistent manner, a particular culture is created in their sphere of influence. Within the realm of action I include appropriate speech. Let us suppose, for example, that a particular set of parents has a deep belief in the goodness of God and the dignity of all persons as sons and daughters of God. The first thing we notice is that no culture will be created in the family circle as long as this belief is confined within the mind. But insofar as the parents—who necessarily form their children—join together to act repeatedly and predictably in a manner consistent with their beliefs, an identifiable and almost tangible atmosphere is created, an atmosphere in which all family members can find rest, and an atmosphere which tends to nourish and shape the speech and actions of each family member.

This “identifiable and almost tangible atmosphere”—this ambience of life—is what we’re talking about when we use the word “culture”. It can and is expressed in ways too numerous to count. In the example presented here, it is a constructive ambience which communicates things like support and dignity, security and love. By contrast, in a family formed by parents preoccupied with careers, productivity and financial power, an entirely different atmosphere will be created which communicates things like materialism, insecurity and stress.

Though we are not always consistent, ultimately most of our actions stem from the deep inner beliefs and judgments which we hold to be most important. If we are self-aware, we’ll eventually notice and change what is inconsistent in our behavior. In any case, a certain kind of culture is formed wherever people speak and act consistently. We usually think of culture in terms of the larger society of which we are a part, though the family is most often the first cultural unit. But culture is not restricted to families on the one hand and dominant social trends on the other. Rather, culture is formed within the sphere of influence of each group of persons who are brought together by any conceivable set of circumstances.

Thus the combination of thought and action can create a specific atmosphere or ambience—a particular culture—in a recreational group, a team, a classroom, an office, a store, a church—in any human association. Of course, those in charge of each association or group have the greatest influence in creating the corresponding culture. What parents do for their families, teachers can often do in their classrooms, and coaches for their teams. But building a positive culture among group members who are not the leaders is also possible if a small nucleus of people can be formed who wish to think and act according to the same principles. Gradually, as all of our smaller associations take on certain cultural characteristics, the larger culture which they form will be transformed. It is also true that as certain large components of culture are transformed and redirected (major media, for example), the culture of small associations and families will often change.

The key point is that culture is always formed within a specific sphere of influence based on repeatable actions which are consistent with specific ideas, beliefs or values. This is why culture can be formed deliberately as well as more or less accidentally. In fact, to preserve the values in any existing culture within any sphere, or to extend those values to other spheres, a good deal of self-awareness, analysis and planning is often essential. The one constant is that culture is always born of consistent action properly connected to leading ideas. Therefore, insofar as we act based on the prevailing ideas already operative within a certain sphere, we do nothing to change or improve the culture. But insofar as we act consistently on a different set of ideas, then in each sphere of our own influence—or in each sphere where we can create influence through the building of an effective nucleus—the culture will begin to change.

Because we are not perfectly consistent creatures, there is generally plenty of room to make a small cultural experiment. Much as we are always trying to examine ourselves spiritually to make our moral behavior more consistent with our Faith, we should try the same thing in regard to the formation of culture. Among our family and friends, it can be very useful to make a deliberate effort to tailor our speech, actions, plans and programs more closely to our real values and goals—and then watch what happens! What we will find is that all of us have the capacity to engender culture. While we’re at it, we’ll also get feedback on when we’re succeeding in doing this gracefully and when we’re just being a pain! Hopefully, a small taste of how this works will lead us to make a larger difference in our world.

I mentioned in my Insights message today that the noted Dominican scholar Benedict Ashley apparently keeps up with CatholicCulture.org and kindly sent us some information about the poetry of the Sacred Heart written by Mechtilde of Magdeburg in the thirteenth century. You can find information about this in the 13th century section of the history of the Dominicans on Fr. Ashley’s web site.

An important fact illustrated by this contribution is that we never have a shortage of good things from our readers. A perfect example is the note I received in response to a recent Insights message listing some of our resources devoted to embryonic stem cell research. Chuck Weber, Executive Director of SaintMax Worldwide, called my attention to the excellent video SaintMax produced for the USCCB highlighting the issue. You’ll find it on the home page of the SaintMax Worldwide web site.

There’s much more, of course. From down under, Peter Byrne wrote recently to say he uses quite a bit of my stuff on his radio program, “Catholic Print”, in Melbourne, Australia. That’s the kind of information that needs to be shared quickly, not because he uses some of my material but because he has a great radio program in Melbourne that some people there may not yet know about.

Speaking of the radio, Stephen Pease joins me in listening to sports radio when he needs a break, and he thoroughly understands the joke of defending it as “significant”. Then there’s Ellis Spear, who insists that he pictures me with a pipe, and wants me to live up to the image. Pipe, sports, or any other diversion notwithstanding, these are brothers in arms!

Limited funds make it difficult to share everything with everybody, and the strength of our site will always be critical news, commentary and what we might call pointed education. But clearly this requires additional thought. We need to work on ways to focus the site around the effort to highlight key concerns while drawing users together so that we can enrich each other and lend our strength to each other—without wasting space and time with vain comments, diatribes or unnecessary repetition.

There’s a sort of intellectual comaraderie waiting to happen here. This is an important part of how culture gets done.

Now that the USCCB has shored up the deficiencies in Reflections on Covenant and Mission (see A Significant USCCB Self-Correction), the Director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, has expressed concern:

This document, if taken at face value, reintroduces the notion that Catholics can use interfaith dialogue as a means to invite Jews to Christian baptism. If so, then it is unacceptable, for such a statement would foster mistrust between Jews and Catholics and undermine years of work building a positive relationship based on mutual trust and respect of our differences in faith.

Now there are two manifest reasons for anyone to engage in interfaith dialogue. The first is to seek mutual understanding, which in turn dissipates prejudice and promotes mutual respect. This is always good in and of itself. The second is to enable the other party to understand one’s own beliefs in the hope that the other will recognize the truth of those beliefs and so grow to share them. It is unreasonable for anyone convinced that his religious beliefs are true to suspend this hope. In fact, it would be a great sign of disrespect to do so. This second purpose is good in direct proportion to the truth of one’s own position.

In religious dialogue, the presumption is that both parties will be enriched by recognizing the truths to which each adheres. Truth is the mind’s conformity to reality, and it is a very real evil for any mind to fail to so conform. Such a failure severely limits a person’s ability to perfect himself and fulfill his ultimate purpose. Therefore, only a relativist can engage in interfaith dialogue purely to foster mutual understanding, without any hope that truth will be better perceived, and that those who perceive it will act accordingly.

This does not mean that a Catholic will use every opportunity for discussion with Jews to press them to become Catholics. But as the USCCB’s clarification clearly stated, it does mean the following: “Though Christian participation in interreligious dialogue would not normally include an explicit invitation to baptism and entrance into the Church, the Christian dialogue partner is always giving witness to the following of Christ, to which all are implicitly invited.” Clearly if a particular meeting has been formally set aside as an opportunity for religious dialogue, it would likely prove to be dishonest to use it for an explicit invitation to Baptism. As in any relationship with persons who do not share our beliefs, the decision about if or when to explicitly invite a Jew to become a Catholic must be made with sensitivity, prudence and love.

Particular care is required in the case of Catholics and Jews because Catholics recognize the validity of the Covenant with Israel, whereas Jews do not recognize the validity of the New Covenant. For this reason, Christians have a genuine respect for what they term the Old Covenant, and for the whole history of God’s dealings with Israel. Anything which minimizes that respect would strike a false note. In fact, this history and this covenant constitute an essential part of Christian salvation history. Nonetheless, while recognizing that the covenant with Israel is a real covenant with God, Christians believe that this covenant, in both the law and the prophets, has been brought to fulfillment by Jesus Christ, in Whom the Jewish people are now called to put their faith, maturing from a preliminary and temporal covenant of the flesh into a final and permanent covenant of the spirit.

The very first Christians were Jews who believed that Jesus Christ was their Messiah, and that His purpose was to inaugurate a new and imperishable Covenant with all, both Jews and gentiles. Anyone who has entered into that covenant quite rightly wishes that everyone else will experience the same benefit and the same inexpressible joy. Indeed, anything less would constitute something far worse than disrespect; it would be a gross failure of charity, a more or less deliberate withholding of that love to which all of us are equally and supremely called. Christ was crucified for all, and Christ is risen for all. But He was also a Jew, and He said Himself that "salvation is from the Jews" (Jn 4:22). Catholics must not call that birthright into question. Precisely for this reason, and no matter how strict the dialogue, the Catholic must always be an implicit instrument of the Messiah's invitation to Faith. 

Last Thursday’s publication of “A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Reflections on Covenant and Mission” marks a very significant step in the renewal of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The “Note” clarified the doctrinal ambiguities in an ecumenical statement on Catholic-Jewish relations issued under Cardinal William Keeler back in 2002. For several years, Cardinal Keeler had served as the USCCB Moderator for Catholic-Jewish Relations, overseeing among other things an ongoing dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish community in the United States.

There was nothing wrong with publishing the results of that dialogue, which was correctly identified as representing not a “formal position” of the Conference but rather “the state of thought among the participants.” This was enough to give it historical interest. But what was wrong was the failure to publish an official Catholic commentary along with it, a commentary to show that the ecumenical understanding reached by the participants did not fully satisfy the demands of the Catholic Faith.

Because of this failure, the inevitable happened. Theologians started referring to Reflections on Covenant and Mission as authoritative. Still, after all this time the statement could easily have been ignored. That the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine and Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs should seek formally to compensate for the statement's weaknesses seven years later is a tribute to how far the US bishops have come in their commitment to Catholic teaching. 

According to the “Note”, the “principal ambiguities in question involved the description of the Church’s mission and, in particular, what evangelization means with regard to the Jewish peopple.” As you would expect, there was a great reluctance to state that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenant between God and Israel, and that both individual Jews and the Jewish people as a whole are called to embrace Christ. Granted, the Jewish case is different than that of the gentiles, for the Jews already had a legitimate Divine Revelation when Christ came. Thus while the gentiles were called to accept the Revelation of Jesus Christ without ever living under the Old Covenant, the Jews were called—as it were—to mature into the New Covenant which so gloriously fulfilled the Old.

This reluctance led the Doctrine and Ecumenical committies to find Reflections on Covenant and Mission incomplete, ambiguous and even erroneous on the following five counts:

1. The document is incomplete and misleading to acknowledge that “Judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation” in such a way that the “enduring quality of the covenant” is emphasized “without adding that “Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God fulfills both in history and at the end of time the special relationship that God established with Israel.” (#5)
2. Similarly, the document ought not to have acknowledged “the relationship established by God with Israel prior to Jesus Christ” without adding “a clear affirmation of the Church’s belief that Jesus Christ in himself fulfills God’s revelation begun with Abraham and that proclaiming this good news to all the world is at the heart of her mission.” (#6)
3. In attempting to define the Church’s mission as broader than an “invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers”, the document unfortunately develops a vision “in which the core elements of proclaimation and invitation to life in Christ seem virtually to disappear.” An example is the emphasis on evangelization as “a mutually enriching sharing of gifts devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism”. (#7)
4. In emphasizing religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and in asserting that the Church does not have a policy that “singles out the Jews as a people for conversion”, the document “fails to account for St. Paul’s complete teaching about the inclusion of the Jewish people as a whole in Christ’s salvation.” For example, St. Paul teaches that when “the full number of the Gentiles comes in…all Israel will be saved” (Rm 11:25-26). (#8)
5. Moreover, the document “renders even the possibility of individual conversion doubtful by a further statement that implies it is generally not good for Jews to convert, nor for Catholics to do anything that might lead Jews to conversion because it threatens to eliminate ‘the distinctive Jewish witness’.” (#9)

Twenty or thirty years ago such doctrinal clarifications would never have been made. Even seven years ago it was possible to issue the statement without the required doctrinal context. But not any more. If you’re looking for evidence that things are slowly getting better in the Church in America, this “Note” fills the bill. It even flies in the face of political correctness to do it.

 Yesterday we carried a news story about the statement by COMECE-- the umbrella group representing episcopal conferences of the European Union-- announcing that "climate change has become a question of survival." This is not an authoritative statement, of course. But it will be interpreted as an official statement of the Catholic hierarchy, endorsing a scientific proposition that is still under debate.

Isn't that how the Church got into trouble in the Gallileo affair?

The COMECE statement suggested radical changes in the way we live, as a means of curbing climate change. Embedded in that statement are several assumptions:

• That temperatures are rising-- not just in one region (the Arctic) but all around the globe.
• That this rise in temperatures (if it exists) is attributable to something more than the natural rhythm of weather patterns, which have shown rising and cooling trends across the centuries.
• That in fact the reported change in temperatures is caused by human actions, and therefore…
• That a change in human behavior will stop the trend.

Personally, I am quite skeptical about every one of those assumptions. But I am not a scientist, so my opinion doesn't really matter.

My point, however, is that bishops aren't scientists either, and they would do well to leave scientific debates to those who are qualified to address the issues. The question of climate change has become a matter of political contention, and that's all the more reason for bishops to remain neutral, rather than risking the credibility of the Church by identification with one or the other side.

Also in yesterday's news, a group of Canadian bishops announced their desire for greater public discussion before nuclear power plants are built. Again, these bishops seem to be leaping into a highly politicized scientific debate.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary told reporters that in this proposed discussion, the bishops would not necessarily take the lead, "but we'd certainly want to be a player." Why? A bishop has plenty of vitally important work to do: teaching, governing, and sanctifying. Being a "player" in political or scientific discussions is not on that list. Quite the contrary: Vatican II reminds us that secular affairs are the proper responsibility of the Catholic laity-- who should be prepared for that responsibility by way of the spiritual formation their bishops offer them.

Coincidentally, these two stories appeared on the same day that we also reported the letter from Pope Benedict to the world's Catholic clergy, explaining his plan for the Year for Priests. In that letter the Holy Father quotes extensively from the Curé of Ars, the patron and model for parish priests. Hidden away in his little parish, St. John Vianney was not a "player" in public affairs. But he was a superb pastor of souls. By molding the consciences of his parishioners, and strengthening their interior life, he made them better able to be "players" in their own secular callings. That's the role of a priest, and still more the role of a bishop.

Let scientists be scientists. Let politicians be politicians. Encourage Catholic scientists and politicians to hash out their differences, and trust that, if they have the proper spiritual formation, they will reach the right results. And in order to ensure that they do have that spiritual formation, let priests be priests.
 

Among all the concepts of God the world has known, only one draws the believer into the most profound intimacy of love. This intimacy is completely dependent upon the unique way in which the Christian God interacts in its three persons, and in which the Catholic God interacts with men. I refer, of course, to the doctrine of the Trinity and its wonderful relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary, leading to the Incarnation of the Son who accomplishes our Redemption through a completely self-sacrificial love.

The Christian drama of intimate love begins with the Trinity. God’s nature, as Christians understand it and philosophers ought to, is such that a relationship among three persons in God is absolutely required. Taking the Father as the first in logical priority (though not in time), we can see that if God’s knowledge of Himself is to be perfect, then that knowledge must in fact be another person, coeternal and coequal with the first, and aptly named (in priority) the Son. But the Son and the Father must also love each other infinitely and perfectly, so this love must itself be a person, also coeternal and coequal with the Father and the Son. We call this infinite perfect love the Holy Spirit.

Philosophers might have figured this out on their own, though it is always dangerous to assert too much from natural reason about God. In any case, Revelation is ever an aid to reason, and reality does tend to be intuitive once it is known. The point to grasp here is simply that the Christian God is in very truth a family in a relationship of perfect love, a love that is also infinite in its very intimacy, in the depths to which the beloved is known and cherished by the lover, and to which the lover pours himself out to the beloved. Moreover, this love, being infinitely intimate, always desires to include others within its magnificent scope.

Thus has God created other persons to share in His love, both angels and men. While the very act of creation is an act of love, the subsequent relationship of God to His creatures reveals how God loves each creature in the manner most fitted to its nature, establishing an intimacy of love between Himself and creation. The most striking instance of this from our own point of view, of course, is how God has chosen to love man. Just as the Father created man as a composite being, material and spiritual, body and soul, so too does He love man—and each man and woman—most appropriately through the astonishing Incarnation of the Son, the Word made flesh, infinity made intimate to human persons.

And what does this Incarnate Christ do? He lives a life of self-sacrificial love in deep obedience to the Father, a self-sacrificial love for every other person. His purpose in doing so is to draw us all into the intimate fire of love shared by the Trinity, now dwelling in us through sacramental power, shaping us in love from within. Everything in the Divine plan is connected to this purpose. The sacraments, for example, are outward signs instituted by Christ to “give grace”—that is, to impart the Divine life, which is love. The Eucharist itself is a participation in the life, death and Resurrection of Christ, enabling us to eat His body and blood, so that we become what we have received: We are deified in intimate love.

In some measure all Christian groups retain much of this understanding, though many of them are gradually losing their sense of the Incarnation and of the persons in the Trinity as a rising tide of secularism minimizes the richness of the original apostolic teaching. But when it comes to the ultimate act of this drama of love, very few Christian groups understand the gift they have been given. For just as God loves in a manner wholly appropriate to a creature whom He has created body and soul, so too does He love in a manner equally appropriate to a creature whom he has created male and female. This is why the Catholic understanding of God, and of Love, includes a special and even pivotal role for Mary.

In order to bring about the Incarnation of the Son for the purpose of enacting His redeeming love, God adopts a plan which incorporates the power of the masculine and the feminine to which human nature was expressly designed to respond. And not only does human nature respond through maleness and femaleness, but it responds in this way with extraordinary power and attraction, seeking to be made whole. Therefore, Christ is brought into the world through the most appropriate loving intimacy of a woman and a mother.

Here God’s condescension is breathtaking. He creates for this purpose a woman whom He so fills with grace that she becomes, as Wordsworth so aptly wrote, “our tainted nature’s solitary boast.” In the deepest sense, then, is Mary the daughter of the Father. Next, God brings about the conception of the Word made flesh through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, an intimate marital union which equally makes Mary the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Finally, God the Son grows in Mary’s womb, being born in the course of time as an infant, and being raised by Mary, who is finally and rightly called the mother of the Son. Thus is the woman, Mary, drawn into the deepest intimacy of Trinitarian love in order to bring forth the Christ, who teaches us Who love is, and who sacrifices Himself for us out of deepest love.

Nowhere is this account of love, this deep understanding and experience of infinite intimacy, more fully represented than in the Catholic Church. The richness of her doctrine is a richness of the knowledge of love; the power of her sacraments is the power of the experience of love. The Church is not only the body but the very Bride of Christ; marriage becomes the human model of Christ’s relationship to the Church. People talk about Catholic guilt, and with so many blessings, I am sure we have much to be guilty about. But they ought rather to talk about Catholic intimacy. The hallmark of the Church is intimacy with the God of Love.

Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson (New Jersey) is the chairman of the US Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship. Last October he addressed the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions on the significance and goals of the revision of the Roman Missal, currently in progress. The revision is proceeding according to the principles set forth in 2001 in Liturgiam authenticam, an instruction of the Holy See which replaced the document in force since 1969, Comme le Prévoit, now regarded as seriously flawed.

As Bishop Serratelli pointed out, the main difference between the two instructions is that the heady 1969 concept of “dynamic equivalency” is now replaced by a more traditional concept of “formal equivalency”. With “dynamic equivalency”, the translator was encouraged to attempt to capture the concept presented in any given liturgical prayer without attempting to reproduce in the new language the particular words and phrases used in the Latin. This gave translators tremendous leeway and, given the times, led to a marked horizontalization and banalization (if such are words!) of the liturgy. Liturgiam authenticam’s “formal equivalency” insists that not only the underlying concepts but the precise words and phrases used to express them be preserved in the translation, ensuring superior fidelity to the mind of the Church.

What lies beneath this shift is an important liturgical recovery, the understanding that the liturgy is primarily the work of God and that its words and actions are supposed to reflect not so much individual styles of piety as the living Faith of the Church, into which each believer must be incorporated. Or, as Bishop Serratelli put it:

In the liturgy, the words addressed to God and the words spoken to the people voice the Faith of the Church. They are not simply the expression of one individual in one particular place at one time in history. The words used in the liturgy also pass on the faith of the Church from one generation to the next…. The liturgy is the source of the divine life given through the Church as sacrament of salvation. As Pope Paul VI once said, it is also “the first school of the spiritual life, the first gift which we can give to the Christian people who believe and pray with us….”

Bishop Serratelli then went on to enumerate the seven characteristics of the new translation:

• The translation must capture the teleological focus of the Latin. Latin prayers tend to conclude strongly with a teleological or eschatological point. Thus, for example, an English expression such as “grant that we may learn to love the things of heaven by tempering earthly desires” would, following the teleology of the Latin original, be rendered as “grant that by tempering earthly desires we may learn to love the things of heaven.” The first ends on our desires; the second on heaven.
• Biblical references must be made clear. Examples abound, but the classic one is “Lord I am not worthy to receive you”, which does nothing to recall the Scriptural context on which it is based. This will now be rendered, as it was in the earliest English translations, as “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”, a clear reference to Matthew 8:8.
• Patristic references must similarly be made clear. Thus for the memorial of Saint Augustine, we will remember his famous dictum (“If you have received worthily, you are what you have received”) when we pray “May the partaking of the table of Christ sanctify us, we pray, O Lord, that, being made His members, we may be what we have received.”
• The richness of the Latin vocabulary is to be preserved. Rather than translate a variety of Latin words with the same English word again and again, the variety will be retained: for example, “nourished, fed, recreated, made new” and “we pray, we beseech, we ask”.
• The translation must preserve the Latin’s poetic qualities. The Latin abounds in concrete images, parallelism, and anthropomorphic expressions. Instead of saying “in your pity hear our prayers”, we will say “in your pity give ear to our prayers.” Similarly, the prayer “Grant us, Lord, to begin with holy fasting this campaign of Christian service that, as we fight against spiritual evils, we may be armed with the weapons of self restraint” will not end up as something anemic and colorless like “Grant that we may fast in order to grow spiritually.”
• The translation must preserve the exactness of the Latin original, which is already composed in a style befitting the liturgy. For example, a prayerful reflection on the offertory gifts as they are prepared for the sacrifice of the Mass might well read as “grant that we who celebrate the mysteries of the Lord’s Passion may imitate what we enact”, but because the word “enact” is suggestive in English of a performance, it will be translated “may imitate what we now do”. Thus the correct word is chosen to capture the precise meaning of the Latin “agere” in this context.
• The translation must preserve the concision and nobility of the Latin tone. The language and vocabulary of the street and the supermarket are not appropriate to the liturgy, yet over the past generation or two, our English translations have grown increasingly common, ordinary, informal. This is not the language of public discourse, and such language is not used in the Latin. Neither should it creep into the English translation.

Bishop Serratelli’s address provides as succinct a summary of the purpose of the new translation of the Roman Missal as I have yet seen. You can read the complete text in our library, but this summary is sufficient to acquaint you with the main virtues of the new translation, which is expected to be completed and published before the end of 2010. Further information about the translation, along with catechetical materials designed to introduce it, may be found on the USCCB web site, Order of Mass Translation.

 In February, Bishop William Morris of Toowomba, in Australia, announced that he had no intention of backing off his contention that the Catholic Church should re-open discussion about the possibility of ordaining women as priests. He would "continue to fight for what I believe is the truth," he insisted, no matter what the "temple police" might say. Just a few days later Bishop Morris felt compelled to say that he wasn't worried that the Vatican would remove him from his episcopal assignment. 

Last Thursday, June 4, the Vatican released the terse notice that Pope Benedict had held a private audience with Archbishop Philip Edward Wilson of Adelaide, Australia, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, accompanied by Bishop William Martin Morris of Toowoomba, Australia.

At the age of 65, Bishop Morris is nowhere near mandatory retirement. 

Make of it what you will.

How quick people are to redefine words to suit their own purposes! In both public statements and private correspondence, radical anti-lifers and squeamish pro-lifers alike have fallen into the habit of calling acts of violence against abortionists “terrorism” and defining those who commit them as “terrorists”. In reality, such violence is the very opposite of terrorism.

That doesn’t make it right. As I wrote yesterday, and as Phil Lawler explained even more forcefully, pro-lifers have very strong reasons for opposing vigilante action against abortionists. But not all violence is terrorism. Rather, the unique quality of terrorism is that its violence is deliberately directed against random (and therefore usually innocent) targets. Its purpose is not so much to wage war on the guilty as to force an opposing nation or culture into submission by engendering fear of unpredictable mayhem among those who have no reason to expect to be attacked.

There is nothing whatsoever that is either random or unpredictable about violence against abortionists. It is critical that our society wake up and grasp this point. Doctors who routinely put to death unborn children will inevitably (and rightly) make large numbers of people very angry, and they will further breed both hatred and contempt among the relatively few pro-lifers who lack serious spiritual grounding. Even more to the point, this hatred and contempt is likely to reach levels of ferocious intensity among those who have been personally victimized by abortionists, especially among fathers who did not want their babies to die, or among brothers and friends to women who, after the fact, realize they have been very seriously victimized.

Given this state of affairs, the wonder is that there has been so little violence against abortionists to date. Surely this is a genuinely super-human tribute to the deep religious convictions of the pro-life community. When faced with the unspeakable violence of abortion, the cause of antagonism is obvious and the target is predictable. I have already said that any resulting physical attack is deplorable. But it is also the very antithesis of terrorism.

 Every death is a tragedy. A violent death compounds tragedy with brutal injustice. And a bloody killing inside a church is an abomination.

Sane Christians reacted to the murder of Dr. George Tiller with horror. We deplore the killing; we condemn it; we recoil from it. We pray for God's mercy on the victim, the perpetrator, and all those who have been scarred by this obscene assault.

But at a time that calls for mourning, it is unseemly to try to score political points. It is painful to watch the militant advocates of unrestricted abortion exploit Tiller's death, calling for new restrictions on all pro-life activism. As my colleague Jeff Mirus has pointed out in his provocative commentary, it is also uncomfortable to see so many prominent pro-lifers rush out with ill-considered emotional statements "to discourage the general public from concluding that pro-lifers are, in effect, terrorists." 

This is a time for mourning, for prayer, and-- after a bit of reflection-- for honesty. Honest observers will know, without being reminded, that the peaceful pro-life activists who pray and counsel and lobby are not terrorists. Honest analysts will recognize the obvious distinction between the activists-- on both sides-- who attempt to change laws and those who attempt to snuff out lives. 

Yes, we pro-lifers deplored what Tiller had done for many years. (And it's only fair to point out that he deplored what we were doing as well; his contempt for pro-life activists was a matter of public record.) Yes, we said that he was wrong to bring so many thousands of human lives to violent ends. Yet it should be self-evident that when we condemn killing, we are not encouraging killers. Quite the contrary. The thousands of dedicated pro-lifers who stand vigil outside abortion clinics, praying for and talking to the women who approach, endure insults and abuse every day without complaint. They are not aggressors; they are no threat to anyone. Honest observers recognize all this.

There are a handful of rabid ideologues who argue that it is justifiable to use violence against abortionists in order to save the lives of the unborn children-- just as it is justifiable for a police officer to shoot a felon who is threatening to commit murder. The general principle is correct, but its application to this case is wrong. An act of violence against an abortionist will not save a single unborn child, as long as the mother can schedule another appointment with another abortionist the next day. And by the way George Tiller was not planning to perform any abortions in the Reformation Lutheran Church on Sunday morning. The notion that this murder was done to defend an unborn child is absurd. To invoke the lives of unborn children in an effort to rationalize this killing is to seek political gain from the blood of innocent victims-- an utterly reprehensible approach.

In fact, let's be honest: the killing of George Tiller was motivated by exactly the same sentiments that prompt so many women to seek abortions. For some women, pregnancy is objectively inconvenient; the child growing in the womb is a threat to all their plans. For a few fanatics--whose opposition to abortion had become an obsession rather than a commitment to life -- Dr. Tiller's life was terribly inconvenient; his continued operation of America's most high-profile abortion clinic was a constant affront. Life without Tiller seemed evidently seemed attractive to Scott Roeder, just as life without a distended belly seems more attractive to many young women. So the inconvenient human being had to go.

That sort of moral calculation-- treating human beings as objects, as means to an end-- is wrong, no matter who does it. As Robert George remarked: "Every human life is precious.George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life."

Does the calculation change because Dr. Tiller had taken so many lives himself? No. Sadly, despite our efforts, society condones what he did. Single individuals cannot impose sentence for crimes that the government does not recognize. 

Very soon after the murder, Operation Rescue-- the group that had locked horns with Tiller in 1991 and continued to battle him all through the years-- issued a statement that was honest and balanced:  "We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning." A vigilante acts on the belief that his victim is guilty--- that assumption guilt is indeed the reason for his action. But a vigilante acts without justice.

In fact, rather than saying that Tiller's involvement in abortion was a justification for violence against him, it would make more sense for a Christian to say that it was an argument against precipitous action. George Tiller was a man in need of correction, conversion, and repentance. A sudden, violent death robbed him of the chance to reform. 

"It has always been my philosophy that we convert abortionists," said Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League. Scheidler-- a man whose commitment to Christian non-violence is as deep and clear as his commitment to direct action-- went on: "As activists committed to saving lives, we vigorously oppose violence." 

We are activists committed to saving lives-- and not just lives in this world. That's why the killing of George Tiller must be condemned.