A key title in the blaxploitation genre, Across 110th Street (1972) holds up better than most. It gave a major career boost to Yaphet Kotto, just before his big break in Live and Let Die, and Bobby Womack's iconic title tune has more recently cropped up in Jackie Brown and American Gangster. A bit crude storywise, it retains a kick in its smart casting and subversive edge.
Three small-time hoods steal $300,000 from a coterie of mobsters, killing them and two policemen. Hardnosed Captain Matelli (Anthony Quinn) is reluctantly assigned to join Lieutenant Pope's (Yaphet Kotto) investigation, the two developing a mutual loathing. Meanwhile, the Mafia sends enforcer Nick D'Salvo (Anthony Franciosa) to eliminate the robbers in sadistic fashion. Soon only Jim Harris (Paul Benjamin) remains, and a three-way race between the cops, the mob and black gangsters led by Doc Johnson (Richard Ward) ensues.
Across 110th Street seems a pointed commentary on Hollywood's new wave of crime films. The previous year, Dirty Harry and The French Connection scored big depicting boorish but effective cops. Matelli initially seems in their mould but his brutal methods prove counterproductive. One scene has Doc shame Matelli in front of Pope, revealing the Captain's receipt of bribes. The movie similarly subverts In the Heat of the Night's buddy dynamic, with Pope angrily dismissing Matelli's patronizing attempts at reconciliaton. Only at the end do the cops achieve mutual respect, too late.
But writer Luther Davis really cuts to the quick when exploring racial tensions in Harlem, where blacks, Italians and Hispanics live in uncomfortable proximity. The Italian mob is unapologetically racist, Nick's cruel murders calculated to humiliate Doc's crew. Blacks instinctively distrust the police; seeing Matelli in action who could blame them? In this context, Jim's plight is almost poignant: a career criminal, he can't redeem himself but clings to dreams of a better life. Cornered in the finale, he makes a touching last gesture.
Director Barry Shear makes extensive use of handheld camera work and authentic Harlem locations, giving them movie a docudrama feel. The opening massacre has shades of Sergio Leone (tense close-ups etc.) but most of the film's style is fairly restrained, with minimal use of music or camera tricks. The shootouts are bloody and over-the-top, with Jim firing an infinitely-loaded machine gun, but excitingly staged. The story strands don't quite hang together, focusing on character development with the cops and plot mechanics with the gangsters, but it comes together in the finale, ending on an extremely affecting shot.
Anthony Quinn (who co-produced) gives an unusually low-key performance, believably weathered, gruff and self-loathing. Yaphet Kotto is similarly controlled, his anger a marvelous slow boil until finally bursting towards the end. Paul Benjamin's character is thinly sketched but makes a strong impression. Anthony Franciosa makes a memorable mob creep and the wonderfully gravel-voiced Richard Ward plays an amiable adversary. Look for Antonio Fargas (Starsky & Hutch) as the getaway driver and Burt Young (Once Upon a Time in America) in the opening scene.
Across 110th Street retains considerable power. Its angry nihilism and racial disillusionment are an angry kiss-off to other '70s crime sagas, showing neither liberal reconcilation nor Harry Callahan antics will solve anything.
And, on our way there, tomorrow, in our medieval minibus, we shall sing hymns and say the Rosary and indulge in some good Catholic humour (in the manner of medieval pilgrims). This is a beautiful piece although, I suspect, we shall be more in the 'Faith of Our Fathers' neck of the woods.
I found this hymn to St Winefride in an old Westminster Hymnal....no idea as to the music, but it tells her story rather well:
Enough has been said on the issue of whether a priest should wear black or grey or the ghastly Methodist blue. So, you will be relieved to know that I am not going to add my two penn'orth to the cause but I am going to feature some extracts from posts on the subject (prompted by an innocently meant comment I left on A Reluctant Sinner's post about the new Bishop of Wrexham Diocese) - you may see the post here - http://areluctantsinner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/new-bishop-of-wrexham-is-priest-of-same.html
So, first off, a H/T to the Father Joe blog for this:
What do you call the black pants and black clerical shirt a priest wears (with a white collar tab)? They are simply called clerics or clerical clothing. The shirts actually can come in various colors and sometimes Norbertines, Dominicans and others might wear a white clerical shirt. Bishops in some of the hotter climates have permitted this to ease the problem of heat absorption by black clothing. PRIESTS ARE SUPPOSED TO WEAR CLERICAL CLOTHING. If the priests you know are not doing so, then there is a serious question of disobedience. Church law insists that the priest wear “suitable clerical clothing, according to the norms issued by the Episcopal Conference and according to legitimate local customs.” (Canon 284)
The black represents a priest dying to self as well as simplicity/poverty. Every time he puts on his clerics, he should remember that he does not belong to himself, but his bride, the Church. It also symbolizes simplicity and giving up the comforts, honors, and privileges of the world.The white Roman collar you see priests wearing symbolizes obedience to God and the Church. This comes from the tradition of a slave having a ring put around their necks and priests choose to give their lives to Christ as his "slaves". It also represents the marriage "ring" of being we to the Church. The white also symbolizes the resurrection of Christ.
The day when I received a priestly dress was a unique event for me. Although I did not become a priest then (actually we received cassocks at our III year of studies in the seminary), we belonged to clergy in the eyes of the world and people. It was a marvellous day! Some people began greeting Christ when they saw me, and they began sharing their problems. Thanks to the cassock I became a visible sign of a special belonging to God. Therefore, I support the defenders of clerical clothing and although I know that it is not true that 'clothes make the man' I miss the times when wearing a cassock was a normal and daily habit. I like wearing my cassock very much. Naturally, in the first centuries of Christianity (for over four centuries) priests wore the same clothes as ordinary people. The tunics were normal clothes. When it was fashionable to wear shorter robes some priests kept tunics, and thus they stood out from other people. The Synod of Braga, AD 572, ordered priests to wear different clothes when they went out. The tradition of wearing cassocks was established over a very long period. At the turn of the 15th and the 16th centuries there was a custom of wearing robes called 'révérend' (the word derives from Romance languages). In those times men used to wear robes, especially the gentry liked wearing long dresses: the zupan (a long coat lined with cloth of gold) and the kontusz (an overcoat with split sleeves) and belts. The clerical clothing was established in the 17th and the 18th centuries. The colour of the cassock was connected with the hierarchy of clergy, which has remained up till now: the pope wears a white cassock, cardinals wear red (scarlet) ones, bishops wear amaranth red ones and priests wear black ones. You are right that black is associated with sorrow but in the case of priestly robe this colour has another symbolic meaning. A black cassock is to remind a priest that he 'dies to the world' every day and immerses in eternity. Blackness also symbolizes giving up bright colours and thus giving up what the world brings, its glittering, honours and entertainment. The clerical collar is an important item of clerical clothing. Our students used to ask me: why is this white belt on you neck called a clerical collar although it is not colourful (in Polish 'koloratka' means colourful)? The word derives from Latin collare meaning a collar (also called a dog collar). A white collar on a priest's neck should remind him of a ring and collar - his marriage to Christ and to the Church and giving his freedom to Christ, thus letting him control his life. We, priests, wear a collar because we want to be directed by Christ in all things. Please notice that our collars are white as opposed to our cassocks. In the background of a black robe it is a symbol of the light of resurrection. We go through the world giving up baubles and colours, living the hope of participation in the brightness of resurrection. This white collar in the background of our black dress is actually a sign of our desires and aspirations. See how meaningful our robes are and therefore I am sad to see that priests wear cassocks less and less frequently since a cassock itself has proclaimed the most important truths of our faith. And by the way, we, priests, wear trousers under the cassock and it is not a rule that every cassock has 33 buttons.
So there it is. A black and white answer or answers, nothing grey about that whatsoever.
Yup, the Confraternity of the Holy Cross (some 10 or 12 of us) is off, on Sunday, to Holywell to join the LMS annual Pilgrimage.
This holy place is also called the Lourdes of Wales and I hope to be able to dip my toe in the water (no time for a full Lourdes type plunge, I'm afraid - Deo gratias).
I shall pray for you all here, especially Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma members and Charlie J.
Today we observe the Vigil of the Feast of Ss Peter and Paul and, for those of us who suffer under the Bishops of England and Wales (with their sparse attention to the needs of their more traditionally inclined faithful), a Mass in the Extraordinary Form can often be hard to find (on a Sunday or on a Holyday).
Priests are hard pressed and, on many occasions, cannot offer an EF Mass on the due day because of pressure of OF Mass schedules and other pastoral duties.
Under such circumstances it seems sensible to attend a Vigil Mass if one is on offer; after all, better to have a Mass on the eve of a Feast rather than no Mass at all.
But, there are some Catholic organisations who do not appear to subscribe to pragmatism and they refuse to place Vigil Masses on their Mass listings.
I feel a vote coming on so please check in the sidebar and express your view on the matter.
News that the epic London landmark, Big Ben, is to be renamed the Elizabeth Tower in honour of HM Queen Elizabeth II, may be considered strange.
Pugin strikes again!
I don't think that people will ever stop calling it Big Ben (although the renaming, apparently, refers to the Tower itself).
I think that if I was the monarch (notice that I did not say 'Queen') I would prefer to have had some new sort of a monument built to me, maybe a statue on a plinth in Trafalgar Square?
But few appreciate the role that a Catholic architect had in the design of the clock as well as the tower.
Augustus Pugin was the man who designed the clock tower and the dial to the world's largest timepiece, sub contracted by Master architect, Charles Barry.
In the later stages, the man responsible for overseeing the construction as First Commissioner of Works was Welshman, Benjamin Hall, later, to become Baron Llanover of Monmouthshire. He was, by all accounts, an ultra tall man and many attribute the clock's nickname as coming from 'Big Ben Hall'.
However nice this might seem as a story it is far more likely that it was dubbed 'Big Ben' after a popular boxer at the time (at least, according to Wiki).
But Pugin's footprint is writ large over the structure and it is here that I refer you on to Laurence England's blog which has a good piece also about Pugin.
I visited my family at the weekend, saw that Songs of Praise was about to come on telly when Aled Jones suddenly grabbed my attention by announcing that the episode would be dedicated to Pugin's Churches.
Fr Marcus Holden was interviewed on Pugin and came across very well on telly.
You can watch the episode here, it really is a beautiful exposition of some of Pugin's fine work. What a diamond Pugin was. Rightly the episode is called 'God's Architect'.
It's also wonderful news that the Church where Fr Marcus Holden is parish priest has become an official national Shrine to St Augustine and the monks who converted England following instruction to do so by Pope St Gregory I the Great all those moons ago.
All this marvellous news also presents us with an opportunity to promote this year's Evangelium Conference which will be taking place with a host of wonderful guest speakers as follows:
Neil Addison – Barrister and author on Religion and Law Fr Jerome Bertam – Oratorian and writer Joanna Bogle – Broadcaster, writer, author of Feasts and Seasons Sr Hyacinthe Defos du Rau OP – Sister of St Dominic's Priory in the New Forest Fr Tim Finigan – Internationally renowned Catholic speaker, columnist and blogger Dr William Newton – Professor at the International Theological Institute in Austria Dr Joseph Shaw – Philosopher, University of Oxford Hellena Taylor – LAMDA trained Shakespearian actor and RCIA catechist Fr Ed Tomlinson – Priest of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham Hannah Vaughan-Spruce – Director of Catechesis, Holy Ghost Catholic Church Balham Fr Marcus Holden – Parish Priest of the National Shrine of St Augustine Fr Andrew Pinsent – Former Particle Physicist at CERN and Theologian, University of Oxford
You can join the Facebook group here. A fine line up I think you'll agree and probably better at taking penalties than the England team because, let's it, how could the England team gather the resolve and steel it takes to deal with such a high pressure moment knowing that Our Lady was rooting for the team that made the Sign of the Cross and prayed to her? Until England goes back to Walsingham, we may as well forget about getting past the quarter finals.
Which is another good reason why you could consider making a walking pilgrimage this year to the National Shrine to Our Lady of Walsingham between 24 - 26 August. I went last year and it was a beautiful, prayerful encounter, full of friendship, devotion and, yes, song too. And penance of course. Even rain and tired legs could not dampen the spirit of those went last year and I do recommend it to readers. If you want to do something that we believe brings Our Lady great joy, then go.
There will be, at the Evangelium Conference, dynamic talks by excellent speakers, the opportunity to mix with other young people who share your faith and discuss and talk informally with our speakers. There will also be daily Mass and eucharistic adoration, opportunities for confession, the chance to relax in the beautiful grounds and opportunities for sport and evening entertainment. Sounds lovely. Evangelium will take place 3rd - 5th August 2012 at the Reading Oratory School. The cost is £95.00 and you can book your place there online.
Who needs the Euros? Indeed, who needs the Euro? Who needs Wimbledon? And who, who on God's green earth needs synchronised swimming competitions, 100 metre relay and a competition to see who can throw a spear the furthest? The answer is, of course, nobody. We do, however, all need Our Blessed Lord and His Blessed Mother, however. We all need Salvation and we need to tell others of it in word and, indeed, in deed.
Yet another case is going forward for judgement on one man's right to commission his own death. The person in question is 58 years old and suffering from "locked in syndrome" following a severe stroke.
When such tragic cases hit the headlines it seems to me that the benefits of suffering are never raised, never recognised even.
Can there be benefits attached to an existence that forces you to be reliant on other people for every personal need?
"The vertical bar pointing to the heavens is God's will. The horizontal bar contradicting it is our will. When our will is in conflict with God's will we have a cross. A cross in the mind is fear, anxiety, unhappiness. A cross in the body is pain" (Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
As Catholics we know that there are indeed profound benefits to be gained if we can approach suffering in the right way. I am reminded me of a talk given by Archbishop Sheen on the subject of suffering. He met with a woman who was in what we used to call an 'iron lung' - she had been subject to this treatment for some years and was due to spend the rest of her life inanimate in all but speech.
The Archbishop asked her if she knew what suffering was and she replied "No". He then wrote to her daily over a long period of time and I have no doubt that his letters would have been a lifeline for her.
Archbishop Fulton Sheen had a great insight into suffering and, in later life, he actually experienced it himself following complicated heart surgery.
But, more than that, he wrote about it and it is a constant thread running through most of his books and talks.
Here is what he has to say on the issue of what he calls "wasted pain" -
"One of the greatest tragedies in the world is wasted pain. Pain without relation to the Cross is like an unsigned cheque - without value. But once we have countersigned with the signature of the Saviour on the Cross, it takes on an infinite value.
A feverish brow that never throbs in unison with a Head crowned with thorns, or an aching hand never borne in patience with a hand on the Cross, is sheer waste. The world is worse for that pain when it might have been much better.
All the sickbeds of the world therefore, are either on the right side of the Cross or on the left; they ask to be taken down, or like the thief on the right, they ask to be taken up.
It is not so much what people suffer that makes the world mysterious: it is rather how much they miss when they suffer. They seem to forget that even as children they made obstacles in their games in order to have something to overcome. Why then, when they grow into man's estate, should there not be prizes won by effort and struggle?
Cannot the spirit of man rise with adversity as the bird rises against the resistance of the wind? Do not the game fish swim upstream? Must not the alabaster box be broken to fill the house with ointment?.......................Why then cannot pain be made redemption? Why under the alchemy of Divine Love cannot crosses be turned into crucifixes?........."
Those words say it all really. The negative processes of suffering can be re-directed to positives.
How?
By offering pain and humiliation to the Holy Trinity
By allowing your own suffering to be a platform for others to show their love and care and charity
By resigning oneself to God's will and offering up the pain for the release of the Holy Souls
By bearing the pain and indignity in reparation for blasphemies against the Holy Name and Our Lady
Blessed Miguel Pro wrote a most moving prayer on suffering; it is not an easy prayer to say. It is even harder to abide by the sentiments in the prayer:-
Does our life become from day to day more painful, more oppressive, more replete with afflictions? Blessed be he a thousand times who desires it so.
If life be harder, love makes it also stronger and, only this love, grounded on suffering, can carry the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ.
Love without egotism, without relying on self but enkindling in the depth of the heart an ardent thirst to love and suffer for all those around us: a thirst that neither misfortune nor contempt can extinguish…..I believe, O Lord; but strengthen my faith….Heart of Jesus, I trust in Thee; but give greater vigour to my confidence.
Heart of Jesus, I give my heart to Thee; but, so enclose it in Thee that it may never be separated from Thee.
Heart of Jesus, I am all Thine; but take care of my promise so that I may be able to put it in practice even unto the complete sacrifice of my life.
"Cheating on a quiz show? That's like plagarizing a comic strip."
Robert Redford delivers a solid film with Quiz Show (1994). Perhaps not as insightful as it hopes to be, the movie works as a high-toned drama, carried by cerebral writing and a perfect cast.
1950s America is enraptured by NBC's game show Twenty-One, hosted by Jack Barry (Christopher McDonald). The studio honchos want to oust Herb Stempel (John Turturro), an untelegenic New York Jew, from the champion seat, enlisting Charlie Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes), scion of a wealthy literary family, to win in a rigged match-up. Charlie's initally reluctant but quickly becomes intoxicated by the whirlwind of fame his appearances bring - and can't back out, even when he wants to. Stempel belatedly decides to expose NBC's fraud, gaining the attention of Congressional aide Ron Goodwin (Rob Morrow).
Quiz Show depicts a true story with style and verve. Besides a perfect recreation of the '50s (sans American Graffiti cliches), Redford provides a jaundiced picture of the era. Underneath the amiable exterior is a seething mass of class tension, cultural anxiety and media manipulation. NBC's fraud is strictly legal, but there's something to be said betraying the trust of millions. Rigging shows in ways obvious and subtle (making Stempel sweat by changing temperature) may not be overly shocking today. But to a more innocent America, they were an earth-shattering shock. Ratings overwhelms honesty, consumerism beats ethics.
Redford scores his strongest points comparing the protagonists. Janet Maslin sees Van Doren as an avatar for Redford himself, an arrogant pretty boy who feels he's owed the world. Ultimately though, Charlie is a tragic figure: he laps up the attendant fame and fortune, all the while tortured by his deceit. The strongest scenes are between Charlie and his father (Paul Scofield), who suspects something's amiss but is blinded by fatherly pride. The fawning deference shown by the media and even the government further entraps Charlie. Ulimately, he becomes a victim of his own image.
By contrast, Stemple is a striving, neurotic nebbish eager to take down the upper-class Charlie. He's initially dismissed as a cheat, a sore loser and a lunatic - until the evidence becomes overwhelming. At home he's constantly bickering with his wife and seeing therapists. When Van Doren snubs him after their match, taking down NBC becomes a vendetta against the snobs and the glad-handing elite. This time, it's personal.
Redford frames the Van Doren-Stemple rivalry as a prelude to the "culture wars" that erupted a decade later. One working class Senator expresses disgust at his seeing his colleagues trip overthemselves to applaud Charlie's confession. Intellectuals are no longer feted but distrusted, allowing the "forgotten Americans" to take their place. This divide emerged sharply in the following decades, when conservatives exploited resentment against Ivy League elites. With the rise of Nixon's "silent majority" and Reagan conservatism, one concludes the Stemples won decisively.
If Quiz Show falters, it's through emphatically purveying an obvious message. Observing television is out to get us is nothing new: such bromides existed since Newton Minow declared it a "vast wasteland" 51 years ago. Certainly the movie lacks the subversive bite of Network or even The Running Man. Still, one can easily enjoy Quiz Show without this posturing.
John Turturro receives top-billing for a zany character turn. Ralph Fiennes proves the film's real center, all Ivy League self-assurance and nagging guilt. Paul Scofield gets the emotional highpoints, obliviously proud of his son's achievement. David Paymer and Hank Azaria are agreeably sleazy producers. Rob Morrow is fine as a non-descript straight arrow. The female stars (Mira Sorvino, Elizabeth Wilson) fare less well. Directors Martin Scorsese and Barry Levinson cameo; Calista Flockhart and Ethan Hawke have early bit parts.
Perhaps Quiz Show's most effective aspect is invoking a more innocent time. Redford depicts a Fifties America that values intelligence, embraces progress and intrinsically trusts the media. My, how far we've come.
Isn't it eerie that little longer than a year passed after The Beatles issued this album the Abortion Act of 1967 came to be passed in the United Kingdom?
If you want your head to be fried by a blog dedicated to The Beatles, the occult, masonry and numerology click here. I don't know whether the blog author may just be reading a little too much into The Beatles, but then they did put Aleistair Crowley on Sgt Pepper's, didn't they?
As Catholics we have a range of weaponry in our war chest; the Rosary, novenas, penances, pilgrimages, confession and Holy Communion, retreats and so on.
But....are they enough?
Surely we need something over and above these rather dated and old fashioned means of gaining God's good grace?
Well, I think I have found it....no, please do not thank me, I am more than happy to pass on my discovery in the certain knowledge that it will set you free - liberate your senses! Make you a whole person at ease with your inner self.
What can it be? Essence of monkey glands? No.
Some rare concoction of exotic plants and tree bark? No.
OK then - it's not the old real ale therapy? No, of course not.
I'm sticking with the Catholic white dove thanks
It is called Emotional Freedom Technique - O joy!
This is what I have been searching for, something to release my emotions other than the well known brew called The Reverend James.
EFT (if I may call it that) will not leave you with a hangover or upset stomach but it will probably, put a bit of a dent in your wallet or purse.
So - what is involved?
Well, it appears to be a mix of self hypnosis, acupressure and meditation (orange dressing gowns are optional) and (can it get any better?) it involves tapping. Yes, tapping.
Hmm....it also appears as if there are vacancies for EFT Practitioners....at least I have read online that you can get certified quite easily. That's when the men in white coats come knocking at your door and you wake up in a room with rubber walls.
I think I'll stick with my Rosary........after all, I am a Catholic!
I heard a fascinating account of a night out from someone who has in the past attended the Soup Run.
The man in question went out for a night out with his friend who is a lesbian. The two decided to go to a gay club in Brighton called 'Revenge'.
So, they both got dressed up for a night out. The man and woman arrived at Revenge, but, at the door, while the lady was accepted, the man was turned away.
I asked the gentleman in question whether any reason was cited for his not being allowed into Revenge. I asked whether he thought it was because he was black or because he has dreadlocks, or was not dressed appropriately or something. No reason for his not being allowed into the club was given, just that 'he can't come in'.
"I don't understand it," he said, "I'm heterosexual but how can they tell that just by looking at you? It was like they had a profile and I didn't fit it or something. And even if I am heterosexual, why should that bar me from going into a gay club? My lesbian friend wanted to stay and have an argument with the guy on the door about it, but I told her to leave it. We turned around and left and it put a real downer on the evening."
Perhaps if he'd have oiled up, shaved his head and body hair, donned some fake angel wings, hired some portable strobe lighting and gone topless he might have got in. So much for diversity and inclusion in Brighton.
Prejudice and discrimination came up again in our conversation as we talked more. The chap was sitting with a group of people who regularly sit at the back of St Peter's Church on London Road. I explained to him that I had sat here last week with a friend for a while until two community support police officers arrived on the scene with a small blue marquee not unlike that pictured (below, right).
There sat the PCSOs watching the homeless and hostel dwellers of Brighton talking, drinking cans and generally socialising. So, I walked over and asked why the PCSOs had established a small base looking over the affairs of Brighton's poor. They replied that this was a 'hotspot' for 'street-drinking and anti-social behaviour'. They said they know many of the homeless and like many of them but that it was their job to patrol and set up pitch so that no 'anti-social behaviour' was going on.
They admitted that they exercised a certain amount of discrimination. A couple enjoying a glass of wine was different, they maintained, to several people who residents might feel threatened or intimidated by. I responded by asking whether it was right to agree with the prejudices that people hold against the homeless. They said 'perhaps not' but that if they left people alone to do their own thing then there would be arguments and fights.
So, I went back over to the other side of the road and saw George and Diane who were sat away from the party scene. "What's that they've put up, then?" said George, "A beer tent?" George described the police as 'control freaks' concerned only with the image of Brighton. "It's all for the tourists," he said, "but they don't realise they draw more attention to the homeless by pitching up a massive blue tent." Having told me that they exercise restraint and prudence when dealing with 'street people', they then told me that they'd just told the crowd that they had 15 minutes to drink up and go elsewhere. True to their word, a quarter of an hour later they were over to tell the poor to clear off. The poor keep the PCSOs in their job, however, because the next day the exact same crowd gather in the exact same place and the exact same response comes from the police community support officers. It's almost like Brighton is trying to maintain its image by 'dealing' with the fallout from an enormously hedonistic culture. Suffice to say that drugs and alcohol in Brighton are clamped down upon to different degrees depending on your social status.
St Peter's Church, London Road
The chap I talked with today agreed that Brighton is not half as liberal as it makes out. For a town that marks itself out as a 'hotspot' for hedonistic culture, it can be awfully puritan. "I don't know why they're onto the crowd who drink here. After all, its all fenced off. People walk by and they're not hurting anyone."
He said that recently he had been searched by the police for drugs and he assumes it is because he is black, has dreadlocks and hangs around near St Peter's from time to time. "I get it all the time," he said, "People coming up to me and asking if I've got drugs because I'm black and I've got dreads. The truth is I haven't done any drugs for 25 years and have never been a dealer. I'm 45 for Heaven's sake."
The thing about law and rights (from the little I know) is that it is meant to be something universal. It either applies to everyone or it does not, so the idea of discriminating between a couple drinking cava on a blanket in the afternoon sun and a homeless man with some friends seems nonsensical - legally speaking. Anti-social behaviour is in the eye of the beholder. What might simply be inoffensive to one person could have another person in terrible fright because, 'O Heaven's above! It's a group of homeless people congregating. There are more than two of them and some of them have a beer in their hand! Call the police! I'm terrified!'
It goes without saying that on the weekend of Gay Pride, coming up in August, all these street drinking laws are discarded for a gigantic p*ss up and drug fest in Preston Park as cans lay strewn across London Road and the general region awaiting an almighty Council clean up the next morning. Does this make any sense? Well, it makes no moral sense. It only makes financial sense because it brings in tourism and trade. Hey, you know, there might be some people in Brighton who don't feel that comfortable when a massive hoard of homosexuals and lesbians descend upon Brighton in August in scenes which could be construed as some as publicly a little indecent, but those people who object, if they even exist, are obviously bigoted, discriminatory and nurture an irrational phobia of men and women gathering together to get blasted, behave and dress immodestly, congregate in huge crowds and socialise in a very public manner.
Some of the homeless are even on ASBOs which stop them from congregating with a drink in their hand in the company of more than one other person. With all this hullabaloo about making same-sex sexual activity socially respectable or beneficial, I'm sure it wouldn't take a genius lawyer to argue for the right to drink a beer in a public area and congregate with a group of friends in the sunshine outside as a 'human right', but we've moved beyond common sense now because human rights are the State's domain. The State permitteth you to buy a can of lager, but the State taketh away the can on lager if you're homeless and drink it in public.
Say a prayer for the gentleman I talked with today. He is HIV positive and the knowledge of having the disease causes him considerable mental anguish as well as physical suffering.
'Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, served as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet, in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority and revile the glorious ones.'
I've attracted some criticism from a Catholic priest for my previous post. I believe I should clarify what I said in the post as I can see how it could be construed as being offensive to Catholics struggling with the Cross of homosexuality. I happen to be one of those Catholics.
The main concern I expressed in the post was to highlight the way in which the State and those lobbies to whom it gives most attention use the word 'love' and the emotive power behind it in order to convince a population of the rightness of their cause. To see a word which has such depth and rich meaning in a Christian context being used in order to advance an agenda for same-sex marriage is worrying. This is because it is my opinion that with the same-sex marriage crusade comes a desire for State and society to approve of homosexual acts and a desire to accord to the act of homosexuality an equality with the conjugal act of husband and wife which is open to the gift of children.
I tried to look at what St Paul said of love and noticed that when St Paul talked of love, it appeared to have very little to do with lust or even sex. St Paul said that 'love is patient, love is kind, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil' but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'
I do not take exception to the idea that two homosexual men can share a love which is holy and life-giving. I also understand only too well that chastity is a lifelong struggle and one which we can never even begin to attain by our own efforts.
But I have been told in no uncertain terms by a Catholic priest that it is not 'primarily' my concern whether the love that exists between two homosexuals manifests itself sexually. It is at this point at which we must depart in view. For while it may not be my personal concern as to whether a relationship between two men or two women becomes sexual, it is the Church's concern and it certainly concerns Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Salvation of Souls.
Life is a messy affair and we are all aware of it, but let us be clear, there is no 'theology of the body' in homosexual acts. What feels like love is so often not love. If homosexuals are living 'loving relationships' then the homosexual acts are a departure from that love which always seeks the good of another. Homosexual acts are not an expression of love. To say that would be to make the Apostles and their Successors liars. To engage another in the act of homosexuality is always and everywhere a sin that 'cries out to Heaven for vengeance'. The Lord Jesus is not a vengeful God. He is merciful and forgiving and if we are guilty of the sin we would do very well to confess it and take up our Cross once more. Such a sin is an act of gross spiritual vandalism against ourselves and the other just as is adultery and fornication.
There is no reason why with God's grace two men cannot share a deeply holy and chaste love for one another. Like all Catholics, homosexuals are called to be Saints. I apologise if I in any way offended those who either show pastoral care to those in their community who struggle with homosexuality as individuals or as a couple or those who do so. I did not intend to suggest that homosexuals do not show love in any way to individuals who they share lives with. What I intended to say was that with the campaign for 'gay marriage' comes an explicit desire that the State (and even the Church Herself) approve of homosexual acts and rename them under the banner of 'love' as equal to the conjugal act which takes place between man and woman in the context of marriage. Language is important because it feeds into public understanding of right and wrong. Dressing up those things which are wrong as right and just by altering the language in which we describe them is not the business of the State. If it is the business of the State then it is the business of a State which has extended itself beyond its legitimate remit and has embarked upon a road that eventually leads to totalitarianism - especially when those who speak out against the new State orthodoxy are at first pilloried and eventually silenced.
First and foremost, in this age when many are falling away from the Faith, mainly out of ignorance or laziness, here is a great post from Ascending Mount Carmel blog.
And another post right on target from James Preece at Catholic and Loving it - so you thought that reception by hand was all part of the Second Reformation did you?
To top it all off we have the Holy Father stating that we have suffered from liturgical abuses and irregularities, thanks to Cathcon - so, no more self expression on the sanctuary, hand clapping, kissing or ad libbing!
What a start to the week....can it get any better than this?
The Mission (1986) was a pet project for Fernando Ghia, who spent over a decade bringing this story of Jesuit missionaries in Paraguay to the screen. Teaming with producer David Putnam, director Roland Joffe and writer Robert Bolt, Ghia crafts a powerful epic about faith, religion and imperial politics. If The Mission isn't completely successful, it's certainly admirable in its ambitious treatment of a complex subject.
In 1750s Paraguay, Jesuit Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) spreads Christianity to the Guarani Indians, who are ambivalent towards his faith but receptive to his mission of brotherhood and civilization. He meets up with Mendoza (Robert De Niro), a slave trader who begs penance after killing his brother (Aidan Quinn) in a duel, and later joins Gabriel's order. When Papal legate Cardinal Altamirano (Ray McAnally) arrives to affect a Spanish-Portuguese partition, Gabriel pleads for him to preserve the missions. But Altamirano proves more receptive to the anti-Jesuit Portuguese, making a tragic showdown with the Guarani inevitable.
Visually and aurally, The Mission is undeniably luscious. Joffe provides spirited direction, with Chris Menges's beautiful rain forest photography striking the perfect note of otherworldly serenity. The movie's replete with arresting images: a crucified priest hurtling over a waterfall, the elegant missions, Gabriel's non-violent confrontation with rampaging Spanish troops. Ennio Morricone's remarkable score is among his best: for all the portentious percussion and angelic choirs, its heart is a simple oboe piece, which Gabriel uses to breach the cultural gap with the Guarani.
The Mission provides an intriguing depiction of Christianity. Gabriel's unwavering faith makes him a force for good, shielding the Guarani from slavery, redeeming Mendoza and defending the missions. Mendoza achieves penance by immersing himself in Guarani culture and renouncing violence, until events force his hand. Their delicate approach to missionary work "civilizes" the Guarani while respecting their culture; indeed, the Indians' "spirituality" manifests itself most strongly through music. Religion aside, the Jesuits' actions are unquestionably righteous, faith leading Gabriel and Mendoza to selfless acts of heroism.
Like Bolt's A Man for All Seasons, Mission depicts honorable men hamstrung by a church obsessed with temporal power. Altamirano proves the most intriguing character, a well-meaning but ineffectual bureaucrat all too aware of his failings. He responds spiritually to the Jesuits' efforts but proves more amenable to Spanish and Portuguese persuasino. Lacking the courage to disobey orders, Altamirano tearfully authorizes the Guarani's destruction: "Thus have we made the world. Thus have I made it."
Reflecting contemporary debates, the film contrasts progressive "Liberation Theology" with free market evangelism. Altamirano dismisses a priest's view of collectivization as radical; the priest retorts that he's echoing Christ's own sentiments. Later, the Spanish Governor (Chuck Low) pronounces the Jesuits' mission the work of Satan for opposing commercial exploitation! These parallels become more pointed considering the plight of Archbishop Romero and other left-wing priests in '80s Latin America. The Mission critiques organized religion without ridiculing faith, a tightrope less subtle films fail to navigate.
Yet The Mission doesn't fully flesh out its interesting ideas. Many elements feel half-baked and rushed in the 124 minute timeframe. Mendoza's early struggles are compelling and his penance and redemption beautifully rendered. But he largely disappears from the story afterwards, hence muffling the impact of his reluctant return to violence. On another level, the Guarani themselves are background characters largely without a voice. Additional time or a clearer focus may have better developed these angles.
Jeremy Irons (Elizabeth I) scores with a performane of quiet, unshakeable dignity. Robert De Niro's dour turn is less successful, sublimating a potentially intriguing character. Ray McAnally (Billy Budd) steals the show as the double-dealing Cardinal. Chuck Low (Goodfellas) and Roland Pickup (The Day of the Jackal) play venal politicians, and Liam Neeson has a small part. Father Daniel Berrigan can be briefly glimpsed as a Jesuit.
The Mission is a story of considerable power. It's quite interesting as an examination of personal faith and political treachery; a bit of fine-tuning might have made a classic.
Last week, whilst with Catholic friends our discussion touched on the SSPX.
I was surprised to find our friends making a statement that, up until then, I had only believed in myself in a very private way.
They stated that it was only really when attending an SSPX Mass that they felt that all was right - all was perfect and complete.
I perfectly understand this view and find it refreshing that others believe it also.
That is not to show any disrespect whatsoever to our great priests who struggle in their parishes, offering both the old and the new in an effort to hold all together, to abide by the orders of their Bishop and to the guidance of the Holy Father.
But an SSPX priest, when he celebrates Mass, does so in an environment that is wholly Catholic, wholly at one with Christ.
And he is completely dedicated to the Mass of all Time as is the church where he celebrates Mass.
The air is not defiled by echoes of guitars and tambourines, there has never been any inane pre Mass chatter in the church, no one has ever walked across the path of the tabernacle and bowed instead of genuflecting.
No lay person has ever laid hands on the Blessed Sacrament, the ambience evokes totally the hermeneutic of continuity; when you attend Mass there you are back in the time of Christ. The basic elements of the liturgy that materialised over the first three or four hundred years of Christianity are palpable - Christ lives, God is present!
That is one reason why we so badly need the SSPX back within the fold. They provide the gold standard against which, others may set their benchmark.
When the continuity of tradition has been fractured, and to a large degree lost, it is invaluable to be able to take that missing gem and restore it to its rightful place in the crown that is Christ's.
You are invited to the third Latin Mass Society walking pilgrimage for the conversion of England. We will be walking from Ely to Walsingham from 24 to 26 August 2012. This is a bank-holiday weekend. Pilgrims will meet by 7pm on the evening of Thursday 23 August at the Guide Hall, St. Johns Road, Ely, CB6 3BW. The pilgrimage will begin with the Traditional Mass in St Ethelreda's Catholic Church 19 Egremont Street, Ely, CB6 1AE on Friday morning (Mass at 6.15am).
There will be a sung Traditional Latin Mass each day and Confession will be available throughout the pilgrimage.
Mass on the second day will be in the private chapel at Oxburgh Hall. This is a c15th moated manor house which is still the home of the Bedingfield family who built it nearly six hundred years ago. Oxburgh Hall was a recusant house in penal times and has a priest hole.
During the pilgrimage there will be recitation of the Rosary, the singing of traditional hymns, periods of silence and quiet reflection, and the chance to chat with other pilgrims and to renew friendships, or extablish new ones.
This pilgrimage is open to all ages and to families.
We want to encourage as many families to attend this pilgrimage as possible. For that reason we have secured indoor accommodation for each night. The indoor accommodation is for use by women and children. Women and children are also free to camp if they wish. Camping is compulsory for men, although this will be indoors on the Thursday night. Please note that children under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an adult.
Daily Mass open to everyone - not just pilgrims
If, for any reason, you are unable to take part in the pilgrimage itself, you are more than welcome to attend any or all of the Masses along the way. The details are as follows:
Sunday, 26 August: Chapel of Reconciliation, Catholic National Shrine, Walsingham, 2pm
The Final Day of the Pilgrimage
The pilgrimage will conclude on Sunday afternoon starting at 2pm at the National Shrine in Walsingham (in the Chapel of Reconciliation next to the Slipper Chapel). Pilgrims will have the chance to visit the Slipper Chapel as well. This will be followed by a procession along the Holy Mile from the Slipper Chapel to the ruins of the Abbey in the centre of Walsingham itself. The Abbey grounds have been booked from 4pm and there will be prayers of thanksgiving offered there. The gate to the grounds closes at 5pm, so pilgrims will have the chance to spend some time there, after the conclusion of the pilgrimage.
The Slipper Chapel is so called because pilgrims would traditionally leave their shoes there before walking the Holy Mile to the Holy House of Walsingham, where in the eleventh century Our Lady appeared in a dream to the Lady Richeldis de Faverches and asked her to build a house like the Holy House of Nazareth. The house contained a wooden statue of the Virgin Mary with the child Jesus seated on her lap. A priory was later built beside the Holy House. During the reign of King Henry VIII the priory was closed as part of the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the statue was taken to London and burnt.
Coach from London on the Sunday
For those wishing just to attend the final Mass in Walsingham, there is a coach leaving London on Sunday, 26 August for the final Mass at Walsingham. If you wish to book a place, please phone the LMS office (020 7404 7284).
Can You Lend a Hand? Volunteers Needed!
As the pilgrimage grows from year to year, we need more volunteers to help things run smoothly. We especially need people to help drive support vehicles. All your expenses (petrol etc) will be covered and you will be offered a reduced rate to attend the pilgrimage. We also need people willing to help with stewarding and others to help with the preparation of food. Phone the LMS office on 020 7404 7284 or email us on info@lms.org.uk if you can help. Thank you.
Getting to and from the pilgrimage
The Guide Hall in Ely is a short walk from Ely train station. At the conclusion of the pilgrimage we can take you back to Ely. Please note that the pilgrimage will end at c.5pm on Sunday and it takes approximately an hour and a half to get from Walsingham to Ely.
Should you have any queries about driving to the pilgrimage please contact the LMS office on 020 7404 7284 or email us on info@lms.org.uk
Breaking news, it has just been announced that HM Queen Elizabeth II will meet Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, on her forthcoming tour of Northern Ireland and, more than that, she will shake hands with the man.
Repugnant as it may appear, such events inevitably provoke the phrase "What would Christ do?" and, I am certain that Our Blessed Lord, would shake McGuinness's hand but also tell him: "Go and sin no more".
Sadly, the anniversary of Captain Robert Nairac, a young British officer and a Catholic, foully and brutally murdered by IRA thugs,has just passed and still no member of the IRA will inform the Nairac family as to the whereabouts of Robert's body.
The tragic Nairac affair is told HERE and, of course, his murder took place on Martin McGuinness's watch.
It is a good thing to forgive events of the past and I grudgingly agree that it is good for him to meet Queen Elizabeth but, if McGuinness could now bring some pressure to bear on those who know......then that would truly be a cause for forgiveness and a resolution to the Troubles.
There is no doubt, and few could question the assertion, that love is an incredible thing. Placed in its true and proper context, love is a beautiful thing, if, indeed, it can be described as a ‘thing’.
Of course, love is not actually a thing. If it were a thing, we should possess it. If love is not a thing and we cannot own it, then exactly what is it? What is love? It is important that we ask ourselves the question today because we are entering into a new age in which the very word ‘love’ is claimed by different parties and groups only to mean very different things.
The word, partly due to the emotive power behind the word, is being altered beyond recognition, given new constructions which previous generations have not considered. There are a couple of areas in which the word ‘love’ is being employed to advance a particular set of ideas or an agenda. Two areas in which it is being employed to advance an agenda are the areas in which naturally we as human beings have a great interest: namely these are sex and death.
For instance, it is said by some that the case for assisted suicide can be made because to allow the killing of a suffering individual is or could be, in certain circumstances, a loving act – an act of mercy or of charity.
Few other generations would have countenanced such an idea. Nor would these previous generations have countenanced ‘gay marriage’. There are some important factors as to why this should have been the case. Let us examine some of them.
Until now, Christian societies respected that how we understand love should be guided by the Church and the teachings of Christ. The Church once had a formidable role in defining the Divine and so, naturally, had authority in defining those qualities that find their source and origin in the Divine rather than, say, the media, Nick Clegg, popular opinion, or the State.
Traditionally, 'love' or how we define 'love' – because it had been deemed to be a spiritual ‘thing’, was believed to be the remit of the Church. In fact, outside of the Church, there was little other interpretation of love than the qualities attributed to it by St Paul.
We thought of love as patient, kind, humble, selfless and hopeful. We thought that love was not self-seeking or vain, that love did not seek its own happiness but that of others. Of course, love found expression through human interaction, but we had an understanding that our relationship with love was a struggle because while we may or may not have been men of cheerful or charitable dispositions, it was deemed that to love required an element of both virtue and personal heroism. In terms of human sexuality, love was spousal, bound up with the fusion of man and woman. It was fruitful - it generated new life. It was kind and forgiving.
The commandment, that we should love the Lord our God with all our mind, heart, strength and understanding gave us a vision of love which was both concrete and spiritual. The commandment to ‘love our neighbour’ gave us a vision of love which was practical. A man could love his country, but the cost to him might be that he loses limbs or life in defending it in time of war. The greatest model held up to society of 'love' was presented by the Church to the nation. That model, of course, was Jesus Christ who, in His love, gave up His life so that we might live – that we might have life 'in all its fullness'.
There existed also an understanding that love did not come for free. Love wasn’t cheap or easy. There was a particular appreciation that love involved a measure of self-sacrifice – that love involved us in some measure or manner going beyond ourselves and our own self-interest. This was, in fact, the love that kept marriages together, that held families together like glue through good times and bad, through prosperous times and times of poverty, through sickness and health.
Coupled with this was a curious British reserve. We did not really talk about sex much openly and, in fact, we were rather embarrassed by the whole thing and we resented the Italians, French and Spanish for being comfortable with it. This British reserve, however, also led to us Brits not using the word ‘love’ glibly or liberally. We heard that the French were great 'lovers', but we were right to think that in part that meant they slept around too much. To speak of love was to speak of something very serious, solemn and important. We didn’t bandy the word 'love' around willy-nilly because actually, we were uncomfortable all round with expressing our feelings - even feelings that had nothing to do with sex. Feelings and emotions, if they ran high, ran high behind a newspaper and a pipe.
There was, too, a natural mistrust of our own selves. We believed in Original Sin and so a man could not necessarily believe that just because he was committing adultery that what felt like love was actually 'love' since love was also bound up with duty to one’s own spouse and the spouse of your ‘lover’ and if ever a politician were found to be sleeping with someone other than his wife, he resigned because confidence in his public reputation was lost. Even racy English novels that contained homosexual liaisons had these relationships to be fraught with guilt and sadness.
Now, the word ‘love’ is banded around in a way that is distinctly un-English. What does, for instance, the Queen make of the idea that homosexuals share a ‘love’ that is ‘equal’ to that of a man and a woman who desire to start a family? What we are witnessing is that in an atheistic, more secular age, groups and individuals have set out to rob words of their true meaning – or – certainly, their previous meanings, because in an age of uncertainty, of moral relativism, everything, even love itself, is ‘up for grabs’.
And so, when Nick Clegg says that ‘gay marriage’ will go ahead in order to recognise the ‘love’ of gay couples, few in society will pay his choice of word a second thought. We are now so used to public individuals, politicians and celebrities describing every relationship as being one of ‘love’ (even after the fifth marriage) that few would raise an eyebrow to Mr Clegg’s assurance to the British public that when the State changes the meaning of marriage, it is because of the ‘love’ that homosexuals share. It follows therefore that this love simply must be raised to the official state of marriage (marriage must be redefined), for if it is not, then how can we call ourselves a free, equal, fair and tolerant society?
As I say, few will pour over Clegg’s words, but we really must, as citizens and as Catholics dig a little deeper underneath the soundbites of the Liberal Democrat politician, if we are to discern whether what he is actually saying is true.
For nevermind that the institution of marriage precedes both the Church and the State, it is surely not up to the State now to define the very meaning of the word, ‘love’, for, as I said, if a State does that, it runs the danger of robbing the word of its meaning or of emptying it of its original content to suit its own ends.
For, ironically, what Clegg seeks to change in meaning - love - no State can actually do. No, the State cannot love and it rarely shows clemency. Meditating upon and proclaiming love is, in fact, the Church’s territory and the State is treading on holy ground. If love, too, is to be redefined to mean active homosexual relationships then the State is, in fact, attempting to take possession of that which none can in fact possess, since the very idea of love is rooted in God Himself.
Our understanding of love, in fact, comes from natural law and Christianity. The love of spouses who marry and whose love brings forth children is natural and Christian. The loving of and the education of these children is natural but hitherto also Christian. To love our parents and to look after our elderly relatives is natural but, hitherto, also Christian. To love the poor and feed them is Christian. To love ones country and die for it is heroic and, in principle, Christian and to love God and the Church and to die for both is Christian.
Nick Clegg’s comments deserve some heavy comment and analysis because frankly, if the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is going to speak of love, indeed to preach, then he should grant his people right to reply. For if ‘love’ is what Mr Clegg says it is – namely, two men living a life together and giving each other sexual pleasure – then the very word ‘love’ has been demeaned or at least changed. If that is ‘love’ then we must find a new word for what it means for a man to sacrifice his life and limbs for his country. If that is love, then we need to find a new word to express a man and a woman bringing forth new life into the world through their union and raising those children well. If that is love, then we need to find a new word for what Blessed Teresa of Caluctta did in the slums. If that is love, then we need to find a new word to describe that bond which exists between father and son, mother and daughter, brother and sister, Bishop and priest and, indeed, Queen and country.
To speak of the love that dare not speak its name as ‘love’ that in some way is equal to natural marriage or Christian marriage is to, at best, give a very superficial construction to the word itself, and, at worst, to rob it entirely of its profound and rich spiritual meaning. And, furthermore, when Government begins robbing words of their actual meaning to the point that even the word ‘love’ is no longer a) holy or b) sacred, or associated with either of the two then people should be concerned that the Government is entering into a realm in which it has absolutely no business or right whatsoever.
What theologians and mystics, poets and artists, philosophers and saints have dedicated their whole lives to penetrating – the mystery of love – has been solved by a Liberal Democrat called Nick Clegg. Or has it? Certainly, others, like St Paul, would perhaps disagree with Mr Clegg on his definition. Perhaps the most important of St Paul’s words on love is describing its purity.
‘Love is pure’ said St Paul. If love is pure, as St Paul says, it suggests that it is not, in fact, a human construction at all – since few would maintain that we humans are ‘all pure’. St Paul looks at love and sees in it its Divine origin. He sees the Lover Himself, Christ Crucified shedding His Blood for mankind. When Nick Clegg looks at love, he sees two men sharing a life together and living out a sexual relationship which is, at best, restrictive and linear.
St John says, ‘Let us love one another since God is love’. Nick Clegg says, ‘Let’s have gay marriage because all loves are equal.’ What he has not done is tell us exactly why active homosexual relationships constitute ‘love’ in the first place. It is also noteworthy that the British people are not being given a choice about same-sex marriage despite that an aspect of love is about allowing people choice. Still, we have established already that the State cannot love. God loves us and because God loves us, God allows us, unlike the State, to choose Him, or, indeed not.
See, what concerns me is that in the Church’s understanding, the very word 'love' is rich with profound meaning. Love can drive men to a million different ways of giving themselves to God and their neighbour. Love has driven men to write incredible works for the love of souls. Love has driven people to live in the desert to pray to God without worldly distraction. Love has driven men and women to give up their sexuality as gift for God in religious life. Love has driven men to become missionaries and others to risk their lives in areas of the World in which the Church is openly persecuted. Love has driven couples to be open to children and to raise them in the love of God. Love has driven nuns to care for the sick and dying in Calcutta.
What concerns me most is that through the media the British population are being taught not to think. We are being taught not to probe beneath the surface level of what politicians and other public figures say. We are encouraged to accept it all at face value. Mr Clegg just expects the nation, and seemingly the Royal Family, to accept his pontifications on love and for us not even to think about what he is actually saying. There is, of course, a word for such shallow and superficial comments on matters profound and wonderous by politicians. It is called ‘propaganda’.
Curiously, few in Britain even dare to question the new definition of love as being something that is guided by our groins, rather than by hearts that seek the good and the edification of others.
Perhaps we are so steeped in our own sins, so lost in self-interest that we allow the lie to persist that sex = love and that everything we do, good or ill, is somehow begotten of love. For what is love to 21st century man, woman and child today bares little resemblance to what love was to a man even of the previous two centuries. Stripped of its spiritual meaning, its other-centredness, 'love' is merely pleasure, merely a rollercoaster ride through life which has no focus other than our personal contentment. If it is that then we have destroyed it. We have killed it and we allow others in power to continue to destroy it and to kill it on our behalf.
To 21st century man, love is seemingly what we can extract out of others. It appears to be almost totally self-centred, concerned with satisfying self. When we have extracted all we can, like a bee gathering nectar from a flower, we move onto the next one. The best illustration of it is modern attitude to marriage and the family. We can take it as read that the biggest reason for divorce in this country is that married couples 'fall out of love' with each other or discover that they ‘no longer love one another’. In a previous age, if a man said to a woman, ‘I’m sorry, dear, but I no longer love you,’ the woman would likely say, ‘Well, I struggle to see then in what way you ever loved me.’ Another response could be, ‘What do you mean? Love is a choice.’
'Love' has been so divorced from purity, constancy, loyalty, kindness, patience, long-suffering, selflessness, humility and chastity for so long that we are only lovers so long as we feel like it. Few have paid it much attention, but before our eyes the love which was affixed, anchored to the seabed of Christianity has been cut loose from its moorings and now floats aimlessly out to a sea, amid a veritable ocean of moral relativism. Each man makes claims of the very tip of love, floating past him, saying: ‘That is mine’, clasping at it as if it were his possession, while love itself is no longer what it was because its mooring was in the sea bed, attached to a rock of Faith. Its very being, its very substance was in God. Love belongs to God. Yet the State is now laying claim to an arena which belongs to God, so that love means something different to what it meant to previous generations. This is robbery. Nothing more, nothing less, for, in the Christian understanding, the 'old understanding', love and lust are two entirely separate things. They are not to be conflated or mistaken for each other and it is certainly not up to the State to declare that lust is love. Still, we have, perhaps, only ourselves to blame.
‘God is dead,’ said Nietzche. ‘We have killed Him.’ It is no surprise that an age that delights in rejecting God, too strips the garments from love, strips it bare indeed. No surprise that an age that rejoices when God is banished from the public sphere, too crowns love with thorns, rather than a garland of beautiful flowers. No surprise that an age that abandons God, too abandons all previous understanding of love for something fashionable and easy. No surprise that an age that has no interest in the pierced Victim that loves all men and women, turns away, only to crucify ‘love’ itself.
We understand that, as Christians, we may not always excel at loving. We all fall short of the Glory of God. At the heart of Christianity, however, is a definition of love which is beautiful, which is excellent and which transcends and even forgets self entirely. It is holy. It floods the whole World with the Blood and the Water that gushed forth from the Heart of Christ upon the Cross. It is God. God is Love. If we can say anything of God, we can say that God is Love.
Nick Clegg would be wise, if he cannot appreciate this, not to lecture the public upon it, for he is a politician, not a preacher and his definition not only lacks substance. It lacks beauty and it lacks depth. It is so restrictive that it it is almost hollow. Nick can use whatever rhetorical flourishes he likes to justify that which can never be justified. That’s what politicians do. He should, however, be aware that we are not stupid. He should leave expounding upon love to the Church because while love is not the possession of the Church, the Church's Founder, Father and Sanctifier is Love Itself.
Atheists may say, 'Well who is the Church to say it has the monopoly on love,' to which I would reply, 'Then you tell me, what, then, is love and who are you and more importantly who is the State to define it for all of us? It is, afterall, not your possession. Let's stick with Johnny Cash's eloquent exegesis...'
