Moving to a new blog!

After much reflection, the Author has decided that a change in the direction of his wonderblogging efforts is necessary. The first change would be a greater focus of content on issues relating to the intersections on faith and politics, parallelling the Authors academic and personal interests.

The change in content would also be reflected in a repackaging of the wonderblog to a name that reflects the rebellious nature of faith against the secular status quo, a divine wedgie if you will. So for future posts, tune in to The Divine Wedgie

Find this new improved wonderblog at divinewedgie.blogspot.com

Thanks to all faithful MJP Tan readers that have followed the dark pathways of this author's imagination, but now a new one awaits you...

Good and Faithful Servant: a Tribute to Fr. Louis Fossion

On 26th July 2007, on the Feast of Saints Anne and Joachim, just one week shy of celebrating his diamond Jubilee of his ordination, the Lord called home one of Singapore's clerical veterans, Belgian priest Fr. Louis Fossion.

Fr. Fossion's standing as one of the titans of the Church in Singapore is demonstrated by the flood of blog and online forum entries mourning his passing. As a further demonstration, one teengage blogger gave Fr. Fossion the honorary title of "Singapore's Dumbledore".

Like the wise old wizard of the Harry Potter series, Fr. Fossion has been a source of wisdom and encouragement to hundreds of people, not just in his native Belgium, but in Scheut mission territories of China, Inner Mongolia and Singapore. Even the Singaporean Government's mouthpiece, the Straits Times, had to take note in a lengthy newspaper article, the number of parishoners whose lives were touched by the zeal of Fr. Fossion.

Indeed, Fr. Fossion's love for Christ is not just illustrated by his love of the people residing in the territories he visited, in particular Mongolia. It is also graphically illustrated in his parish Church of the Holy Spirit (pictured above), the interior of which was famously painted by him singlehandedly (he would have been in his 60s), and which bear two copper symbols of the Holy Spirit, hanging on either side of the central alter, both of which were handbeaten by the man himself.

The Author's family have also come into personal contact with Fr. Fossion's dedication. He has baptised all member of the Author's family (save strangely, the Author himself). In one instance, Fr. Fossion was noted to have stayed in a newly-moved-into house from 8pm until 3am (the time when all the furniture was transported to the house), so that the new domicile could be blessed.

Ever the stalwart of the Catholic Church, Fr. Fossion was never one to countenance the shallowness and irreverance that has dominated much of the Church in the West today. In one noted example, Fr. Fossion quite audibly berated a couple who took offense at his refusal to baptise their daughter "Fifi". After remarking that he would not even demean his dog by giving it such a name, he told them to go back and return only when they have decided upon a proper name.

Few, if any, priests in this day and age could demonstrate the love and dedication that Fr. Fossion has shown. A great day would dawn if the likes of this cigar chomping Belgian would see the light of day. Truly, if the words "Well done, good and faithful servant" should apply to anyone, it would be Fr. Louis Fossion.

Habemus I-Papam

A series of blog entries and conversations among friends from Church alerted the author to a story regarding Pope Benedict XVI's new technological acquisition: a 2-gigabyte ipod nano.

Staff at Vatican Radio presented the gift to the Pontiff to celebrate the radio's 70th Anniversary, upon the receipt of which the Pope was noted to have remarked that computor technology was now the future. The pontifical approval of Apple merchandise has stimulated the production of hilarious spoof commercials promoting the the concept of the "Ipope", like this:



This:

And to top it all off, a video commercial produced by Jay Leno, and featured on NBC television. To view it, copy and paste the link below, and be sure to turn up the audio for the complete i-papal experience. It is well worth the effort.

http://ipope1.ytmnd.com/

Eaten the Burger? How About Meeting the Cow?

The Author had in the previous week returned from a conference organised by the Australian Catholic Students Association, running under the theme "Towards 2028", indicating some consideration on what to do in the 20 years that follow World Youth Day 2008. Whilst there was some projection into the future, courtesy of the highly eloquent and humourous Bishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney, the conference focussed very much on what to do in the present. This included important topics facing the Church including the Liturgy, life issues, and giving the faith a political face. The only mar to this otherwise wonderful congress was a disgraceful performance by the current Industrial Relations Minister, Tony Abbott, who was invited to speak on his experiences as Health Minister and the defence of life issues in the public square, but ended up giving an opportunistic sales pitch to the Government's WorkChoices legislation, and even questioning the right of clerics to frame economic issues in moral terms.

For now, the Author would like to draw one's attention to the recently aired movie, The Island, starring Eran MacGregor and Scarlett Johannson. The film, depicting the adventures of MacGregor and Johannson who act as clones who find out that they are artificially manufactured for the purposes of extraction of their organs, captures in the space of a few hours, the stakes of the current cloning "debate" that has gone on for the last month or so. The film graphically depicts the subjects of this debate in flesh and blood, and the fact that the producers of the film seek to frame such procedures in a negative light, including the instrumentalising of MacGregor, Johannson, and other clones by labelling them as "products", would indicate that the market consists of folk who would be horrified by this spectre.

Also, interestingly, the arguments that are put forward to nullify moral outrage (for instance, the head of the project, Dr. Merrick, denies the clones humanity by their inability to feel emotion, or express desire) or justify the project that produces said outrage (this Dr. Merrick at one point asks another character for the number of people who can cure Leukemia like him), bear a striking resemblance to arguments of supporters of voluntary euthanasia (Peter Singer adopts a schema that resembles the first set of arguments in the film), and therapeutic cloning (with respect to the second set of arguments). Again, such arguments are framed in a negative light by the producers of the film, indicating a similar resonance amongst the target market.

This raises an interesting question, why would the same target audience that would express horror at this atrocity in a film, not express the same outrage at the same atrocity occurring, or about to occur, in the real world? Indeed, one may not be surprised to find an Island fan actually using the same justifications used by Merrick to assuage any guilt that this real life Island scenario would generate. What can explain this discrepancy?

Two possible explanations exist. The first is that that they are not made cognisant of the humanity of the subjects of these procedures. The Second is that the culture of postmodernity (not to be confused with the academic paradigm of postmodernism), has produced a fluidity of moral planes that allow one to switch allegiances from one moral framework to another depending on what suits the situation (which in reality makes postmodernity a hyperextension of Modern strategic rationalism).

How should the Christian respond. Dealing with the first would necessitate a persistence in the activity of the pro-life campaigns, with a concerted effort in bringing to light the humanity of these "products", with a particular emphasis on graphic demonstrations that would make the audience meet the cow that produces the burgers. The reason that this graphic strategem may win out over resort to argument is the changing frames of reference that plague this debate currently. Dealing with this issue would require a firming of the cognitive planes, an outcome that can only come about through a process of Foucauldian discipline.

James K A Smith has observed in Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? that for the Church, such a discipline can be found in Her liturgy. If we recognise, as William Cavanaugh does, that more than remembering and hoping, the liturgy also rearranges bodies to fit a distinctly Christian social order, the training the bodies that liturgy brings should, in true Foucouldian form, firm up the cognitive order in such a way so that Christians at least would not fall victim to the quicksand foundations that arguments justifying the murder of embryos, foetuses and patients.

With this in mind, the recent release of Sacramentum Caritatis, and the Motu Propio by Pope Benedict XVI on the normalisation of the liturgy are indeed welcome developments. But more on that in future wonderposts.

All of a Sudden, Celibacy is Sexy Again...

The Author mentioned in an earlier Wonderpost that showbusiness is such a fickle creature. It would seem that the unpredictability of the Beautiful people has been demonstrated yet again this week.

The National Catholic Reporter this week ran an article on Hollywood screenwriter Karen Hall. People may not know the name, but they may be familiar with some of her work, which include the scripts of M*A*S*H and more recently, Judging Amy. After the success of Amy, Ms. Hall has returned with a script for a new series due out in the fall - about priests. Before the discerning Catholic rolls one's eyes in an expression of "Not Again", it is noteworthy that there is one slight twist.

According to the Reporter, the TV series market is out for something wierd, exotic and completely way out, and apparently with Vows, Ms. Hall has delivered the most audacious overarching plot known to contemporary showbusiness: these priests actually love the Church and are faithful to its teachings.

It would seem that deviant priests in all their various flavours do not tickle the showbiz palette like they once did. The relatively disappointing reviews given to the recent Da Vinci Code movie is but one demonstration of that. And whilst the American clerical sex scandals have been a great source of embarrassment for Catholics everywhere, they also have yielded a strange dividend: public scrutiny and curiosity about the priesthood is becoming a showbiz phenomenon.

Said Hall, a devout Catholic, about the acceptance of Vows:

"The orthodox priest-protagonist is a novelty...Everything else has been done: the cool liberal priest, the gay priest, the drug-addicted pastor, priests who are pedophiles or who have lost faith. Networks are interested now in what is real, which seems weird enough to them to be compelling”.

While chic may not be the best reason to celebrate expressions of one's orthodoxy, this episode really demonstrates the importance of demonstrating Christianity to be not merely a set of beliefs (any religion can do that), but also as a true Counter-Culture that defies all forms of Modernity. Calls for a dumbing down of the faith to make it more "in touch", or to make it less "controlling", produces the kind of Modern dribble that people in postmodern culture are finding so bland. Indeed, according to James KA Smith, so long as Christianity seeks to bow before the altar of autonomy, it replicates rather than overcomes Modernity. To be truly postmodern, says Smith, is actually to boldly express the entirety of the Christian narrative. And what is more, it would appear people actually want it that way, not so much for entertainment, but because it strikes a deep longing repressed by several centuries of Modernity.

For now, let us content ourselves with the fact that for Hollywood, the cloth is now the new black.

Interesting View from the Catholic Register

When Catholics think of the state of their faith, too often they think doom and gloom, which provides a less than optimal outward sign when it comes to spreading the faith. Below is an excerpt from the Canandian Catholic Register's Joseph Sinasac that does not sidestep the seriousness of the state of the Faith, but at the same provides an interesting angle on these "signs of the times"...

---

Signs of consolation
By Joseph Sinasac 6/19/2007
The Catholic Register (http://www.catholicregister.org/)

We are often urged to read the “signs of the times” to discern what God is calling us to do in our lives and in our church. How we read those signs will determine not only our outlook on the future, but also influence our sense of energy and purpose.

The Ignatian method of prayer calls for us to consider both the signs of “consolation” and “desolation.” Too often, we focus on the latter; the news media in particular are predisposed to dwell on the bad news to the detriment of all those signs of hope in the world.

In fact, in recent weeks it has been all too easy to wallow in the bad news involving religion. We hear of Pope Benedict XVI under attack, of violence done in the name of religion, of priest shortages and discord within our religious house. Adding insult to injury, a spate of new books have been aggressively painting religion as the source of all evil in the world. British writer Richard Dawkins, in his bestseller, The God Delusion, argues that parents who teach their children religion are guilty of child abuse. His crusade is joined by others such as Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great) and Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation). All display a dogmatic zeal that is easily the atheist equivalent of the most zealous Bible-punching fundamentalists.

Yet the very passion of the attacks smacks of a desperation born in a dawning realization that the religious world is not so dark after all. These writers see that religion is being taken seriously by far more than the fringes and that it continues to make a major impact on public life in the world, for both good and ill. It is not for nothing that the pronouncements of Pope Benedict continue to receive such critical scrutiny. That fact is, they matter.

In Canada, a new spate of episcopal appointments brings to office a set of capable, energetic and talented men to office in several dioceses in Canada. Archbishop Thomas Collins is capably filling the large shoes left by Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic in Toronto, Archbishop Richard Smith in Edmonton has made a first good impression and, now, three other archdioceses – Ottawa, Vancouver and Kingston – are receiving younger shepherds who have considerable pastoral and administrative experience and are proven disciples of our Lord. Vancouver, with Archbishop Michael Miller, Ottawa with Archbishop Terrence Prendergast and Kingston with Archbishop Brendan O’Brien are filling key leadership positions in the Canadian church. We pray their replacements in their former dioceses will be of an equally high caliber.

At the grassroots Catholics are taking seriously their own call to be “leaven in the dough” in the world. Whether it be the growth of new youth movements or the growing popularity of Catholic media efforts involving youth, such as Salt+Light TV and The Catholic Register Youth Speak News program, Catholics are refusing to let the world’s secular opinion makers set their agendas.

Faith, Fiction and the Need for Both

The Author very recently took out Stranger than Fiction from the local video store. Having been told by friends that it ranked among the cleverest comedies ever made, the Author developed a curiosity that could only be satisfied by expending the necessary funds to hire the movie out. He was not disappointed...

Stranger than Fiction follows the story of Harold Crick (played by Will Ferrell), an IRS agent who very consciously orders his life around numbers (For instance, Harold must always brush his teeth 72 times, he must always tie his tie in a single windsor knot to save 48 seconds, he must count the number of steps he makes to catch the bus). Life for Harold is one of precision, but at the same time, it is also a very repetitious life...and a seemingly meaningless one. Harold hates his job, and apart from only one friend, Harold spends almost every minute of his existence alone.

This mundane existence gets interrupted when Harold, brushing his teeth, begins to hear a woman's voice narrating his every move. The only problem is that he is the only one that can hear this voice. Through a series of consultations, Harold discovers that he is a character of a novel being written by a famous reclusive author, Karen Eiffel (played by Emma Thompson). More ominously, in a highly humourous scene at his usual bus stop to catch the bus home, Harold hears Karen mention his imending death. The only thing that is keeping Harold alive, however, is the fact that Karen is suffering from a bout of writer's block and does not know exactly how to "kill" Harold, a condition that her assistant Penny (played by Queen Latifah) tries to undo. Eventually, Karen finds a way to "kill Harold off" in the novel, and the race for Harold to save himself begins.

Harold successfully locates Karen, and he tries to persuade Karen not to kill him. While genuinely distraught by the discovery of her being in such control of Harold's destiny, Karen protests that she would be unable to complete what is her most brilliant work without Harold's dying. She gives a copy of the manuscript to Harold, who in turn passes it onto a literature professor Jules Hibbert (played by Dustin Hoffman), whom Harold consults throughout the film. Prof. Hibbert reads the manuscript and declares it to be so masterfully written that he tells Harold that he has to die. He then hands the manuscript to Harold, who takes a long bus trip around the city so that he could read the story from start to finish. Harold too is captivated by the story, so much so that he accepts his impending death.

The acceptance of his death transforms his life, he stops counting, breaks his routine, engages in acts of altruism (which includes fulfilling his friend's childhood desire to go to Space Camp) and also deepens his awkward relationship with a baker, Ana Pascal (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal). On the day he is destined to die, Harold goes through his day calmly and purposefully. When he arrives at his bus stop (3 minutes early, rather than on the dot), Harold sees a boy ride his bike into the path of his bus. He pushes the boy away and is hit by said bus.

However, just when we all think that at this point Harold dies (there is a scene where, almost immediately after Harold is hit by the bus, the viewer is taken to Karen Eiffel's office, where she weeps after having typed the sentence "Harold Crick was de--"), we find him waking up in a hospital bed. The viewer soon finds out that Karen had, at the last moment, changed her script entirely, so that, for the first time in her writing career, she writes a story where the protagonist does not die. The result however, is professional suicide, as she ends up writing what amounts to a mediocre tale. She is happy to live with that, however, rather than with the responsibility of sending a man to his death.

Stranger than Fiction may not be funniest comedy ever written, but it is more than made up for by its originality and intelligence, and comes highly recommended. While a great source of entertainment, Stranger than Fiction is also a great cultural resource. The movie should also bring to mind the importance of narrative to meaningfully locate the events of one's life, and indeed find meaning and purpose to life itself. Part of the widespread dissatisfaction with Modern life stems from this complete antipathy to narrative, the emptiness of which as Catherine Pickstock hints at in Liturgy, Art and Politics, can only be filled by mindless, and purposeless, mechanistic repetition. The only antidote to such mindlessness and purposelessness, would be the insertion of the events of one's life into a template of a story. More importantly, it has to be a story whose ending is known. This is an element that current manifestations of postmodern culture are loathe to concede, lest they admit into their congnitive maps the spectre of the Totalising Project, which are argued to be nothing more than instruments of cynical power projection and domination.

What current manifestations of postmodernity seem to fail to grasp is that, in the absence of an ending to the story, what actually occurs is actually a replication of the Modern process of repetition that postmodernity seeks to transcend. In the same way that Harold could only find meaning and purpose to his existence by reading the entirety of his story, the meaningful location of one's life is dependent on knowing the end to the tale. Once the end is known, the fear that makes the Harolds of this world hide in mindless repetition disappears.

Christianity has an important role to play here culturally. More than a set of ideas, the recognition of Christianity as a powerful (and Kairotically complete) story of redemption, and the discovery of one's location in that story and the direction that one's story takes, imparts to the believer a powerful and liberating potential. For when the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune arrive, the fear that would make us retreat into the Modern culture of accumulation and safeguards (manifested in things like commercialism, contraception) ought to disappear in the face of a confidence in a God who throughout the course of salvation history, proved his faithfulness in transforming the many tragedies of Israel. We, the Church, the spiritual descendents of Israel, are privy not just to the fulfilment of God's promises in the past, but also to the consummation of those promises in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb that awaits those who bear those trajedies trusting in God's promises (read the Book of Revelations).

Such a realisation ought to make us as Christians more than confident in, to paraphrase Thomas Merton, staring despair in the face. At the very least, the Christian need not count the number of strokes when brushing one's teeth.

When Can Catholics End Zone Dance...Now?

There is a lot that this Author would like to say about the recent furore over accusations politicians are slinging at Archbishop Barry Hickey and Cardinal George Pell, over alleged interference with the democratic process through their notifying Catholic MPs of consequences from the Church, should they decide to support an upcoming cloning bill. That will be left for another time...

This has gone under many a radar, but on 5th May 2007, Dr. Francis Beckwith, Associate Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University and more significantly for the purposes of this wonderblog, President of the Evangelical Theological Society in the US, converted to Catholicism. Dr. Beckwith hails from Baylor University and is a regular contributor to the Right Reason blog for conservative philosophers. While most of his colleagues in the ETS have been gracious and supportive of Dr. Beckwith's decision, and his subsequent move to resign as president of the ETS, much of the commentary in response to his entry concerning his conversion have met can be best described as "uncharitable".

Be that as it may, the Church's academic scene would be very much enriched by the inclusion of a brilliant mind like Dr. Beckwith, who even in Evangelical mode, is a formidable theologian and philosopher.

But do not let this Author, with his incredibly limited knowledge on good philosophical things, sway you. Let Dr. Beckwith himself tell you his story, which is found in the Right Thinking Blog and is replicated below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the last week of March 2007, after much prayer, counsel and consideration, my wife and I decided to seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. My wife, a baptized Presbyterian, is going through the process of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA). This will culminate with her receiving the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confirmation. For me, because I had received the sacraments of Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation all before the age of 14, I need only go to confession, request forgiveness for my sins, ask to be received back into the Church, and receive absolution.

Given my status as president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), I decided several weeks ago--after consultation with trusted friends--to not seek absolution until my term as ETS president ended in November and then to request that the ETS nominations committee not place my name on the executive committee ballot as an at-large member. I wanted to make sure that my return to the Church brought as little attention to ETS as possible. To complicate matters, I received conflicting advice from wise friends on when and how to address the ETS executive committee on this delicate matter. Some suggested that the ETS executive committee would rather not know about my reception into the Church until after the national meeting in November. These friends recommended I lay low, give a presidential address that is irenic and does not address Protestant-Catholic issues (which I had planned on doing all along), and then quietly ask not to be nominated to the executive committee for the four-year at-large term. Other friends, equally as wise, gave conflicting advice. They opined that my withholding from the executive committee my plans to return to the Church would play to prejudices that some Protestants have about “secretive Jesuit conspiracies” and the like. They were concerned that my planned move would be inadvertently disclosed by friends before the November meeting and that the news that I had withheld information concerning my return to the Church could be perceived by many as a bad witness for the Gospel.

I did not know exactly what to do. So, I prayed and asked the Lord to provide to me clear direction. I believe I received this direction on April 20. On that Friday morning, my 16-year-old nephew, Dean Beckwith, called me and asked if I would be his sponsor when he receives the sacrament of Confirmation on May 13. I could not say “no” to my dear nephew, who has credited his renewal of his faith in Christ to our conversations and correspondence. But in order for me to do this I would have to be in full communion with the Church. So, on Saturday, April 28, 2007, I received the sacrament of Confession. The next day I was publicly received back into the Catholic Church at 11 am Mass at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Waco, Texas. My wife, standing beside me, was accepted as a catechumen. (A Baylor student, who I do not know, was present at the Mass and provides an account of it on her blog).

Because I can in good conscience, as a Catholic, affirm the ETS doctrinal statement, I do not intend to resign as a member of ETS. However, because I am sensitive to the fact that my status as ETS president changes the dynamic of my return to the Church, I had originally thought that it was wise for me not to step down as ETS president before my term expires in November. For, I thought that my resignation would draw needless attention to ETS. On the other hand, because I had no doubt that word of my return to the Church would disseminate quickly through private conversation and correspondence over the next six months, I suggested to the ETS executive committee that it appoint someone else on the committee to preside over the remaining meetings in both August and November. I offered to attend those meetings and contribute to them in ways to advance the good of ETS. But I also told the committee that if it did not think it was appropriate for me to attend, I would not. On the other hand, if it thought I should conduct the meetings, I would do so. Regardless, I deferred to their collective judgment on this matter. However, I also told them that I intended to remain as ETS president until my term expires in November, but not to accept a nomination for a four-year at-large appointment to the executive committee after the end of my term.

But, as many of you now realize, word of my reception into the Church was delivered, without my knowledge, to several bloggers. A tiny percentage of these bloggers have engaged in much speculation about my motives, the timing of my move, as well as my status as ETS president. Unfortunately, some of these speculations had pockets of uncharity, for they were not advanced under the assumption that I have a true love for my Evangelical brothers and that I may have had undisclosed reasons, perhaps personal and theologically delicate ones, that time and circumstance prevented me from fully conveying in one full swoop. Fortunately, the uncharitable aspects of these postings have had no impact on people of good will and devout faith, both Protestant and Catholic, who have offered their prayers, advice, and even critical comments to me in the form of private messages adorned by a love of Christ and a sincere desire to honor and respect both me and my wife. Many of these messages, especially the critical ones, have been extremely important in helping me to reassess my decision to remain as ETS president. As I have already stated, my decision was based on a cluster of goods that I thought would be best protected by my completing my tenure and then permanently moving off the executive committee. However, given the immense public attention and commentary that my reception into the Church has provoked, I no longer think that it is possible for ETS to conduct its business and its meetings in a fashion that advances the Gospel of Christ as long as I remain as its president. I now believe that my continued presence as president of ETS will serve the very harms that I had originally thought that my retention would avoid. For this reason, effective May 5, 2007, I resign as both President of the Evangelical Theological Society and a member of its executive committee.

In order to dispel any other rumors, I want to make it clear that no one on the ETS executive committee asked for me to resign. They received my letter concerning this matter during the week of April 30, and I have no doubt that they have since then discussed that epistle among themselves. As stewards of this important academic society, these men not only have the right to do this, they have the obligation. And I would have willingly and graciously resigned if they had asked me to, even if I thought that I could serve out my term with little controversy. But knowing these wonderful gentlemen, and the measured and serious way they take their responsibility, I knew they did not want to be rushed into assessing such a delicate matter. I have no doubt they have been thinking, deliberating, and praying about what to do. But given the fact that it is unlikely that I would have been elevated to the presidency of ETS by its membership if my reception into the Catholic Church had occurred prior to the time of my candidacy, I think it would have been more than reasonable for these gentlemen to ask me to step down. But they had not done so yet. Nevertheless, I am stepping down, in order to relieve them of the burden of that judgment as well as to avoid bringing scandal to either ETS or the Church.

There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity. It is a conversation that I welcome, and it is one in which I hope to be a participant. But my presence as ETS president, I have concluded, diminishes the chances of this conversation occurring. It would merely exacerbate the disunity among Christians that needs to be remedied.

The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.

I have tremendous respect for both what ETS stands for as well as for each and every one of the members of the ETS executive committee. If not for them, their predecessors, and so many of their (and our) mentors and teachers in the Protestant Evangelical movement, my present faith would be diminished. ETS’s tenacious defense and practice of Christian orthodoxy is what has sustained and nourished so many of us who have found our way back to the Church of our youth.

A New Opposition Party for Singapore?

Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, once the strongman for the opposition Singapore Worker's Party before being rendered bankrupt by the Singapore Government, and thus ineligible to stand for Parliament, has re-entered the political arena after emerging out of bankruptcy.

The 20th May edition of the International Herald Tribune reported that JBJ, as he is commonly known in Singapore, has left his Worker's Party to form a new opposition, which rumours suggest will be called the Reform Party.

The re-entry of JBJ into Singapore Politics represents a step in the right direction, and there are suggestions that Singaporeans themselves are responding positively to this development. After casting their votes behind the ruling People's Action Party for so long, many Singaporeans are growing uneasy with the increasingly blatant acts of corruption on the part of the Government. In recent months, the Singapore Cabinet, in the midst of growing economic disparities and dislocations, voted in favour of giving themselves a massive salary hike. The latest salary revision will by next year nearly double each minister’s current remuneration, and bring it on average to nearly three times that of US President George Bush’s, five times in the case of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s.

Amidst such discontent, it is likely that the stranglehold the PAP has on the Singaporean Parliament (it currently holds 82 of the 84 seats in the unicameral parliament) may be loosened in the next parliamentary "election", with a lot of electoral support going to the opposition, and in particular JBJ. With his training as a barrister, he would prove a more than a match to any of the PAP dropkicks that currently infest the esteemed house. But cold water can be poured on such hopes on several fronts.

Firstly, the entry of the Reform Party would split the already fragmented opposition three ways. Unless these parties go into coalition, none would be able to form a cohesive vision so as to be able to present themselves to be more than just critics on the sideline, and as a viable alternative government.

Secondly, it is unlikely that the opposition would be able to field sufficient candidates to pose any serious challenge to the PAP. The Party has put to good use its utilisation of the courts to stifle opposition by suing for defamation any candidate which criticises the government before, during and after campaigning. If such suits are successful, the damages are often enough to render a parliamentarian bankrupt, thus makng him ineligible to be a member of parliament. The fear of reprisal that this systematic abuse of the courts, which are far from independent, would instill in potential candidates would make them think twice before seriously standing as a candidate. This of course results in the inadequate fielding of candidates to the point that the PAP wins the bulk of the electorates hands down for want of opposing candidates.

Thirdly, one wonders if materialism has sunken so deep into the Singaporean psyche that not enough would care enough about their current state of serfdom. Many may think that having virtually every material want fulfilled, to talk of anything that could jeoparise such a state should be avoided at all cost. This in turn results in a wilful political apathy that could be an even bigger enemy for opposition parties than Lee Kuan Yew's henchmen.

But hope always springs eternal in the hearts of those that are either exiled or royally annoyed with the abuse of power perpetrated by those holding the reins of power in Singapore.

...How About that Fidelity Stuff?

What better way to celebrate the Solemnity of the Ascension that become the subject of yet another Church-bashing media report?

The BBC today reported on a priest in the French village of Asson, who admitted to authorities that he was having a 22-year sexual relationship with a female parishoner. A paragraph on the web version of the report pretty much sets the tone


"He is twinkly eyed and looks a little like Dustin Hoffman. She seems warm and open and is still a very attractive woman. But in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, Leon and Marga are sinners"

That's right, the narrow-mind of the Catholic Church pounces again with it's rhetoric of sin to destroy the hopes and dreams of two beautiful people, says the BBC.

Needless, to say, this episode is causing a bit of a stir in the tiny village. Many parishoners are out on strike, although many also come into the prebytery (which the priest would soon have to vacate) to give him the odd congratulatory note, or hang out signs on the Church's to protest against the Church's stance on Fr. Leon.

Both Fr. Leon and Marga have expressed "hurt" by the Church's attitude. And the BBC World News reporter ended the report by saying this situation raises questions that go to the heart of Catholicism, whether it should own up to the outmodedness of its ways, or demand blind, unquestioning obedience.

One cannot help but feel insulted at the suggestion that we as Catholics are programmed to be mindless automatons, so utterly lacking in mental capacities to the point of needing someone to do the thinking of us. At the same time, one cannot help but giggle sometimes at yet another demonstration of the media's simplistic portrayal of a multifacted situation so as to fit a soundbyte.

What about the fact that Fr. Leon had on the day of his ordination, made a vow of his own free will to maintain a life of celibacy?

What about the fact that he has essentially broken a vow that he himself made of his own free will?

What about the fact that Fr. Leon is publicly flaunting a sexual relationship that exists OUTSIDE any marriage situation, a standard every Christian, never mind a priest, is by his or her profession of faith expected to strive to observe?

How about the fact that Fr. Leon insists that this relationship has strengthened his mission as a Catholic, while refusing to even ATTEND mass?

How about the fact that Fr. Leon is publicly renouncing the office of priesthood, and his very faith, whilst still enjoying the material benefits being part of the Catholic Church (free room and board, and a salary)?

How about the fact that, as a fellow priest hinted, there are other protestant churches where Fr. Leon's behavior would be considered acceptable; how about the fact that Fr. Leon is just as free to leave the Church as he was in making his vows that he swore to keep for life, but insists on staying in the Church and insisting that the Church changes basic teachings to suit his lifestyle?

It would seem that for the good folk of the BBC, the only thing is Fr. Leon's (and Marga's) "hurt" for not being able to get their jollies, whenever they want it, wherever they want it, in the way that they want it, while expecting material support from someone else while wanting it, and while criticising that someone else for not letting them break their promises so that they can want it.

One seems to forget that in any other situation, and even more so if this situation were an episode of Dr. Phil, a person hearing that story would respond with an admonition for Fr. Leon to "grow up".

Showbusiness can be such a fickle creature...

Who Do You Call...Tracey Rowland!

The Author takes pride in being and having wierd and wonderful combinations. His list was extended this week when he the received happy news that Dr. Tracey Rowland, Dean of the John Paul Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne, will supervise the Author's project on the evolution of Catholic Ecclesiology, Theology and Peacemaking Practice, alongside the School of Political Science and International Studies of the University of Queensland.

Dr. Rowland has enjoyed an illustrious academic career, first as a political philosopher, and now as a theologian. Combining these streams in her book Culture and the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II, Dr. Rowland is now THE Australian exponent of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, which as the previous wonderpost intimated, bears great potential in engaging in social inquiry on the Church's own terms (that is, without having to apologise for our faith). Through Dr. Rowland, the Church would be able, at least academically, be able to take theology out of its epistemological cocoon and counter the narratives of the (post?)modern world which, as the founder of the NeoCathecumenal Way, Kiko Arguello remarked, threatens to take ever more strident steps towards apostasy.

We are fortunate to have academics like Dr. Rowland in our midst to lead this intellectual charge.

Female Priesthood a Dishonour to Women

Feminism as a political theory has introduced a variety of interesting themes into political analysis. Indeed, a lot of valuable analytical methodologies would not be possible without Feminist political theory.

But somewhere along the way, as a cultural phenomenon, Feminism has become a twin edged sword. On the one hand, it asserts upholding the dignity of women, a laudable goal. On the other hand, unfortunately, the most strident form of feminism in our postmodern culture has sought tirelessly to uphold that dignity by making - and by that I mean almost forcing- women mimic men. This comes from, as Pia De Solenni argued during her April 27 conference at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, a confused notion of power and authority. According to what is an essentially Liberal argument, particular roles, rather than being seen as part of a complementarity of roles within a social organism, are seen as avenues of privilege that in reality, all individuals should be entitled to access. Dignity, seen in this light, is dependent on the acquisition of what is misconstrued to be a position of power, and anything else, even if that fits like a glove, is seen as second-rate.

We in the Church find a shining example of this phenomenon in the ongoing debate about women priests. Rather than see the role of the priesthood as acting as an incarnation of Christ in soul and body, it is seen as a site of official authority and power. Denial of this "position" to women, thus, is seen as a form of sexual discrimination.

According to de Solenni, this line of argument ignores the complementarity of roles within the Church in accordance to the masculine and feminine natures of humanity, which are not incidental and thus insignificant, but rather the core of human identity. The loss of the image of the Church as a truly social reality - a corpus verum in William Cavanaugh's parlance - and instead the misconceptualisation of the Church as merely an institution with individuals scurrying around working their own salvation or political careers, has contributed greatly to this malaise, which de Solenni argues is underpinned by an "overemphasis of the masculine". Talking about ordaining women into the priesthood, thus, is taking on board the feminism of fashion, and forcing a masculine paradigm onto women, thereby undermining the dignity that is due to women qua women.

"No doubt," continues de Solenni, "women need a voice in the Church, but it must be an authentic voice and not their voice made to sound like a man's."

But critique of the feminist line is one thing. Positing an alternative model is another. In this, de Solenni argues that the history of the Church is comprised of a litany of the "active participation of women". Most significantly, "It was the consent, understanding and devotion of a woman that brought the Church to us," and the fact that the Virgin Mary was not chosen by her son to be a priest "indicates that the sacrament does not discriminate on the basis of dignity or merit".

Praying for the Soldier & Condemning the Commander

On 25th April every year, Australians take the day off to commemorate ANZAC day, remembering the sacrifice made by those who fell, or are in the process of falling, on the battlefields. The day is normally celebrated by dawn servicesin specially designed memorial sites across the country. In Turkey, a special service is also held in Gallipolli, where Australian and New Zealand troops, under British command, suffered massive losses in a now legendary failed amphibious attack against the Turks in the First World War.

To the Author, the commemoration of ANZAC day is important for two reasons. The first is not controversial, one commemorates this day to remember the sacrifice of soldiers who lost their lives doing what they were ordered to do. The second reason however may prove more contentious. Whilst these must be bracketed from the actions of the soldiers, it is important, in this Author's opinion, to keep in mind also those who sent those soldiers to their deaths, and remember that often, the day for the commemoration for those who lost or are losing their lives are often mobilised for the purposes of the Modern State, rather than for those that reside within them.

According to William Cavanaugh's Theopolitical Imagination, the Modern liberal State, because it is built on atomistic foundations (meaning that it is meant to allow anyone to do whatever they want), the means to maintain social cohesion can only be effective when it is backed by the threat of violence. According to Cavanaugh then, the use of violence in the name of all the atomistic agents that reside within its borders represents the best way to bring them together to form a cohesive whole. Nothing brings individuals together like a common enemy, and nothing gives individuals that originally had nothing to do with each other a common purpose more than engaging in warfare against that common enemy. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then fighting that common enemy would make us all friends indeed.

If Cavanaugh is right, then it makes one pause as to the reasons for the resort to war, which becomes more proficient in tearing bodies apart as the centuries roll on. Can one be conclusive that it is solely for the purpose of defending the community, or for the aggrandisement of a political entity that is not necessarily connected in any substantial way to that community? It is important to note that the significance of Gallipolli lies not in the strategic realm, for it was strategically a disaster; rather the significance of the event that the Author keeps hearing lies in the giving birth to Australia as a country. Though it legally took shape in 1901, the Modern State of Australia only saw the light of day in a real way on the battlefield, amidst the bodies of thousands of human souls. Collective identity linked to the Modern State in a sense, necessitates the bloody sacrifice of those that reside within its borders.

It is significant that quasi-religious terms surround the celebration of this day. The memorial sites are often called Shrines of Remembrance, and the trip to Gallipolli is always called a "Pilgrimage" on the news. This is no accident for Cavanaugh, who argues that war is actually a deformed liturgy of the State, a sick parallel to the sacrificial liturgy of the Church.

If this account is correct, then it is important to ask oneself why one keeps "the ANZAC spirit" alive. One should keep it alive through the weeping over the loss of brothers, fathers, sons, and now, daughters, mothers and wives who vowed obedience to their commanders, and paid for it with their blood. That should be kept separate from those whose decisions sent them to their deaths, and for the idol of the State to whom their deaths pay homage. When the banner that says "defending our way of life" flies, one should ask boldly exactly whose life is being defended.

On Tofu...

The Author had to recover from a gruelling weekend of conferences and interviews in Sydney (more on that in future wonderposts). All had quietened down, and time for ones-self was finally found. The Author stumbled around Pitt Street Mall hoping to find some real alternative to the atrocities of the Golden Arches. But given the late hour in the afternoon that the author concluded his work, restaurants one by one were shutting their doors and slamming the padlocks. Before reaching the point of desparation that would leave one flailing his hands around and screaming like a banshee, the Author found a Japanese restaurant, in which the author hoped to find sustanence in some light, authentic Japanese fare. What folly...

The Author's initial craving for sushi soon disappeared at the sight of the horrors being served on the dishes being tooted around on the train-like device that has now become so frightfully commonplace in Japanese restaurants. Not a scrap of raw fish in sight. What the author beheld were jumbles of tentacle-like strips of dried seaweed, fish-sticks and some viscous liquids sitting in bundles of seaweed sheets, making the whole package look like byproducts of a bad experiement in Area 51.

The only remotely edible choice lay in Agedashi Tofu. "Fine...even if the sushi does look like the offspring of the aliens in The Puppet Master, how bad can Agedashi Tofu be?" The Author thought. To be fair, visually the serve of tofu given was quite pleasing. Neatly cut, oblong pieces of tofu could potentially be the stuff of a good tofu dish, as opposed to the traditional method shown in the diagram. And to be fair, the faults of the tofu rest on a minor point technique.

Maybe it was the fatigue from the weekend, maybe it was the Author's low blood-sugar levels initiating a bout of Tourette's that had to be constructively redirected, but the Author felt obliged to whisper loudly the words that could make sense to no one except the truly insane: YOU DON'T USE FIRM TOFU IN AGEDASHI!

A bit of context in order. In most good japanese restaurants, like one in a small arcade in an Asian section of the Queens Street Mall in Brisbane, Agedashi Tofu is a delicate dish that uses the crispness of deep fried tempura batter to hold the shape of a piece of soft silken tofu, sitting in a small pool of broth made from soya sauce, mirin and soup stock, creating a wonderfully light savoury cushion of bliss.

Firm tofu, unlike silken tofu, has much of the water pressed out of it, creating a much stiffer tofu that can in the event of an emergency be used as a posturpedic mattress. A mattress, even one coated in tempura batter, does not a wonderfully light savoury cushion of bliss make. The dish seemed more suited for safety gear for the Grand Prix than for high-brow consumption. And one should never forget the broth, which comprised of a type of vinegar that would strip the tarnish of Tutankamen's silverware.

But ever the good slave to the liturgies of free market economics, the Author finished the dish, wolfed down the broth (and corroded half his oesophagus in the process), paid the bill and walked off feeling cheated by life once again. The burger from Hungry Jack's that the Author consumed at the airport an hour later proved to be the only consolation to this saga.

The Free Ride to Serfdom?

The Author was having a discussion with a couple following the Eucharist about the upcoming French Presidential election. Thanks to the contribution of the female half of the couple, who was French, I got some very important insights into the condition of the French political scene. The French, it would seem, are given so many choices of candidates, each of them either not being known from a bar of soap, or so fake, or so plain offensive (one does not confine the object of this label to the Right Wing of French politics here), that they do not know who to choose.

The subject of the conversation moved onto the state of Western democracies in general. It seemed interesting that, with the exception of a coup or armed revolution, many of the dictatorships that one beheld in the twentieth century first started out as democracies. Moreover, the despots were VOTED into power. Sure, there were machinations on the part of the despot to ensure he or she remains a despot, but that normally came AFTER they were voted into positions of authority. The most graphic display of this took place in Weimar Germany, which after less than twenty years of being the most democratic state in Europe, ended up voting in one of the deadliest regimes known to man.

Is this merely an anomaly? One must remember too, that Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, the man now responsible for crushing all forms of opposition in the country (and annoyances outside the country) with all the means at his disposal (who would have thought gas could be such a powerful weapon - bean eaters take note), was voted in by the Russian public, not once but twice.

And it must be remembered too that not all dictatorships that were established via the ballot box, did not become tyrannical regimes overnight, but rather through a slow process of erosion of the checks and balances in parliamentary governance, normally following some kind of catastrophic scenario (e.g. Economic breakdown in the Weimar Republic, the Chechan Wars in Russia). While these means of defending liberty are being chipped away, assurances are given that they are necessary to protect a way of life. Sound familiar...?

On a theoretical note, it is interesting to note Peter Kreeft's How to Win the Culture War. An interesting section is dedicated to the "Interior/Exterior Police" dichotomy. He notes that in the absence of an Internal police, which comes in some kind of social discipline such as culture or religion (and one does not mean this in a nebulous sense of cultural or religious "feeling"), a liberal society underpinned by a narrative of individualistic atomisation, begins to disintegrate as each individual seeks to enforce his or her entitlements against everyone else. The solution to this disintegration, Kreeft argues, is via an increasing reliance on Exterior Police, which come in the form of actual police, tougher laws, more prisons and executive decisions, to maintain cohesion.

Indeed, increasing the efficacy of the means of maintaining the liberal way of life that allows each individual to do anything that he or she wants, paradoxically DEPENDS on building an apparatus of tyranny. In a way it would not be hypocritical, but actually quite logical for the main entrace of Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay, a place where people can be legitimately detained without trial for want of proper legal jurisdiction, to bear a plaque, the bottom of which reads "Defending Freedom".

Many people living in Western democracies may think democracy to be the antithesis of totalitarianism. But in reality, the slope of liberty is very slippery indeed...

What is Radical Orthodoxy? Here is the Book...

Can a Catholic reader be a convert to the writings of a Calvinist, and come out of the process more Catholic than ever? The Author's experience suggest that this is no pipe dream...

The Author last night finished reading James K A Smith's wonderful Introduction to Radical Orthodoxy, which is self-explanatory. The term Radical Orthodoxy has been bandied around to describe a lot of things, none of them accurate. Smith's book in an excellent introduction into a burgeoning "school" of theology that is attracting growing interest among discerning Christians from all denominations, including Anglicans (John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward), Catholics (William Cavanaugh and Australia's own Tracey Rowland), Calvanists (James K. A. Smith) and Evangelicals (D. Stephen Long).

What is interesting for the Author is the impact Radical Orthodoxy potentially has on political analysis. At the heart of RO's claims lies a rejection of Modernity's claims to neutrality, exposing that under what many count as "neutral" and "universal" is an unacknowledged teleological claim. As Alasdair MacIntyre once remarked in Whose Justice, Which Rationality, thinkers in the scientific world, the paragon of post-Enlightenment Modernity, are slowly acknowledging that "scientific" claims are underpinned by some form of assumption that is essentially theological in nature. And this applies not just to science, but other forms of political thought and practice that operate from the claim to see the world "as it really is", ie Liberalism, Marxism, Feminism and the like.

From this identification of the world as theologically charged, it follows then that rather than stop at the argument that something is "just the way it is", one should actually go further and own up to his or her underlying theology. This paves the way to consider Christianity for what it is, a way of seeing the world and give meaning to it. Moreover, it finally gives room for Christianity to boldly and unapolagetically proclaim its kerygma on its own terms, because it is no longer necessary to convince the skeptic that it is objectively true (Let us for now bracket the issue of objectivity for another wonderpost, for it is important to note that the Author is not claiming here that the Gospel is not true).

From there, RO is able to give its own theologically charged ontology of participation in God and in temporality (a line of thought gleaned from a re-reading of thinkers like Plato, Augustine and Aquinas). This starting point, which sits in opposition to many of the political ideologies mentioned by virtue of their being underpinned by an ontology of univocity of being which cuts divinity out of the picture altogether, then has a massive impact in providing the resources necessary for the questioning of the ideas and practices - be they economic, political or social - that pervade our world today, which in turn threaten the existence of everyone, in particular the weak and the disenfranchised. More importantly, it provides the resources for envisaging political alternatives that do not feed back into the orbit of teleologies that many are seeking to cast aside.

More importantly for the Catholic, the value of Smith's introduction into RO is that it makes you realise the inherent social and political impact of a lot of things that Catholics take for granted, things like tradition, liturgy and authority. Rather than come up with some form of half-hearted syncretism which has become so trendy in the post-Vatican II age, this book makes one realise that the way forward for the Christian is to look backward, though not in a way that romanticises the past.

If you want a way to ease yourself into the scarily complex philosophical world of RO - and there is a fair degree of Continental philosophy in it - and if you want a book that gives a sophisticated defence not just of your Catholicism, but of the renewal of the face of the earth that should flow from that, then this book comes highly recommended.

And We're Back...

Dear Faithful Wonderblog Readers,

Apologies for the very long delay in bringing the wonderblog back to life. Life itself, as you all may know, has a very bad habit of throwing curveballs into the family jewels of one's existence, causing an almost sickening crunching sound that forces one to curl up into so tightly formed a foetal position that reaching out into other more meaningful areas of activity stand the same chances of success as an Australian lamb gaining entry into the US market.

But, a crunch and a curl later, the author has slowly crawled his way back on the keyboard and is back on the writing saddle, ready to bore his faithful public with idle chitchat about postmodern faith, the evils of the state, and myriad varieties of pasta receipes.

In fact, let us begin with a reflection about that most myterious pasta, the gnocchi. Who would have thought a combination of flour and potato, with a few carresses of the palms, could produce a pasta so versatile, so filling, and yet...so light? A TV food critic once described the perfect gnocchi as a "fart in the mouth". Must the author really engage one's imagination concerning what this critic did in order to come up with a description such as that?

The Author shall refrain from engaging your imagainations thus. Instead, I shall direct your attention on to a simple fa...that is, gnocchi dish. Stir in the boiled gnocchi with lots of chopped basil leaves (fresh), garlic, some oregano leaves and salt. For the very adventerous, add a teaspoon of wonton soup base. The thought of mixing Oriental ingredients with something so mediterranean would strike someone as culinary blasphamy. But such an indispensible and versatile ingredient is the wonton soup mix, that it adds the perfect flavour boost to any dish. Stir all that in, and it is ready.

And now, full of pasta, let us continue with this rollercoaster ride...