PAGE 7
PAGE 5
PAGE 4
PAGE 9
Parish of the Month from the Cape
50 from SA at closing of priests’ year
Mystery over why bishop was killed
How the gospels see Jesus
www.scross.co.za
June 23 to June 29, 2010 Reg No. 1920/002058/06
No 4681
R5,00 (incl VAT RSA)
SOUTHERN AFRICA’S NATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY SINCE 1920
Inside Mini-world cup for unity Catholic organisations have launched a football tournament in Pretoria featuring teams of migrants and South Africans as a way of helping to forestall the threat of renewed xenophobic violence.—Page 3
Aids funding alarm The Vatican’s nuncio to the United Nations has sounded alarm over cuts in international funding for the fight against HIV/Aids which affect several countries, including South Africa.—Page 4
Books reviewed We review books on the study of Jesus, African music and a novena for stressed Catholics.—Page 10
Jesus, the man In his monthly column, Mphuthumi Ntabeni reflects on the search for the historical Jesus.—Page 9
What do you think? In their Letters to the Editor this week, readers discuss Church land, constructive change, praying for abuse survivors, Divine Mercy, and family planning.—Page 8
This week’s editorial: A Church of penance
The dome of St Peter’s basilica at the Vatican is silhouetted as the sun sets in Rome.
PHOTO: PAUL HARING, CNS
‘God can’t be kept out of morality debate’ BY CHRIS CHATTERIS SJ
Vuvuzelas in ‘town of rest’ don’t faze bishop BY BRONWEN DACHS
T
HE sound of vuvuzelas made for a sleepless night for Rustenburg’s bishop as football fans watched and then celebrated World Cup games less than 2km from his residence. Bishop Kevin Dowling, who lives near the 44 000-seat Royal Bafokeng Stadium, said there was “an incredible sense of celebration” among local residents and visiting fans, who included US Vice-President Joe Biden, who attended the United States’ 1-1 draw with England. “It is amazing that sport is able to unite the nation like this, and I hope we can build on this spirit of unity when the tournament is over,” said Bishop Dowling. He laughed as he told of the sound of thousands of people blowing the plastic horns and depriving him of sleep. Vuvuzelas are said to be based on kudu horns and rooted in African history. In a statement released as the World Cup began, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of Durban urged South Africans to “welcome the world, encounter the world, learn from the world so that the world will know that we remain the Rainbow Nation, diverse and united”.—CNS
W
HETHER we—or politicians—like it or not, God is a part of the process of any national debate on morality. This was the consensus of the second Jesuit Institute/University of Johannesburg discussion held at Holy Trinity church at Braamfontein, Johannesburg. How one understands God’s role and the extent to which this role can be articulated in explicitly religious language remains, however, a point for ongoing discussion. Archbishop Buti Tlhagale of Johannesburg presented the Catholic case for religious engagement in the public sphere. He drew on principles of natural law common to all reasonable people and expressed the need for a clearly articulated ground for moral consensus. Rooted in natural law, Catholic social thought holds to a number of key themes that have direct bearing on public morality—the common good, respect for persons, subsidiarity and the option for the poor. None of them are specifically Catholic in content and can thus be used effectively in finding common ground. The archbishop was fiercely critical of the widespread corruption he saw in contemporary South African public life. It was challenges such as these that made a national debate on morality essential, he said. Political analyst Professor Steven Friedman holds a joint post between Rhodes and Johannesburg universities and is a regular preacher in a small Reform synagogue. He acknowledged that while it was necessary to bring a strongly religious presence into the moral debate, it was by no means easy. Within religions as much as between them debates can be acrimonious.
The panel: Professor Steven Friedman, Rev Frank Chikane and Archbishop Buti Tlhagale To illustrate his point, he told an amusing Talmudic tale of how, during a dispute, God tried to convince a group of rabbis that one of them was right—and got told off for his trouble. Despite this, Prof Friedman argued, religious persons need to take a clear stand on public issues. This was particularly true when faced by a tendency to see public life as a means to feathering one’s own nest. The sheer greed of politicians is disturbing, Prof Friedman said. One of the challenges facing religious communities today, he said, was reminding corrupt politicians that “enough is as good as a feast”. Having been tortured in the 1980s by a deacon within his own church, Rev Frank Chikane was all too aware of how internally divisive political issues can be within religions. Yet, he argued, we need a more publicly engaged church in this new era. Like the other speakers, Rev Chikane saw the need for a debate on national morality that moved beyond the narrow confines of parliamentarians’ private lives. The corruption of public office, he said, flew in the face of the “revolutionary morality” that was part of the culture that he and many other activists had imbibed during
the struggle. There was a need for a new struggle and a return to what he called a “conservative revolutionary morality” based on a contextual reading of the Christian Gospel. As it was during the first Jesuit Institute/University of Johannesburg forum, also on the morality conversation, debate after the speakers’ addresses was robust. A number of the audience raised the point that since 1994 many of the public figures who had led the moral struggle against apartheid had disappeared from the scene. The role of the Church had in some ways faded into the background. Other respondents felt that the nature of the public debate had changed so much that a new language was needed to continue the engagement. It was no longer enough for the Church and the religious community to simply “protest”. One problem that was raised by the floor was that of moral relativism. By talking about ethics in context was one simply saying that there was no such thing as right or wrong? None of the panel wanted to accept such a claim, even though they equally were unwilling to see simplistic one-line solutions to complex problems. For a number of participants, the questions that have been raised by this and the previous conversation on the “national moral debate” need to continue. Among the guest speakers there has been a strong common feeling that public morality cannot simply be expressed according to particular and institutional religious doctrines, but must reflect a broad basic consensus between and within religious traditions. In this respect, there is clearly a “space” for God in the public debate.