Jimmy Akin tells the tale of a theological organization founded by Evangelical Christians, and how despite their best attempts to frame a charter that would implicitly exclude Catholics, clumsily wrote it in a way that stated accurate Church teaching. As a result, Catholics and like-minded Protestants were able to join the organization. Eventually (this past November, to be specific), they elected a President of the organization so close to Catholic philosophy that he returned to the Church during the course of his tenure. (Dr. Francis Beckwith was raised Catholic and received the Sacraments of Initiation as a boy, but eventually became an Evangelical Protestant.)

Welcome back to the Church, professor! Your circuitous trip again reveals the truth that the Holy Spirit lives in our sister Churches, despite the sad reality that they are not endowed with the fullness of Grace.

It occurred to me that the question on its face could best be answered by Christ himself, who during the process of being murdered himself, forgave his murderers.

And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. But they, dividing his garments, cast lots. (Luke 23:34)

As with most such questions, I was led to the online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Since there is no specific article on "forgiveness", I poked around a bit. The closest I came in the Encyclopedia proper was the entry for Contrition, which really wasn't much help.

Finally, I found the following sermon by St. Augustine, that pretty well summarizes the concept.

Do you rejoice at the death of your enemy? Thou doest ill. But haply both to your friend the life you wish him is not for his good, and to your enemy the death you rejoice at has been for his good. It is uncertain whether this present life be profitable to any man or unprofitable: but the life which is with God without doubt is profitable. So love your enemies as to wish them to become your brethren; so love your enemies as that they may be called into your fellowship. For so loved He who, hanging on the cross, said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34 For he did not say, Father let them live long, me indeed they kill, but let them live. He was casting out from them the death which is for ever and ever, by His most merciful prayer, and by His most surpassing might. Many of them believed, and the shedding of the blood of Christ was forgiven them. At first they shed it while they raged; now they drank it while they believed."In this we know that we are in Him, if in Him we be made perfect." Touching the very perfection of love of enemies, the Lord admonishing, says, "Be therefore perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48 He," therefore, "that says he abides in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked." 1 John 2:6 How, brethren? what does he advise us? "He that says he abides in Him," i.e., in Christ, "ought himself also so to walk even as He walked." Haply the advice is this, that we should walk on the sea? That be far from us! It is this then, that we walk in the way of righteousness. In what way? I have already mentioned it. He was fixed upon the cross, and yet was He walking in this very way: this way is the way of charity, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." If, therefore, you have learned to pray for your enemy, you walk in the way of the Lord.

As a cardinal, Ratzinger expressed his reserve at the prospect of Turkey's entry into the European Union. Nevertheless, a papal trip to Turkey is planned for November 28 to December 1. Undoubtedly this pope feels a degree of diffidence with contemporary Islam while at the same time he is deeply aware of the necessity of engaging this world in dialogue.

By now you must have heard that Benedict "insulted Islam". But you probably haven't heard anyone ask why he did, nevermind gotten an answer to that question. Here's one:

I repeat the question I posed yesterday: what did the Pope intend to achieve by saying what he said? Tucked away in Jon Meacham’s predictable isn’t-there-enough-religious-anger critique for Newsweek lies this passage:

[W]hy did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation” about the role of faith in the life of the world. “He knew exactly what he was doing,” says Weigel. “He is saying that irrational violence is displeasing to God. The question Benedict is putting on the table is: ‘Does a significant part of Islam have the capacity to be self-critical?’”

Precisely. And in choosing to do so in such blunt terms, he’s injected himself into the central cultural conflict of the age. For this week, at least, the papacy is relevant to non-Catholics (and many Catholics, too) in ways it hasn’t been in years. He’s risking life and limb, but it’s a brilliant political maneuver.

John Paul - Great though he was - was no longer prepared to arm the Church to defend herself. The former anti-Nazi Polish partisan had guided us to the end of the Cold War, and upon the triumph of Our Lady of Victory, had turned his - and our - reflections inward. The champion of peace through strength began preaching the gospel of the strength of inner peace.

Benedict is not burdened by 25 years of the papacy growing to envelop him. He saw the devastation of 9/11, the bloody conflicts perpetuating the War on Terror, and the hopeful message of freedom offered by the President in his second inaugural as a member of the curia and not as a pontiff. He has watched as Islamic radicals have blown up mosques and burned churches. He may be willing to risk martyrdom, but may not be fond of the idea of allowing Islamofascism to establish an empire through which it can oppress - and more importantly, defile - the entire Church. And in order for him to justify the offering to Caesar what belongs to him, he has to clearly establish the credentials of the enemy as enemy of the whole Church and the freedom-loving States entrusted with the defense of Her people.

I suspect this is just a beginning.

UPDATES: Kathy is all over the story. (scroll back for earlier posts)

Rod Dreher takes on the Left, and it's sometimes non-reaction, sometimes anti-Catholic response.

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza defends the Holy Father.

Unfortunately, those of us - especially we Catholics - who defended Gibson in the past will be hurt by association here, regardless of what we say. His tirade makes it appear that all the evil designs that he denied while making The Passion of the Christ were actually true. He brings scandal to the Church, and our cries that Catholics aren't really secret anti-Semites - despite some terrible things we've been associated with in the past - will fall on even more deafened ears.

We can only repeat that this is not the case, renounce Gibson's drunken antics, and beg the forgiveness of the Jewish people for any real or perceived insults of the past.

UPDATE: I'd almost missed a previous post, also about movies - but with more of a quoted snark and less of a personal rant. The last line she reads from libertas is some pretty good (and conservative!) art in its own right.

A monastery in the English countryside has fallen on hard times, and the monks decide to open a fish-and-chips restaurant.

A visitor comes across two monks working in the monastery kitchen in preparation for the restaurant's grand opening. The first monk fries the fish, the second one peels, slices, and fries the potatoes.

"What are you guys doing?" asks the visitor.

"Well," says the monk frying the fish, "I am the friar, and he is the chip monk."

"Holy Father in Heaven, please sanctify this purchase with the blessings of fruitful and inexpensive toner. Amen."