Ember days from my 18th century French Antiphonal
avatar

Ember Days –

Times for quiet reflection and for solace the so called “ember days” were observed as days of fast and abstinence four times each year….

.”Fasting days and Emberings be, Lent, Whitsun, Holyrood, and Lucie.” 

Thus being kept between the first and second Sundays of lent; the week between Pentecost and trinity; the week after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (holyrood) ; and the week of the feast of St Lucy – usually  falls in between the second and third Sundays of Advent. In eastern rite Wednesday and Fridays were usually observed by full fast and abstinence. in the western rite that became consolidated into the weekly abstinence of Friday – fish on Fridays. The fast lasted on in monastic communities and amongst the friars. somehow these all got lost in the New Order of Paul VI although they were not specifically abolished.

 Qui procedis ab utroque-1Qui procedis ab utroque-2Qui procedis ab utroque-3Qui procedis ab utroque-4Qui procedis ab utroque-5 

Posted in History and related subjects, Religion and related subjects, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Whitsuntide – second day…..
avatar

Veni, Sancte Spiritus, reple tuorum corda fidelium, et tui amoris in eis ignem accende: qui per diversitatem linguarum cunctarum, gentes in unitatem fidei congregasti, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.

The Pentecost Dome of the Basilica of Saint Mark in Venice.

Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and kindle within them the fire of Thy love; who through the variety of all tongues, didst gather the nations into the unity of the faith, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.  (The antiphon for the Psalms of First Vespers of Pentecost in the Dominican Breviary.)

Posted in History and related subjects, Politics and related subjects, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A week is a long time in politics

alogosdownload (1)Newark is in and all bets are off –

alogosdownload (1)Harold Wilson’s famous dictum was crafted in the aftermath of his and Labour’s unexpected election defeat in 1970. It was my first general election – I was sixteen and I sat up all night with mum watching the results – heartbroken. It then Creena decided to join the Labour Party. I joined when I was in sixth form – at eighteen.

At the time we entered into party politics Mr Wilson entered upon one of his unhappiest periods as an active politician. The Labour Party was – under the push me of the Unions and the pull me of an newly emergent left-wing activist cadre – being decoupled from the managerial socialism-cum social-democracy –  which Wilson, Crossland, Castle, Crossman and Benn had used between 1964-1970 as the means to update the bureaucratic centralism of Attlee’s post war economic and social model.

This must seem a long way from Newark. On one level it is on another it is not. Labour’s unhappy period of internal and intellectual uncertainty ran parallel to Edward Heath’s serious flirtation with market-driven economic and social policy. In the event in face of the miners and others they backed off but the wheels came off their government chariot and they careered out of control into the elections of 1974 when they went down to a famous if very narrow consecutive defeats. The way was cleared for Sir Keith Joseph and Mrs thatcher –  newly made true believers in the cult of markets.

alogosdownload (1)Mrs Thatcher until the Falklands saved her looked as if she might repeat the same stupidity. Sadly, for Britain and the Labour Party, Labour was even more determined than Mrs Thatcher to throw aside the old order and seize the commanding heights of the British economy as the late Tony Benn would have put in – eyes swiveling, fist banging on a desk.

These upheavals gave impetus to the rise the Liberals under Grimond and then the flashy not-quite-a-gentleman, Jeremy Thorpe. In time it also split the Labour party and Jenkins, Williams, Owen – and Bill Rogers – the man history forgot even at the time they were making history – went off to found the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The SDP thought it would be big brother to the Liberals little Joey. It turned out that the SDP brought with it too many of the old Labour traditions of in-fighting and the resurgent Liberals who built up from the ground ended the stronger part of the new third force.

The three party politics emergent played straight into Conservative hands who in every election between 1979 and 1997 prospered on that split vote. In the  south west and south east Labour’s vote eroded and passed into the hands of the LIbDems and in the East and Midlands it passed directly into the hands of the Conservatives. In the North and Scotland and Wales it was the Conservatives whose vote ebbed into the nationalist and other parties and Labour who emerged dominant.  Thus, underneath the unchanging blue of the political landscape there were tectonic forces moving slowly which were gradually as undermining of the Conservative Party as they had been of the Labour Party. The sun was about to set on the Empire of two party politics whose imperium had never been quite as boundless as it had appeared briefly to be in its post-war heyday.

UKIP has a particular view of post war history. Like blinkered Marxists its version overlooks inconvenient facts which do not fit into its theory of past misdeeds leading to present woe. This comedy of fact and fiction should actually lead only to present laughter. It warrants no serious conclusions of any sort.

For most of the nineteenth century England’s two party politics was in fact a complicated foursome with remnant Whigs and Tories in the Lords; and the Irish nationalists and unionists supplying the two smaller parties in the Commons. With Home Rule the unionism of the protestant Irish mainly in the north of the Ireland spilled out into Unionism in the great cities of England and in Scotland and Wales. At the turn of the century Labour entered into this complex political world.

alogosdownload (1)Two party politics as we know it lasted from 1945 to 1974 and it was already on the wane by 1964. Last night marks the waxing of a four party politics of an uneven nature.

Last night’s result in Newark tells us three important things which will alter play in May next year. First, UKIP has for the moment replaced the LibDems as the larger force in England. It has no local roots and finds it hard to win seats in elections.  The Newark result represents a serious set back for the Farage inflatable. Secondly, the Conservative Party looks certain the regain most if not all the voters it had in 2010. Thirdly, Labour looks set to gain unevenly from the emergence of UKIP but because the electoral system is skewed in Labour’s favour it would take only a small numbers of voters in fifty seats to swing back to Labour and still leave Labour as the largest party or even with a small overall majority on a minority of the vote. Look back at the election results in the 1920’s to see how seats can switch quite dramatically in a four party political system in the first past the post system of voting.

Coalitions were part and parcel of the politics of the UK for much of its modern political history. Prepare yourself for another coalition – for at the moment it seems politically impossible for any single party to win outright next May. Mr Cameron as Prime minister has the first go –  and we know how well prepared he and his colleagues were last time for such and eventuality. You can stuff a game old bird with a lot of Patronage.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A second coming-out: Part II – from here to eternity
avatar

A second coming -out

Part II – from here to eternity

Wilde’s iconic Lady Bracknell disapproved of argument of all kinds on the grounds they were always vulgar and often convincing. She, therefore, would never have approved of admitting religion into polite discourse.

As My life has been lived outside the usual realms of the conventional and respectable. I, therefore, dare to go where Lady Bracknell would never have gone – boldly or otherwise. Most cordially, I invite you to dare to travel with me.

Before reaching the point I’ve reached – the point of no return – it’s impossible not to discuss this second coming-out without considering my first and therefore reviewing the Church’s largely negatively expressed view of human sexuality in general and gay sexuality in particular.

It is now about three years now since I started back going to Church. It took me almost a year to get to Confession. Confession is culturally simplified as the Catholic’s get-out-of-hell-free-card. It’s the place where priests dispense penance with a wrap on the wrist and the penitent, duty done, is let off Scott free and leaves with a clear conscience ready to sin all over again. Confession is also presented as the means of social control through guilt. It cannot be denied both confession and the confessional loom large in the imaginations of Roman Catholics and the secularist imaginings of Roman Catholics.

As it happens the confessional arrived late in history of the church – it is part of St Charles Borromeo’s reforms in Milan in the 1570’s after the closure of the Council of Trent. Borromeo, in addition to being both a papal nephew and a saint, was also responsible for the placing of the tabernacle in the centre of the altar. Thus, two of the most iconic images of Roman Catholicism are relative newcomers to their church interiors – just as the elevations of the bread and the chalice that have come to symbolise Roman Catholic worship did not arrive in the Mass until the twelfth century and fourteenth centuries respectively. We are apt to think traditions are older than they often turn out to be. It’s as true of the ceremonial of monarchy or state as its is of religion’s ceremony.

I digress – coming late to confession and after I had taken communion was not the order in which I should have done things. Indeed the Church takes a stern view of such misconduct. The Church has a long history of taking a stern view of human misconduct. It would much have preferred I started with regular confession before resuming a fitful communion. I accept that I did it the wrong way around. I honestly cannot say why exactly – it is just how it happened. I did not plan it that way. I did not plan any of it in fact.

As I write this I’m quite unsure the unplanned nature of all these things is only too evident. It was and is easier talking to others about being gay than engaging them – and maybe myself – in what I believe and what I believe has happened to me. Yet, outside that formative choice – becoming as it were glad to be gay – this is the most profound experience of my life. I’m inclined to see everything in terms of this change in me – but we’ve not actually yet got to the hard bit – what is the change in me?

It is much more than simply going back to Church. I’m lost for words. Best perhaps just to take the plunge and hope for the best.

Love is a funny business as those who have had the happy misfortune to have been in love will know first hand. Well, this is a bit – or maybe a lot –  like I’ve got myself involved with someone of whom I know everyone I know will disapprove. It is how I felt when I was thirteen or fourteen and was first aware I was really gay – almost a dark secret – this is my new dark secret – something I’m avoiding talking about because I don’t want to scare the horses or shock my friends.

St Matthew:  For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law..

I always thought this was a bit of an odd thing for Jesus – meek and mild Jesus – to say. Well I now know a sense of its truth. Nothing divides you from those you love like talking about your religious experience. Shutters shut; drawbridges are pulled up and portcullises fall.

People inwardly cringe – when there’s God talk – I know – I did – part of me still does. My best friends talk very little about this to my face. I think they think it’s all very odd but probably on balance, harmless. My family are also politely bemused.

No more delaying tactics, this is my Confessio: I’ve met someone – been fascinated – been drawn by – attracted to – and with whom I’ve gradually fallen more and more in love. Let’s call him by his prophetic name – Emmanuel – God with us. I confess I am in love. Saying this out loud – it’s quite shocking.

Many will say that’s actually what this is really all about – I’m lonely and I need to be loved – what I really need to do is get out more and find someone with whom to fall in love – preferably with a real tangible person – not some facet of my over-active spiritual imagination. They will also say I’m sublimating that very natural desire for such real consummation to an apparently spiritual experience which parodies it and after all a good psychiatrist can sort me out – maybe with some tablets if only to tide me over….until I get a grip…

All I can say is I have seriously considered this myself.

The truth feels to me to be exactly the reverse. This spiritual love is for me the real experience of being loved and valued – the experience I have always sought and never found. This I suppose is why it is difficult for me to talk or write about this and I suppose difficult for others to talk to me about it. It brings tears to my eyes – often – tears of joy. I’ve become an ecstatic…not quite in the class of St John of God or St Theresa of Avila…in fact not even in spiritual kindergarten by comparison….but definitely in the same Mall.

My many gay friends will be horrified because admitting this in the context of the institution where I’ve found it makes me an apologist for that Institution – an institution which many gay people believe thinks of gay people only in terms of their unnatural sexuality; and only then unremittingly negatively. The Church oftentimes affects not to see this. For many more practicing Christians gay activists are the barbarians at the gates. Some in Africa I’m sure would go a deal further and in Uganda they’ve done so. I for one am appalled we’ve prayed so  little for a gay brothers and sisters in Christ suffering persecution for their sexuality when we have prayed for those in Sudan. That distinction speaks to a discrimination so deeply rooted that it is blind to homophobia. This becomes my cause now because I am bound by my experience to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

There’s some very disturbing literature on the general subject of ‘homosexuality’ put out by Christian and Catholic agencies. Reading it,  it is not difficult to see why gay men and women are so bitter and resentful and angry. I found this one without any difficulty on the Internet.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-homosexual-condition-can-it-be-changed-prevented –

It gives a prefect foretaste of the mentality of firmly closed minds. There are some in the Church who genuinely believe they know all there is to know about ‘homosexuality’. They peddle stereotypes which conveniently overlook what gay studies have revealed in the last fifty years – namely that the gay men and gay women have enriched the world in many ways which we are only now beginning to appreciate and celebrate. I might venture further and seek anathema – that God most particularly loves and values what might be termed the ‘complete gay sensibility’ of which sexuality is only one component and, therefore, its partial expression. The gay community was forged in the fires of hatred and of AIDS. It is remarkably nonjudgmental of others despite or perhaps because of “the oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely”.

The Victorians gave us the word homosexuality – as if human love might be simply classified. It is the classification which reduces human beings to the sum of their sexual acts not the acts themselves. It is an unscientific word with no authentic biblical use or origin. As they say on certain packages – open with caution. Many prelates in many Church Councils took the same view of the scripture – as Shakespeare has it,

Mark you this, Bassanio, the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Yet there can be no denying that Christian churches teach and have taught consistently that beyond marriage sexual continence is insufficient, rather true chastity is the ideal, the Christian’s true calling. It may call prettily in theory but to most gay men and women it is not a pleasing summons in practice  – indeed it’s not a pleasing summons to any men or to any women. Chastity is out of fashion in our age.

It is also clear that beyond the very early age of the saints – as the early Christians were called in Apostolic times – when many believed God’s Kingdom was imminently about to come – so that once newly converted these Christians even eschewed marriage and sex in all shapes or forms – if we’re honest with the evidence – chastity has never been that fashionable in any human society, even avowedly Christian ones. The notion that this is worse or made markedly different today because of the advent of gay rights or gay civil partnerships or even gay marriage is to play fast with evidence and loose with fact.

The extrinsic value the Church attaches to the state of chastity reflects a reality of it being something all human beings struggle to achieve or even struggle to accept as being normative. It seems outside the natural order of our desires and therefore of our created nature. Yet, outside marriage, the Church solemnly teaches this chastity is the normative state for all men and all women regardless of sexuality. Chastity is a state that’s also much more than the physical abstinence from sex which is its attribute. Even within marriage, as sex is to be both consensual and directed to procreation, chastity continues to reflect a normative part of the expression of conjugal love within marriage. Thus, rape may still occur in marriage and may be as grave a sin as it is outside marriage. Indeed because there is an additional breach of sacramental love and trust, it might be regarded as much more serious. Jesus very specifically answered the Pharisees’ legalism over adultery with his injunction that once adultery is committed in the heart the sin is already committed.  A hierarchy of sin is a man made edifice and like the Tower of Babel it ends in confusion. God’s holy love has made us a new creation. John Henry Newman gives the great chorus of Angelicals these words in Dream of Gerontius:

O Wisest love! that flesh and blood
Which did in Adam fail,
Should strive afresh against the foe,
Should strive and should prevail.
And that a higher gift than grace
Should flesh and blood refine,
God’s Presence and His very Self,
And Essence all divine.
O generous love!

Surely, the point is, sin, any sin, is not the last word. Jesus’ life, death and resurrection are the guarantee they are not the last word. His plenary forgiveness has left sin to die with death. Any genuine confession of any personal failure accesses the plenty of that absolute grace. One singular sacrifice for all sin in all time has set us all free. His wounded hands reach out to take hold of our wounded hearts. There’s nothing such a love cannot heal. We can abandon ourselves entirely in that bottomless love. It is the love who knows us not only as we are and loves us as we are; it knows us as we are meant to be and reveals that new us to us.

All our lives and life choices all fall short. We none of us are made to measure-up on any level. We do not need to measure up for God. He has made us all equally of perfect value and places us in the kaleidoscope of love commonly called grace. We fit together, one to another and in Him we are finally set perfectly and finally perfectly free to be lovers and beloved. Knowing this as we certainly do, to elevate the single strictures about particular sexual acts above that governing principle enjoined equally on all, is really to do exactly what the Pharisees were doing –  and like the Pharisees we my not be seeking to do evil by this but misapplying the code of the law for its spirit reflects the same misplaced reliance on specifics of ‘doing’. The coin, the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath isn’t a clever paradox that means nothing.

Jesus wants for us to freely observe both the letter and spirit but cautions us with the obsession of one, the letter of the law over the other, the spirit of the law. He warns us we are only making another golden calf to worship. It will lead us to the same fall. We must have faith in the power of his sacrifice. Its love can be accessed forever; by all and in all times. It is a matter of trust – we must trust in Him, alone. The Creed states: He will judge the living and the dead. The Church is the custodian of His absolute capacity to forgive. The Church is not entrusted to be judge on his behalf. It is entrusted to determine what is wrong absolutely. It is not to substitute that for His right alone to be judge. The sacrament of reconciliation – confession – penance – requires us to examine our action and inaction, commissions and omissions in good of conscience. What we lack in our endless imperfections His love renews, again and again. Trusting in being loved always makes it possible for us to safely face our limitations. In that trust we grow into something better.

It is in the context of the shared obligation to the tall order of chastity that the predispositions of human sexuality should be examined. They are elements of our shared vocation to love God and to love our neighbor as our self. Many of the explicit biblical prohibitions in detail apply equally to heterosexual couples as to homosexual couples. Buggery is forbidden to all and anal intercourse is as wrong between man and woman and husband and wife as it is wrong between men. The use of  male prostitutes or Temple catamites which seems to be at the heart of the matter in St Paul’s epistles is as much about abusive relationships as about performance of specific sexual acts. As money contaminates love so promiscuous sex degrades consent between contracting sexual partners. It is corrosive because it makes less of love by making sex substitute for love. The Church may rightly take a particular strict view on homosexual acts themselves but all of these particulars also sit in their own cultural context. They also sit inside a particular person whom God particularly loves. God’s motives are made explicit to us. He died for all of us; each of us being as valuable Him as the other. To us, in our world, in our place in our worlds, conditioned by its hierarchies of wealth, power and celebrity – such a love is beyond our wildest dreams; beyond comprehension.

It is however really there and it reaches out and pulls towards it. I cannot persuade anyone of the truth of any of this; it is not for me to persuade by argument. I can bear witness to its truth only because I know it and I know it to be true.

Thus, chaste loving relationships between parties of the same sex may well be exclusive, be honoured and honourable. There would be no reason not to bless such a relationship. It is already a blessing. It does not compromise the desirability for chastity. Equally, the Church might easily regard civil partnerships between gay men and gay women as something to be desired in civil society.

Promoting fidelity and sexual exclusivity in all circumstances of all human relationships as normative is a relative good as it is opposed to the greater evil of its opposite. After all civil marriage is already quite distinct from ecclesiastical marriage; its norms are set by a shared developed, legal, political and social context for all in civil society. Civil marriage is permitted to those who have multiple divorces and have had multiple partners. Civil marriage approves that state where the church holds to a different moral standard. Yet, from one perspective cherishing fidelity and exclusivity in all our relationships encoded by love and its sacred trusts, elevates what matters above the utilitarian of the civil. The church can encourage civil marriage in that sense without approving of its model or its application.

All this will led inevitably to a discussion of equality. I want x or y or z because I want to be treated as equal. Render those thing unto Caesar – and in that spirit the civil society makes its laws and those laws must be observed. Personally, I am for equality. I also believe in God and I embrace a world of love posited on theosophical inequity. These surely may paradoxically co-exist for the conditions of our brief existence are themselves paradoxical. And there’s no part of our personal existence more paradoxical than how we regard sex.

I offer no final conclusions and define no limits for what love may be for others. Good fellowship requires of all of us integrity. Our selfish actions may hurt others in a thousand ways we may never see but we may still wish to be sorry for them. Today the fashion is to apologise for this or that….a mechanical gesture we empty of meaning by endless repetition.

Yet, when we honestly bring ourselves to say sorry to those we love and have hurt or upset trivially – we are often rewarded with an easy kiss or smile that makes us feel immeasurably better and bigger hearted than our petty offence made us look. When we would do that for the least of our friends why not for the greatest? It’s never hard to be wrong; it’s never difficult to be right but that always makes it harder to forgive. But for us hardest of all is to admit we are wrong. That’s the unqualified admission that we evade. Yet we know it is the truth.

Without that interior sense of our imperfection how do we love – only as a glutton loves his lunch.

Its heartbreaking to see someone settle for so little love when it’s possible for love to be so much more. Left to our own devices all we devise is this disappointing roundel of passing fancy – amazingly, we’ve not been left to our own devices or for a moment been abandoned to this lesser self of our own devising…that is what I’ve discovered and it’s rather beautiful to share it…like love itself – all good things are better shared.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Family, social subjects - including gay issues..., Religion and related subjects, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Part I. A second coming-out – or perhaps Confiteor; Confessio; Credo
avatar

Part I – I confess….

I confess I am unsure why I am writing this. It doesn’t seem a good idea. It doesn’t seem a good idea at all. I fear I lack words to explain myself. Perhaps if I start back with my first coming-out I will lead you and me to the point of embarkation for this – my second. I apologise if this partly revisits some previous material.

My first-coming out was all about being gay. I felt vulnerable but I knew I wasn’t alone. I knew it had to be said.

This time, my second coming-out is very different. It is about God and Catholicism. Baldly stated I will already have lost half my readers which shows just how toxic this subject is. It will make many of those who love me a little uncomfortable. It may even loose me some of my friends who will be shocked and disappointed.

In the eyes of most gay men and women the Roman Catholic Church, is, par excellence, the representative organisation for negative or even homophobic attitudes towards gay people and their human rights. This church has been seen actively to thwart social progress for forty years. As an institution, it has bee seen systematically to shelter clerical sexual and physical abusers from civil justice whilst simultaneously  avoiding open discussion of dark practices that led to the widespread culture of abuse within the institutional Church itself. Hypocrisy is a word often applied by gay activists to this situation. As gay rights are both more subtle and more diverse than some activists articulate, so I say too is the Church. That said, Cardinal O’Brien’s personal tragedy in the gay community is widely seen to personify every element that justifies their application of the term.

Hypocrites…  it is the same term Jesus applied so witheringly to some of Pharisees so it has to accepted its use is legitimate. Legitimacy, alike legally permissible, cuts courtesy from discourse. It trims humanity to the bone. It is never helpful to judge others. It is more effective to deploy argument to assist us in judging ourselves rather than each other.

I left school in 1972 and spent a year between sixth form and University in Leeds. I then went to Leeds and studied history. In the crowd of those four years I came to terms first, with being gay and then, gradually, with telling all the people I loved and knew that I was gay. This bitter-sweet process has been dubbed coming-out, as in coming out of the closet. Until the 1970’s generally this meant liberation only amongst a coterie of trusted gay friends and acquaintance. That limited freedom was the theme of Boys in the Band – a not very nice play (later, movie) about a not very nice group of gay friends. My experience of life as a gay man and gay friends was destined to be so very different.  I did not know then I would look back on that as remarkable. That I’m alive to look back is in itself remarkable and cause for reflection – certainly miraculous if not quite a miracle..

Before 1967 if gay men and  gay women who accepted their “queer” sexuality they still felt the need to keep their privates lives private. Those who did not need to know were never formally told –  a group that usually included family, work colleagues and straight –  heterosexual – friends and acquaintance. The sexual revolution of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s made coming-out to everyone – shockingly chic. It dared us inside the legal and social closet to make ours a love that would no longer be unnamed. It was a social revolution.  I was in that revolutionary vanguard – velvet loons and flamboyant all.

Coming-out was the moment of truth in one’s life and important in that profound sense – there is still and was then an understanding of this being a life changing choice for each and every man or woman who makes it – there was to be a life before and a life after and from this it was understood a different person would emerge. Once out, Jack or Jill could definitely never be put back into the box or into the closet.

We are all empowered when we refuse to be governed by fear.

Christmas day 1976 is alive now in my memory. Over presents and Croft Original sherry I told mum officially that I was gay. Like most presents at Christmas it wasn’t exactly a surprise. Creena cried. It was obviously not the present for which she had hoped. It certainly wasn’t  my best timing. Important stuff often comes out at the wrong time. That’s life. And I’m sure mum blamed herself for me being gay and I’m sure she wondered why it had happened. In her heart she wanted so much more for me and so much to be different. But, tears aside, she never faltered in her love, support and faith in me. I little deserved that but, unstintingly, as mothers give to their children, mum gave to me. So too, I should add immediately did both my brother and my sister. And in 1976 that wasn’t an easy or obvious thing for them all to have done.

My family are heroic. They had values they didn’t just espouse but they lived them out.  That is very special. The Jewish tradition owns a word for that sort of special – a blessing…

For quite a large chunk of my adult life since I’ve been a guiltless, godless, hedonist. Being gay and an activist  – if only in a passive sense – I battled both religious prohibitions and sexual demons. I never considered my two loves to be incompatible. In my troubled adolescence and early twenties I did not seriously consider that I might one day have to trade one of these for the other. I switched quite easily from being the rather serious, religious boy into being a quite irreligious, racy one. Given what Catholics often experience about guilt – oddly I was shamelessly guiltless about being gay and about doing something about it. I’ve had a bad conscience about many things in my life but not about being gay  – well at least not since I was fifteen.

I did have a grueling experience at school when in a sense I was outed by my own manners and by association with the friends I chose to keep. There was nothing wrong or immoral about those friends – again they were truly, a blessing. With them I discovered Mozart, Handel and Haydn. I discovered choral music and I discovered the joy of sharing such things with others. Like fine food and fine wine, culture, highbrow or lowbrow is sweet only in the sharing.

My school in Reading was rather obsessed with homosexuality – in the wrong sort of way. It held a mirror up to many unforgiving judgments that are still applied by some prominent figures in the church.  In those times school was a bit like being in the army – conformity to all norms at the pinnacle of most admired – only set a little lower than the Deity itself.

I behaved much as I do today and it did not go down well with my classmates or in the wider school. Bullying is a kind description for what I endured for three long years. Being spat on; jeered at; the relentless catcalls and the occasional slap they were part of my  carefree school days. It didn’t feel carefree to me. Homophobia wasn’t even a word in those days.

Sexual nonconformity permits the majority to be cruel notionally in order to be kind. I knew early the price had to be paid for being different. Of course it hurt. Of course I felt desperate and at times desperately alone. I lacked intellectual confidence in myself. I preferred to hide my sexuality and hope it might go away. I knew it wouldn’t. I knew I was stuck with it. I also felt ashamed for not being normal. All of this happened in the swirl of the violent denouement of my parent’s marital breakdown and even if I felt I could talk about these feelings – at least to my mum and to my sister –  I felt even more strongly a sense that I should not burden either of them with another horrendous problem.

That said, intuitively they knew and through all of this I was never short of love. I was always secure in that sense. I am still. All my life I have had the most wonderful experience of a loving family. And as my family has grown that sense has grown. It is remarkable: my extended family is become just as close as my family nucleus. In-laws, in love, in friendship, all are all composed in one sense of my greater family. Unashamedly, I thank God for it because it is such an honour; a privilege; and, yes, that word again, a blessing.

After school I was always also blessed with many, many close friendships. True friendship is life’s truest gift. Its colour composes the picture of our lives. Friendship is the pattern for all our loving relationships. I cannot tell you how many true friends I have had –  and still have today –  all stalwart; all kind; all gifted; all good; all patient of my many faults. There’s a particular oddity in this gift I’ve been given – and over which  I have often puzzled – many of the most important people in my life life – important in the sense of being loved by and loving them –  my most intimate friendships, if you like – turned out to be Catholic converts. I love that –  especially now –  my religion came to me on a plate and they rather chose it from a menu, as in one sense I was allowed to choose them. How delicate is that?

All this said I would add that although I was religious in these early years of my life I would also say that my religious ardour was pretty conventional. I was a tribal, traditionalist Catholic – hot for Latin Mass and transubstantiation.

Ah, what has changed I know some sagely will say! What indeed…

My church going in those years was ordinary and conventional. I believed and I argued for those beliefs with conviction. I still do. I’m not sure my convictions then carried much in the way of warmth – or dare I say it –  true love. Religious debate like political debate was a cut and thrust of my intellectual rapier. I loved that rhetorical swish through the air –  but I’m unsure I really loved God.

Maybe looking back, I loved the church – Catholic and Apostolic –  more than God because – it was part of my imaginings – my heritage – the unspoken love the Irish hold for those things they were told by their overlords they might not own. Defiantly, in owning them we Irish held to our ancient faith as part of holding on to who we were as a people. But this is cult religion – a thing of folk sentiment. In my lifetime the Catholic Church’s hegemony in Ireland built on that shallow foundation had been toppled by the scandals of clerical abuse and their more scandalous cover-ups which grew from this misplaced religious sensibility. We set up the clergy too high and when they fell low, we angrily abandoned them as false gods, forgetting too easily they were the gods of our imaginings too.

Yet making the active choice to be gay – to come-out – closed down for me at least other things I felt I might have wanted – the priesthood and religious life; and yes, I think children and in that sense family life. All our choices impose limitations upon us. Integrity is never cost free. I know that is a very unfashionable view these days when we are encouraged to believe we are entitled to everything we want and everything we can afford to buy in one way or another. Those values are not based not on mutuality but on the cult of the selfish. Self-centred individualism always believes “I” to be the only real person worthy of consideration.

The things that really fulfill us are those we give-up for something or share with someone. The best of life is assembled from unnumbered small acts of kindness – these small denials of self make love. The expensive presents, the good-times, the fine dinners  – they’re representative of other feelings, all fine in themselves, but no matter what they cost they do not buy love or replicate the delicate beauty of its minute thoughtfulness.

I grew away from my religious observance and some of their feelings after I cam to live here in London. Gradually left that world behind – not with anger or self righteousness – but as a child leaves toys and fairy tales – with nostalgic regret. I became increasingly distant from a religion to which I knew my mother was being drawn back. I will add, I also had the intellectual’s grand condescension for my mother’s simple faith.  It proved to be the worst sort of intellectual vanity. For here I am no further forward with all my many, fancy words than she had in her few simple, well-chosen ones. I also focused my legitimate disgust at some of the church’s teachings on AIDS – particularly by some of the African bishops who were fast and loose with the truth of scientific fact – as a noble reason for my abandonment of the Church.

Yet, through AIDS and all it wrought of my friends in death rather than in life – I looked back on my faith with a serene indifference blended with affection. Faithless, I was never unfaithful to the part religion played in the diminuendo of life’s closing amongst many of my friends. I held to the rituals of Requiem long after I had ceased to believe in Resurrection.

When I was very sick with cancer, this is twelve years ago, mum gave me a mass card a family friend had sent her from Cashel. I was touched, even a bit surprised, but, to be frank, it was the first time in the melee of surgery and chemotherapy I had considered God. If in my life there was an obvious moment to have re-found my faith it might have been then when I was looking death straight in the eye. We blinked and I moved on. After my minuet with the Grim Reaper I think, intellectually, I consciously became atheist – not  an angry atheist ranting at a notion of God – perhaps like Richard Dawkins – though I just adore his books – but a convinced atheist –  intellectually convinced this Universe only makes sense in its randomness.

Then in a moment, in the twinkling of any eye, something changed.

I found myself aware of a gentle nudging….maybe like someone tugging your sleeve to get your attention…maybe like dozing off some sunny afternoon and gradually coming too feeling a whispering breeze on your face – and then in your sleepy consciousness becoming aware someone’s blowing gently on your face – and, expectantly, you open your eyes to see…..

I confess, just like realising I was gay all those years ago I was as awkwardly aware what I was seeing. And I was equally aware that I didn’t really want this to be true. It is true and I confess, I don’t know what to do about it.

In my small mind as a small child I learned in catechism class God is everywhere. Then it puzzled me how one never met Him. Now I’m puzzled I never managed to notice Him before –  when He’s s so alive in me and around me…….

To be continued…..

 

 

Posted in Family, social subjects - including gay issues..., Religion and related subjects, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UK, Downing Street, May 2015 – who has won the prize?
avatar

Winners and losers and elections…..and the Newark by election

alogosdownload (1)Even if the Scots have chosen to be liberated like their Irish cousins,  by next May there will still be a United Kingdom…just….

Watching the ghastly coverage on the BBC of the Local and Euro elections made me realise it was time to crank up the political pace and write a essay on the events to come. I do not know whether I will have the endurance or stomach to compose a weekly journal of the sort I did for the US elections in 2012. I’m pretty sure if I can there will be very few who will read them. Anonymity bestows upon me liberation to boldly go wherever the fancy takes me…

First let’s state some obvious points – history tells us governments rarely lose their first election. In my life time only Ted Heath in 1974 has managed that feat. It was forty years ago and so I think it’s safe to say it’s unusual. Secondly, no party polling 30% or less in an election has ever recovered sufficiently to win the subsequent election. Thirdly, no opposition has ever managed to win power with a leader significantly more unpopular than the party itself – though again Ted Heath in 1970 and Mrs Thatcher in 1979 at times were less popular than their party. Fourthly and finally, no opposition with such a small lead over the government a year out from an election has gone on to win the general election.

Therefore the answer to the question posed above ought to be, first prize to David Cameron and second prize to the Conservative Party for obtaining a clear working majority in the House of Commons.

This brings us neatly to the problem – we are not in the usual situation.

alogosdownload (1)Take the Conservative Party as an example. In 2010 it did not win the election despite Gordon Brown being the most unpopular PM in post war history. It achieved power in coalition with the LibDems having won just over 36% of the total vote. Thus in its 13 long years in opposition the Conservative Party managed only to get 6% more of votes cast in 2010 than when it lost catastrophically in 1997. It had a larger percentage of the popular vote when it twice lost in 1974 to Harold Wilson. It had gained a mere 3% more of the popular vote than when it lost to a very unpopular Tony Blair in 2005. This despite Gordon Brown and the largest financial crisis since the banking collapse in the early 1930’s.

To win in 2015 the Conservative Party needs at least to replicate that percentage of the popular vote. Outside Harold Wilson in 1966 no incumbent government has ever won a subsequent election with an increase in its percentage of the popular vote in the last fifty years. Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatives won more votes in 1979 – 700,000 more of them – than they polled in their landslide in 1983. Moreover, because of its failure to change the boundaries for this election – the Conservatives will need to be clear of the Labour opposition by about 7% in order to win even a small overall majority. Thus wining 37-8% with Labour on 30% will only just eek out a Conservative victory. It is true they will be able to govern since the NI Unionists will probably given them supply and censure but they will be left at a serious disadvantage in the Lords without the support of LibDem peers. This government – the coalition – has had the advantage of having an effective majority of working peers. Thus, without the LibDems, getting through the cherished boundary changes the Conservatives would need to implement to have a chance of gaining future majorities, looks slim. Long used to being masters of the UK’s political universe, the post 1997 Conservative Party is today a tabby cat by comparison with Mrs Thatcher’s lion.

alogosdownload (1)Labour’s problems are almost the reverse. They have both a voting system working in their electoral favour and they have concentrations of friendly voters in their urban and Northern heartlands. The Labour vote is helpfully concentrated where it does most damage. Does this matter – you bet it does. Michael Foot’s Labour Party got around 28% of the vote in 1983 and won 200 or so seats in Parliament. Brown’s Labour Party got a miserable 29% of the vote and won 255 seats. That’s the difference distribution makes and it matters. Labour’s problems are not rooted in the advantage or disadvantage of a current bias of the electoral system in their favour. This was a problem for the party in the 1960’s and in the 1980’s. No longer, the problems for Labour are otherwise, two fold and inter-linked: their leader and their leadership.

Ed Miliband is many things – including a pretty ruthless operator. He has Mrs Thatcher’s knack of sensing the popular zeitgeist – after all immigration was in the heart of his leadership campaign. He has repeatedly wrong footed the government, over energy prices, over cost of living and famously over the Murdoch press but he does not resonate with the voters and the more they get to know him the less they like him.

From Labour’s viewpoint that is alarmingly most true of the ‘blue collar’ traditional Labour voters drawn to UKIP and least true of the metro-sexual educated who are numerous in London and other cities like Manchester, Cambridge and Oxford. These voters might answer Ed’s knock but the traditional working class vote, never much impressed with Blair, looks likely to leave Ed waiting by the door. It turns out this group likes Ed Balls even less than Ed Miliband. This presents Labour with a second problem – the remainder of the Labour leadership is hardly more appealing – Ed Balls has the charm of of blunderbuss and learned too many of the tricks of the trade from his mentor Gordon Brown. Yvette Cooper has Ed Balls for her husband. The rest don’t light up the TV screens with their presence and in the absence of another obvious choice – like David Miliband – a leadership election is both unlikely and unlikely to solve Labour’s problem. Next time will be different – watch for Chukka Umunna…like Blair he has the self confidence and the easy style to appeal to non-political voters – and to get out the immigrant vote.

Thus, against the odds oddly it’s time for Labour collectively to cross fingers and hope for the best – hope maybe the debates do for Ed what they did for Nick Clegg in 2010. Drowning men tend to hold on to anything that comes to hand.

alogosdownload (1)Mention of Mr Clegg and drowning men takes us neatly to the LibDems. In power for the first time in seventy years they one more entered into a coalition with the Conservative Party in order to get there. History has not been kind to Liberals in Conservative led coalitions. The Liberal Parties were virtually wiped out in the 1940’s because of their toxic association with Baldwin and Chamberlain. Mr Clegg clearly intended to buck this historical trend. However, two things probably have conspired against his noble ambition: Tuition Fees and NHS reform. The irony is Mr Clegg need never have let either happen. He was intoxicated by his own heady brew of taking tough decisions and taking himself way too seriously. He took decisions which a wiser head might have left undecided  –  and for the decidedly silliest of reasons – just to be seen to be as tough as the Tories. In that vanity glass the LIbDem brand lost its public reflection.

Since then the LIbDem performance in every national election has been dismal. This last set were in many ways no worse than the first in 2011. For the LibDems coalition was meant to be the dawn of the brave new world they had worked for for but for which they were strangely unprepared. Inexplicably the only party well prepared for this political novelty of coalition was the Conservative Party. It seized its advantage and has cleverly held the LIbDems to it since. The LibDems thought all would be fair and electoral sweet reason would be seasoned with the Alternative Vote by 2015.  Unreasonably voters took a different view. The whole enterprise now seems and feels doomed. Like risk-averse Brown and Major before, Clegg clings on for fear of losing everything. It is rarely a good springboard for electoral success.

However, just when this collapse of stout third party seemed ready to hand Ed the keys of the kingdom, enter the 21st century’s authentic cheeky chappie – yes, Nigel Farage and UKIP.

It is a mistake to believe because someone is a fool and a knave no one will ever vote for him or her or his or her party in significant numbers. History actually teaches us the contrary –  fools and knaves are made to win elections. Mr Farage has stamped his personality all over the post-coalition politics and in a world where every novelty is a celebrity opportunity Mr Farage has not disappointed on the downside. The electorate accustomed to fads sees no harm in following one and voting for it.

UKIP under Farage might win an election – and not just one about Europe. It might certainly win a by election or two or three or more. Survation polling has UKIP within 8 % of the conservatives in Newark. With a majority of 16,000 Newark is one of England’s safest Conservative seats. If last week’s electoral tremors betoken an earthquake wait and see the panic if the Tories loose Newark.

Realistically, however, the political system runs against UKIP and Farage. Nationwide UKIP gained 168 Councillors last week. Labour gained over 2100 – 350 new ones to boot. Even the LibDems had over 400 seats at the night’s gloomy end. Hard truth is it’s hard to win seats on First Past the Post in any circumstances; harder still for for small parties; hardest of all for new parties without local organisation. LibDem success when it came in 1997 was built of three decades of hard slog on the streets of council wards.

That, however, is not the last word on the matter. We live in an age of Media hyperbole and celebrity. Politics like much else is viewed and consumed through these prisms. Farage has a traction that might pull down the old three party system…

Evidence – well who in politics does Farage most resemble. I suggest a name, Boris Jonson. Boris has won two elections in London. This is very significant – London is becoming a less and less Conservative city. In London last week Labour had its best results since 1971 – outdoing even the glory days of the 1990’s. Still in 2012 it lost London mayoralty to Boris for a second time. To win in addition to overcoming the fact of being a Conservative, Boris had to overcome the handicaps of being an old Etonian and being extremely bright.  He has hidden his privileged bright lights from the public gaze by  giving them something else to look at – Boris has cultivated a certain affected clownishness. He cultivated this television image before he ran for city-wide office. The image was a-political and it worked for Boris, the politician….

alogosdownload (1)Farage has the same effortless ease on camera – a natural, one might say. Modern politics – fairly or unfairly – turns much more on how you say something than what you say. Blair like Bill Clinton were class acts being able to do both – both natural performers on TV and politicians with something to say. Others like Thatcher, Wilson and even Churchill  sculpted a public persona from their own clay feet and shaped images the public were willing to buy. Others like Hague, Kinnock and even Heath never quite got their image fired in the ovens of popular imagination.

UKIP therefore should be treated less as a phenomenon of right wing demagoguery – though it has plenty of nasty demagoguery in its train – and more as a phenomenon of the consumerist politics of celebrity and novelty which has a powerful undertow in modern political life. The politician most likely to succeed is the one who appears to be the one with the X-Factor; the one who puts voters at their ease –  more Ant or Dec than Bill or Benn….as Bill’s wife Hilary found to her cost in 2008 when running against the easy, charming Barak Obama.

So here we have it all – an election in the offing – and a choice between Cameron, Miliband, Farage or Clegg. Mr Farage will probably have to be allowed into the leaders’ debates. Mr Farage will most likely give a good account of himself and UKIP will get a boost much as Jeremy Thorpe got a boost in 1974. Mr Clegg’s army will be reduced to tears but probably half the LibDems will survive. UKIP could win 10 seats but unless it polls in percentage terms in the higher twenties it is unlikely to make a breakthrough in Parliament. There will be nationalists and there will be unionists and there will be a government – probably like the 1970’s a government which will duck and dive to survive.

alogosdownload (1)Who will be PM my head says Cameron….my heart says…..just remember sometimes unlikely people win elections – ask Ted Heath, Harold Wilson in February 1974 and John Major…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Poetry Please?

Why should it be that these days I cry so easily?
An old man’s tears run fast as new  wine at harvest.
Watching nervous sheep run on from me my eyes run too
Alone, watching the peaceful landscape my life has sheared
Fresh tears spring from my fading eyes and fall into my beard.
Why should it be that these days I cry so easily?
Why should it be these days I weep so often?
Thumbing through the photos in their biscuit-tin coffin
I stop and sigh and without warning suddenly I cry.
Dead stranger faces look back from their resting case
Familiars who’ve left my life laid in this unfamiliar place.
Within my memory banks they’re all carefully saved
Within my weeping heart their lost love engraved.
Why should it be these days I weep so often?
Why should it be there now are no more tears of joy?
There was so much crying-laughter when I was a boy.
Then so many urgent feelings came out of the blue
I’d be moved to cry not knowing what  else to say or do.
Unmanly tears were shed with my breaking voice
I’d had to stop my crying I had no other choice.
Sex shaves the innocent tears from the altered boy
Why should it be there now are no more tears of joy?
Older but wiser sagely they say is what a great age brings
I’m allowed to cry these days whoever sweet songs sing.
I’m allowed to forget these days and to cry in public view;
These days no one much notices what I say or do.
I look back through tears to relive my misty might-have-beens;
My dreams replay as vividly life’s puerile wilder scenes.
My dreams cry out to name all names my long life has misplaced
Alone abed old-hand’s may brush the cheek of love’s young face.
So, why shouldn’t it be that these days I cry so easily?
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Of dates, updates and dates yet to be made in Heaven
avatar

First I apologise for my laziness….

I should have succeeded in getting more on to the page. I’ve been absorbed in a long running battle with lawyers and planing authorities over my house. It is indeed a small matter on one level but it’s also a matter of principle that matter’s greatly. The downside of this preoccupation is it has taken away a year of my life and dulled my creative impulse.

This horrid business is not yet done – and I will fight on because wrongs should be corrected especially when purposed by those who ought to know better and those who perforce who should also have the honesty and integrity to admit their errors. The world is full of empty righteousness that means it must always seek to save face by scarring another’s with it blade.

There is much here that needs doing and will now get done. The essays on Holy week have turned into rather an epic I’m afraid and they’ve taken me a long time to write. Perhaps in their composition I am both sorting out what I think and what I believe. They therefore have been worth the trouble. There will probably be one further part.

I will then do all those things long promised – the new recipes page and loads of other things too…

Please be patient.

I also pan to start a regular essay on our forthcoming elections which will start with a retrospect on where we have reached. My problem here is with UKIP and so much else. Until Newark has had its say it is hard to gauge what to think. And ever helpful our LibDem friends have now decided to make matters more bloody than a boxer’s bloody nose and consequently its difficult to see the political landscape though the sea of red. Nevertheless, the hue and cry means I’ll find something to say over the baying of the hounds for dear old Nick Clegg’s blood.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

St (Pope) John XXIII – in his own words

Pope John XXIII was recently canonised. As the Pope who convened the second Vatican council he is rather lionised and remembered as a champion of engagement with the world and institutional reform. In fact in many ways Pope John had rather conventional and traditional views about the church.

Sometimes the mythology of what we are pleased to think happened becomes the history we repeat. We sometimes expect this to be the case – or at least excusable in the case in the distant past and events like the reformation. But cutting, pasting and editing is something historians are wont to do at all times and in all circumstances. Many of my semi-Catholic friends, brought up on a diet of worms from the post Vatican II church when reform shot off in many weird directions, are apt to think of St John XXIII are their very own hero. He certainly was heroic but his views were also heroically old fashioned, old school and traditional. Rather than paraphrase the man and thus make him into what we might want him to be I thought it would be useful to remind everyone of the man he actually was – and in his own words.

This brief digest might also be useful for any student of the reformation and counter reformation and the council of Trent since Pope John aptly paraphrases catholic doctrine on the Eucharist and on the Mass as succinctly and amply as anything I have read from the hand of an historian.

In his inaugural encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram Pope John XXIII set out a very traditional –  even a rather majestic – exposition of Catholic Church’s claim that truth, peace and unity that are found in and through the her alone.

As for unity of worship, the Catholic Church has had seven sacraments, neither more nor less, from her beginning right down to the present day. Jesus Christ left her these sacraments as a sacred legacy, and she had never ceased to administer them throughout the Catholic world and thus to feed and foster the supernatural life of the faithful.

All this is common knowledge, and it is also common knowledge that only one sacrifice is offered in the Church. In this Eucharistic sacrifice Christ Himself, our Salvation and our Redeemer, immolates Himself each day for all of us and mercifully pours out on us the countless riches of His grace. No blood is shed, but the sacrifice is real, just as real as when Christ hung from a cross of Calvary.

And so Saint Cyprian had good reason to remark: “It would be impossible to set up another altar or to create a new priesthood over and above this one altar and this one priesthood.
Obviously, of course, this fact does not prevent the presence in the Catholic Church of a variety of approved rites, which simply enhance her beauty. Like a king’s daughter, the Church wears robes of rich embroidery.

All men are to have part in this true unity; and so, when a Catholic priest offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice, he presents our merciful God with a spotless Victim and prays to Him especially “for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to protect, unite, and govern her throughout the world, together with Thy servant our Pope, and all who truly believe and profess the Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Pope John laid emphasis on the Offertory prayers of the Roman Missal.  Here are two passages from his diaries in which he spontaneously expresses himself in the words of the offering of the chalice.

My failings and incapacities, and my “countless sins, offences and negligences” for which I offer my daily Mass, are a cause of constant interior mortification, which prevents me from indulging in any kind of self-glorification but does not weaken my confidence and trust in God, whose caressing hand I feel upon me, sustaining and encouraging.  Nor do I ever feel tempted to vanity or complacency.  “What little I know about myself is enough to make me feel ashamed.”  What a fine saying that is, which Manzoni put in the mouth of Cardinal Federico [in The Betrothed, ch. 26].  (p. 301; between 27 Nov. and 3 Dec. 1960)

First of all: “I confess to Almighty God.”
During my whole life I have kept faithful to my practice of weekly confession.  Several times during my life I have renewed my general confession.  So now I content myself with a more general examination, without precise details, but in the words of the offertory prayer of my daily Mass: thinking of my “countless sins, offences and negligences,” all of which have already been confessed in their turn but are still mourned and detested. …
The vivid memory of the failings of my life, eighty years long, and of my “countless sins, offences and negligences” was the general matter for my holy confession which I renewed this morning to my spiritual director, Mgr. Alfredo Cavagna, here in my bedroom where my predecessors Pius XI and Pius XII slept, and where in fact Pius XII died on 9 October, 1958, until now the only pope to die here at Castel Gandolfo, in the summer residence.
Lord Jesus, as you assure me of your great and eternal forgiveness, so continue to have pity on me.  (pp. 304-5, 11 August 1961)

The Priest, the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Mass

John XXIII celebrating the Papal Mass

The most outstanding public testament to Pope John this deeply traditional view is found again in his encyclical on the priesthood, Sacerdotii Nostri Primordia (1959).

The devotion to prayer of St. John Mary Vianney, who was to spend almost the whole of the last thirty years of his life in Church caring for the crowds of penitents who flocked to him, had one special characteristic—it was specially directed toward the Eucharist.
It is almost unbelievable how ardent his devotion to Christ hidden beneath the veils of the Eucharist really was. “He is the one,” he said, “Who has loved us so much; why shouldn’t we love Him in return?” He was devoted to the adorable Sacrament of the altar with a burning charity and his soul was drawn to the sacred Tabernacle by a heavenly force that could not be resisted.
This is how he taught his faithful to pray: “You do not need many words when you pray. We believe on faith that the good and gracious God is there in the tabernacle; we open our souls to Him; and feel happy that He allows us to come before Him; this is the best way to pray.” He did everything that there was to be done to stir up the reverence and love of the faithful for Christ hidden in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to bring them to share in the riches of the divine Synaxis; the example of his devotion was ever before them. “To be convinced of this”—witnesses tell us—“all that was necessary was to see him carrying out the sacred ceremonies or simply to see him genuflect when he passed the tabernacle.”
As Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius XII, has said: “The wonderful example of St. John Mary Vianney retains all of its force for our times.” For the lengthy prayer of a priest before the adorable Sacrament of the Altar has a dignity and an effectiveness that cannot be found elsewhere nor be replacedAnd so when the priest adores Christ Our Lord and gives thanks to Him, or offers satisfaction for his own sins and those of others, or finally when he prays constantly that God keep special watch over the causes committed to his care, he is inflamed with a more ardent love for the Divine Redeemer to whom he has sworn allegiance and for those to whom he is devoting his pastoral care. And a devotion to the Eucharist that is ardent, constant and that carries over into works also has the effect of nourishing and fostering the inner perfection of his soul and assuring him, as he carries out his apostolic duties, of an abundance of the supernatural powers that the strongest workers for Christ must have. …
        If it is obviously true that a priest receives his priesthood so as to serve at the altar and that he enters upon this office by offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice, then it is equally true that for as long as he lives as God’s minister, the Eucharistic Sacrifice will be the source and origin of the holiness that he attains and of the apostolic activity to which he devotes himself. All of these things came to pass in the fullest possible way in the case of St. John Vianney.
For, if you give careful consideration to all of the activity of a priest, what is the main point of his apostolate if not seeing to it that wherever the Church lives, a people who are joined by the bonds of faith, regenerated by holy Baptism and cleansed of their faults will be gathered together around the sacred altar? It is then that the priest, using the sacred power he has received, offers the divine Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ renews the unique immolation which He completed on Calvary for the redemption of mankind and for the glory of His heavenly FatherIt is then that the Christians who have gathered together, acting through the ministry of the priest, present the divine Victim and offer themselves to the supreme and eternal God as a “sacrifice, living, holy, pleasing to God” (Rom 12:1). There it is that the people of God are taught the doctrines and precepts of faith and are nourished with the Body of Christ, and there it is that they find a means to gain supernatural life, to grow in it, and if need be to regain unity. And there besides, the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, grows with spiritual increase throughout the world down to the end of time. …
Speaking as a Father, We urge Our beloved priests to set aside a time to examine themselves on how they celebrate the divine mysteries, what their dispositions of soul and external attitude are as they ascend the altar and what fruit they are trying to gain from it. . . .
When We gaze from this height of the Supreme Pontificate to which We have been raised by the secret counsels of Divine Providence and turn Our mind to what souls are hoping for and expecting, or to the many areas of the earth that have not yet been brightened by the light of the Gospel, or last of all to the many needs of the Christian people, the figure of the priest is always before Our eyes. If there were no priests or if they were not doing their daily work, what use would all these apostolic undertakings be, even those which seem best suited to the present age? Of what use would be the laymen who work so zealously and generously to help in the activities of the apostolate?

Pope John Celebrating the Divine Liturgy

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Part II. What really happened in Holy Week?

Part II: reaching that point beyond belief…..

The Background:

The events of that first Holy Week fall into three broad sections in the surviving narratives; the betrayal and Last Supper; the arrest, and trials; the execution, (royal) burial and finally Resurrection event. They are laid out quite simply in all four accounts. These accounts are obviously based on preexisting oral versions (and probably written accounts) and their final compositions betray some inelegance as a consequence.

There’s a tendency in all four gospels to compose various events as seen by the different principles into one single common narrative. All events can only be experienced in one single perspective. History offers a retrospect that draws together the many strands into a single narrative thread. Therefore, the gospels might better be understood as if we are hearing various witness voices rather than that of the one single omniscient narrator. In this the gospels more resemble Homer than Virgil, though arguably Luke’s two volume “Epic” – the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles – taken together – bear a passing structural resemblance to the Aeneid.

Secondly, it must be accepted that the classical culture had a very different relationship with its past – even its recent past – than we have with the past today. The events of that first Holy Week are seen from the viewpoint of an omniscient narrator. It hardly needs saying – as the gospels record this themselves – that none of the participants viewed those same events in that light at the time they took place.

The gospels are not historical narratives of a life in any accepted or modern sense.These are not even historical accounts in the sense of Roman narrative history like those we find in the works of Caesar or Livy – or even in those of early medieval chroniclers –  like Einhard’s famous life of Charlemagne or Bede’s History. There was no one on the ministry with the historical Jesus taking notes or making up some contemporaneous record. Unlike Caesar, the historical Jesus felt no impulse to commit his version of events to paper. Jesus’ teaching methods were, however, powerful adaptions of a traditional Jewish formula. Even today many centuries from their first telling, many cultures away from their original sensibility and many translations away from their original Aramaic, Jesus’ parables stand out so vividly because they are so perfectly wrought. Is there any message better delivered in a story better paced than that of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan? The gospels, however, carefully assert these recollections are not man’s work but rather are inspired rather by the Spirit. This frankness actually helps rather than hinders the historian. Nevertheless, the compiler(s) – our Four Evangelists –  did achieve a remarkable literary feat.

Within each of the Gospels there is content which is similar and there are story elements which overlap. Matthew and Luke both contain most of what is in Mark. They share additionally another core of stories not found in Mark or John. These may have come from another (lost) single gospel source. John, Luke and Matthew additionally also contain unique elements. Luke, for example, has all three New Testament canticles – or songs – which have formed the core of  daily Christian prayer since at least early in the third century AD – The Benedictus of Zachary at Lauds; the Magnificat of Mary at Vespers; and the Nunc Dimittis of Simeon at Compline.  They all share however, a narrative that deliberately climaxes at the same point  –  the account of the Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection. These, as previously noted, are the events which are specifically recalled in Holy Week.

The gospel accounts of this final week also reflects the same marriage of shared and unique. Each account contains specifics which point to differing ‘original sources’. These were certainly oral and probably Apostolic ( from the 12 as principal witnesses) but early on these may have been supported by a series of literary compilations –  such a lists containing some of Jesus’ aphorisms; or particular parables; or particular prayer formats used by Jesus; or an abbreviated story-line of the passion and resurrection events – which were after all the stimulus for the Apostles and disciples to evangelise in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. These various literary collections probably circulated amongst the various communities of believers on their own account; they were probably copied and added to ad hoc. These originals were probably contemporaneous with St Paul writing his epistles. So, the sources we have point back to originals from the first generation after Christ – the time of the twelve Apostles, what theologians call Apostolic times.

The Apostles Jewish religious practice would have informed a natural desire to add some form of written scripture for the New Covenant they believed founded in Jesus. This impulse would have naturally found some literary expression if only initially to supplement oral evangelisation. Paul’s Epistles always sound as if they are written into a culture where there is already a burgeoning appetite for a written supplement to the community worship of nascent Christian communities. Much of this worship took place in the context of synagogue and Temple until the sack of Jerusalem. The reading of Scripture was a central part of Jewish community worship – as we again also know from the gospels where for example Jesus himself teaches in Nazareth after the Sabbath prayer. His hostile audience wanted to stone him – a prophet we are told never being welcomed in his own country. Finally, the Didache, discovered in the nineteenth century and dating from c.80 AD, indicates that the Christians had a (Eucharistic) service that reflected on the events of this holy week in its entirety. In short, there is every reason to suppose the worship forms emergent were supported by an emergent New Testament scripture.

The differences between the various passion narratives are most pronounced in John. John’s account of the Last Supper differs in a major respect from the synoptic accounts. John has no words of Institution of the Eucharist which in the other three accounts is the central moment of the Last Supper. By the time John reaches this narrative moment he has already spent a long section of his Gospel exploring the Eucharistic nature of Jesus being the Bread of Life (famously chapter 6). This gospel was composed after both the didache and after the diaspora and so it can be assumed the ritual beliefs about the Eucharist were established in believers minds. Thus the crux of John’s account of the passion rather turns on the betrayal of Judas and includes the famous ‘farewell address’. In this long monologue, rich in imagery and theological metaphor, John’s Jesus sets out the Nature of his relationship with God (the Father) in quite specific terms as the Father’s true son. The Johannine notion of Jesus as Son of God is the brilliant lodestar of John’s narrative. Only after Jesus’ farewell address establishes who is actually going to die on the cross does this narrator turn to the events of the passion itself –  events for which the reader has been long prepared by the plot narrative. Similarly, at other times in the synoptic accounts  – as in Gethsemane event – there are apparent plot inconsistencies – for example we overhear Christ’s prayer in the garden before his arrest –  let this cup pass – but we are told that his companions sleep. This does not mean either account is all invention but rather each reports the historical events in its own distinct context. The medium contains a message whilst also conveying the spare detail.

The provenance of the style and character of these narratives looks back to the tradition of composition found in the Jews’ quasi historical-religious books –  particularly those of Exodus and Kings – the books that provide the foundation nation story of Israel – the chosen people – or, more literally,  the people who wait for God. The gospel narratives are also replete with Messianic cross references to Moses and the founding principles of the Law by which the Jews were to live and to the prophecies spoken by the prophets, principally,  Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel. This style informs the context. It is that context that subsequently is used by those who partook in the events of that week to make sense of and explain what they had witnessed.  As they are frank witnesses about this it is not for the historian to judge them for lacking empirical truth. Rather it simplifies matters as the gospels account in themselves for the narrative perspective adopted in their presentation of the events. In any event history is always more a matter of interpretation than of accurate chronology.

The true purpose of the composition of the gospels – as opposed to those sometimes asserted by the authors – remain elusive. Their final form was not attained until much later than their original composition. Thus, sometimes the texts are repetitive as if sections do not quite sit in their original sequence. A good example is found in the farewell discourse in John, chapters 13 14, 15 and 16. The entire discourse of Jesus is presented as if took place at the Last Supper after Judas leaves the Upper Room to betray Jesus to the Temple militia. However, it could be john is presenting a recollection of various discourses from several meals in this last week – continuing on a theme from one day to another – rather like a symposium. Historically and textually that might make more sense – theologically it matters not a wit.

The Entry into Jerusalem is a deliberate entry into controversy

The events preparatory to the final holy week close with Jesus’ ‘triumphal’ entry into Jerusalem. It has included a meal at Bethany, after raising Lazarus, a meal wherein Mary, the sister of Lazarus, has anointed the feet of Jesus with expensive oil and dried them with her hair. This ritual action is akin to those performed prior to burial. Lazarus and his two sisters Martha and Mary are presented to us as relatively prosperous. We are also told something of how Jesus organised, sustained and financed his public ministry. We are also given an insight into the role of Judas – who complains to Jesus about Mary’s wastefulness – and who is placed in charge of the common fund – a sort of road manager. Judas’s reward for his betrayal is to be money –  30 pieces of silver. Judas angrily returns the money to the priests after he realises what has happened. After his suicide the priests of the temple buy a potter’s field which will become the burial ground for pilgrims and strangers. Why does Judas betray Jesus – we are given no motive beyond his love for money – but perhaps like Judas we all are prone to trade what we love in our hearts for silver and gold put into our hands. Though our heads tell us money cannot buy love we are inclined to believe it just might.

It is his entry into the city which leads to Jesus’ final (fatal) confrontation with the Jewish authorities in the Temple – the religious organisation led by Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas who was high priest in succession to his father-in-law and thus presided over the Temple’s governing council, the Sanhedrin. Both men were of the Sadducee faction which dominated in Jerusalem. The Sadducees did not hold with bodily resurrection and did not hold  either with the traditional ritual practices or charismatic prayer formula beloved of popular religion and adapted from the manners of the prophets. They, instead emphasised the strict observance of the ritual laws to their last letter. Thus in the Sanhedrin, if John’s account is to be believed, the raising of Lazarus would have raised all sorts of questions and all quite legitimate from its membership’s standpoint. After all the nature of Jesus’ claims to raise the dead would seemingly have involved him in knowing blasphemy. The fastidious elders in the Sanhedrin would have been appalled. there is also a context in the gospels which shows Jesus more or less in a running battle with this literal religion of the written law – over keeping of the Sabbath; over divorce; over mixing with those deemed tainted under the structures of Moses’ law –  all gentiles, all Samaritans,  all public sinners such a adulterers; all professions such as tax collectors or swineherds and certain labourers within the Jewish nation such as Temple shepherds,  all of whom were regarded as ritually unclean.

In the synoptic accounts the entry to Jerusalem also occasioned a confrontation in the Temple itself –  when Jesus casts out the money-changers. Again, to act thus, and on the eve of one the year’s great sacrificial feasts, was tantamount in some (blinkered) eyes to blasphemy. Moreover, the Temple forecourts were thronging with pilgrim Jews anxious to complete their pilgrimage by making an offering of (clean) Temple gold in order to associate themselves with the paschal or Passover sacrifices to be offered by the priests. This was obviously shockingly blasphemous to those involved in these Temple rites – much as a practicing Christians might feel over a Black Mass or a Muslim over the denigration of the name of the Prophet.

Jesus was arriving in the city in good time for the celebration of the Passover feast which climaxed each year in the Temple on the day before the Sabbath when thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of sheep and lambs were ritually sacrificed. Gullies from the altars carried fresh blood along to channels which ran besides the steps of the temple – rivers of blood gathering to recall the blood shed to enable the first Passover. By day’s end the air wreaked with its stench. The bleating of panicking lambs and sheep would have filled the city. At sunset the slaughter ceased and all fell quiet.

The Temple authorities bred these sacrificial lambs on lands specifically set aside for this sacred purpose. Temple priests used only unblemished animals – animals chosen by their shepherds for this ritual sacrifice. These shepherds, although servants of this system, were held to be unclean since they were breeding animals for this bloody purpose.

Thus, those lowly shepherds, familiar figures in the stable at Bethlehem and who stand in every Christmas crib, would have stood out to the first readers of the gospels. Their selection as a group, first to receive the news of the Messiah’s birth by the angelic host and, then, first also to see the unblemished child of God – the Lamb of God –  was no accident of the nativity narrative. Their place at the Nativity events to a Jewish readership was redolent with the symbolism of bloody sacrifice that our pastoral Christmas deliberately forgets.

The nativity stories arrived later in the Gospels and thus logically not only acknowledged not prophetic predictions from Jewish scripture but also surrounded the events with symbols readily understood by their readers. The references to Jesus being a ‘good Shepherd’ and ‘a gate to the sheep fold’ and all the rest –  not least the lamb of God –  all these references reflect the sacrificial nature of the founding story of the Jews –  the Passover.

According to the Jewish histories Passover memorialised the events in Egypt sometime around 1100 BC. The books of Exodus record the Passover occurred as the last of ten plagues visited on Egypt and which had resulted in Pharaoh setting his Jewish slaves free. The last plague is when the Angel of the Lord is sent into the land of Egypt to strike down the firstborn of Egypt. This same angel passes-over the homes of the Jews whose lintels were painted with the blood of a freshly killed lamb. This pass-over lamb was eaten – with bitter herbs and unleavened bread –  standing –  possessions packed, the meal’s participants fully dressed and ready to leave for their Promised Land.

The historicity of these events is difficult to attest since Egypt’s records from the timeline asserted in the bible are silent on the subject. However, if the biblical timeline is ignored there is an historical event in the Old Kingdom in the reign of Pepi II which might be said to coincide with the events described in Exodus. That is a full thousand years before the bible’s –  which indicate the events might have taken place in the reign of Ramses II. There is no Egyptian evidence to support that biblical narrative. However, it should be remembered that when these books were written historic time was relative and oral traditions had long existed before these accounts were written down. in that process, stories from different times might easily become entwined into a single narrative. Time was measured out in seasonal cycles and life cycles. Historic time was relative rather than fixed.

On this final occasion it is agreed that Jesus made a much anticipated arrival into the city riding an ass. This journeyman of the poor was prophesied to be the means of Messianic transport. That is itself would have been a provocation on a major feat like Passover. To many in the Temple it would have seemed as outrageous as it certainly was blasphemous. As a gesture, it was certainly pointed. It must have sharpened hostility to Jesus that already had long existed amongst the religious elite.

Jesus was met by enthusiastic crowds shouting and we are told holding palms and singing ‘Hosanna to the son of David’. To all intents and purposes it indeed does look and feel rather like his time of triumph has come.This event is today commemorated today on Palm Sunday, the first day of holy week. It has to be noted that palms were not usually associated with Passover rather they were part of the Temple rites of Tabernacles.

An historian might therefore observe that It is therefore quite possible that Jesus made several visits to Jerusalem during the course of his public ministry – as any observant Jew would have. These and this final visit may later have been distilled into a single significant occasion for religious and dramatic effect. In that sense the hints in John that Jesus was regularly in Jerusalem makes more historical sense. It also explains how and why he has managed to so seriously antagonise the Temple authorities who are destined to play such a pivotal role in the events which follow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in History and related subjects, Religion and related subjects, Uncategorized | Leave a comment