TRILOGY: Bk I, Ch 27 (Jackass for the Hour)

You will burn, burn, I say!

As the first session of the trial continued, nearing midday, it was early morning in Port-au-Prince. The seminarians were just arriving on foot for the early morning hour of Eucharistic Adoration at the Cathedral before the Mass offered by Archbishop Pòv, as they had for almost a month. Their enthusiasm was real, grounded in Christ. With the Archbishop’s blessing, they were still working in the shantytown. By force of circumstance, because the tables had turned, père Jacques, the Rector of the seminary, was now in prison after having given himself up to the police. The Archbishop was reviewing everything at the seminary, especially the faculty and administration. He didn’t have a chance to do this previously, since he had only recently been appointed.

•••—•••—•••

As Cardinal Froben arrived three quarters of the way up the Hall, out of breath for having walked so quickly up the slight incline, the collective din of hushed comments made by everyone in the Hall was almost deafening. The Cardinal stopped next to the two guards who were beside the people with the banner. He asked the protesters if he could make use of it. They were happy to oblige. The Cardinal asked them to give it to the two guards, who then went with him to the stage. When they arrived, Cardinal Froben had them stretch the banner right across the stage for everyone to see, making sure it came to the side of Father Alexámenos.

“And so?” said Father Alexámenos.

“I thought your vision might be suffering, what with those voodoo cuts next to your eyes,” Cardinal Froben replied, bringing some laughter from the crowd. They had not expected such a show, and were relieved to get a break from the intense attention they had to give to the proceedings.

“RE-VEAL-ED… RE-LI-GI-ON… SA-CRI-FI-CES… CHILD-REN…” read Cardinal Froben ever so pedantically, not knowing he was making a fool of himself. The intention of the Cardinal was to make Father Alexámenos admit to the crime of sexual abuse in Haïti, so he added: “I think the people who brought this banner want justice concerning sexual abuse that went on in Haïti.”

“If priests and bishops do such things,” said Father Alexámenos, “it is because they reject Revelation and religion, denying the Faith of the Family of Faith, the Tradition by which the Scriptures are understood. They hate that God the Father sacrificed Christ, having Him lay down His life for us. It is to the Sacrifice of that Child that Scripture and Tradition point. Faithless priests hate those for whom God made this Sacrifice.”

“So, for you, it is all spiritual, is it?” asked Cardinal Froben. “The entire world disagrees with you. We are talking about sickness, and you, Father, are sick.”

“Yes, quite sick, really, because of the diseased perspective of the world, your Eminence. Of course, you are right about those who abuse others. They are sick. That sickness may have been brought about by evil circumstances, to which were added a lack of prayer. One can live amid evil circumstances and be a saint. It is the lack of prayer which brings especially the faithless priest either to allow himself to be dragged down by evil circumstances in which he has found himself, or to begin creating those evil circumstances himself, little by little, intensifying degree by degree, giving in to this, rationalising that…”

“Sickness is sickness!” cried the Cardinal. “Have you no compassion? We are not talking about sin here, merely sickness, and sickness can be cured. How you can say that…”

“Your Eminence, excuse my interruption, but on behalf of all those who have been abused or who might be abused because of what you say, I must add that the sickness of those who allow themselves to be trained into this sickness, by others or by themselves, is still sickness, and cannot be removed simply by a spiritual conversion. That conversion may very well be real, but that does not guarantee that such a person will not abandon his conversion and fall at the first opportunity. If there is a real conversion, that sickness becomes a cross, which may very well bring such a person to heaven. However, one cannot presume a ‘cure’ when the lives of others are at risk. Equating spiritual conversion with being cured of a sickness is a mistake made first of all by denying the role played by a lack of spirituality; when a spiritual conversion comes about, or is feigned, this is, then, so surprising that such a person is declared cured. What a disaster. I mean, why do you think it is that for all these years of repeat offenders…”

“Who is it that you are accusing? Is it not yourself?” asked the Cardinal, not quite following the words of Father Alexámenos.

Some of the words exchanged by Cardinal Fidèle and don Hash during the latter’s doctoral defence now came to Father Alexámenos’ mind: “Your Eminence, the reason why we have the state of affairs with the sacrifice of children by some members of revealed religion, is that there are so many who have insisted on making a policy of burning the truth about the unity of Scripture and Tradition, keeping people far from Charity in Truth. Many think that burning the Truth is expedient for ecumenical unity. The Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity has for a long time been suppressing the Faith, suppressing Tradition, and trampling upon the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, giving Scripture away to the Protestants, letting them decide what is or is not to be included in Scripture in view of the myriad differences in so many of the ancient manuscripts, just like an Erasmus redivivus, beginning another Reformation within the Church. A priest must pray regularly, but if one does not know Scripture, says Saint Jerome, one does not know Christ. And if one does not know Christ, how is it that one will be able to pray? And if one is unable to pray…”

“Our Protestant friends,” interrupted Cardinal Froben, “use scientific knowledge of manuscript traditions which so many Roman Pontiffs have eagerly embraced…”

“Oh yes! But there’s more to it than scientific input,” interrupted Father Alexámenos, emphasising what, from don Hash, he knew had transpired in the apartment of Cardinal Fidèle. “Your New Testament of your Nova Vulgata may not have any heresy in its text, but the result is neither scientific nor, in so many, many places, representative of the inspired text of the original languages. There is more than what you think is ‘traditional’, pastoral, liturgical, apologetic, sociological, organizational, cultural, political, geographical, psychological, intellectual, attitudinal or even economic. Your principle of having no principles, your Prinzip der Prinzipienlosigkeit, neglects Revelation understood as Scripture and Tradition, while ignoring that Revelation has the Magisterium as its privileged custodian. It is the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity which has created the structures within which moral disaster follows. Moral disaster is – how to say it? – the splendour of heresy. If there is no Revelation but the person himself, what will happen then? The rejection of Revelation by the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity prepared for the continuing rejection of Humanae vitae and, then, the subsequent disaster in the Church.”

“The Holy See is not on trial!” exclaimed the Cardinal, fuming. “It is not we who are to be burnt! The Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity is innocent! You are the one accused of rejecting the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. You are the heretic. You are the one who is immoral. You are the one who is leading the world into heresy and immorality. You…”

“When I was a child, your Eminence,” interrupted Father Alexámenos, waiting for the Cardinal to calm himself. “When I was a child, I saw one schoolmate call another terrible names. The other responded with the childhood aphorism, ‘What you say is what you are!’ which is either true or not. If the child who is guilty of stealing a pencil lays the guilt on his victim, calling him a thief when he is not, the response ‘What you say is what you are!’ is true. Children know the truth of the matter, even if they lie. But the faithless priest…”

“What does that have to do with anything?” asked Cardinal Froben, mocking Father Alexámenos with exaggerated bewilderment.

“With the faithless priest,” continued Father Alexámenos, “the situation is entirely different. The faithless priest does not think that he is guilty of anything, so full of himself is he. When he attacks others, he is accusing them of being like himself, but he doesn’t see this as an accusation. He is happy to attempt to make others like himself, considering himself as the be all and end all of everything there is. This creates what is, humanly speaking, an insurmountable sense of betrayal in the victim, but this can be transformed in grace to work for the good of the person. Those accused of such crimes can be guilty or innocent. Some do sin, some more than others. But the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity abuses the whole Church as it attempts to destroy Revelation by…”

“We are not on trial!” thundered the Cardinal.

“We should have a real inquisition,” Father Alexámenos quickly added. “I repeat: heretics attempt to destroy the unity of Tradition and Scripture and, in this way, set up the circumstances in which people find only their fallen selves in Scripture, giving people what they think is a divine mandate to flaunt their fallen selves upon others. This helps to give rise to the saying that ‘Revealed religion sacrifices children.’ Such an inquisition is to begin with the Cardinals, the Roman Curia, and the Pontifical…”

“This inquisition enjoys the sum total of authority, and you, Father Alexámenos, will burn… burn I say!”

Cardinal Francisco began furiously tapping on his microphone, causing everyone in the Hall to hold their ears. “Your Eminence,” Cardinal Francisco finally said to Cardinal Froben, “You are to question the defendant about Judaeo-Christian child-sacrifice as being justification by God’s grace. That was the topic of the conversation which he had on the plane, and which was such a cause for alarm. You were chosen as Special Prosecutor for this session since you have expertise as the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, which also deals with relations with the Jews. Shall we move on, please?”

“Right, I’m getting to that just now,” said Cardinal Froben, unsure if that was true or not.

•••—•••—•••

“I’m hungry,” said little Ev, noticing how tired Pòl was.

“You should be!” Pòl responded. “We’ve been hard at it all day. Let’s go to the convent and see what the sisters have.”

With bare feet, they walked along what had been the open sewer of their part of the shantytown, but was now a kind of boulevard , sprouting with green grass and flowers, an almost surreal manifestation of paradise. The ever widening transformation of their part of the shantytown was taking its toll on Pòl. Everything was going beautifully. He had worked everyday with the others, which brought him great joy. Yet, he couldn’t help but dwell on past suffering, and the present hell which others, still outside of their reach, were still enduring. It was the very goodness immediately surrounding them which was putting him into a spiritual agony. They had been receiving catechetical instruction every day, which they devoured, always wanting more. But Pòl was still at a loss. They were walking along without saying anything, but Ev noticed Pòl’s distress and simply asked, “Pòl?”

Pòl didn’t answer, trying to formulate what was going on within him. Finally, as they reached the convent and were walking up the wooden planks, he stopped and said, “Ev, how can I pray? How do you pray? You know how. I mean, really know how. Help me.”

Ev kept going up the few steps until she reached the porch. She then turned to Pòl – now eye to eye with him, he being so tall and she so short – and said, “My guardian angel is a really good friend.” With that, she turned and ran into the convent, crying out with a joy only she could express so well, “I’m hungry! I’m hungry!”

Pòl sat down on the steps, alone. All was quiet in their neighbourhood. He looked at the tall cross in front of him, now solidly planted in the ground, and then at the small statue of Mary next to him, with the white and yellow flowers cascading all around it. After a few moments, feeling entirely inadequate before such goodness, he took a small book out of his pocket and haltingly read the first sentence he saw. It was a book of the Gospels and Psalms that Leo had given to him with the promise to teach him how to read. Pòl was already able to read after these few weeks, though it took him a full three minutes to read this sentence: “See that you do not hold in contempt one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Pòl put the little volume back in his pocket and stared at nothing in particular, trying to understand. Finally, he said, out loud, “Guardian angel, teach me how to pray.” He didn’t realise that tears were flowing down his cheeks. As he sat there, his request was heard. He felt himself to be prostrate in adoration before the throne of God, accompanied by his guardian angel. He was completely overwhelmed. This went on until Ev came rushing out of the convent, down the steps, throwing her arms around the neck of Pòl, grabbing his arm, trying to drag him into the convent to get something to eat as well.

•••—•••—•••

Father Li was seated in the rear of the Paul VI Audience Hall, uninterested in the proceedings, certain of what the conclusion would be. He only came just in case something out of ordinary would happen concerning China. He had brought a stack of correspondence with him to pass the time. He flipped through the envelopes and stopped at one with no return address, but which sported a unique stamp. It was from the Chinese ‘Pope’. He opened it and removed its contents, two pictures and a short note, which he read before looking at the pictures:

Our project is more successful every day. This is what America, with its culture of death and materialism, is ready to accept. We do this as a punishment dishonouring malcontents, but they accept it as entertainment, drooling like cannibals over them, necrophiliacs all of them. Stupid Americans! They look upon this as an important, scientific lesson in biology and anthropology. They bring all their school children to see the spectacle. It will be so easy to conquer such a dead society.

Looking at the first picture, Father Li was horrified. They had skinned and plasticised the bishop he himself had killed some weeks before, along with his own friend, whom he had betrayed in order to demonstrate his fidelity to the government. They were on display in the increasingly popular corpse shows in the United States. But instead of having them posed as if they were playing card games, as promised, they had them sitting together on a bed, posed as if they were mutually abusing each other. There was a large placard on the bed, which was just clear enough in the picture for Father Li to read. He realised the multiple reversals of irony would not be understood by anyone, a fact he knew was purposely ironic:

Let us praise the free expression of self so highly appreciated by the homosexual community.

A woman sitting to his left pointed at the picture and said, “Oh, I saw that in a shopping mall on my trip to America. I think it’s just wonderful. Too bad that our day was ruined by some Jews who were protesting the show, saying something about their silly old holocaust, how they themselves were made into lampshades and such. I think that has nothing to do with this artwork, and that…”

But it was all too much for Father Li, who explosively jumped up from his seat and left the Hall, alarming some of the security guards. He almost ran to the colonnade of Piazza San Pietro, where he stopped, breathing hard, trying to think clearly. He knew the underground Chinese bishop was a saint during his life and a martyr in his death, at least according to the Roman Catholic standards which he had studied for so many years. He knew this was both revenge and a warning to any other priests or bishops who would dare do as he had done, publically complaining about the one male child policy. The bishop had enumerated all the crimes being done to enforce this policy, including the deliberate promotion of homosexuality. There were no women whom the men would marry. Even smuggling women from neighbouring countries was becoming more difficult, though that kidnapping and forced marriage, the bishop said, was also wrong.

Father Li looked at the other picture, which showed, instead, a pregnant woman. Both she and her baby were skinned and plasticised, with the woman’s womb cut open so that everyone could see the baby. They had left the face of the woman intact, as they did for the bishop and his friend. This, he knew, was for his benefit. He knew this woman all too well; she was a maid for one of his superiors. She had refused to abort her baby girl. He was the father, and he himself had reported her, trying to escape any recrimination of his superiors.

Father Li knelt down under the colonnade, not to pray, but to vomit. “Really, we’re going too far,” he thought. “This will backfire on us.”

•••—•••—•••

Cardinal Froben motioned to the two guards who were still holding the banner to give it back to the protestors. Turning to Father Alexámenos, he said, “You mentioned earlier that there is a reason why the banner was correct. What did you mean? How can ‘REVEALED RELIGION SACRIFICES CHILDREN’ possibly be correct? According to you, there is only one Child, the Christ Child, who legitimately has anything to do with sacrifice. But the banner speaks of children in the plural. And you think that that is correct? Perhaps you think that if children suffer, they will be justified in this way.”

“They have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb,” said Father Alexámenos. “The triumph of mercy is when they enter heaven, and we pray that this mercy will be theirs, that they be given the grace of wanting to see their abusers repent and be forgiven. Then they will, in fact, be fully justified, like Saint Maria Goretti, who, as she lay dying of the knife wounds she received during her attempted rape, forgave her attacker, wishing to see him repent and go to heaven.”

“Do you understand, Father, that convulsing emotions give little hope of justification?”

“It does a terrible disservice to people to equate them with their emotions. Telling them that it is alright to be bitter, resentful and full of hate only enslaves people to their emotions, perpetuating the crimes committed. If, with grace, they pray for their enemies, they will not only do themselves a great deal of good, but they will do a great deal of good for all peoples.”

“That’s very convenient. Do you want forgiveness so easily for what you did in Haïti?”

“I cannot see why I should apologise for anything I did in Haïti.”

The Cardinal waited for jeering from the audience, but none came. He wondered if he had already lost them, and if the images were no longer viewed as conclusive. “I see that you are being difficult,” said the Cardinal. “Perhaps you would like to get right to the heart of the matter: tell us what the Key of Knowledge is. Do you not think that you have taken the Key of Knowledge away from others, for instance, down in Haïti? You did not use that Key, and you restrained those who wanted to use it.”

“Your Eminence, our Lord defines this Key Himself in the same passage, saying that we – having first received mercy from the Lord – are to have mercy on others. Keys match that which they open. One uses the Key to enter into the presence of the Lord, prostrate in adoration before Him. The angels show us the way, but the Key is the Lord’s own Divine Mercy, which He turns for us.”

“What does mercy have to do with knowledge?” asked the Cardinal. “I’m asking about the Key of Knowledge, not of love or mercy or adoration or whatever.”

“But our Lord is Truth, and, as such, is our Way and Life,” replied Father Alexámenos, hoping that the words ‘Truth’ and ‘Knowledge’ were related in the mind of the Cardinal. “He is the Charity we are to live. Justified in that Charity, love of God and love of neighbour are instantaneous and simultaneous. It is not a matter of one before and the other after. In our justification, we do not merely decide to be charitable. Charity, God, lives within us. As Augustine says: “Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te.”

“But what about the Key of Knowledge which, as the text has it, we turn,” said the Cardinal. “Is not this Key of Knowledge your own ‘faith’? Are you not more justified the ‘deeper’ your ‘faith’ is? Are you not saved by your work of assent to the ‘faith’ alone? Is not this Key of Knowledge your own ‘faith’, which you can use, or, in your case, abuse by refusing to turn it? Does not your justification and that of others depend on what you do with it, with what you think about it?”

“We are not saved by epistemological pretensions, your Eminence, but by supernatural Faith, the sanctifying grace by which we love God and neighbour simultaneously. Our knowledge of supernatural Faith – beyond what our natural brains can grasp – is merely proved by our love of God and neighbour. One cannot Pelagianistically work one’s way into God’s favour, downplaying a connection between Scripture on the one hand and Tradition as Faith on the other, so that one judges whether or not something is Sacred Scripture because of what one relativistically feels about it at that particular moment. Protestants really do have a concept of justification very different from the Judaeo-Christian belief.”

“Are you not too confident about your identification of Charity and Faith, Father?”

“It is not an identification,” replied Father Alexámenos. “In the end, we will have vision of God. Only Charity, Living Truth will remain. No more Faith! By this Charity we are justified. By this Charity we can then also assent to the Truth expressed in Scripture. I call it a theological epistemology of Charity, but it is only Charity, a Living Faith, if you will, which justifies. I can pick up a Bible like any Protestant and say that my decision to believe is my justification, but it will not be true. God, for instance, justifies even the baptised baby who has no capacity to assent to anything on his own.”

“Come now, Father. When you’ve admitted to your ‘indiscretions’ in Haïti, won’t you be more willing to admit to your heresy? According to you, immorality follows on heresy, so why not just admit your heresy about justification now? If you’ve sinned against mercy, your Key of Knowledge, you’ve sinned against knowledge itself. Tell me that you are consistent. Tell me that you agree.”

“Your Eminence, with all due respect, you are grievously mistaken…”

Cardinal Froben shook his head in dismay.

•••—•••—•••

“That’s silly, Sister Brendan,” said Jacinta, talking out of turn during a rare lenten recreation at Mater Ecclesiae convent. “That great saint was hardly a fool, and Jesus was no disciple of Paul. It’s ironic that you misinterpret her by turning upside down the comment made on interpretation itself.”

Mother Bernadette intervened, saying, “In fact, the saint’s presentation of the Key of Knowledge, the divine doctrine of Jesus Christ, was most accurate. Saint Paul, in 1 Corinthians 2,9, does interpret Isaiah 64,10 – cited in Matthew 13,15, Acts 28,27, and so on – by saying it is by way of the love of God, by way of the crucified Lord of glory, that we see what the eye cannot see, hear what the ear cannot hear, and know in our hearts what cannot otherwise arise in the heart of man. Paul is correct, so much so that ‘questo parbe che volesse dire Paulo,’ as if it were his revelation, his knowledge, appearing to be what Paul himself, as Paul, wanted to say. Jesus, according to the saint, was not guessing what Paul was saying – as in, ‘It seems that Paul wanted to say this’– but was stating that Paul was so transformed by this grace, that it was as if Paul spoke on his own authority. But Paul says he is speaking by the power of God and the Revelation of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was confirming just how correct Paul’s words were, for they were actualised in Paul’s life. Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes likewise of Paul.”

They heard the donkey kept in Vatican Gardens in preparation for the Holy Week ceremonies bray loudly, repeatedly. “Paul was the perfect jackass on which our Lord rode into the heavenly Jerusalem,” said Mother.

“Hopefully our donkey won’t be getting its head cut off like Saint Paul,” said Jacinta. They heard loud braying again, as if in agreement with Jacinta’s kind wishes. They all laughed.

•••—•••—•••

“Your Eminence,” continued Father Alexámenos, “Faith is not our assent to whatever theological understanding we happen to have by way of this or that experience in this or that culture. Any so-called ‘faith’ which is not supernatural, not given by God, which does not come with God’s supernatural Charity, which does not come with the merciful forgiveness of God, cannot have any understanding of the true Faith revealed by God. Such an unfortunate so-called ‘believer’ is an utter relativist, an individualist who does not want to receive mercy and therefore has no capacity to have mercy on others. Unless he converts, such a person must destroy any connection between Tradition and Scripture, between Faith and Scripture, taking away the Key of Knowledge from himself and others, flaunting himself before others as if he were Revelation. Such a person will try to stop the Key of Knowledge from being turned by Christ. Such a person hates this Revelation in mercy. He will not enter into the presence of the Lord, nor permit others to do so.”

“How is it that you think you are so merciful?” asked the Cardinal, incredulously.

“We are to see the face of the Redeemer in everyone. Christ redeemed them. We pray that they will be saved. This Faith in Charity is not our intellectual invention. This mercy, this Faith, this Tradition, is given from on high. If we love Christ, who is risen in heaven, we must desire that those He redeemed will become members of His Body, and desire to see them in heaven.”

“So, you think you have it all figured out?” asked the Cardinal. “What if not everyone wants to have Christ’s face seen in them? In projecting your own Faith unto them, you insult them. They simply need to say, ‘Christ didn’t take my place before God’s justice! I like my own religion!”

“It is no insult to anyone to say that Christ died for all. Non-believers are free to reject what they do not know, for they are only rejecting what is, hopefully, their own ignorance. When Christ stretches His arms out on the Cross, He embraces all peoples of all time, and the many are saved. His face is to be seen in them before our Father in Heaven. He provides the Key of Knowledge, our justification in grace, in Charity, in Faith, in Tradition, in the knowledge of…”

“You are mistaken!” exclaimed the Cardinal. “You will make other religions despise us.”

“Instead, your Eminence, with your ‘dialogue’ – your hiding the truth, your proclaiming a natural understanding to be supernatural Faith – the conditions for a persecution become ripe. Other religions have a right in justice to receive witness concerning the meaning of Christ’s Sacrifice. They will get this witness either willingly given or because it has to be coerced, even to the shedding of blood. They have the right not to remain blind to the fulness of Truth. They should have preached to them, as an invitation to unity, all the Truth. Not preaching about the Key of Knowledge, the Living Truth, the Word of God Himself, will bring about the martyrdom of believers, offering them the privilege of preaching with their blood. They will dismissively be called imprudent by faithless bishops and priests, who will themselves not be martyred, for they are not worth the effort.”

“But all religions have many aspects of truth,” asserted the Cardinal.

“Those few elements of truth,” replied Father Alexámenos, “are due to what participation mankind has left in Natural Law after Adam’s sin, as well as to haphazard cultural phenomena, all of which are poisoned by so much else, including the ubiquitous human sacrifice understood to be pleasing to the bloodthirsty gods of so many ‘religions’. Again, Christ redeemed all. Some reject Christ. I pray for the salvation of the elect. His face is to be seen in them all.”

“You are mistaken!” repeated Cardinal Froben. “Your Key of Knowledge is the key to the shaft of the bottomless abyss. The smoke of that furnace darkens the sun and air. We are left without our insight for unity, without our work of ‘faith’, with no common ground, no way to dialogue about Revelation, about ‘faith’ and the Scriptures, about ‘tradition’ and psychology, about justification. If you believe Christ’s face is found in all, do you not insult the Jews?” Cardinal Froben immediately announced: “I call Rabbi Shelomoh ben Yitshaq, as a witness.”

•••—•••—•••

Rabbi Shelomoh came from behind the stage while excitement filled the Hall. Memories of the Rabbi meeting Pope Tsur-Ēzer were still fresh. As the Rabbi took his place, Cardinal Froben, taken by whim, began with what he thought would be a preemption: “Rabbi, I’m sure you have heard that it was said: ‘While the time of the Enlightenment contributed to bring a cleansing from the abuse of religion, secular society still has need of religious bases to sustain durable moral values, one of which is the fundamental principle of the sanctity of human life and its dignity. Ethical monotheism affirms these as inviolable human rights and must, therefore, be a source of inspiration for society in general.’ Would you agree, Rabbi?”

“Sapere aude! your Eminence, as long as you don’t prescind from the Faith while daring to use what is between your ears. Faith rids one of the egotistical motivations of obscurantist, tyrannical sayings such as Cogito, ergo sum, and whatever else le temps des Lumières offered as its raison d’être. The Enlightenment is essentially, intransigently anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic. Religion isn’t purified by antithetical propaganda and the slaughter of religious people, with the Enlightenment being the Catholic holocaust in France. Instead, religious people are purified by graced repentance. If one replaces the Natural Law – man’s reasoned participation in the Eternal Law of God – with the secular state, one desires ethical relativism, which cannot tolerate the sanctity of mankind’s life and inalienable rights. What could durable moral values offered by ethical monotheism merely for inspiring society possibly be? Why would they be durable? If ethical monotheism has to give society something which it would not otherwise have, it is not worth having, meaning that this last utilitarian reason to have religion around is now destroyed. Religion and religious people are then, only in the way. Auschwitz appears on the horizon again. Instead, all men, religious or not, must demand that all men, religious or not, live the moral truth of the Natural Law. Auschwitz reopens if life itself is contingent upon any kind of religious affirmation apart from the Natural Law and, thus, to what must necessarily be considered to be mere opinion. True religion and natural law agree. You must know, your Eminence, that Hitler thought that the Reich’s most sacred place was Les Invalides. He had four honour guards by Napoleon’s corpse day and night, saying that he himself was a true son of Napoleon, since, he said, Napoleon exemplified les Lumières and…”

“I shall think about it,” Cardinal Froben said feebly, interrupting him.

“I’m sure you will,” enjoined the Rabbi. “You might also think about other things in the ‘report’ you cited, for instance, the declaration that “il est légitime qu’une société cherche à préserver son identité religieuse.’ Excuse me, your Eminence, but it is not always legitimate that a society may seek to preserve its religious identity. What if a society’s religion is sacrificing children? Or is ‘might makes right’, the real principle behind your architectural lights of liberté, fraternité, egalité? For your sake, I hope that a Pope will soon – during a Traditional Latin High Mass on 21 January – canonise King Louis XVI, and then, crown a pious Catholic layman as King of France on 15 August. After all, no one needs their inalienable participation in the Natural Law to be given to them. If rights can arbitrarily be given, they can arbitrarily be violated and taken away, which happens all the time. Have you never heard, your Eminence, that ‘les droits de l’homme: c’est de la m - - - - !’ You are now too friendly with Maximilien François de Robespierre.”

Taken off guard, the Cardinal decided to do what he had intended to do when he called the Rabbi. The Cardinal held a small voice recorder to the microphone and played the recording of the conversation which the Rabbi and Father Alexámenos had had on the plane. The recording had been provided by of Shaykh al-Husayn. The Cardinal did not know if the conversation was edited. The sound system broadcast Father Alexámenos saying that the face of Christ was to be seen in all, including Jews.

“Translate the Hebrew of the recording,” Cardinal Froben commanded Father Alexámenos. When he had done so, the Cardinal asked him, “Isn’t seeing the face of Christ in all people insulting to our guest, Rabbi Shelomoh?”

“I beg your pardon, your Eminence, but why not ask me?” asked the Rabbi. “And I have more questions for you. Why, for you, is it anathema to hold that Christ loves the Jews in such a way that they should be part of the Church? Do you think that we are so content with our Hebrew Scriptures that we “irreducibly” do not need any Jewish-Christian Messiah? Does unity, for you, exclude a communion of religion and Truth concerning the Messiah, so that we agree to disagree, nicely. Is Judaism, for you, merely one ‘religion’ among many that does not need to be respected beyond respect for the adherents? Does error, in your eyes, have rights, and does error, for you, give any and all religions the right to suppress truth in order to preserve its predominant identity in a society?”

The Cardinal stared at him, unable to think. Seconds ticked away. It became embarrassing. Father Alexámenos offered a suggestion: “Your Eminence, why don’t you ask the Rabbi how many images of Jesus’ face he sees depicted in the artwork on the stage, your Eminence?”

Cardinal Froben snapped out of his stupor, and began to apologise to the Rabbi, saying, “Rabbi, please forgive the young priest for his continuing indiscretion. He does not realise that…”

“One face in three places!” exclaimed the Rabbi, who was looking at the Crucifix of San Damiano and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe hanging in front of the blue velvet curtain.

“Excuse me…” interrupted Cardinal Froben, wanting an explanation.

“One face in three places,” repeated the Rabbi, “without counting the small figures on the Crucifix, the angel below the feet of the Madonna, nor, as it is said, those in her eyes.”

Father Alexámenos smiled broadly and, making the Sign of the Cross, looked at the images.

“I am afraid that I do not understand,” said the Cardinal, completely at a loss as to how he might regain control of the interrogation of Father Alexámenos.

“I’m afraid that, in fact, you don’t understand,” said the Rabbi. “Catholics can be so ignorant.”

“I apologise for my ignorance, Rabbi. Please, explain,” requested Cardinal Froben, who did not want his own ineptitude to get in the way of his own style of ‘unity’.

“Imagine me, a Jew…” began the Rabbi, standing up. Enjoying the moment, he turned to the audience and, speaking into the microphone, started once again, half chuckling, but also with some sarcasm in his voice: “Imagine me, a Jew, telling this Cardinal his own doctrine!”

Although the audience did not yet know what he was talking about, they laughed, to the chagrin of the Cardinal. He wasn’t used to this kind of straightforward, honest ‘dialogue’.

“Clearly, the face of Jesus is that of Jesus,” said the Rabbi.

“That is one,” said the Cardinal, keeping count.

“And since you Catholics believe that everyone needs redemption, including Jesus’ Mother – though from the first instant of her conception, so that she was conceived immaculately – Jesus’ face also has to be seen in her, asking the Most High to accept the Redemption of her just as you believe the Redemption of the rest of mankind was brought about by Jesus.”

“I see… Well, that is two,” said the Cardinal, who was already lost.

“Notice the dress Mary is wearing,” continued the Rabbi. The television cameras zoomed in.”

“I do not recognise the type of clothing she is wearing,” said Cardinal Froben, candidly.

“It is the typical ancient garb of pregnant Jewish women,” observed the Rabbi.

“I must admit that Mary certainly is pregnant in this image,” said the Cardinal.

“And that Baby in her womb also has the face of Christ, for it is Himself as a Child within the womb of His Mother. Tell me, your Eminence,” said the Rabbi, “is it not true that it is Pope Tsur-Ēzer who ordered this arrangement of the images of the Crucifix and the Virgin?”

“That is my understanding, yes,” said Cardinal Froben.

“Interesting…” murmured the Rabbi. “Now, to the point, there are more faces of Christ inferred here.”

“Rabbi?” prodded the Cardinal.

“Some Catholics think that Mary appeared in Mexico at the time the pagans were bribing the gods with human-sacrifices. She appeared pregnant with Jesus, so as to say that those children are the image of her own Son. Catholics say that her Son, God’s Son, was sacrificed. That’s enough forever. There are to be no other sacrifices. The sacrifices of the pagans then stopped, that is, until today, with all the abortion going on in Mexico City.”

“I don’t see the point. Do you mean to say something about justification?” asked Cardinal Froben, hoping against hope that he would answer in the negative. The Cardinal had no idea what the Rabbi and Father Alexámenos were about to do with the trial.

==================

Chapter 28 coming soon…

Don’t hesitate to use the comments box.

© 2007-2008 Renzo di Lorenzo — All rights reserved

Tags: Allah, Bible, Catholic, Child Abuse, Christianity, Church, Faith, God, Interreligious Dialogue, Islam, Israel, Jesus, Jews, Judaism, Muhammad, Muslims, Palestine, Politics, Qu'ran, Religion, Spirituality, Terrorism, Theology, Vatican, Zionism