Bishops: June 2009 Archives

First, Benedict XVI confirms that tests done on bone fragments from a tomb venerated as that of the Apostle--but often considered more legend than fact--belonged to a man who lived between the first and second century.

"This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul," the pope said during an evening prayer service June 28 at Rome's Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, according to the CNS report.

The basilica has long been held to be the burial site of St. Paul, but because of the destruction and rebuilding of the basilica, the exact location of the tomb was unknown for centuries. Vatican officials announced in December 2006 that several feet below the basilica's main altar and behind a smaller altar, they had found a roughly cut marble sarcophagus beneath an inscription that reads: "Paul Apostle Martyr."

Because part of the sarcophagus is buried beneath building material, Vatican officials determined they could not dig it out to open and examine the contents. Initially they tried to X-ray it to see what was inside, but the marble was too thick.

Pope Benedict said a "very tiny perforation" was drilled into the marble so that a small probe could be inserted in order to withdraw fragments of what was inside.In addition to traces of purple linen, a blue fabric with linen threads and grains of red incense, he said they found bone fragments.

The bone fragments "underwent a carbon-14 analysis carried out by experts who did not know their place of origin," the pope said, adding that the results "indicate they belong to a person who lived between the first and second century."

Just as remarkable is the news that Vatican archaeologists have found what is likely the oldest known portrait of St Paul--a fourth-century mosaic (shown above, from the London Times story) that shows the Apostle to the Gentiles much as he has been portrayed down through the centuries.

L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, which devoted two pages to the discovery, said that the oval portrait, dated to the 4th century, had been found in the catacombs of St Thecla, not far from the Basilica of St Paul's Outside the Walls, where the apostle is buried. The find was "an extraordinary event", said Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Barbara Mazzei, a restorer, said that centuries of grime had been removed with a laser. Fabrizio Bisconti, Professor of Christian Iconography at Rome University and a member of the team that made the discovery, said that it appeared to have decorated the tomb of a nobleman or high church official.

And that was back in 1973! Another fascinating bit of transcription from recently-released tapes of conversations between Nixon and Billy Graham, this time focusing on Nixon's take on Catholics of the day. At America magazine's blog, Jim Martin has the goods. The set-up is Graham and Nixon discussing prospects for a worldwide church body to counter the left World Council of Churches. The two men see leading bishops in the GOP camp, and the Jesuits as "all-out, barn-burning radicals." Plus ca change!

President Nixon: Now what about the Catholics?

Rev. Graham: We don't know.  They're going to come in great numbers as observers. 

Nixon: Yeah.

 

Graham: So far, they would not be able to participate, and uh, you know the Southern Baptist and other groups wouldn't um...

 

Nixon: Yeah...the trouble is...

Graham: They couldn't anyway.

 

Nixon: Yeah.  The difficulty too is that the Catholics aren't [in better shape] with that too.  They're going be losing their stroke, because...

 

Graham: They're...they're...that is the problem.

 

Nixon: They're split right down the middle.  They sure are.  You've got the good guys like [John Cardinal] Krol of Philadelphia, and [Terence Cardinal] Cooke in New York.  And then there's this bad wing, the Jesuits, who used to be the conservatives, and have become now become the all-out, barn-burning radicals. 

 

Graham: I think quite a bit, by the way, of that fellow you've got working with you--McLaughlin.

Nixon:  Oh yeah [laughter] the priest, yeah.  You know, he's good, and he's sort of a convert to our side.  He came in a total, all-out peacenik and then went to Vietnam and changed his mind.

 

Graham: I never met him, until I was over at a prayer breakfast over at the White House about a month ago.  He invited me up to his office, and I went over and spent about an hour with him.

 

Nixon: He's a very capable fellow, bright as a tack.

Yes, that would be John McLaughlin, a former Jesuit priest who, unlike the liberal Robert Drinan, defied his superiors and left the order to become a conservative commentator and political insider.

Here is a link to Tape 43, Conversation 161.

As part of the protests over Barack Obama's appearance at Notre Dame, one alum, David DiFranco, launched a website to get ND pres Father John Jenkins fired and to tally donations withheld from the university as a way of quantifying the displeasure and pressuring the board to replace Jenkins. The site's last public tally, on May 13, counted $13.9 million in funds withheld.

Yesterday, Notre Dame announced that it raised $1.54 billion as part of its "Spirit of Notre Dame" campaign--and did so two years ahead of shedule.

In May 2007 the school announced it wanted to raise money to support four areas: undergraduate education; research and graduate studies; diversity and international studies; and Catholic intellectual life.

The Rev. John Jenkins, the university president, said the challenge now is to build on the campaign's success and fully fund all of the priorities.

University vice president Louis Nanni said there is still work to be done, including raising more money for financial aid in these tough economic times.

The disparity seems to echo the disparity within the student body in terms of support for Obama's appearance, and the disparity in the Catholic populace. Though not in the conservative Catholic echo chamber. Here's a thought: Maybe Obama's appearance--and the opposition to him--actually boosted ND's fundraising.

H/T: CWNews

Together again, for the first time, on July 10:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI will welcome U.S. President Barack Obama to the Vatican July 10 for an audience scheduled to begin at 4 p.m.

Obama will visit Italy July 8-10 to participate in the Group of Eight summit, a meeting of leaders of the world's wealthiest nations. The meeting will be held in L'Aquila, site of a devastating earthquake in April.

"Together again," because the Vatican has been seen as far friendlier to Obama than the American bishops, and Catholic conservatives here. At America's blog, Michael Sean Winters tweaks the outflanked right:

Admit it, wasn't your first impulse to call Dr. Mary Ann Glendon and ask, "If you were still the ambassador, would you show up or would you boycott?" The Cardinal Newman Society, which spent the better part of the spring telling the world that no Catholic could in good conscience share the stage with President Obama, perhaps now they will start issuing press releases entitled "Pope Creates Scandal" or "Outrage at the Vatican." The Catholic News Agency, which featured the headline "Vatican announces Pope's vacation without confirmation of Obama visit" just a few weeks ago, has nary a mention of the visit on its website this morning. Cat got your tongue?

Obama's Catholic critics need to re-calibrate their message and it is difficult to see how they will compete with the pictures of Obama in the frescoed halls of the Vatican, his beautiful wife and children in tow, shaking hands with the Holy Father. Actually, in addition to shaking hands, it is traditional that the Pope will present a gift to the President. Does that count as an "honor" of the kind forbidden by the bishops' document "Catholics in Political Life"?

Sarkozy has never been one to doubt his own infallibility on all matters, or to worry himself about feminist causes when it comes to his personal life--tossing aside his wife and the mother of their two children for another woman, then divorcing her, and finally taking up with international sex kitten Carla Bruni.

But France's secularism, or laicite', is virtually a religion, and this could be seen as a religious war--though Sarkozy denies this:

"The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women's dignity. The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women."

Well, read up on the French Revolution, or rather its ugly aftermath, and the efforts to establish a French religion of rationalism, and you'll see Sarkozy is talking through his chapeau. The problem is he favors Christianity, specifically the traditions of French Catholicism. So what would he say about the full habit? It's easy to denigrate Islamic traditions, and his speech was well-received. No surprise, as France has a large and increasingly conservative Muslim population.

But is there enough difference in these two coverings that one would be legal and one outlawed?