Facebook

It is well known amongst educationalists that if you are struggling to get a shy child to communicate what they have learnt, it is often successful to give the child a puppet or a bear and let the child express the ideas it has through the puppet or the bear.  The child invests some effort into constructing the personality of the toy (over which it has total ownership) and is therefore quite happy to let the toy voice opinions.  It depersonalises the right and wrong of what may or may not be being said.  If it get things wrong, it is the bear that has got things wrong and not the child.

I have been wondering if Facebook works along similar lines.  However, before I go any further I will have to admit to being a Facebook virgin, I only know about it in theory and from what people tell me and from the damage it does to the relationships the teenagers I teach have with each other. What I find fascinating is that people do adopt Facebook personas.  You read what they write (I've seen screen dumps of argument threads) and you can hear their voices, but yet it isn't them.  They are in some ways bolder, in other ways more trivial and careless than the individuals you know in real life.  It is something to hide behind, it is a stage onto which you can project a certain representation of who you'd like to be at that precise moment.  And critically, for Facebook you NEED an immediate audience, these are your "friends".  I think it would be very rare to find someone who was self-assured enough to be themselves on Facebook, warts and all.

So it involves the projection of a certain image, it means that when a "conversation" happens on Facebook it is not a conversation reaching cor ad cor.  It is "my projection of myself reaching out and wanting your projection of yourself to make some sort of response to this".  The danger really is, that people believe their Facebook persona to be them.  It is, it has to be, a shallow, vague approximation of the person with all the difficult and deep bits removed.  As a forum for people getting to know each other, ie. become real friends, it sucks. It will always have the fallback position of becoming Punch and Judy or Sooty and Sweep.

Harry Corbett and friends.

As least with blogging, a blogger is writing the thoughts wafting through her skull, it is a diary of sorts but in the public domain, and as such it does not demand responses.  A blog isn't crying out for attention and "likes", it just sits there, the static creation of a flawed creator who for some unfathomable reason doesn't mind their thoughts potentially going global. Though I am left wondering if bloggers are therefore wierder, and even less emotionally stable than regular Facebook* users.

*There are other Social Networking outlets.

Bolshevism

I'm way out of my depth here.  But in doing the Mgr Ratti memorial train ride from Manchester to Oxford yesterday (and making sure I didn't twist my ankle), I was struck by a quote of his made during his pontificate:

No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist...the parent of this cultural Socialism [the insinuating and indeed plausible forms of Socialism] is Liberalism, and that its offspring will be Bolshevism.

I'm just wondering how much truth there is in this.  Indeed if it is true, then we are living under Bolshevism, we are certainly post-Socialist.  If we define Bolshevism as a "dictatorship of the proletariat", then I do believe we are living in under Bolshevism and the slide away from a Common Good is gaining momentum.

1. We are a majority proletariat; we either definitely own no property or we "own" a whacking great mortgage as a pretence to home ownership. Few of us have any ownership over the means of production.  And so many of us work for the State which claims to be running our health service and education system and social structures for our benefit. The old divisions between wage and salary are eroding in light of the bonus culture and performance related pay for what were typically salaried "professions" like teaching and medicine. 
2. Professionalism has been eroded.  Everything is done to government set criteria.  The government knows best how to treat illness, what to teach our children, how to stop the spread of bovine TB......you name it, they know best, because they are working for us.
3. Governments are repeatedly fond of appealing to the "majority" opinion of the proletariat.  They are not driven by any other ideology than to remain in power by pretending to give the people what they want.  "Public opinion" (basically who shouts loudest in the media) is deemed a worthy argument winner.
4. Meanwhile the proletariat, if they are employed, find increasing job insecurity, and work is often incessantly hard and time consuming and increasingly meaningless.
5. There is no moral code, no ethics, no appeal to tradition or history, no sense of our Christian heritage and if you are not a moral relativist, you are intolerant and a bigot.
6. Our society is anti-learning for learning's sake, anti any view that we have a higher calling to holiness, anti-God, anti-beauty, anti-paternal, anti-maternal, anti-rest and relaxation.  Our society is shallow and emotive, and obsessed with image, immediate gratification and material gain.
7. There is an overall poverty of experience in society, indeed small scale social order which should be the bedrock of any civilisation via the family and small local communities working within their natural environment is seriously emasculated.
8. Vast amounts of data are stored about us over which we have no control.  Increasingly our civil liberties are being eroded in the name of combating terrorism and fighting for our liberty.
9. Technology is deskilling us and indeed few of us would survive if the infrastructures built up  by the state vanished overnight.
10. The state would be happiest if we never thought for ourselves, if our views never came down to strict moral absolutes, if we believed in their notions of democracy, freedom and fairness.  The state has constructed the new proletariat and a new amoral proletarian cultural hegemony is in full swing.

Bolshevism by defintion makes no appeal to a Higher Authority; the teaching of the Gospel, the Sovereignty of Christ, no appeal to the sanctity of our lives.  Yes, I do believe modern society is decidedly Bolshevik with attendant Liberal grandparent. No leader, alive or recently dead has got to the heart of the rot around us which is surely Liberalism.

Bethany

Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity.
Like the precious ointment on the head, that ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron, Which ran down to the skirt of his garment:
As the dew of Hermon, which descendeth upon mount Sion. For there the Lord hath commandeth blessing, and life for evermore.

Psalm 132

According to the Eighth Century commentator, Alcuin as quoted by St Thomas in the Catena Aurea, Bethany means House of Obedience. True obedience to the Lord, comes through love and knowledge of the Lord (which turns us completely away from sin and to a state of grace) and that night in the house in Bethany, three people so clearly demonstrated that deep knowledge and love of Our Lord. Lazarus dined with Him, Martha waited upon them and Mary anointed Him.  We can quite clearly understand the timeless meaning of Lazarus and Martha; the Communion of Lazarus and Service of Martha make sense, but the anointing of the Lord by Mary, what does that mean, what does it mean to us?

The anointing of the Lord was a necessary one off act *, to seal the fact that He was the Christ before he underwent His Passion.  Was there a priest worthy to anoint the Christ? No.  Could one of the disciples have done it?  Did they really understand at that moment who He was?  I don't think so,  Matthew's Gospel makes it clear that the disciples (not just Judas) were indignant at Mary's action. His Blessed Mother knew who he IS but she couldn't have done it, as His Mother she had to constantly let go of Him (this is Her Sorrow), she could not not claim Him. We must claim Him. The anointing is a claiming, a claiming of His sovereignty over us, a claiming of His kingship and His priesthood, and His sacrifice.  The Mother of God could not do this.  Mary sister of Martha, did it as an act of obedience.  She knew and loved the Lord and she knew He was the Christ, and as the Christ He needed anointing. And by claiming Him, perhaps she has the right to be the first person to see Him after His Resurrection.

The anointing of the Lord gives the great High Priest to His people.  They are unified.  As Psalm 132 makes clear, the anointing with precious ointment is good and pleasant and an act of unity.  The superfluity of oil, both running down Aaron's beard and clothing and on Mary's hair show the abundance of grace poured out on us through our unity to the great High Priest.  The fragrance will penetrate where it will.  The oil is the path of the Holy Spirit.

So is Mary a priest? No.  As I said, no priest could anoint the great High Priest.  Mary is all of us who believe and who will give abundantly and lavishly to the Lord, through our conversation with God, through our love shown in prayer.

For the laity, the communion of Lazarus and the service of Martha are not enough without the active, lavish and easily incomprehensible (to those who don't yet know Christ) worshipful prayer of their sister.  The three act as a dynamic.  The adult family at Bethany, the three siblings, show us a unity of action that must be in all of us if we are to build up the Body of Christ and be obedient to His commands.

For the priesthood, the descendants of the House of Aaron, Bethany ought to be a timely reminder that nothing the laity do will be sanctified unless they can represent the eternal Sacrifice as an alter Christus, hear our confessions, and feed and nourish our obedience through love and wise teaching. It was Jesus who sanctified all three siblings (an admonishing and a making of a confession of faith for Martha, a life after death for Lazarus and a forgiveness and healing for Mary) to make that evening possible. These days, Christ acts through the priesthood to do the same for us.

* I know this was the second time that he was anointed by the same woman, however, the first time, it was the lavish act of love that saved her, and now completely free from her sin, this second anointing to bring us the Christ, could take place.  Well, that is how I see it anyway.  Feel free to contradict....

Our Lady Undoer of Knots

At the bottom of the laundry basket in the sacristy was a grubby, neglected cincture. I asked Father if he wanted me to wash it and give it some TLC, he enthusiastically gave me permission.  On getting it home I tried to untangle it only to find I was making the knotting worse.  There seemed to be much more complicating the tangling than the Roman Knot that the priest himself would have tied.  There is only one thing to do at times like this; pray to Our Lady Undoer of Knots.  Without a moment of hesitation, the cincture untied itself and placidly fell into my hands as a single rope.  I have many a tale of strengthening a priestly cuff or hem with bias and finding the thread I was using getting truly matted and argumentative.  Our Lady Undoer of Knots always comes to the rescue.

I am thrilled that the Holy Father is so fond of this devotion.  It is powerful because it is simple and also so profound.  It is more than just knotty threads and ropes that Our Lady sorts out.  It is a devotion to Our Lady; Bulwark Against Heresies.  It is a devotion of the love between Christ and His Church, in giving Her to us.  It is a devotion of true love between a man and a woman, united in Christ.  It is a devotion to Our Lady who undoes all the slithery, knotting and confusion wrought by the Serpent.  You can read the tale of this particular devotion here.  The image even alludes to the story of young Tobias and Sarah; what more could you want!

Of course there are times for proper knots; a properly tied cincture, the marriage knot, the tieing of the newly ordained priest's hands in the older rite and perhaps most importantly of all, the knot Our Lady ties in her removed mantle as she gives some dignity and modesty to Our Lord on the cross.

Pray to Our Lady Undoer of Knots for our priests this Palm Sunday, some seem a little weary, hassled and even grumpy. May the knots in their hearts be undone to that they can walk the path of Holy Week in all humility and obedience and be drawn with total submission into the Passion of God's Love.

Pray to Our Lady Undoer of Knots for ourselves, as we recollect our helplessness and befuddled, bewildered selves, so that we realise that by ourselves we cannot make sense of anything.  It is the Grace of God so often wrought through the intercession of Our Blessed Mother that undoes the knots in our thinking and loving, smooths out the creases and makes things new again.

Charity

There follows a meditation on the collect of today's Vespers and the whole notion of charity as expressed in good works.

Da, quaesumus, Domine, populo tuo salutem mentis et corporis: ut bonis operibus inhaerendo, tua semper mereatur protectione defendi. Per Dominum nostrum.

We beseech Thee, O Lord, grant Thy people health of soul and body, that being devoted to good works they may deserve to be defended by Thy might.  Through our Lord.

I do take slight issue with the translation of "mentis" as soul, it can be translated as that, but I think "reason" and "intellect" do actually fit better here.

The collect asks that our health (physical and mental) be sustained by God and that as a people, our cleaving to good works will ever keep us defended by His power.

So here is a collect asking us to do good works.  Here is a collect that doesn't ask for any other expression of charity in prayer or love of God, but of good works.  Are good works enough? No, that isn't for a moment suggested.  Humility is needed first, the humility to realise that really only meritorious acts can bring us close to deserving Divine protection, if indeed we can ever really earn that. 

I also think that whilst most of us are sickly individuals, in mind and body, the granting of health is to the Body of Christ as a whole and not to us as individuals.

Our cleaving to good works is as old as as the faith of the Jewish people.  We have been covering Deuteronomy at the Lenten Bible study at my local parish.  One thing shouts out from the pages of this book of scripture; that charity towards the stranger, widow and orphan trumps any other command that has been placed upon the Jewish people.  Nothing should get in the way of this, especially not  rigid interpretation of the Law.  How else could the Moabite widow Ruth have gleaned outside Bethlehem when Deuteronomy makes it quite clear the Moabites are deserving of no pity?

So cleaving to good works, with our heart, our will and our intellect is a worthy way to merit the continual protection of the Church.  Indeed, we can't love God (His primary commandment to us) without our love of neighbour. Nor can we be presumptuous about that protection.  Yes, the gates of Hell with not prevail over us, but the strength of the Church and the degree of protection must involve some willing cooperation from us in God's designs.  And one of those masterpieces of design is charity towards our neighbour.

So how do we go about these good works?  Personally, I'm a "cloister" type.  I like the left hand to be unaware what the right hand is doing.  I like everything to be secret or atleast hidden from view.  I don't want people to know exactly what I get up to in the name of charity.  My confessor will know those aspects where penance is involved, nobody, not even me, knows the method or outcomes of my other acts of charity.

I find the very public demonstrations of charity as expressed in particular by that most ostentatious of orders, the Fransiscians, scary.  It doesn't mean that they or their founder are wrong.  People need to see charity in action, but it doesn't suit everyone to behave like that.  For it to be effective, the motivation must be total purity of heart, and the actions must never be premeditated.  Such charity is spontaneous, like Peter healing the cripple at the Gate Beautiful.  I'm not holy enough for that.  I still need to think about what I'm doing and make sure my intentions are pure and selfless.  But the Church needs both the visible charity and invisible charity.

It is just so important that God is given primacy of place in our hearts and our intentions otherwise our charitable gestures are little more than a Comic Relief head shave; the "church of me" doing something that makes "me" feel good because "you and me" both think it is brave and meritorious.
Does God find that defendable?  I doubt it.

St Francis, pray that I can learn to love you for those aspects of Christ you so passionately demonstrate.

Err, have we forgotten....?

Dear brothers and sisters, have we forgotten that actually it is supposed to be Lent.  I'm just a little pigged off by those who want the Vatileaks dossier to be given to the Cardinals.  Err, I hate to say it but doesn't Holy Father Emeritus handing this completely over to his successor tell us something?

Yes, peeps, IT IS LENT; mortify thoses senses, mortify your curiosity, it is time to focus on Christ, in whom there is no intrigue or division.

Exurgat Deus

I've retreated into the Psalms.  Perhaps retreat is the wrong word, when I'm immersed in the Psalms it is like being in the most glorious churches in the world, illuminated by the most splendid of lights.  I feel no need to travel, I do not desire to be anywhere else. There is a deep connection to the Universal Church within the Psalms and our role within the Church is set out so clearly.  We are the repentant sinner, constantly reminding self to rely totally on God and striving for purity so that we can offer up a worthy and eternal sacrifice of praise.

The Psalm that is currently accompanying me is the rather mysterious Psalm 67 Let God Arise, and let his enemies be scattered (Vulgate numbering), I've been saying it with increasing joy and calm since the start of the year, it just gets more and more appropriate, more and more beautiful and more and more powerful.  It is a Psalm about the glories of the Church and the power therein that comes direct from God.

God in his holy place: God who maketh men of one manner to dwell in a house: Who bringeth out them that were bound in strength: in the like manner them that provoke, that dwell in sepulchres.

It is God that brings about unity in the Church because God is One.  We mustn't forget that.  Any division amongst members of the Church is NOT the work of God.  Should we not be looking for Christ amongst the most disgraced of Cardinals, the slackest of Catholic journalists, and even amongst the clandestine homosexual subculture within the Church.  God will bring them all out into the open, and unless they are Satan himself in disguise, Christ does live within them, albeit as a flickering light.  It is up to us (unworthy fellow sinners) to make sure that light doesn't go out completely.  This links nicely to Psalm 49 which talks of the sinners within the Church (you and me, folks) and what they have done, to which God replies:

These things thou has done, and I was silent.  Thou thoughtest unjustly that I should be like thee; but I will reprove thee, and set before thy face.  Understand these things, you that forget God; lest He snatch you away and there be none to deliver you.  The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me: and there is the way I will shew him the salvation of God.

So, shouldn't we be striving to offer up the most worthy sacrifice of praise, isn't that the only way to glorify God and live as the Bride of Christ, and hate sin?  We can make that sacrifice of praise in all humility, fully realising our own unworthyness and weakness, but we can't make it whilst we are seeking to blame, ridicule, intimidate, demonise or persecute our brothers within the Body of Christ.

Of breasts and bosoms...

Ever since the Fall, we have been objectifying ourselves; noticing our bodies and turning them into objects rather than something more whole, more spiritual and God-given.  Young children are quick to point out the sexual differences they see around them and I have wondered if Adam and Eve had got round to procreating in Eden before the serpent showed up, whether their children would have done this "willies and boobies" nonsense. It is, of course, innocently done but it is surely a mark of our Original Sin as our first parents were unaware of their nakedness before they fell.

The cult of St Agatha is a good example of this objectification.  Her excessive torture at one stage involved the removal of her breasts and countless art works throughout the ages have depicted her proudly showing off her severed organs like cakes she has just baked.

We continue to objectify poor St Agatha, forever thinking of her breasts, as we objectify ourselves through our wounded sexuality and wounded sense of self.  However, there is no harm in this.  She is a martyr and as a member of the Church Triumphant she can rightly show off her sufferings for Christ. 

I do think, however, it is important to remember the rest of her story.  St Peter came to her in a vision and restored her breasts to her.  She did not die from this particular gross injury.

This fact is told us in several of today's antiphons and I find the language rather profound.

Benedico te, Pater Domini mei Iesu Christi, quie per Apostolum tuum mamillam meam meo pectori restiituisti.

I bless Thee, O Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, because by Thy Apostle Thou has restored my breast to my bosom.

Mamilla (breast) restored to pectus (bosom), BUT pectus is so much more than an anatomical region, it is the heart and it is also the soul.  In this restoration of her breasts to her body, she is made not just whole in body, but totally whole in body, soul and spirit.

Notice who does this restoration.  It is St Peter.  Wake up, people!!! It is the Church that can make us whole again, restore all our wounded natures, whether wounded through abuse, self-abuse, imperfect nature and or nurture.

I really don't think we pray hard enough to be healed and purified (victims and perpetrators), because surely if we did, we would be.

St Agatha and St Peter, Orate pro nobis.

What a day for the Magdalene laundry report in Ireland and the abominations happening in the House of Commons as I write...

Holy Matrimony

A friend of mine has been musing as to whether Pentecost was the reversal of Babel.  Certainly there is some beautiful symmetry and poetry in considering Pentecost in this light.  Certainly, Pentecost made Truth so totally convincing and believable in the hearts and souls of the first disciples, that more and more converts found the Way.

Why are we just not convincing anymore?  I mean, why is the message of salvation not dripping from us in such a way that we are totally convincing to those around us?  In particular, why are we so far from winning hearts and minds in the debate on same-sex marriage.  Others may find our side of the debate "interesting", but interesting isn't good enough.  A good liberal will tolerate and listen to our views but he will not be arrested by them. We keep preaching to the liberals in the hope we can reach them, but we won't reach them whilst they cling to their liberalism.  Somehow we have to catch the liberal on his blind side and make him see humanity from an angle that he had never envisaged before, and to do this we have to be a lot more appealing, beautiful and truthful than we currently are.  And the appeal, the beauty and the truth must be Christ's.

Personally, I think the fault lies in our engaging far too much with the world and forgetting to keep our eyes fixed on heaven.  I do not think this is something that started with Vatican II or even with the emergence of Modernism in the 19th Century. Many of its roots lie within the bruising encounter of the Church with Protestantism from the Reformation onwards. Protestantism makes God too small and man too big, and we are all guilty of doing that.  

I want to give you an example.  Compare the opening of the marriage ceremony in the Book of Common Prayer 1559 with the opening to the Sarum wedding ceremony of 1604 (the only version of the Sarum rite one I could find on line).

The BCP starts:

DEARELY beloved frendes, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregacion, to joyne together this man and this woman in holy matrimony

Sarum starts:
 

Behold, brethren, we have come hither in the sight of God, the angels, and all his saints in the presence of the church, to join together two bodies, of this man and of this woman,

 There is a dimension missing from the BCP: the universality of the act of marriage, the timelessness of it, what a world of difference there is between "congregation" and "church"!

The BCP continues:

which is an honorable state, instytuted of God in Paradise, in the time of manes innocencie, signiflyng unto us the mistical union that is betwixt Christ and his Churche: which holy state Christe adourned and beautified with his presence and firste myracle that he wrought in Cana of Galile, and is commended of sainct Paul to be honourable emong all men, and therfore is not to be enterprised, nor taken in hande unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly, to satisfye mennes carnall lustes and appetytes, lyke brute beastes that have no understandyng ; but reverently, discretely, advisedly, soberly, and in the feare of God,

Now this is all goodly and necessary advice.  However Sarum deems none of this to be necessary, it continues with:

so that henceforth they may be one in flesh and two spirits in faith and in the law of God, at the same time to the promised eternal life, whatever they have done previously.

 The BCP is decidedly earth bound, Sarum looks to heaven.

The BCP then witters on at great length as to the reason for the institution of marriage and I have to say, I've always found these rather repellent in the way they are set out. 

 One was the procreation of children, to be brought up in the feare and nurtoure of the Lorde, and praise of God. Secondly, it was ordeined for a remedy agaynste sinne and to avoide fornication, that suche persones as have not the gifte of continencie might mary, and kepe themselves undefiled membres of Christes body. Thirdly, for the mutual societie, helpe, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, bothe in prosperity and adversitye

The first is good and true. The third is true in itself but hardly the stuff of a vocation.  The second is an abomination, it seems to say "get married so that you can have an outlay for your lusts that isn't sinful". Does that mean it is OK for your husband to have intercourse with you whilst he is thinking about the wench next door?  Obviously, this is not the intention (as that would be un-Christian) but it comes across like that and again, are these 3 reason really necessary? Are they the ONLY reasons?  There is nothing heavenward or sanctifying.  The second reason can also quickly lead to a justification of contraception within marriage.

Sarum ends the opening with:

Therefore, I warn you all that if any of you know anything to speak, why these two persons cannot be lawfully joined together, he is to confess it now.

The BCP ends the opening with:

Therefore if any man can shewe any just cause, why thei may not lawfully be joyned together let hym now speake, or els hereafter for ever holde his peace.

 So they end on a similar note, but Sarum all the while was thinking heavenward, the BCP earthward.


 My question to you, dearest reader is:  are we Catholics closer to the BCP or to Sarum in our "common" understanding of marriage?  Irrespective of how well we know our catechism, are we really understanding the sacred and heavenly nature of marriage or are we earthbound and too preoccupied with the human aspects?  Isn't it time to aim higher than Cranmer?  The church of Cranmer can't even convince itself of anything these days.

[Note: the BCP came from here. The English translation of the Sarum can be found here.  The original Latin for the Sarum can be found here.]

Generation Gap

Student Union debates 50 years ago and now:


Cambridge University, November 1963
That till death us do part is ridiculous
Defeated by 263 votes to 209

University of Keele, Autumn 1963
This house believes that private morality is irrelevant to public responsibility
Defeated by 104 votes to 82, with 11 abstentions

London University, January 1964
That this house rejects the traditional Christian conception of sex
Defeated by 282 votes to 189 with 81 abstentions

Cambridge University, February 1964
That fornication is more harm to society than smoking
Carried by 201 votes to 163

Northampton College of Advanced Technology, February 1964
That this house believes that marriage in its present form is out of date
Defeated by 82 votes to 60 with 24 abstentions
[source:The Cult of Softness, Lunn & Lean, Blandford Press (1965)]

*****

Oxford University, January 2013
This house would be glad to have gay parents
Carried by 345 votes to 21
[source: godzdogz.op.org]

Evidence of an increasing herd mentality?
Evidence of a decrease in intelligence?
Evidence of a decrease in the standard of debating?
Evidence that the end is nigh?

Not evidence of anything, but thought provoking nonetheless.......

Korah's complaint

Things were all so simple back in the days of the Old Testament.  People stubbornly refused to obey God (after being given chances to do so) and things would happen; perhaps it was permanent exile for them, or perhaps their total destruction in flood, fire or the ground opening up and swallowing them.  Nothing like this happens now under the New Covenant, and I'm sure many mourn the passing of such visible retribution.

God certainly revealed His power in these mighty acts, but the mightiest thing He has done for us was to send His Son to die on the cross for our sins, bringing forth into the world a regeneration and expiation through the Resurrection and the Sacraments of the Church.  After that, there can be no more visible retributions, God has, pardoning the modern parlance "jumped the shark", He can't top that.  He speaks as ever urgently to our hearts and implores that we love Him; all of us, saint and sinner alike.

I'm actually musing about open rebellion in the Church and people who say things contrary to the teaching of the Church and our reaction to these souls.  There is many a time when we would love the ground to swallow them up, and more shame on us for that.  Has any heretic through the ages ever suffered some divine calamity for his heresy? I think not.  In some ways this "justifies" the heretic in his own reasoning.  He believes he must be OK because God hasn't struck him down.  He sees error all around him, he sees the mighty mechanism of the Church as the great whore of Babylon, and he believes himself to be the real holder of the truth.

I've cast my mind back to the revolt of Korah, Dathan and Abiram mentioned in Numbers 16.  This is what Korah said against Moses and against Aaron and the priesthood; "You have gone too far! For all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?".....There, in the wilderness we have rebellion against the priesthood, and what a "benign" thing it is that Korah says.  We are all holy, why do we need such a priesthood, God loves us all.  

Well the ground did swallow him up, but as he himself was a Levite, his incense burners were holy and they were spared. I love that detail.

Korah's complaint sounds so modern.  It is the cry that we have all heard so much since Vatican II.  It manifests itself in dodgy lay "ministries", naff liturgies, every Tom, Dick and Henrietta being allowed into the sanctuary, an erosion of the use of Confession, an erosion of the preaching of and need for personal holiness.  And still the ground doesn't swallow the new Korah's up (or their flocks).........

BUT, following the Epistle of St Jude, those who have preached Korah's error are indeed in trouble. They will be judged.

It is however timely to remember that St Jude also says, that those who do claim to be true members of the Church must "build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the Love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life".

And there is more; we can do something for the Korah's of this world, rather than just scoffing at them and wishing the "biological solution" would rid us of them. We can:

• convince some who doubt
• save some, by snatching them out of the fire
• have mercy on some with fear

(read the whole Epistle of St Jude, it isn't long)
As surely if we have the Holy Spirit, and God has kept us from falling and we are without blemish, then we will be able to discern which course of action to take and we can play our part in the saving of souls rather than wanting them damned.

Then again, you could be a proper little protester and just ignore this Epistle and deny its validity....

Blast from the Past

Nestling next to Kinsey's "Sexual Behaviour and the Human Male" in a second hand book shop yesterday was a little gem which I picked up for the princely sum of 75p.  Kinsey's shelf mate was a little paperback from 1965, most of which is as pertinent now as the day it was written.  The book is called "The Cult of Softness" and was written by the Catholic apologist Arnold Lunn along with the Anglican writer Garth Lean.  The book is critical of the secularisation of society and the attacks on Christianity from within.  The authors target humanism, the BBC, educational policy, the avant garde and journalism.....nothing changes.  They are particularly concerned by the attitude of some of the clergy of the day, in particular Canon Douglas Rhymes of Southwark.  I will give you a taster of the Canon's words and see if you think his attitude has actually "conquered" much of Christianity. May God have mercy on his soul.

"It is when we see ourselves as whole, a whole which is to be loved for its wholeness, not divided into higher and lower - that we begin to love ourselves, to love the flesh, the mind the spirit because the flesh, the mind and the spirit are me and the more I know about myself, the more I shall respect myself.  The less I feel guilty in myself, the more I shall respect, know and love others.  There is no part of me for which I need to feel guilty; the only guilt I need to feel is when I have ceased to be myself and, at the command of someone else, be it priest, Church, politician or parent, am pretending to be what I am not and calling it good."

This is I suppose, the battle cry of the "Cult of Softness".  It is the feel-good drivel that masquerades as Christianity and indeed in many Christian schools is the only mantra that is allowed. It is certainly un-Christian as Christianity demands obedience to and love of Christ, as the authors say themselves:

"Love,", it [the New Testament] says, "is the fulfilling of the law".  In other words, because we love, we shall observe the precepts of the law all the more carefully.  The new covenant does not abrogate the old, but fulfils it by giving it content, meaning and above all, motive.  Love is  no more a substitute for the law than the body is for the skeleton.

However, what strikes me most is the sentence quoted below this paragraph.  I hope the sentiment expressed in it wakes us all up.  Attacks on "softness" must be educated, sustained and gentle and often for the most part played out well away from the media (it is about our behaviour and what we show to the world). This is the way the English fight best and I feel that the day is coming when we may have to earn our title as Mary's Dowry and come out fighting. The authors and I myself believe that the silent majority of our lands do not actually adhere to the cult of softness and the liberalism it entails.  However, they remain silent and by the sickening process of hegemony, the soft brigade take over.

The last thing we desire is to criticise secularists for their determination to create the kind of society which they desire.  It is our failure as Christians to mount an adequate counter-attack that we deplore.

Getting Over It

For all us sinners living in the real world, I've though it may be necessary, after my last post, to offer some advice on how to "come out" (as it were) on the other side, having mastered your sexuality (your attachment to your sexual function for its own sake) so that it is no longer relevant.

The advice is personal and related to my own experiences and those of some of my friends who also feel quite strongly about this topic.

Firstly, take the words of St Philip Neri to heart:

He who does not go down into hell while he is alive, runs a great risk of going there after he is dead.

So use the fact you have been a lustful sinner to remind yourself that it is a miserable, unsatisfactory existence and that it is no model for Christian perfection.  Get to Confession, if you've not been over this and fulfil the criteria for a good confession. 

Now you've made a resolution, deal with lesser habitual activities you've built up over the years; the way you look at complete strangers, the sentimental attachments to certain mannerisms you find attractive in others, thinking about sex.  And the best way to do this is to think upon the Crucifixion and ask yourself "did Jesus really die for me to behave like this?"

Make sure you have absolutely no trust in yourself and be light hearted about it.  We are all like rescue dogs whose previous owners never properly house trained them.  Trust your new Master to turn you around.

When faced with serious temptation, flee it by making a quick prayer to Our Lady and removing yourself from the situation.

When faced with the garbage that has been dredged out of the recesses of your brain in a dream.  Remember it is garbage and don't dwell on it.  Occupy yourself with something.  Find some good act to perform (like phoning an aged relative) that will take your mind away from this.

Never act on a sexual thought by elaborating it or by turning it into a word or deed, and if you do, go to Confession. Keep a rosary to hand at all times, just holding it helps.

Get to know the Psalms, 24 is a favourite...

The sins of my youth and my ignorances do not remember. According to thy mercy remember thou me: for thy goodness' sake, O Lord.
The Lord is sweet and righteous: therefore he will give a law to sinners in the way.
He will guide the mild in judgment: he will teach the meek his ways.
All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, to them that seek after his covenant and his testimonies. For thy name's sake, O Lord, thou wilt pardon my sin: for it is great.
Who is the man that feareth the Lord? He hath appointed him a law in the way he hath chosen.

If your are led to believe that sexuality is a good thing ask yourself just who in the Bible made use of their sexuality for good.  The only answer I can come up with is the widow Judith who seduced  Holofernes in order to kill him and prevent worse atrocities taking place.  This righteous woman was then well aware that she had forfeited the right to re-marry after doing this necessary but devious act and lived a devout celibate life afterwards.

If you are led to believe that sexuality is God given and "the way your are made" and perhaps something you have to suffer through living a celibate life, please meditate on the nature of your suffering.  If chastity is making you suffer the pangs of withdrawal from sexual activity or causing serious temptations to rise up in you, see this as part of your purification and desire more strongly to pass through this fire, not to linger in there forever.  Is the fire producing good works in you? Is it increasing your joy in the Lord? Is it helping you overcome other little issues (speeding in the car, eating too much, badmouthing others....)? If not, then you need releasing from the fire and pray with confidence that you will be.

And if within marriage you are struggling with continence, here is some advice from the gentlest of 17th Century Spiritual Manuals: The Sanctuary of the Faithful Soul by Louis de Blois

Perchance thou wilt reply: "I have a wife what then shall I do?" I answer, use thy wife chastely: do nothing forbidden by the law of God.  If thy desire is to have children, be careful to restrain thyself within lawful bounds. Remember that thou are  rational man, not a mere animal. Happy is the truly spiritual man, who sometimes to find by experience how far heavenly and divine pleasure exceeds mere earthly and carnal delight. Happy indeed is that man who, looking at the glory of the flesh and all the pomp and dignity of this world with enlightened eyes, acknowledgeth it to be all nothing; for truly, is it not like a poor hedgerow flower, soon to wither and die?

 Then again, just ignore my advice, I'm just a nutter on a crusade to reclaim the Temple of the Holy Spirit for its rightful Owner.

Sexuality

This post was going to be a ramble about the mess the Anglicans have got themselves into with with allowing the appointment of gay but celibate Bishops.  However Joe has written very well on the subject and that is not really the ground I wish to cover.  The main point in writing is a moan, I've made it before, about the whole notion of sexuality.  I will define sexuality as an attachment to the sexual function of our bodies and I will say now that it is the notion of sexuality that has so damaged these modern times and led to great damage in the Catholic Church as well as elsewhere.  It doesn't say anywhere in the Beatitudes, "Blessed be the straight".  Yes GAY does stand for "good as you", yes it is just as good as any other sexual orientation, it is good for nothing.

We need to stop thinking about our sexuality completely. Any attachment to sexuality does not aid chastity. The sexual act is confined to the marriage bed and should in the first place be conducted by virgins, in other words, those innocent of any prior attachment to their sexuality.  That is Church teaching, that is as it should be for those trying to live as members of the Body of Christ; say the Litany of the Holy Name, then tell me I'm wrong.

Sadly we live in a  world where we are increasingly being made to sexualise ourselves and define ourselves by our orientation.  This orientation contains a lot of nurture. We are told that masturbation is healthy.  It isn't: it makes you spiritually blind. Being rampantly heterosexual is not healthy, procuring any contract with a member of the opposite sex purely out of lust and sexual vigour is not Christian. Yet we are encouraged to develop our sexual orientation and walk down the street as a sexual being.  We encourage ourselves to say "I'm gay/straight, I'm attracted to that person, I wonder if that man/woman would be interested in me?".  Increasingly it may also explain why some women so like the company of openly gay men, the men see them as sexual beings but "not their type" so  the parties involved feel sexual and safe. These relationships are often very materialistic, revolving around shopping and entertainment.....

What happened in Sodom and Gomorrah may suggest that homosexual lust is worse than heterosexual.  The male inhabitants were so keen on satisfying their desires that when the angels visit Lot, they can only think about having intercourse with them, no doubt because of their beauty.  However when the cities are destroyed, it is Lot's wife who turns round to look back with a hint of nostalgia.  Perhaps the sexual proclivity of the women was just as bad, or maybe there were just some very good shoe shops that had bitten the dust.

The horrifying story of the Levite and his wife at the end of the book of Judges has a similar echo.  Perhaps it it more horrifying because these were all sons of Israel and had received the Law. The inhabitants of the Benjaminate town wish to have intercourse with the Levite.  On many grounds this is a crime too horrible for words as the Levite is a conduit to God as any priest is irrespective of his own holiness.  To prevent this happening the old man who has put them up for the night offers his virgin daughter, they don't accept this, but do accept the Levite's wife who they rape till she is dead.  Again this suggest the lusts are not purely homosexual, but that lust is lust is lust and will find an outlay in something eventually.

So what do we do if we find that our sexuality has become so ingrained in our being that it is very difficult to let go of it, as we must if we are to be truly chaste.  Do we suffer our pain at not being able to satisfy our sexuality?  This seems to be what many in the Church would have us do. However I'm not convinced. It can't be a suffering pleasing to God, it is not a suffering like that of Christ, or the devil would have tempted Him with a sexual temptation.  The most masculine men and the most feminine women you will ever meet are those in complete mastery of their sexual function, those for whom sexuality has been conquered, and this often puts them in the dangerous position of being very sexually attractive to others. 

I'll throw a little question at you to make my final point.  Consider yourself a first century Ephesian silversmith  who has just converted to the Faith due in the main part to the grace flowing through the teachings of St Paul.  Your life is not good and you tell God all about your suffering. God will listen attentively and his angels will comfort you as you tell Him about your loss of business due to your conversion, your increasing poverty and the sickness in your family as you tell Him how much you love Him and how you will do His will. However, when you tell Him how much you are missing your visits to the temple of Diana of the Ephesians and the "priestesses" therein, can you really tell Him that and say in the same breath that you love Him?

Faith

Greetings, loyal reader.  I'm still alive and still plodding on.  Not much to report really; still no diagnosis, still quite ill, still working, still madly committed to my Faith, still ever hopeful and still as intellectually arrogant as ever.

Right now, I'm sort of on a self-imposed retreat from the world, I need to make sure I'm as strong as possible spiritually and all too often the interwebs just bugs the life out of me and leaves me far from charitable.  It is amazing what "friends" do present themselves to you when you need guidance.  Friends that put joy into your heart from beyond the grave. For me in particular I am so grateful for the appearance of (though their writings..I'm not prone to visions) Fr FW Faber CO and Fr Gerald Vann OP. More about their writings in another post, possibly.

One thought has struck me and I will share it with you.  I'm not getting this Year of Faith.  I've really warmed to all the previous "Year of" enterprises from the Holy See, but this one seems a bit flat to me.

Mull, if you will, on the definition of Faith in Hebrews 11:1:

Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.

From that definition, a Year of Faith and Hope  would seem to be a fertile ground, as they are inseparable.

Now mull, if you will on this quote from Fr Gabriel of St Mary Magdalene's Divine Intimacy.

Our intellect can give us only natural light on God and creatures; faith, on the contrary, gives us the supernatural light that is a participation in the light of God, in the knowledge God has of Himself and of creatures.

 So faith is ineffable and unreachable by the intellect alone.  So perhaps all the teaching materials in the Catholic world and all the "trimmings" added to the Creed at Sunday Mass really don't amount to anything if they are reached by the intellect alone.  How then to we acquire faith?

Firstly, I'd say that Truth is irresistible.  Even, sinner as he was, Herod, found the teaching of St John the Baptist irresistible.  It is Grace that is resistible, if our own selfish desires get the better of us, and that was Herod's downfall and the Baptist's end.  Therefore this year should be about us living that Truth that has been revealed to us; preaching without words mainly, being irresistible to others in our steadfastness to the Truth. It is all there in the Church, you won't find it anywhere else, folks! We all have in our possession some nugget of the Truth that we should water and feed in our relationship with God and which will grow, if we let it.

Secondly, to be inspired by our Faith, in order to reflect it and achieve this irresistability in our lives we need to see the Beauty of our Faith.  Only when we see real beauty can we reflect it back into the world.  We need beautiful liturgy.  We need to engage more with the beauty of scripture, especially (IMHO) the Psalms (little else so marvellously speaks of our own state as creatures and our reliance on God and our praise of Him).  We need to mortify ourselves so as not to be taken in by transitory worldly beauty.  We need to be exposed to the great spiritual works of art; the music, the devotional writings, the pictures and icons, the great churches.  We can then teach others how to appreciate these too and slowly draw them into the faith.

So, then, that is what the Year of Faith seems to be about to me and in many ways it is not something that can be taught or directed from Rome, it needs to be something organic and it needs to start with us and a cleansing of our hearts and an opening up of ourselves to the beauty of our Faith by closing our senses down to the false delights the world has to offer.

Faith and Love

The Muslim Demographics video that was shown recently to the Synod of Bishops has really got me annoyed. I have embedded it at the end of this post for reference.

Whilst the video was shown to create some debate,it is to me deeply disturbing that something so lacking in intellectual rigour and so deeply sensationalist is being shown in all seriousness to a synod of Bishops. We ought not to look for things that make us fearful, indeed we ought to not be afraid; that is the essence of our Faith. The question we should be asking is, why is the Catholic population declining in the West and what can we do about it?

May I suggest that this is actually a far deeper matter at the root of our Faith than a discussion about the use of Contraception and the issue of abortion. To me the issue is as old as the Fall. The growing understanding of the inter-relationship between Man and Woman in our life of Grace and ability to communicate with the Divine, was rudely interrupted by the serpent. Pride took over our beings and the sexes have been unable to see each other clearly since then. Man blames Woman, Woman desires stuff but gets confused over what she actually is desiring, there is fear, there is agression, there is confusion, there is passion, there are beautiful, powerful, passionate, loving relationships between members of the same sex and there IS still in all of this the genuine, transforming, sanctifying Love between a Man and a Woman.

 Christ suffered for us to redeem us. It is only through His love that we can transform our own and make this genuine love more solid and lasting.  And until we actually put Christ back into the centre of our relationships with each other, that genuine love will not exist such that marriage will be fruitful as God intends it to be.  Anyone can make babies, love isn't needed to make lots of babies.  A lack of holiness can still produce very large and loveless families, just as much as it can produce an average 1.9 children per marriage and a catastrophic demographic.


We really ought to be concentrating on our Faith and how it makes men and women more what they ought to be for each other.

20th Sunday After Pentecost

Ahhh, beautiful day, beautiful Collect.

This is it using the Farnborough Diurnal translation:

Grant unto Thy faithful people pardon and peace, we beseech Thee, merciful Lord, that they may be both cleansed from all their sins and serve Thee with a quiet mind. Through our Lord.

 And in the Latin:

Largire, quaesumus, Domine, fidelibus tuis indulgentiam placatus et pacem: ut pariter ab omnibus mundentur offensis, et secura tibi mente deserviant.  Per Dominum nostrum.

There can be no greater blessing than having a quiet mind with which to serve God. And right now, of all times, I really do not deserve this greatest of gifts...

Catholic Courtin'

Fr Zhulsdorf has posted a quote from Pope Benedict's recent sermon to open the Synod of Bishops, the sentence that caught my eye was:

Marriage is linked to faith, but not in a general way. Marriage, as a union of faithful and indissoluble love, is based upon the grace that comes from the triune God, who in Christ loved us with a faithful love, even to the Cross.

 Bravo!

My regular reader will know that this is a subject close to my heart and that I will talk for hours about the profound, earth shattering reality of this sacramental bond. 

Now, imperceptibly, I may be courting again, someone I've known for some time and someone who laid out our ground rules nearly a year ago: the "rule" being the primacy of Christ.  This has led to some rather bizarre behaviour (according to the ways of the world). We rarely see each other apart from sitting next to each other at Mass, we don't have each other's telephone numbers, we've never been near each other's houses, we send the odd e-mail and don't expect replies.  Some relationship, you may say. Yet, as I have mentioned before, this cuts deep, very deep.

The thing is, if Christ is the centre of our relationships, then nothing else matters.  In heaven we are all married to the Lamb, so the ultimate goal is the sanctification of the other person and their getting to heaven and not some earthly relationship and marriage.

As far as I am aware nobody has written a manual on Catholic courtship other than to say, be chaste.  What we are discovering is that, whatever is happening to us, it is happening through Christ.  Our joy in each other's company is not simply the joy of two creatures who intellectually click with each other and find each other good fun, but a faith enhancing experience that leads to a closer relationship to God.

I have found myself uncommonly coy.  And I will add that coyness is not teasing or fear of commitment.  I simply desire to reach this person with my better part, and this needs gentleness, reserve, patience and prayer. Our better part IS the part of ourselves that we can only reach through our relationship with Christ through the sacraments and the Church.  It is the person we were meant to be, but O felix culpa! that we are aware of our need for Christ in order to reach this part of ourselves.

So this is why I say, I may be courting.  I have certainly found someone who is willing to engage in a profound relationship with Christ in which I play a part.  I'd marry him tomorrow, if he asked, but that isn't right either.  God showed Adam so much and always let Adam make up his own mind.  If, through the sacraments and our love of God, we have some small grain of our pre-lapsarian infused knowledge, then man will know his mate and know her with his better part.  Post fall, a woman is filled with desire for her husband, but that desire can be transformed into something wholly unselfish and life enhancing.  Why desire anything less, even if this means that a relationship as measured by earthly standards may be a long way off, or may even never happen at all.

Had a good weekend?

I'm still alive, dear blog readers, but quite low on stamina and this illness thing is just a pain.  They have ruled out anything tumour related, Deo Gratias, but this doesn't make me well.  I'm trying to get them to investigate further, as things are getting worse, but they feel like they've done their job.  So I plod on.  A friend said to me, perhaps I'm destined to become the patron saint of "just getting on with it".  I don't suppose I should argue with that and certainly I don't want to throw in the towel, but I am very weary.

So life is a little surreal.  Nobody seems to appreciate what my illness is like and everyone says how well I look.  When I tell people this illness is like being permanently drunk (with added nerve damage), they certainly don't seem to see it is a problem.  It is a problem; being in charge of a class of children, driving, having responsibilities, all these are a problem if you are drunk.

When I return to school on Monday and go into the staffroom, I'll be faced with the inevitable question, "have you had a good weekend?".  Does anyone else have a problem with this?  There is one obvious problem, that the person that asks it isn't really interested.  A second problem is that if you actually told them what makes a weekend good, they'd probably mark you down as a weirdo (and I am still debating with myself whether I should mind being a weirdo, would it make me a good ambassador for the faith).  Here are some of the things I've wanted to say:

• Yes the weekend was lovely, I got to such and such a church for the feast of St So and so and the Mass was beautiful.
• Yes, I was able to say Lauds outside as the sun was rising
• Yes, the collect this week is really inspiring
• Yes, I've discovered the chaplet of St Michael and it has really produced a great strengthening of my resolve.
• Yes, I overcame some tricky stuff in my spiritual battles, thanks be to God.
• Yes, my main prayer intention is a shaping my life quite profoundly and I can't quite believe that God would deign to let me be involved with something so gently beautiful.

Usually, I come out with the standard half-truth to the questions which is "Oh yes, it was a good weekend, saw some good friends and it was relaxing, what about you?".  People are expecting something like this and it seems to do the trick.

Then I wonder, it can't just be religious nutters like me that have problems telling the truth in answer to this question; and I suddenly feel some sympathy for sadomasochists.What would happen in the staffroom if someone turned round and said "yes, I had a great weekend, I found this marvellous woman to walk up and down my back in stilettos and chains whilst giving me some grief with a bullwhip". They too must remain silent about the truth of their lives....

I have no idea how this weekend will pan out.  Today has been like most days; it has been hazy, hard work yet prayerful and I've been somewhat indifferent to its charms and inconveniences.

Yet something is there that is good...and the saints are smiling.

Thirteenth Sunday After Pentecost

It isn't easy being a Catholic these days.  No it is a breeze, if you live somewhere politically and geologically stable, you've got food in your belly and some money in your bank account.  But I digress.  Here in 2012, if (like me) you have fallen in love with the old collects, antiphons and ancient hymns and say Lauds and Vespers, then you meditate on the readings from the EF of the Mass.  You may then (like me) always end up at a NO Mass on Sundays, so you meditate on the readings in that too.  Sooo much scripture, so many blessings! But I digress again.  What I've been ruminating over this morning is the Gospel for the day for the EF form of the Mass; the story of the 10 lepers (Lk 17: 11-19).

Those lepers have been bugging me for years.

When people ask me why I have such difficulty in praying to be well again, I always cite those lepers. I say I'm terrified, that once I'm cured I'll go off doing my own thing and forget to give thanks to the Lord, like 9 out of the 10. However, that isn't the whole story for me.

The lepers knew they had leprosy.  They knew what they wished to be cured from and they implored Our Lord to be cured from that which they knew was ailing them.  The passage is always taken metaphorically as well to show us how leprosy of the soul can be cured, when we know our sins and go to the priest to confess those sins.  My problem quite simply is I don't now what ails me physically.  Therefore I can't ask to be cured from it.  There are a range of unpleasant symptoms and like the Lernaean Hydra, you think you've got to manage one of them and two more spring up in its place.  Yet the illness isn't a beast.  It is a burden. Nobody really has a clue what I am carrying (not even me) and it changes its shape and weight and burdensomeness at random.

But just maybe for now, this burden is necessary.  It certainly comes with many blessings and has increased my faith.  I am not attached to it, that would be wrong, I am detached from it and bored by it.  I am however slightly fearful of being without it, slightly scared of what God may have in store for me next.  I accept it, but I don't want to be resigned to it.

So, how will my story progress?  Will I get a diagnosis and implore the Lord to cure me of my ailment?  Somehow that seems too simple.  I accept that in my illness there is a purifying element for my soul. I rejoice that God has looked so favourably on me so far, when by all rights I should be long dead through my own mischief and bad living.

Fiat voluntas tua

What else can I say?

Mutterings.....

I can't help thinking that all the fuss over Cecilia Gimenez's amateur attempts to restore a fresco at her local church (see here to view her efforts) stand as a timely metaphore of the way the Church has operated over the last 40 years and the fruits thereof: well meaning lay people with no training but a lot of enthusiasm, and apparently with the blessing of a cleric, creating a mess. Every parish has a cluster of these types and in my estimation they have done far more damage than the spirit of the sixties academics and theologians who gave birth to them. Her "restoration" even has a Spirit of VII feel about it, don't you think? Does this mean the Church always has to operate through an educated and trained elite? I don't know, I really don't. It probably depends who is doing the educating and the training.  Not that the original fresco was a masterpiece, just quite well loved and fondly remembered: sounds a bit like the Church of the 1950s to me.  Do people feel the same about Cecilia Gimenez's efforts? No, it is just a laughing stock....  I've made my point.


*******

How Catholic are you?

(1) You heard the words Canonical Erection recently.  Did you (a) snigger, (b) shout Yippee!?
(2) 4 Candles means: (a) a sketch by the Two Ronnies (b) the Feast of a Martyr ?
(3)  When speaking to your pets, they respond best to (a) your native tongue, (b) Latin?
(4) You visit your local department store looking for clothes and say to yourself (a) I like the colours this season, (b) why are none of the skirts below-the-knee in length?
(5) You see a well turned-out cleric in full cassock and fascia walking down the high street.  You say to yourself  (a) that reminds me of that Bing Crosby film with the priest in it...., (b) must be an Anglican.

*******

My other mutterings are not for print.....

Anathema sit

Fr Tim Finigan has written the following quote which I have shown below. It has brought to mind an e-mail conversation I've been having with a friend over the nature of the Sacrament of Marriage. Both of us (from opposite ends of the liberal/conservative Catholic spectrum) think that Marriage is not inferior to celibate Holy Orders.

The 24th session of the Council of Trent, in 1563, duly defined in the canons on the sacrament of matrimony (canon 10) that

If any one says, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

(Remember that this is de fide teaching which we are bound to believe with the assent of faith. If we find it surprising today, it is our job to ponder how to reconcile our thinking with the teaching of the Church, not to adjust the teaching of the Church to our thinking.)

It got me wondering if I am afterall a heretic and or a liberal. My friend would probably enjoy the accolade "anathema sit", I'm not so sure I do. I'm like a dog with a bone when it comes to stressing the value and dignity of marriage, it is perhaps something widows understand better than most.  I also find the Catechism of the Council of Trent really rather beautiful about the Sacrament of Matrimony, so why should canon 10 cited above cause me to scratch my head and wonder where I've gone wrong?

Here are some of my musings.

I think it very hard to deny that the Sacrament of Marriage is the only sacrament explicitly given to man before the fall, therefore it has the highest of value.  Since the fall, having lost our preternatural gifts (in particular our control over our passions) it may very well be that marriage too has fallen with us.

It may also be pertinent to state that canon 10 is NOT referring to the sacraments but to the states of marriage, virginity and celibacy.  All three states involve sacrifice of some sort and all three states are blessed.  However a celibate person is not necessarily more blessed than a married person.  Some people find celibacy very easy, it involves little or no sacrifice for them, they are the natural born eunuchs of the Gospel (Matt 19:12). How can this be of greater value than the marrried couple fully living out Catholic teaching and struggling with their appetites to remain faithful to that teaching and fully continent and chaste in their sexual relationship, that they rightly and naturally thoroughly enjoy?

I feel the whole canon hinges around the words "better and more blessed".  A married couple really only have the duty to sanctify each other, not even to sanctify their children though they must strive to bring them up in a holy and loving environment.  In not marrying and remianing celibate and a virgin (the only other real option for Catholics, in an ideal world), there is much more of an expectation that you are called to do "better and more" work for the Kingdom of God and save more souls.  The very fact that the natural companionship and the most natural bond in the world (between a man and a woman) is to be denied in this virginal state, works against nature for a higher grace, but only provided it is done for the love of God.  This to me is the essence of canon 10, and is the only way I can prevent myself being anathema.

Now, as a widow, the only state of life where celibacy is forced upon an individual (all vocations involve free consent), perhaps I have a clearer understanding of the "better and more blessed".   A great sacrifice has been made and celibacy, chastity and control of passions help bring about greater, more far-reaching love. God knows what He is doing and He's not scratching his beard over canon 10.

Happy Feast of the Assumption.  I love this Feast so much, it is nice just to soak it up and not make any comment on it myself, because whatever I say will be rubbish.

 Hodie Maria Virgo caelos ascendit: gaudete, quia cum Christo regnat in aeternum.

Sorry I haven't been blogging.  I've been in and out of hospital and feeling pretty grotty.  When I have good times, which do come along quite frequently, the last thing I want to do is blog.  I really don't know how I'll get through next term, I do feel very enfeebled.  We are working towards a diagnosis.

The consultant has compared me to a laptop computer with one of two faults; either the battery back-up is knackered or some internal diagnostic is telling the processor the battery is knackered when it isn't and this is causing mayhem. By September 3rd we'll hopefully know which one it is.  Though why I can't be permanently plugged into the mains, I'm not quite sure.

Waiting

Well, today I'm just sat here waiting for the hospital to ring to say whether I have a bed or not.  This may take some time.  If I don't get a bed this week, I fear I wont get one for some time due to the wretched Olympics and all those extra visitors to London and this warm weather causing people to pass-out in surprise and bewilderment. To add some "colour" to the proceedings we have septic tank issues at this end of the village and guess whose house is starting to smell.  All cleanish waste water is having to be carried out to the storm drain.

Still, not to worry, every dog has its day.

Sana me, Domine, et sanabor: salvum me fac, et salvus ero: quoniam laus mea tu es.
Jer: 17,14

UPDATE: Monday pm, I've been "rolled over" to tomorrow, so I've got to go through all this again, waiting and waiting.  It is really exhausting.

Compline

I'm now being treated in London, and whilst the doctors and nurses are excellent, efficient and caring, the "bed managers" make me very weary.  There was no bed for me this week, I am to try again next week.  Life on permanent stand-by aint no fun. At least I'm on holiday and I don't have the stress of planning cover work, and liaising with other staff only to find plans have changed.  It is one way good-will can start to become eroded.

Monday night saw me staying in London at my sister's house prior to my appointment.  She has a nice place.  It is expensively furnished and stylish.  I like my own house, but it really looks shabby next to hers.  My furniture is mainly veneer and chipboard and from crap shops and I'm not interested in objet d'art.

Being prepared for the tedium of my extended investigations at hospital, I'd taken my monastic diurnal with me, these visits can become retreats of sorts.  I can't claim to have been able to pray the hours regularly, but Summer holidays and hospital stays usually mean I can commit to more regular devotions.  So there I was, in my sister's spare room saying Compline when the Collect came up and hit me in the head and heart.

Visit we beseech thee, O Lord, this dwelling and drive far away from it all the snares of the enemy; let Thy holy Angels dwell herin, who may keep us in peace, and let Thy blessing be always upon us.

It was incredibly difficult and draining to say.  Not through lack of belief, but simply hard to say.  My sister's house was not used to prayer.  The house was not used to having angels summoned to it.  It came as quite a shock to realise just how much God expects us to do; how much we who claim to be Christians are expected to do in terms of blessing the houses of those who are strangers to God, in return for their hospitality.

To end with, here is a picture of a hospital ward from the near mythical past when the NHS had no internal market and patients got beds and outside air was allowed into the wards rather than sickly air-conditioning.