juni 2015

Familie- og seksualliv er vanskelig i vår tid

Den engelske presten, Fr Ray Blake, skriver innsiktsfullt og interessant om det temaet pave Frans nevnte for de unge i Milano nylig, bl.a.:

What is often neglected, is any mention of sins against the 6th and 9th Commandment, that could be because of embarrassment, or simply as I suspect just sheer ignorance that these are totally contrary to the teaching of Jesus. In fact I have rarely married a couple which is not co-habiting, nor experienced embarrassment when they give a shared address. Admittedly a few couples are living together simply because it is impossible to buy a flat without two incomes, and some, a tiny number are trying to live chastely.

We believe in the Natural Law: sex and procreation outside of marriage, aberrant sexual behaviour, pornography, sexual fantasy, coupled with drug and alcohol use and hedonism, in general are chickens which must come home to roost. Again as the Holy Father has been saying recently the misery that so many children experience, because their parents are continually rowing or because of an absent father and in the case of boys the absence of an effective male role model, only add to feelings of guilt many young men live with. …..

Pave Frans oppfordrer ungdommer til å leve avholdende før ekteskapet

15juni_p_frans_ungdommer Sandro Magister skriver om hvordan pave Frans ofte (bevisst) misforstås som veldig liberal og moderne av pressen. Og så siterer han hva paven sa til de unge i Torino 21. juni:

Even the pope must sometimes take a risk to speak the truth. Love is in works, in communicating, but love is very respectful of persons, it does not use persons, and love is chaste. And to you young people in this world, in this hedonistic world, in this world where all the publicity goes to pleasure, to fun, to the good life, I say to you: be chaste, be chaste.

All of us in life have gone through moments in which this virtue is very difficult, but this is nothing other than the way of a genuine love, of a love that knows how to give life, that does not seek to use the other for one’s own pleasure. It is a love that considers the life of the other person as sacred: I respect you, I do not want to use you. It is not easy. We all know the difficulties in overcoming this “facilistic” and hedonistic conception of love. Forgive me if I am telling you something that you were not expecting, but I ask you: make the effort to live love chastely…

We are living in a culture of the disposable. Because that which is of no economic utility is discarded. Children are discarded because they are not had or are killed before they are born; the elderly are discarded because they are not needed and are left there to die in a sort of hidden euthanasia.

Magister skriver i samme artikkel om hvordan pavens encyklika «ladato si» er gjort lettere tilgjengelig fordi den teologiske innledningen er flyttet lenger ut i brevet, men likevel er den teologiske sammenhengen og helheten tydelig med:

“The encyclical, as it is presented to us today, shows a face different from that of the first draft, which was to include a long introduction of a theological, liturgical, sacramental, and spiritual character. If the initial configuration had remained, the encyclical would have been addressed more immediately to the Catholic world. Pope Francis, instead, preferred to change this configuration, moving the theological part to the middle and end, as he also did with the parts concerning spirituality and education. In this way he restructured the material made available to him, arranging it according to a method of analysis and discernment that implies a consideration of the situation, an evaluation and a prefiguration of practical guidelines for working on a solution of the problems. He thus wanted to involve the largest possible number of readers, including nonbelievers, in a thought process that to a large extent can be shared in by all.”

Another interesting observation has come from an economist who contributed to the composition not of this encyclical but of the “Caritas in Veritate” of Benedict XVI, former IOR president Ettore Gotti Tedeschi.

In an interview with “la Repubblica” and a commentary in “Il Foglio,” he has said that the profound meaning of the encyclical can be grasped only when to “Praised may you be” is added “my Lord.” Because the ultimate cause of the behavior that leads to environmental degradation “is sin, the loss of God,” while the proximate cause “is the exaggerated consumerism induced in order to compensate for the collapse of the birth rate in Western countries.” ….

Tradisjonell latinsk messe i Oslo søndag 28. juni

Søndag 28. juni feires 5. søndag etter pinse etter den tradisjonelle kalenderen, i St Hallvard kirkes kapell kl 08.00.

Søndagens inngangsvers er: Exáudi, Dómine, vocem meam qua clamávi ad te: adjútor meus esto, ne derelínquas me neque despícias me, Deus salutáris meus. – Herre, hør min røst som jeg roper til deg med. Vær min hjelper og forlat meg ikke og se ikke bort fra meg, Gud, min frelse.


Neste TLM blir søndag 30. august. Se oversikten her.

Pave Frans ønsker å stanse fremskrittet, er verden klar?

Jeg presenterer her enda et annerledes perspektiv på pave Frans’ encyklika, skrev av Matthew Schmitz, assisterende redaktør i First Things. Han skriver bl.a.:

Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ encyclical letter on the environment, is the work of a profoundly pessimistic man. John Paul II may have spoken of the “culture of death” and Benedict XVI of the “dictatorship of relativism,” but not since the publication of the Syllabus of Errors in the nineteenth century has a leader of the Catholic church issued a document so imbued with foreboding. Critics will seize on his dark tone, but Francis’ letter offers a challenge worthy of serious consideration.

“People no longer seem to believe in a happy future,” he writes. “They no longer have blind trust in a better tomorrow based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities. There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history.”

Despite these portents, we “do not grasp the gravity of the challenges before us,” nor the “spiral of self-destruction which currently engulfs us.” “We stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it.” There are no clear solutions. “Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster.”

… As evidence of the coming disaster, Francis adduces environmental calamities—climate change, pollution, deforestation, monoculture, extinction — and yet he leaves no doubt that the crisis is fundamentally a spiritual one. Its source is our desire to master and manipulate nature, which leads us to use technology that ends up mastering us.

Francis’ broadsides against technology are loaded with quotations from “The End of the Modern World,” a book written by the midcentury German priest Romano Guardini. Francis has a longstanding love of the German thinker who, like him, was the son of Italian émigrés and studied chemistry. Drawing on Guardini, the pope denounces the excessive use of air-conditioning, broods over genetically modified crops, worries about automobiles “causing traffic congestion, raising the level of pollution, and consuming enormous quantities of non-renewable energy,” and pans “megastructures” that express “the spirit of a globalized technocracy.”

Flere utdrag fra «Laudato si’, mi’ Signore»

Sandro Magister har presentert noen utdrag fra pave Frans’ encyklika, som mange kanskje ikke legger merke til. Og her presenterer jeg noen få av Magisters punkter, om hvordan dette rundskrivet er organisert, og om hvordan menneskefosteret også trenger beskyttelse, at kjønnsforskjeller og -identitet er viktig, begrensninger ang hva Kirken kan uttale seg om vitenskapelig usikre temaer, om betydningen av familien, at bordbønn kan minne oss på at Gud er verdens skaper og opprettholder, om betydningen av søndagen, og om det evige liv.

I will begin by briefly reviewing several aspects of the present ecological crisis, with the aim of drawing on the results of the best scientific research available today, letting them touch us deeply and provide a concrete foundation for the ethical and spiritual itinerary that follows.

I will then consider some principles drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition which can render our commitment to the environment more coherent.

I will then attempt to get to the roots of the present situation, so as to consider not only its symptoms but also its deepest causes.

This will help to provide an approach to ecology which respects our unique place as human beings in this world and our relationship to our surroundings.

In light of this reflection, I will advance some broader proposals for dialogue and action which would involve each of us as individuals, and also affect international policy.

Finally, convinced as I am that change is impossible without motivation and a process of education, I will offer some inspired guidelines for human development to be found in the treasure of Christian spiritual experience.


Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?


Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will”… Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”.


There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.


I would stress the great importance of the family, which is the place in which life – the gift of God – can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. In the face of the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture of life.

In the family we first learn how to show love and respect for life; we are taught the proper use of things, order and cleanliness, respect for the local ecosystem and care for all creatures. In the family we receive an integral education, which enables us to grow harmoniously in personal maturity.

In the family we learn to ask without demanding, to say “thank you” as an expression of genuine gratitude for what we have been given, to control our aggressivity and greed, and to ask forgiveness when we have caused harm. These simple gestures of heartfelt courtesy help to create a culture of shared life and respect for our surroundings.


One expression of this attitude is when we stop and give thanks to God before and after meals. I ask all believers to return to this beautiful and meaningful custom. That moment of blessing, however brief, reminds us of our dependence on God for life; it strengthens our feeling of gratitude for the gifts of creation; it acknowledges those who by their labours provide us with these goods; and it reaffirms our solidarity with those in greatest need.


On Sunday, our participation in the Eucharist has special importance. Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath, is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world. Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, the “first day” of the new creation, whose first fruits are the Lord’s risen humanity, the pledge of the final transfiguration of all created reality. It also proclaims man’s eternal rest in God… Rest opens our eyes to the larger picture and gives us renewed sensitivity to the rights of others. And so the day of rest, centred on the Eucharist, sheds it light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor.


Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.

In the meantime, we come together to take charge of this home which has been entrusted to us, knowing that all the good which exists here will be taken up into the heavenly feast.


Et litt overraskende perspektiv på pave Frans’ encyklika om miljø og klima kan vi finne på First Things nettsider, der redaktør R. R. Reno skriver:

Commentators are sure to make the false claim that Pope Francis has aligned the Church with modern science. They’ll say this because he endorses climate change. But that’s a superficial reading of Laudato Si. In this encyclical, Francis expresses strikingly anti-scientific, anti-technological, and anti-progressive sentiments. In fact, this is perhaps the most anti-modern encyclical since the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX’s haughty 1864 dismissal of the conceits of the modern era.

Francis describes the root of our problem as a failure to affirm God as Creator. Because we do not orient our freedom toward acknowledging God, the Father, we’re drawn into the technological project. We seek to subdue and master the world so that it can serve our needs and desires, thus treating “other living beings as mere objects subjected to arbitrary human domination.” By contrast, if we acknowledge God as Creator, we can receive creation as a gift and see that “the ultimate purpose of other creatures is not found in us.”

In short, without a theocentric orientation, we adopt the anthropocentric presumption that we are at the center of reality. This tempts us to treat nature—and other human beings—as raw material to do with as we wish. For Francis, “a spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and Creator is not acceptable.”

Of course, God is exactly what modernity has forgotten, which means that it too is “not acceptable”—exactly Pius IX’s conclusion. The Syllabus of Errors is exquisitely succinct. Laudato Si is verbose. But in a roundabout way Francis makes his own case against the modern world. …… ………

Mange katolske biskoper i Afrika var nylig samlet

Sandro Magister skriver slik om dette møtet i Ghana for noen få dager siden:

They were five cardinals and forty-five bishops from as many African countries who met in Accra, the capital of Ghana, from June 8-11. All in the clear light of day, not almost in secret like some of their colleagues from Germany, France, and Switzerland, who had gathered a few days before at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.

But while at the Gregorian the objective was changing the Church’s stance on divorce and homosexuality, in Accra the push was in the other direction.

The marching route was indicated from the very first remarks by Guinean cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the congregation for divine worship:

– “not to be afraid of reiterating the teaching of Christ on marriage”;
– “to speak at the synod with clarity and with just one voice, in filial love of the Church.”
– “to protect the family from all the ideologies that want to destroy it, and therefore also from the national and international policies that impede the promotion of positive values.”

On this marching route there has been complete consensus. Even the only bishop of black Africa who in recent months had spoken out in favor of «openness» to divorce, Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle of Accra, elected by the bishops of Ghana as their delegate to the synod, was found to be in agreement with all present in the defense of Catholic doctrine on the family.

In addition to Sarah, the other African cardinals present were Christian Tumi of Cameroon, John Njue of Kenya, Polycarp Pengo of Tanzania, and Berhaneyesus D. Souraphiel of Ethiopia, this last created by Pope Francis at the last consistory.

Organized by the symposium of episcopal conferences of Africa and Madagascar, the title of the meeting was “The family in Africa. What experiences and what contributions for the 14th ordinary assembly of the synod of bishops?» …

… …

Intens debatt før høsten bispesynode om ekteskapet

Internasjonalt diskuteres det ganske intenst før oktobers bispesynode om ekteskapet, og noen syns å merke at de mest radikale forslagene nå mister støtte. Bl.a. Sandro Magister skriver mye om dette, og nylig dekket han en artikkel i “La Civiltà Cattolica”, der den dominikanske teologen Jean-Miguel Garrigues anbefalte at skilte og gjengifte katolikker skulle få lov til å motta sakramentene. Men Magister gir mest plass til et motsvar til dette forslaget fra en annen dominikaner, og skriver bl.a.:

Of the two exceptions to the ban on communion for the divorced and remarried proposed by “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the more instructive is the first, because it has been for some time the more frequently adopted in pastoral practice.

Fr. Garrigues formulated it as follows:

“I think of a couple in which one of the partners has been previously married, a couple that has children and an active and recognized Christian life. Let’s imagine that the previously married person has submitted the previous marriage to an ecclesiastical tribunal that has decided for the impossibility of pronouncing nullity in the absence of sufficient proof, while they themselves are convinced of the contrary, without having the means to prove it. On the basis of testimony to their good faith, to their Christian life and their sincere attachment to the Church and to the sacrament of marriage, in particular on the part of an expert spiritual father, the diocesan bishop could admit them with discretion to penance and the Eucharist without pronouncing the nullity of the marriage.”

And this is how his theologian confrere replied to him:

“It is like saying that experts in the matter, who dedicate a great deal of time to it, have not been able to find proof of the nullity of the bond, so the bishop, who is not a specialist in the field of marriage, in his soul and conscience could rely after one or two conversations on the good faith of the spouses and the attestation of their spiritual guide.

“One may respond: ‘But their marriage is null.’ In this case, if it really is so, why not marry them? And why act in secret, with confidentiality? Because there are doubts? And if they are not to be married, how will the fact that their first marriage is null change the fact that they are living together without being legitimately married with a sacramental bond? How does this open access to absolution and the Eucharist for them?

“When spouses ultimately apply to the ecclesiastical tribunals (when they do so…) it is because they think that there is some foundation for the nullity of their bond, it is because they are convinced in their soul and conscience that their marriage is null. And if the tribunal does not agree with them, will they be persuaded by this? So all those who apply to the ecclesiastical tribunals will be able to say in conscience that their marriage is null, and the bishop will be able to absolve all of them and authorize all of them to receive communion.

“At that point there would be nothing left to do but to close the tribunals, which would be replaced by the bishops, and even the churches, because a simple civil marriage would produce the effects of a sacramental marriage.”

What is interesting to note is that this same “particular case” now illustrated by “La Civiltà Cattolica” had already been the object of examination by the magisterium of the Church – with an outcome in the negative – in the «Letter on Eucharistic communion for the divorced and remarried faithful» published in 1994 by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. …

Les hele denne artikkelen, som også referer til utviklingen i land som Frankrike, Tyskalnd og Argentina.

Dristige tanker om liturgi, at den tradisjonelle messen kan berike oss i dag

Fr. Hunwicke skriver på sin blogg en hel om liturgien, og har svært god kunnskap om latin, liturgisk historie og (selvsagt) om den nye liturgien Ordinariatet har fått godkjent. Han skrev nylig slik:

The Abbot of Fontgombault, in an interview reported in the blog Rorate Caeli, said (among many interesting things) the following:

Many young priests … want a liturgy that is richer in the level of rites, associating more strictly the body to the celebration. Would it not be possible to propose in the Ordinary Form the [EF] prayers of the Offertory; to enrich it with [the] genuflections, inclinations, signs of the cross, of the Extraordinary Form? A rapprochement would [thus] easily take place between the two Forms, giving an answer to a legitimate [desire] and, additionally, a longed-for desire of Benedict XVI.

Og et par dager tidligere skrev han enda grundigere (og skarpere), bl.a. dette:

(1) I know many readers will disagree; but I believe that an important way ahead in the direction of resacralising the Novus Ordo is through the sanctioning of alternatives derived from the Vetus Ordo. Happily, the Ordinariate Ordo Missae has led the way to a very significant and exemplary extent. Its authorisation deserves to be bracketed with Summorum Pontificum and the New English translation of the Missal, as one of the three major achievements of the last Pontificate in terms of Liturgy; and as a major contribution, from our beloved Anglican Catholic tradition, to the whole Western Church.

Mass may begin with the Tridentine Praeparatio at the foot of the Altar. The Tridentine Offertory Prayers may be used; they are printed as Form 1 of two alternatives. Mass may conclude with the Last Gospel.

(2) Moving in exactly the opposite direction: alternative Eucharistic Prayers should be ruthlessly cut back. Their introduction was a flagrant violation of Sacrosanctum Concilium 23; the defence of the innovation by Pietro Marini (p141: » … consistent with the early Roman liturgy, which actually had used several anaphoras») seems to me … until someone enlightens me … a plain lie.

Here again, the Ordinariate Ordo Missae leads the way. It prints, in its main text, (an Anglo-Catholic translation of) the Canon Romanus, the First Eucharistic Prayer, used daily and universally in the Roman Rite until the disorders of the 1960s. (In an appendix, it does provide the pseudo-Hippolytan Prayer «not to be used on Sundays or Solemnities».)

I believe that the single most important liturgical reform which traditional clergy of whatever jurisdiction (if obliged to use the Novus Ordo) can effect, completely lawfully and without any permission from anyone, is to have a definite personal principle of exclusively using the Roman Canon, weekdays as well as Sundays. However much the Roman Rite varied in its various dialects and in different centuries, the Canon was the profoundly sacred moment of Consecration and of Uniformity, both synchronic and diachronic, binding together all who had ever celebrated, all who were at that moment celebrating, that Rite. I regard the introduction of alternative Eucharistic Prayers as by far the worst of the post-Conciliar corruptions. In an act of amazingly arbitrary Clericalism, the revisers placed the central Act of the Rite totally at the mercy of the daily whimsy of each celebrant.

(3) Rubrics should be redirected towards the holiness of the Great Sacrifice.

The most significant example of this is the the double genuflexion, i.e. before and after each Elevation, prescribed in the Ordinariate Rite.

Such things can be found among Novus Ordo celebrants … … Anglican Catholics for a century brought in the Tridentine rite gradually. While there were parishes where they went overnight from Mattins to the Missal, most clergy gradually added more of the Missal to the Prayer Book, both in terms of text and of ritual, until, perhaps decades later, they had got there. Should we undermine Catholic Clergy who feel they can take their people with them most easily by a gradual transformation of the OF … until the day comes when the transition to the EF is totally painless?

Odd Sverre Hove støtter biskop Eidsvig

Odd Sverre Hove kommer i Vårt Land / Verdidebatt med svært sterkt forsvar for at vi katolikker kan registrere alle katolikker som er bosatt i Norge – uten å måtte vente på en aktiv og personlig innmeldelse. Og han legger til at Den norske kirke bør hjelpe oss katolikker i denne saken. Slik avsluttes hans innlegg:

… Paragraf 9 i Lov om ­trudomssamfunn sier for eksempel ikke at det er forbudt for trossamfunnene å ha globale medlemskapsregler. Tvert imot sier paragraf 9 at det er opp til det enkelte trossamfunn selv å treffe alle avgjørelser om medlemskapsordninger.

Som global størrelse har Romerkirken temmelig avanserte medlemskapsregler. De står i selve den kanoniske kirkeretten. 
Og lovens paragraf 9 gir katolikkene full frihet og rett til å legge den kanoniske ­
kirkerettens medlemskapsregler til grunn. Uten noe som helst forbehold.
Reglene i katolikkenes kanoniske rett er altså blant annet globale. Er du katolikk i for eksempel Polen, og så flytter du til Norge, da er du per definisjon å regne som katolikk i Norge. Du trenger ikke noen ny innmelding.

Derfor ville det være en rystende 
skandale for trosfriheten dersom ­anmelderne skulle få politiets og rett­vesenets medhold i at det er straffbart 
av biskop Eidsvig og folkene hans å 
oppfylle lovens paragraf 9 ved å operere med globale kriterier for medlemskap 
in casu: å regne katolske utlendinger 
bosatt innenfor Oslo Katolske Bispe­dømmes geografiske område som ekte medlemmer av bispedømmet. Det er jo det de faktisk er. Og det følger altså også norsk lov.

Religionsfrihet. Selv er jeg av teologisk overbevisning antikatolikk. Men i denne saken holder jeg med biskop Eidsvig og Oslo Katolske Bispedømme. Og jeg synes 
andre trossamfunn, inkludert Den 
norske kirke, burde gjøre felles sak med katolikkene til forsvar for paragraf 9 i Lov om trudomssamfunn. For den para­grafen 
handler om en viktig side ved selve 
religionsfriheten i Norge.

Fylkesmannen bør konkludere i saken om medlemsregistrering

Magne Lerø skriver på nytt i Vårt land om medlemsregistreringssaken – og enda skarpere enn forrige gang. Slik begynner hans innlegg:

Valgerd Svarstad Haugland bør få farten opp og bestemme seg for om biskop Bent Eidsvig har drevet med bedrageri.

Det er ganske risikofritt å anmelde noen for lovbrudd. Da daværende forsvarsminister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen i 2006 anmeldte 16 offiserer for korrupsjon, sto hun fram som en minister som tok korrupsjon på ramme alvor. Anmeldelsen førte ikke til noe som helst, annet enn at noen av de anmeldte fikk sitt yrkesliv ødelagt. Strøm-Erichsen hadde ikke gjort noe galt. Hun hadde bare tatt ansvar og anmeldt.

Fylkesmann Valgerd Svarstad Haugland anmeldte i februar Oslo katolske bispedømme for bedrageri. «Vi hadde ikke noe valg», forklarte hun til Vårt Land. Det hadde hun vitterlig. En anmeldelse var alt levert inn fra en ansatt. Dessuten hadde Fylkesmannen gående enn tilsynssak mot kirkesamfunnet. De kunne ventet på en skikkelig forklaring. Men mediene var på saken — og nå gjaldt det å være på ballen og vise ansvar.

Tilsynssaken rullet videre. I to omganger har bispedømmet gitt utførlige svar. Merete Helstad, lederen for Fylkesmannen juridiske avdeling, har nå hatt en måned på seg til å finne ut av om biskop Bent Eidsvik er en bedrager, eller om han bare har brukt tvilsomme metoder for å få tak i penger han mener bispedømmet har rett på.

Den katolske kirke aviser fullstendig at man har bedrevet bedrageri. De dokumenterer at de har 130.000 medlemmer. De er flere enn de får støtte for. Kirkesamfunnet leverer tung juridisk argumentasjon for at de ikke har brutt loven. Samtidig tar de kritikk på at de har benyttet «en lite betryggende metode». De lette opp potensielle katolikker i telefonklagen og satset på «grav først, spør siden-prinsippet».

Fylkesmannen har fått alt de trenger. Tilsynssaken bør kunne avsluttes før det blir skikkelige badetemperaturer i landet. ….

Finansiering av kirker og andre livsynssamfunn i Norge

Vi i Den katolske Kirke venter i disse dager på svar fra Fylkesmannen i Oslo og Akershus ang vår medlemsregistrering de siste fem årene. Personlig regner jeg med at vi må betale tilbake en del penger for personer som direkte er blitt feilregistrert, men jeg håper at Fylkesmannen (og norske myndigheter generelt) vil se det komplekse i finansieringen av alle kirker og andre livsynssamfunn i Norge, og avsi en mild dom.

Jeg skrev noe om dette emnet i midten av mars måned, som jeg nå vil offentliggjøre. Det handler om at ca 750.000 mennesker i Norge betaler sin del av utgiftene til Den norske kirke uten å få noe igjen for det, om det urimelige at man krever en personlig (forenings)innmelding fra de andre trossamfunnene når dette ikke gjelder for Den norske kirke og at denne praksisen snart må opphøre eller forandres radikalt. Slik skrev jeg for snart 3 mnd siden:

I Norge er det slik at alle mennesker betaler som en del av sin skatt for driften av Den norske, lutherske (stats)kirke. Reglene er videre slik at hvis man er medlem i et annet kirke- eller livsynssamfunn, kan denne organisasjonen få refundert disse skattepengene – hvis ikke forsvinner pengene et eller annet sted. Rundt 1970 kunne dette fungere ganske godt, for bare noen få nordmenn stod utenfor statskirken (4% husker jeg fra mine ungdomsår), og disse få var stort sett medlemmer i noen små, nokså foreningslignende kirkesamfunn.

Men i 2015 står ca 25%, 1,25 millioner mennesker, utenfor Den norske kirke. Alle betaler fortsatt en del av sin skatt til driften av statskirken, men for en veldig stor del av disse forsvinner skattepengene ut i det store intet – de kommer ingen organisasjon til gode, og i Norge kan man jo ikke få disse pengene personlig tilbake.

Og norske myndigheter fortsetter med en «foreningsmodell», der man aktivt og personlig må finne og knytte seg til et kirkesamfunn el., ellers går pengene tapt. Denne modellen passer spesielt dårlig for de mange hundre tusener av utlendinger i Norge som allerede er medlemmer av et trossamfunn. Og rent konkret; er man ikke katolikk også her i Norge når man jo allerede er katolikk? Det samme gjelder medlemmer av de nordiske folkekirkene som bor i Norge, mens muslimer og ortodokse kristne har større problemer med å få registrert sine medlemmer (fordi deres organisasjoner er nasjonale og også oppdelt på andre måter) – og for protestantene er situasjonen enda mer komplisert.

Myndighetene forstår visst nå at de kanskje må forandre på dette systemet, og på en eller annen måte blir de nødt til å forlate den personlige foreningsmodellen, og finne noe som ligner noe mer på Den norske kirkes folkekirkeprofil. Nå går noen milliarder av våre skattepenger til de 3.85 millionene medlemmer i Den norske kirke, mens en svært stor del av de 1,25 millionene (av disse er ca 225.000 katolikker) som ikke er medlemmer i DNKrk, går glipp av disse pengene.

Jeg skal ha studiepermisjon kommende vinter

Biskop Eidsvig har gikk meg studiepermisjon kommende vinter fra 1/11-15 til 29/2-16 (riktignok uten lønn). Denne uka ble dette kunngjort i de offisielle medelelsene som biskopen sender ut, selv om jeg så langt ikke har sett det kunngjort på www.katolsk.no. Jeg bruker også årets siste ferieuker og reiser fra Oslo 12. oktober, og er tilbake til Palmesøndag.

De to første månedene av permisjonen skal vi være i Roma, og der har jeg formulert mitt studium slik:

«Jeg skal studere utviklingen av den katolske messen fra ca 1200 til ca 1600. Ved starten av denne perioden forandret kommunionen seg ganske mye; fra kommunion i begge skikkelser og ganske ofte, til bare én skikkelse og ganske sjeldent. Messen ble gradvis mer slik at lekfolket (bare) kunne se det som skjedde, og prestens elevasjon kom inn på den tiden, og bla. også de nye offertoriebønnene. Utviklingen av lokale liturgier fortsatte, bl.a. hadde Nidaros en egen messebok. Perioden avsluttes med at Pave Pius V strømlinjeformet den katolske messen (bare de eldste lokale tradisjonene fikk fortsette), og den nye romerske messeboken i 1570.»

Det kommer likevel ingen befolkningsbombe

I dag leser jeg på Mercatornet at man «offisielt» har gitt om frykten for en befolkningsbombe på jorden – en frykt som også tilskyndet prevensjon, abort, sterilisering o.a. Slik åpner artikkelen:

It’s official. The New York Times has confirmed that the population explosion has not wreaked horrors upon the world: the apocalyptic predictions of the 1960s have fallen “as flat as ancient theories about the shape of the Earth.” Some people won’t believe that, but, if the Times says so, that’s good enough for me.

In an impressive video the Times’ Retro Report team take us back to the hysteria whipped up by Paul Ehrlich’s 1969 tract, The Population Bomb, and then sketch how it fizzled. They revisit not only Ehrlich himself (who is unrepentant) but other key figures who were believers then and have since accepted the evidence that population growth is not an unmitigated evil.

The film is frank about how extreme the population control movement became.

A young Stewart Brand, founding editor of the Whole Earth Catalogue and “totally” persuaded by Ehrlich, is interviewed at a public starve-in staged to bring home the alleged connection between children and poverty. “Maybe anyone who’s thinking about having a third child ought to go hungry for a week,” he says.

That was mild compared with Ehrlich’s proposals for blacklisting of people, organisations and companies “impeding population control”, responsibility prizes for childless marriages, a tax on children, a luxury tax on diapers and cribs, putting something in the water…

We see a newspaper article by Garrett Hardin questioning the right to have children.

There’s also an admission that the ZPG gospel was a gift to the (eugenics inspired) birth control movement.

The forced sterilisations in India under Mrs Gandhi are acknowledged – and their persistence today in some regions. …

Gunnar Breivik utfordrer Menighetsfakultetet

Gunnar Breivik (som jeg møtte flere ganger i en studiegruppe tidlig på 80-tallet) har i et innlegg Vårt Land/Verdidebatt i dag utfordret MF. Han er glad for at de har fått akkreditering som vitenskapelig høgskole og som også innebærer retten til fri forskning. Samtidig etterlyser «han behovet for mer teologisk forskning som tar Bibelens åpenbaring på alvor». Og hans skriver mot slutten av sitt innlegg:

… Det er fristende å vike unna de vanskelige og tøffe spørsmålene der en åpen lesing og rimelig tolkning av det nytestamentlige budskap kommer i konflikt med dagens normative konsensus innen akademia, kultur og politikk.

Det gjelder spørsmål om livets to utganger, det ondes realitet, det ufødte liv, samliv og ekteskap, med mer. Det er fristende å unngå disse spørsmålene eller komme med nye hermeneutiske og postmoderne løsninger.

Men er løsningene holdbare? Forlater vi tanken om at det er Guds egen åpenbaring som vi leser ut av Det nye testamente og som vi er forpliktet på, så sitter vi igjen med mer eller mindre interessante og samtidsfornuftige oppfatninger om de religiøse spørsmål som kristendommen reiser.

Leve og dø. Spørsmålet er om dette er det beste grunnlag å leve og dø på. Jeg tror ikke det. For hvis Gud finnes og har åpenbart seg gjennom sin Sønn og de første vitner, så er de nytestamentlige beretningene det stedet der Gud har opplyst oss om hvem han er og hvordan den åndelige virkelighet skal forstås.

Hvorfor i all verden skulle jeg tro på teologer som i dag tidsriktig sier at samliv kan ta mange former, ikke bare mellom mann og kvinne, eller helvetet finnes ikke og alle blir frelst?

Det er fristende å gå i en slik retning. Men er det sant? Faller ikke da hele troen? ….

Liturgikonferanse i New York City

Konferansen Sacra Liturgia startet i går, og ved åpningen ble det presentert en hilsen fra kardinal Robert Sarah, lederen av Vatikanets liturgikongregasjon. Der sier han bl.a.:

When the Holy Father, Pope Francis, asked me to accept the ministry of Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, I asked: «Your Holiness, how do you want me to exercise this ministry? What do you want me to do as Prefect of this Congregation?» The Holy Father’s reply was clear. «I want you to continue to implement the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council,» he said, «and I want you to continue the good work in the liturgy begun by Pope Benedict XVI.»

My friends, I want you to help me in this task. I ask you to continue to work towards achieving the liturgical aims of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, I) and to work to continue the liturgical renewal promoted by Pope Benedict XVI, especially through the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 22 February 2007 and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007. ….

Les om konferansen på denne Facebook-siden – og lese hele kardinal Sarahs hilsen (under).


Skroll til toppen