I have tried for the past two days to add a comment to Ruth Gledhill's Times blog, but with no success. I ask your indulgence to post it here (although I'll keep on trying at The Times)
Could Mr Owen please provide references to those passages of Fr Raniero Cantalamessa’s recent sermons which he deemed to be offensive.
I have read the 2007 Lenten Sermons delivered in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI and officials of the Roman Curia, which are accessible here http://www.cantalamessa.org/en/prediche.php and have found within them nothing remotely anti-semitic or otherwise inappropriate or insensitive.
If Mr Owen has been relying on a secondary source, which I suspect, could he please disclose it. This is a canard, which impugns the good name not only of Fr Cantalamessa, but also that of The Holy Father. A responsible journalist on a distinguished newspaper should have no part in giving it currency.
Well, Richard Owen rose splendidly to the occasion. I give below his response to my comment, and my reply.
Richard replies: I certainly did not mean to impugn the good name of Father Cantalamessa, Capuchin friar, Preacher to the Papal Household, and a most splendid, upright and learned man! I have looked again at his meditations and sermons: I suppose the passage which could have aroused Jewish concern was in his Good Friday sermon, delivered in St. Peter's Basilica in the presence of Benedict XVI, which was largely about the role of women in Christ's Passion. At one point he says this: "There has been animated discussion for quite some time about who it was that wanted Jesus' death: Was it the Jews or Pilate? One thing is certain in any case: It was men and not women." Given the stand of the Second Vatican Council, this presumably could be seen as re-opening the question of Jewish "blame" for Christ's death. I must admit however that I was relying on a recent Reuters report which quoted Edward Kessler of the Centre for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations at Cambridge University as saying that Jews were concerned that 'neo-conservatives' in the Church wanted "to roll back Vatican Council reforms which promoted inter-religious understanding", citing "recent sermons" by Father Cantalamessa "which revived old charges about Jewish blame for the death of Jesus – views rejected by the Vatican Council". If this is wrong, I apologise. I note that my friend and colleague John Allen (who recently attacked the British press for exaggeration and inaccuracy in Vatican reporting, but let that pass) writes in his National Catholic Reporter column about "motu proprio fever", saying it "may end up as a classic instance of one of those Vatican documents that unleashes a torrent of debate and commentary but changes relatively little on the ground." However John then addresses "concerns regarding Jewish-Christian relations", recording that Servite Father John Pawlikowski had written from Chicago to Cardinal Kasper at the end of March pointing out that although the phrase "perfidious Jews" was removed from the pre-Vatican II Mass by Pope John XXIII, the older Mass still contains other prayers for Jews, Muslims and other Christians which were "profoundly demeaning." This presumably refers to the Good Friday prayer "For the conversion of the Jews". Well - we shall see, if and when the "motu propio" finally arrives!.
I am grateful to Richard Owen for his splendid and generous response to my comment. I too had read the Cambridge remarks and find their tenor, well, unreasonable on the basis of the evidence.
The eagerly awaited Motu Proprio will raise current restrictions on the use of the 1962 Roman Missal - which postdates the 1959 removal of the phrase "perfidis Iudaeis", so that at least will not present a stumbling block.
It must be said in good faith that the Good Friday liturgy does contain a prayer for the conversion of the Jews (in Latin), which translates as: "Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. -- Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness." I acknowledge that this prayer has been found problematic by serious commentators, and can only offer the hope that this prayer will be both offered up and interpreted as an expression of love of and concern for our "elder brothers".
.jpeg)
Comments
Could Mr Owen please provide references to those passages of Fr Raniero Cantalamessa’s recent sermons which he deemed to be offensive.
I have read the 2007 Lenten Sermons delivered in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI and officials of the Roman Curia, which are accessible here http://www.cantalamessa.org/en/prediche.php and have found within them nothing remotely anti-semitic or otherwise inappropriate or insensitive.
If Mr Owen has been relying on a secondary source, which I suspect, could he please disclose it. This is a canard, which impugns the good name not only of Fr Cantalamessa, but also that of The Holy Father. A responsible journalist on a distinguished newspaper should have no part in giving it currency.
Richard replies: I certainly did not mean to impugn the good name of Father Cantalamessa, Capuchin friar, Preacher to the Papal Household, and a most splendid, upright and learned man! I have looked again at his meditations and sermons: I suppose the passage which could have aroused Jewish concern was in his Good Friday sermon, delivered in St. Peter's Basilica in the presence of Benedict XVI, which was largely about the role of women in Christ's Passion. At one point he says this:
"There has been animated discussion for quite some time about who it was that wanted Jesus' death: Was it the Jews or Pilate? One thing is certain in any case: It was men and not women."
Given the stand of the Second Vatican Council, this presumably could be seen as re-opening the question of Jewish "blame" for Christ's death. I must admit however that I was relying on a recent Reuters report which quoted Edward Kessler of the Centre for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations at Cambridge University as saying that Jews were concerned that 'neo-conservatives' in the Church wanted "to roll back Vatican Council reforms which promoted inter-religious understanding", citing "recent sermons" by Father Cantalamessa "which revived old charges about Jewish blame for the death of Jesus – views rejected by the Vatican Council".
If this is wrong, I apologise. I note that my friend and colleague John Allen (who recently attacked the British press for exaggeration and inaccuracy in Vatican reporting, but let that pass) writes in his National Catholic Reporter column about "motu proprio fever", saying it "may end up as a classic instance of one of those Vatican documents that unleashes a torrent of debate and commentary but changes relatively little on the ground."
However John then addresses "concerns regarding Jewish-Christian relations", recording that Servite Father John Pawlikowski had written from Chicago to Cardinal Kasper at the end of March pointing out that although the phrase "perfidious Jews" was removed from the pre-Vatican II Mass by Pope John XXIII, the older Mass still contains other prayers for Jews, Muslims and other Christians which were "profoundly demeaning." This presumably refers to the Good Friday prayer "For the conversion of the Jews".
Well - we shall see, if and when the "motu propio" finally arrives!.
I am grateful to Richard Owen for his splendid and generous response to my comment. I too had read the Cambridge remarks and find their tenor, well, unreasonable on the basis of the evidence.
The eagerly awaited Motu Proprio will raise current restrictions on the use of the 1962 Roman Missal - which postdates the 1959 removal of the phrase "perfidis Iudaeis", so that at least will not present a stumbling block.
It must be said in good faith that the Good Friday liturgy does contain a prayer for the conversion of the Jews (in Latin), which translates as: "Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. -- Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness." I acknowledge that this prayer has been found problematic by serious commentators, and can only offer the hope that this prayer will be both offered up and interpreted as an expression of love of and concern for our "elder brothers".