Matthew Parris on Christian Missionaries in Africa

Matthew Parris, who describes himself as a 'confirmed atheist', today writes a Times article on how his impression of Africa's need for Christianity has been changed by witnessing the work of Christian missionaries. Fr Ray preached at Midnight Mass about how much of the aid relief organisations were started by Christians because God was made man and dwelt among us. I wrote a sarcastic comment on the article online suggesting that you didn't have to go to Africa to see Christian love in action, but just pop down to the local SVP soup run and that the 'rich' West also needs God!

Anyway, click here for the full article.

'I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.'

Love is Infinite!

...and so, it seems, is my ability to consume all types of 'Boxing Day' booze.

Just before Christmas I was having conversations with my band about the Universe, thinking to myself and saying to them: "Well, how big is the Universe? If the Universe is this round table, then what is on the other side of the ledge? If you had a spaceship and flew it as far as you could from the centre of the table, how far could you go and would you ever hit a 'wall'? What is on the other side of the 'wall'?" None of us had the answer as you can imagine! But if you believe in God you do start to marvel at His Creation a little every now and then and think, 'How on earth did all this happen and where does His Creation end!?'

We look at the stars, we stare out to space and we wonder, 'How far does it go?' I suppose what I was saying was, does the created Universe have an end and if it has an end, where does it end, and if it ends, what is there and if nothing is there, what is nothing in comparison to something? The main driving force of what I am saying is that, for all we know it could be infinite.

I read an excerpt from a CTS booklet on St John of the Cross recently which really struck me. Then I have read recently a few quotes by Saints on love which have struck me again and again. The Saints in question were basically saying in a nutshell that God's love is infinite, therefore whatever we think we possess in terms of love is finite, because it is conditional, because we are human and frail. Yet, because we are adopted sons and daughters of God, the capacity to love is infinite. It is never a case of, 'job's a good 'un'. For our task of Love is never complete! It never can be as long as we are on this earth! What we do on earth, what love we have, is always incomplete, for we are not wholly united to God in Heaven and see not yet the Beatific Vision.

The gist of it is that because we are human our love is weak, can never be as God's love, nothing so pure, nothing so forgiving and nothing so holy, yet because we are asking for God's Grace, to be channels of His peace, we are still instruments of His love. Yet, through prayer the Saints realised that because God's love is Infinite, an unending expanse of Divine Love, then so too, our potential and our capability to love is Infinite.

For according to the teaching of Holy Mother Church, we are made in His image and likeness! And this is what kept mystical Saints going! As St Paul said, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

If the created Universe is infinite, then it would be fitting in terms of man's relationship with the Creator, because for us who have been created also, the Uncreated One, the Creator, is Infinite. Love Itself is Infinite!

How do we know that Love is infinite? How?



Why because of Christmas Day!

Brothers and sisters, the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ shows us that we, who are but a pin prick of God's Creation (and the Earth itself is but a pin prick of God's Creation) have been graced by the Creator of all, the Maker of the entire Universe: God, in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has chosen to dwell among us at a point in human history! Us! We who were and are but a miniscule portion of Creation! We who would be an easily forgotten fragment of what God has created, were God not Love Itself, have been graced by the Presence of the Uncreated, 'Begotten, not made', God! Yes! God did not forget us and God has not forgotten us still! The Maker of all has become Man, and not just Man, but a tiny Baby and from conception to death led a human existence, identifying Himself with and joining Himself to, us!

Is there anything more that God could have done? No! The Incarnation alone would prove that God's love for Man was infinite. But that is not all! How then do we also know that the Love of God and God's love, is infinite? Not only has the Maker of all that exists been born on Earth, in the poverty of the stable, but He has lived a human life, suffered and died for our sakes, on account of our sins!

How do we also know that the Love of God and God's love, is infinite? Not only has the Maker of all that exists been born on Earth, in the poverty of the stable, has lived, suffered and died for our sakes, on account of our sins, but He has established His Holy Catholic Church, whereby mankind has recourse to the Infinite Love and Mercy of God!

How do we also know that the Love of God and God's love, is infinite? Not only has the Maker of all that exists been born on Earth, in the poverty of the stable, lived, suffered and died for our sakes, on account of our sins, has established His Holy Catholic Church, whereby mankind has recourse to the Infinite Love and Mercy of God, but He has instituted the Sacraments of Grace, of Baptism, making us His adopted sons and daughters, and of Reconcilliation, whereby all mankind could receive the Absolution of our sins by Confession!

How then do we also know that the Love of God, God's love, is infinite? Not only has the Maker of all that exists been born on Earth, in the poverty of the stable, lived, suffered and died for our sakes, on account of our sins, established His Holy Catholic Church, whereby mankind has recourse to the Infinite Love and Mercy of God, instituted the Sacraments of Baptism and Reconciliation, but He also has left us Himself at the behest of the Priest, under the guise of Bread and Wine, to dwell within our very souls, so dear to Him that we are!

Out of all of His vast Creation, He wants to dwell in the souls of men and women, to heal us, cleanse us, purify us and aid us in being like Him in love, because we alone in the Universe are made in His image and likeness! Out of all of Creation, that is the dignity He to which He has raised us! Ultimately, His Birth signals not just God's solidarity with us, but His desire to be with us, from within! This is through the Holy Eucharist! Out of all Creation, God has been born, lived, died, raised and has ascended to Heaven for the chief purpose of being in me, in you and in every man, woman and child on Earth. When we go to Holy Communion, we receive God Himself! The God whose home is Heaven, the God whose home became the womb of the Virgin, the God whose home became the stable in Bethlehem, and later Nazareth, now wants to make a home in our hearts and souls! How much more could God love us? I tell you that He could not love us any more! There is no wall!

So you see, God, Maker of all things seen and unseen, God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, God, Maker of the Universe, by His Incarnation, by His Virgin Birth, by His Earthly Ministry, by His Cross, Resurrection and Ascension, by His Institution of the One True Church on the rock of St Peter, by His Institution of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confession and the Holy Eucharist, by His Ascension to the Heavenly Father and by His conferring the Holy Spirit to the Church at Pentecost has shown us that He is Infinite. The Earth, the Universe itself could not contain God, yet God was contained in the Virgin's womb. The Earth, the Universe itself could not contain God, yet God became Man! The Earth, the Universe itself, could not contain God, yet now God dwells in the souls of men, women and children who receive Him!

And that is why I have already, even though it is only St Stephen's Day, removed all the Christmas cards which I have received which did not bear an image of our Maker and Redeemer or a sign of such from my room. It is not because I do not see them as signs of affection or love, for they are. But they do not do the Holy Feast of Christmas justice! For on Christmas Day we recall that God, Maker of all, deigned to be born in the poverty of the stable. The cards which remain bear witness to the Incarnation, Birth or Glory of God in His Angels and Saints, witness to the God born for us, us whom God could so easily have forgotten and left to death in the depths of space and time. The very least we can do, as human beings, who have been made in His image and likeness to love Him and serve Him, is to honour Him!

Valkyrie

I must admit, I've been waiting for Valkyrie a long time. I first saw the trailer a year ago, and I've been anxiously awaiting its release ever since. The extraordinary cast and the subject matter. So I gritted my teeth and waited, aggravated by the film's delays, ignoring the "scandals" surrounding the film, the bad buzz around Tom Cruise and the idiotic complaints about Scientology and lack of German accents profiligating around the 'Net. I was apprehensive because of much of the above, but I had to see this film. I just hoped it would be good.

Today, after almost a year of waiting, I went to see the film with my brother and a mostly packed house. Not only did Valkyrie live up to my expectations, it far exceeded them. It does everything a thriller should do and does it extraordinarily well; the fact that deals with an event - the 20 July plot against Adolf Hitler (David Bamber) - that 99% of sentient beings know the resolution to actually enhances the film's quality.

Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) is a young, aristocratic German army officer who is growing increasingly disgusted with Hitler, for both his ineptitude and the atrocities which he's committing in Eastern Europe. Wounded in an air raid in North Africa, he loses his eye, hand and several fingers, and he struggles to recover, he is approached by Generals Henning Von Tresckow (Kenneth Branagh) and Friederich Ollbricht (Bill Nighy) to join in a group of plotters planning to overthrow or kill Adolf Hitler, in order to save Germany from complete destruction by the Allies. Stauffenberg and Ollbricht re-draft Operation Valkyrie, Hitler's emergency contingency plan, to give them control over the German Reserve Army - under the duplicitous, indifferent General Friederich Fromm (Tom Wilkisnon) - in case of a national emergency, and plan to use it to demobilize the German government following the assassination. Stauffenberg carries out his mission, detonating a bomb in Hitler's field headquarters, and Valkyrie slowly lurches into action; but before too long, word of Hitler's survival leaks out, and Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators find themselves in the cross-hairs of a ruthless reprisal by the SS.

It's extremely rare that a thriller manages to be completely gripping throughout, and given the subject matter, Valkyrie is even more impressive than that. The film deserves comparison with one of my favorites, Fred Zinnemann's masterpiece The Day of the Jackal, for its technique; even though the viewer knows the assassination plot is going to fail, it remains intense and gripping throughout. Indeed, this adds a great deal the film, showing just how good it is; getting from Point A to Point B proves as fascinating as what Point B will be. As in A Bridge Too Far, it's fascinating watching how the little mistakes, seemingly inconsequential, build up into a colossal, stupendous failure. The what-ifs of the assassinate profilerate - Hitler's meeting is post-poned, an aide (Tom Hollander) moves Stauffenberg's briefcase behind a table leg, Ollbricht demures in mobilizing the Reserve Army until the last minute - providing a wonderful sense of tension throughout; given the seemingly random and unpredictable nature of things, it would be impossible to see where this was leading were this a fictional story. This all builds wonderfully to a head, showing that Hitler's survival was a matter of luck more than anything else. And needless to say, watching Valkyrie unspool is just as fascinating as the build-up.

If the movie whitewashes the conspirators a bit much, that's okay given the story. The Stauffenberg plotters came from a variety of social backgrounds and political ideologies; some may have merely objected to Hitler's inadequacies as a leader, but Ollbricht, Treskow, Goerdler (Kevin McNally), Beck (Terence Stamp) and Witzleben (David Schofield) had all been involved in early plots against Hitler, even before the outbreak of World War II. And surely, we know enough about Stauffenberg that we can accept the film's portrayal of him as an idealistic young officer driven by conscience to reject the Hitler just emerging as the world's most foreboding avatar of evil. One may reasonably question what the July 20th plotters could have accomplished had they succeeded - they may have made peace with the Western Allies, but I've no doubt Stalin would have wanted his pound of German flesh regardless. That doesn't make Stauffenberg and his followers any less heroic, however, and the movie keeps its moralizing to a minimum regardless.

Stylistically, the film is top-notch. Director Bryan Singer keeps things moving at a brisk pace; the exposition and build-up move quickly, not becoming overly bogged down in details and getting through the necessary backstory efficiently. The film has its share of powerful moments: the German typists signalling Hitler's death en masse, the conspirator's show of solidarity for Stauffenberg, Stauffenberg being forced to perform a Hitler salute by the duplictious Fromm, and the expertly crafted execution montage at the conclusion. Newton Thomas Sigel's cinematography is striking, making brilliant use of Nazi red and gray to create a foreboding, tense and violent atmosphere. John Ottman contributes a subtle, low-key score that contributes to the film's atmosphere. Singer cleverly transitions from German to English early on so as to render the bitching about accents moot.

Tom Cruise as Stauffenberg was a pleasant surprise. For all the Scientology bitching and remarks about piratical eyepatches, he gives a really strong performance as the lead. Cruise plays the parts for its strengths, giving Stauffenberg presence, dignity and intensity belying the idiotic Internet chatter. Maybe not Oscar-worthy, but excellent for the film in question; he does all that the film asks of him and does it perfectly.

The fine supporting cast is largely underused; talented character actors like Kenneth Branagh, Eddie Izzard, Tom Hollander, Christian Berkel, Bernard Hill and Kevin McNally are used more for atmosphere than actual dramatics. However, there are several fine performances regardless. The best are Tom Wilkinson, as the shifty General Fromm, Terence Stamp's grave and dignified General Beck, and Bill Nighy's painfully indecisive Ollbricht. Other actors compensate for their lack of screentime with powerful moments: David Schofield gives a wonderfully defiant speech to his Nazi condemners, Kenneth Cranham's Keitel has an amusing rivalry with Fromm, and Thomas Kretschmann has some of the film's best moments as the Wehrmacht Major who slowly realizes what's happening (confirmed by a dramatic phone call from Hitler himself). The gorgeous and talented Carice Van Houten is badly underused as Stauffenberg's wife, and David Bamber's Hitler is perhaps overly subdued and subtle (though preferable to another maniacal caricature), but otherwise there's not much to complain about.

Valkyrie is simply a wonderful, gripping and hugely entertaining film. It runs a lean, fast-paced 120 minutes, bereft of subplots, with minimal sentimentality and moralizing; it's all business, plot, characters and action, doing what it sets out to do and doing it marvellously. It's one of the best thrillers I've seen in ages, and I might even say the best film of the year.

Rating: 9/10 - Highest recommendation

Happy St Stephen's Day!

Courtesy of Catholic Online

A Sermon of St Fulgentius of Ruspe: The Armour of Love

"Yesterday we celebrated the birth in time of our eternal King. Today we celebrate the triumphant suffering of his soldier.Yesterday our king, clothed in his robe of flesh, left his place in the virgin’s womb and graciously visited the world. Today his soldier leaves the tabernacle of his body and goes triumphantly to heaven.

Our king, despite his exalted majesty, came in humility for our sake; yet he did not come empty-handed. He brought his soldiers a great gift that not only enriched them but also made them unconquerable in battle, for it was the gift of love, which was to bring men to share in his divinity. He gave of his bounty, yet without any loss to himself. In a marvellous way he changed into wealth the poverty of his faithful followers while remaining in full possession of his own inexhaustible riches.

And so the love that brought Christ from heaven to earth raised Stephen from earth to heaven; shown first in the king, it later shone forth in his soldier. Love was Stephen’s weapon by which he gained every battle, and so won the crown signified by his name. His love of God kept him from yielding to the ferocious mob; his love for his neighbour made him pray for those who were stoning him.

Love inspired him to reprove those who erred, to make them amend; love led him to pray for those who stoned him, to save them from punishment. Strengthened by the power of his love, he overcame the raging cruelty of Saul and won his persecutor on earth as his companion in heaven. In his holy and tireless love he longed to gain by prayer those whom he could not convert by admonition.

Now at last, Paul rejoices with Stephen, with Stephen he delights in the glory of Christ, with Stephen he exalts, with Stephen he reigns. Stephen went first, slain by the stones thrown by Paul, but Paul followed after, helped by the prayer of Stephen. This, surely, is the true life, my brothers, a life in which Paul feels no shame because of Stephen’s death, and Stephen delights in Paul’s companionship, for love fills them both with joy. It was Stephen’s love that prevailed over the cruelty of the mob, and it was Paul’s love that covered the multitude of his sins; it was love that won for both of them the kingdom of heaven.

Love, indeed, is the source of all good things; it is an impregnable defence,- and the way that leads to heaven. He who walks in love can neither go astray nor be afraid: love guides him, protects him, and brings him to his journey’s end.

My brothers, Christ made love the stairway that would enable all Christians to climb to heaven. Hold fast to it, therefore, in all sincerity, give one another practical proof of it, and by your progress in it, make your ascent together."

Christmas Meal with St Francis of Assisi

An excerpt from 'The Mirror of Perfection'

When a certain Minister of the friars had come to blessed Francis to celebrate the feast of Christmas with him in the friars's dwelling at Rieti, the friars, because of the Minister and the feast, laid out the table a little worshipfully and choicely on that Christmas Day, putting on fair and white napery and glass vessels. But the blessed Father coming down from his cell to eat, saw the tables placed on high, and so choicely laid out. Then forthwith he went secretly, and took the staff and wallet of a certain poor man who had come thither that day, and calling to him with a low voice one of his fellows, went out to the door of the dwelling, the brethren of the house not knowing of it.

The friars in the meantime had entered to the table. For the blessed Father had ordered that the friars should not wait for him, when he did not come straightaway at meal-time. And when he had stood a little while outside, he knocked at the door and forthwith his fellow opened to him, and coming with his wallet behind his back and his stick in his hand, he went to the door of the room in which the friars were eating like a pilgrim and a pauper and called out, saying, "For the love of the Lord God, give an alms to this poor and infirm pilgrim."

But the Minister and the friars knew him straightaway. And the Minister answered him: "Brother, we are also poor, and since we be many, the alms we have be necessary to us. But for the love of that Lord Whom thou hast named, enter the house and we will give you of the alms which the Lord hast given to us."

And when he had entered and stood before the table of the friars, the Minister gave him the platter in which he was eating and bread likewise. And humbly accepting it he sat down next the fire in the presence of the friars sitting at the table. And sighing he said to the friars: "When I saw the table worshipfully and sumptuously laid out, I thought within myself it was not the table of poor religious who daily go from door to door for alms. For it becomes us, dearest, more than other religious to follow the example of the humility and poverty of Christ, because we are professed and called to this before God and men. Whence it seems that I now sit as a Friar Minor, for the feasts of the Lord and of other saints are rather honoured with the want and poverty by which those saints conquered Heaven for themselves, than with the elegance and superfluity by which they be made distant from Heaven."

But the friars were ashamed considering he was speaking the pure truth. And some of them began to weep greatly, seeing how he was sitting on the earth, and that he would correct and instruct them in so holy and pure a wise. For he admonished the friars that they should have such humble and decent tables that by them the worldly might be edified. And if any poor man should come and be invited by the friars that he might sit as an equal beside them, and not the poor man on the earth and the friars on high.

Talk about killing a party! Still, St Francis clearly was interested not so much in worldly joy, but holy joy, the joy that comes from God, from serving Him and reflecting His Beauty, His Humility, His Lowliness and His Poverty.

Happy Christmas!

Midnight Mass tonight was wonderful, but tainted by sin, as a friend who I invited, a poor man, a friend who came to Mass for the first time, having weighed it up for 20 minutes before, who knows little or nothing of the Catholic faith, was forcibly removed from the Church for apparently singing too loudly by one of our parishioners who seemingly has taken it upon himself to be the Church bouncer. Not only was he subjected to the humiliation of being forcibly removed, but then had his head struck against the wall outside the Church and now has a big bruise. I think one of our parishioners not only has a strong devotion to St Michael, but literally thinks he is doing his job for him. Please pray for both of them.

Pope Benedict XVI Hails the Birth of Christ

Christmas Day Homily of St Leo the Great

Courtesy of Catholic Online

"Dearly beloved, today our Saviour is born; let us rejoice. Sadness should have no place on the birthday of life. The fear of death has been swallowed up; life brings us joy with the promise of eternal happiness.

No one is shut out from this joy; all share the same reason for rejoicing. Our Lord, victor over sin and death, finding no man free from sin, came to free us all. Let the saint rejoice as he sees the palm of victory at hand. Let the sinner be glad as he receives the offer of forgiveness. Let the pagan take courage as he is summoned to life.

In the fullness of time, chosen in the unfathomable depths of God’s wisdom, the Son of God took for himself our common humanity in order to reconcile it with its creator. He came to overthrow the devil, the origin of death, in that very nature by which he had overthrown mankind.
And so at the birth of our Lord the angels sing in joy:

Glory to God in the highest, and they proclaim peace to men of good will as they see the heavenly Jerusalem being built from all the nations of the world. When the angels on high are so exultant at this marvellous work of God’s goodness, what joy should it not bring to the lowly hearts of men?

Beloved, let us give thanks to God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit, because in his great love for us he took pity on us, and when we were dead in our sins he brought us to life with Christ, so that in him we might be a new creation. Let us throw off our old nature and all its ways and, as we have come to birth in Christ, let us renounce the works of the flesh.

Christian, remember your dignity, and now that you share in God’s own nature, do not return by sin to your former base condition. Bear in mind who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Do not forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of God’s kingdom.

Through the sacrament of baptism you have become a temple of the Holy Spirit. Do not drive away so great a guest by evil conduct and become again a slave to the devil, for your liberty was bought by the blood of Christ."

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

(Note: I'm enjoying my well-deserved Christmas break, and while I'm watching films I haven't felt compelled to write anything on them - although you may get a review of A Christmas Story AND a special article if you ain't done nothin' naughty all year - NAUGHTY! In the meantime, enjoy this review of one of my favorite films from the IMDB archives. It's long overdue inclusion of a Sergio Leone film into my blog, at least!)

In New Mexico Territory circa 1862, a mysterious bounty-killer known as "Blondie" (Clint Eastwood) and a shifty Mexican bandit, Tuco Ramirez (Eli Wallach), run a con job wherein Blondie turns Tuco in for money and then rescues him, splitting the reward money. However, the two engage in numerous double-crossings against each other, until stumbling across a dying Confederate soldier (Antonio Casale) who gives each man a clue to the location of a hidden cache of gold. Tuco and Blondie re-form their alliance to find the gold, only to find that Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), a ruthless hired gun, is already after the gold. The three men form a frequently-changing series of alliances to get at the gold, and they must avoid the Union and Confederate armies operating in the region.

"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is a landmark film in many respects. Its cultural influence is nigh-impossible to overstate, with its iconic musical score by Ennio Morricone, three memorably amoral protagonists, the close-ups, vast landscapes, and the title itself, all of which are instantly recognizable icons of cinema, having been referenced and replicated time and again in movies, TV shows, and even commercials. It is Sergio Leone's first truly great film, a transition from the low-budget Spaghetti Westerns ("A Fistful of Dollars", "For a Few Dollars More") to the big budget, artistic epics that Leone would make for the rest of his career ("Once Upon a Time in the West/America"). It is also a film of utmost importance to me; after watching this movie as an eleven year old, admiring its wonderfully quirky characters, style, music, and breath-taking cinematography, I realized for the first time that I wanted to devote my life to films, be it watching them, writing on them, or hopefully making them.

"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is a full-blown epic, and one with an interesting subtext. We see three completely amoral characters whose crimes - robbery, murder, and racketeering - are minor compared to the brutal carnage we see the Civil War inflicting. Taking place during the little-known Sibley Campaign in New Mexico, the film is not a documentary depiction of the war, but an allegorical one. This was the first total war, and Leone uses it as a metaphor for conflict in general, with faceless mass slaughter inflicted by rifles, machine guns, and artillery. Blondie, Tuco, and Angel Eyes' transgressions are minor compared to a brutal, Auschwitz-like concentration camp, spies being executed in the streets, towns being shelled, and vicious, stalemated trench warfare over a "flyspeck" of a bridge. Even our amoral heroes have amounts of humanity which set them apart from the machine-like slaughter around them; Blondie saves Tuco's life and comforts dying soldiers of both sides; Tuco struggles with a mixture of affection and hatred for Blondie, and his troubled relationship with his brother (Luigi Pistilli), and even Angel Eyes shows disgust at the carnage he sees.

The movie is extremely episodic, the plot only secondary to the adventures of these characters. Leone's wonderful direction gives the film a fairy-tale quality, with an appearance of realism while being fanciful and at times almost surreal. The movie contains extremely memorable set pieces: the lengthy opening, with three gunmen going after Tuco; the "carriage of the spirits"; the prison camp; a shootout in a town under shellfire; an epic Civil War battle; Tuco running excitedly through the cemetery; and, of course, the unforgettable climactic "triello". Tonino Delli Colli's cinematography is simply breath-taking, with desert landscapes as impressive as David Lean's films contrasting with the most extreme close-ups imaginable. Carlo Simi's set designs, from shelled-out towns to prison camps to the cemetery, is breath-taking. And Ennio Morricone's score is, for lack of a better word, one of the most amazing ever written, the instantly recognizable theme tune and other brilliant pieces creating the movie's indescribable atmosphere.

The cast creates unforgettably iconic characters. Clint Eastwood is back as the Man With No Name, here much more human in this film despite retaining his cool, detached, shifty nature. Lee Van Cleef, who had played a likable character in Leone's previous film, now plays one of the most memorably evil characters ever. Aldo Giuffre, Antonio Casas, and Luigi Pistilli are effective in supporting roles, and Leone's usual stock cast - Mario Brega, Benito Stefanelli, Al Muloch, Aldo Sambrell, and many others - create their own iconography. But it's Eli Wallach who steals the show, as the scenery chewing Tuco, a shifty, double-crossing, foul-mouthed bandit who manages to be the most likable and human of the cast despite his faults; truly, one of the most memorable film characters ever.

"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is one of the most well-known and influential movies ever made, and with good reason. In terms of style, it is an absolute triumph, being one of the most amazingly made movies ever made. Those only familiar with the movie for its cast, its score, or peripherally through its iconic stature, are missing out on one of the most breath-taking cinematic experiences ever. Thank you, Sergio Leone.

Rating: 9+/10 - Must-See

Sussex Carol & Gabriel's Message

Liberals Up in Arms Over Pope's 'Human Ecology'

The liberal media, which does seem to be highly influential nowadays in terms of informing public opinion, is up in arms about Pope Benedict XVI's comments reaffirming Church teaching that mankind needs salvation from the seeds of his own self-destruction.

You know we have a good Pope, when, every now and then, he says something that makes people flap about and call the Church evil. If people weren't flapping about and were saying, 'isn't the Church lovely and nice about everything' then we would know we had a counterfeit, rather than the real deal.

Our Blessed Lord promised the Apostles that He would be with His Church until the End of Time. He also promised that when St Peter and the Apostles preached, the World would reject them because the World could not accept the Son of God. "Whoever hears you, hears me", He said to the Apostles. St Paul recognised this in his letters when he said that to many the Cross was a "stumbling block".

It is sad and tragic that in the 21st century, when the Pope speaks of a crisis of marriage and family life and of a cultural phenomenom of sexual sterility, nearly everyone starts jumping up and down and bleating that this means His Holiness 'hates gays, transgendered people and lesbians'.

Aside from the fact that not a single 'sexual orientation minority' was actually named in his speech, the liberal media are so stung with apoplectic outrage, they are unable to appreciate the Holy Father's wisdom and profound reflection on God's paternal love for humanity and for its welfare.

The wisdom of the Holy Father's mirroring of Man and Ecology is twofold:

Firstly, the Holy Father is suggesting that within Man are the seeds of his own self-destruction. Man wills what is good but is wounded and as human beings inheriting a fragile, fallen human nature, we fail so often to make the right choice. So, in the first case he is only reaffirming what we all knew the Church has always said, 'Mankind needs salvation.' Salvation in the Church is not a one-off event but a life-long journey of Grace.

Secondly, the Holy Father is suggesting that the cultural phenomenom of 'gender theories' are problematic and in danger of putting Man at the centre of Creation, rather than God. At a time when even certain Bishops are going off-message and doubting the validity of Humanae Vitae and the Sacraments, His Holiness is holding fast to the Magisterium. For society to reject God's law and replace it with its own is understandable, but what is the fruit? The fruit is chaos and ultimately, if pursued to its end, childlessness. Put very simply, the human race, if it does not procreate will remain unfulfilled of its true vocation and will die.

An analogy: If, say for Christmas, a friend buys me three rabbits, two male and one female, and the male rabbits decide that they prefer getting it on with each other, rather than with the female, after a few years I won't have any rabbits at all. Not only is Mrs Rabbit unhappy and unfulfilled, wanting, as she does quite rightly, to be at it incessantly and breed like rabbits, but Mr Rabbit A, busy getting it on with Mr Rabbit B, will never be a father. All three will remain a bit unhappy and my rabbit selling business is very short lived indeed. What is more, I won't even be able to blame it on the credit crunch...All I'll be able to blame it on is the fact that Mr Rabbit A and Mr Rabbit B are so concerned with their 'gender theories' that they've forgotten about the future of the Rabbit population and my ill-conceived business venture.

While it is true to say that when it comes to 'deep-seated homosexual tendencies', the Church does not encourage people with such tendencies to marry, the danger of societies succumbing to a 'gay culture' and of promoting or glorifying it, is that we raise sexuality to such a height that it becomes an idol to which we bow down, instead of bowing down to the Triune God, who alone is worthy of all our love.

Many people are saying, "the Pope has said this, and at Christmas too...how awful!" I cannot think of a more apt time for His Holiness to reaffirm the need for us to pause and reflect, not on our own cultural issues, complex as they are, but to pause and reflect on the Incarnation and the birth of the Saviour of us all. God has become Man! A little Baby, born of the Virgin has come into the World! The Word has been made flesh! If that does not have a real impact on how we view ourselves, how we view each other and how we view the future of the human race, then I don't know what can!

God bless Pope Benedict XVI, a voice in the wilderness, preparing a way for the Lord, awaiting the coming of the Babe who teaches us the truth about God and the truth about Man.

The Road to Heaven

A traveller one day found a long road and at the side of the road was a sign saying, ‘The Road to Heaven’. ‘My God!’ he exclaimed, ‘this is the Road that I have been searching for all my life!’ He looked up into the Heavens and thanked God with all his heart.

‘Nothing,’ he thought to himself, ‘nothing can deter me from this Road, for this is the Road to Heaven’.

He had been walking just a mile when he a mist descended on the Road. He could see just a yard in front of him and began to exclaim, ‘My God, where am I?’ A few moments later the mist began to lift and he could see the road open up before him again. It did not appear to be very different only slightly broader. In fact, the road appeared more easy. He felt as if after the mist had lifted greatly and in fact the gradient of the road was at a more comfortable angle.

He travelled just a little while longer when suddenly he noticed a small wooden booth at the side of the road. ‘How odd,’ he thought, for the road had been largely deserted. He approached the booth and inside was a Man.

He could not see him well, but he could tell from his voice that he was a Man, when the Man said to him;
“What are you looking for, my son?”
The traveller answered, ‘this is the Road to Heaven, isn’t it?’
‘The Road to Heaven?” the Man answered, “I will show you, but first, tell me what happened.”

The two men talked a while. After they had finished talking the traveller let himself out of the booth. The Man also got out with him and said to him,
“See this road you were walking, this is not the Road to Heaven. Don’t be ashamed, lots of people get lost on the Road to Heaven and you must have taken a wrong turning when the mist descended. Look over there at that Road. That, son, is the Road to Heaven.”
The traveller exclaimed, “You are right! There it is, O thank you so much.”
The Man replied, “Go in peace. I will see you soon.”

The traveller left him and continued along the right path on the Road to Heaven, still wondering how it could be that he would see the Man soon, when all he seemed to do was sit in the booth while he was walking straight ahead away from him. He continued to walk along the Road. He felt peaceful and at rest as if a burden had been removed from him by the Man in the booth. The sounds of birds singing filled the air and his heart was light with joy.

A couple of miles down the Road he approached what looked like a thicket. The Road narrowed greatly and appeared to be more uncomfortable. In the thicket there were tall plants and grasses and the Path, which had narrowed, grew less visible to his eyes, which were dimmed slightly through sweat that rolled down from his forehead.

“Ouch!” he exclaimed, when the leg of his trousers was cut by a thorn bush. He saw out of the corner of his eye a pathway through the thicket leading out into what looked like clear sky.

‘I will take that pathway, because it appears to be clearer than this’, he thought to himself.

The pathway curved around slightly, he could see in the distance.

‘I’m sure this pathway will lead onto the right Road again’, he thought. He started to walk along it and soon enough he emerged from the thicket and was back on a road.

It widened more and more and soon enough he was back on the open road. He felt free again and liberated from the difficulties he had been experiencing. He was limping though, for in the struggles he had experienced on the Road he had injured himself. He walked just a hundred yards more when he saw a booth, very similar to the one he had seen near the beginning of his journey.

He approached the booth and knocked on it.
“Come in,” he heard a voice say gently. He recognised the voice as being the same Man who had helped him the first time.
“Hello, I didn’t expect to see you again, but I got lost,” said the traveller. “I got entangled in a thicket. The Road that you showed me was hard and I think I may have taken a wrong turning because that road seemed easier.”
“I understand,” said the Man, “Look you have injured yourself, you have a wound son and you are bleeding. Here I have bandages on my person. Let me heal you.”
The traveller was overcome by the generosity and compassion of the Man,
“O thank you for finding me again. He began to cry and said, “I’m sorry, how foolish of me to get lost like that and take the easy path out.”
The Man looked upon the traveller with pity and said, “Nobody said the Road to Heaven was easy, but look, I am here for you and I found you.”
They left the booth together and the Man looked at him and saw that the traveller was hungry. In his hands he held some Bread and some Wine.
“You must be hungry and thirsty,” said the Man.
“Yes, yes I am,” said the traveller.
“Here, take this and eat” the Man said gently as he gave the traveller some Bread.
The traveller ate the Bread and was satisfied.
“Now, said the Man, take this Wine and drink from it.”
The traveller drank the Wine and it tasted good. After he had eaten the Bread and drank the Wine he felt stronger and read to walk the Road once more.

He left the booth thankful in his heart to the Man and lighter of foot, he felt the wound in his leg less painful and looked out onto the Road to Heaven, which shone with a bright sun on the horizon, clear and bright, lined with beautiful trees. He walked down it.

‘Ah yes,’ he thought to himself, ‘this is the Road to Heaven, I recognise it now.’

He breathed in the clean, fresh air of the Road and marvelled at all of Creation.

The Road narrowed again and he began to feel a drop of rain, the night was drawing in, the wind began to grow stronger than the gentle breeze he had felt earlier. Small droplets of water soon became big ones, trees by the side of the road swayed in the stormy weather, he went to shelter underneath one, but lightning flashed and struck it before he could shelter there. The traveller felt cold and alone, shivering in the dark night while rain lashed down upon him. He struggled on but the energy he was using up trying to walk this road was soon taking its toll. He felt his legs give way beneath him several times and fell down onto the hard ground upon which his tired feet stumbled.

It was then that out of the corner of his eye, he saw a road. It was lit by lights which looked appealing because this Road he was travelling was so dark in the night and he could see that the ground on the pathway he saw to the side of the road was dry. He scrambled over towards it and walked down it. It was dry, yes, but his clothes remained sodden wet. He sat down a while, rested and then got up.

‘Yes,’ he thought to himself, ‘at some point I must have taken a wrong turning, for that Road was so hard, it cannot have been the Road to Heaven. It was so stormy and windy, so narrow and fierce. This must be the right road for me.’

He walked on along this dimly lit and more comfortable path but began to feel sad, for even though he had been on the Road which was narrow and hard, stormy and rainy, difficult, he had taken a different path the last time only to realise it was the wrong one. Suddenly, in the dry, dimly lit pathway he was now upon, a road that seemed to have no horizon, a road that seemed to lead to darkness, an easy road, that seemed to go nowhere, he began to feel pangs of pain in his heart. His conscience pricked at him and he felt terribly alone.

‘Where is the Man, who helps me now and who always puts me back on the Road to Heaven?!’ he thought to himself. ‘This road may be comfortable but it is going nowhere! I’ve deceived myself and have been deceived! I left the narrow road I was on and now I know not where I am going!’

In the distance he could see a wooden booth. ‘There!’ he exclaimed. ‘There it is, there is the Man who will rescue me!’ He hastened over to the booth which was now just yards away. The Man came out of the booth and ran towards him.

He heard the Man shout aloud towards him, “My son, what is wrong!?”
‘Master!’ cried the traveller and when he met him fell at his feet upon his knees. ‘Master, the Road you showed me to travel was too hard. I was alone and knew not what to do! I was alone and it was hard, it was narrow and too difficult for me on my own, I grew weary and weak in the storm! I saw this path, this other road and took it because it was easier and now the Road to Heaven that I was on, I know not how to get back to it, for behind me the Road to Heaven has disappeared! What a fool I am, for I took the easy way out! I’m a coward and a weak man!”

The Man, who now looked upon the traveller with tender pity knelt down to him and took him in his arms. The traveller wept upon his shoulder and poured out the tears of pain and guilt that emanated from his poor and tired heart.

The traveller still had his eyes closed when he heard the Man say in a voice more gentle and pure than any he had ever heard say,

“My son, I know the Road so well, because I have walked it myself. I made the Road to Heaven and I know how hard it is, but be of good cheer. I am with you and at the end of the Road is a special place for you, a place of great joy. You will be there and I will be there. Yes, I am your Best Friend and at the end of the Road we shall be reunited for evermore. There at the end of the Road there will be no more tears, no more suffering and no more heartache. But, son, do not be ashamed of losing sight of it sometimes, because every time you get lost and follow a different road, I will find you and put you back on the Road to Heaven.

“You must be hungry and thirsty,” said the Man.
“Yes, yes I am,” said the traveller.
“Here, take this and eat” the Man said gently as he gave the traveller some Bread.
The traveller ate the Bread and was satisfied.
“Now, said the Man, take this Wine and drink from it.”

The traveller drank the Wine and it tasted good. After he had eaten the Bread and drank the Wine he felt stronger and read to walk the Road once more.

What Pope Benedict XVI said on the 40th Anniversary of Humanae Vitae

"...Indeed, having received the gift of love, husband and wife are called in turn to give themselves to each other without reserve. Only in this way are the acts proper and exclusive to spouses truly acts of love which, while they unite them in one flesh, build a genuine personal communion. Therefore, the logic of the totality of the gift intrinsically configures conjugal love and, thanks to the sacramental outpouring of the Holy Spirit, becomes the means to achieve authentic conjugal charity in their own life.

The possibility of procreating a new human life is included in a married couple's integral gift of themselves. Since, in fact, every form of love endeavours to spread the fullness on which it lives, conjugal love has its own special way of communicating itself: the generation of children. Thus it not only resembles but also shares in the love of God who wants to communicate himself by calling the human person to life. Excluding this dimension of communication through an action that aims to prevent procreation means denying the intimate truth of spousal love, with which the divine gift is communicated: "If the mission of generating life is not to be exposed to the arbitrary will of men, one must necessarily recognize insurmountable limits to the possibility of man's domination over his own body and its functions; limits which no man, whether a private individual or one invested with authority, may licitly surpass" (Humanae Vitae, n. 17). This is the essential nucleus of the teaching that my Venerable Predecessor Paul VI addressed to married couples and which the Servant of God John Paul ii, in turn, reasserted on many occasions, illuminating its anthropological and moral basis.

Forty years after the Encyclical's publication we can understand better how decisive this light was for understanding the great "yes" that conjugal love involves. In this light, children are no longer the objective of a human project but are recognized as an authentic gift, to be accepted with an attitude of responsible generosity toward God, the first source of human life. This great "yes" to the beauty of love certainly entails gratitude, both of the parents in receiving the gift of a child, and of the child himself, in knowing that his life originates in such a great and welcoming love.

It is true, moreover, that serious circumstances may develop in the couple's growth which make it prudent to space out births or even to suspend them. And it is here that knowledge of the natural rhythms of the woman's fertility becomes important for the couple's life. The methods of observation which enable the couple to determine the periods of fertility permit them to administer what the Creator has wisely inscribed in human nature without interfering with the integral significance of sexual giving. In this way spouses, respecting the full truth of their love, will be able to modulate its expression in conformity with these rhythms without taking anything from the totality of the gift of self that union in the flesh expresses. Obviously, this requires maturity in love which is not instantly acquired but involves dialogue and reciprocal listening, as well as a special mastery of the sexual impulse in a journey of growth in virtue."

Bishop of Arundel & Brighton in Controversial Interview with Catholic Herald

The Rt Rev Bishop Kieran Conry, Bishop of Arundel and Brighton

Damien Thompson has posted a highly controversial blog on Holy Smoke. I'm not into bashing the Bishops of England and Wales on this blog, as I am never convinced it really helps the Church that much. However, an interview with His Lordship the Rt Rev Bishop Kieran Conry, on the Catholic Herald website, is worthy of some critical reading and analysis. Read the interview here.

Some important issues leap out of this interview:

1. His Lordship, during the interview, seems to suggest that the emphasis in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should be on the community, over and above the reverence and worship befitting for Almighty God.

How much more love do people have for each other and how much more a sense of Christian community, when their devotion to God and reverence for Him, in the silence of holy prayer and in truly praying the Mass, increases?!

However, when told that the Rt Rev Bishop O'Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster and author of 'Fit for Mission. Church', said worship is not primarily about community, he responded, "It is! It's the action of the people, it's the action of the community. There are two points at which the person in the community says 'I' in the Mass, the rest of the time all the prayers say 'we'. The opening word [of the Creed] is pistuomen, 'we believe', because again the Nicene Creed was expressing the belief of the Church, we believe this, this and this. The only time in which the word 'I' is used, really, is 'I am not worthy to have you under my roof' and at the beginning: 'I am sorry'."

2. His Lordship says he isn't against the Latin Mass and doesn't block it, but at the same time appears to actively promote a modern, 'Youth Mass'. On balance, therefore, the interview suggests that his enthusiasm for 'modern' worship seems to outweigh his desire to fulfil the wishes of the Holy Father in gently encouraging Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

The Holy Father has made it quite clear in Summorum Pontificum that in this age of uncertainty, distraction and lack of devotion, Mass in the Extraordinary Form is a key way to increase the reverence, faith and devotion of the Faithful. Furthermore, it is well-documented that people both young and old, when exposed to TLM find in it something totally 'other', something holy and mysterious. His Lordship makes it seem as if he is impartial on the issue, but his comments and actions say otherwise. The important question is this: Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass about what we want (and let's face it, we often want what is not good for us) or about God?

When asked on his views, however, His Lordship answered: "If you look at Summorum Pontificum it doesn't suggest significant change. Really because [the Tridentine Mass] does cater for such a small group, it would be inappropriate to stick it onto a Sunday morning in a parish where most people would say: 'We don't really want this.' That's why the Pope will say: 'Have it, but not as part of your standard Sunday repertoire.'"

3. His Lordship seems to publicly muddy the profoundly vital, life-giving waters of Humanae Vitae (On Human Life), possibly the single most prophetic and important encyclical of the 20th Century, published by Pope Paul XI in 1968.

This document stresses the importance of marriage, condemns abortion and the culture of death, vehemently discourages artificial birth control and promotes the true dignity of human relationships.

When asked, "Was Humanae Vitae a mistake?" His Lordship answered, "I don't know. I don't know. But at the same time we've seen the disastrous effects of the devaluing of sexual relationships, to say they don't mean anything, which has had catastrophic effects on society, catastrophic effects on the value of women."

4. When asked whether it is a good idea to go to Confession regularly, I was surprised to read that His Lordship answered negatively. This is the first occasion when I have heard a figure of authority in the Church make comments which may, if read literally, discourage the Faithful from receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Many of us struggle with our sins daily, weekly, monthly and often find ourselves going back to our parish priest with the same list, sometimes worse than the last. We need encouragement, we need forgiveness, we need Grace, we need the Sacraments of God.

The Saints often wrote of the many Graces bestowed by and great merit of, regular Confession, in terms of absolving and freeing us of our sins, being united more closely to God, increasing in humility and devotion and in making spiritual progress in the Love of God. The secondary, but no less important implication of His Lordship's comments is that it could encourage the Faithful to receive our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist without being in a State of Grace.

When asked, however, whether regular Confession was something to be encouraged, His Lordship answered: "No, because my own experience when we had Confession every day at St Chad's Cathedral in Birmingham was that regular penitents came back with exactly the same words week after week. So there you would say, actually, there is no conversion taking place."

5. The hearts of young people are won over by Truth and Love, the proclamation of the Gospel in fullness of Truth, rather than platitudes and an overly patronising view of them that you can only win their hearts to loving and serving Christ by talking about the environment and matters of social conscience.

Look at how many young people attended Mass when Pope Benedict XVI was in Sydney and the US, and the way young people always respond to him and did respond to the late Pope John Paul the Great, both unswerving in proclaiming the Fullness of Truth on sin and salvation! The tangible sense of dissatisfaction apparent in young people stems from the fact that hedonism, sexual promiscuity and materialism make nobody, young or not so young, particularly happy. These things may gratify us temporarily but by no means spiritually not in this life and certainly not in the next.

In response to the question: 'Could the Church be more radical? Talk about the serious questions - repentance, salvation?' the Bishop answered: "You can't talk to young people about salvation. What's salvation? What does salvation mean? My eternal soul? You can only talk to young people in young people's language, really. And if you're going to talk to them about salvation, the first thing they will understand is saving the planet. You're talking about being saved and they will say: 'What about saving the planet?'"

As a lay Catholic in the Diocese of Arundel of Brighton, I and my brothers and sisters give due respect to the Office and Apostolic Authority of the Bishop. Neither I, nor anybody I know, suggest that His Lordship is of suspect character. Some of his comments in the article, however, are alarming because they do not appear to emphatically, but humbly, reflect the Magisterium of the One True Church. Hopefully, he will clarify his true view in the days ahead to avoid the growing sense of confusion and alarm among Catholics, in this Diocese and beyond, caused by this interview. As Shepherd of the entire flock of Arundel and Brighton, Priests and Laity, His Lordship can be assured of my prayers and I am sure the prayers of many concerned Catholics nationwide.

Pope St Gregory the Great predicted that when Antichrist appears, not only Laity but hoards of Priests and Bishops would go over to him. We need our Bishops to be utterly Faithful in their Teaching to the Magisterium of the One True Church whilst proclaiming God's inexhaustible love and mercy for us all.

This excerpt from Humanae Vitae seems a particulary appropriate conclusion to this post: "For the Church cannot adopt towards mankind a different attitude from that of the divine Redeemer. She knows their weakness; she has compassion on the multitudes; she welcomes sinners. But at the same time she cannot do otherwise than teach the law. For it is in fact the law of human life restored to its native truth and led by the Spirit of God."

Distracting Boss Sketch

St Francis and the Nativity

Courtesy of Wikipedia. The Nativity with St. Francis and St. Lawrence is a painting from 1609 by the Italian Baroque master Caravaggio. This gorgeous painting was stolen on October 16, 1969 from the Oratory of San Lorenzo in Palermo, Sicily. The Nativity is today the most famous unrecovered stolen painting and the FBI continue to list the work on their art thefts listings site quoting its value at $20 million. Worth is a moot point as the notoriety of the masterpiece makes it unsaleable.

Fr William Saunders wrote this sermon on the story of St Francis and the Nativity.

The story of the origin of the Christmas creche rests with the very holy man, St. Francis of Assisi.

In the year 1223, St. Francis, a deacon, was visiting the town of Grecio to celebrate Christmas. Grecio was a small town built on a mountainside overlooking a beautiful valley. The people had cultivated the fertile area with vineyards. St. Francis realized that the chapel of the Franciscan hermitage would be too small to hold the congregation for Midnight Mass. So he found a niche in the rock near the town square and set up the altar. However, this Midnight Mass would be very special, unlike any other Midnight Mass.

St. Bonaventure (d. 1274) in his Life of St. Francis of Assisi tells the story the best:

It happened in the third year before his death, that in order to excite the inhabitants of Grecio to commemorate the nativity of the Infant Jesus with great devotion, St. Francis determined to keep it with all possible solemnity; and lest he should be accused of lightness or novelty, he asked and obtained the permission of the sovereign Pontiff. Then he prepared a manger, and brought hay, and an ox and an ass to the place appointed. The brethren were summoned, the people ran together, the forest resounded with their voices, and that venerable night was made glorious by many and brilliant lights and sonorous psalms of praise. The man of God, St. Francis, stood before the manger, full of devotion and piety, bathed in tears and radiant with joy; the Holy Gospel was chanted by Francis, the Levite of Christ. Then he preached to the people around the nativity of the poor King; and being unable to utter His name for the tenderness of His love, He called Him the Babe of Bethlehem. A certain valiant and veracious soldier, Master John of Grecio, who, for the love of Christ, had left the warfare of this world, and become a dear friend of this holy man, affirmed that he beheld an Infant marvellously beautiful, sleeping in the manger, Whom the blessed Father Francis embraced with both his arms, as if he would awake Him from sleep. This vision of the devout soldier is credible, not only by reason of the sanctity of him that saw it, but by reason of the miracles which afterwards confirmed its truth. For example of Francis, if it be considered by the world, is doubtless sufficient to excite all hearts which are negligent in the faith of Christ; and the hay of that manger, being preserved by the people, miraculously cured all diseases of cattle, and many other pestilences; God thus in all things glorifying his servant, and witnessing to the great efficacy of his holy prayers by manifest prodigies and miracles.

Although the story is long old, the message is clear for us. Our own Nativity scenes which rest under our Christmas trees are a visible reminder of that night when our Saviour was born. May we never forget to see in our hearts the little Babe of Bethlehem, who came to save us from sin. We must never forget that the wood of the manger that held Him so securely would one day give way to the Wood of the Cross. May we too embrace Him with all of our love as did St. Francis.

Can't Cut It In The Real World? Join the Army!

Support Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg

When the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was being debated and then passed, a petition was drawn up and sent, signed by over 2,000 signatories, to ask Her Majesty The Queen to refuse Royal Assent to the monsterous bill. The response from Buckingham Palace was unfortunately negative.

Now a new e-petition has been drawn up in support of the Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg, who is bravely refusing to give his Royal Assent to a new bill legalising euthanasia in his country. Gerard Warner on his Telegraph blog states that, 'on December 4 the Grand Duke declared himself unable to promulgate the euthanasia law "for reasons of conscience".'

'The law...will allow doctors to kill patients diagnosed as "terminally ill" at the patient's request, supported by two physicians and a panel of "experts".' The Grand Duke’s action has triggered what some have called a "grave constitutional crisis" as the parliament moves to strip the duke of his constitutional power to sanction law.

Click the link here to sign a petition in support of the courageous Duke.

Remember to validate it afterwards when they send you an email to do so. I got mine in my bulk mail so check there if it isn't in your inbox.

We Three Kings of Orient Are

More beautiful than you would have thought...

St Hippolytus, Early Church Father

Here is a lovely quote from St Hippolytus, Early Church Father, which I included in a few Christmas cards I sent this year. Now this is the true meaning of Christmas:

God was all alone and nothing existed but Himself when He determined to create the World. He thought of it, willed it, spoke the word and so made it. It came into being instantaneously, exactly as He had willed. It is enough then for us to be aware of a single fact: nothing is co-eternal with God. Apart from God there was simply nothing else. Yet, although He was alone, He was manifold because He lacked neither reason, wisdom, power nor counsel. All things were in Him and He Himself was all. At a moment of his own choosing and in a manner determined by Himself, God manifested his Word, and through Him he made the whole Universe.

When the Word was hidden within God Himself He was invisible to the created World, but God made Him visible. First God gave utterance to His voice, engendering light from light, and then He sent His own mind into the World as its Lord. Visible before to God alone and not to the world, God made Him visible so that the World could be saved by seeing Him. This mind that entered our World was made known as the Son of God. All things came into being through Him; but He alone is begotten by the Father.

St Hippolytus, Early Church Father

Land of the Blind

Now here is a movie that is original, interesting, and deals with a well-worn, potentially hackneyed subject in a fresh and original way.

Everycountry is an allegorical land ruled by Maximillian II (Tom Hollander), an incompetent petty tyrant who lives in the shadow of his father. He is more concerned with personal indulgence - including a decidedly inept film career - than the welfare of his people, and imprisoned playwright-turned-freedom fighter Thorne (Donald Sutherland) orchestrates a rebellion against his corrupt rule. In the middle of this is Joe (Ralph Fiennes), a career soldier who comes to despise Maximillian and willingly helps Thorne's coup d'etat. When Thorne proves just as evil and villainous, however, Joe finds himself soon enough an "enemy of the people".

Hollywood usually tackles the dystopian future storyline in the same predictable manner: grim seriousness about an oppressive, dehumanizing police state. George Orwell, and to a lesser extent Aldous Huxley and Ray Bradbury, perfected this kind of story; everyone writing since has been in their shadow, and movies like Children of Men are inevitably pale imitations. Innumerable sci-fi films use similar settings without really dealing with their environments, using them mostly as a backdrop (Soylent Green, Blade Runner). Then there is V For Vendetta, which came out the same year as this film. V was technically well-made but its political content amounts to little more than tiresome, immature Revolution-chic posturing; it's cool to fight the status quo, consequences be damned. Terry Gilliam's wickedly humorous Brazil is the only film that breaks this mould, and is a useful basis of comparison for the film under discussion; but really, one has gotten heartily sick of the "individual fighting against the oppressive system" storyline repeated ad nauseum in the same grim, stentorian manner again and again.

Land of the Blind avoids many of the inevitable pitfalls of its genre. Instead of straining to make itself an outgrowth of the modern political state, it incorporates a plethora of historical (and literary) allusions to show that tyranny and repression are not limited to any group, race, demographic, religion or ideology. It also presents itself as a nasty dark comedy, very much in the spirit of something like Monty Python's Flying Circus or The Ruling Class (or the aforementioned Brazil). The message itself isn't at all original, but the way it is presented certainly is.

The film's comedic sense is flexible and biting. It ridicules everyone it can set its sights on. Writer-director Robert Edwards' script is full of sharp, biting wit, ranging from clever dialogue ("We'd try you by a jury of your peers, but we couldn't find 12 dictators") to occasional absurdity (Maximillian and his wife are arrested whilst in the middle of a kinky sex game) that seems to fit in the general context of the movie. Many of the policies and actions of the two governments would be absurd were they not based so closely on fact (Maximillian's passion for cinema uncannily resembling that of Kim Jong-Il, for instance). Truth is stranger than fiction, as this film proves.

More than anything else, the film deals with the ever-present, transcendant nature of Evil, tyranny and corruption, which knows no boundaries of ideology or class. The movie is chock full of historical allusions to make the point, from the Kim Jong-Il-clone Maximillian, to the Karl Marx-esque, Mao-jacket adorned Thorne, the venal bewigged aristocrats who can't even speak their own language out of Tsarist Russia, the Khmer Rouge-esque arrest of bespectacled "intellectuals", the brutal Ceaucescu-style execution of Maximillian and Thorne's own death a la Jean-Paul Marat. More than being simply a treat for history buffs like myself, this is what sets the film above most of its counterparts; it is not advocating an ideological position, but like the Orwell of Animal Farm, sees everyone as capable of evil, and that absolute power inevitably leads to corruption.

Most Hollywood dystopian dramas would see the overthrow of Maximillian's government as the climax of the film, but this film makes it only the beginning of a new nightmare. Where V For Vendetta ends with the triumph of the Revolution, Land of the Blind goes on to show that it's not really a triumph at all. Joe's line to Thorne: "Before the Revolution, Man served Man; now it's the other way around" does a perfect job of summarizing the film's attitude. The cartoonish, ineffectual evil of Maximillian's government is an easy straw man to knock down, but when Thorne shows up to knock him down, his cold-hearted, calculated and emotionless evil (with a smile) proves even worse.

The cast is made up of a plethora of fine actors. Ralph Fiennes strangely gives the weakest principal performance; usually a fiery, compelling actor, he's strangely subdued here. He's not bad by any means, but he pales next to his co-stars, playing probably the film's least interesting character. Donald Sutherland (not coincidentally resembling Karl Marx) gives a wonderful performance; he seems like a fairly typical freedom fighter, but he allows the evil inherent in his character to come out gradually. Lara Flynn Boyle gives a fun performance as Maximillian's egomaniacal wife, with shades of Lady MacBeth. Mackenzie Crook has a hilarious bit as an editor forced to work on one of the President's films, and talented character actors like Jonathan Hyde, Marc Warren, Ron Cook, Don Warrington and Robert Dawes contribute fine supporting turns.

Undoubtedly, however, the best performance is Tom Hollander. Hollander has been a favorite of mine since Pirates of the Caribbean, and he's been growing on me ever since. His Kim Jong-Il clone Maximillian is too over-the-top and ludicrous to really take seriously, but Hollander plays the role for all its worth, having fun with it and delivering the right note of menace to underline his performance. His scenes as hack film director ("My films are known for their subtext... it needs the right mis-en-SEEN!") are particularly hilarious; but I especially like his amused and incredulous reaction to being sentenced to death, showing his true nature as a pathetic, ignorant slug (and yet instantly more sympathetic than his ruthless deposers). Hollander is a marvellous actor, and it's a shame he's not getting more recognition than he is.

Land of the Blind is an all-around brilliant film, possessing the maturity, intelligence and insight so lacking from most of its mainstream counterparts. It's not for everyone, but above all else it's a film that thinks; and in this day and age, I will applaud it for that alone.

Rating: 9/10 - Highest Recommendation

The English Patient

In World War II, a badly burned amnesiac known only as "The English Patient" is found in the African desert and is transported to Italy, where he joins a convoy of medical troops and others at an abandoned monastery. Among them are Hana (Juliette Binoche), a Canadian nurse whose lovers generally meet unpleasant ends; Kip (Naveen Andrews) and Hardy (Kevin Whately), two explosives experts who search the monastery for bombs; and David Caravaggio (Willem Dafoe), a Canadian soldier-of-fortune who knows the identity of the English patient and has a score to settle.

Through flashbacks we learn the story of the Patient: he is Laszo Almasy (Ralph Fiennes), a Hungarian explorer who, in the late '30s, falls in with a group of British cartographers, including Geoffrey Clifton (Colin Firth) and his wife Katharine (Kristen Scott-Thomas), while mapping the deserts of North Africa. After Clifton leaves them on government business, Katharine and Clifton fall in love with each other in the desert, resulting in an affair that, naturally, has a less-than-happy ending.

If one is able to overlook the illogical parts of the story line (such as, why would a patient found in Africa be sent to what is essentially the front line of the war in Italy?), then you can appreciate The English Patient as a throwback to the intelligent, layered, sweeping epics of David Lean in the '60s. Much more than Titanic or other epic romances of late, this movie puts one in mind of Doctor Zhivago and Gone With the Wind - an epic love story set against a huge historical backdrop. You shouldn't expect a war film, though there are some striking (if all-too-brief) scenes of violence that stand out more than the romantic sections, as is usually the case (Caravaggio's interrogation by a sadistic SS officer (Jurgen Prochnow) in particular).

The movie is very ambiguous, in regards to pretty much everything. The central question of the film is: How far are you willing to go for love? As critics of the movie are fast to point out, Almasy is, on the surface, a far-from-likable character - he has an affair with a married woman and betrays his country by giving maps and intelligence to the Germans, causing the death of his friend Madox (Julian Wadham) and the torture of Caravaggio, and actually killing a British soldier who has him under arrest at one point. The fact that Almasy is in many ways reprehensible is kind of the point - he's in love with Katharine, and sees the world narrowly in terms of his love that loyalty to country (or anything else for that matter) is secondary; as Almasy says, he hates "Ownership. Being owned." The two engage in a rather bold love affair (shagging within ear shot of hundreds of people at a Christmas party) and it's clear that Katharine is more drawn to the mysterious, exciting Almasy than the comparatively boring Geoffrey.

The 1944 subplot is somewhat shaky and seems superfluous; the romance between Kip and Hannah is never completely believable, and I feel the film could have done without it. But those sequences do add an interesting texture of mystery and complexity to the film, so I won't complain too much.

Like the epics mentioned above, the film is able to convey time and place through simple devices like crowd scenes, strategically placed posters, and military presence. We do not need to dwell on the fact that it's 1938 in Cairo, but it's helpful to know. The direction of Anthony Minghella and the desert cinematography by John Seale are absolutely gorgeous; the sand dunes, sand storms, and haunting caves of the desert are captured in beautiful detail. Gabriel Yared's score is haunting and atmospheric.

The acting is generally solid. Fiennes gives a very layered performance as a character who is mysterious, complex, and haunted. The difference between the Almasys of 1938 and 1944 are remarkable; one exciting and somewhat carefree, the other haunted and reflective. Kirsten Scott Thomas is effective as Katharine, the female explorer looking for adventure, and Colin Firth gives one of his best performances as Geoffrey, who realizes early on that he's no competition for the exciting Almasy. Willem Dafoe does nice work as Caravaggio, the shifty, hunted thief-turned-spy driven by revenge. Jurgen Prochnow gives a performance reminiscent of Jose Ferrer in Lawrence of Arabia (and a similar character too): very brief, but more memorable then some of the major characters. Some of the 1944 actors are unremarkable: Juliette Binochette is nothing special, while Naveen Andrews is good but unremarkable. Kevin Whately, as Kip's ill-fated partner, does what he can with a rather smallish role.

The English Patient is not a perfect movie by any means, but the vituperative attacks on it by much of the movie-going public are not deserved at all. Maybe it's a show of how film sensibilities have changed since the era of the Leans and Kubricks, or maybe people were expecting something simple to understand. Complex to fault, brilliantly directed and shot, The English Patient is a wonderful modern-day epic.

Rating: 9/10 - Highest Recommendation

Proposal for a New Order of Franciscan Tertiaries of Brighton & Hove

As my good friend Joseph has always said, "Man proposes, God disposes."

A small band of brothers renounce all possessions save for their musical instruments.

They take vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience to the Magisterium of the Church.

They live on the streets of Brighton as the homeless.

They sing and play for alms.

They devote their time to prayer, singing songs, going to Mass and witness to the Gospel by living among the homeless of Brighton.

They play chess with the homeless and offer them friendship in Brighton and live as beggars.

The people of Brighton are astonished by their charity and their music and lifestyle.

They are fed and watered by the soup run.

Money made from begging goes to the poor of the Church and the Building Fund.

Each brother has his own sleeping bag.

Their radical lifestyle attracts new brothers because Brighton is a town of alternative lifestyles.

The order is endorsed by the Pope.

They follow in the footsteps of St Francis and go to Heaven.

Is this a good idea? Answers on a postcard, please, or failing that, the comments section. A couple of months and I am of no fixed abode anyhow.

High Noon

Last night TCM showed one of the all-time classic Western, Fred Zinnemann's High Noon. I had watched the film many years before, and remember not having been crazy about it, but I decided, now that I'm a committed cinephile, why not give it another go? Especially considering my high regard for Zinnemann's other work, and the fact that I had nothing else to do but study, it seemed like it was worth a rewatch.

Well, it was, but surprisingly my opinion has little changed since I was a 14 year old. As a film, High Noon has its virtues: a fine cast amd excellent direction and editing in particular. But for all its hype as an intelligent, "adult" Western, with lots of political baggage (begin rant about the blacklist and ignorant confusion of Joe McCarthy and HUAC here) and "deep" themes, it's hopelessly confused. I think DVD Savant's review of this film says what I want to say, and better, but I'll give it a go regardless.

In case you don't know the plot: Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is the long-serving Marshall of Hadleyville, who wishes to marry committed Quaker Amy (Grace Kelly) and retire. Unfortuantely, his old nemesis Frank Miller (Ian McDonald) has other plans; he's been pardoned from jail and is headed back to town with three henchmen (Sheb Wooley, Robert J. Willkie, and Lee Van Cleef) to seek revenge. Kane tries to organize a posse, but finds the townspeople indifferent, scared, or outright hostile, and his wife is unwilling to stand by his side. Finally, Will must go it alone, facing four vicious outlaws in a climactic showdown for the ages.

High Noon has always been read as the ultimate parable about a man sticking up for what's right. If that's the level you want to address the film on, it works well-enough. Will Kane is a curious character. He is a rugged individualist, who is willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of a town that appears to loathe him. This isn't necessarily believable on a personal level - especially considering the horrible, repeated backstabbing we see him go through - but as a character type - the ultimate Good Guy, facing up to the Evil no matter the cost - he makes a very strong impression. On this level, the movie works, not the least for Gary Cooper's wonderfully dignified, straight-laced performance. Whatever the faults in his character motivation, Cooper's performance successfully transfigures Kane into an emblem of individual righteousness, making at least one of the film's major strands work perfectly.

The movie really stumbles, however with its story and plot - or rather, the way it goes about them - and supporting characters. This movie is perhaps the ultimate exemplar of characters being merely cogs in a story rather than believable people. It takes an unbelievable amount of convenience and contrivance to bring the movie to the point where Kane is forced to make his lonely stand, and some of the techniques employed by Foreman and Zinnemann are heavy-handed to the point of being insulting. Upon further reflection, a lot of them don't even make sense.

The whole movie is a series of carefully orchestrated events designed to lead to the inevitable conclusion, depriving Kane of support and leaving him standing alone, and very little of it works - simply because, frankly, it doesn't make much sense. Why aren't these people willing to stand up to Miller? It's fair to assume that the rowdy saloon crowd might like Miller, and even some of the town's more unscrupulous businessmen would prefer him to the upright Kane, but the arguments advanced by some of the town's leading citizens are just ridiculous. Thomas Mitchell's grotesque speech in the Church is perhaps the biggest example - he's worried about one day of violence besmirching the town, but presumably letting Miller and Co. have free reign in the town will be good for them? The contrivance of Kane's deputy (Lloyd Bridges) being an ambitious prick willing to sell out the town for his own sake doesn't really come off either, nor really is the judge (Otto Kruger)'s fleeing at the first sign of trouble. Amy's character is even more problematic; her opposition to violence seems warped and out of place (would a Quaker really side with a vicious outlaw gang over the law?), and her taking up arms to save her man is a crude and sick joke. It's rather bizarre that a leftist would write a screenplay advocating such an openly pro-violence, pro-individual and anti-society message, but here you are.

Even worse, the movie continually undercuts its message - which it seems is that people are just no damned good - through its own actions. Kane himself notes that several members of the surly saloon crowd had helped him put Miller away all those years ago. What exactly "changed", as one of them helpfully says, that they're now either cowards or openly siding with Miller? The movie could have addressed this, but it completely skirts the issue, merely setting Kane up for another fall. The fact that many are willing to help Kane, only to disappear into the woodwork when it's convenient for the story make it all the more aggravating; what happens to the four guys who immediately jump up to help at Kane's appearance in the Church? Was their sense of right and wrong destroyed by listening to a speech? What about the rest of the Church congregation who vehemently argue Kane's side (including Virginia Christie's poignant appeal: "What's WRONG with you!?"), or the children who look up to him? These good characters are swept under the rug due to story convenience, providing a horribly one-sided and inaccurate even within the film's frame of reference view of things. When Kane throws his star into the dirt at the end (a big fuck you to the assembled townspeople), we're presumably supposed to forget all the good people who are in the town. If that's the way he feels, then why did he bother sticking around in the first place?

More troublesome still are the film's alleged "political" meanings. Carl Foreman was a committed leftist, and heavy-handed political preaching was his biggest liability as a writer (even his escapist works like Guns of Navarone was unable to escape this), but any attempts to read the film as a blacklist parable aren't very pertinent to me. I'm sorry, I find it extremely hard to see any parables between a sheriff standing up to a gang of outlaws and Hollywood actors being; the fact that the threat comes from outside the community rather than from its government further complicates things (and might make an alternate reading, of Kane standing up to the insidious Commies and their pinko friends, possible). Maybe in the most abstract way one could read it as such, but any direct analogy is extremely problematic. It seems to me a case of critics making up stuff after the fact; Foreman was blacklisted, so this film must be about the blacklist! Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Technically, the movie is extremely accomplished, and this is the area where it is most successful. Zinnemann's direction is quite handsome, handling both his fine cast, the mise-en-scene, and the action scenes with aplomb. This movie is much more gritty than Zinnemann's later polished, handsome films, and yet he doesn't seem a bit of place. The movie's real ace, however, is the editing by Elmos; the use of clocks throughout (the film being in almost real-time), and the use of montage (particularly the intercutting of the main cast members just before the final showdown) provide brilliant tour-de-force works of editing. And the final showdown is among the best the genre has to offer, skilfully directed, choreographed and edited. It's very hard to fault the flm on this level, though I for one find the Tex Ritter score to be horribly annoying.

The acting is good for the most part, in spite of the characters they have to play. Besides Cooper, Katy Jurado's sexy, vibrant Mrs. Ramirez, Lloyd Bridges' selfish punk deputy and Thomas Mitchell's backstabbing friend come off best. I've never been a big fan of Grace Kelly and as usual she's adequate but little more. It's also nice to see future Western vets Jack Elam and Lee Van Cleef in small roles.

So, High Noon has its virtues as a film, but its story relies on too much contrivance to really work. I think a 7/10 rating would be more than fair.

Rating: 7/10 - Recommended