TRILOGY: Bk I, Ch 33 (Jackass for the Hour)

Chaste delights, indeed!

More Swiss Guards were gathering outside the ornate offices of the Cardinal Secretary of State, for there had been shouting. The Ambassador of Arāk, Shaykh al-Hasan, was present as a most unusual representative of the Arab League, to which Arāk could not belong. This recognised a desire for rapprochement with the Sunnis by the Shi‘as that had been expressed long ago by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Arāk was everywhere ready to make extreme demands, having reneged repeatedly on withdrawal of their nuclear weapons programmes. Also present were the American Ambassador and the Italian Secretary of State. The guards thought they had made a mistake in not overruling the Cardinal, who let Shaykh al-Hasan into Vatican City with a weapon, albeit a ceremonial sword he insisted on carrying as a symbol of his mission.

For the past week, both Arāk and the Arab League had sharply increased their rhetoric against Israel, Italy and the United States in order to get them to put pressure on the Holy See. This enabled Shaykh al-Hasan to insist that whatever punishment Pope Tsur-Ēzer might have for Father Alexámenos, if it was anything less than death, the Italian government was to intervene and do what was expedient. The ‘war on terror’ had created a thirst for the death of scape-goats such as Father Alexámenos. The Italians needed little convincing, for they had been capitulating to the whims of their Arab neighbours for many decades, even letting terrorists out of prison at their request, with the face-saving ‘excuse’ of wanting to let them go on holiday, an Italian custom. The American Ambassador was pleased to see this happen, for America was removed from the equation, although he told Shaykh al-Hasan he would issue a pro-forma note of concern for Father Alexámenos, as he was an American citizen. The objections of Cardinal Elzevir were entirely ignored. This was all brought to the attention of the Holy Father by Monsignor Sens. The bells on the Gospel side of the Basilica tolled the hour. It was now 10:00 A.M., Monday of Holy Week. A pall had been thrown over the Palm Sunday procession in Piazza San Pietro the day before, since the jackass had been beheaded and burnt.

•••—•••—•••

Cardinal Francisco was standing with his assistants at his central table on the stage of the Paul VI Audience Hall. He was more than ten minutes late in beginning the fourth session of the trial. Cardinal Francisco had just asked the Special Prosecutor for the day, Cardinal Froben, to open with a prayer. He did not get a chance to read the text he had prepared, for Monsignor Sens rushed on to the stage, went straight to the table of Cardinal Francisco, put his hand over the microphone and relayed a message from the Pope. The Cardinal then announced, “This session of the trial will be delayed.” Everyone groaned, thinking that the trial would not continue until after Easter, but then he added, “We will begin at 4:30 P.M. Please, be patient.”

Some in the crowd left the Hall, knowing that they would only have time to get lunch before they again had to enter the security screening. Many of those without the special passes issued for the Press opted to stay in the Hall in order not to lose their place.

During the intervening hours, a large candle, almost two metres high was placed on a short stand between the centre of the stage and the table for the defence. It looked to be ten centimetres thick, and had three large wicks knotted together at the top. The candle had been placed there at the request of the Holy Father in order to honour an old tradition in which, if a defendant indicted for an excommunicable offence were to be found guilty and sentenced to death, the candle’s flame, symbolic of the defendant’s life, would be dramatically extinguished.

When the time for the session to begin finally arrived, the reason for the delay became evident. The Holy Father himself walked onto the stage. Everyone stood. As he walked toward Cardinal Francisco, the Pontiff was glaring at Cardinal Fidèle. Don Hash noticed this, as well as Cardinal Fidèle’s expression, which changed, for a split second, from one of steady concern to an impish grin. The Pope did not greet Cardinal Francisco, but merely told him to have the candle lit, which he did. The Pontiff waited. When its large, triple flame was steadily burning, he took the microphone on Cardinal Francisco’s table and knelt down facing the Crucifix of San Damiano and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Holy Father then delegated the opening prayer of the session, as had become the custom. However, it was someone from the defence who would lead the prayer. Padre Emet was not prepared when the Pontiff said, “Cardinal Emet… if you will…” It was padre Emet’s lack of preparation that the Holy Father desired, for he knew padre Emet well enough to expect the best from him when he was least prepared.

Taking his microphone, padre Emet knelt down, as did don Hash and Father Alexámenos, as well as some in the crowd. “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,” he began.

“Amen,” came the unexpectedly strong response from many in the crowd.

“Heavenly Father,” he continued, “we beseech Thee through the merits of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Thy only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, to send the flames of Thy Holy Spirit upon us, into us, purifying us, humbling our souls, opening our minds, drawing us into adoration, prostrate before Thee. Grant that we may come to know that we are – or should be – the very members of the Body of Thy Word, Christ Jesus, the Beginning and End of all Divine Revelation, revealed especially as He was lifted up on the Cross, drawing all to Himself. We ask this through Christ, our Lord.”

An “Amen” was again raised by many in the Audience Hall.

After the prayer, the Holy Father sat down to preside over the session himself. People assumed from this that he was upset that Cardinal Francisco had gratuitously allowed Father Alexámenos to be portrayed as an enemy of the Faith. But the Pontiff then announced, “Cardinal Fidèle is to be the Special Prosecutor for the day.” This took the three priests at the table for the defence by surprise.

Cardinal Froben, who had been scheduled to be the Special Prosecutor for the day, had ream upon ream of photocopied papers prepared for the morning’s interrogation. He promptly rose and took another chair at the same table on the left side of the stage.

“I am honoured,” Cardinal Fidèle replied, more surprised than anyone by the announcement.

As he went to the table for the prosecution, the Holy Father glanced over to the table for the defence. The look he had on his face was one of determination. The gesture was appreciated. The message was clear that they were to stay alert.

Cardinal Froben was rearranging his documents for the sake of Cardinal Fidèle, who, instead, shoved them further aside, saying, “These things won’t be necessary, your Eminence.”

Before the session began, Cardinal Fidèle had made arrangements with the media that every time he gave a signal, they were to run some advertisements. He explained that the matter under discussion would be so technical that, unless they gave their audiences a break, they would lose them, for, he lied, there was nothing which the masses would see in this interrogation as interesting to them as the sex and violence of the past sessions. Cardinal Fidèle had made this arrangement of showing advertisements in view of Cardinal Froben being the Special Prosecutor, but it would work to his own advantage as well. Cardinal Fidèle would, as they suggested, merely pull on his ear lobe to give the signal.

Cardinal Fidèle began his interrogation, saying, “Father Alexámenos…”

But Pope Tsur-Ēzer interrupted him, saying, with extraordinary brilliance, “There has also been a change in the defence team. Monsignor Sens will take the place of don Hash, who is to report to the Secretariat of State as one of the Office Directors in the First Section.”

This was months ahead of his scheduled appointment. He had jumped ahead of many others involved with the General Affairs of the Church. Don Hash scribbled “Give me the Fisherman’s Ring” on a piece of paper and showed it to Father Alexámenos. The crowd did not know what the exchange was about, for they were busy wondering who Monsignor Sens was as he sat down.

The Holy Father looked at Cardinal Fidèle and said, “Shall we begin, please?”

With this change in favour of Monsignor Sens, Cardinal Fidèle was certain that Pope Tsur-Ēzer was entirely on his side, and didn’t hesitate to try to throw Father Alexámenos off guard, beginning with a topic Father Alexámenos knew well, at least from what he had gathered from Don Hash in those weeks: “Instead of examining you on the charge against you, Father, that you deny the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium to guide the Church, let us speak of some of the premises of your rebellion. Tell us, Father, you agree that Saint Augustine was correct in what he wrote in his Confessions, do you not? You are willing to bow to his canonised authority, are you not?”

“If it accords with Church teaching, yes,” said Father Alexámenos, carefully.

The Cardinal continued, “Do you agree that what this great saint wrote concerning time is important in all times, and even to your trial?”

“You are the recognised master of Augustine,” replied Father Alexámenos, remembering what don Hash had said about his ongoing ‘dialogue’ with the Cardinal over the Confessions.

“Saint Augustine, unlike Saint Jerome, did not know Hebrew,” began Cardinal Fidèle. “Augustine wondered how he would come to know the truth even if he had the opportunity to speak directly with Moses, who would, Augustine imagined, speak only in Hebrew. To solve what he thought was an otherwise insurmountable difficulty, he came up with the idea of private interpretation, writing in his Confessions, Book XI, chapter 3, that truth would tell him that Moses is speaking the truth: ‘Veritas… diceret, Verum dicit.’ But what could that truth be – which speaks to him of Moses’ veracity – other than his own private interpretation? Did not two subsequent Augustinian priests, Father Desiderius Erasmus and Father Martin Luther, faithfully follow the canonised founder of their religious order regarding private interpretation? Who are you to hold anything different, Father? Is not a little more humility needed on your part? I am here to help.”

“Who was it who asked whether Luther erasmusises or Erasmus lutherises?” asked Father Alexámenos. “At any rate, Erasmus was the bastard son of a priest. Luther – who admired Erasmus early in the Reformation – imitated Erasmus’ father, ‘marrying’ a nun.”

“You cannot avoid my questions so easily,” replied Cardinal Fidèle. “Ad hominem arguments do not undermine the truth of an authority. Besides, what does Erasmus being the bastard son of a priest have to do with anything? Have you no forgiveness, no understanding, no Christianity?”

“I, a sinner, pray for the repose of the soul of Erasmus. He died without the Last Rites. I just need to provide some background to answer your rather incisive question, your Eminence.”

“Please, continue,” replied the Prelate, pleased with the compliment.

“It seems to me,” said Father Alexámenos, “that the scandalous behaviour of Erasmus’ father influenced Desiderius deeply. He took the one good gift his father gave him, an education, and became a priest like his father, so that he was just as non-dedicated to the priesthood as his father. Seeing the opportunity to work out his own personal problems with his own father in the person of the Holy Father, Pope Leo X, one of the Pontiffs most dedicated to the humanist Renaissance, Desiderius took his education and – with the irony to be found in The Praise of Folie – presented the results of his education to Leo X, the Father of the Family of Faith, the Holy Father.”

“It sounds like you now – all of a sudden, when it is convenient – use all of the principles of the kind of psychology for which you have manifested such contempt. Why is that?” asked Cardinal Fidèle.

“Not at all!” laughed Father Alexámenos, knowing this was coming. “Instead, in our fallen human condition, monkey see, monkey do is an anthropological absolute unless something else, Someone else intervenes in the life of the person. Political correctness makes one imitate even what one hates in an attempt – to give it the best interpretation – in an attempt to figure it all out from the inside, transferring to oneself the rubbish of the other person, and then shoving it all back out again. Erasmus gave every indication that he despises the family aspect of the Faith as lived out on this earth in the midst of the Church. Why should I not make an analogy of one part of his life with another? It is he himself who has done this.”

“But what is the terrible crime against the Pope you impute to Erasmus, as if you could judge anyone?” asked Cardinal Fidèle.

“It is not I who judge him,” Father Alexámenos replied. “I report what he has done, which is different. What he did was to edit and publish an edition of the New Testament. That is his terrible crime.”

“You’ve got to be joking,” said Cardinal Fidèle, repeating a response of Sister Nice for effect. He knew that this would be his answer, for he had guessed the influence Father Alexámenos had on don Hash all along.

“He published it without the permission of the Holy Father,” exclaimed Father Alexámenos.

But Cardinal Fidèle mocked him, saying, “Naughty, naughty Desiderius! Did the sun dance in the sky? Did the world come to an end?”

“You can ask Pius XII and John Paul II about the sun dancing in the sky,” said Father Alexámenos incisively. “But a catastrophe did follow.”

“And…” Cardinal Fidèle prodded.

Father Alexámenos knew that the Cardinal was well aware of the answer, and now understood that the Cardinal wanted him to explain this for the sake of the crowd. “The Church,” Father Alexámenos began, “was in the midst of the Fifth Lateran Council. On 4 May, 1515, the Council Fathers, with Pope Leo X, promulgated a decree on censorship of printed materials, a document which couldn’t have been more directly aimed at Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam and his publisher from Basel, John Froben, for rumours had spread to Rome, pulsavit auditum, as they said. Nevertheless, within months, Erasmus and Froben started printing their New Testament, their Novum Instrumentum, without the requisite permission, and within several more months they were marketing the volume on a date whose anniversary would be commemorated with the excommunication of Elizabeth I and, then, the burning of Giordano Bruno, more or less to the hour. It was the subsequent edition of Erasmus’ New Testament that Luther used to translate the New Testament into German soon after he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X, with his 15 June, 1520, decree Exsurge Domine, which became effective on 15 August,1520. Just to make it very direct, Leo excommunicated Luther more incisively in Decet Romanum Pontificem of 3 January, 1521, less than a month after Luther had burnt Exsurge Domine.

“You should know,” taunted Cardinal Fidèle, “that Erasmus dedicated the editio princeps, the first edition of his New Testament – his New Instrument to be exact – to his Renaissance, humanist hero, Pope Leo X, amicus Iudaeorum, The Friend of the Jews, who also gave his placet, so to speak, for a Jewish publishing house. Pope Paul III even wanted him to be a Cardinal. I find your remarks, therefore, extreme, Father Alexámenos.”

“Erasmus wrote nauseatingly sycophantic remarks for Leo X,” replied Father Alexámenos, “and those remarks had their desired effect. It seems that Leo X was so given to his Medici style of Renaissance art appreciation that he didn’t give a second thought to the artwork on the pages dedicating the volume to him. At the top, a cherub is beaten down and half blinded by what is depicted as the wonderful abundance of the Renaissance, as if to say in this materialism: Basta con gli spiriti! To hell with the angels. On the left, the naked demon Pan, this world’s Prince, is playing music for nude putti, as if he were the Pied Piper, which had already been a popular story for centuries by that time. One of those nude putti plays the puppeteer with an incense thurible. Pan’s grotesque, bisexual counterpart, the chimerical Hermaphroditus, is defecating into that thurible…”

“Please, stop now!” exclaimed Cardinal Fidèle.

“Carpe Diem, seize the day!” said Father Alexámenos, remembering the incident in Cardinal Fidèle’s apartment told to him by don Hash. He knew Carpe Diem’s guardian angel was at work.

Carpe Diem, who was sitting with his mother, Signora Gagno, backstage, repeated, “Carpe Diem, seize the day! Carpe Diem, seize the day!” infuriating Cardinal Fidèle.

“Similar artwork is to be found on the opening page of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew,” continued Father Alexámenos unabated. “One would not decorate the pages of Cicero with such insulting rubbish. This was not even an attempt to treat the Word of God as classical literature. Erasmus’ brand of the devotio moderna seems to have been nothing more than a clever insult against what is good and holy… We have a lot of that modern devotion today, your Eminence.”

“You are going too far, and you know it,” said the Cardinal.

“It was not because Erasmus was stupid that the editing of his volume was absolutely careless,” continued Father Alexámenos. “His blatant lies to Pope Leo X about the usage of so many ancient manuscripts and Fathers of the Church and others makes one wonder if Erasmus was going out of his way to present a poorly edited work as a tactical manoeuvre on personal, ecclesiological and theological levels.”

“You are very harsh,” said Cardinal Fidèle with practised restraint, but Father Alexámenos continued.

“For Erasmus, on a personal level,” said Father Alexámenos, “it was as if he had said to the Holy Father, ‘Look at me, Father! I’ve taken Holy Scripture and treated it with banality. Are you going to be a good Father and discipline me? Are you going to shepherd the Church, the Family of Faith? I am testing you. I’ve never known what it is to have a family. Perhaps, Holy Father, you are going to do nothing, continuing your life of highly educated Renaissance pursuits, abandoning your children in the Faith to the likes of me, the bastard son of a priest, my father, who, like you, was more interested in learning than in his son. I was given a nice education and nothing more.”

“Don’t condemn Leo X!” said Cardinal Fidèle. “He condemned all who said that ‘hæreticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritus,’ that ‘it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.’

“You merely have to look at the frontespizio of the work,” interrupted Father Alexámenos, “to see what was done by Froben and himself on an ecclesiological level, not only usurping the authority of the Holy Father, but doing obeisance to the so-called Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian. This was no mere expedience. There were ‘theological’ reasons for doing this. Notice the vulgar people claimed to be used for guidance along with the Church Fathers…”

“We don’t need to speak of those vulgar people…” interrupted the Cardinal.

“His preemptive theological principle,” said Father Alexámenos, is there for all to see: Change, for the sake of change, is good, and that change was highlighted to an exaggerated degree by Froben’s clever printing techniques. He put the words in the centre of the paragraph, which he arranged as an hourglass. He said that anyone and everyone is to find true theology by taking up the Bible, reading it, knowing it and, then – ac deinde iudica – judging its worth privately. And that is why his editio princeps wasn’t called the New Testament, but rather the Novum instrumentum, a new instrument, which anyone and everyone was to use as a vehicle for expressing themselves, calling that self-reflection a ‘true theology’ which would develop into something better by way of a dialectic… num in melius mutatum fit. As though to remove any remaining doubt, Froben added a picture of himself as Hermes, the father of Hermaphroditus…” This is where the new hermeneutics as revelation, the new private interpretation as abuse of the public came into fashion, opinion which, instead of the evolution they imagine, spins around upon itself as all ‘winds of change’ do, inevitably becoming a vortex sucking all into its hellish self-referential…”

“Damn you!” said Cardinal Fidèle.

“Questo non tocca a te!” asserted the Holy Father, citing the words of Savonarola just before he was burnt at the stake, “This isn’t your decision to make!” This intervention startled Cardinal Fidèle, who had been completely engrossed in the interrogation. The last thing he expected was to be reprimanded by the Holy Father, preempting his authority as delegated Inquisitor of the hour. Had he remembered, Cardinal Fidèle would have signalled to the media to run some advertisements. The Pontiff commanded him, “Proceed.”

“Your Holiness, I beg your forgiveness.” After a few seconds of collecting his thoughts, he turned to Father Alexámenos and said, “We seem to have become distracted.”

“I don’t think so. Not at all,” asserted Father Alexámenos.

“Pray tell,” said the Cardinal, “despite all that, isn’t it true that Erasmus and Luther laudably followed Saint Augustine’s policy of private interpretation of truth?”

“An example of how Luther treated the Scriptures like Erasmus is à propos, your Eminence.”

“Proceed,” said the Cardinal, repeating what the Pope had said.

“When Luther translated the New Testament into German, he rewrote the text according to what he understood to be his Faith, but that ‘faith’ was merely his own private interpretation, his own theology. Luther added the word ‘alone’ to ‘Faith’ in Romans 3,28, as in ‘justified by Faith alone’, ‘allein durch den Glauben’. In the context of the verse, he essentially separated the event of justification from love of neighbour. For Luther, the Charity coming with supernatural Faith – sanctifying grace – would not have us love, instantaneously and necessarily at the same time, both God and neighbour. Luther understood Charity to one’s neighbour not as something supernaturally given, but as something which we come up with ourselves, some nice actions after the fact of justification, nice works, which are essentially unimportant, however nicely consonant they are with justification. It proves that Luther did not understand that in order to love Christ, it is essential that we love one another. One cannot love the Head of the Body, Christ Jesus, without also loving the members of His Body, all of us, at the same time, with the same Charity. There is no decapitation of Christ in order to love Him! Perhaps Luther’s later ‘Table Talk’ about how justified he thought we are by Faith was taken from the illustrations on Erasmus’ dedication page to Leo X – what with its defecating hermaphrodite and all – for Luther described the justified soul in heaven as being no more than a heap of defecation upon which a blanket of snow has fallen, the merits of Christ, which is the only thing that God the Father sees glistening in heaven’s light.”

“Stop repeating yourself,” commanded Cardinal Fidèle. Then, under his breath: “Du!… Du!… Papstesel!”

“However,” continued Father Alexámenos, “a fresh blanket of snow is no match for a hot dungheap – even from a papist jackass like myself – for the hot dung will soon melt the snow so as to reveal itself for the dung it is. Instead, the psalm in Latin says: de stercore elevat pauperem – from the dung He is raising the poor. But in Luther’s view, works are nothing more than what he, of himself, does for others, just more defecation. Since Faith and Charity are supernaturally given, and since Luther destroyed Charity – making it out to be merely human assent to love another – he had to destroy the Faith as well, so that, for him, ‘faith’ cannot be more than merely his assent to his own necessarily relativistic, private theology. His ‘faith’ cannot be true, but is just a figment of his theological imagination. What he so hotly desired was not any supernaturally given Faith, but his own work, his own assent to his own theology. The irony could not be sharper. This is reflected in his Preface to Romans, of 1522. It’s blasphemous, insulting the redemptive power of Christ’s grace, claiming that Christ does not really redeem us. Instead, the truth of the matter, as the Church teaches, is that the weakness we continue to suffer in this world is, with grace, the glorious Cross we carry to heaven, or better, the Cross which, with grace, carries us. Weakness, as the Cross of growth in grace, is not an occasion of blasphemy, but an occasion of union with God and man. It is the justice for original sin that we suffer, but now, justice which works for the mercy, putting us before the salvation of our Lord, if we, in grace, cooperate with this. Supernaturally given Faith and Charity conquer our falsehood with a Living Truth that enlivens us with a simultaneous love of God and neighbour.”

Cardinal Froben, next to Cardinal Fidèle, was making it obvious that he was furious. The Pope simply listened. Cardinal Fidèle was exasperated, but his only option was to continue, knowing that he had to follow the line he had taken from the beginning. “I repeat, Father,” Cardinal Fidèle said, “is it not true that Erasmus and Luther laudably followed Saint Augustine’s policy of private interpretation of truth?”

“About Augustine’s ‘Veritas… diceret, Verum dicit,’” said Father Alexámenos, “Truth does speak to Augustine about Moses, and all that he wrote about child-sacrifice and proper marriage. That Truth is not Augustine’s or anyone else’s imaginary truth, and cannot be manipulated in ways relative to each person. Augustine speaks of Truth as a Person, Living and Eternal, the Word of the Father, Christ Jesus. That Word is not a lie. The Eternal Father does not lie when He speaks this one Word throughout eternity. That Truth is hardly private interpretation. Instead, the Holy Spirit brings the words of the Word of God and burns them into our hearts in a univocal way, the same for all, generating us in this way as the very children of God, brethren of the Word. These children – who are content to witness to the Truth in the same way as did the Living Truth Himself – do speak the words of the Word with the Charity brought to them in justifying Faith. Now, just shortly before the words in Augustine’s Confessions which you cited so conveniently out of context, the sainted bishop also wrote about begging our Lord to grant him the gift of having circumcised lips, circumcised from all interior and exterior rashness and lying, your Eminence, begging that the Scriptures be his chaste delight, not wanting to be deceived in them, or deceive others by them. His exact words are, ‘Circumcide ab omni temeritate omnique mendacio interiora et exteriora mea labia mea. Sint castae deliciae meae Scripturae tuae nec fallar in eis nec fallam ex eis.’”

“You certainly are stuck on sex and the Scriptures,” said Cardinal Fidèle, wondering how yet another priest had read the Confessions in Augustine’s most passionate Latin. “Circumcision and chaste delights, indeed!” he exclaimed. This comment brought laughter from the crowd, cancelling, Cardinal Fidèle thought, any beneficial effect that the previous interrogations had for Father Alexámenos.

But then Father Alexámenos said, “I see you’ve begun to understand me, your Eminence. But you do not go far enough. It is not just sex and the Scriptures with which I am concerned…”

“Is there really more for you, Father? Go on, please,” said the Cardinal, enjoying himself.

“Try sex, violence and the Scriptures,” said Father Alexámenos.

“I should have known!” exclaimed the Cardinal. This brought more laughter, but the crowd became silent when he continued, “Perhaps, Father, you are not feeling well. Sister Nice, by this time, may be able to speak with you.” This comment, the crowd knew, was in bad taste.

“If I may, your Eminence…” requested Father Alexámenos.

“Please, speak to us, Father,” said the Cardinal Fidèle with feigned confidence.

“The reference to ‘chaste delights’, suggestive of the fecundity expected of our appreciation of Revelation,” Father Alexámenos began, “cannot come about if our lips – which would speak about the Incarnate Word of the inspired words – are not firstly ‘circumcised’ interiorly and exteriorly from all rashness and lying. Chastity doesn’t refer to repressing sin – though one must not sin – but rather to the delight of being in God’s grace, to the delight of living as His good children. In this case, one is not to pretend to live a life of Faith while secretly being agnostic, your Eminence. Instead, one is to know the Sacred Scriptures with Faith, with Sacred Tradition. Actual circumcision was meant to remind Abraham and his descendants that fecundity is from the Lord, that worthy children are brought about with the gift of Faith coming through the only worthy Child-Sacrifice, not Isaac, but Christ Jesus. It was the chaste delight of Abraham to expect that he would see his progeny through Isaac, sacrificed and brought to life again.

“But when Augustine wrote of these things…” Cardinal Fidèle began to object.

“When Augustine wrote of sex, violence and the Scriptures, your Eminence, he did so to point out that our understanding of Scripture in whatever age comes about by way of Faith, by way of Tradition, which reaches across time from eternity as do Christ’s arms on the Cross, providing us with the same Divine Mercy, the same Truth, always, in every time, in every hour, in the one Hour of our Redemption. This is the exact opposite of what Erasmus and Luther wanted to do with their private interpretation. They held themselves to be judges of Scripture, judges of Divine Mercy, judges of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, judges, your Eminence, of the Holy Father, indeed, of Holy Mother Church.”

“But that is what Augustine did!” exclaimed Cardinal Fidèle. “If he didn’t understand what he read, did he not think firstly that the manuscript was badly copied before he thought that the Latin translation might be wrong, or that he himself was mistaken? Augustine said, ‘Si aliquid in eis offendero litteris quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam… mendosum esse codicem.’ If times were changed, what would stop him from following Luther in effectively killing the prophets, child-sacrifices, as you said, throwing out their words if he didn’t like them?”

“I’ll admit that Augustine held…” Father Alexámenos began to reply.

“…that private interpretation was alright?” said Cardinal Fidèle, putting words into his mouth.

“Elsewhere, your Eminence,” said Father Alexámenos, ignoring the rudeness of the Prelate, “Augustine said that he believed in the Sacred Scriptures because the Church told him to do this.”

“I am aware of that,” said Cardinal Fidèle. “I want to know if Augustine was just as ready to hack Scripture apart as Luther. How do you know that the Lord did not speak quietly into the privacy of the souls of Erasmus and Luther just like He was speaking into Augustine’s soul?”

“Your Eminence, the assent to the truths of the words of Sacred Scripture by way of Sacred Tradition, the supernatural virtue of Faith, was an ecclesial event for Augustine; this is proved by his bowing to the judgment of the Church, of the Roman Pontiff, the Father of the Family of Faith. This is exactly what Erasmus and Luther went out of their way not to do, demonstrating that their ‘faith’ was no more than mere acceptance of a preconceived human theology replacing Tradition, something which is, therefore, truly relativistic, truly ‘private’, and not at all a true ‘interpretation’, even if a twelve hour clock can be correct twice a day without knowing it. We believe with the Faith given to us from on high, but we assent to that Faith with the guidance of the Church, the Family of Faith, as desired by Christ Himself. Augustine would never hack Scripture apart. Luther, instead, threw out many books from the Greek Scriptures of the Jews as well as out of the New Testament, not to mention parts of other books, even adding a bit himself. Erasmus cast doubt on much as well. In this way, they showed that they didn’t have circumcised lips. Instead, they effectively killed the prophets by rejecting their words, which were inspired by the power and mercy of the Holy Spirit, and which spoke of the Sacrifice of the Son of the Most High. Though a priest, Erasmus abandoned offering the Mass; Luther attacked the integrity of the Eucharist and the efficacy of the Mass. He soon found himself attacking the children of God. He despised Catholics, and began a revolution, not a Reformation. Neither Erasmus nor Luther could effectively appeal to Augustine on these matters. Erasmus and Luther, like Sister Nice, simply replaced Faith with an epistemology of psychology. This horrendous rupture in unity, wrongly called the Reformation, has provoked only violence.”

•••—•••—•••

“I do not say that we approve of the beheadings…” said the Ambassador of Arāk to the Italian Secretary of State. “Now that you have so easily capitulated to the punishment of Alexámenos, I suggest that you see the beheadings as an example of the punishment expected for him. Beheadings are painless, and even humane compared to the torture used by the West. And is it not better for you that one man be beheaded than whole nations?”

As Shaykh al-Hasan was speaking these last words, don Hash walked into the meeting in Cardinal Elzevir’s offices. There had not been any moment during the meeting which could be termed civil or aimed at justice. Each word spoken by every party was in favour of damage control for their interests. The Ambassador of Arāk was merely the most outspoken. His method was to go on the offensive. The others wanted to appease his lust for vengeance.

“What beheadings?” asked don Hash, without being introduced to Shaykh al-Hasan.

“Pay attention, Hash,” said Shaykh al-Hasan. “It concerns you in a most direct way.”

“What do you mean?” asked don Hash.

“You are not very aware of your surroundings,” replied the Shaykh. Don Hash looked around the large room, and saw that one of the many televisions was tuned to Al Jazeera. Shaykh al-Hasan then said, “Behold…” There was a report of multiple beheadings of westerners in various countries, which all took place at the same time so as to make a point. Each of them was accompanied by the beheading of a donkey. Both the donkeys and the unfortunate victims – mostly medical personnel and journalists and priests – were then burnt together, with their heads thrown on top of the burning heaps of corpses and carcases. A poster sized caricature of Father Alexámenos standing next to a donkey was then tossed into each fire. The message could not be clearer.

“I assume they were given the opportunity to become apostates,” said don Hash without emotion.

“That is our way,” replied the Ambassador.

“Anyone coercing the assent of the will is merely promoting himself,” replied don Hash.

“For your information,” said the Shaykh, “I spit on King Abdullah for giving the symbol of our faith to an unbeliever, to the Pope!” I am tired of the dialogue of unbelievers. It is blasphemy even to think that Allah’s desires could ever be consonant with the reason of man, with the so-called ‘dialogue’ of man. To dialogue on the level of reason is to lose one’s faith. There can never be any Common Word. We do not believe in any Word that is reasonable to us. Allah is his own reason. Either one submits to Allah’s desire, or one is an instrument of Satan. Either one submits to child-sacrifice as the way to be in Allah’s favour – as did Abraham in the Qur’an – or one is Satan.”

“Why are you telling me all this?” asked Don Hash. “Are you too dialoguing about Allah by way of reason, by way of language, which is based on reason, by way, ultimately, on our Creator, the Word of God, Who…”

“This is my reason!” said the Shaykh, holding his sword high.

“How does all this concern me?” asked Don Hash, ignoring his diatribe of his own fear, and already knowing the answer.

“I have been informed some weeks ago that you, Hash, being a friend of Alexámenos, are the one who is to convince him of his error,” replied Shaykh al-Hasan. I appreciate the fact that you were on his defence team, which I’m sure had the tactic that you – with that despicable friar – were to break Alexámenos’ pride, so that he would give up his rebellious ways. Since you were his last hope, his friend, one might have expected some progress. But there has not been any. You should have been of more help, but now, it would be too little, too late. You have been relieved of your duties in the trial. Someone more trustworthy, Monsignor Sens, is taking your place. But you have not been forgotten. Your most important task has now arrived.”

The others became visibly uncomfortable at the thought of it. Don Hash knew that he had missed something they had already spoken about in his absence. No one had agreed to what the Ambassador of Arāk was now going to say, but all of the diplomats knew that they would agree to it, even Cardinal Elzevir, in his own way. After some moments of tense silence, the Ambassador said, “You, don Hash, as you must know, have been delegated by the Pope to light the fire.” He watched don Hash closely, trying to see if he could read even the faintest glimmer of rebellion or insincerity in his face, however momentary. Shaykh al-Hasan had spent years interrogating – so to speak – hostages in Arāk, Iraq and Syria. He knew liars well.

Don Hash, because of his military training, had learned the freedom of not suppressing any emotions, but of using them to his own advantage, his doctoral defence being his only failure. If someone was given to violence, he put more violence in front of them. He spoke the truth, though he knew this would not be understood: “The Holy Father hasn’t made any such decision against my good friend, whom I would be most grieved to see burnt alive.” Don Hash put on a show of grief, sighing deeply and burying his face in his hands.

The Ambassador didn’t want to lose the pedagogical opportunity of having Father Alexámenos killed by his own friend, so he said, ever so quietly: “We were thinking more along the lines of a preliminary beheading.” As he said this, he unsheathed his sword. It was a large, curved sword with a heavily bejewelled handle. Don Hash thought he had seen it before, during the beheading televised by Hezbollah and Al Jazeera. “I was thinking that you could use my own sword,” he said, holding the sword’s sharp edge up and letting a piece of paper fall lightly upon it. It kept falling in two pieces as if had not touched anything. “However,” he said, “your idea is better. Burning someone alive is most humiliating. It would be the most appropriate punishment for his blasphemous comments… Being that you are his friend, this would do much to appease our most just anger, for then, the great loser, the Satan of the west will have submitted to the wisdom of Islam. This is what we want.”

After long moments, don Hash finally answered: “I repeat, the Holy Father has not yet concluded the trial, or made any judgment. How can you even speak of such things?”

“I understand that your Pope would not be very pleased with capital punishment, even in the most extreme case when appeasement must be made, when the rest of the world…” – he then looked at the Ambassador of the United States and the Italian Secretary of State – “is ready to see his execution. It would have been easier if he had been guilty of crimes in Haïti, but his instigation of ill will toward Islam is more than enough reason to proceed with an execution. The world is tired of war. Instigation of ill will is an act of terrorism. If your Pope doesn’t agree to his execution after this session, there is no guarantee that street justice will not take its course.”

“I am sure that the Italian government is able to protect one person,” said don Hash, testing.

“We are,” said the Italian Secretary of State, “but that doesn’t mean we will choose to do so.”

Cardinal Elzevir could not say anything. Ordering more protection for Father Alexámenos would provoke violence against the Holy See, whose physical buildings, he thought, could not be compromised, even at the cost of a priest’s death. In the end, it would be useless.

The United States Ambassador said nothing. Islam was being appeased. It would remove the pressure of Islam from the United States. It was a win-win situation for him.

The Ambassador from Arāk smiled broadly because of the Italian cooperation. On another television, a reporter, on a break from the coverage of the trial, was describing a contest that had been allowed in Campo dei Fiori by the Italian government as an appeasement to the Arab states, something about prizes being given out to those who brought the largest logs into Campo dei Fiori. Regardless of size, these logs were all piled up around the statue of Giordano Bruno, whom Islam was pleased to use as a symbolic blasphemer of religion, someone who should be burnt yet again as an effigy of Father Alexámenos. The reporter kept repeating that it did not mean Father Alexámenos would burn. “It’s an exercise in anger management,” he said.

They looked at don Hash for a reaction. They knew he had been sent to protect Father Alexámenos. The American Ambassador asked, “What are you going to do, Father?”

“Watch the trial,” replied don Hash. The television was now showing a closeup of Cardinal Fidèle, who was clearly angry. Cardinal Elzevir turned up the volume. They listened intently.

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

Chapter 34 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