Crux sancta sit mihi lux / Non draco sit mihi dux: Vade retro satana / Numquam suade mihi vana: Sunt mala quae libas / Ipse venena bibas
Hodie contritum est ab ea caput serpentis antiqui

teisipäev, 30. november 2010


SSPX on avaldanud oma seisukoha seoses paavsti laialdast vastukaja tekitanud märkustega intervjuu-raamatus "Maailma valgus". Ja iseloomulikult on selles paavsti märkusi tõlgendatud samamoodi, kui seda tegi sekulaarne meedia ja liberaalsed kommentaatorid -- kui taganemist Kiriku seni kindlaltpüsinud õpetusest. Lihtsalt hinnang väidetavale "taganemisele" on vastupidine, st. hukkamõistev. See on tüüpiline, kuivõrd sarnasel moel interpreteerib SSPX ka Vatikani II Kirikukogu ühtemoodi modernistitega, andes sellele lihtsalt vastupidise hinnangu. SSPX hinnang on vesi sekulaarse-(post)modernistliku meedia veskile, kes saab sellest kinnitust oma tõlgendusele. Ja kinnitust sai ka minu veendumus, et traditsionalism ja modernism kui ideoloogiad on teineteise peegeldused.

Arroyo, Weigel & Dramatized Bible

Üle 50 min kestvas EWTN saates "The World Over" räägib saatejuht Raymond Arroyo uute kardinalide ametisseseadmisest, autoriseerimata piiskopipühitsusest Hiinas, vestleb George Weigeliga kondomooniast ja tutvustab Uue Testamendi dramatiseeritud audioväljaande projekti (InsightScoop):

esmaspäev, 29. november 2010

William E. May analüüs

Moraaliteoloog William E. May vaatleb Martin Rhonheimeri eelpool osutatud väidet "kondoomi profülaktilise kasutamise kohta abieluaktis":
Is It Intrinsically Evil for Spouses to Use Condoms to Prevent HIV?

On July 10, 2004 the noted philosopher/theologian Martin Rhonheimer published an article in the London Tablet,The truth about condoms,” in which he argued that spouses could legitimately use condoms as a means of preventing the transmission of HIV.” He argued that such use need not be contraceptive, insofar as the moral object specifying their choice was not necessarily to contracept. I wrote a letter to the editors of the Tablet to reply to Rhonheimer’s essay but it was never printed. I sent Rhonheimer an email in which I included a copy of the letter I had sent to the Tablet. In that letter I maintained that condomistic sex between married persons was not the marital act but a perverted sexual act. In fact in my email I said that the act was a perverted sexual act because a free choice was made “to ejaculate deliberately into a rubber and insert the rubber-covered penis into a vagina,” an act similar to masturbation. In replying to my email Rhonheimer declared: “What really is chosen when a person uses a condom to prevent infection is in my view is not ‘to ejaculate etc…’ but a marital act.” He went on to say that since this act includes no contraceptive choice we can, if we consider the intentional activity involved, conclude that “the unitive and procreative meaning of the act are not separated.” It should be noted that several Cardinals agree with Rhonheimer, among them, Carlo Cardinal Martini, emeritus Archbishop of Milan, Godfrey Cardinal Daneels of Belgium, and Georges Cardinal Cottier, O.P. former theologian to the papacy. It should also be noted that in a talk in June 2005 to African bishops Pope Benedict XVI himself said that the only “fail-safe” way to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS was abstinence. His exact words are the following: “The Catholic Church has always been at the forefront both in prevention and in treatment of this illness. The traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. For this reason, ‘the companionship, joy, happiness and peace which Christian marriage and fidelity provide, and the safeguard which chastity gives, must be continuously presented to the faithful, particularly the young’" (Ecclesia in Africa, 116).

What amazed me is that the position presented by Rhonheimer in 2004 had been set forth in 1987 in booklet published by the Catholic Truth Society of England by James Alison, O.P. under the title Catholics and AIDS: Questions and Answers. In fact I had, in June 1988, published an essay in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter in which I noted that several theologians argued that the use of condoms for such a purpose is not contraceptive, because the intent of those who use condoms is not to prevent conception but rather to avoid the transmission of a deadly disease. I agreed that such use may not be contraceptive because the object freely chosen need not be to impede procreation. For instance, assume that the husband of an aged married couple contracted HIV through a blood transfusion. His wife was known to be past the age of childbearing so that there would be no reason to use a condom for contraceptive purposes. Why waste money to impede procreation when one realizes that although the behavior in question is the kind of bodily union through which life can be transmitted (it is a procreative kind of act) for factors independent of the agents’ behavior (e.g., sterility) conception will not occur. But, I argued, “condomistic intercourse is, of itself, an ‘unnatural’ or perverted sexual act, and cannot be regarded as a true act of marriage. In my 1988 essay I noted that the Catholic tradition repudiated condomistic intercourse not only because it was usually chosen as a way of contracepting but also because it was against nature. Older theologians judged that in such intercourse the male's semen was deposited in a vas indebitum or "undue vessel" Although this language is not in favor today, the judgment it embodied is, I was convinced, true. When spouses choose to use condoms they change the act they perform from one of true marital union (the marriage act) into a different kind of act. The "language of their bodies," as Pope John Paul II would say, is changed. “In the marital act their bodies speak the language of a mutual giving and receiving, the language of an unreserved and oblative gift. Condomistic intercourse does not speak this language; it mutilates the language of the body, and the act chosen is more similar to masturbation than it is to the true marital act.”

I agree with Rhonheimer that couples using condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS may not be intending to impede procreation, and thus their chosen act is not an act of contraception. Here I appeal to the teaching of St. Thomas and Pope John Paul II to support this matter. Some acts, as acts of nature may be contraceptive, but as St. Thomas and John Paul II make clear, as moral human acts receive their moral species from the act freely chosen by an agent. St. Thomas expresses this briefly in many texts, e.g., in Summa theologiae 2-2, 64, 7, where he declares: “actus autem morales recipient speciem secundum id quod intenditur, non autem ab eo quod est praeter intentionem” [English trans. “Moral acts receive their species according to what is intended and not from what lies outside the scope of one’s intention].A particularly important Thomistic text on this matter, making it crystal clear that the primary moral specification of an act is rooted in the object freely chosen, is the following: Will can be considered in two ways: (1) as intention (secundum quod est intendens), insofar as it bears on an ultimate end; and (2) as choice (secundum quod est eligens), insofar as it bears on a proximate object ordered to that ultimate end. If (1) will is considered in the first way (as intending) the will’s badness suffices to make the act bad, for whatever is done for a bad end is bad. But the goodness of the intending will is not sufficient to make the act good because the act may be bad in itself (actus potest esse de se malus) an act which in no way can be made good. But (2) if the will is considered insofar as it is choosing (Si autem consideretur voluntas secundum quod est eligens) then it is universally true that from the goodness of the will the act is said to be good and from the badness of the will it is said to be bad.

John Paul II made the same point in Veritatis splendor 78. There he declared: The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the ”object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will (emphasis in original)….In order to grasp the object of the act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person (emphasis in original). The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behavior (emphasis added). To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision [=choice] which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person (emphasis added here. I do so because in this text what Aquinas called the “natural species” of the act, as distinct from its “moral species” John Paul II calls “a process or event of the physical order, to be assessed on is ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world”).

Be that as it may, I now recognize that many couples who use condoms to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS also intend to contracept. After all, many of these couples are young and fear that if a child were conceived it would be exposed to the threat of a dread disease, and hence they would intend both to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS and the transmission of life. But the major reason why such use of a condom is always seriously evil is the following: if spouses who wish to have intercourse use a condom to prevent HIV transmission, their choice is not to engage in the marital act because their freely chosen act is not unitive—that is, it does not realize, express, and allow spouses to experience their unity as a married couple. To be unitive the act chosen by the spouses must have at least two properties: (1) It must be voluntary, done "humano vere modo"; (2) it must be “actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem, ad quem natura sua ordinatur matrimonium, et quo coniuges fiunt una caro” [English trans. “An act per se apt for generating life, to which marriage is by its very nature ordered”]. The Latin phrase, “per se aptum ad prolis generationem,” can be described as “sexual behavior that, if other necessary conditions are present (e.g., the fertility of both man and woman), would result in conception.” From this it follows that if spouses who are going to have intercourse use a condom to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, the act is always objectively wrong because they are choosing to engage in behavior that would not result in conception if other necessary conditions were present.

The reason why proceeding with a condom cannot realize one-flesh unity is that one-flesh unity is the oneness of the couple as the different but complementary subjects of the same act, one that can be rightly called a “reproductive” or “procreative” kind of act. Here I need to repeat something affirmed earlier in this paper, namely, that the act consummating marriage is one in which husband and wife, literally becoming “one flesh,” form one procreative unit. It is, in short, a procreative or reproductive type act, and remains this kind of act even if the spouses, because of non-behavioral factors over which they have no control, for example, the temporary or permanent sterility of one of the other, are not able to generate human life in it. Their act remains the kind of bodily act “apt” for generating human life. It is in fact the only kind of bodily act through which human life can be given, for it is only in this kind of act that a man and a woman can exercise their procreative powers; they cannot exercise those powers, as they can their digestive, respiratory, and cognitive powers, as individual men and women, but only as a “mating couple,” in an act in which they in truth do become “one flesh.”

In summary, use of condoms to prevent transmission of a disease is intrinsically evil because the object freely chosen that specifies the moral nature of the act is not the marital act, an act in which husband and wife give and receive one another and become literally “one flesh,” but a different kind of act, one that in no way unites them but rather changes utterly the “language of the body.”

Video pühast Padre Piost

Viide: isa Tim

pühapäev, 28. november 2010

Pius XI kommentaarid

[N]o reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.(Casti Connubii, 54, 56)

John Smeatoni kommentaarid

"Sündimata Laste Kaitsmise Ühingu" direktor John Smeaton kommenteerib paavsti kommentaaride (väär)kajastamist Austen Ivereighi ja Jack Valero poolt:

Kateheetiline analüüs

K. Gurries on teinud oma blogis Opuscula hea kateheetilise analüüsi kondoomiküsimuse kohta postituses "Moraalsuse allikad". Tõsi, ta jätab lõpuks lahtiseks küsimuse, kas "kahese toime printsiip" käsitletud juhtumil lõpuks kehtib või mitte, väites vaid, et mitmete moraaliteoloogide hinnangul kehtib. Esitasin talle postituse kommentaaris järgmise küsimuse:
... does the principle of double effect actually apply here? As you quoted: "The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from--provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever." Here the talk is about (1) "therapeutic means necessary to cure", and (2) "forseeable impediment to procreation" (3) "provided [it] is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever". It seems to me none of these applies to "profylactic use of condom" in marital act. (1) It is not meant to cure neither husband nor wife from any disease; (2) it is not some forseeable, but direct impediment to procreation. Actually the profylactic works insofar only as it prevents semen entering vagina; therefore (3) contraceptive use of condom is direct means for profylactic and cannot be unintended "for any motive whatsoever".
 Ootan huviga tema vastust.

... Mida ei tulnudki :(

28.11 -- Taassõnakuulmise Päev

Samuel kuulutas tänase päeva Taassõnakuulmise Päevaks, ja see juhatab sisse Sõnakuulmise Aasta. Kutsun kõiki väikeseid poisse ja tüdrukuid selle initsiatiiviga ühinema! Miski ütleb mulle, et ma oleksin pidanud selle avalduse kaunilt vormistama ja paluma sellele tema allikirja. Ning koopia sellest pistma käepäraselt põue. Igaks-juhuks. Need mõned korrad, kui täna on olnud vajadust selle päeva tähtsust meelde tuletada, on igatahes väga efektiivselt mõjunud.

PS. Ning mis väga oluline: see sobib suurepäraselt Advendi ja uue kirikuaasta alguse intentsiooniks mullegi, eee.. tegelikult tahtsin kirjutada "teistelegi".
Head Uut Kirikuaastat!

Paavsti vigiili-jutlusest

Blogis Rorate Coeli on tõlkekatke paavsti poolt eilsel vigiilil tärkava inimelu eest peetud itaaliakeelsest jutlusest:

Believing in Jesus Christ also means having a new outlook on man, a look of trust and hope. Moreover, experience itself and reason show that the human being is a subject capable of discernment, self-conscious and free, unique and irreplaceable, the summit of all earthly things, that must be recognized in his innate value and always accepted with respect and love. He has the right not to be treated as an object of possession or something to manipulate at will, not to be reduced to a mere instrument for the benefit of others and their interests. The human being is a good in and of himself and his integral development should always be sought. Love for all, if it is sincere, naturally tends to become a preferential attention to the weakest and poorest. In this vein we find the Church's concern for the unborn, the most fragile, the most threatened by the selfishness of adults and the darkening of consciences. The Church continually reiterates what was declared by the Second Vatican Council against abortion and all violations of unborn life: 'from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care'.

... With regard to the embryo in the womb, science itself highlights its autonomy capable of interaction with the mother, the coordination of biological processes, the continuity of development, the growing complexity of the organism. This is not an accumulation of biological material, but a new living being, dynamic and wonderfully ordered, a new unique human being. So was Jesus in Mary's womb, so it was for all of us in our mother’s womb…there is no reason not to consider him a person from conception.
Benedict XVI

reede, 26. november 2010

Vooruslik patt

Paavsti kondoomi-märkuste arutelu kontekstis katoliiklikus blogosfääris ilmnevad üllataval kombel erinevad arusaamad ka nende vaadetes, kes muudes Kiriku elu puudutavates küsimustes on enam-vähem ühte meelt. Lahkarusaamad keskenduvad küsimuse ümber, kas kondoomi kasutamine väärastunud seksuaalakti puhul, kui seda tehakse kavatsusega vältida kaasosalise nakatumist HI-viirusega, on moraalselt hea tegu. Ühed leiavad, et jah, see on hea tegu, olgugi minimaalne; teised aga, et ehkki kavatsus kaasosalist hukutavast tagajärjest säästa on hea, ei ole kondoomi kasutamine antud juhul ometi veel moraalselt hea tegu, vaid hea kavatsuse ebaadekvaatne realiseerimine. Moraalne lahendus oleks loobumine väärastunud seksuaalsest praktikast. Kondoomi kasutamine küll modifitseerib seda praktikat, aga ei muuda selle teo põhimõttelist iseloomu, tegemist on endiselt väärastunud seksuaalse käitumisega, ehkki potentsiaalselt väiksema laastava mõjuga ning selle tõttu väiksema, aga siiski raske kurjaga. Viimast arusaama toetab paavsti osutus, et kondoomi kasutamise näol ei ole tegemist tõelise moraalse lahendusega; tõeline lahendus saab olla vaid seksuaalsuse humaniseerimine, st. selle asetamine adekvaatsesse konteksti -- ustavasse ja armastavasse abiellu mehe ja naise vahel. Ent sedavõrd, kuivõrd inimesed on kinni teatud harjumuslikes praktikates ja tõekspidamistes, ei pruugi see üleminek adekvaatsele lahendusele olla kaugeltki kiire ja kerge. Patustaja sügav ja täielik pöördumine korrapealt on moraalne ime. Tavaliselt toimub pöördumine pikaajalise järkjärgulise protsessi kaudu, mille käigus inimene teadvustab samm-sammult oma väärastunud olukorra aspekte ja püüab nendega võidelda, võib-olla paljude tagasilangemistega. Alles püsiva pingutuse tulemusena ja Jumala armu kaasabil võib ta lõpuks vabaneda oma väljakujunenud ja harjumuseks saanud tegevusmustritest, mida võiks nimetada ka patu ahelateks. Ja sellise protsessi kontekstis saab tolereerida neid osalisi, ebaadekvaatseid lahendusi, ent ainult juhul kui need osutavad vähemalt püüdlusele hea suunas, olgugi veel ebaadekvaatsele. Kuna see on alati individuaalne hinnang konkreetse inimese olukorrale, siis ei saa see olla üldiseks soovituseks, a la "kõik, kes elavad liiderlikku elu, peaksid kasutama kondoome, sest olgugi teie eluviis sobimatu, on see vähim moraalselt  hea tegu, mis te saate teha." See oleks valetamine, kuna kondoomi kasutamine poleks iseseisev moraalselt hea tegu, vaid osa liiderlikust eluviisist. Ent individuaalsetel juhtudel, nagu öeldud, võib see olla märgiks südametunnistuse liigutamisest, mida tuleks hoida ja püüda turgutada ning samas puhastada ja suunata tõeliselt inimlike valikute poole. Põhjalikumalt kirjutab moraalse ja episteemilise erinevusest Dr. Steven A. Long oma blogis. 

Esimene grupp (Damian Thompson, Sandro Magister, John Allen Jr), need, kes leiavad, et kondoomi kasutamine antud olukorras on minimaalne moraalselt hea tegu, teevad siit kiire ülemineku juba abielumoraali valda ja väidavad, et kaudselt on paavsti märkuste taga aimata ka heakskiitu seisukohale, et kui üks abikaasadest on HIV-positiivne, siis on abikaasa nakatumise vältimiseks õigustatud kondoomi kasutamine ka abikaasade vahelises seksuaalsuhtes, kuna sellisel juhul polevat tegu kontratseptsiooniga, vaid ohtliku nakkuse vältimisega. Huvitav on, et autoriteedina viidatakse seejuures Opus Dei preestrile, moraaliteoloog Martin Rhonheimerile, Püha Risti Ülikooli professorile, täpsemalt tema artiklile ajakirjas The Tablet. Mitmete oluliste punktide kõrval, millega võib täielikult nõustuda, kirjutab ta:
The norm about contraception applies without exception; the contraceptive choice is intrinsically evil. But it obviously applies only to contraceptive acts, as defined by Humanae Vitae, which embody a contraceptive choice. Not every act in which a device is used which from a purely physical point of view is "contraceptive", is from a moral point of view a contraceptive act falling under the norm taught by Humanae Vitae.

Equally, a married man who is HIV-infected and uses the condom to protect his wife from infection is not acting to render procreation impossible, but to prevent infection. If conception is prevented, this will be an "unintentional" side-effect and will not therefore shape the moral meaning of the act as a contraceptive act.

Esimeses lõigus peab ta silmas mõningaid artiklis eespool toodud näiteid, kus "kontratseptiivi" kasutamine on ilmselgelt mitte-kontratseptiivse iseloomuga, kuna ei toimu potentsiaalselt viljaka suguühte kontekstis, näiteks homode puhul või ovulatsiooni pärssiva hormoontableti võtmine menstruatsiooni allasurumiseks enne võistlusi. Ent teises lõigus laiendab ta seda abielusisesele seksuaalaktile, kus see ilmselgelt on kontratseptiivse toimega, ehkki esmane intentsioon on nakatamise vältimine. Jääb arusaamatuks, miks juhatab Rhonheimer selle näite sisse sõnaga "Equally", kuigi see vajaks põhjalikku selgitust, kuidas kontratseptiivi kasutamine abieluakti viljatuksmuutmisel "võrdub" esimestes näidetes osutatud kontratseptiivi kasutamisega mitte-kontratseptiivsel moel.

Asi on seda imelikum, et oma varasemas artiklis kaitses Rhonheimer põhjalikult ja hoolikalt abieluakti kahe tähenduse -- ühendava ja eluandva -- lahutamatut ühtsust. Tõsi, aasta oli siis 1989. Inimesed muutuvad, ja sageli ka nende tõekspidamised. Paavst Paulus VI määratles Humanae Vitaes, millele Rhonheimer ülaltoodud lõigus viitab, kontratseptsiooni järgmiselt:
... mistahes tegu, mis abieluakti ootusel, teostamisel või selle loomulike tagajärgede arengul on suunatud eesmärgina või vahendina elu edasiandmise takistamisele.
Sama määratlust kasutab ka Katoliku Kiriku Katekismus (2370), lisades, et see on "sisimalt kuri" (intrinsically evil). See määratlus ütleb sõnaselgelt, et kontratseptsiooniga on tegemist nii juhul, kui elu edasiandmise takistamine on eesmärgiks, kui ka juhul, kui see on vahendiks, nagu Rhonheimeri abikaasade-näites. Seal on tegemist ju mitte lihtsalt ja puhtalt nakatamise vältimisega, vaid seksuaalaktiga, mis on muudetud kondoomi kasutamise teel viljatuks, et vältida abikaasa nakatumist, st. kontratseptiivi kasutatakse vahendina.

Veel tasub meelde tuletada Vatikani II Kirikukogu konstitutsiooni Gaudium et Spes:
"... when there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his or her acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced" (No. 51).

Niisiis ei sõltu teo moraalsus ainuüksi siirastest kavatsustest või motiivide hindamisest, vaid vajab objektiivsemaid kriteeriume. Aga tundub, et Rhonheimeril neid pakkuda ei ole.

Lõpetuseks Rhonheimeri enda kokkuvõte Humanae Vitae õpetusest 1989.a. artiklis:

Humanae Vitae, now, teaches four things:
  • First that human sexuality has two fundamental meanings: the meaning of loving union of the spouses ('unitive meaning') and the meaning of transmission of human life ('procreative meaning').
  • Secondly, that according to the design of the Creator these two meanings are inseparably connected.
  • Thirdly, that man on his own initiative may not break this connection. 
  • And fourthly, Humanae Vitae affirms that by contraception the connection of these two meanings in fact is broken.


Üle maailma valmistutakse laupäevaõhtuseks vigiiliks tärkava inimelu eest (LifeSiteNews). Tallinnas toimub vigiil kuuldavasti katedraalis ja Pirita kloostris. Näib, et katedraalis võib vigiil alata väljakuulutatust varem, kohe pärast õhtust Missat, st kusagil 18.45 paiku. Ja arvatavasti ei toimu vesprit. Aga need on kontrollimata andmed. Pirital algavat vigiil kell 23.

neljapäev, 25. november 2010

Salve Rehiina

Viide: Isa Z

kolmapäev, 24. november 2010

Asia Bibi vabastati

Zeniti andmetel on Pakistani naine nimega Asia Bibi, kes mõisteti poomissurma Muhamedi solvamise eest, vabastatud, ent peab end vigilantide kättemaksu eest varjama.

Vatikani kommünikee seoses piiskopi-ordinatsiooniga Hiinas

VATICAN CITY, 24 NOV 2010 (VIS) - Püha Tooli pressiteenistus andis täna välja kommünikee seoses piiskopi-ordinatsiooniga Chengdes, Hebei provintsis Hiinas
  "With regard to the episcopal ordination of Fr. Joseph Guo Jincai, which took place last Saturday 20 November, information has been gathered about what happened and it is now possible to state clearly the following.

  "(1) The Holy Father received the news with deep regret, because the abovementioned episcopal ordination was conferred without the apostolic mandate and, therefore, constitutes a painful wound upon ecclesial communion and a grave violation of Catholic discipline (cf. Letter of Benedict XVI to the Church in China, 2007, n. 9).

  "(2) It is known that, in recent days, various bishops were subjected to pressures and restrictions on their freedom of movement, with the aim of forcing them to participate and confer the episcopal ordination. Such constraints, carried out by Chinese government and security authorities, constitute a grave violation of freedom of religion and conscience. The Holy See intends to carry out a detailed evaluation of what has happened, including consideration of the aspect of validity and the canonical position of the bishops involved.

  "(3) In any case, this has painful repercussions, in the first case, for Fr. Joseph Guo Jincai who, because of this episcopal ordination, finds himself in a most serious canonical condition before the Church in China and the universal Church, exposing himself also to the severe sanctions envisaged, in particular, by canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

  "(4) This ordination not only does not contribute to the good of the Catholics of Chengde, but places them in a very delicate and difficult condition, also from the canonical point of view, and humiliates them, because the Chinese civil authorities wish to impose on them a pastor who is not in full communion, either with the Holy Father or with the other bishops throughout the world.

  "(5) Several times, during this current year, the Holy See has communicated clearly to the Chinese authorities its opposition to the episcopal ordination of Fr. Joseph Guo Jincai. In spite of this, the said authorities decided to proceed unilaterally, to the detriment of the atmosphere of respect that had been created with great effort with the Holy See and with the Catholic Church through the recent episcopal ordinations. This claim to place themselves above the bishops and to guide the life of the ecclesial community does not correspond to Catholic doctrine; it offends the Holy Father, the Church in China and the universal Church, and further complicates the present pastoral difficulties.

  "(6) Pope Benedict XVI, in the above-mentioned Letter of 2007, expressed the Holy See's willingness to engage in a respectful and constructive dialogue with the authorities of the People's Republic of China, with the aim of overcoming the difficulties and normalising relations. In reaffirming this willingness, the Holy See notes with regret that the authorities allow the leadership of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, under the influence of Mr. Liu Bainian, to adopt attitudes that gravely damage the Catholic Church and hamper the aforesaid dialogue.

  "(7) The Catholics of the entire world are following with particular attention the troubled journey of the Church in China: the spiritual solidarity with which they accompany the vicissitudes of their Chinese brothers and sisters becomes a fervent prayer to the Lord of history, so that He may be close to them, increase their hope and fortitude, and give them consolation in moments of trial".

Teateid kondomoonia-rindelt

Toon mõned viited minu arvates olulistele artiklitele seoses meediaskandaaliga paavsti märkuste üle kondoomide kasutamise osas:

teisipäev, 23. november 2010

Kardinal Burke'i kommentaar

Äsja kardinaliseisusse tõstetud peaiiskop Raymond Burke, Vatikani viimase astme kohtu prefekt, kommenteerib paavsti äsjailmunud raamatut ja selle ümber tõusnud kondomoonia-lärmi.

Esitleti "Maailma valgust"

Juba enne ilmumist ülemaailmset kõmu tekitanud "Maailma valgust", paavsti uut intervjuuraamatut, esitleti täna Vatikani pressiteenistuses:

Isa Tim Finigani kondomoonia-kommentaarid

Isa Tim Finigan on postitanud terve seeria kommentaare paavsti hiljuti meedia tähelepanu keskmesse tõusnud märkuste kohta:

Üleskutse solidaarsusele Kirikuga Iraagis

Kirkuki peapiiskop Msgr. Louis Sako saatis 20. novembril uudisteagentuuri AsiaNews kaudu üleskutse Itaalia ja kogu Lääne kristlastele, mitte jätta Iraagi kirikut üksi nende katsumuse tunnil. 21. novembril toimus Itaalias piiskoppide konverentsi üleskutsel palvepäev Iraagi kristlaste ja religioosse vabaduse eest, millega ühines ka paavst, väljendades oma toetust Iraagi kristlastele pühapäevase Angeluse järel. Ent 22. novembril tapeti Mosulis taas kaks kristlast (AsiaNews). Araabia-kristlased Pühal Maal on aga esitanud üleskutse kanoniseerida 31. oktoobri Baghdadi veresauna ohvrid. Järgneb tõlge Kirkuki peakiiskopi üleskutsest:
Meie rahvas Iraagis on täna tagakiusatud, teda ähvardatakse ja ta teeb läbi martüüriumi. 2005. aastast alates on tapetud 900 kristlast, nende seas viis preestrit ja Mosuli peapiiskop, rünnatud on 52 kirikut. Paljud perekonnad on olnud sunnitud lahkuma oma kodudest ja põgenema, et päästa oma lapsi ja oma kristlikku usku.

Me oleme valmis tegema kõike, et säilitada oma usku ja oma ustavust Kristusele. Me teame, et martüürium on meie Kiriku karisma. See annabki meile jõudu jääda ja vastu pidada.

Meie katsumus on raske ja näib pikk. Baghdadis 31. oktoobril Meie Pääste Jumalaema katedraalis asetleidnud veresaun on meid sügavalt vapustanud.

Me oleme kaotamas kannatust, aga mitte usku ja lootust. Me vajame oma Läänes elavate kristlike vendade ja õdede palveid, moraalset toetust ja sõprust. Nende toetuse ja solidaarsuseta tunneme end üksi ja isoleerituna. Ärge jätke meid üksi sellel katsumuse tunnil. Meie teekond saab jätkuda teie abil ja teie palvete toel.

esmaspäev, 22. november 2010

Dokument "Summorum Pontificumi" rakendamisest

Isa Z vahendab Kathnews uudist, et veel enne Jõulu on oodata dokumenti "Summorum Pontificumi" rakendamise kohta.

Veel väljavõtteid "Maailma valgusest"


Prof. Janet Smithi intervjuust

Lisaks juba eespool viidatud selgitusele on prof Janet Smith andnud interjuu Zenitile, milles ta selgitab kondoomide kasutamise problemaatikat homoseksuaalsetes suhetes:
[...] He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves "humanizing sexuality."

Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a "first step" in moral growth.

The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

Q: So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms?

Smith: The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit HIV.

The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself.

In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted.

But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.
In "Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World)," John Paul II spoke of the need for conversion, which often proceeds by gradual steps:

"To the injustice originating from sin ... we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

"What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. (9)"

Christ himself, of course, called for a turning away from sin. That is what the Holy Father is advocating here; not a turn towards condoms. Conversion, not condoms!

Q: Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes?

Smith: Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts.

The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behavior; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ, who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Q: Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms?

Smith: No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a "real or moral solution." That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a "first step" in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one's sexual partner, who should be one's beloved spouse. For an individual with HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.

An analogy: If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets.

Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

George Weigel meedia kondomomaaniast

George Weigel, paavst Johannes Paulus II autoriteetse biograafia autor, kes kirjutas ka eessõna paavst Benedictus XVI uuele intervjuuraamatule "Maailma valgus", selgitab sekularistliku meedia väärarusaamu äsjase segaduse taustal ühe lõigu osas paavsti intervjuust, kus ta vastab küsimusele Kiriku suhtumise kohta kondoomide kasutamisse. Paavsti tegeliku teksti ja prof. Janet Smithi selgituse tutvustamise järel sellele, kirjutab Weigel:
The Times story was hardly the worst of the maelstrom of media misrepresentation, which was initiated by the once-authoritative Associated Press. This latest example of pack journalism was a disservice in itself, and it also highlighted several false assumptions that continually bedevil coverage of the Catholic Church and the Vatican and one specific media obsession that is, to be brutally frank, lethal in its consequences.

The first false assumption beneath the latest round of media condomania is that the Church’s settled teaching on sexual morality is a policy or a position that can change, as tax rates can be changed or one’s position on whether India should be a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council can change. To be sure, the theological articulation of the Catholic ethic of sexual love has been refined over centuries; it has come to an interesting point of explication in recent years in John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” But it has not changed and it will not change because it cannot be changed. And it cannot change or be changed because the Catholic ethic of sexual love is an expression of fundamental moral truths that can be known by reason and are illuminated by revelation.

The second false assumption beneath the condom story is that all papal statements of whatever sort are equal, such that an interview is an exercise of the papal teaching magisterium. That wasn’t true of John Paul II’s international bestseller, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, in which the late pope replied to questions posed by Italian journalist Vittorio Messori. It wasn’t true of the first volume of Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth, in which the pope made clear at the outset that he was speaking personally as a theologian and biblical scholar, not as the authoritative teacher of the Church. And it isn’t true of Light of the World. Reporters who insist on parsing every papal utterance as if each were equally authoritative — and who often do so in pursuit of a gotcha moment — do no good service to their readers.

The third false assumption was a “historic change” of Catholic teaching of the sort that was misreported to have taken place would be announced through the medium of an interview. It will perhaps come as a blow to the self-esteem of the fourth estate to recognize an elementary fact of Catholic life, but the truth of the matter is that no pope with his wits about him would use the vehicle of an interview with a journalist to discuss a new initiative, lay out a pastoral program, or explicate a development of doctrine. Light of the World is chock-full of interesting material, explaining this or that facet of Catholic faith, reflecting on the successes, challenges, and communications errors of the pontificate to date, even pondering personal questions such as the possibility of a papal retirement. But such interviews never are going to be used for the most serious exercises of papal authority.

As for the media obsession, it is, of course, with the notion of Salvation by Latex. Shortly after the pope’s visit to Africa, where he was hammered by the press for alleged insensitivity to AIDS victims because of his reiteration of the Catholic sexual ethic, a distinguished student of these matters, Dr. Edward Green, published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post with the striking title, “The Pope May Be Right.” Green, who is not a Catholic, made a powerful case that abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage are, empirically, the genuine AIDS-preventers. He was right, according to every thorough study of this terrible plague. But you would never know that by the coverage of Catholics and condoms — just as you would likely never learn that, as a global institution, the Catholic Church serves more AIDS sufferers than any other similarly situated community.

What humane purpose is served by this media obsession with condoms? What happens to the press’s vaunted willingness to challenge conventional wisdom when the issue at hand is anything touching on sexual license? It seems to disappear. And one fears that a lot of people are seriously hurt — and die — as at least an indirect result. Consciences indeed need to be examined in the matter of condoms, Catholics, and AIDS. But the consciences in question are those of the press.

Veel paavsti uuest raamatust

George Weigeli eessõna raamatule.
Peapiiskop  Chaput' kommentaar raamatule ja selle arvatavale retseptsioonile.
Chiesa lehel tõlge L'Osservatores avaldatud lõikudest.

pühapäev, 21. november 2010

Uute kardinalide ametisseseadmine


Veel väljavõtteid paavsti uuest intervjuuraamatust


i. Lombardi pressiteade kondoomide küsimuses

John Allen Jr. on tõlkinud itaalia keelest inglise keelde Vatikani Informatsiooniteenistuse pressiteate maailmas laineid tekitanud teate kohta, justkui oleks paavst muutnud Kiriku suhtumist kondoomide kasutamisse (minu rõhutused):
At the end of chapter ten [note: in the English edition, chapter eleven] of the book Light of the World, the pope responds to two questions about the struggle against AIDS and the use of condoms, questions which refer back to the discussons which followed some words spoken by the pope on the subject in the course of his trip to Africa in 2009.

The pope clearly reaffirms that he had not meant [in 2009] to take a position on the problem of condoms in general, but simply wanted to affirm strongly that the problem of AIDS cannot be resolved solely with the distribution of condoms, because much more has to be done: prevention, education, help, council, and staying close to the people – both so they don’t become sick, but also when they are sick.

The pope observed that even in non-ecclesial environments, there’s a similar awareness, such as that of the so-called “ABC” approach (abstinence – be faithful – condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are far more determinative and fundamental for the struggle against AIDS. Meanwhile the condom, in the final analysis, seems like a shortcut when the other two elements are missing. It must be clear, therefore, that condoms are not the solution to the problem.

The pope then broadens the focus, insisting that to concentrate solely on condoms is tantamount to making sexuality into something banal, losing its meaning as an expression of love between persons, and turning it into a sort of “drug.” Struggling against the banalization of sexuality is “part of a great effort to see that sexuality is positively understood, and can exercise its positive effect on the human person in his or her totality.”

In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality, and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that “naturally the church does not consider condoms as the authentic and moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.

Thus the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by placing it in the context of the value and the dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.

At the same time, the pope considers an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another. In that case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but holds that the use of a condom in order to diminish the threat of infection is “a first assumption of responsibility,” and “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” rather than not using a condom and exposing the other person to a threat to their life.

In that sense, the reasoning of the pope certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift. Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical personalities have sustained, and still sustain, similar positions. Nevertheless, it’s true that until now they have not been heard with such clarity from the mouth of the pope, even if it’s in a colloquial rather than magisterial form.

Benedict XVI therefore courageously gives us an important contribution of clarification and deepening on a question that has long been debated. It’s an original contribution, because on the one hand it remains faithful to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in rejecting “faith in condoms” as an illusory path; on the other hand, it shows a comprehensive and far-sighted vision, attentive to discovering the small steps – even if they’re only initial and still confused – of a humanity often spiritually and culturally impoverished, towards a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality.

Soovil on suured silmad

... ehk "parem" pole tingimata "hea"

Kas paavst "pehmendas" Katoliku Kiriku seisukohta kondoomide kasutamise osas?

Eile lahvatas maailma ajakirjanduses "pommuudis" nagu oleks paavst Benedictus XVI "pehmendanud" Katoliku Kiriku suhtumist kondoomide kasutamisse, öeldes, et teatud juhtudel olevat see "vastuvõetav" (BBC). Ka Eestis haarati innukalt "uudisest" kinni, näidates seda BBC eeskujul Kiriku positsiooni "pehmenemisena". Näiteks Postimees Online väitel omistatakse peatselt ilmuvas intervjuuraamatus "paavstile sõnad, et kondoomi kasutamine on lubatud, kui see aitab HI-viirusega nakatumist vältida". ERR teatel  rääkis paavst, et "kondoomi kasutamine oleks sallitav eriti siis, kui see aitab vähendada HI-viirusega nakatumise ohtu. Ta on esimene paavst, kes pehmendab katoliku kiriku ranget keeldu rasestumisvastaste vahendite kasutamisele". Õhtuleht vahendab, et paavst "ütleb, et vahel on kondoomi kasutamine õigustatud, sest see võib vähenda HI-viirusesse nakatumise ohtu". DELFI pealkirjastab oma sõnumi nii: "Paavst: mõnikord on kondoomid lubatud".

Tõepoolest, soovil on suured silmad. Tegelikult ei väitnud paavst oma intervjuus, nagu oleks kondoomide kasutamine "vastuvõetav", "lubatud", "õigustatud" või "sallitav", kui see aitab vähendada HI-viirusesse nakatumise ohtu. Ta ütles, et kondoomide kasutamine ei ole "tõeline moraalne lahendus", ent võib teatud juhtudel, kui seksuaalne käitumine on veelgi enam labastatud, "olla esimeseks sammuks liikumisel teisele poole, inimlikuma seksuaalsuse suunas". St. mitte, et see oleks teatud juhtudel inimlik seksuaalsuse realiseerimene, vaid võib olla mõningatel ekstreemsetel juhtudel esimeseks sammuks selle poole. Millised need teatud juhud on? Paavst tõi näiteks mees-prostituudid, kes, andes enesele aru, et nad kannavad edasi HI-viirust, kasutavad kondoome kavatsusega viiruse edasikandmist takistada. Kas selle näitega kiitis paavst heaks kondoomide kasutamise? Nagu osutas professor Janet Smith, on siin tegemist traditsioonilise katoliikliku õpetusega, mis tunnistab, et pöördumine pahedest, seksuaalsest kõlvatusest sealhulgas, toimub reeglina pideva, järk-järgulise protsessina, ning näite "mees-prostituudi" (milles ta nägi viidet homoseksuaalsele prostitutsioonile) näol võib olla tegemist esimese sammuga sellel pöördumise teel. Teisisõnu, paavst räägib siin eelkõige pöördumisest, mitte preservatiividest, või kondoomide kasutamise lubatavusest.

Sellega ei pehmendanud ta karvavõrdki katoliiklikku seisukohta kondoomide kasutamise osas. Vastupidi, ta kinnitas traditsioonilist pastoraalset praktikat, mille kohaselt patust pöördumine toimub tavaliselt kurja järk-järgulise piiramise kaudu, kuni sellest lõpuks lahtiütlemiseni. Teiseks, isegi kui ta oleks väitnud midagi, mida tõepoolest saaks tõlgendada mingi "pehmema positsioonina", ei muudaks see katoliiklikku õpetust seksuaalsusest, kontratseptiivide ja sh. kondoomide kasutamisest, sest Kiriku doktriini ei formuleerita intervjuude käigus ajakirjanikele. Küll aga formuleerivad sekulaarse ajakirjanduse "magisteeriumi" BBC, New York Times ja muud liberaalse sekulaarse meedia "magisteriaalsed organid". Oma rõhuasetuse kinnituseks tsiteerib BBC Austen Ivereighi, kes satub olema liberalistliku suunaga katoliiklike ajakirjade "America" ja "The Tablet" kaastöötaja: "Kui kavatsus on pigem vältida viiruse edasikandmist, kui rasestumist, ütleksid moraaliteoloogid, et see on erineva moraalse kvalifikatsiooniga (different moral order)". Kui see "erinev moraalne kvalifikatsioon" peaks tähendama, et selline intentsioon muudab kondoomi kasutamise "lubatuks",  "õigustatuks" või "sallitavaks", siis oleks küll pidanud lisama, et seda ütleksid vaid magisteriaalsest katoliiklikust moraaliteoloogiast hälbivad liberalistlikud teoloogid. Nendelt leiab toetust rahvusvahelise poliiteliidi "fikseeritus kondoomidele", millele paavst osutab. See seineb kondoomide üldise kasutamise pidamist lahenduseks AIDSi-probleemile.

Selle fiksatsiooni kohta ütles Benedictus XVI kõne all olevas intervjuus: "fikseeritus kondoomidele eeldab seksuaalsuse labastamist, mis on aga just see ohtlik allikas suhtumisele, mis ei näe enam seksuaalsuses armastuse väljendust, vaid teatud liiki narkootikumi, mida inimesed endile jagavad. Seetõttu on võitlus seksuaalsuse labastamise vastu ühtlasi ka osaks võitlusest selle eest, et seksuaalsust käsitataks positiivse väärtusena ning lastaks sellel positiivselt mõjuda inimese terviklikule olemisele."

Mitmed väljaanded tuletasid meelde ka möödunud aastal ajakirjanduses pahameeletormi tekitanud paavsti märkust kondoomide kohta lennukis teel Kameruni antud intervjuu ajal. Paraku ei pidanud ükski neist vajalikuks mainida paavsti vastust toonasele kriitikale, millega täna vaatluse all olev intervjuu just algabki. Paavst ütles:
Meediakajastus ignoreeris täielikult kogu ülejäänud Aafrika-reisi üheainsa väljaütlemise tõttu. Keegi küsis minult, miks Katoliku Kirik on omaks võtnud ebarealistliku ja ebaeffektiivse positsiooni AIDSi küsimuses. Sel hetkel tundsin tõepoolest, et mind provotseeritakse, sest Kirik teeb enam kui kestahes teine. Ja ma jään selle kinnituse juurde. Sest Kirik on ainus institutsioon, mis toetab inimesi lähedaselt ja konkreetselt, preventsiooni, harimise, abi, nõuandmise ja kaasaskäimisega. Ning kuna ta ei jää kellegi järel teiseks hoolitsedes nii paljude AIDSi-ohvrite eest, eriti AIDSi-haigete laste eest.

Mul oli võimalus külastada üht nendest hooldusasutustest ja kõneleda patsientidega. See oli tõeline vastus: Kirik teeb rohkem kui keegi teine, sest ta ei räägi ajalehtede tribüünilt, vaid abistab oma õdesid ja vendi seal, kus nad tõepoolest kannatavad. Oma märkustes ei esitanud ma üldist väidet kondoomide küsimuses, vaid ütlesin lihtsalt -- ja see põhjustaski sellise suure haavumise --, et me ei saa lahendada seda probleemi kondoomide jagamise teel. Vaja on teha palju enam. Me peame seisma ligi inimestele, me peame neid juhatama ja abistama; ning me peame seda tegema nii enne kui pärast seda, kui nad haigestuvad.

Ent liberalistliku meedia ideoloogide "lahendus" näib olevat risti vastupidine -- pakkuda oma abstraktselt tribüünilt lihtsat lahendust: ujutada maailm üle kondoomidega (seeläbi probleemi tegelikult süvendades seksuaalsuse labastamise kaudu) ... ja naeruvääristada Kirikut, kes tegelikult ülemaailmselt kõige rohkem AIDSi-ohvritest hoolib ja nende eest hoolitseb.

reede, 19. november 2010

"Anglicanorum Coetibus" rakendamine

Inglise ja Walesi katoliku piiskopid on paika pannud personaal-ordinariaadi loomise ajakava. Piiskoppide avaldust vahendab Damian Thompson oma blogis.

Kardinalide konsistoorium

Täna kogunesid kardinalid Vatikani konsistooriumile.

VATICAN CITY, 19 NOV 2010 (VIS) - As part of the consistory during which the Holy Father will create twenty-four new cardinals, the College of Cardinals is today meeting in the Vatican's New Synod Hall to hold a day of reflection and prayer.

The meeting began at 9.30 a.m. with a greeting from the Pope who focused his remarks on the two themes of the morning session. Considering the first of these themes, he noted that the Lord's command to announce the Gospel implicitly embraces the need for the freedom to do so, although, over the course of history, it has encountered various forms of opposition. The relationship between truth and freedom is essential but today faces the great challenge of relativism, which seems to complete the concept of freedom but which actually risks destroying it and becoming an authentic 'dictatorship'. We are then, he suggested, facing a difficult period in our commitment to affirm the freedom to announce the truth of the Gospel and the great achievements of Christian culture. The Pope also recalled the essential importance of liturgy in Church life, being the place of God's presence with us.

The cardinals then turned their attention to the two chosen themes: the situation of religious freedom in the world and new challenges, with an introductory talk by Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B., and the liturgy in the life of the Church today, with a preliminary contribution from Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Cardinal Bertone presented a panoramic overview of current attempts to restrict the freedom of Christians in various parts of the world, inviting people to reflect on the situation of religious freedom in Western States. We are witnessing, he said, a process of secularisation accompanied by attempts to remove spiritual values from social life. The Cardinal Secretary of State also elucidated the situation of religious freedom in Muslim countries, recalling the conclusions reached during the recent Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops. Finally, he explained the activities the Holy See and local episcopates make to defend Catholics, in both East and West. On this subject he also recalled the great efforts made by the Holy See in the international arena to promote respect for the religious freedom of believers.

For his part, Cardinal Canizares Llovera focused his remarks on the importance of liturgical prayer in the life of the Church.

In the course of a broad-ranging debate, eighteen cardinal arose to speak of the great difficulties the Church has to face today in defending values founded on natural law, such as respect for life and the family. Another question examined was that of inter-religious dialogue, in particular with Islam.

Two further contributions are scheduled for the afternoon session. The first, to be delivered by Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, will focus on Holy See norms for welcoming Anglican priests and faithful who request to be admitted to the Catholic Church, and for defending victims of child abuse by members of the clergy. The second contribution, by Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, will serve to recall the validity of the Instruction "Dominus Iesus" on Jesus Christ our only Saviour, published ten years ago.

"Kristlaste ühtsus on palve"

Eile pöördus paavst Benedictus Kristlaste Ühtsuse Edendamise Paavstliku Nõukogu peaassambleest osavõtjate poole, kes viibisid Püha Isa audientsil. Reedel lõppev plenaarassamblee toimub ajal, mil täitub 50 aastat selle institutsiooni asutamisest paavst Johannes XXIII poolt ja on pühendatud teemale "Uue etapi poole oikumeenilises dialoogis" (, minu rõhutused):

"The Unity of Christians Is and Remains Prayer"

Esteemed Cardinals,
Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate and the Priesthood,
Dear Brothers and Sisters!

It is a great joy for me to meet with you on the occasion of the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, during which you are reflecting on the theme: "Toward a New Stage of Ecumenical Dialogue." In addressing my cordial greeting to each one of you, I also wish to thank in a particular way the president, Archbishop Kurt Koch, for the warm expressions with which he interpreted your sentiments.

Yesterday, as Archbishop Koch has recalled, you celebrated with a solemn commemorative ceremony, the 50th anniversary of the institution of your dicastery. On June 5, 1960, eve of the Second Vatican Council, which indicated the ecumenical commitment as central for the Church, Blessed John XXIII created the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, called later, in 1988, Pontifical Council. It was an act that constituted a milestone for the ecumenical path of the Catholic Church. In the course of 50 years, it has covered much territory. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have given their service in the pontifical council, remembering first of all the presidents who succeeded one another: Cardinal Augustin Bea, Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, and Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy; and I am especially pleased to thank Cardinal Walter Kasper, who led the dicastery, with competence and passion, over the last 11 years. I thank the members and consultors, officials and collaborators, those who have contributed to undertake theological dialogues and ecumenical meetings, and all those who have prayed to the Lord for the gift of visible unity between Christians. They are 50 years in which a truer knowledge and greater esteem have been acquired with the Churches and the ecclesial communities, overcoming prejudices cemented by history; there has been growth in the theological dialogue, but also in that of charity; several forms of collaboration have been developed, among which, in addition to those of the defense of life, the safeguarding of creation and the combating of injustice, important and fruitful has been that in the field of the ecumenical translations of sacred Scripture.

In these last years, then, the pontifical council has been committed, among other things, in a wide project, the so-called Harvest Project, to sketch an initial evaluation of the goals achieved in the theological dialogues with the principal ecclesial communities of Vatican II. It is a precious work that has made evident both the areas of convergence, as well as those in which it is necessary to continue and deepen reflection. Thanking God for the fruits already gathered, I encourage you to continue your efforts to promote a correct reception of the results attained and to make known with exactness the present state of theological research at the service of the path to unity. Today some think that this path, especially in the West, has lost its élan; noted now is the urgency to revive ecumenical interest and to give new incisiveness to the dialogues. Unheard of challenges, then, appear: the new anthropological and ethical interpretations, the ecumenical formation of the new generations, the further fragmentation of the ecumenical scene. It is essential to be aware of such changes and to identify the ways to proceed effectively in the light of the will of the Lord: "That they may all be one" (John 17:21).

Also with the Orthodox Churches and the Ancient Eastern Churches, with which "very close bonds" exist ("Unitatis Redintegratio," No. 15), the Catholic Church continues the dialogue with passion, seeking to deepen, in a serious and rigorous way, the common theological, liturgical and spiritual patrimony, and to address with serenity and commitment the elements that still divide us. With the Orthodox we have succeeded in touching a crucial point of encounter and reflection: the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church. And the ecclesiological question is also at the center of the dialogue with the Ancient Eastern Churches: Despite many centuries of misunderstanding and separation, witnessed with joy is our having kept a precious common patrimony.

Dear friends, despite the presence of new problematic situations or difficult points for the dialogue, the aim of the ecumenical path remains unchanged, as does the firm commitment in pursuing it. It is not, however, a commitment according to political categories, so to speak, in which the ability to negotiate or the greater capacity to find compromises come into play, from which could be expected, as good mediators, that, after a certain time, one will arrive at agreements acceptable to all. Ecumenical action has a twofold movement. On one hand there is the convinced, passionate and tenacious search to find full unity in truth, to excogitate models of unity, to illumine oppositions and dark points in order to reach unity. And this in the necessary theological dialogue, but above all in prayer and in penance, in that spiritual ecumenism which constitutes the throbbing heart of the whole path: The unity of Christians is and remains prayer, it resides in prayer. On the other hand, another operative movement, which arises from the firm awareness that we do not know the hour of the realization of the unity among all the disciples of Christ and we cannot know it, because unity is not "made by us," God "makes" it: it comes from above, from the unity of the Father with the Son in the dialogue of love which is the Holy Spirit; it is a taking part in the divine unity. And this should not make our commitment diminish, rather, it should make us ever more attentive to receive the signs of the times of the Lord, knowing how to recognize with gratitude that which already unites us and working to consolidate it and make it grow. In the end, also in the ecumenical path, it is about leaving to God what is only his and of exploring, with seriousness, constancy and dedication, what is our task, being aware that to our commitment belongs the binomial of acting and suffering, of activity and patience, of effort and joy.

We confidently invoke the Holy Spirit, so that he will guide our way and that each one will feel with renewed vigor the appeal to work for the ecumenical cause. I encourage all of you to continue your work; it is a help that you render to the Bishop of Rome in fulfilling his mission at the service of unity. As a sign of affection and gratitude, I impart to you my heartfelt apostolic blessing.

neljapäev, 18. november 2010

Kardinal Biffi memuaarid

Täna ilmusid Itaalia raamatupoodidesse kardinal Giacomo Biffi memuaarid, millesse Sandro Magister laskis piiluda oma Chiesa-lehel. Piilugem koos paari teemat selles apetizeris:

Kontsiil ja "järelkontsiil"
In order to bring a bit of clarity to the confusion that afflicts Christianity in our time, one must first distinguish very carefully between the conciliar event and the ecclesial climate that followed. They are two different phenomena, and require distinct treatment.

Paul VI sincerely believed in Vatican Council II, and in its positive relevance for Christianity as a whole. He was one of its decisive protagonists, attentively following its work and discussions on a daily basis, helping it to overcome the recurrent difficulties in its path.

He expected that, by virtue of the joint effort of all the bishops together with the successor of Peter, a blessed age of increased vitality and of exceptional fecundity must immediately benefit and gladden the Church.

Instead, the "postcouncil," in many of its manifestations, concerned and disappointed him. So he revealed his distress with admirable candor; and the impassioned lucidity of his expressions struck all believers, or at least those whose vision had not been clouded over by ideology.

On June 29, 1972, on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, speaking off the cuff, he went to the point of saying that he had "the sensation that through some fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, trouble, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation. The Church is not trusted . . . It was believed that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church. What has come instead is a day of clouds, of darkness, of seeking, of uncertainty . . . We believe that something preternatural (the devil) has come into the world to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council and to prevent the Church from bursting into a hymn of joy for having regained full awareness of itself." These are painful and severe words that deserve painstaking reflection.

How could it have happened that from the legitimate pronouncements and texts of Vatican II, a season followed that was so different and distant?

The question is complex, and the reasons are multiform; but without a doubt one influence was a process (so to speak) of aberrant "distillation," which from the authentic and binding conciliar "reality" extracted a completely heterogeneous mentality and linguistic form. This is a phenomenon that pops up here and there in the "postcouncil," and continues to advance itself more or less explicitly.

We can, in order to make ourselves understood, hazard to illustrate the schematic procedure of this curious "distillation."

The first phase lies in a discriminatory approach to the conciliar pronouncements, which distinguishes the accepted and usable texts from the inopportune or at least unusable ones, to be passed over in silence.

In the second phase what is acknowledged as the valuable teaching of the Council is not what it really formulated, but what the holy assembly would have produced if it had not been hampered by the presence of many backward fathers insensitive to the breath of the Spirit.

With the third phase, there is the insinuation that the true doctrine of the Council is not that which is canonically formulated and approved, but what would have been formulated and approved if the fathers had been more enlightened, more consistent, more courageous.

With such a theological and historical methodology – never expressed in such a clear fashion, but no less relentless for this reason – it is easy to imagine the results: what is adopted and exalted in an almost obsessive manner is not the Council that in fact was celebrated, but (so to speak) a "virtual Council"; a Council that has a place not in the history of the Church, but in the history of ecclesiastical imagination. Anyone who dares to dissent, however timidly, is branded with the infamous mark of "preconciliar," when he is not in fact numbered among the traditionalist rebels, or the despised fundamentalists.

And because the "counterfeit distillates" of the Council include the principle that by now there is no error that can be condemned in Catholicism, except for sinning against the primary duty of understanding and dialogue, it becomes difficult today for theologians and pastors to have the courage to denounce vigorously and tenaciously the toxins that are progressively poisoning the innocent people of God.
Homoseksuaalsuse ideoloogia
Regarding the problem of homosexuality that is emerging today, the Christian conception tells us that one must always distinguish the respect due to persons, which involves rejecting any marginalization of them in society and politics (except for the unalterable nature of marriage and the family), from the rejection of any exalted "ideology of homosexuality," which is obligatory.

The word of God, as we know it in a page of the letter to the Romans by the apostle Paul, offers us on the contrary a theological interpretation of the rampant cultural aberration in this matter: such an aberration – the sacred text affirms – is at the same time the proof and the result of the exclusion of God from the collective attention and from social life, and of the refusal to give him the glory that he is due (cf. Romans 1:21).

The exclusion of the Creator determines a universal derailing of reason: "They became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22). The result of this intellectual blindness was a fall, in both theory and practice, into the most complete dissoluteness: "Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies" (Romans 1:24).

And to prevent any misunderstanding and any accommodating interpretation, the apostle proceeds with a startling analysis, formulated in perfectly explicit terms:

"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper" (Romans 1:26-28).

Finally, Paul takes pains to observe that the greatest abjection takes place when "the authors of these things . . . not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (cf. Romans 1:32).

It is a page of the inspired book, which no earthly authority can force us to censor. Nor are we permitted, if we want to be faithful to the word of God, the pusillanimity of passing over it in silence out of concern not to appear "politically incorrect."

We must on the contrary point out the singular interest for our days of this teaching of Revelation: what St. Paul revealed as taking place in the Greco-Roman world is shown to correspond prophetically to what has taken place in Western culture in these last centuries. The exclusion of the Creator – to the point of proclaiming grotesquely, a few decades ago, the "death of God" – has had the result (almost like an intrinsic punishment) of the spread of an aberrant view of sexuality, unknown (in its arrogance) to previous eras.

The ideology of homosexuality – as often happens to ideologies when they become aggressive and end up being politically triumphant – becomes a threat to our legitimate autonomy of thought: those who do not share it risk condemnation to a kind of cultural and social marginalization.

The attacks on freedom of thought start with language. Those who do not resign themselves to accept "homophilia" (the theoretical appreciation of homosexual relations) are charged with "homophobia" (etymologically, the "fear of homosexuality"). This must be very clear: those who are made strong by the inspired word and live in the "fear of God" are not afraid of anything, except perhaps the stupidity toward which, Bonhoeffer said, we are defenseless. We are now even charged sometimes with the incredibly arbitrary accusation of "racism": a word that, among other things, has nothing to do with this issue, and in any case is completely extraneous to our doctrine and our history.

The essential problem that presents itself is this: is it still permitted in our days to be faithful and consistent disciples of the teaching of Christ (which for millennia has inspired and enriched the whole of Western civilization), or must we prepare ourselves for a new form of persecution, promoted by homosexual activists, by their ideological accomplices, and even by those whose task it should be to defend the intellectual freedom of all, including Christians?

There is one question that we ask in particular of the theologians, biblicists, and pastoralists. Why on earth, in this climate of almost obsessive exaltation of Sacred Scripture, is the Pauline passage of Romans 1:21-32 never cited by anyone? Why on earth is there not a little more concern to make it known to believers and nonbelievers, in spite of its evident timeliness?

Uue ja vana Missa lähenemisest

Paix Liturgique lehel on huvitav intervjuu abbé Claude Barthega, kes räägib vana ja uue missavormi "lähenemisest". Samuti on huvitav abbé Barthe intervjuud vahendanud isa Sean Finnegani postitus sel teemal.

Leedu parlament kaalub homopropaganda keelustamist

Baltic Course

Martüürium idas

Alles lõppes Roomas piiskoppide Kesk-Idale pühendatud sünod, kui nagu vastuseks sellele saabus teade Süüria katoliku kiriku ründamisest Bagdadis 31. oktoobril. Missa ajal kirikusse tunginud terroristid tapsid 52/55/59 (?) jumalateenistusel osalenut, nende seas ka Missat pühitsenud preestri ja teise, kes oli just pihti vastu võtnud (AN) ning haavasid tõsiselt 80 inimest. Vastutuse rünnaku eest võttis enesele organisatsioon nimega Iraagi Islamiriik, millel on sidemed al-Qaedaga (VOM). 2. novembril said mitmed Bagdadi kirikud ähvarduskirju, milles nõuti jumalateenistuste peatamist, ähvardades vastasel korral samasuguste tagajärgedega nagu rünnaku ohvriks langenud kirikus. Mitmed kogudused peatasidki teenistused. 25. novembril pühitsetakse Vatikanis Missa rünnaku ohvriks langenute hingede eest (VIS).

Mosulis, kus 2008. aastal tapeti kaks nädalat väldanud vägivalla jooksul üle kümne kristlase ning tuhanded põgenesid linnast, tapeti nüüd 15. novembril taas kaks meest oma kodus (AN)

Eilse üldaudientsi järel palvetas paavst Pakistanis surmamõistetud Asia Bibi, 45 aastase viie lapse ema vabastamise eest (VIS). Viimane mõisteti poomissurma Muhamedi väidetava solvamise eest, milles teda süüdistasid töökaaslased pärast religiooniteemalist vaidlust. Asia Bibi abikaasa kutsus üles kogu maailma kristlasi palvetama oma abikaasa vabastamise eest. AsiaNews korraldab ka kampaaniat Asia Bibi vabastamiseks. Samuti korraldab kampaaniat The Voice of Martyrs.

Kas ei peaks ka meie pühitsema Missat ja üheskoos palvetama oma vendade ja õdede eest idas, keda tapetakse, taga kiusatakse ja sunnitakse oma kodudest ja kodumaalt lahkuma?

Viigiil toimub

27. novembri õhtul toimub vigiil tärkava elu eest Tallinna Peeter-Pauli kirikus. Paavst Benedictus kutsus üles kogu maailma kogudusi, religioosseid ühendusi ja liikumisi palvetama inimelu eest selle kõige varasemas ja haavatavamas staadiumis suvel kõikidele piiskoppide konverentsidele saadetud kirjas ning tuletas seda üleskutset meelde ka möödunud pühapäevase Angeluse palvetamise järel Vatikanis. Loodan, et kõik, keda ei jäta ükskõikseks inimeste massiline vaikne hukkamine meie "tsiviliseeritud" ja "humaansel" ajastul, kogunevad palvetama inimelu pühaduse tegeliku tunnustamise eest kõigil avaliku elu tasanditel. Sõbrad, laske sõna ringi käima.

kolmapäev, 17. november 2010

Corpus Christi ja püha Juliana

Tänasel üldaudientsi rääkis Benedictus XVI Cornilloni pühast Julianast ja tema poolt propageeritud Corpus Christi pühast (VIS):
Born in the Belgian city of Liege towards the end of the twelfth century, Juliana was orphaned at the age of five "and entrusted to the care of the Augustinian nuns of the convent-lazaretto of Mont-Cornillon". Later she also took the Augustinian habit and went on to became prioress of the convent.

The Pope explained how the Belgian saint "possessed great culture, ... and a profound sense of the presence of Christ, which she experienced particularly intensely in the Sacrament of the Eucharist".

At the age of sixteen she had a vision which convinced her of the need to establish a liturgical feast for Corpus Christi "in which believers would be able to adore the Eucharist so as to augment their faith, increase the practice of virtue and mend the wrongs done to the Blessed Sacrament", said the Holy Father.

Juliana "confided [her revelation] to two other fervent adorers of the Eucharist " and the three together "formed a kind of 'spiritual alliance' with the intention of glorifying the Blessed Sacrament".

"It was", Pope Benedict continued his catechesis, "Bishop Robert Thourotte of Liege who, following some initial hesitation, accepted the proposal made by Juliana and her two companions and instituted, for the first time, the Solemnity of Corpus Domini in his diocese. Other bishops later imitated him and established the same feast in the areas under their pastoral care".

Juliana, said the Pope, "had to suffer the harsh opposition of certain members of the clergy, including the superior upon whom her convent depended. She therefore chose to leave Mont-Cornillon with a number of companions and for ten years, between 1248 and 1258, was accommodated in various houses of Cistercian nuns". At the same time "she zealously continued to spread Eucharistic devotion. She died at Fosses-La-Ville in Belgium in 1258".

The Holy Father recalled how "in 1264 Urban IV chose to institute the Solemnity of Corpus Domini as a feast for the Universal Church on the Thursday following Pentecost" and, by way of personal example, "himself celebrated the Solemnity of Corpus Domini in Orvieto, the city in which he was then residing". And the cathedral of Orvieto still houses "the famous corporal with traces of the Eucharistic miracle which had befallen at Bolsena the preceding year, 1263".

"Urban IV asked one of the greats theologians in history, St. Thomas Aquinas who was with the Pope at that time in Orvieto, to write the texts for the liturgical office of this great feast, ... as an expression of praise and gratitude to the Blessed Sacrament".

"Although following the death of Urban IV the celebration of Corpus Domini was restricted to certain regions of France, Germany, Hungary and northern Italy, in 1317 Pope John XXII reintroduced it for the whole Church".

"Joyfully I wish to affirm that there is a 'Eucharistic springtime' in the Church today", said the Holy Father. "How many people remain in silence before the Tabernacle sustaining a dialogue of love with Jesus! It is consoling to know that many groups of young people have rediscovered the beauty of prayer and adoration before the Blessed Sacrament. I pray that this 'Eucharistic springtime' may become increasingly widespread in parishes, and especially in Belgium, homeland of St, Juliana".

"Recalling St. Juliana of Cornillon, let us too renew our faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. ... Faithfully encountering the Eucharistic Christ at Sunday Mass is essential for our journey of faith, but let us also seek to visit the Lord frequently, before His presence in the Tabernacle. ... By gazing at Him in adoration the Lord draws us to Him, to His mystery, in order to transform us as He transforms the bread and wine".

teisipäev, 16. november 2010

Ühendriikide piiskoppide nõukogu sai uue presidendi

Ameerika Ühendriikide Katoliiklike Piiskoppide Konverents valis täna Baltimore'is suhteliselt napi häälteenamusega kolmeks järgnevaks aastaks oma uueks presidendiks New Yorki peapiiskopi Timothy Dolani, kes vahetab selles ametis välja Chicago peapiiskopi kardinal Francis George'i. Senine asepresident, Tucsoni piiskop Gerald Kicanas, keda peeti siiani favoriidiks ja kes on liberaalse suuna esindaja, sai lüüa kolmandas hääletamisvoorus häältega 128-111.

Vt. ka:

Religioonist ühiskonnas

Islami ja katoliku delegatsioonid jõudsid Teheranis toimunud religioonidevahelise kohtumise käigus kokkuleppele, et (VIS):
(1) Believers and religious communities, based on their faith in God, have a specific role to play in society, on an equal footing with other citizens.

(2) Religion has an inherent social dimension that the State has the obligation to respect; therefore, also in the interest of society, it cannot be confined to private sphere.

(3) Believers are called to co-operate in the search for common good, on the basis of a sound relation between faith and reason.

(4) It is necessary for Christians and Muslims as well as all believers and persons of good will, to co-operate in answering modern challenges, promoting moral values, justice and peace and protecting the family, environment and natural resources.

(5) Faith, by its very nature, requires freedom. Therefore, religious freedom, as a right inherent to human dignity, must always be respected by individuals, social actors and the State. The cultural and historical background of each society which is not in contradiction with human dignity should be taken into consideration in applying this fundamental principle.

(6) Education of the young generation should be based on the search for truth, spiritual values and promotion of knowledge.

esmaspäev, 15. november 2010

Paavst vigiilist 27.11

Pärast pühapäevast Angelust rääkis paavst ka 27. novembril plaanitavast ülemaailmsest palvevigiilist tärkava elu eest:
On Saturday, Nov. 27, in St. Peter's Basilica, I will preside over the first vespers of the first Sunday of Advent and a prayer vigil for those in the early stages of life. This is a joint initiative with the local Churches throughout the world and I have recommended it to be observed in parishes, religious communities, associations and movements too. The time of preparation for Holy Christmas is a propitious moment to invoke divine protection for every human being called into existence, and also for a thanksgiving to God for the gift of life received from our parents.

Leebest soolasusest

Eile rääkis piiskop Missal "kibedast innukusest", mis ähvardab meid vallutada, kui unustame oma tõe-taotluses armastuse leebuse. Ma olen üsna kindel, et ta seejuures ei soovinud vihjata, nagu oleks "mage leigus" parem variant kui "kibe innukus", ehkki viimast on kahtlemata ebamugavam taluda. Vaja oleks tegelikult teatud "leebet soolasust" või "tulist magusust" vmt, st. suhtumist, mida iseloomustab armastuse tulisus ja leebus ning tõejanu kompromissitus ja selgus samaaegselt. "Kibe innukus" ja "mage leigus" on mõlemad kõrvalekaldumised sellelt "kitsalt teelt", milleks Kristus meid kutsub. Samas võib "kitsal teel" käija oma leebuse või magususe tõttu sageli näida magedana selle jaoks, kes on täis kibedust, ning oma soolasuse või tulisuse tõttu kibedana selle jaoks, kes on leigeks jahtunud. Õigeks arusaamiseks oma kõrvalekaldumisest või püsimisest "kitsal teel" oleks vaja objektiivse(ma)id kriteeriume, millest üheks on kahtlemata viljad: "Nende viljadest te tunnete neid" ja "Hea puu ei kanna halba vilja".

Paavst uuest evangeliseerimisest 2009 lõpus

Traditsioonilisel jõulutervituste vahetamisel möödunud aasta 21. detsembril kõneles Benedictus XVI kuuria liikmetele ja oma esindajatele muuhulgas uuest evangeliseerimisest:
[...] we, as believers, must have at heart even those people who consider themselves agnostics or atheists. When we speak of a new evangelization these people are perhaps taken aback. They do not want to see themselves as an object of mission or to give up their freedom of thought and will. Yet the question of God remains present even for them, even if they cannot believe in the concrete nature of his concern for us. In Paris, I spoke of the quest for God as the fundamental reason why Western monasticism, and with it, Western culture, came into being. As the first step of evangelization we must seek to keep this quest alive; we must be concerned that human beings do not set aside the question of God, but rather see it as an essential question for their lives. We must make sure that they are open to this question and to the yearning concealed within it. Here I think naturally of the words which Jesus quoted from the Prophet Isaiah, namely that the Temple must be a house of prayer for all the nations (cf. Is 56: 7; Mk 11: 17). Jesus was thinking of the so-called "Court of the Gentiles" which he cleared of extraneous affairs so that it could be a free space for the Gentiles who wished to pray there to the one God, even if they could not take part in the mystery for whose service the inner part of the Temple was reserved. A place of prayer for all the peoples by this he was thinking of people who know God, so to speak, only from afar; who are dissatisfied with their own gods, rites and myths; who desire the Pure and the Great, even if God remains for them the "unknown God" (cf. Acts 17: 23). They had to pray to the unknown God, yet in this way they were somehow in touch with the true God, albeit amid all kinds of obscurity. I think that today too the Church should open a sort of "Court of the Gentiles" in which people might in some way latch on to God, without knowing him and before gaining access to his mystery, at whose service the inner life of the Church stands. Today, in addition to interreligious dialogue, there should be a dialogue with those to whom religion is something foreign, to whom God is unknown and who nevertheless do not want to be left merely Godless, but rather to draw near to him, albeit as the Unknown. [...]