Featured Post

JPII and St. Nicholas

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

JPII, Papal Order of St. Sylvester, and Heraldry

Chivalry still exists in the Church. Over the years I have met knights and ladies from very diverse socioeconomic backgrounds: Knights and Ladies of Peter Clavier in Detroit and Columbus, Knights of Malta (philosopher Craig J.N. DePaulo), Knights of Columbus, and the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.

But I was unaware of the Papal Order of St. Sylvester, the likes of which JPII expanded to include ladies as well as knights in 1987. Pope St. Sylvester established the order during the rein of Constantine, following the persecution of Diocletian. Having endured both persecution and, for the first time, legal recognition of Christianity in Rome, Sylvester witnessed the blood of the martyrs' triumph over paganism in his day.

Members of the order wear the following:

"The cross of Saint Sylvester with white enamel, and the image of Saint Sylvester on a gold medallion surrounded by gold rays between the arms of the cross" (http://www.chivalricorders.org/vatican/papal.htm)

Pope St. Sylvester, ora pro nobis!

Another piece of evidence that chivalry is alive and well in Catholicism is the papal coat of arms. Below is the Vatican's write up on the arms of JPII (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/biography/documents/hf_jp-ii_bio_19781016):
The coat of arms of Pope John Paul II is intended as an act of homage to the central mystery of Christianity, the Redemption.

And so the main representation is a cross, whose form, however, does not correspond to the customary heraldic model. The reason for the unusual placement of the vertical section of the cross is readily apparent if one considers the second object inserted in the coat of arms the large and majestic capital M. This recalls the presence of Mary beneath the cross and her exceptional participation in the Redemption.

The great devotion of the Holy Father to the Virgin Mary is manifested in this manner, as it was also expressed in his motto as Cardinal Wojtyla: TOTUS TUUS (All yours). Nor can one forget that within the confines of the ecclesiastical province of Krakow, there is situated the celebrated Marian shrine of Czestochowa, where the Polish people for centuries fostered their filial devotion to the Mother of God.

Friday, December 27, 2013

JPII and "Good King Wenceslaus"

"Slavorum Apostoli" chronicles the missionary journey of Sts. Cyril and Methodius through the territory of the Slavs in Eastern Europe. Much like the brief mentioning of St. Nicholas in the same document, JPII gives a mere 'shout-out" to Wenceslaus, the Duke of Bohemia:


About 905-906 the Latin Rite took the place of the Slav Rite and Bohemia was assigned ecclesiastically to the Bishop of Regensburg and the metropolis of Salzburg. However, it is worthy of note that about the middle of the tenth century, at the time of Saint Wenceslaus, there was still a strong intermingling of the elements of both rites, and an advanced coexistence of both languages in the liturgy: Slavonic and Latin. Moreover, the Christianization of the people was not possible without using the native language. And only upon such a foundation could the development of the Christian terminology in Bohemia take place, and from here, subsequently, the development and consolidation of ecclesiastical terminology in Poland (#23).

As I said, much like St. Nicholas, JPII uses Wenceslaus as a unitive figure or landmark in the evangelization of the Slavic peoples. He represents an infiltration of the Gospel into the language, hierarchy, and customs of the Slavs, to such an extent that royalty even identifies with the language and message of Cyril and Methodius. Only a century after the Saints evangelized the region, Wenceslaus and others fully incorporated the life of Christ in the day to day, to the point of shedding their blood for Him.

In regard to Christmas, St. Wenceslaus is famous for the following line from "Good King Wenceslaus":

Good King Wenceslaus looked out on the feast of Stephen! (Dec 26th)

Merry Christmas!
С Рождеством

Thursday, December 19, 2013

JPII and St. Nicholas

 all pictures on this post via St. Nicholas Center

The only recorded "meeting" of St. Nicholas and JPII was in the Italian city of Bari, a coastal and mercantile hotspot far away from Nicholas' original place of Apostolic service, Myra, in present day Turkey. His relics were taken away from monks of Myra by Italian merchants (c.1087). Consequently, a basilica was constructed in Bari which housed the stolen relics from Myra (all pictures on this post via St. Nicholas Center: www.stnicholascenter.org). JPII visited the Basilica di San Nicola in February of 1984.

Because St. Nicholas is so loved by the Byzantine and Orthodox churches, JPII identifies his presence in Bari as an opportunity for Christian unity and common patrimony. The Byzantine rite claims Nicholas as her patron. Like the importance of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to Russia and the Russian church (who also claim Nicholas as a near patron, along with most of the Orthodox world), St. Nicholas plays a pivotal role in the unity between Eastern and Western Churches in the eyes of JPII. The slavic Pope notes of St. Nicholas' tomb:

Here is prolonged mysteriously a singular testimony of holiness, which has enlightened the hearts of millions of faithful of the East and the West. Here the memory of faith brings to life the presence, not extinguished by the death of a man who lived in the East between the third and fourth century, but found with magnificent expression of that special, unique kind of Christian genius that the Holy Spirit has given to the brothers of the East for the edification of the Church (Address of John Paul II at the Basilica di San Nicola, 26 Feb., 1984, Par #1)

 all pictures on this post via St. Nicholas Center
The Pope refers specifically to the relics of Nicholas himself, which, despite having been stolen from Myra, still exude a healing "manna" that pilgrims seek after for healing ( all pictures on this post via St. Nicholas Center: www.stnicholascenter.org). The healing qualities extend beyond physical ailments. They touch upon actual ruptures in the Church, as JPII goes on to quote Pope Urban II:

Just remember the Synod of Bishops Greek and Latin, in 1098, presided over by Pope Urban II here in this church, 'ante corpus Blessed Nicolai' in an effort to give expression to the intuition of harmony not only possible, but recognized in the nature of the Church. (Address of John Paul II at the Basilica di San Nicola, Par #2).

A true testament to the holiness of St. Nicholas lies in the fact that although his remains were taken from Myra to Bari, his relics continue to work miracles by the power of God's grace. His holiness is not erased because of the theft committed by Italian merchants. Rather he is remembered by JPII as charismatic, and a leader chosen by God:

All that honors the Church of Bari, and pays tribute to St. Nicholas, gentle man - according to the portrait of him that it was delivered by tradition - full of unfailing energy; magnificent image of Christ, the bishop who defended the true faith, he loved righteousness, has protected the poor and the widows (ibid).

 all pictures on this post via St. Nicholas Center
Of note also is his compassion for the impoverished, especially displayed in the story about his generosity toward the three daughters without dowries. That is why he is often displayed with three golden orbs (more commonly seen today as oranges placed in stockings). (all pictures on this post via St. Nicholas Center: www.stnicholascenter.org)

Why JPII does not specifically mention Christmas in his speech about St. Nicholas is hard to determine. The attention he draws to the Incarnation, in keeping with his theme of unity of Christians, suffices:

And the Church, for her part - I noticed in my first Encyclical - 'sees. . . its fundamental task in ensuring that this union is renewed continually. The Church wishes to serve this single end: that each person can find Christ, in order that Christ may walk with each person the path of life, with the power of the truth about man and the world, contained in the mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption' (ibid).

He doesn't limit the influence of St. Nicholas to just Christmas, but extends it to the Redemption as well. By providing the gold needed for the daughters' dowries, Nicholas pointed to the payment of the Redemption wrought by Christ's blood. Likewise, by standing up against Arius at the council of Nicea, Nicholas firmly defended the Incarnation of the Word of God as well. JPII celebrated Mass in the Basilica di San Nicola, and brought all of these elements together in the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father. St. Nicholas was there in his relics and in spirit.
St. Nicholas of Myra is mentioned in Dante's Divine Commedy in Purgatorio XX "...Nicholas unto the maidens gave,/In order to conduct their youth to honour"

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

JPII vs. Ideology

I intend to devote a post entirely to JPII and Leo XIII, but a general rebuke of ideology in the name of Catholic Christianity is in order via the works of these men, as well as Maciej Zieba's commentary on "Centesimus Annus". The basic premise of my argument is that ideology distorts reality by using persons as means and not recognizing them as ends. This can occur in socialism, capitalism, and nearly every other system, including an ecclesial system, whereby that which is not personal reality, namely ideas and materials, replaces personal reality.

When I use the phrase "personal reality", I am referring to the Catholic Christian understanding that persons are ends in themselves, that is, the only creature, man, whom God created for its own sake (CCC #356). Persons are not ideas or materials for utilization. They can freely cooperate in a given system, as in free market capitalism, and freely respond in faith to God, but they are not systems in themselves to be coerced into action or strictly used for production. Despite the speculative accuracy of Meyers Briggs testing, a person is not a machine to be relied on for utilization in a given specialization. In theory, persons are free and largely unpredictable.

That said, systems are necessary for upholding the common good of persons: economically, socially, and so on. Were there not an agreed upon economic approach for upholding the common good of man, entropy would reign. Capitalism, for example, is the most successful system of economic exchange available to man to date, because all of the others distort the freedom of persons and personal reality. Nevertheless, Capitalism does have its shortcomings, and as an ideology, can prove to severly distort the worldview of its adherents. Likewise, as with any other system--including ecclesial--when taken as ideology can severely distort the worldview of its adherents.

In "Centesimus Annus", JPII argues that Catholic Christianity is not an ideology. In his work "Letter from Poland:Faith is not Ideology", Maciej Zieba O.P. makes constant reference to "Centesimus Annus" and outlines this list of Ideology's red-flags:
(1) it contains a conception of truth and goodness
(2) its followers believe that they are free to impose their conception upon others
(3) it expresses the whole of reality in a simple and rigid scheme.

He then follows the list with a concise rebuttal:

The Pope maintains that Christian truth does not fulfill the second and third conditions, and so Catholicism is not an ideology.(http://www.crisismagazine.com/1994/letter-from-poland)

I would simply add to his rebuttal, that ideologies do not recognize the person as a subject; merely as an object. With this in mind, ideology can therefore operate in opposition to personal freedom in the name of well-intentioned ideas.

Capitalism is a perfect example of this abuse, especially when it operates without reference to morality. The buying and selling of marijuana in some States in America, along with pornography and the business of "gentleman's clubs", constitutes a grave abuse of capitalistic ideology. In these cases, buyers are drawn into behavoirs that inhibit their freedom as persons and sellers are either using themselves, or their "people", as materials for use.

Yet, such ideology is excused as 'freedom' because it employs the willingess of its buyers and sellers to invest in it. On the contrary, the abuse of 'freedom', namely, the guaranteed loss of right reason with marijuana and the use of persons in the adult business, outweighs the ideological excuse. I want to make clear that personal freedom depends upon objective truth and goodness. In other words, the fact that a person is free does not enable him to do whatever he want to enslave himself. Or, in the case of an embryo or fetus, no action by another free person in the name of 'freedom' against the person as embryo/fetus is justifiable (Please see www.personhood.net for more info).

Another example of an impersonal ideology is socialism. Thanks to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter "Quod Apostolici Muneris", we have the following identification of socialists:
1) opposed to private property
2) against marriage between one man and one woman
3) advocate unconditional equality

As familiar as #'s 2 and 3 sound to the state of our world at present, #1 is really the most controversial in regard to Biblical Christianity. Indeed, many Christians themselves will site Acts Chapter 2 as justification for socialism/communism. But the sharing of common materials among persons in covenant, as the early Church did, is not the same as opposition to private property. Nor would one argue that a husband and wife and their family are communists because they share living space and other materials. Marriage between husband and wife is a reality that socialists are staunchly against! Why? Because the marriage covenant, as with religious congregations, interferes with the ideology that no one should have private property or take a subordinate position to another (as in the case with parents and children, etc.).

Conscious subordination of persons for the good of the whole of a family or congregation is opposed to entropy and in accord with right reason. It is not ideology to make decisions for the common good of persons. As I said before, some systems are necessary to insure people's well-being.

The crux of this matter, namely, between the common good of people and individual's personal well-being is where the Church has the most trouble with ideology. Orthodoxy is objectively good, so long as it is not used by Church members deliberately against the good-will of individual persons. What I mean by that is far more delicate a subject than with capitalism, because the economy of salvation is all the more valuable. Nevertheless, prosetylization or coercion of any sort at the expense of persons is unjust and ideological. Historical examples I can think of are the Spanish Inquisition, and forced baptisms of non-Christians. These are actions divorced from the recognition of persons, and stand in stark contrast to the familial subordination of persons I mentioned earlier. While the forced baptism of a non-Christian is an objectively and ideologically good idea, it does not respect the underlying covenant of persons involved: including the Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Infant baptism does not fall under this category because a baptized infant will later have the chance to accept or reject the faith at Confirmation (although the decision is not limited to this Sacrament by time and place).

The Anabaptists, those against infant baptism, take the ideological stance that infants are incapable of receiving salvation at baptism. Therefore, they replace the Sacrament of Confirmation with Baptism later in life, as though baptism did not bring about an ontological change in the person, but was merely based on decision. The Amish in particular, will require their candidates for baptism to spend time away from their tight-knit community in order that they may make an informed decision to join or not to join the group by baptism. Rather than being an offense against the subjectivity of the person in this case, the Anabaptists place too much emphasis on the individual person and not enough on the objective and ontological truths of salvation that accompany baptism. Again, with Catholicism we have a both/and situation against ideology, whereas Anabaptists maintain an either/or approach. (Please see my previous post on Objective and Subjective Solipsism for more information).

Overall, I have laid out an argument that can utlimately be summed up in the differentiation between ideas and persons. The Catholic Church is not a mere framework of ideas, but the living body of her Head, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus. Unfortunately, many people experience faith as ideology. In reality, the encounter with the Person of Jesus should define a Catholic Christian, and the following of the Lord's commandments should necessarily follow his Person.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

JPII and/vs Feminism

In 1949, Simone De Beauvoir wrote The Second Sex as an early argument for pre and post-war feminism, largely influenced by existentialism. It pre-dates Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique (1963) by about 14 years, and was published in French. The two works together form the catalyst for the worst of feminism today. As for the best of feminism, I specifically have in mind Wojtyla's understanding of female saints of his day, as contemporaries of De Beauvoir, emobodying "feminine genius" and not "feminine mystique"!

Some background on Simone De Beauvoir (special thanks to TMIY, http://www.slideshare.net/PDEI/light-to-the-nations-week-10?from_search=4):
1) Born and raised in Paris, France
2) After WWI, her family underwent financial crisis and she attended a local convent for her education
3) She became an atheist at age 15
4) At about age 20, she began a lifelong friendship with Jean-Paul Sartre and claimed him, Hegel, and Leibniz as her main philosophical influences

A key concept to Sartre's philosophy included: woman "being-in-itself", and man "being-for-itself". In other words, men were geared for 'freedom', and women were merely geared for 'commitment'. De Beauvoir's Second Sex aimed at destroying women's dependence on 'commitment' by divorcing women's maternal dimension from their social/'professional' lives. She is said to have taken these practical steps to bring such a change about:
1) Insistence that girls be raised without dolls, houses, and traditionally 'feminine' things
2) Discouragement of women to stay home and raise children
3) Encouragement of young women to strive for professional success at all costs
4) Wrote and signed French women's "Manifesto of the 343", numbering in the millions of women, who had had an abortion for the sake of advancing career and demanded free birth control

Compared with the Magna-Carta-like scale of Second Sex, Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique was a simple amendment for the cause of feminism. But it's timing was much more effective, as the second generation of women since the War were more susceptible to revolution in the 1960s, especially in regard to sex. Worldwide, women's mindsets altered drastically from interdependent to independent, thanks to the work of De Beauvoir and Friedan. Colleges and Universities began offering "Women's Studies" programs with more depth added to radical feminism by diversity of class and race. Within two decades, the 'normal' understanding of women's roles and biology had morphed entirely into an obscure indecipherability from that of men. Androgyny had become the socially constructed norm, as the outdated heteronormative view was only permitted for select Arab, Indian, and Israeli peoples.

What began as Sartre's differentiations between men and women (freedom and commitment), ended with just freedom/'being-for-itself'. This is the state of things today in most countries, namely, a lack of identity in the most fundamental sense of male and femaleness. Such is the case with the global push for same sex marriages, a kind of 180 degree turn from less than a century prior. {I do not want to be misunderstood here to mean that same sex attraction is a result of 20th century philosophy. That would be folly. What I mean is that from a modern philosophical and legal standpoint, there is little reason left to uphold the view of marriage between one man and one woman)

What were some of the outide socioeconomic pressures in Europe during the world wars? In other words, what may have been contributing factors to such outlandish philosophies of the last century?
Death Toll
A) European casualties in WWI= 15,893,629 enrolled men(http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html) Note: does not include Great Britain or Russia. France's total casualties (alone) of enrolled men=6,160,800
B) European casualties in WWII= 5,217,700 enrolled men (http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/) Note: ibid^
Civil Service/Employment
C) Many women were forced to enter the workforce by governments during wars
D) On account of so many male deaths, women needed to support themselves
E) Higher education determined higher salary, etc.

I am not so naive as to think that the 20th century was not traumatic for women on both a macro and a microscopic level. And that even some of those who held to the age-old understanding of the human person grew desparate and disillusioned by war, hatred, and the overall problem of evil. My post is not intended to condemn feminism or its founders, misguided though they may have been. I very much hope that the guinea pigs of the movement (men and women both) have run their course and will teach future generations what not to do. But again, I am not so naive, and I estimate that at least another generation is gearing up to implement the philosophies of its founders.

Proof of my estimation is largely found in legislation. De Beauvoir's "Manifesto of 343" has been internationally legal in various forms for nearly half a century (Roe v Wade, etc.). Likewise, same sex marriage was just legalized in France this past year (2013). Unfortunately, legislation tends to outlive generations.

But where documents like that of Friedan and De Beauvoir thrive, so do that of great minds like Von Hildebrand, Wojtyla, Lewis, and others! I want to draw attention, particularly, to John Paul II's "Mulieris Dignitatem" as the medicene for the wounds inflicted by De Beauvoir. Otherwise, De Beauvoir's work communicates that womanhood in itself is undignified, which is fallacious. The woman as a human person, in reality, is central to the history of salvation and cannot, therefore, be replaced by androgyny. Nor can she be replaced by women trying to embody the worst vices of men, like Sartre, whom JPII seems to be directly addressing in his letter:

In the name of liberation from male 'domination', women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine 'originality'. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not 'reach fulfilment', but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. ("Mulieris Dignitatem", #10)

The limitation placed on man and woman by Sartre and De Beauvoir's philosophy finds a direct contrast in the thought of Wojtyla. Where the former limit man to 'freedom', Wojtyla calls man to 'responsibility'. Likewise, where they limit woman to 'commitment', Wojtyla affirms woman as 'gift'. These are not mutually exclusive terms either, since Wojtyla perfects the original terms with their logical conclusions.

In "Mulieris Dignitatem", John Paul II also presents the unsaid conclusion to De Beauvoir's feminist program, namely, 'dominance'. Since De Beauvoir understood man's freedom to be 'dominating' of women, she wanted to empower women to do the same. Ironically, neither sex benefits from dominance, but rather, 'service' remains the key to reigning with dignity ('to serve is to reign'). In the end, 'dominance' only robs women of their fundamental right to reign in a specific sphere of humanity: maternity.

Thus, we have the basic principles from JPII in place for refuting De Beauvoir and Friedan's feminism, but how are they practically lived in today's world? A world where men's and women's occupations and professions are nearly interchangeable, where family's are redefined, and where confusion remains as to what the authentic expression of sexual identity is.

Again, JPII offers a simple, but forgotten, answer. For women, the self-giving service of maternity is not optional. Whether married or celibate, a woman can and must realize her maternal vocation and identity. Divorcing her body from her career, refusing to serve in her home, rejecting the Intelligent Design of her person by the Creator are all decisions for 'dominance' and not for 'gift'.

Visibly and daily, marriage between a man and a woman presents an obvious portrait of such service. Children are an excellent reminder of women's cooperation in the history of salvation, as a type of memorial of the Incarnation to which Mary addressed her 'fiat'. Indeed, without Mary's cooperation, the Incarnation would have been thwarted.

To expand on how unmarried or purposely celibate women live authentically, again, maternity is non-negotiable, although its expression is different from marriage. The authentic expression can be applied to the workplace for women in the secular world (though persecuted), as much as it can be applied to a convent or abbey. For a hypothetical example, the widowed queen of France can either choose to 'dominate' or 'serve' the common good by approving or disapproving of unethical legislation, and behaving in a way that befits her office as a high-profile woman who influences others.

Likewise for a nun, the opportunity for 'dominance' is just as accessible as 'service'. In my opinion, we have seen a majority of the LCWR display the incorrect expression of their femininity since the sexual revolution. The alternative are nuns who exercise their maternal authority in obedience, respect, and conformity to the example of the Theotokos.

The final question I want to ask is, would JPII have come to the conclusions he did without the bad examples of De Beauvoir, Sartre and others? In other words, is "Mulieris Dignitatem" just a conservative reaction to the feminist movement gone out of control? I would argue that that is not the case. Instead, I believe that Wojtyla's understanding of the human person is inspired by God first, and is seen to have always been lived out in the Church. As much as De Beauvoir was a contemporary of Wojtyla, so was Mother Theresa of Calcutta, St. Faustina, and St. Mrs. Gianna Beretta Molla.

The Church has always and will always hold the keys to authentic masculintity and feminity, because she(the Church) was founded by the One God in three Persons who said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness...male and female".

Monday, December 2, 2013

JPII and Cardinal Avery Dulles

The first time I encountered Avery Cardinal Dulles was at a Borromean lecture in Columbus, Ohio. There, I was operating lights for the stage on which he was delivering his address regarding the Church's response to terrorism. I only remember two things:
1) I fell asleep on the control panel for the lights, causing them to flash wildly during his presentation
2) When I woke up and fixed the problem, it was time for questions to be asked of the Cardinal. Someone asked him if the Boston Tea Party was the first act of terrorism, and if so, why should America be fighting against it! He replied with, "My lecture topic was the Church's response to terrorism, not 'America's' response".

After the fact, my impression of Cardinal Dulles was of straightforward brilliance. He is arguably ranked with the most Christ-centered Jesuits of the past century (though I wasn't interested in that qualification at the time of hearing him): Fr. Pacwa, Pope Francis, Fr Robert Spitzer, etc. But what sets him apart from even these priests was his pastoral wisdom for ecclesial matters, his simple articulation of defending the magisterium and pope, and lastly, his attention to details of Christian truth.

He was elevated to Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2001. This after having served in the Navy during WWII and earning the Croix de Guerre medal as a lieutenant. Following the war, he joined the society of Jesus in 1946 (mirroring Karol Wojtyla's same year of ordination). Indeed the two men paralelled each other in a few ways, most notably their 'man of war'-like approach to defending Christ's Church and especially Vatican Council II.

A few more obscure facts about Dulles:
1) First American to be named a Cardinal based on theological works
2) suffered from polio since WWII

Again, like Wojtyla's later years, Avery Dulles knew the suffering of a debilitating disease. During WWII he contracted polio, and had boughts with the illness for the rest of his days. He did outlive Wojtyla by five years (Dulles: 1918-2008, Wojtyla: 1920-2005).

The two men helped to define for very different generations, what it meant to participate wholeheartedly in the life of the Church. I am referring specifically to the pre-conciliar generation and the post-conciliar generation. To each respective generation, both Dulles and Wojtyla defied the "laws" of liberal/conservative ideology. Instead, they insisted on the presence and Person of Jesus as essential to any approach to theological thinking. Unfortunately for me at the age of 17 (January of 2003), the presence and Person of Jesus in Cardinal Dulles' lecture only had a hypnotic effect. But looking back today, I can see more clearly.

Overall, it would be hard to argue with the witness of heroic virtue of Avery Cardinal Dulles. Here are some more examples in regard to his strong faith (see also JPII and Jesuit Reform from an earlier post):
1) He was the son of a Presbyterian pastor, and converted to Catholicism as an adult (1939) with his family's disapproval
2) He joined an order that was informally opposed to his own formal and informal conclusions about the Church.

I would even venture to say that Dulles outdid Wojtyla on a number of levels:
1) longer life with illness
2) more ideological enemies
3) lived through and served in WWII

Nevertheless, Cardinal Dulles did not almost single-handedly bring down the iron-curtain! Close, but not quite.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, ora pro nobis!

Short List of his works available in pdf online (please add to it if necessary)
1) "Filioque": What is at stake?
2) "Models of Catechesis"
3) America Magazine
4) Firstthings: Particularly, Dulles' teaching on Covenant http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel