The Sequere Me Blog

The Divine Liturgy

2011-02-09T00:02:00.002Z

Now that's a chalice.

A sad day for English Law

2011-01-18T11:49:00.004Z

"Much is said about diversity, but it seems that some people are more equal than others."

These were the words spoken by Mrs Hazelmary Bull, who has been fined £3,600 by the County Court in Bristol for refusing to provide a double room for Mr Martyn Hall and Mr Steven Preddy, on account of the fact that they were an unmarried couple. This, according to Mr and Mrs Bull, was contrary to their religious beliefs, beliefs which are the foundation stone for the English legal system, because it would mean, essentially, that they would have enabled sinful acts, or at least, have provided a near occasion of sin.

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy took this to mean that Mr and Mrs Bull were discriminating them because they were in a homosexual relationship. Moreover, the ruling has established the precedent that civil partnerships are the equivalent of marriage. They claimed also that discrimination against unmarried couples was akin to refusing accommodation to 'blacks and Jews', something consigned to the history books in this country - mostly.

The hotel in question is also the home of Mr and Mrs Bull, and they argued that they did not want adulterous acts to take place under their roof.

I think that argument is fair enough.

But the couple in question, their legal team, and other lobbyists for homosexual 'equality' argued that the hotel's owners refused their guests because they were homosexual.

The Court, we have heard today, bought that argument.

We cannot really know what the intentions of Mr and Mrs Bull were in the formulation of their booking policy - only they and God can see into their consciences - and we do not have the ability to fall back onto the authority of Church teaching, because they are not fully part of the Church, I am led to understand.

I suspect, however, that even if they were, it would not have helped them.

This has some parallels with the stories of recent years, telling of persecuted employees, particularly of air companies seemingly, who were not permitted to wear jewelry, including a cross.

I didn't buy this argument at the time. Wearing jewelry is not an integral part of the Christian faith (seeing what the airline would have said to the lady if she had have worn ashes for Lent), and so the argument didn't have anything to fall back on. The only religion - to my understanding - which requires a particular dress is Sikhism. Islam and Judaism is vague, because of the various interpretations of their scriptures and laws.

If we think of Archbishop Angelo Roncalli, who became John XXIII, he was not permitted to wear ecclesiastic dress as apostolic nuncio to Turkey, and pounded the streets in a lounge suit.

We can see that even bishop curtail to local laws and customs, as scripturally required - something apparently lost of Mr and Mrs Bull - so long as they do not cause one to break greater, divine laws. Wearing a dog collar is not divine law. Neither is permitting an unmarried couple to share a bed; it is always best to give the benefit of the doubt in all things.

By providing the environment to allow the potential for a sinful act to take place, as is the question with this court case, it does not necessarily make that provider culpable for the actions (are there not parallels here also with the Tucson shootings?), which, unfairly, they are assuming will take place in the room.

There were some allegations that the two men were working on behalf of a lobby group, which targeted this hotel for its booking policy, in order to entrap them into a criminal offence. These allegations were false, but if these things go on, which I'm sure they do, it would be interesting to see the reaction of the Courts in the face of charges being brought against members of other religions with similar beliefs.

I can understand, however, the feelings of Mr and Mrs Bull, which I think are more damaged now, than the feelings of the homosexual couple originally, and this should have been taken into account. Fortunately, they were the recipient of many donations from supporters, which have covered their fines.

In the future, we can, interestingly, look to Spain for guidance in this area of culpability. The King of Spain is a Catholic, and bound by Church law and teaching. When the government of Spain liberalised abortion laws, the King was constitutionally required to sign the bills into law, and thus, seemingly, have allowed abortion himself. The Bishops' Conference, however, assured the King that he did not excommunicate himself, because he was not fully culpable for the actions which he committed; his refusal would have resulted in something unacceptable because the King does not possess freedom of conscience - something, one would argue, which affords him various other rights and privileges. Similarly, King Boudewijn of Belgium abdicated for the day in 1990, instead of signing abortion bills into law. The last monarch in this country to refuse a parliamentary bill was Queen Anne, and, indeed, the last monarch to actually 'sign' a bill physically was Queen Victoria. In the UK therefore, Royal Assent is assumed.

So, in the end, Mr and Mrs Bull are guilty of a criminal offence, and so are subject to the penalties laid down by the law. We should always remember to be ready to defend the faith when needs be, but also be aware of the distinction between that which is essential, and that which is not.

Interestingly, both of the men in question were awarded their reparations separately. So much for the equality of civil partnerships.

And there is more...

2011-01-17T17:38:00.003Z

Further to my last post about the style new Ordinary of Our Lady of Walsingham, I have noticed that the Mass of Thanksgiving (First Mass) celebrated yesterday by Fr Andrew Burnham, he managed to abuse his celebration of the Church's sacred liturgy.

The problem arose during the Eucharistic prayer, which was said silently, covered by the music of the Sanctus and Benedictus. This is, of course, contrary to the rubrics of the Roman Rite, which he was using. He was, of course, less than 3 weeks ago, a protestant.

This may be to the taste of some, but it is wrong to do so on one's own initiative. To be fair to him, I wasn't there, and I don't actually know what happened, rather, I have discovered from reading a report of the event.

Similarly, he has already been styled 'bishop'.

In the CDF document, Complementary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, it says that former Anglican bishops who have become Catholic priests in the Ordinariate may be invited to participate in the meetings of the local Bishops' Conference, where he would be afforded the status of a retired bishop. He may also petition the Holy See to use pontifical insignia (to be given pontifical right).

It would be improper to refer to these priests as bishops, as they never have been bishops, and have not been ordained bishops, or, before last weekend, ordained priests, as the bulletin from the Vatican indicated. None of the priests have participated in a Conference meeting yet, and none have - to our knowledge - applied for pontifical rights (which they may be granted anyway upon being admitted to the higher ranks of the monsignori - so long as they cut the lappets from their mitres).

What does it mean, to be afforded the status of a retired bishop, and does that apply just during the conference meetings, or in all cases? Does this mean simply they may be titled, Right Reverend, or will their place-names read, 'bishop emeritus'?

It may be my famously picky scruples, but I do think this issue needs to be quickly cleared up by the Holy See.

People are starting to add two and two, and getting 13. Michael Ramsay, Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, was given a bishop's ring by Paul VI - his own! - and subsequent archbishops have been given pectoral crosses by the Popes. Coupled with this unknown territory, what are people going to think? If these priests are going to be called bishops, even by upstanding Catholic priests outside the Ordinariate, as happened in Oxford yesterday, and they start to wear gloves and mitres, people are going to think they are actually bishops.

And I wouldn't mind but this guy isn't even the Ordinary!

Moreover, people are going to start to think that there was not a definitive break between their protestant 'ministries' and their Catholic priesthood.

What we do as Catholics is a result of our beliefs, and our beliefs are informed by what we do. And what we do - and what the Ordinariate does - is being watched closely by the world.

The Catholic Church - the Catholic Church which they are now in communion with - believes that Anglican orders are null and void. Whether they are trendy liberal women or high Anglo-Catholic blokes, their orders do not exist. Those in Anglican 'orders' are laymen. That is why these guys were ordained on Saturday. The Catholic Church did what it believed. It wasn't just for show.

This may be interpreted as a criticism - there is a first time for everything - but the Holy See, the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, and the Ordinariate, need to clarify what the position actually is, both in words and actions, before any confusion takes root.

If the Holy Father wills all of this, then, I have to say frankly - for the first time - that my will is not in accord with his.

Confusion

2011-01-17T14:32:00.005Z

Today's bollettino from the Vatican had an unsavoury and slightly confusing combination of words. It read, in the English language version (not appearing in the original):

The Holy Father appointed Rev. Keith Newton as first ordinary of the new Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the territory of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. Rev. Newton was born in Liverpool, England in 1952 and ordained a priest in 1976 for the Anglican diocese of Chelmsford. In March 2002 he was ordained as suffragan bishop of Richborough

Something about that doesn't sound right to me. I'm sure this picture, taken at his priestly ordination, was only taken on Saturday...

Another then and now

2011-01-14T16:27:00.003Z

I just spotted this recent picture, and immediately thought of another one...

You may not have seen it here first!

2011-01-14T09:08:00.007Z

As reported yesterday, the three former Anglican bishops were ordained to the diaconate last night, by bishop Alan Hopes.

A new beatus in the making...

2011-01-13T19:18:00.003Z

Building work has begun in the Vatican.

The Chapel of St Sebastian, in between the Pieta and the Blessed Sacrament Chapel in St Peter's, is covered with tarpaulin, and the body of Blessed Innocent XI has been removed.

Rumours abound that the Venerable John Paul II is going to be translated into this chapel, if and when he is beatified. The chapel is watched over by the statues of Pope Pius XI and the Venerable Pius XII.

I'll check it out myself next time I go.

Incidentally, the cause for Blessed Innocent XI was indefinitely suspended recently, as an Italian couple, who once wrote a story book, claimed that the Pope - who was instrumental in ecclesiastical reforms of the 17th century, and in the repulsion of Islam from western Europe - supported the overthrow of the last Catholic King of England, James II. I don't know where is relics, contained in a silver effigy, have been translated to.

I wonder whether he has been moved down the table in heaven...

Ordinariates are us

2011-01-13T19:11:00.003Z

The Church as just ordained men to the diaconate, who, two weeks ago, were protestant bishops.

With God's grace, the ordinariate will be successful; so let us pray for it!

Ad multos annos to our new clergy

Then and now

2011-01-13T16:34:00.002Z

Lest we forget!

Education, education, education

2011-01-12T16:47:00.002Z

I have just listened to a piece from the radio, starring Michael Gove, the education secretary, in an unnecessarily heated argument with a caller. I was very glad to see Mr Gove 'keep his cool', which, as I also find, often infuriates the people who want to have a good old row, as they mistakenly feel that they are being patronised.

I voted Conservative in the general election. I don't particularly like the Conservative party, and I don't class myself as a 'tory', but they are a party, by and large, which reflects my values. Or used to, anyway. Its policies are often well-thought out, and based in traditional practice. Ideally, as in emulation of the model conservative, Edmund Burke (a political hero of mine), 'conservative' policies should not really fit into any category, but are based on what is the right thing to do at a particular moment.

A party which is truly 'conservative' should not really follow stereotypes, because it adapts itself naturally to the age it is in. No, that is wrong. It is the other way around. The present situation forms the conservative.

I like this notion, as espoused by Burke at the end of the eighteenth century, because it is not idealistic, based in some fantasy of what a political individual would like the world to be, rather, it is steeped in reality, as we should be.

The Conservative party in the UK is the one party which comes close to this method of politics, though it has been way off the mark over the centuries. The fact that the Conservative party has changed so much and has been a party with all sorts of different policies (I identify more with the pre-Thatcher era of politics), is testament to this.

As people nowadays are not usually grounded in very much reality, rather, they live in fantasy, is probably why they are unable to understand why a) the Conservative party can change its appearance and style and b) why and how coalition government works. I find the last point particularly pressing. It frustrates me when people are unable to understand what a coalition is, even now, after a while in government. It may create a weak government, but that is a bonus in my book.

Anyway, part of my reasoning for voting Conservative at the last election (not only because I could not bear the idea of having a man in the cabinet without any academic qualifications any longer), is their education policy.

I think it is clear how Labour's education policy failed. There was not enough 'beef'.

Children who were well educated in the olden days would probably be able to outwit 'well educated' adults of today. They knew all about arithmetic, grammar, the arts and humanities.

Our education system has made our children stupid.

They may be able to use a computer at the age of 4, and know how to use a keyboard, be good at colouring in, know what recycling is, and know what an average child in Mombassa eats for breakfast. I, on the other hand, was faced with a young lady in Barclay's Bank recently who could not add up 3 numbers ending in '0' without the use of a calculator.

I thought the modern comprehensive education system was supposed to comprehensive. I thought it was supposed to allow all children to have access to good education. But, as is the case with socialism, it has simply equalised what was the case previously to a mean average, rather than push up the quality for all. Socialism is not the improvement of society, it is the equalisation of misery. It does not afford people equal opportunities, it makes some opportunities available for some, on their terms, and prevents opportunities for others, often, those who are able.

Conservative education policy sought to undo the mess we had gotten ourselves in, and restore a good deal of the traditional education system in a modern framework.

Friends of mine educated abroad (in their own country, funnily enough), using what in England would be seen as a traditional grammar school mode of teaching (in terms of method and content), are not only very intelligent, but they are happy people too.

School and university is not supposed to teach people to a particular standard, enabling them to 'get a job' and work for the rest of their life, benefiting society (a socialist model), it is designed to enable children to grow up, and keep growing through adulthood, into fully realised human beings.

A school system which teaches what the child is good at, or what it likes, is not good enough. So a child might not be good at maths. So what?

I hated maths, music, English and P.E., and was terrible in those subjects, but I'm glad I was made to do them, because they have formed me.

I liked my secondary school at the start. It was a traditional state secular comprehensive school. We had blackboards, a big library with lots of books in it, pens and paper, R.E., school uniform, assemblies, a head master who we used to have to stand up for when he walked in the room, the Our Father at assemblies, eccentric teachers, and crap all over the boys toilets. Moreover, I thought that was marvelous.

As time went on, however, and the full force of the socialist ideal with which this country is infected with took hold, these things started to disappear. The Our Father, standing up for the head master and R.E. were the first to go. Then the blackboards went (apart from one stalwart teacher). The teachers became less eccentric, and slowly, they all started to look and act like bank managers. The library lost book shelves for computers, and even, the worst of them all, the school got rid of the traditional school uniform, replacing it with a coloured polo shirt.

As I grew older and taller, I could not only feel my childhood slip away into the past, but I could see the mould in which my beloved childhood was formed, crushed with the hammer of reform and equality.

I remember how distraught I was at seeing Tony Blair come to power in 1997. Even at 9 years old, I could see right through New Labour, and no-body listened to me then, so I shouldn't think anybody is listening to me now either!

Let's just be balanced with what we do with our country.

As Disraeli said, 'England cannot begin again'.

Consider the birds

2011-01-09T14:58:00.002Z

You will be pleased to learn that the Vulture arrested by Saudi police this week is to be freed.

The authorities in that country, who detained the bird on suspicion of espionage for the State of Israel, have decided not to press charges.

The bird was known to have visited Israel, as it had been tagged by a ornithologist from the University of Tel Aviv.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no codified constitution, and the government - an autocratic regime led by the Saud family since the nation's inception, where, effectively, non-Muslim religions are forbidden in public, and in all cases for citizens - instead defers to the Koran, which is understandable, in an entirely Islamic nation.

The just penalty for the bird, according to Sharia law, was amputation of the wing. Fortunately, his reprieve means he is now able to fly freely.

Dr Rowan Williams, a theologian, and a member of the House of Lords in London, once suggested that this legal system could be used in the UK for cases within the Islamic community.

The United Kingdom is closely allied to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Egypt, a shark responsible for the recent death of a person, and the injury of several more in the Red Sea, has also been accused of espionage for Israel.

There whereabouts of this other suspect, however, remain unknown.

Jesus of Nazareth

2011-01-07T13:27:00.003Z

I'm very excited to see the front cover of the new book by Pope Benedict, Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection.

I see this year's Lenten reading will soon be in the post...!

Clearance sales

2011-01-06T09:25:00.002Z

I love John Lewis dearly, and simply couldn't live without Waitrose.

I have difficultly justifying, however, John Lewis advertising 'clearance sales', when one looks at the labels on the peg to see that they have been marked down from, for example, £349 to £342.

Not quite what I had in mind.

Naturally, I am not referring to the U.S. Democratic Congressman from Georgia, John Lewis.

Stargazing Live

2011-01-04T11:59:00.003Z

Last night, in the parish, I tuned into Stargazing Live on BBC2 at 9 pm. It is presented by a double act of Professor Brian Cox, who the BBC wrongly believes is not appealing enough for its viewers, and so confirms his existence by presence of Dara O'Briain. But still, they make an amusing pair, even though I'd happily watch Brian Cox on his own for an hour. On the road, there is another scientist teaching (for some reason) Jonathan Ross how to stargaze (presumably, the BBC had to write another contract for Ross on this occasion), and in Hawaii, there features a bit of skirt, to liven up the whole show.

Two things I really wanted as a child - a train set and a telescope - and I was not afforded the luxury of being given either of them. No matter how much I said I wanted to see the rings of Saturn, or the moons of Jupiter, Santa just didn't oblige, and so I was forced to observe the stars through a pair of binoculars.

I even remember using them to magnify the Sun onto a piece of paper, so that I could safely track the transit of Venus.

I still don't have a telescope - maybe it could be a resolution for the year, to take up stargazing, though I would resent that, lest it appear that I caught my interest from the BBC - but I enjoy looking at the sky, figuring out which constellation is which, waiting for a shooting star, and now, with my new mobile phone, I can even point towards a satellite to find out what it is!

I look forward to watching the upcoming episodes of this new programme, and maybe I'll have a telescope of my own pointing out of the window soon enough.

The End is Nigh

2011-01-04T08:39:00.003Z

While we were all watching Stargazing Live last night on the BBC (did anyone watch the partial solar eclipse this morning, by the way?), we failed to notice that the ground was shaking beneath our feet, as a 3.6 ML earthquake struck the region of Ripon, over 6 km underground. Who can forget the 3.1 ML earthquake in Skipton in 1900, or, indeed, the massive 4.8 ML havoc-wreaker in Wensleydale, in 1780.

These events, coupled with the upcoming demise of Betelgeuse, one of the stars of the Orion constellation, the end of the world seems imminent to me.

New Year's Resolutions

2011-01-03T15:47:00.001Z

I have always found it difficult to decide between my two favourite seasons: autumn or spring? Spring is fresh, green and luscious, spotted with fresh snowdrops, bluebells and crocuses emerging from their wintery hibernation; spring lambs and baby deer leap as if in an ecstasy of gaiety through the fields and meadows, and bunnies play among the infant flower beds. And, my particular favourite, the first day of the season when you walk out of the house, and your cheeks are caressed by the gentle warmth of the springtime sun. Autumn, on the other hand, sees beautiful colours perforating the dark green of the aged foliage, crunchy leaves under foot, turbulent and tumultuous weather up above while humming a few satisfying strains of Donner und Blitzen to oneself through the fields and copses. The satisfaction of whipping out one’s knitted scarves, gloves and hats, and tucking under warm blankets with a mug of hot chocolate, as the stifling heat of the summer slowly starts to drift away, and the year’s accumulated cobwebs are blown into the aether by the frosty north wind.

Can you now see how difficult my dilemma is? My inability to make decisions is borne entirely, I’m sure, from seeing the hidden joy of every conceivable option! Why make a cake, if you are not going to eat it, I say. I was once told that when the leaves fall off the trees in the autumn, it is because a new bud is pushing them out. It is a very cute and pretty image which is, of course, complete liberal twaddle. Leaves are, in fact, cut off by the parent branch, to prevent the corruption of the greater body. The Lord, in his wisdom, provided the spring to remind man of renewal, regeneration and resurrection, the autumn, to remind him to keep his body from rotting his soul.

The brain cell in my head responsible for piety also draws my attention to spring, because it hosts one of my favourite liturgical feasts (Easter notwithstanding, naturally), the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which, you may have noticed, determines a considerable amount of my occasional pious devotions. In England, such was the love between my two non-biological mothers, the Annunciation on 25th March was always kept as the start of the new year. Why? Believing, of course, that life begins at conception, it was the moment of the Incarnation of the Word of God. Nine months before he became visible to the world, Our Blessed Lord was known to the Holy Family of Mary and Joseph, and those around them. Incidentally, tradition has it that Christ ascended the Skull of Adam on that first Good Friday: the first day in the Holy Sepulchre, the Womb of God’s Redemptive Act. These pious traditions are more than just mediaeval flights of fancy, don’t you know.

Anyway, when England stripped itself of the Truth, exposing itself to the debauchery of Sodom and the lies of Gomorrah, the popular new year ceased to evoke any Marian devotion, so ashamed was the child to look towards its mother, and was moved to the start of January instead (to the month named after the two-faced god of portals, funnily enough; a Satanic turnaround, if ever there was one). Much of the practice of government and the economy, however, did not change, as is normal in our country. When the Parliament of Great Britain, as it was called then, replaced the Julian with the Gregorian calendar in 1756, the year lost eleven days to catch up, and so the start of the government year, and the year kept in the City of London, was parachuted to the end of the first week in April. This is why, of course, the financial year begins in April, unlike the rest of the world, which begins in January.

It is now the two-thousand and eleventh year since the Incarnation of Our Blessed Lord, and so, it must be time to have made new year’s resolutions, and possibly, be breaking them already. Whatever should I resolve to do this year? To get to my point in fewer than 5 paragraphs, perhaps? To be less sporadic in my blogging?

I remember once, my young, blonde French teacher at school, who was an ‘evangelical’ Christian, once demonstrated the power of God’s forgiveness by tearing out the first page of a new book. It’s not just something which is done at baptism, or at the start of a year, but every day, in God’s eyes, to those who truly desire it. I’ve always been profoundly moved, that the only time the Gospel was obviously and fruitfully preached in a classroom, was by a protestant heretic.

So, what am I going to write on that fresh new page in my exercise book of life?

I’m going to start by writing my name.

Anniversaries

2011-01-03T15:28:00.002Z

I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that today is the 490th anniversary of the promulgation of the Papal Bull, Decet Romanum Pontificem.

This is no mere papal trivia, of course, this being the bull which excommunicated Fr Martin Luther, a full 3 years after the Augustinian friar had launched his attack on the Church. Pope Leo X, being of sound judgement and filled with pastoral sensitivity, did not react immediately, but was forced to confirm the excommunication, after Luther had failed to respond adequately to the Vatican's investigations, and, indeed, had deepened his hostility to that which he formerly loved so dearly.

There is nothing new under the sun, of course, and Luther was likely the unfortunate victim of that which had gone before him, enticed by a combination of rickety heresies and dodgy ecclesiastical manhandling.

Where Luther went wrong, of course, was by not having a firm philosophical foundation during his education...

O come, o come, Emmanuel!

2010-12-23T22:13:00.001Z

God’s sign is his humility. God’s sign is that he makes himself small; he becomes a child; he lets us touch him and he asks for our love. How we would prefer a different sign, an imposing, irresistible sign of God’s power and greatness! But his sign summons us to faith and love, and thus it gives us hope: this is what God is like.

Songs of Praise

2010-12-22T21:26:00.002Z

Today in the parish, the parish Mass was a funeral Mass for a parishioner.

At the end of the film, Amadeus, we see Mozart's funeral, which, in fact, was a traditional Viennese funeral: cheap and anonymous. The cortege drives out of the city gates, with the priest dashing through the rain in front, carrying a thurible in one hand, and a holy water bucket in the other. He blesses the grave, and then runs back, perhaps, to his luncheon.

I do find that funerals can become a little procedural from time to time, perhaps not as dramatically as in that particular scene. I did wonder, today, while I was reading at Mass, whether I sounded rather blasé, or even disinterested.

I did have part of my mind on the readings given for the liturgical day, the 22nd December, the third day before Christmas. So far this week, we have heard from the evangelist, who has told us about the annunciation, and yesterday, the visitation.

Today, for the Gospel, we heard (or, not, in my case), the Song of Mary, the Magnificat, which is one of the most beautiful songs of praise in the Church. In Vespers this evening, the Church sang its penultimate 'O antiphon', O Rex Gentium, which pleads with the King of the Nations to come quickly and save our race, which was fashioned by him from the dust of the earth. The Magnificat sings of God raising the lowly from the dust of the earth through his salvific action, in a way which will be greater than when he raised the first man from the dust of the earth in his creative act.

The first reading as Mass was not an accident. At the end of the first Book of Samuel, Hannah presents her child, Samuel, to the Lord God at the Temple in Shiloh, where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. The Ark of the Covenant, of course, contained the Law, the Manna which came down from heaven, and the rod of Aaron, the high priest. Inside Mary was the Law, the Bread which had come down from heaven, and the high priest himself.

In praise of God's action in her life by the bringing forth of her son, she sings a song of praise (which in Mass, is the responsorial psalm from the start of 2 Samuel), which must have been in the mind of Mary when she sang her Magnificat in the presence of Elizabeth, her cousin, many generations later. The words and imagery of the New Testament have been derived from the Old, the old covenant expanded to encompass not just the few, but which now burns bright enough to blind the whole world.

The mercy of God extends to those of every age.

Parsley's Seminary Adventure

2010-12-16T11:48:00.001Z

Check out this new blog

St Gregory the Great quotation of the week

2010-12-15T09:12:00.001Z

"The cantor serving the altar irritates God with his customs, even when he fascinates the people with his melodies"

Papal Liturgies

2010-12-14T17:54:00.003Z

This is a new(ish) YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/PapalMusic), which has a selection of videos taken from Vatican TV, seemingly, showing a variety of musical pieces at Papal liturgies. The videos seem to be going on quite quickly, at the moment.

This one, from the recent consistory for the creation of Cardinals, shows the procession to the High Altar in St Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, with Tu es Petrus being sung by the Sistine Chapel Choir. Not only is it by one of my favourite composers, but it also shows a new-old innovation in Papal liturgies: genuflecting to the Pope, as demonstrated by the Choir itself, about 50 seconds into the video.

Faceworld

2010-12-14T17:45:00.004Z

I have just come across this map of the world.

When I was in school, and even still, I had a fascination with geography and cartography - in fact, I used to want to be a cartographer - and I love topographical maps (maps drawn not to represent how something looks, but how something is according to sets of data).

This topographical map of the world demonstrates friendships between Facebook members, all five hundred million of them. It's not drawn like a normal map of the world: the blue lines do not follow anything already on the page. Some countries are completely missing altogether, where Facebook does not really have a presence. Some geographical features are clearly visible - you can see the Alps in Europe, a dark patch wedged between a very bright Europe, whereas some places do not even exist, according to this map. 21st century terrae incognitae.

Contraceptive lifestyles

2010-11-26T13:43:00.003Z

People can often get quite animated when discussing certain intricate points, which are, essentially, pointless: the off-side rule, meteorological events, the distance between a celebrant's hands, and what not.

It is not surprising then, that if language is used in this way, that the Church insists on using intricate and specialised language, when talking about things which do actually have a point, the generation of life, for example.

It is very easy to get confused as a result of the use of language. One person in a conversation may be using specialised language, the other person will only understand the vulgar. The result is, unfortunately, confusion, and often anger and resentment. Later on, I'll write about the Pope's comments about contraception in Peter Seewald's recent book.

There are many different beliefs, even within the Church, as to what evil actually 'is', if, indeed, it 'is' anything at all. Some legal experts have suggested that evil is a 'thing'; it has being. The dominant belief, the Thomistic understanding, is that evil is, in fact, a privation of the good.

So, evil can be understood analogously like darkness, which is an absence of light. As all beings have to exist, there is no such 'thing' as a complete deficiency (complete absence), as the being itself would not exist. So then, evil is an deficiency of the good; there is kind of a 'degree' of goodness in all beings.

Evil itself [sic] can be classed as either a natural evil or a moral evil. Natural evil can be discerned only from its effects. An earthquake can be a natural evil if it effects the human experience, though the earthquake is good in itself. It is doing what it is 'ordered' to do. A bird eating a worm is not a natural evil (if it does not have a negative effect on the human race in some way). Both are fulfilling their potential.

A moral evil is something which is the result of the action of a human agent, and is generally what we mean when using the word 'evil' in common parlance.

Human reason can discern whether a human act is an evil one. He is required to consider four composite parts of the act:

The genus: the act has being, which in itself, is good. It is more desirable to exist than not to exist
The species: what the act actually is (some acts are always 'not good', which are called intrinsic moral evils, a scholastic phrase misunderstood in our society, and causes great offence to many people!)
The circumstance: what is the situation around the act, a very important part of this discernment of evil
The end: the purpose of the act (different from intention, e.g., the intention may be to turn on the light switch, but the end of the act may be either to provide light to the room, or, because the room is filled with gas, to blow up the room)

All of these parts have to be good, if the whole act is good; if there is a lack of good in any of these areas, then the act itself will, therefore, be lacking in good, that is, the act will be evil in some way.

What has all this, then, got to do with the Pope?

Well, everything.

According to Catholic teaching, the sexual act is a marital act, an act of love in a marital relationship which may, with God's grace, bring forth new life.

Human beings, however, are sexual creatures, whether they actually have sex or not. There is a sexual element present in all human relationships, therefore, but only a very tiny proportion of those relationships (ideally, the marital relationship) are genital.

By 'new life', we can mean not only making babies, so to speak, but also, fulfilling the social need found in all human persons. We are open to life by living a morally upstanding life, striving towards holiness, being good to one's neighbour. By doing the opposite of those things we are, essentially, living a contraceptive lifestyle. We are walking round with a spiritual condom on our heads, because our actions and our attitudes are not life-giving.

When it comes to the sexual act, either the act is a good act (consensual marital sex), or an intrinsically evil act (extra-marital sex). If people are committing intrinsically evil acts, are they going to consider lesser commandments, such as Church teaching on contraception, when committing the act? Is a man about to commit adultery, rape, or a homosexual act, going to think beforehand: 'the Pope says I shouldn't use condoms, so I won't'? No. In reality, he probably doesn't even know or care what the Pope actually teaches.

Why, then, do we believe that Church teaching should be upheld when a greater sin is committed? In combating the spread of sexually transmitted infections, the best way to prevent it is not by using condoms, it is by not having sex. That, to me, is very simple.

Because the human person is a sinful person, he often finds it difficult to do the right thing. Church teaching on contraception may only refer to marital relationships, because that is the only morally upstanding use of the sexual act. When the sexual act happens outside of the marital relationship, the teaching, in effect, is pointless. The use of contraception in those circumstances, the Pope suggests, may be a way out of the already evil pattern of action.

What is the point of upholding a lesser law, if one ignores the greater laws altogether? Those who congratulate the Pope's comments, thinking he has liberalised the use of contraception are wrong. Those who criticise the Pope's comments saying he has changed Church teaching, are wrong. The Pope has said nothing new, and those who purposefully misunderstand him for their own ends, are committing the age old pharisaical sin of hypocrisy.

The Pope's souvenirs

2010-11-08T17:29:00.003Z

"I went to Spain, und all I got was a nodding me"

US Elections

2010-11-03T10:58:00.004Z

I always like to keep an eye on politics - probably because I have spent 5 years of my life studying it.

Anyway, I noticed a picture on the BBC which summed up two of my favourite pastimes: voting and piety.

It's good to see that, even in America, Our Lady is watching over events with her motherly gaze.

As time has gone on, I have become increasingly less interested who actually wins elections (though I always vote for the same party), more, rather, observing what goes on in local politics. Often in the US, every time there is an election (which is, every two years), there are a selection of local referenda, which are called initiatives. These tend to be proposed by a group in local legislative or gubernatorial authority, or even by pressure groups who have had a referendum as to whether they should have a referendum on an issue.

Anyway, the government in the state of Colorado proposed an amendment to the local constitution which defined fetal personhood (or, in English, foetal personhood). The proposal on the ballot paper read:

An amendment to the Colorado Constitution applying the term 'person' as used in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

This is a watered down proposal from two years ago, which, instead of 'beginning of the biological development', it read, 'fertilisation'.

Needless to say, the 72% of the people of Colorado voted to reject this amendment to help protect human life from harm inflicted by other humans.

Meanwhile, in 3 other states - Kansas, South Carolina and Tennessee - over 88% percent of people in those states overwhelming voted to amend their constitutions to state explicitly that each human being had a right to bear weapons. Weapons, of course, are designed to eradicate life.

The most shared article on the BBC this morning was: 'University of South Carolina offers Lady Gaga sociology course'.

Need I say more?

A humble plea

2010-10-08T08:33:00.008+01:00

There may be someone in the world of the internet who may be able to help me with a dilemma.

A good friend of mine is searching high and low for a white or gold orphrey from an old chasuble to be put onto a new white chasuble for his ordination or first Mass. In particular, he is looking for an embroidered cross-shape for the back, and a matching bar for the front, preferably, with some reference to the Catholic faith on it. Maybe, even, it could be taken from an embroidered banner and re-used.

He is very keen on re-using vestments, and other old and well-used items such as chalices, to ensure that they are still prayed with when he is ordained, and used according to the intention of their manufacture.

Here are some examples:

If you know of anywhere where this kind of thing may be sourced, if you have links with convents, monasteries, or parish or private sacristies world-wide, or you know of someone who could help solve this dilemma, please let me know by commenting or e-mailing me.

Perhaps even you may also know of other items, such as a chalice, which is no longer being prayed with by a priest, and could be used again.

Please be generous in giving a few moments of your time in thought to this dilemma. I can guarantee that this chasuble would be worn by a good and holy priest-to-be for his first celebration of Holy Mass next summer, and that he would be most appreciative of any help you may be able to offer.

I would also be most grateful if you were able to put a link to this article on your own blog, or even mention it to a few friends.

Image in the dust

2010-09-21T20:01:00.004+01:00

I have never met met Pope Benedict. I have not spoken to him, not touched him, not given him a gift, not shaken his hand, not genuflected to him; I have kissed neither his ring, nor his slippers.

But as he ascended the steps after having his picture taken with the English seminarians, and turned around as they sang to him, for a very brief second or two, he looked into my eyes.

I'll probably never meet Pope Benedict in the future, neither any of his successors. And frankly, I wouldn't want to, because even for a millisecond, I had the attention of Christ's Vicar.

A saint a day

2010-08-31T19:48:00.002+01:00

When one does not have very much to do, one ends up doing many strange things, including vacuuming the intricate details of my carved wooden chest, and watching repeats of Star Trek.

Sometimes, I have even turned my mind to which saints are among my favourite. Like everyone else, I have my quirky devotions. Needless to say, I don’t suppose saints Hildebrand, Turibius and Neot are invoked very often.

But what of those souls who have not been canonised? Those who, we are told, are commemorated on All Saints’ and All Souls’ days. I’ve never been quite sure of that theory myself, but it is nice to know that our admiration of good Christian souls - the dead ones, anyway - can be kept in some sort of ritual fashion.

We do not need to know people for them to have some sort of influence. I once met a monk. He was a very old, and small man, who had various dispensations from community life. I spoke to him for about ten minutes about my parish, which he knew of, and the air force, and a few other things, after which he instructed me to get some food, and then he retired. Nothing spectacular, really, but I was moved by his gentle demeanor, kindly manner, and an ‘aura’ of holiness.

Quite a while after I had spoken to him, I find out that the monk had died. As it is his anniversary, I thought it was prudent to share my brief encounter. Afterwards, I was able to read the homily from his funeral Mass, and I was grateful to find out a little more about his life. In fact, he was quoted as saying that, “Love is very heavy,” a statement which echos another favourite of mine, St Philip Neri, whose motto, “Vulneratus caritatis sum ego” (I have been wounded by love), I have often found a great comfort.

People can sometimes be seen as public faces, especially in the Catholic world. A priest once commented that he, being who he is, has a certain power and influence over people that can be effected for great good, and equally, great ill, not matter how good the intention. Being on guard to one’s activity and words is always essential, both in negative terms, such as preventing scandal, and positive terms, which ultimately results, hopefully, in evangelisation (which, in my view, works best in ad hoc situations). Similarly, one should always be open to ‘answering the door’ if somebody knocks, even if one can’t really be bothered at that moment. This is something I find quite difficult, as I’d much rather do my own thing most of the time. A very brief encounter with anyone, be he a priest, seminarian or monk, which doesn’t seem very much at the time, can have unanticipated ramifications for many years into the future.

And you never know, you could be talking to a saint.

Sequere me

2010-08-30T13:01:00.002+01:00

Some people may have noticed that for the past few days, this blog disappeared from the internet. That, indeed, is quite true. I decided to delete Sequere Me, because I felt that it wasn't going anywhere. Then I thought, being a web-site without wheels, it was never going anywhere in the first place, and, after some comments about its disappearance, I began to think I erred.

And so, instead of deleting it, I will re-vamp it, and maybe even write something now and then. I didn't realise I had already written so many articles over the years, and my plan to go through them all and delete the ones I didn't like was a task too large for me. I suspect a few old articles will be brought back to life over the next few weeks!

Happy following...

Glory of the Olive

2010-03-15T21:03:00.004Z

There is something a little fishy going on, and it worries me a little.

Our goodly Pope has done many wonderful things during his pontificate, not least the ceaseless promotion of Christian unity, and the refutation of error: by his words and deeds, Pope Benedict has been Vicar of Christ on earth.

But man has only seen what he wants to see. People inside and outside the Church see not Our Lord and God as the foundation of the Pontificate, but sedition and evil. As Screwtape wrote to Wormwood: 'the safest road to Hell is the gradual one: the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones.'

We have heard this niggling voice ever since our beginning: 'eat of the tree'; 'turn these stones into bread.'

That niggling voice is getting louder of late: 'condoms are good', 'celibacy is bad', 'the Pope is misguided', 'the Pope's advisors are all wrong', 'look at what he wears, and compare it with the slums', 'see how much the visit will cost', 'that foreign prince', 'what does he know about the marriage bed', 'he was in the Hitler Youth.'

It's not reason, folks. I'm sure if we brought that into it, we wouldn't be paying any attention to the lies which are festering in men like a malicious parasite, feeding on our intellect and fleshy desire. Listen not, for one day, it will eat us too.

Walking on the moon

2010-03-09T14:48:00.004Z

In metaphysics, we have been studying the usual things: essence and existence, substance and accidents, being and action, and what not: essentially, a substantial being is defined by what it is, not by what it does.

Today, we touched upon human nature, which makes us part of a species of humans, but also provides us with our individual identity. It is both fixed and changing, and because of this duality, what happens to part of human nature therefore affects all the beings which are part of it:

When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, 'Man walked on the moon.'

When the second person of the Blessed Trinity, Christ, became Man, it affected the whole of human nature. Here was a human man, who though divine was human also in nature, who was resurrected from the dead. Therefore, this potential of resurrection is possible for every being which partakes in human nature. Man has the potential for great things indeed.

However, it also raises an important question. Because we like to change our definitions in our modern and enlightened world, we can easily change the definition of human nature. If we take individuals out of this category arbitrarily (nominalism), then we, in our minds anyway, remove them from the same nature as ourselves. Philosophically, of course, this justified many crimes against human nature: slavery, abortion, genocide.

But what about evil people?

Well, that is a slightly erroneous question. No-body is evil, rather they do evil things. The potential to do evil exists in Man, as does the potential for good things. Man does not conquer death because he is divine, in the same way, he does not perform evil acts because he is evil.

We are open to evil actions because of our fallen state. This fallen state is juxtaposed with the state of grace, which God created us for, and we are able to receive en masse, because of our nature.

It is our potential to be full of grace.

Conformity

2010-02-20T17:58:00.002Z

Popequote

Obedience is to conform ourselves to God's will; it is not a renunciation of our own.

Lent is here

2010-02-19T15:04:00.002Z

Lent has come round a little quickly this year.

Thought it's hard to believe that this time last year, we had already done over a week of this season.

In the chapel, the last of the flowers have drooped, not to be replaced. The altar fall has gone, the gold and silver crucifix is now carved, and the rear canopy no longer sits behind it. The pelican in her piety has fallen from her nest, and the risen Lamb has be cast from the reredos.

No more instrumental music, no more 'A' words, not as many candles.

It's all very sad.

We all go on in the Catholic Church about the importance of our senses. 'Church' is not just some 'service'. When we go to Mass, we don't just worship. The liturgy is for the glorification of God, but also, for the sanctification of God's people.

It's simple. In a noble way. What we do in our glorification of God is an outward sign of what we believe about him. When we genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament, it is because what we believe It is.

When Catholics go to Mass, we eat, drink, taste, smell, sing, speak, hear, sit, stand, kneel, contemplate, meditate, communicate.

So it Lent, slowly but surely, we have these things taken away.

It starts with the beautifying ornamentation: the flowers, the lace, the organ, and other twiddly bits.

Some of our prayers go: the 'A' word is never to be said or heard. The Gloria is no longer in vogue. Many parishioners will not know that their priest has stopped saying the 'Te Deum' in his office too.

As time goes on, our sensory deprivation becomes more profound. All the Sacred Heart statues turn into purple ghosts for a couple of weeks, as all the statues (and large pictures) are covered from our view. In the Sarum Rite, the larger sanctuaries were even completely veiled from the nave.

On Holy Thursday, we get one last moment, a mere glimpse, of future glory. Then, on that night, everything goes.

No more bells, or smells.

The candles are taken away.

The altar is ingloriously and unceremoniously stripped of its vestments, as Christ was on Calvary.

Even Our Lord himself is taken away, his holy house left abandoned; there is no-body home.

The Church, the building which is figuratively Christ, is naked and empty.

There is nothing left but this cold and deserted body.

I don't think that there is anything more painful to a faithful Catholic, than the deprivation of the sacraments and the liturgy. But the Church, in her boundless wisdom, sees fit to deny us these things, as a loving parent must chastise her children. She tells us go to our rooms and think about what we have done.

English Literature

2010-02-13T18:41:00.000Z

Breaking News: Pope is Catholic

2010-02-02T12:26:00.003Z

Funny that.

Yet the BBC fails to understand this simple concept.

It's simple logic:

Proposition 1: The Pope is a Catholic

Proposition 2: The Catholic Church believes that not all 'lifestyle choices' are ordered

Conclusion: The Pope believes that not all 'lifestyle choices' are ordered

He said this:

I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth. Continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate [just because the establishment disagrees with your belief does not permit it to deny the right to political participation] through respectful dialogue with other elements in society. In doing so, you are not only maintaining long-standing British traditions of freedom of expression and honest exchange of opinion, but you are actually giving voice to the convictions of many people who lack the means to express them: when so many of the population claim to be Christian, [about 70% in E&W] how could anyone dispute the Gospel’s right to be heard?

The only mention of specific legislation the Pope made was the following:

...the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve [equality of opportunity for all members of society] has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs...

That is what he said. UK law, by promoting the equality of some groups, does so at the expense of religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, but also by implication, all churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and lodges.

What is the BBC headline?

"Pope criticised for attack on UK Equality Bill"

The Pope has faced a backlash after urging Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".

What the Pope actually said was:

If the full saving message of Christ is to be presented effectively and convincingly to the world, the Catholic community in your country needs to speak with a united voice. This requires not only you, the Bishops, but also priests, teachers, catechists, writers – in short all who are engaged in the task of communicating the Gospel – to be attentive to the promptings of the Spirit, who guides the whole Church into the truth, gathers her into unity and inspires her with missionary zeal.

His actual point was that the Holy Spirit inspires the Church with missionary zeal to proclaim the Gospel.

Expert journalism. Unbiased, of course.

On a related matter, there is this false fear being spread at the moment about the Equality Bill. The bill, in itself, is wrong, but the idea that it will force the Church to employ certain groups of people, even be forced to accept them as her ministers is a rediculous notion. The Church does what she does, the state cannot force her to do a particular thing contrary to its teaching. She would rather be persecuted. So if it involves bishops and priests being imprisoned, so be it.

And the world looks at us

2010-01-28T22:44:00.000Z

From a vocations video for the Dominican order, made during the Council

Christmas is here

2010-01-04T13:01:00.003Z

I hope everyone got what they wanted from Santa this year. It is still Christmas so I hope all of your decorations are still up.

I spent the last part of Advent on pilgrimage in Ars, which was a wonderful experience. Though I had to go up my local high street on Christmas eve (a veritable error), I felt privileged to escape from the comercialisation of our last days of Advent, and have a truly spiritual experience. The only exposure to the festivities I had were the myriad of large nativity sets in almost every shop window, sans Jesus. For the first time in my life, perhaps, Christmas actually started at first Vespers.

The pilgrimage itself was rather wonderful too; I'm glad to say I have found a new devotion to the Curé of Ars of late. Just in time for new year resolutions too.

After a conference, and this last weekend, a vocations promotion visit to a parish in my diocese, I have had little time for an actual holiday, as tomorrow my parish placement starts for the next three weeks.

The Protomartyr

2009-12-26T22:16:00.002Z

This is all I have

2009-12-16T14:35:00.005Z

Last night, I watched the relatively new big screen version of the nativity, called, aptly, the Nativity Story. It was truly excellent, and like most things, moved me to tears, and has provided me with much spiritual material to chew on as mother Church moves tomorrow from its eschatalogical perspective of Advent, to the forthcoming birth of its saviour in a couple of days.

The film realised some parts of the mystery which are easily forgotten in our child-like devotion to plays and christmas carols. What makes the Catholic Church so wonderful is that it is real. And I don't mean that in just an ontological sense: it is the Church you are most likely to have your umbrella stolen in. All the people in the Nativity mystery were real people who lived: Mary and Joseph, Anne and Joachim, Zechariah and Elizabeth, the Magi, the Shepherds, all the people that they knew, and came across throughout their lives.

How do you view the last leg of the journey to Bethlehem. I always had some idea of a twee wandering around a perfect middle-eastern village for ages trying to find a place to stay, and one of the inn keepers getting his lines wrong.

But none of that here, thank you very much.

Mary starts to go into labour on the donkey just as the couple are coming towards the village, as night falls. The hills and fields are surrounded with sheep; it is David country. Once they reach the city, Joseph runs to some houses, asks for room; there is none. Mary, who loves Joseph very dearly, pleads with God to provide them shelter.

In a panic, her husband picks up our Blessed Mother and runs through the streets with her in his arms: 'Won't someone give us room, my wife is in labour!'

By chance, a man is standing on the corner of the lane, and heeds their cry for help: 'this is all I have', and points to a make-shift stone stable. The whole experience of this particular man, his birth, his childhood, his parents and siblings, his friends, his work, his wife and children, his loves and losses, and pains and happiness have brought him to this moment; the sum of all time is for this moment. And what does he do? He gives all he can so that God can become man!

They run into this offering, and with all haste, Christ is born. The Father is looking down from heaven, the blaze of which illuminates the scene for the world to see. Anne and Joachim are watching the glint in the sky from a hundred miles away. Elizabeth nurses John, looking at the sky. The Magi are on the edge of the village, astounded that they were right.

And the shepherd? He sits on the same rocks that were sat on by little David, realising that his purpose in life is fulfilled: to hope in Christ, and to see him; the angel tells him his time has come, and he runs to the manger...

The new boss-man

2009-12-09T00:31:00.002Z

Ad multos annos, vivat! Plurimos que annos, vivat!

A load of malarky

2009-11-30T23:03:00.002Z

Every so often, one hears a flutter of non-sense from Edinburgh. What these whimpers actually are, are calls for independence from mighty English overlords. The nationalist administration in that province was elected on the promise - and a promise which anyone with sense would have recognised they could not keep - that they would seriously debate, even hold a referendum, on the subject of Scottish independence.

I remember once, Mr Alex Salmond musing at great length on Question Time, describing how much he desired independence from Scotland, and after all, English people should be allowed to have their independence too.

Independence from what?

Independence from a country forced on these isles by the knavishness of their king. I don't recall the people of England being given an opportunity to react against their Scottish overlord taking power in London back in 1603. An accident of history thrust our two nations together, and their unity has been preserved by their shared crown and constitution. If anything, England should demand independence from Scotland.

But that would be childish. For what the nationalists actually want, is not the independence of their nation, but the destruction of our country. The United Kingdom is my nation state, my patria, the country I was brought up to love as my own. By Scotland leaving it, the union is broken, and the country I still love ends.

So if there were to be a referendum - and I abhor the idea of a referendum on any issue - it would have to be a poll of the entire nation, for the proposal is the destruction of it:

The United Kingdom should be destroyed?

Yes

So, say everybody votes yes. Scotland goes its own way.

These days, we recognise Wales and Northern Ireland as separate entities in the Union. It seems plausible that the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would inherit the legacy of that of Great Britain: with its seat on the UN Security Council and EU membership.

Scotland is now a new state. It will require EU membership. England may veto that. And its entry into Nato. The UK would naturally withdraw its investments from Scotland, surely. No more pipelines; the natural resources may exist off the coast of Scotland, but who pays for the drilling? No more ships to build or dock. No more mountain rescue, no more express trains in the lowlands. No-one to run the airports. No more 'lairds' to support the agrarian infrastructure. No more top-up funds from the Bank of England to build excessive parliaments.

Whatever will Scotland do? Remain in the Union. Maybe.

Papal wisdom

2009-11-23T10:17:00.002Z

"Beauty that is authentic...is by no means a supplementary or secondary factor in our search for meaning and happiness..." says the Pope, and in its relation to Man, though it provides him with a satisfactory answer to the search for happiness (which is Man's ultimate desire), it has an unusual way of going about it: "piercing [Man] like a dart, but in so doing it 'reawakens' him, opening afresh the eyes of his heart and mind, giving him wings, carrying him aloft."

Authentic beauty "unlocks the yearning of the human heart, the profound desire to know, to love, to go towards the Other, to reach for the Beyond."

"If we acknowledge that beauty touches us intimately," he said, "that it wounds us, that it opens our eyes, then we rediscover the joy of seeing, of being able to grasp the profound meaning of our existence, the Mystery of which we are part; from this Mystery we can draw fullness, happiness, the passion to engage with it every day."

Organ hits #2

2009-11-14T15:17:00.001Z

Sortie in E, by Louis J.A. Lefébure-Wely

M. Lefébure-Wely was sacked for writing this piece!

Organ hits #1

2009-11-12T23:13:00.002Z

Because it's essay handing-in time, let's have a new series on my favourite organ works.

Number one, Gigout's Grand Choeur Dialogue

God's sense of humour

2009-11-11T21:42:00.002Z

I was fortunate enough today to attend holy Mass at the Birmingham Oratory - as I usually do of a Wednesday. But this day was very different.

There were more cars in the car park. A few bustling characters in the cloister. The Church itself was busier than normal. There were Oratorians here, there and everywhere.

A man with a camera darted to the front row, another one with the television camera ascended to the pulpit, directly over my head.

I knew what was up.

There was a special guest, one with the name 'Deacon Jack'.

Jack Sullivan, was of course, healed "by the power of almighty God, by the intercession of Cardinal Newman." He was here to assist holy Mass, which was being celebrated by the provost.

On his UK tour this week, Mr Sullivan has visited many places already; his trip to Westminster has already been widely advertised.

After the Gospel, he gave an account of his healing in 2001, from a serious and painful back problem, which he described in great detail. He was visibly moved by his presence in the Oratory, and though the present Church was largely unknown to Newman, the house is his own, and the community is the same. In fact, he lovingly remarked that he felt he had come 'home'.

What I did find most entertaining, however, is that God would work through Cardinal Newman, to force a permanent deacon upon the Oratory. It's an interesting mix!

How many more?

2009-11-08T15:01:00.002Z

Not once a year, but every day in Ieper (Ypres), at 8pm, there is a memorial in the town's Menin Gate. A short service is often well attended, as the town's firemen sign the last post, and tributes are paid to the hundreds of thousands, millions of names inscribed in the walls of this colossal building. Once, a few years ago now, I placed a red and white wreath representing my school inside the memorial, in the sort of chapel section, cut into one of the inside walls.

In Allied cemeteries in Europe and further afield, all the stones are brilliant white, graves marked by a simple stone, often a cross, and the name of the dead - if they knew it. But how many people have been to an enemy cemetery. Their graves are hidden under trees, in dark corners of fields. Their mass-graves are marked with giant black slabs, sometimes with the names of some of those below are written on it.

War is never black and white. It is never simple, it is never really necessary and it is never glorious, nor justifiable, nor legal, nor right. We don't have to spend every day remembering these tragic deaths - and each one is a tragedy. Every name was somebody's baby once, and some of them were still children. But once every so often, in the month of the dead, turn our minds and pray for their souls, for none of them had a happy death. Let us hope to God none of us have to go through what they did... and do.

Remember Remember

2009-11-05T17:55:00.003Z

Good evening peeps.

Is it really bonfire night again...?

I always hated this event. When I was younger, I never understood why we would celebrate the martyrdom of Christians drawn to extreme measures in such a manner (by burning one of them on a pyre).

Then someone suggested that it was to celebrate the deliverance from certain death of our royal King, James I. OK, that appeals to my sense of monarchy.

Then I remember James's rather unpleasant life and policies (e.g. killing his mother to ensure his inheritance of St Edward's crown, his dreadful treatment of his poor wife, and then running off to his footmen for 'comforting'). It's rather callous, but if I put Guy Fawkes (or any of the others) and King James I next to each other, I know which one I'd pick as my sovereign lord.

God bless you, Mr Fawkes

Well, there is some sort of bonfire/firework party going outside my window at the moment. I'll get good views for free certainly, but I'm participating on a purely artistic level you know.

Work is on the horizon, and with essays due in, expect a lot more posting, peeps!

Talking of peeps (and you know what I'm talking about), I simply must know where I can get hold of these sweeties. I took a fancy for them as a child when packets were delivered to me but now my supply has dried up!

An epistemological problem...

2009-10-23T19:54:00.003+01:00

Last night, I watched a snippet of Question Time on the internet, but I found I couldn't watch it all, because it was irritating me.

We all have solutions to our broken society - most of which are either useless or implausible - but the solutions put forward by the panel, I was not interested in.

I was quite ashamed of the people on the show, and the reaction of most of the people in the audience (by the clap and boo ratio, I reckon about two thirds of those in the room were hardcore lefties). I got as far as the point when an audience member put his hand up and said, 'a question for Dick Griffin', followed by rapturous applause and laughter. At what point did British people go onto television and call people four letter words for a laugh and a petty insult to an individual?

At some point, people in the west fused a person's ideas with the person themselves. Therefore, if you attack a person's ideas, then one also attacks the individual. This goes back to the Sophist movement in ancient Greece, whereby a new breed of philosophers believed that one's truth is truth for one, i.e. truth is subjective. In spite of all the lessons of history - among other things - our society has taken up this Sophist idea. Ergo, an individual opinion is true for that individual, so if someone holds to an opinion (which society views as 'true' for that person), both the truth and the individual is flawed. However, there is such a thing as objective truth, but our western society rejects this notion as ludicrous.

As truth is focussed on the object and not the subject, one has no need to attack the individual person for holding to a flawed truth. One attacks the false opinion, not the person.

Similarly, if one attacks someone's opinion (which I do), they take offense because they think one is attacking their individuality, but in fact, one is not.

Therefore, the problem with society is an epistemological one.

Nightmare situation

2009-10-21T20:42:00.002+01:00

Imagine if you have areas in the Church with some disaffected Catholics who felt abandoned by genuine interpretation of Vatican II. Suddenly, some other hardcore Christians who barely got as far as Vatican II come and join your Church, open their own, have their own Masses like the Oriental Ordinariates. The nightmare situation is Latin Rite Roman Catholics flock to these 'Anglican Use' communities, and the Church who welcomed these newbies starts to crumble at the edges.

Rome goes fishing?

2009-10-21T20:09:00.002+01:00

An article from our friend Robert Pigot at the BBC about yesterday's news.

The announcement from the Vatican, made simultaneously in Rome and at a news conference in London was dramatic, even historic.

The Roman Catholic Church was going to extraordinary lengths to make it easy for disenchanted Anglicans to convert to Catholicism.

They could join the Roman Catholic Church as full members, [I never know why people make it sound like some sort of club] but hang on to many of their Anglican traditions and practices - and indeed preserve much of their "Anglican identity". [I'm not keen on this phrase; as far as I'm concerned, they cease to be Anglicans - a protestant movement - and jump into the barque of Peter]

In the past Anglicans have converted (although many have and are moving in the opposite direction), [just to let our still protestant society know that the papists aren't really winning, it's just an illusion] but it's been on a case-by-case basis. [I know very many Anglican converts who, I'm sure, don't like to be referred to as a 'case']

The creation of a special section [?] of the Roman Catholic Church - backed up by church law [?] - especially for Anglicans all around the world is unprecedented.

At the somewhat bizarre press conference secretively arranged at the offices of the Catholic Church in London [it's all very Dan Brown], the Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols acknowledged converts had never before been provided with this structure.

"I can't remember quite a response that gives a juridical structure. And in that sense I think I would describe this as a courageous and a generous response by Pope Benedict."

'Progressive' trends

It wasn't just that Rome is paving the way for traditionalists on the Catholic wing [?] of the Church of England to jump ship - it is doing so at a critical moment.

But first a word of explanation [judging by the performance so far, I wouldn't bother] - about why this move has such huge implications for the Anglican Church [Communion].

It's the huge achievement of the Church that it has kept these two wings together through numerous crises - that over homosexuality being only one of the more recent. Since the Protestant Reformation, when the Church of England broke away from Rome, it has been a sometimes uneasy coalition between its Catholic and Protestant members. [The courageous Anglican 'Church', keeping the world together for five hundred years, versus the secretive and bizarre papist horde]

But traditionalists on the Catholic wing have become increasingly disenchanted by "progressive" trends, not so much with respect to liberal moves on homosexuality, but about the ordination of women as priests, and, in the next few years, as bishops. [Well, it goes a lot deeper than these peripheral issues, which are in face, symptoms of something else. You don't just change from protestantism to Catholicism over one matter like this; the theology is increasing different between various groups in the Anglican communion; broad Church simply does not work]

This development - utterly rejected by the Vatican [another Dan Brown comment - what Pigot means here is that the Catholic Church doesn't believe the Church can have different theologies - there is one theology. This isn't a Vatican rejection; it simply is] for the Catholic Church - has been agreed by the Church of England Synod, and the only question is how far traditionalist parishes and clergy will be "sheltered" from having to serve under a woman bishop. [O dear, these sexist anglicans!!]

That debate is in the balance, and the Vatican's initiative is bound to have a profound effect - not just on the numbers who leave, but on the sort of church they leave behind.

Many traditionalist "Anglo-Catholics" have threatened [boo traditionalists] to leave the Church and convert to Catholicism, and leaders of their cause say having a home already prepared for them [?] will greatly increase the exodus.

'Immediate exodus'

Fr David Houlding, the leader of the Catholic Group on the Church's synod, said "several hundred" clergy would leave immediately, and something like 1,500 altogether.

Fr Houlding might have his own reasons for thinking big, but it does stand to reason that many wavering Anglicans, including married priests, will go and others will watch to see how they fare.

The departure of the most vociferous opponents of women bishops would surely reduce the pressure on the Synod to make concessions. If they do leave in such numbers, the ground will be cut away from those left in the Church of England trying to preserve the Anglo-Catholic wing of this "broad church".

Some liberal Anglo-Catholics [?], who have no problem with women bishops but are desperate to preserve "catholic" traditions, [i.e. dressing up] fear they would leave behind a more Protestant church.

Other groups are also deeply unhappy about the way the Vatican sprang its idea. [live with it peeps, this is Peter speaking]

Bear in mind that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams knew nothing [indeed, not being in the CDF and all] about this far-reaching move until two weeks ago, and made no contribution to it.

(Could it be a coincidence that at roughly that time news emerged that a special committee was suggesting more generous concessions to traditionalist opponents of women bishops?)

'Unnecessary move'

Some evangelicals - traditionalists but on the Protestant wing of the Church [or, those upholding moral truths, but have themselves a 'lower' theology and don't like dressing up on the whole] - have joined forces with Anglo-Catholics in an alliance resisting a number of "liberal trends".

Their targets have included the Church's approach to homosexuality, but also their joint opposition to the ordination of women as bishops.

Traditionalist evangelicals now stand to see an important ally massively weakened.

Their powerful lobby, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, set up in Jerusalem last year, criticised the Pope's move as unnecessary, insisting that Anglo-Catholics had a home in their alliance.

Considering the audacity [ah, old BBC impartiality again] of the Vatican's initiative, it was muted criticism. But, off the record, evangelicals were briefing that Rome was capitalising on Anglican divisions to poach clergy. [hmm: well, taking on former Anglican clergy is a great burden: they need to be re-trained, paid for - their wages are reduced on the other side of the Tiber - families to support, homes to provide, the problem of the concept of non-celibate priests]

"We are not fishing in the Anglican pond," he insisted.Only last week the Vatican's senior spokesman on relations with other churches, Cardinal Walter Kasper, said "full visible unity" with Anglicans was Rome's long-term goal.

But by removing a potentially significant portion of the most "catholic" element from the Church of England, surely that sort of "reunion" has been set back. [this means by taking away those who really do believe in union with Rome will leave and the church they leave will fall ever deeper into the pit of liberalism]

Dr Williams stressed the Pope had only been responding to pleas for help from Anglo-Catholics, and insisted that this was not a hostile takeover.

"It has no negative impact on the relations of the (Anglican) Communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole."

However, the archbishop's representative in Rome, Bishop David Richardson, described the Vatican's move as surprising, asking "why this, and why now?"

The initiative, and the extraordinary way it emerged, also indicated the distance between the churches and the public they serve. [?]

Journalists were called to a news conference, but officials refused to say what it was about.

Then the language in which the mysterious developments were explained would have struck most people as complete gobbledygook. [what...? I suppose if a Parisian it girl went to a bird watching conference, she would also regard the content as gobbledygook]

We learned that an "Apostolic Constitution" had been prepared, introducing a "canonical structure" which would establish "Personal Ordinariates".

These would allow former Anglicans to "enter full communion with the Catholic Church" while preserving their "spiritual and liturgical patrimony".

It gave the misleading impression of institutions that were out of touch and irrelevant to the lives of the many unattached but spiritually hungry people whom the churches need to attract.

Have I missed something?

2009-10-16T13:34:00.002+01:00

Though most of the time I prefer my own company to the mêlée of the real world, I do quite enjoy other people. One of my favourite pastimes is taking tea with friends and acquaintances. As well as enjoying the frivolities of Fortum and Mason's Royal Blend as a stand-alone activity, this is also the extent of my understanding of œcumenism and inter-faith relations.

Have I missed something, but when did these things become more than that. Engaging with people of no religion and other religions in friendly banter and what not, in order to allow the power of love on a day-to-day human level to penetrate ancient hostilities? I simply cannot see the point of 'inter-faith' dialogue beyond that. What else does it achieve? I suppose its nice to learn about other religions, just as it is nice to learn about flowers and dolphins. Christians are supposed to be thirsty to spread the evangelion of Christ to all people, whether they already have a religion or not. Now in our own culture, it's not very P.C. to bang on about religion all the time, which is OK, so a primary method of spreading the Gospel is being Jesus-like to fellow man. In my mind, that is a given necessity, not an optional extra, and includes inter-faith tea parties too.

There is a different facet to œcumenism, however. As well as all of the above, there is a desire to allow the Christian religion, one day, to develop into a single religion, a catholic church in reality as well as expression. What this will look like we simply do not know. There is no point denying that our protestant brethren are incorrect in many of their assertions, for example, but it is about the presentation. One avoids these issues over the cake-stand. What we do do together are things such as help the poor and sick, as protestant communities provided financial aid to St Damien's project in Hawaii, as well as practical action on an individual level if we are capable.

We can pray together now and then. But what do we pray? Catholics, for some reason, outside their own churches (and sometimes, alas, in them), avoid prayer to Our Lady. We should avoid prayer to the other saints too, because that is idolatrous in the eyes of many. One assumes one can pray to the Holy Trinity, being God and all, but I have always been surprised about the statements of many 'Christians' on that doctrine. So we have the Lord's Prayer...but which translation? Do we 'gender inclusivize' it? By 'bread' do we mean loaf of bread or Eucharist or both or none? Do we include the doxology on the end: many Catholics feel dirty if they do that, and many protestants feel it's necessary, though would have a hard time finding it in the Gospel. Maybe we could reflect on a reading from the letter of St James about doing good works...o we can't do that with everyone, as it's not found in all Bibles.

O my, it's no wonder I am confused.

Faithful auntie's interpretation of Galileo

2009-10-15T15:00:00.003+01:00

Trustworthy as ever BBC presents the following article:

A new exhibition marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's work [I think Galileo worked for more than one year...what exactly does this anniversary mark?] is set to open in the Vatican.

The Catholic Church once labelled Galileo, now regarded as modern astronomy's founding father, a heretic. [This one sentence undoes a very complex tangle of historiocity in one swoop.

He was tried for challenging the widely held belief that the sun travelled around the Earth. [He was tried under the suspicion of heresy, a natural thing for the Inquisition to do in the 17th century for those questioning Church authority. It was not so much as his scientific views - WHICH ARE WRONG, a point we should remember - rather, he disobeyed specific orders. Galileo, unfortunately, was the victim of curial in-fighting. St Robert Bellarmine told him to stop insisting, as the Church is always weary of infallible science, as nothing is completely prove-able; whereas Pope Urban VIII supported him, as did many others, in the actual procedure of his scientific endevours]

Although [Father] Copernicus did much ground-breaking work on the link between the sun and the Earth, it was Galileo's instruments that proved the theory. [Really? Let's think about it. Galileo said that the sun was the centre of the universe. How did he prove that theory I wonder... he'd need some pretty spectacular instruments! GALILEO'S THEORY IS WRONG: The sun is not the centre of the universe]

It was not until 1992 that Pope John Paul II declared that the Church's ruling was an error [aghh! That's not right either. The Church's view was (and is still) right. What he said was the case was mishandled. I'm afraid to say I disagree with His Holiness on this point anyway (in so far as an apology was necessary). The Church's 'ruling' (whatever that means) WAS right then, in context, and besides, it is not always necessary to apologise for the sins of our fathers. After all, to whom was the Pope 'apologising'?] and that Catholics were not hostile to science. [Popes and the like often point out that Catholicism is the place where modern science began...if it wasn't for mother Church, there wouldn't be a modern world. Auntie Beeb forgot to put that in here. In fact, the Church thinks it is completely necessary to explore the earth and universe in a scientific manner, because it is doing honour to creation, and allows us to understand a little more of God]

Now a selection of Galileo's instruments - along with those of other key figures [what, such as the assortment of good, faithful Catholics? Priests in many cases] in astronomy - are being put on display in the Vatican.

There will also be some of Galileo's original documents in which he excitedly recorded his first discoveries. [Galileo's works were first published by the Vatican in 1758]

The exhibition runs until January.

There's always a reason to be Milanese

2009-10-11T21:00:00.001+01:00

Kiss my ring, king

2009-10-10T14:31:00.001+01:00

That's what I like to see.

A sovereign, reigning monarch, prostrate before the Supreme Pontiff.

Obamination

2009-10-10T14:00:00.003+01:00

So I log onto Facebook one day, and see a flurry of related statuses (stati?). Apparently, the President of the United States had won the Nobel Peace Prize. Shocked and horrified I was. No, its not my usual complaints about him; we'll leave those aside. My problem with it this time is that he has done absolutely nothing to earn this prestigious (well, it's not very prestigious in my mind, but it is to some people) award.

We are told by the Norwegian Nobel Committee that he has created a new world climate in the few months he has been in office. This, they say, has strengthened "international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples", particularly in the realms of nuclear proliferation.

OK. Let's have a look at some past winners. Mr Obama is only the 4th US President to receive this accolade.

The first was Teddy Roosevelt. He ended a bitter and bloody war between Russia and Japan, a war which brought Japan into the western world, and took Russia out of it. Quite a significant event really.

The second was Woodrow Wilson. He stole the ideas of Pope Benedict XV and used them to end the First World War (or at least conclude the peace), the 'war to end all wars.'

The third was Jimmy Carter, who received the award in 2002. I don't really know what he did either, but he has worked very hard since leaving office to organise peace in the Middle East, among other things, so I suppose he deserved that too. Notably, he didn't win it for being in office.

Other winners include Jean Henri Dunant (founder of the Red Cross - an organisation which itself has won the award several times - and Geneva Convention), Albert Schweizer (a missionary surgeon in Gabon), Dag Hammarskjöld, Martin Luther King, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Aung Sang Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela.

Ranked up against these greats, as well as the less famous winners, does Mr Obama, in all honesty, deserve this award. What has he done? He certainly made lots of promises, but achievements. Maybe, in some peoples' subjective view, he has done something in the USA (there are lots of people who do great things in the USA, one of which is not approving a bill which allows doctors in Illinois to leave babies on the side to die).

But as far as I can tell, he hasn't even done what the committee are claiming. International diplomacy and co-operation between peoples? Where's the beef?

Nixon went to China. I haven't seen Obama in Iran or in North Korea. O yes, those countries that would quite like to eliminate the US. That hasn't changed very much.

US troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. The French still don't like Americans - and never will. Russia still feels hard done to since NATO and the EU started to poach its former allies. He has scrapped Star Wars... well, that was never going to happen anyway; the technology was all wrong. Latin America and Africa is still blighted with poverty and corruption. The Americans are still occupying Diego Garcia. Aung Sang Suu Kyi is still imprisoned, the Dalai Lama is still exiled. India, Pakistan and probably Israel and South Africa are all still nuclear powers. The AIDS epidemic is still going on. The US hasn't done anything about malaria or climate change.

So Mr President...how are you different to everyone else on the planet exactly? Hmm, skeptical as I am, the only difference really is that he is the first black president of the US. If that is the real reason he won (which, let's face it, is the real reason he won), then this award is sickening and the committee should be ashamed of themselves. No you can't.

A Franciscan vespers

2009-10-03T17:51:00.002+01:00

Tomorrow is the feast of Saint Francis of Assisi. I was supposed to be born then, but I was over a week late. He is one of my favourite saints (and I'm glad that an equal favourite, Dominic, is often put alongside him), and so I'm glad to hear that BBC Radio 3 is broadcasting solemn vespers from Assisi Cathedral Sunday evening from 4pm. Looking at the schedule, it appears to be some sort of protestant liturgy, but it is presided over by the Catholic bishop of Assisi, so I'm sure tuning in will not be schismatic.

Jornada Mundial de la Juventud

2009-10-01T20:22:00.003+01:00

I have just seen the logo for World Youth Day 2011, which will of course be in Madrid, the capital city of Spain. Hopefully, I'll have an opportunity to go. I suspect it will be easier this time around being in Europe. However, I should think many millions of others are thinking the same thing, so I'd better get used to the idea of a very hot, busy summer in two years...

England's latest (arch)bishop

2009-10-01T13:46:00.002+01:00

Much rejoicing was had upon this announcement:

S.E. Mons. Bernard Longley è nato a Manchester, diocesi di Salford, il 5 aprile 1955. Ha compiuto gli studi primari e secondari presso scuole cattoliche a Manchester. Ha studiato poi letteratura inglese all'Università di Oxford. Successivamente ha frequentato i corsi di filosofia e teologia presso il seminario di Wonersh.
È stato ordinato sacerdote il 12 dicembre 1981 per la diocesi di Arundel and Brighton. Dopo tre anni come Vicario parrocchiale ad Epsom nel Surrey, ha frequentato la Pontificia Università Gregoriana a Roma ottenendo la Licenza in Teologia Dogmatica.
Rientrato in patria, dal 1987 al 1996 ha svolto l'incarico di Professore di Teologia nel seminario maggiore di Wonersh. Dal 1996 al 2001 è stato Segretario del Comitato per l'Unità dei Cristiani della Conferenza Episcopale d'Inghilterra e Galles. Dal 2001 al 2003 ha svolto l'incarico di Assistente del Segretario Generale della Conferenza Episcopale per le questioni di Ecumenismo e Dialogo interreligioso.
Eletto Vescovo titolare di Zarna e Ausiliare di Westminster il 4 gennaio 2003, è stato consacrato il 24 dello stesso mese.

At only 54, he will be the youngest archbishop in the kingdom (which of course means he could be reigning, praise God, for 21 years!), and will be installed on December 8th this year, in St Chad's Cathedral. That will be interesting, as the Cathedral being so small, it cannot fit in the all the diocesan priests, never mind visitors, bishops, nuncios and seminarians!

He has been a bishop for 6 years.

England's latest bishop

2009-09-29T18:37:00.002+01:00

Richard Moth was consecrated to the episcopate today, the feast of the Holy Archangels, appropriate perhaps, considering his new office as bishop of the military ordinariate. The principal consecrator was the archbishop of Southwark, the archbishop of Westminster attended in choro. I'd be very impressed to hear reports of the consecration. I understand the cantors were from Pluscarden Abbey (of which the bishop is an oblate), so I'm sure it was faultless in the musical department.

Baroque of Peter

2009-09-27T17:06:00.004+01:00

I always prefer my pontiffs to appreciate the finer things in life...

The Supreme Pontiff in Mary's Dowry

2009-09-23T21:39:00.002+01:00

It's an official rumour that the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning, will undertake a state visit next year to this sceptred isle. Welcoming the Primate of Italy and Patriarch of the West to our magnificent shores is no small matter either. While he would be the second to visit, praise God, it would be the first with the proper pomp and circumstance accorded to such a leader - the leader in fact.

I'm confident in my belief that the protestant hierarchy will over-take this visit, for a state visit requires it. I suspect it will be regarded as a state visit only by those involved in the government of this our realm, but otherwise it shall be probably called an 'apostolic journey' as most trips are.

London will certainly be on his list, and it would make sense too to visit Birmingham, which was the powerhouse of the Catholic revival in England. Perhaps his own words will inaugurate a third spring in the life of the Church in the kingdom, hopefully from the same pulpit in my college chapel as the Venerable Newman used all those years ago...

I suspect it would be during the summer rather than January.

Our Lady of Sorrows

2009-09-14T17:25:00.001+01:00

The joy of tax

2009-08-22T15:12:00.002+01:00

Imagine you are a loyal Roman Catholic. You live in an European country, and you are loyal to your country too.

For many years, your Church and country have been in league with each other regarding money.

If you agree you are a member of the Church, the state takes about 8% of your earning directly from your wage packet and gives it to the Church's local bishop's conference.

The Church then decides what to spend the money on, be it collections for Holy Land shrines, priests, employees or goats for the third world (which are then ritually killed in Islamic rites).

You don't have a choice about paying this money. You are entitled not to pay it, though. You have to go to the town hall and sign a document which renounces your membership of the public body of your Church, and in the eyes of your bishops, you are excommunicated. In this country, you have to pay tax to call yourself a Christian and receive the sacraments. I.e. you have to pay to receive God's grace.

This is the case in Germany for German nationals. You have to pay to be a Catholic. Recently, a canon lawyer has taken the issue to court, arguing that he can still practice his Catholicism and renounce his duty to pay the tax. The court, rightly, ruled in his favour.

Unbelievably, the diocese he took to court rejected the outcome and are appealing to decision. By doing this, they are saying that you cannot be absolved from sin, receive Holy Communion, get married, receive the last rights, unless you give them 8% of your earnings.

Is anyone else scandalised by this?

It seems the German Church authorities - which is one of the richest in the world - is afraid that this case could lead, one day, to an abolition of this evil tax, which also applies to members of other Churches and ecclesial communities in the country. As a result, they will lose lots of money. Apparently.

There is also a more horrific side to the story. This tax is payed by anyone who claims to be a Catholic, including the ones who do not act like it. This means, that in their mind, the Church is no different to any other institution they pay for in their tax. As a result, they chant, 'no taxation without representation'. They have paid tax, and they want a say in how the Church is run and what it believes in, whether they opinions are orthodox or not.

In this country, and many others, we have the choice whether we pay money. Of course, it is our duty that we give according to our abilities, and most of us do, and many exceed their ability by a lot every week. But paying money is not a ticket to the sacraments as we know. I give what I want to who I want. For example, I do not resent supporting the Church materially, but I do not support certain things the Church's authorities do. I would rather my money went to Aid to the Church in Need, rather than CAFOD, because I don't want to pay for sacrificial goats or give tacit support to condoms, which I would be doing if I gave to CAFOD, as well as lining the pockets of certain people in charge of this charity. However, if I lived in Germany, I would not have a choice, and my spirituality would be severely affected as a result.

I wonder what I would do, if I were German. I dread to think how many people this has affected over the course of history, how many souls it has damaged and prevented from receiving God's sacramental graces. Instead of expecting people pay their money, maybe the German Church authorities should earn it by their own personal sacrifices and holy example. This law is a travesty to the spirit of the Holy Gospel and needs to be struck down, and the German bishops shouldn't be surprised if someone turns up at their headquarters one day, throwing back their thirty pieces of silver at their highly polished door.

Noble simplicity without the simplicity

2009-07-18T10:37:00.002+01:00

This picture of a Mass in Poland struck me for its splendid beauty, taken, presumably, at the end of the collect, bowing at the Holy Name.

Prayer for England

2009-07-15T22:58:00.001+01:00

O Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our most gentle Queen and Mother look down in mercy upon England, thy dowry, and upon us who greatly hope and trust in thee.

By thee it was that Jesus, our Saviour and our hope was given unto the world; and He has given thee to us that we might hope still more.

Plead for us thy children, whom thou didst receive and accept at the foot of the cross, O Sorrowful Mother, Intercede for our separated brethren, that with us in the one true fold, they may be united to the Chief Shepherd, the Vicar of thy Son.

Pray for us all, dear Mother, that by faith, fruitful in good works we may all deserve to see and praise God, together with thee in our heavenly home.

Amen.

Get undressed

2009-07-15T16:51:00.004+01:00

Tomorrow is the feast (well, optional memoria) of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

It is also my graduation day. Thankfully, the BBC says the weather will be nice and sunny, though having to be there at 7.30 am, I don't think I'll care either way.

This means - for some reason which is beyond me - that everyone has to dress up in funny mediaeval outfits to collect a bit of paper which just serves to remind me I should have worked harder the past 3 years of my life.

And of course, they are mediaeval outfits, the university being a mediaeval institution. Essentially, both the clerical choir outfit and the modern academic attire have the similar origins, insofar as those who would have worn academic dress would have been clerics, and therefore they wore their own normal clothes. A kind of an early cappa. If you compare a cappa magna or a cope with academic dress, you'll find essentially the same thing: a gown and a hood.

Unfortunately, I shall not be attending my graduation tomorrow in my full cappa magna. Humility.

Instead, I have to wear a blue gown (which is a bit stupid, as gowns should be black according to the clerical connection, as I'm neither a bishop nor a Marist); but that is ok, as I shall attribute it to Our Blessed Mother, to whom I shall devote my degree.

My hood is pink. Or as liturgy types like to say, rose. Our Lady. The Rose without thorns. There we go, sorted. And if I'm feeling penitential, I may even put my hood up. Then again, it's not Lent.

Now for the hat. I assume the square hat worn at my institution (which is known, apparently, for its strange hats) has the same origin as the clerical biretta. It even has a little sash, like a lazy pom-pom.

I went to one today to see a newly graduating friend; it all looked very stylish. I feel there is a crazy day in the making tomorrow. But Our Lady will cure that ill.

Holy Causes

2009-07-13T20:38:00.003+01:00

Anyone up for supporting the cause of Katharine of Aragon?

She was a nice lady, prayed a lot and was friend with Thomas More and John Fisher. I think the argument that she suffered a huge deal is a bit of a silly one, considering her life-long experience as a royal being waited on foot even when she was deposed from the throne.

It's the 500th anniversary of her husband's acension to the throne of England; maybe his queen should have a say too. She was the daughter of the Catholic Kings of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella (of Christopher Columbus and Reconquista fame) and mum of Queen Mary of England.

She died on 7th January 1536.

Funnily enough, she died in my home parish, and is buried in Peterborough Anglican Cathedral to the north of the high altar. Go and visit (free entry) if you are in the region; perhaps say a prayer for her.

To all and singular

2009-07-03T12:39:00.003+01:00

To whom present...greetings.

Being at home, I don't get to the internet as much. Also, I forgot to bring my computer back, and being in the process of getting a new one, I haven't had much of a chance to update anything.

In the past week, our most Holy Father has told us that a tiny camera was inserted into a casket believed to contain the holy relics of Saint Paul, in the major basilica bearing his name on the outskirts of Rome. He said the bones were confirmed to probably belong to someone of the first century, and that the remains were clothes in precious vestments.

This is good to know. With this announcement, the year of St Paul concluded.

Flapping over the tail end of this memorial year, is the year of the priest. We give thanks for all our priests - and pray for more of them - as we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the death of St John Mary Vianney on 4th August.

Today is the feast day of St Thomas the Apostle. He is known as Doubting Thomas, though I find this a bit of an unfair label. He doubted a bit - as we all do - but in the end, he did believe. So happy feast day, Believing Thomas. Of course, it is perhaps through moments of doubt that the truth becomes ever more enlightened for us. Today's Gospel scene is shown on my panel on the right hand side to remind me of this, and to confirm my suspicion that it is always good to ask questions. Incidently, a pious tradition says that St Thomas was the only witness to the Assumption of Our Lady, catching her girdle as he was whisked up to heaven. The other apostles didn't believe him until he showed them the rope. His feast is kept today, the date not of his traditional martyrdom, but the date of the translation of his relics to the sea town of Ortona in eastern Italy.

In the mean time, apologies for my internet absence, but brace yourself for my Top Ten Most Beautiful Churches visited by yours truly, which is in the pipeline for the next week.

Ephraim the Syrian to the Mother of God

2009-06-26T21:23:00.003+01:00

Sorrow on me, beloved! That I, unapt and reluctant in my will abide, and behold winter has come upon me, and the infinite tempest has found me naked and spoiled and with no perfecting of good in me. I marvel at myself, O beloved, how I daily default, and daily do repent; I build up for an hour, and an over overthrows what I have builded.

At evening I say, tomorrow I will repent, but when morning comes, joyous I waste the day. Again at evening I say, I shall keep vigil all night and I shall entreat the Lord to have mercy on my sins. But when night is come I am full of sleep.

Behold, those who received their talent along with me, strive by day and night to trade with it, that they may win the word of praise and rule ten cities. But I in my sloth hid mine in the earth and my Lord makes haste to come, and behold my heart, and I weep the day of my negligence and know not what excuse to bring.

Have mercy upon me, Thou who alone art without sin, and save me, who alone art pitiful and kind.

George Lucas

2009-06-26T21:01:00.004+01:00

[A library picture of George Lucas laying his hand on Natalie Portman]

George Lucas was appointed Archbishop of Omaha at the start of this month, and on Monday, according to the Vatican, he will recieve the Pallium from the Holy Father.

Of course, my own metropolitan will be given the same honour, the second time he has travelled to Rome for the lambswool.

Made by nuns at St Agnes' convent from lambswool blessed by the Holy Father on the feast of St Agnes earlier in the year, on Sunday, the new Pallia will be placed in the tomb of the first Pope, St Peter, on Sunday and spend the night.

Being made of wool, they symbolise the light yoke of Christ, as well as the title of Christ, the Good Shepherd, who goes in search of lost sheep and brings them back on his shoulders, a role fulfilled today by bishops.

The Pope's Pallium, interestingly, is made of the wool of lambs and sheep, for at the end of John's Gospel, the Lord instructs Peter to feed both his lambs and sheep. Funnily enough, this is the same reading from which the title of this blog is taken.

Soundtrack of the day

2009-06-26T12:32:00.002+01:00

As everyone has been playing this track since midnight, I thought why not replicate it here so you have to suffer it too.

Actually, loving all things 60's and 70's as I do, I quite like Jackson 5, so it doesn't infringe my self-imposed moratorium on my broadcasting solely Michael Jackson material since that paederasty trial.

A faith of the heart

2009-06-25T19:54:00.002+01:00

We are all converts on some level.

I suppose I am something of a revert: a Catholic since a baby who left for a bit and then came back. I suspect this story is quite common.

Many people go through life in a different religion, or no religion at all, and find that they have a faith and become a Catholic outwardly. Even those who are called cradle Catholics go through some conversion, because at some point, everybody has to look inside themselves and go into that room in the heart where God is and speak frankly with him. We cannot 'inherit' our faith from our parents - they can teach and show, as they should do - but we make our own choices in life, because when we come to face the Judge at the end of days, it is us - and only us as individuals - who will be asked the questions.

Our Holy Father reminds us of ancient teaching from our fathers in faith: that Christianity is not blind, but it is a reasonable, rational religion, illuminated by the gift of faith.

I wished to explode with joy yesterday when someone told me how they wished to learn more about the faith before starting a new job. Many Catholics don't really know much about their faith because they have never been taught it or have never looked, partly, it is said, because they were brought up with it in the family and it wasn't exactly questioned. My friend said he had largely missed out on learning the facts because his was a faith of the heart.

It just comes naturally. Questioned, undoubtedly, but when it comes to the crunch, it is always good to see someone who feels God in the heart, whether they understand what they believe or not.

Victoriana and other monstrosities

2009-06-24T11:21:00.003+01:00

I have spent a couple of days in our capital city recently, in part due to the fact I wanted to see the Baroque exhibition in the Victoria and Albert Museum (open until 19th July; 6 pounds for students, 11 pounds for normal people).

Like many exhibitions, it was quite small. Taking up just over a handfull of halls, it showed a splattering of highly selective examples of the baroque era: paintings, jewellery, furnature (which I particularly enjoyed), theatre costumes and props, religious antiquities of note, including a full size reredos (with tabernacle intact, but empty obviously) and original models of religious art including the Vatican's Holy Spirit window (on which, I didn't realise, the dove is the size of a fully grown man) and St Teresa of Avila in Ecstacy's face mould. Several of the pieces, unfortunately, focused on the French interpretation of Baroque trumpted by Louis XIV, rather than focusing on the Italian.

Also, I was very pleased to say hello to an old friend: cabinet I have seen in the sacristy of the Sistine Chapel was sat there in the first room. Or at least a copy.

Dinner sets, toilettes, wine coolers, beds, dresses (for men), Queen Anne's throne, clocks, tea tables, statuettes, ivory, Meissen: they are all there to be enjoyed. There were examples from almost every walk of life: if they had the money, of course. Even a seventeenth century Chinese Madonna and Child.

In the room dedicated to religion, there was a small section for Roman Catholicism's input to the world of art in the arena of the liturgy. A fine altar was laid out, though the altar cards were of interest: the text was writted on sheets of silver moulded to look like paper. Another altar card was studded with all sorts of fine jewels, next to various reliquaries and monstrances. All the other altar paraphanalia were there too: chalice, ciborium, thurible, boat, spoon, ewer, basin, cruets, paten, vestments, veils, burse (with tassels) and a video with a pair of white gloves demonstrating how all these things were put together. There was another video, which showed (maybe a mock up, I'm not sure) of the celebration of Holy Mass next door in the Oratory, which I thought was quite nice, and made its rounds on the internet quite a while ago.

Baroque: Oratory Latin Mass from Victoria and Albert Museum on Vimeo.

All the other videos and pieces of music in the exhibition are available to view on their website.

Today is my wedding day...

2009-06-22T09:02:00.001+01:00

And upon this rock, I build my... museum

2009-06-20T18:56:00.005+01:00

So, the Greeks have opened yet another museum.

When I lived in the Mediterranean (where I was born), I often found that the Hellenistic society around me had a very ignorant attitude to its own history. In some ways, I would equate it to an American in England. They - and evidently I - do not understand why they don't appreciate fully what they have. It would often be the case that time after time, mouments of ancient importance would be moved around to a more convenient location, or be supplemented with modern equivalents; essentially, they were a stage set, not even a museum piece. Many landmarks would be left to ruin, no-one aware of their significance.

This was the case even in Athens in the 20th century; the level of pollution and tourism in the city was damaging its heritage. They were all very proud of their surroundings, but they didn't do anything to look after it: except patriotic politicians of course, firing shots towards their former imperial masters and 'protectors'.

Now Athens - the city known for its wisdom and philosophy, so useful in debates about modern secularisation - has opened a new museum of the Acropolis, that being the hill where the ancient city was centered, around the Parthenon bank.

First of all, this new swanky glass and concrete block completely obliterates the view of the old hill and the ruins on top of it. But overlooking that, they contain many works moved inside to preserve them, ripping them from their original location. Of course, the point of doing this is to make a very expensive point that a few of the marbles nicked by a British noble should go there.

Thomas Bruce was his name - a.k.a. the Earl of Elgin - who was a diplomat to the Ottoman court at the start of the 19th century, who then governed Greece and had done for centuries. They gave this man permission to remove a number of pieces from the site in Athens - then a Turkish fort. He had his critics at the time in Britain when they arrived here in 1812, and so the government stepped in, bought the rocks and housed them in the British Museum a couple of years later.

Anyway, with the rise of Greek nationalism and western liberalism, some argued louder and louder that the logic of retaining them in the Britain didn't make sense.

I argue, however, that the Elgin Marbles should remain in the British Museum and are, therefore, de facto property of the Museum and British state.

The British Museum is no country fayre. It is surely a world heritage site, containing not only the marbles, but an assortment of pieces which chart human civilisation world over, the most notable perhaps being the Rosetta stone. In our modern 'multicultural' and global world society, it makes sense to display different things in one place. The majority of musea around the world are in the same situation. And there is no problem with that. We are all part of the same human family, our cultures are very different, but we can all share in our heritages by virtue of our birth on this planet. The thought of hetrogenous musea - cultural ethnic-cleansing - is disgusting.

Moreover, modern Greece has barely anything to do with its ancient namesake, bar its location and alphabet (that word being just one thing we have the Greeks thank for). Our own British society and culture, as well as the Greek cuture, owes much to ancient Greece. The British, and many other societies, are the successors of ancient Greece. The Hellenic Republic has no monoply on it.

So, the arguments that they have nothing to do with Britain, and that they are solely Greek can be dismissed.

There is a legal argument, though. If the pieces were taken illegally, then they should be returned - they are stolen works.

Well, they are not stolen. Permission of the appropriate authority was sought and gained, and this was upheld by the British government too. Even if they were taken illegally, this argument can be dismissed because of the longevity of the case. A theft 200 years ago, where none of the parties are alive and everything which has happened in between, is surely irrelevant, and using this argument is clutching at straws.

The new museum did not invite any British guests to the opening, and no representitive of the place where part of its Parthenon is located, neither did it invite any royal - though that's not saying much for the country which chucked out its own king.

Your patience is rewarded

2009-06-20T12:15:00.004+01:00

Welcome back to me.

I have returned from work at the National Shrine of Our Lady, and, funnily enough, today is the memorial of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I know some of you have been eagerly awaiting my return. I don't quite know quite why, but it's nice to know I am enjoyed!

I have a few things I'd like to write about...some of which I shall do later today, but at the moment, I am all weak at the knees and other joints due to a blast from the past...and a lack of dietry intake today thus far.

See you in a bit. In the mean time, enjoy this picture of the Sanctissimum from this last Corpus Christi. Look! There I am holding the ombrellino (yes, I know it should be a canopy outside, but not enough men wanted to do it). And I sure didn't enjoy wearing that tippet around my shoulders.

Come, Holy Spirit

2009-05-30T23:06:00.005+01:00

...fill the hearts of Your faithful, and enkindle within them the fire of Your Love.

Send forth Your Spirit, O Lord, and they shall be created. And You shall renew the face of the earth.

O God,

Who by the light of the Holy Spirit,

did instruct the hearts of Your faithful,

grant that by that same Holy Spirit,

we may be truly wise,

and ever rejoice in His consolation.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

I love the alabaster window above the Altar of the Chair at the back of St Peter's basilica in Rome. Sometimes, art gets it way off - but this one of the best examples of a genuine spiritual - Spiritual - work. Even today, after all these years, it still inspires the hearts of pilgrims to this Eternal City. Few moments have exceeded my expectations as much as when assisting Mass at the Altar of the Throne, hearing the preface sung with immaculate perfection in a floral interpretation of ecclesiastical Latin, while gazing up into the profundity of this little window. So clean are the lines and shapes, so perfect the design, that it appears as if the Holy Spirit is sweeping down to earth to catch you for God, reeling you in. Whenever I see this window, I always take the bait.

This is a very special and Spiritual time; it is perhaps fitting that this is my last comment here for about a month. I hope that we are all able to open our hearts and minds to His abundant gifts, receiving too the fruits of those gifts, in order that we are able to orientate our lives towards Him. Like the Apostles who gathered around Our Lady in prayer and consolation on that fiftieth day after Easter, we may be able to to do the same in our own lives this day and always. We have rejoiced in the Lord's resurrection, now we share our gifts with others. I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will, in some way, touch your own life in a profound way, that He will indeed show His mercy and love, granting salvation. One of the most remarkable comments I have heard - for me anyway - was being told that the Holy Spirit, in advocating our cause, penetrates the very depths of the heart of God and sighs for us. I wish I could find words, but I don't think any of our concepts could do Him justice.

Pray also for me, lest I am unable to wait patiently for His love. It is a special day for me. The Vigil of Pentecost is the anniversary of my formal return to Holy Mother Church. I feel I have been the recipient of so many blessings - especially in preparation for this Pentecost, I have truly come to understand some of what God's consolation actually means - I pray I am constantly reminded of them, and I never forget God's love and the love of my friends, and vice-versa.

See you, God Willing, in a couple of weeks.

"We are the Catholic Church"

2009-05-29T16:52:00.002+01:00

"We are the Catholic Church"

A quotation from the Anglican 'bishop' (and grandfather) of South-East Florida, Leo Frade, a former Cuban-born Methodist made good...well, different.

A Cuban-born former Methodist Anglican Bishop? I bet there is only one in that category.

He was giving a speech to the media about a Roman Catholic priest who has lost his way called Alberto Cutié (pronounced Koot-e-ay - I think I mentioned it a while ago). A TV celebrity priest, Fr Cutié was found recently in the romantic embrace of a woman (which is something I suppose), and was summarily suspended.

Events took a different turn this week, however, and Fr Cutié is now excommunicated for apostasy, for 'converting' to the Anglican/Episcopal Church, and will be made a 'priest' in that community within a year. He appeared next to his new 'ordinary' in a press conference sans collar.

Is it just me, or is Fr Cutié's spiritual revelation and conversion an amazing coincidence?

He is now engaged to the woman he was getting jiggy with.

Of course, he is still a priest...

Curia on parade...

2009-05-29T15:02:00.001+01:00

The Cardinals' cat-walk proves a hit for their adoring fans.

Papal Paraphanalia

2009-05-29T14:33:00.005+01:00

Over at the NLM, they often post pretty pictures of vestments and ostentatious liturgical celebrations in the present-day.

One post from today, however, has interested me a little. Someone has taken some pictures of some plain gold vesments belonging to Pope Clement II, who reigned over our Church for less than a year before his death in 1047 and, like our present Pontifex Maximus, was a Bavarian bishop.

He loved his home diocese so much (which he retained in his litany of titles upon his election to the Supreme Pontificate), he was buried their after his death in his mid-40s (pretty good going for the eleventh century!).

In the Second World War, they dug him up to protect him from Allied bombing (it's a good job he wasn't buried in Dresden), and decided to restore his outfit, as it was looking a bit worn after all these years. I hope they remembered to dress him up again in something, the poor man, when they solemnly reburied him in 1947, as those vestments are now on display in the cathedral, fully restored, and thus, are the oldest set of papal vesments.

From a glance, one can see the similarity between this and what +Vincent wore recently at his enthronement. The chasuble looks a bit plain in the picture, put there is a fine embroidery picked out of the gold close up, I promise! If you look carefully, in the reflection on the glass, you can also see the lovely gold buskins (socky-slipperettes with fetching tie-backs) and a cope (don't know where that came from, but I can see it).

Likewise with the pontifical dalmatic. They were wearing these in the 11th century.

Finally, we have a selection of paraphanalia also found in the sarcophogus, including pectoral crosses, stoles, fluffy bits, tassels, rings, bracelets (?), cincture, cuffs (he had gloves on). I assume the alb and the mitre were restored to the pope!

They were supposed to be smaller in the olden days, and I don't know about you, but that chasuble (which is basically a golden sheet with a hole cut out in the middle) looks like it would drown any average man of today. It's no wonder they cut the sleeves off and invented fiddlebacks!

It's good to see all these liturgcal things: dalmatics, gauntlets, buskins and what not in regular use a thousand years ago; it's a shame they have been dropped by the wayside. Mediaeval nonsense indeed?! I wonder if Pope Clement II thought they were useless? Needless to say, these very same vestments were being used in the Most Holy Sacrifice way before good old St Thomas Aquinas defined what was happening on top of those ad orientem altars.

Forwarning

2009-05-26T18:32:00.005+01:00

Today, I am very happy. I have sorted many things out, and I'm thankful that at last, my own prayers and the prayers of some others on my behalf seem to have paid off. A great millstone around my neck has been broken into a million pieces.

Thanks, Lord, and thank you, you.

In other news, I have been appointed to some liturgical position in Walsingham on a temporary basis, starting on Pentecost. This means I shall probably be without internet access (though hopefully my phone will get some signal!). I'm very disappointed to leave you, but from Sunday, I shall probably be away for at least three weeks, and as such, Sequere Me will be taking a bit of a holiday while I work and iron linens and scrub floors and what not.

Jammy bastard.

New

2009-05-26T18:27:00.003+01:00

Because I'm special, I'm allowed to see where my viewers come from, and it displays little flags of the nation state. I haven't seen this one before...

Now Europe appears as a country in its own right when viewing my blog, though it didn't give a location - although I'm intregued as to the search that brought them here whoever it was. The Pope may have kept in mind St Benedict, co-patron of Europe, on his visit to Monte Cassino recently, but I'm sure it didn't mean it has to come to this.

Controversial

2009-05-25T18:42:00.007+01:00

It's amazing this internet malarky and where you get read. Today, I penetrated the realms of my first proper communist:

Vietnam.

---

Today hasn't been a very good day at all, so I'm hyper. I'm also going to be a bit controversial and make a few comments about the Pope's Motu Proprio... So controversy warning...

I'm of course very glad that the Holy Father has, by his example, has very slowly (and outside of pontifical liturgies, it is very slow indeed) been re-introducing a sense of awe into the Sacred Liturgies, which was lost a little in certain places over the years. However, I'm a bit nervous about the long-term effects of Summorum Pontificum.

There is a danger, I feel, that by championing a separation of forms and practice, the visible unity of the western Church Latin rite-ers is being threatened. We must remember that the Second Vatican Council taught us that the Roman Rite used in the period of the council was in need of reform.

I'm sure many readers will agree with me when I say that the reform we got was not entirely what was intended for us by the Council fathers. Whatever form one prefers, and whatever style of worship one appreciates, no-one can say rightly that the Council approved our current liturgies, as the Council had closed by the time they were promulgated. I reject claims that these ordinary liturgies are those given to us by Vatican II and are infallible. Neither are the rites which came before it. Rites must change from time to time, lest we become petrified and time and die spiritually as a result.

It would be wrong of me to suggest that none of us really approve fully of our current form of liturgy. A majority of Catholics - even well-educated ones - will look blindly at you if you start talking about Forms of Mass. It is simply not an issue for most people, who simply come to Mass every week and that's it, saying their own prayers at home from time to time. Start changing the Mass and other liturgies, people will not really notice, rather they will wonder what Father is doing now, and forget about it quickly. They approve of our liturgy tacitly by their presence because they know no different. I can imagine the same went for parishioners with the liturgical changes of the 1920s, 1950s and early 1960s. Nobody really noticed. They noticed in the late 60s, because Father was now looking at them in most cases, but since then, they have forgotten what altar rails are. It is not their fault, and honestly, their own sense of spirituality hasn't changed that much. In fact, with many of the novelties we have now, I would argue that many laypeople get more nourishment from attending Mass in the ordinary form (post-Vatican II), intellectually at least.

A small number of people take an interest in the liturgy, beyond the norm. There are those extremists who deny the validity of the ordinary form. There are those who just like to go to extraordinary form Masses, those who go to both, those who want a mingling of the two, and those who think guitars and tambourines are necessary for the validity of the sacrament.

[Pope Paul VI celebrating Mass in St Peter's during the Council]

[Pope Benedict XVI celebrating Mass at the same altar recently]

We must get something straight. Vatican II, as I said above, teaches that what the extraordinary form is now should be reformed. It is not appropriate to assume it will remain forever as it is until the end of time (unless, of course, time ends tomorrow). And many accept that the common celebration of our modern liturgy is sometimes rediculous (we must bear in mind that liturgical abuse is not a new thing, and has happened since the liturgy was granted to us). The Holy See recognises this, the Holy Father recognises this personally, as did our previous HolyFather, who gave approval to the document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which provides proper guidelines for the celebration of Holy Mass (however, even in the celebration of his own liturgies, these rules were often broken).

However, Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn't really go far enough. In the 1960s, we had an in-organic rupture in the method of the celebration of the sacraments. Even my own mother wonders how you get the Masses we have today out of the Masses she had as a child. They are too different to argue that the change was organic, in such a short space of time.

I'm increasingly being drawn towards the idea that our two forms of liturgy need to be used in a way that assumes one day this temporary, in-organic solution will be rectified. It is wrong and unprecidented for the same rite of Christians, us western Christians of the Roman Rite, have two outwardly distinct liturgies. The same rite requires the same liturgy in my view. Anything which gives the impression that we will forever have two forms should be expunged, though I don't think it is the will of the Holy Father to split up the Church in such a way as some, by their actions, are in danger of doing.

In my hometown, there are about 5 or 6 Anglican parishes. The main one in the centre of town is broad Church. It's a little bit of a via media. They celebrate 'Mass' (well, they claim to), believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, wear vestments and when they had a man in charge, called their 'priest' Father.

Now, down the road, there is another parish. It is a Church of England community - the same as the parish I have described above. They have a trendy evangelical who hates the idea of a 'clergy'. They do not celebrate any form of Eucharist, do not use things such as candles, and instead of an altar in their Church, they have a big projector screens to allow everyone to follow along in their heretically minded 'praise and worship' sessions.

I can imagine in about a hundred or two hundred years - following the path we are on at the moment so rigidly - we as Catholics will have something similar. In big towns in one Church, we shall have ad orientem altars, Roman vestments, only extraordinary form celebrations of Mass and other liturgies etc. Then down the road, you will have another Church, with a wooden 'communion table' surrounded by schol chairs, breeze-block walls, a tabernacle in the corner, carpeted floors, a religious sister chaplain, and music stands and a guitar case left next to the altar. Next to a picture of Oscar Romero flanked by children, will be a justice and peace board and Cafod posters, neglecting to mention their support for condoms, monopolising Catholic charity giving (basically, what a lot of Catholic Churches look like nowadays) . Maybe in this big town, you shall have a Church run by a personal prelature, who have dubious liturgies, but stick rigidly (and, frankly, quite unchristian-ly) to Catholic social doctrine, but unfathomably produce about a million new priests every year.

I don't know about you, but I don't want our glorious Holy Mother Church to become any more fragmented than it already is. The liturgy - though some refuse to accept this - is usually the sole way many Catholics communicate with God on a weekly basis, and we should give it all we have. It should not confuse people and put them off - either by giving them a sense of psychological rejection, neither should it confuse their image of God and make Love seem all hip. Everything in the liturgy is there for a reason, and bits shouldn't be rejected or inserted according to our personal needs. The primary purpose of the Mass is for the worship of God, not as a device to satisfy our own decadent hypochondria.

[Via media? The celebration of Holy Mass using the Missal promulgated after Vatican II in the Birmingham Oatory - is this perhaps the kind of celebration the Council Fathers invisaged?]

There are many changes which could, and should, be made to the ordinary form. We should look into the feasability of, for example, a silent Eucharistic prayer, prayers at the foot of the altar, longer forms of the offertory prayers, the expansion of the uses of votive Masses, Vigils and octaves, in any language in all sorts of directions. Perhaps, as Cardinal Godfrey argued during the council, the Church didn't use Latin enough, or maybe we use it too much liturgically. We should abide by Church Council teaching and teach and be taught the prayers in Latin (we are required to know how to respond to Mass in Latin) and sing parts to basic tones at least. We should completely re-orientate our view of where we place ourselves in the liturgy, especially as lay people, but we should also recognise that the our current practices actually seem to increase clerical control over the liturgy. I don't really care about the Latin, nor frankly the orientation (though for the latter, I do have a personal preference for ad orientem), rather we should remind ourselves continuously that what we are doing is for the glory of God and it should appear such.

[Mass in the square of St Peter's at Easter this year: noble simplicity correcly interpreted]

The work of Vatican II, in my view, hasn't even begun yet, so let's not let us get stuck into our ruts and comfortable spaces just yet.

Iniquity

2009-05-25T09:17:00.002+01:00

The Calendar adapted for England requires the celebration of the feast of St Bede today, but as we have thousands of saints, there are several remembered every day. From the martyrology today:

At Salerno, the death of blessed Pope Gregory VII, a most zealous protector and champion of Church liberty.

O, that all our leaders were as inspiring as this saintly pontiff.

If I were to pick a century to live in, the eleventh would not be my first choice. Gregory - whose birth-name was Hildebrand - had no choice, and the thought of being a prelate in that era is such a horrible concept! In the middle of that century, the Church was in a complete mess. There were several people claiming to be popes (and one pope who was deposed twice, managing to get himself re-elected time after time), presbytries known-world-over were becoming dens of iniquity, secular leaders were dismantling ecclesiastical authority and worse: goodly monks were trying to make everyone all holy! The calls of St Peter Damian and the like, demanding sanctity and good behavior, fell mostly on deaf ears, but Gregory VII was one of those who listened an, unfortunately, suffered the consequences.

This is the mediaeval period. One thing which annoyes me about liberals, especially Churchy liberals, is that they know nothing of history (which is probably why they are the way they are), and when they do, they get it wrong. They often complain about the Church and its exterior features being mediaeval, yet most of what the Church looks like today comes out of the late fifteenth century and beyond - the Church, by this very definition, is modern, not mediaeval. Some of these people even complain that the Church is mediaeval - I'd say transcendant - without contemplating that the actual mediaeval period has produced a suspicious number of saints and sinners. The Church is - and always has been - the Body of Christ, the people of God in mystical union with Christ and each other, and thus it automatically reflects contemporary society. I don't doubt that the Church of the eleventh century was exactly the same as the Church of today, underneath all the layers of smoke and damask.

I don't wish to present a biography - there is just far too much to write about this man - but needless to say, he tried to reform the Church's behaviour and put the emperor in his place. He is a good reminder that, as Joseph Ratzinger once said, truth is not determined by a majority vote. If it did, Greogry would be one of just a handful. He stood by the Church and Christ as others abandoned it - Apocalypse-esque - and demonstrates if one decides to that, you are punished in this life, but with the grace of God, we shall eventually be victorious.

We don't get our reward in this life. No matter what we truly desire here, we shall not be fully satisfied. This is something - myself especially included - we need to remember every day: Utopia ain't gonna happen before we die, folks. I have kept a devotion to this saint ever since I continuously wrote about him when I studied Church history at university, so I think I'm going to be naughty and exempt myself from the local calendar and keep the feast of this Pope.

On his deathbed in 1085, according to legend, Gregory said: "I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore, I die in exile."

Novena

2009-05-22T16:41:00.002+01:00

Humans are sensual beings. Most of us see, smell, hear, taste, feel and what not. Having some or all of these senses remind us that we are fully part of creation: we can enjoy it and use it.

God, through His Church, has provided us with Sacraments which help us integrate with the spiritual reality beyond this temporal creation we inhabit at the moment. Using elements of benefit to our own senses - bread, wine, oil, water, smoke, bells, words, gestures, movement, colours, wax, singing, fire, salt, textures, sounds, silences - we can appreciate our spirituality on a more profound level. Heaven debases itself to our level so we can become a part of it, which is especially expressed at the moment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, prefaced by the union of heaven and earth singing the praises of God during the Sanctus. We fall to our knees at this moment, as we recognise that, yet again, God has joined us down here.

Another temporal reality is time itself. The Church offers her people a beautiful gift in the liturgy and the liturgical cycle. The renewal experienced in the passage of the liturgical year mirrors our own year and the seasons therein. The whole Christian year is anchored on one moment: the Resurrection. Our measure of time begins with preparation for the visual incarnation of Christ in Advent, the celebration itself and his manifestation to the world represented by the wise men. Keeping in mind this exposure to us, He leads us through the wilderness - representing both Christ's action and that of Moses and the Hebrews - and lets us suffer liturgically. In Lent, the Christian people are deprived of some of these physical elements such as bells, music and colours, and even statues. We are reminded that for a short while, we are alone with God the Father, as Christ was alone. Gradually throughout this season, we lose more and more until at the end: Good Friday, we have nothing left, not even plain linens, smoke or candles for very long. Just Christ on the cross.

Then, all of a sudden, the world is turned upside down. We are given everything back, the change is so great we are bowled over. It is Easter.

In this season too, time changes. During the Octave at the end of Mass, Alleluia is added to the dismissal rites. The Paschal candle remains lit in the sanctuary. The liturgical colour is white like the blood-stained wool of the Lamb. But we lose the Alleluia after the Octave; things start to calm down.

Yesterday, at the Ascension, the Paschal candle is extinguished as Christ has risen to the Father. The scaffold is the same, but the mood has changed.

We are celebrating the resurrection - we are always celebrating that - but we are a bit sad that the Lord had to leave us again. But he has promised us that another will come, an Advocate for our cause (Acts 1:5). After the Ascension, we give thanks and pray that the Holy Spirit will come as He promised.

Scripturally, it is quite clear that the Lord was taken up into heaven 40 days after his resurrection, which is why the Ascension was kept yesterday (Acts 1:3). Ascension Thursday is Ascension Thursday, it cannot just be moved around. It was the Ascension yesterday, but in some places, the celebration is kept at a later date and the obligation to attend Mass is translated to the Sunday in that geographical area. I'm not sure if some votive Mass can be used on this day. What happens with the liturgy in this case is that it is bunched up, so we celebrate the readings designed after the Ascension to be read before it a day earlier; crazy or what?

Anyway, it is also clear that the Apostles prayed earnestly - continuously - after this event (Acts 1:14) which culminated in the election of a new Apostle, Matthias. Then after the chosen are complete again in number, and led by Mary, the Mother of Jesus, in consolation and prayer, they arrive at the day of Pentecost. This is the fiftieth day after the resurrection. Therefore, we know from scripture that the Holy Spirit did not descend until 10 days after the Ascension (Acts 2:1).

So we know that the Apostles prayed in preparation for nine days: a Novena. There are perhaps few things as Catholic as a Novena, yet it's right there in the Holy Bible, folks. This is kind of a miniature liturgical season: Ascensiontide. It has its own emphasis and meaning, more than just Easter time (which it is too). The honeymoon is over. We have enjoyed just relaxing in the warmth of Easter. On his way up to heaven yesterday, Jesus told us to take what we have just taken to other people. This is a command, a vocation, we are given by the Lord himself. We've been nourished spiritually by Lent and Easter, now it's time to get on a live it too.

But woe betide anyone who things he can do this alone. No, we need God's grace for this, and the gifts of His Holy Spirit. We don't (always) just get given these things, we have to ask for them by opening our hearts and minds to what the Holy Spirit has to offer us. This doesn't mean we jump up and down and wave our hands around, start speaking differently and telling each other prophesies - though this certainly does happen, not just as regularly as some people claim it does in my view; I'm sure the Holy Spirit doesn't limit himself to the wiles of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements: we are all Pentecostal and Charismatic - but it does mean we open our heart as wide as we can. God's love is so limitless we can't possibly fit it all in, but we can try our best to be open to it. By doing this, and with others, we can try to understand what the Holy Spirit is going on about - pick up the hints and clues as to when we should and shouldn't do something. I often say we should stop meddling around in things and leave things for a bit to allow the Spirit to work. I don't think two people have ever interpreted that in the same way, however. But then again, if we get it a bit out this time, God's forgiveness is bountiful, and there is always next year!

We must change from time to time. We must represent outwardly what we possess inwardly. This is found in our forms of worship too. But we are organic, and this change too must be organic: natural, Spiritual. The more we start to inorganically play around with things to suit purely our designs, then that is inhibiting the Holy Spirit. Sacraments are natural, not manufactured.

Anyway, the purpose of me writing here is to suggest the importance of appreciating this short season we have for the next nine days. Like the Apostles, we must pray for the Holy Spirit to come at Pentecost. We can and should pray on our own initive in this season, but also the Church gives us an easy way for us to do this in addition (but really, the two are not incompatable). Every day this this season, I shall post here the daily prayer of consecration to the Holy Spirit and the prayer for that day. Over time, we shall grow spiritually together and the Love of God shall be unleashed upon us. This is an important time. It will be the birthay of the Church. Who dares forget his mother's birthday?...

---

Novena to the Holy Spirit:
First Friday after Ascension Thursday

Antiphon:
Holy Spirit! Lord of Light!
From Your clear celestial height,
Your pure beaming radiance give!

Prayer
Almighty and eternal God,
Who has promised to regenerate us by water and the Holy Spirit,
and forgiven all our sins,
send forth your sevenfold Spirit upon us:
the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding,
the Spirit of Counsel and fortitude,
the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety,
and fill us with the Spirit of the Fear of the Lord.
Amen.

Our Father...
Haily Mary...
Glory Be...

Act of Consecration
On my knees before the great multitude of heavenly witnesses,
I offer myself, soul and body to You, Eternal Spirit of God.
I adore the brightness of Your purity,
the unerring keenness of Your justice,
and the might of Your love.

You are the Strength and Light of my soul.
In You I live and move and am.
I desire never to grieve You by unfaithfulness to grace and
I pray with all my heart to be kept from the smallest sin against You.
Mercifully guard my every thought and
grant that I may always watch for Your light,
and listen to Your voice,
and follow Your gracious inspirations.

I cling to You and give myself to You and ask You,
by Your compassion to watch over me in my weakness.

Holding the pierced Feet of Jesus and looking at His Five Wounds,
and trusting in His Precious Blood and
adoring His opened Side and stricken Heart,
I implore You, Adorable Spirit, Helper of my infirmity,
to keep me in Your grace that I may never sin against You.

Give me grace, O Holy Spirit,
Spirit of the Father and the Son
to say to You always and everywhere,
"Speak Lord for Your servant is listening."
Amen.

Prayer for the Sevenfold-gifts of the Holy Spirit
O Lord Jesus Christ Who,
before ascending into heaven
did promise to send the Holy Spirit
to finish Your work in the souls of Your Apostles and Disciples,
deign to grant the same Holy Spirit to me
that He may perfect in my soul,
the work of Your grace and Your love.

Grant me the Spirit of Wisdom
that I may despise the perishable things of this world
and aspire only after the things that are eternal,
the Spirit of Understanding to enlighten my mind with the light of Your divine truth,
the Spirit of Counsel that I may ever choose the surest way of pleasing God and gaining heaven,
the Spirit of Fortitude that I may bear my cross with You and that I may overcome with courage
all the obstacles that oppose my salvation,
the Spirit of Knowledge that I may know God and know myself
and grow perfect in the science of the Saints,
the Spirit of Piety that I may find the service of God sweet and amiable,
and the Spirit of Fear that I may be filled with a loving reverence towards God
and may dread in any way to displease Him.

Mark me, dear Lord,
with the sign of Your true disciples
and animate me in all things with Your Spirit.
Amen.

Benediction

2009-05-22T11:37:00.002+01:00

Here is a nice piece of news from Zenit. I remember reading about it when it was being planned, but this has just reminded me:

The Pope will be visiting the monastery founded by the saint he chose as his patron upon taking the name Benedict XVI.

The Holy Father will travel Sunday to Monte Cassino, the monastery St. Benedict founded that is the cradle of the Benedictine order.

The visit will begin with a Mass in the plaza of Cassino, the city just east of the monastery. The site of the Mass will be renamed after Benedict XVI.

After Mass, the Pontiff will inaugurate a "House of Charity" for homeless immigrants. The project is being carried out in a former hospital under the sponsorship of the abbot of Monte Cassino.

The second part of the day will be dedicated to the Benedictines, as the Bishop of Rome will meet with abbots and abbesses from around the world, as well as a large number of monks and nuns.

Finally, before his return to Rome, the Holy Father will visit the Polish cemetery, one of the cemeteries from World War II. This year marks 65 years since the bombing of the monastery in the Battle of Monte Cassino, also known as the Battle for Rome.

---

Monte Cassino is the hill upon which the monastery of the same name was founded by St Benedict in the 6th century and therefore is the spiritual home of the western monastic movement. The Pope will be visiting it on the Sunday after the Ascension in his calendar (though I think the rest of Italy keep the Ascension on the Sunday itself).

We have all heard about the Battle for Rome, which culminated in the virtual destruction of the site and region for no apparent reason - a bit like the allies' justification for the bombing of Dresden.

In fact, that was really the culmination of a very un-prayerful history of this foundation. Shortly after it was built in the 6th century, it was destroyed by wandering barbarians, but it was later rebuilt just in time for Charlemagne to visit it in the 8th century. Shortly after this in the 9th century, the Muslims burned it down, but it was rebuilt only to be destroyed by an earthquake in the 14th century. A completely new structure was built and it was raised to the dignity of a cathedral, after which it entered a period of decline, dissolved by Napoleon and later turned into a museum by republicans in the mid-19th century.

The remains were caught in between the two armies in the second world war, even though the place was being used largely as a shelter for refugees from the surrounding towns. The monastery was rebuilt in the 1960s, thankfully according to the 14th century designs, and reconsecrated by Paul VI.

The relics of St Benedict and his sister St Scholtastica - among many others - can be found here.

Enthronement

2009-05-22T00:39:00.008+01:00

I suppose I should mention a few of my thoughts on today's enthronement of the newby Metropolitan Archbishop of Westminster. I don't like the word 'installation', as it makes the poor man sound like a utility fitting.

Not that I'm ungrateful to the BBC or anything - in fact, I'm very thankfull that they broadcast the Mass - but did Huw Edwards have to speak all over the nice new musical pieces especially composed for the occasion?

Some of these musical pieces - mostly by James Macmillan - were taken from a Cantuariensian Pontifical from the fifteenth century. The preceeding rites were also of this origin. Ever since the restoration in 1850, this formula has been used to install new Archbishops, and as a result, one can argue that this see claims succession from the old Archbishops of Canterbury, making the Lord Vincent the eightieth (give or take a handful for historical inaccuracies) successor to St Augustine of Canterbury in communion with Rome. As a result, the provost of the metropolitical chapter of the archdiocese inherited the right to hold the archbishop's elbow and take him to his throne, playing the role of the prior of Canterbury. The crozier was presented by the Apostolic Administrator/Archbishop Emeritus.

This rite - all performed in a cope with a marvellous morse - involved a lot of kneeling. I think my favourite moment during the broadcast was the entrance of the Archbishop, he imediately kneeled at the threshold of the Church with a profound sense of emotion on his face. Only after this did he presume to approach the chapter and later the altar. Kneeling was the main issue of the day at the foot of the high altar too, this time at a faldstool draped in green, as the provost prayed over him.

After sitting down on a very comfy-looking throne, he received the obedience of the chapter and a carefully selected cross-section of other, less silky-vermillion people, and his new coat of arms were unveiled by the master of ceremonies Fr Witon. Then these rites suddenly became Mass, as the Gloria (Palestrina!) was intoned, during which the archbishop was vested for the celebration.

At the collect, I realised that the Mass was a votive of St Paul. Note a liturgical nicety here: St Paul requires red because he is a martyr, but red can be replaced by gold vestments. Having been a bit weary of the vestments seeing them beforehand, they looked good in real life, but still a bit plain. The matching dalmatics were in the same set for the honour deacons, but the altar deacons wore different (and much nicer) dalmatics in a cream fabric. Sad, too, not to see the pontifical dalmatic. A good Marian-themed gold mitre.

The Eastery Alleluia was sung to greet the Gospel, though I must say that while the choir - in my opinion, one of the best in the world and should be exported to Rome to replace that atrocious body in the Sistine Chapel - were truly excellent, some of the chanting was something to be desired at this moment! I have to admit, the homily was interrupted for me as I had to bring the washing in out of the rain outside, but the parts I heard were really good (I heard the bit about the media). Archbishop Nichols has one of those really gentle voices: a rare quality in a person. Some voices agitate or relax or anger or bore, but this one is calming. Voices such as these get listened to. Also, from what I have seen of him from afar and in real life, he is a bit paradoxical in a way, because he is both aloof and down-to-earth, if you can understand that! I like this dichotomy in bishops. Simply by their mannerisms one can tell they are a bishop, but very 'regular' at the same time.

Credo III was sung - the one usually put with the Missa de Angelis (the tone of which was used for the Sanctus and intoning the Gloria, though I wouldn't have used that Mass setting for a votive of the thirteenth Apostle). The Palestrina was used again for the Agnus Dei.

I must say I saw several people I recognised in the congregation and sanctuary, which was nice. Having been to the Cathedral a lot, I didn't get the same feeling watching it on the TV - and I found it looked a lot smaller on the screen too - Westminster Cathedral has a sort of aura about it which obviously cannot be transmitted through the cameras.

I also enjoyed a surprised Te Deum at the end, though I thought it a bit superflouous to walk all the way to the back to venerate Cardinal Hume's tomb, and then go back to give a proper episcopal blessing. However, in the knowledge this man was consecrated by Basil Hume, and finding this picture earlier, it makes sense with hindsight.

One other thing...why do clergy carry birettas when they are not going to wear them? Personally, of course, all the clergy should wear them in my opinion, but if you don't want to wear it, don't carry it around like a millstone; I find it a bit arrogant (or, as I have recently christened it, negative humility). Also, while I'm talking about clergy in choir, is everyone given a standard surplice to wear? They are so boring, these little embroidered strips with a cross on; where are the lacy rochets? And what ever happened to watered-silk...these are all so plain looking!

Overall, thumbs up, I say. I'm sure he'll do really well.

Murphy-O'Connor

2009-05-20T05:01:00.005+01:00

Is that one word? Well, we have reached the end of our posts on the archbishops of Wesminster. I hope you have enjoyed them. Here is our last instalment:

Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, in spite of his crazy accent, was born in Berkshire and educated there, and in Bath. Aged 18, he was enrolled into the English College along with his two brothers, training as a priest for the diocese of Portsmouth.

After serving as parish priest for several years upon his ordination in 1956, he became the bishop’s secretary and director of vocations. As the 1970s got going, he was parachuted again to Rome, this time as rector and named monsignor, presiding over the college during the period of great reform and settlement.

Staying in the Eternal City a further 6 years, he was appointed and consecrated bishop of the south-coast diocese of Arundel and Brighton, where he remained for 23 years.

Nearly a year after the death of Cardinal Hume, he was surprisingly appointed his successor in the early spring of the second millennial year of our salvation, receiving the pallium three months later, and the red hat after less than a year, from the pope whom he welcomed in his previous diocese 20 years before on his historic visit.

Like his predecessor, he quickly became absorbed into the socialites’ lives of Westminster-dwelling folk, becoming the first Cardinal to preach to a sovereign since the seventeenth century, and regularly appeared on television. One piece of news he regularly discussed was the Nolan report on child abuse scandals which he commissioned, and instigated his suggestions along with the other bishops. His name was often mentioned in important circles, and his opinions is respected (if not heeded) in the Catholic and non-Catholic world of London north-of-the-Thames. This has led some to suggest he will be given a title and a seat in the upper house of parliament – completely un-canonical of course – which I must say I heartily disprove of for several reasons.

Upon reaching the age limit, he submitted his resignation, though the Pope ignored it, asking him to remain much longer in order to find a successor. Never before had an archbishop of this diocese retired in office: all had died. When his successor was announced, he became Apostolic Administrator, and spent the remaining time in Archbishop house giving long, protracted goodbyes. Like all good bishops, he is not without his critics, but his pastoral and preaching ability and love for God and His people are admirable.

He now lives in retirement Chiswick, though I doubt this archbishop emeritus will spend much time out of the lime-light.

Hume

2009-05-19T19:27:00.002+01:00

George Basil Haliburton Hume O.S.B. was, at one point, my diocesan bishop. This half-Scottish, half-French Newcastle supporter became the leader of English and Welsh Catholics at the end of the turbulent 20th century, He is appropriately remembered as the Monk-Cardinal, being the only Benedictine to serve the archdiocese of Westminster as ordinary since its inception in 1850. To my understanding, he is the only Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church to have had a walk-on cameo on This is Your Life; he wasn’t even featured as the actual guest celebrity.

Born in 1923, after being educated at the school, he entered the Benedictine foundation at Ampleforth in Yorkshire in 1941, after which he was educated further in Switzerland and Oxford, and ordained a priest in 1950.

For thirteen years, he was a teacher, housemaster, sportsman and even a diplomat, before being elected Abbot for a fixed term in 1963 (a term which was later renewed). Funnily enough, the Abbot of Ampleforth is the successor of the Abbot of Westminster (not sure how they work that out, but men like to award themselves titles from time to time – on the vigil of his enthronement, he led his brethren in worship in their former Church). Aged only 40, he was perhaps an appropriate appointment, considering the vitality expressed from the Council which was sitting in Rome at the time, and Hume presided over the period of change for the Abbey. Ampleforth was able to absorb the Council without loss to the community, and it maintained about 120 brethren at the time, and it remains a large institution today.

Some have said that the appointment of an Abbot to the primatial Catholic see in England is a peculiar choice, though in this case, I would suggest otherwise. Ampleforth is a large monastery; larger, in fact, than some English dioceses in terms of number of clergy. It runs schools and even parishes, thankfully reminiscent of these mediaeval mega-monasteries. And so as well as administrative formation which goes with the position – more than called for in Westminster – the appointment of a religious to the post added a sense of monastic spirituality sadly lacking until then. Though religious are primarily called to their communities, it seems a shame that not more bishops in this country do not herald from these backgrounds. All but one of our ordinary bishops are of the secular (or at least, non-monastic) clergy. Benedict XV promised (nearly a century ago now), that there would always be a Benedictine somewhere in the English hierarchy. This position is vacant at the moment.

So this Abbot Hume succeeded Cardinal Heenan in 1976. As an Abbot, he had worn pontifical paraphernalia for years, but was un-consecrated. His episcopal office was sacramentally unleashed, unusually, by the nuncio himself, Bruno Heim, the abbot of Downside and the bishop of Middlesbrough, from whose diocese Hume had travelled for the occasion.

He ruled Westminster for over 20 years, a period which was perhaps more interesting than the preceding 20, for it was a time of settling dust and re-orientation. Archbishop Hume – who was elevated to the Sacred Purple shortly after his consecration in Paul VI’s penultimate consistory, and for a while, was the only Benedictine Cardinal – presided over a period of ecumenism, continuing the archbishop’s friendship with the archbishop of Canterbury, and even welcoming the Queen to his Cathedral in 1995. She was to award him the Order of Merit shortly before his death. He was also the Archbishop during the historic first – and so far only – visit of a reigning Roman Pontiff to English soil. Many had tipped Hume to be a potential Pope himself one day. He was perhaps the closest England came to provided the world with another Holy Father in the second half of the last century.

There can be no doubt in Hume’s popularity, and he greatly benefited the Church in this country. Though I have always felt slightly uncomfortable with his celebrity status, he was a very Catholic archbishop – a skill which is sometimes lacking – being all men to everybody, a gentle and humble soul who had both spiritual depth and a life beyond his Cathedral. His death in 1999 was mourned by many.

Heenan

2009-05-19T12:42:00.005+01:00

Woops, I seem to have not written anything since Sunday. This is because I have been around the houses a bit, and have only just had the opportunity to sit and write anything. I shall, therefore, be writing two articles today, and we start thus (astute readers will remember a previous article on Heenan; this is an edited version with new exciting facts):

John Carmel Heenan.

Need I say more? The beautifully named archbishop of Westminster, who reigned from 1963 until 1975. He presided over the implementation of the second Vatican council and subsequent declarations (including those regarding the liturgy, hierarchy and what not).

Heenan was the first archbishop to be born in the 20th century, and modernity was not something he would avoid. Born in the then Westminster diocese in 1905, he was sponsored to enter the Westminster Cathedral Choir School, but after rejection due to an inability to sing (the director was dreadfully un-enlightened), he entered the Jesuit grammar school in Stamford Hill (which was a long train-journey away for this day-student from Ilford; he was nearly expelled on one occasion, and incident which upset him dreadfully, and seemed to give him a good kick up the backside!).

He kept his desire to be a priest quiet from everyone bar his mother, who was concerned by his activities in school, afraid he would be unable to proceed to major seminary. He succeeded, however, and was sent to Ushaw. He did not last here for long. Thankfully for him, he won a sponsorship to attend the English College in Rome. Heenan did not enjoy his time at Ushaw, thinking it too puritanical in its treatment of the students, especially their dietry requirements. Formation of seminarians was a keen interest of his because of his own poor experiences.

Ordained priest in 1930, he was told - to the annoyance of his own bishop - that he would one day be elevated to the episcopate. Later, Cardinal Hinsley thrust a mitre on his head and said something along the lines of: you shall be given a hat like this one day, and it shall be like a crown of thorns. He served as a curate, opposed the eugenics and pro-death movements of the time, and became interested in the emerging science of psychology. He posed as a psychologist on an undercover expedition to the Soviet Union during the great purges. Not even his rector knew about it, who was told he was going on holiday to Rome, the danger was so great for a priest to enter the communist dictatorship. The young priest was exempted from the Divine Office so that nothing may be found about his person if arrested.

On his return, he remained as a parish priest, but after the war, became the head of the Catholic Missionary Society. He could be found driving around the country with a chapel attached to the back of his car - Our Lady of the Wayside. People would be summoned to Mass by recordings of the bells from St Peter's in Rome.

Such activities got him noticed, and the episcopal order was opened to him by his consecration as bishop of Leeds in 1951: the Cruel See. That crown of thorns was placed upon his head after all. Heenan was not popular. He alienated his clergy very quickly by reshuffling virtually all the parish clergy throughout the diocese (he even tried to move a priest of a neighbouring diocese, thinking the parish lay within his juristiction). It was here, however, he sung High Mass, which was to become the first Mass to be televised in the UK.

The new bishop did not last long in Yorkshire, and he was moved to the other side of the Pennines in 1957 as Archbishop of Liverpool. He imediately rejected the new Cathedral plans of his predecessor Godfrey (who had been moved to Westminster), though construction had already begun. He approved the Church Liverpool Catholics can now call their own (I shall not pass judgement on that; I think it best to avoid the subject here!).

Neither did he last long in Liverpool, and was translated to Westminster in 1963 after Godfrey's death. This was the time of the Council, and though his public participation was more limited that Godfrey's he was key in ensuring the Church in this country was not fractured (very much) by the upheaval. Thankfully, he was fully aware of his own opinions, and enforced doctrine and teaching without the flowery language and terminology which sprouted in the 1960s and 70s.

He is known as a keen ecumenist - though I'm sure his ultimate aim was to convert heretics to the true religion. He promoted the idea (something which was evident from his early priestly career) of personal friendships, particularly among Catholic and protestant clergy, was the primary organ of the movement. He was close friends with both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi.

His demise occured at the same time at Paul VI, of whom he was a great supporter (the Supreme Pontiff was criticised by most groups of Catholics - traddies disliked his changes, trendies feared his changes did not go far enough, especially after the publication of Humanae Vitae). He was aware of his impending doom by 1971, when he suggested the clergy nominate potential successors (I wonder if anyone's suggestions were ever passed on), and died of a heart attack in 1975. He is buried in his Cathedral behind the pulpit and near the queue for confessions.

Heenan I think was one of those 'quick' people: busy, busy, busy. We all know one or seven. Meetings were quick, letters brief efficency 'chilling', abrupt and unconfortable. He was the opposite of gentle Godfrey, who was quiet, reflective, consultative and introspective. However, in Heenan's written words particularly, we find not only humour and eloquence, but a zeal for the love of God and His people, to whom he dedicated this life.

Godfrey

2009-05-17T16:11:00.002+01:00

William Godfrey (second from left) is certainly one of the gentlest Cardinals one could have met. As Archbishop, he could often be found in his Cathedral – which he treated as his parish church – hearing confessions, speaking to parishioners and directing visitors without the airs and graces of a Cardinal; in the same way as our present Pope could be found dressed down in Rome as a Cardinal, Godfrey walked around his domain dressed as a humble priest.

Godfrey, unusually, was ten years older than his predecessor and was the last Archbishop of Westminster to be born in the nineteenth century. He was born in Liverpool, and trained for the priesthood of that diocese in Ushaw. He also taught at this seminary, and was soon moved to the English College as Rector, succeeding Arthur Hinsley. While in Rome, he was charged with additional responsibilities, serving as the first Apostolic Delegate to Britain (and its European colonies) since the Mary I was queen. This renewal of diplomatic ties was renewed due to the imminent war on the horizon. Godfrey was chosen as he was already Apostolic Visitor to the English seminaries and his previous position as papal legate to the king’s recent coronation.

In 1938, he established the nunciature in Wimbledon, and left is position as rector in Rome. After working with the Polish government-in-exile for most of the war, he translated Vatican documents and Papal addresses for the non-Latin and Italian speakers.

After 15 years in the nunciature (he was replaced by an American), and became Archbishop of his home city, Liverpool, remaining there for three years. During this brief period, however, he visited every parish community, and approved scaled-down designs for the new Cathedral, designed to outshine the Anglican one.

However, before he could break the ground, he found himself once more in London as Archbishop of Westminster from the end of 1956 after Griffin’s death, and was also appointed Exarch of the Ukrainians. Having longer in this city than the previous one, Godfrey was able to establish an administration and policy, overseeing an expansion of parishes and Catholic schools, and took a great interest in everyday concerns – he even urged dog-owners to include their pets in Lenten fasts, and just before Crufts, argued that dogs would enjoy their life without being pampered. It was not until the election of John XXIII however, that he donned once again the watered silk, but this time as a Cardinal. His Poodle letter was written when he had been given the red hat.

Godfrey lived long enough to see the opening of the great second ecumenical council of the Vatican, and was commended on his flawless, poetic Latin in the plenary session. His area of interest was primarily liturgical, arguing against the reception of the chalice by the laity because of lipstick (about which he was proven correct), and that the Church should proceed to use more Latin in its liturgy, not less. He refuted the application of political terms in the Church (such as conservative and liberal), and held that a Catholic should uphold doctrine if he was to remain a Catholic, for Church teaching was infallible.

In 1963, he died of a heart attack, and was suffering from cancer at the time. This anonymous, silent Cardinal, as his successor called him, was not known for his oratory or writings, but for his personal holiness and commitment to Christ and His Church. Being an example of personal holiness is perhaps the most difficult goal to accomplish, but Cardinal Godfrey succeeded.

Griffin

2009-05-16T10:07:00.002+01:00

Bernard William Griffin took the reigns of the archdiocese of Westminster as the city was still in the throws of the Second World War.

It was however, during the Great War that Griffin gained his first post, as an airman and also where he realised a problem with his heart. After the war, he entered Oscott seminary as a student for the Birmingham archdiocese, but was later transferred to Rome for personal reasons, and studied under the Rector Arthur Hinsley.

He worked in his archdiocese for 11 years before he was appointed an auxiliary of Birmingham. This was no ordinary bishop, however, for he was also an air raid warden during the earlier years of the war.

Towards the end of 1943, just before the course of the war was about to shift, Griffin succeeded his former rector in Westminster, to the surprise of everyone, though was only elevated to the Sacred College when the war had concluded. At 46, he was the youngest Cardinal; Hinsley’s Cappa Magna just fit the new pastor at the consistory.

He went to work quickly in the nation’s capital, for this was the time of unprecedented social upheaval. He worked hard to gain many exemptions for Catholic institutions in the face of regularisation and nationalisation, particularly in the realm of education, conscription and the new National Health Service. As well as this, he presided over a period of post-war reconstruction of Churches and rolled back some of Hinsley’s ecumenical adventures.

Even by the end of this decade, his health was failing quickly, and struggled to attend engagements, and when he did, he suffered much pain. His illnesses kept him away from the public eye and pastoral activity for a long period, though he was the quasi-primate who reigned in England during the Marian celebrations of the 1950s.

In 1956, ten years after he received the red hat, he suffered another heart attack during Mass for war veterans, though amazingly kept composure. While recovering in Cornwall, he passed from this life on the feast of St Bernard.

Seminary

2009-05-15T20:43:00.002+01:00

Something inside me was telling me I was dreaming. But when I woke up this morning, it has actually all happened.

Yesterday, I was accepted for seminary formation by my bishop. I shall begin in September at an English diocesan seminary in the UK. I'm very excited about it, especially as for me, this process of application has been going on for about 3 years (though I formally applied in October last year).

This shall be the 6th time in my life when I have been a first year, and hopefully the last. I have visited several times already, but still I really don't know what to expect, so I'm sure it will be a very exciting journey for me.

I won't turn this into an Oscar acceptance speech, but I'd just like to say thanks. But don't forget me yet; I'm sure I'll need your support now more than ever as I begin to dip my toe in the waters of Mother Church (or, jumping in the deep end more like!).

Hinsley

2009-05-15T10:33:00.002+01:00

Arthur Hinsley is someone I wish I could have heard in real life. The thought of the great vaults and domes of Westminster Cathedral being filled with thick Yorkshire strains from the pulpit of this elderly Cardinal fills me with pride and excitement. Being a great fan of Cardinal Heenan, I have enjoyed reading lively descriptions of this man (whose biography was written by his later successor) who, while only reigning in Westminster for 8 years, has certainly left an impression in the psyche of England’s premier diocese.

A Yorkshireman of the diocese of Leeds, Hinsley was born the year Wiseman died and was educated in both Ushaw and the English College, returning to England after his ordination in 1893. However, conflict with his bishop and others led him to be incardinated into Southwark 11 years later, where he ministered in parishes suffering from the effects of the Great War.

A year before the conclusion of this bloody conflict, he again found himself in the Eternal City, this time as Rector of his alma mater aged 52. Hinsley was to model the college on his own lines, which gave birth to many of the major prelates of England and Wales even to the end of the century.

It was while holding the position of rector he found himself in a very unusual situation, being given the nickname ‘Africanus’ by the Pope. In 1927, he was appointed Visitor to Africa (later Apostolic Delegate), which required episcopal consecration, a sacrament performed by Merry del Val. However, he had to retire from this position in 1934, upon which he returned to Rome and was appointed a Canon in the Vatican Basilica. Now aged 70, it was assumed he would remain there for the rest of his days.

Fortune was not with the Canon Archbishop, however, for the next year, Pius XI appointed Africanus as Archbishop of Westminster, after gaining attention while promoting the cause of Ss Thomas More and John Fisher.

Shortly after his appointment, the nation found itself again at war, and Hinsley was a vociferous opponent of both Nazism, Fascism and Communism. An early (and, according to the Vatican, an over-eager) supporter of ecumenism and inter-faith relations, the new old Cardinal delivered regular addresses to all British troops, banned the pacifist Catholic magazine Pax, and earned a reputation in Berlin as a Jew-lover.

He was a very humble man indeed. His secretary commented that he would often verbalise his thoughts unconsciously, and even during Mass, one could hear him whispering prayers: ‘O God have mercy on me’. Normally, one would bite their tongue in order to avoid offense, but Hinsley protruded his jaw, providing that very familiar feature which was jocularly mentioned by his friends and colleagues on a regular basis.

Throughout what turned out to be the middle of the conflict, Hinsely suffered from many heath problems, which he was bound to at such an age. However, he bore his illnesses nobly and quietly, celebrating Mass in great pain and even delivered an address shortly after having a heart attack. His heart did eventually fail him, and he died in Hertfordshire on St Patrick’s Day in 1943.

His support was strong, described as England’s most loved Cardinal in the press, and his Requiem was attended by members of the Anglican clergy and other establishment dignitaries, and the king was disappointed when his advisors told him he was unable to attend the Mass in Westminster Cathedral, where his corporeal remains were interred afterwards.

Bourne

2009-05-14T08:56:00.003+01:00

Francis Alphonsus Bourne was the longest reigning, and perhaps one of the quietest, archbishops to date. It is a shame that I had to look up the details of his 32 year episcopate in the city; so hopefully, I shall be able to do him justice. One of his successors, Cardinal Heenan noted that while his reign was a quiet one, his gentle persuasions ensured that the hated Catholicism which Bourne inherited in 1903 was respected by the time of his death in 1935.

Scion of Clapham – where he was later ordained – he was educated with his brother in Ushaw. Sadly, his brother died at the same time as their father, and such emotional turmoil, according to the Cardinal later in life, affected his personality. He was moved to St Edmund’s, Ware, where he received his haircut after deciding the priesthood was his vocation. His further education included a stint with a Dominicans – he was initially unsure whether he was called to this life – and later in Paris. His insecurities led him to meet Don Bosco, who told him definitively that secular priesthood was his calling.

After only 5 years as a priest in Southwark, he became rector of Wonersh, the brand-new seminary for the south coast, and after 12 years a priest, he was consecrated to the episcopate, later taking the throne of Southwark. He was to remain there for only 6 years, and was translated to Westminster in 1903, pipping Merry del Val to the post.

Bourne’s long, quiet rule was not filled with controversy, however. After 7 years in Westminster, England and Wales were declared no longer missionary territory, and in that same year, London hosted the Eucharistic Congress. The king and establishment were greatly displeased, and Bourne negotiated the terms of the Catholic event, culminating in his benediction of the city from the loggia of the recently completed, though as yet, un-consecrated Cathedral in Victoria.

To some extent, Bourne was pivotal in bringing Westminster into the modern age. He was the first archbishop in London to use a motor car (to the displeasure of his carriage driver), and opened a new diocesan seminary, withdrawing Vaughan’s support for Oscott. This later became Allen Hall.

Neither was he shy of controversy. During the Great War, he visited troops on the front line in France – often in a helmet, with bombs around him – and even visited British battleships in full choir dress. He intervened directly with the government to halt its bombing of Cologne during Eucharistic processions. Similarly, he represented his views to Rome in no uncertain terms. He oversaw the proliferation of dioceses in England and Wales, but his intervention drastically reduced that number. Such language probably delayed his elevation to the Sacred College until 1911.

It was clear he was not a supporter of popular social-worker movements as his predecessors had been, opposing the strikes of the 1920s, and (rightly) defending papal teaching on socialism in the face of criticism by James Ramsay MacDonald.

Throughout his episcopate, he toured various parts of the world as official representative – legate – of the Pope, including Canada, Poland, the Middle East, France and – most importantly – Buckfast. In spite of this jet-setting (well, steam-setting) living, he certainly preferred the simple, quieter life, relishing the opportunities to visit his country retreat in Hertfordshire, where he could write and meditate. Preaching and writing did not come to him naturally, and Bourne exerted a great deal of energy in living up to expectations. He could often be seen in the city in a simple clerical outfit – his pectoral cross glinting through the gaps in his jacket – on trips to various institutions and exhibitions.

Cardinal Bourne was not a Roman prelate. He did not feel at ease with the city and its lifestyle, in start contrast to his predecessors. It was in Rome, however, where he contracted an illness, which made him unwell for over two years. In this time, he celebrated his Golden Jubilee and opened the National Shrine in Walsingham. He is buried in St Edmund’s Ware, his heart in Wonersh.

Thousands

2009-05-13T19:17:00.004+01:00

Congratulations for my thousandth reader. I know who you are, in a non-creepy way! Hopefully, I shall let you know in person rather than pointing you out here!

I wonder how long it will be before I get to hundreds and thousands...according to my crude calculations: in about 40 years.

Also, I have been mentioned briefly on the BBC. Scroll down to the bottom to see if you can spot me. I had hoped to maintain some anonymity, but I have thrown that out the window; I hope not to my disadvantage! I think it is due to my publishing the BBC article on this blog with my own comments. I wish I had given it a more inventive title now, rather than 'blah'.

Chasubles

2009-05-13T17:12:00.005+01:00

OK, folks, here it is:

Followers of the Archbishop of Westminster posts will note that the Byzantine style of the Cathedral was chosen - in part anyway - because it was cheap (at the time). It certainly doesn't look cheap now, and neither do the new vestments.

What would have once been called a 'High Mass set' of vestments were hand embroidered by the ladies at Watts & Co (you can see the label at the neck). The pieces are made of cloth of gold, weaved in the UK, and diapered with heraldric symbols, lined with purple fabric. The cynical side of me is saying that it's not Roman nor flowery enough for my tastes, but it is certainly very good, and I'm pleased the style of the sanctuary in which they are to be used has been the main source of inspiration. Noble simplicity and all that. It looks very well made (because it is), and I'm really looking forward to seeing it in action.

I'm sure they have many ancient (and prettier) vestments in some vault somewhere, and perhaps ones which have been worn by some of our saints and blessed. It seems a shame that none of these can be used, but I suppose a new emperor needs new clothes! And new vestments are perhaps an outward sign of a new administration. You see, everything has meaning and purpose in the Catholic Church.

Needless to say, my ticket for the celebration of Mass next week has not landed on my doorstep, by which I assume I am not going. I will have to watch it on television.

But a reminder: 2 days later on the Saturday (23rd) is the CIEL conference in the Oratory. It starts with Pontifical High Mass at 11am and finishes at tea time. God willing, I shall be able to go to that in compensation!

Update:

Apparently, the fabric was initially commissioned by Archbishop Raymond Burke (not Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura) when in St Louis, and the design of the diapering was based on heraldic designs in the Cathedral itself. However, he preferred red on gold, as opposed to this much nicer and muted gold on gold. This is the first new set of vestments for purpose in 40 years, cost about 8,000 pounds (surely a bargain for a gold, handmade high Mass set of vestments!). Older pieces would have been used, but most are in a state which requires repair.

Vaughan

2009-05-13T09:55:00.003+01:00

Herbert Alfred Vaughan is a man whose life we should reflect from time to time. Though I really shouldn’t rank them, Cardinal Vaughan is one of my favourite Archbishops of Westminster.

Born in 1832, he was one of thirteen siblings who survived into adulthood. Eleven of these children entered clerical or religious life. The other two produced equally large families with a large number of vocations. How proud their mother, Eliza, would have been to see so many of her children accept God’s call, a wish she prayed for daily. Unfortunately, she died in childbirth, and did not see all these miracles in this life, but I’m sure she saw them from heaven. If he were a young person today, I’m sure Cardinal Vaughan would be labelled as one of the EWTN-John Paul II generation, these large families filled with zeal and dog-collars (hopefully).

But one cannot appreciate a person simply because of his pedigree. Vaughan did not think very highly of his achievements, which were numerous; achievements which gained attention in Rome. At his appointment as Manning’s successor in 1892, he complained to the Pope that he was unable to fulfil this vocation, saying:

“…it is no mock modesty or fashion of speech which makes the confession that I have no qualification of learning for such a post. I do not excel as a preacher, an author, a theologian, a philosopher, or even as a classical scholar. Whatever I may be in these matters, in none am I above a poor mediocrity.”

The Holy Father’s will – and that of the Holy Spirit – remained, and he was translated from his own see of Salford the same year.

Vaughan was as different from Manning as Manning was from Wiseman. A cradle Catholic for starters – one of noble stock at that – he studied in various Catholic institutions where he decided he would become a priest. He was sent to Downside, and later Rome, where he got to know Manning, and was ordained in Lucca (which has nice city walls) and celebrated his first Mass in Florence. Like Wiseman, he became very attached to the Roman style of doing things (and thinking), which didn’t earn him too many friends back home in England. Fortunately, Wiseman appreciated it, and appointed him to St Edmund’s, Ware, though soon after this, he felt a desire to pursue the missionary way of life, at home and abroad, and founded many societies to assist this goal of his.

Most of all perhaps, he is remembered as the founder of the Mill Hill Missionaries, and rightly so. This society began as a small group of priests who ministered to the newly emancipated people of the United States, which had recently emerged from civil war and struggling to rebuild from the ruins. In fact, his society (properly called St Joseph’s of the Sacred Heart) was the first to ordain a black man to the priesthood in the USA.

In England, we should all be very grateful that he founded the Catholic Truth Society in 1868, which still follows to the letter its founding mission: that it should be a vehicle to inform English speaking Catholics of Church teaching, Papal documents and explanations in an accessible and inexpensive way. Unbelievably perhaps in the present climate, but he acquired the ownership of the Tablet magazine, which he later bequeathed to the Mill Hill Missionaries and the English and Welsh hierarchy.

Four years later, he was consecrated to the fullness of Holy Orders as the bishop in Manchester. Here too, he was aware of the needs of priest and people. He was an early advocate of human-pastoral care for priests after their ordination, and established a college to aid their continued formation, to assist in their adaptation to parish life after living in seminaries for years and years. Twenty years he served the people of this diocese, his longest single appointment.

He must have filled the diocese with enthusiasm after Manning. One strange thing about Catholicism is that you don’t get to pick your leaders; you feel you have been given them by the Holy Spirit. Like the election of a new Pope, one is often sad that you have lost a good man, but grateful that you have been given another one. Zeal for change at the beginning is a sign of respect for the spirit of continuity, rather than disrespect for the predecessor. Nothing in the world, in my view, is stranger than the human atmosphere in Rome at conclave time, as mourning becomes exultation, at the sign of a puff of smoke.

We must return to Cardinal Vaughan. As his tenure in Salford suggests, one of his keen interests was the care of his priests. In Westminster, he closed Manning’s new seminary and sent all his students to a central, nation-wide seminary at Oscott. This was not the only Manning policy he undid, however, Vaughan gained dispensation from Rome to allow Catholic students to return to Oxbridge, enabling the establishment of Catholic chaplaincies in those cities.

The Cardinal, now in his sixties, took a keen interest in the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. The relative success of High Church Anglicanism led many to argue that a full, corporate communion between the two was inevitable. He ensured that the Pope commissioned a full enquiry into the status of the Anglican clergy, which resulted in his definitive declaration that their Holy Orders were invalid, scuppering the chances of those on the High end of the established Church in England.

Vaughan was quite liturgically minded. Upon his accession to Westminster, he asked the Pope to have it sent to the Oratory, to ensure the Anglicans were aware of this resurgent, triumphal Catholicism in the heart of London. Similarly, he was fastidious enough to gain a special papal indult to wear the pallium over a cope in the later part of his life, when he was too ill to celebrate Mass himself.

Along with the Mill Hill Missionaries, Vaughan is most renowned for his commission of the jewel of the English Catholic Church: Westminster Cathedral. Manning was not enthused by the idea, but had procured the site where the Cathedral now stands. Even though the Pope gave some of his own money for the fund, the Cardinal and the architect were keen to keep costs down, and as a result, the Byzantine style was chosen, which at the time, was the cheapest architectural style in England, rather than for making any ecclesial statement. His dream was for a community Cathedral with a Benedictine establishment attached (he asked the Abbey of Solesmes to set up a house there). Though this aim was not fulfilled, his vision of a Church with a daily sung office. Sadly, he did not see the building complete. Vaughan’s reign was only 11 years long, but in this period he achieved a great deal, and perhaps did the most to lay the longest lasting foundation stones in the diocese.

His Requiem was sung in the scaffold-clad sanctuary of the half-built Byzantine monument, and he was interred in his beloved community at Mill Hill (then outside the city). 102 years later, his remains were translated to his greatest architectural legacy – that Cathedral of the Precious Blood – perhaps the most marvellous building anyone has given to the city and people of London.

And so, we must thank God that He gave Cardinal Vaughan to London.

Nations

2009-05-12T21:59:00.006+01:00

I'd just like to say a very specific welcome to anyone from Sweden; a few have popped up recently.

A Facebook quiz told me that I'm most suited to be Swedish, so I've added the language to my list of ones to get under my belt! I have always felt a deep attachment for Sweden for some reason, and I'm sure it's not just down to Ikea and the really tasty hot dogs they sell in the stand at the end.

However, in the spirit of European and general world unity, I'm also very glad to be able welcome readers in the last couple of weeks from the United States (there are a lot of you guys!), Spain (I have some Spanish blood!), Finland, Japan, Belgium, Australia, France, Hungary, Portugal, Hong Kong, Canada, and Italy (especially ye readers from Rome and other parts of Lazio). And how could I forget old blighty? Welcome.