Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Book Thief
Based on Markus Zusak's popular novel, The Book Thief (2013) is a major disappointment. Handsomely produced, Brian Percival's adaptation nonetheless feels naggingly superficial.
Germany 1938. Young Liesl (Sophie Nelisse) gets separated from her mother, a political refugee, who leaves Liesel with sweet Hans (Geoffrey Rush) and sour Rosa Huberman (Emily Watson). Liesel warms to her adoptive parents, but has trouble fitting in at school, picked on for her illiteracy and uncomprehending the surfeit of National Socialist propaganda. She befriends precocious Rudy (Nico Liersch) and learns to read, becoming obsessed with books. Trouble beckons when Max (Ben Schnetzer), a young Jew, seeks sanctuary at the Hubermans. World War II breaks out, the government grows more repressive, and the town comes under Allied bombardment.
The Book Thief tries to operate on two levels. Percival and writer Michael Petroni suggest a fantasia, from its child focus to fairytale plotting and silly humor. Portions of Thief are snidely narrated by Death (Roger Allam), a conceit which might work in the book but proves insufferable on film. While explicit violence remains off screen, Percival does depict wartime deprivations: townspeople conscripted into military service, food and supplies running out, air raids devastating the town. The film vacillates between wispy fantasy and weighty drama, never finding the right balance.
Contrasting childhood innocence with crushing totalitarianism is a well-worn conceit, even if children rarely provide the most useful perspective. World War II and the Holocaust provides plenty of examples, from The Diary of Anne Frank to Number the Stars, so this territory's already well-mined. Percival dutifully checks off the Third Reich's greatest hits: stormtroopers burning books, brief glimpses of Kristallnacht and Jews being rounded up. For all the rich period detail, Thief offers little perspective on Nazism.
Liesl and her adoptive parents earn our sympathy, with their warm scenes of family bonding and perseverance in the face of oppression. Everything else feels under-sketched. Liesel and Rudy's friendship never develops beyond stage one, and other child characters are ciphers. Liesl's fascination with reading amounts to a trivial tic. Is she a rebel for saving H.G. Wells from the Nazi bonfire? Thief wants to stress the ability of ideas, the power of words to overcome tyranny (or at least preserve individuality). Outside of the cloying epilogue, Percival treats this idea as superficially as anything else.
Sophie Nelisse gives a warm, endearing performance deserving a much weightier character. Geoffrey Rush is utterly charming, while Emily Watson (War Horse) excels in a more difficult role. None of the other actors, child or adult, makes much impression: Nico Lierisch, as Rudy, is too much a typical movie kid, while Ben Schnetzer's Max is a vaguely likeable cipher. Hildegard Schroedter plays a disappointing character, a book loving noblewoman who grows less interesting the more time we spend with her.
I really wanted to enjoy The Book Thief more. For all its handsome surface, it never achieves the depth or poignancy the subject matter deserves.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Far from Heaven
Far from Heaven (2002) is an amiable stab at old-fashioned filmmaking. Todd Haynes crafts a handsome time capsule of the '50s, paying homage to Douglas Sirk's famous melodramas while exploring the unspoken tensions underneath. Essentially an experiment in nostalgia, it's beautifully crafted and well-acted.
Cathy Whittaker (Julianne Moore) is a model '50s housewife, living in idyllic Connecticut and married to ad executive Frank (Dennis Quaid). But Cathy gradually discovers Frank's secret life; he's a closeted homosexual. Reeling from this revelation, Cathy confides her Raymond (Dennis Haysbert), a kindly black gardener. Cathy and Raymond grow closer, inspiring local gossips to denounce their "improper" relationship. As Frank struggles to control his sexuality more and more, Cathy's life threatens to unspool completely.
Far from Heaven evokes a bygone era of movie-making. Haynes borrows Sirk's gorgeous Technicolor and emotive lighting, with Elmer Bernstein providing a lush old-fashioned score. Haynes mixes deliberately arch, anachronistic dialogue with lightly affected acting. Thanks to photographer Edward Lachman, Heaven never lacks for gorgeous visuals: the period detail and beautiful autumn settings, Cathy and friends' seasonal outfits to Raymond's flannel jackets emulating Rock Hudson in All That Heaven Allows. There's even a rear projected driving scene!
Far from Heaven addresses material that Sirk's films only hinted at. Cathy and friend Eleanor (Patrica Clarkson) discuss sex as an unpleasant chore, subverting the wink-and-nod approach to marital relations. Cathy hints early on at an edge beneath her image; she was nicknamed "Red" in college for supporting progressive causes, making her susceptible to gossip.The townspeople express vague support for Civil Rights, but confronted with real Negros act as bigoted as Orval Faubus. In a society stressing conformity, any deviation from accept norms brings harsh consequences.
All this would be routine enough, on the surface. Deconstructions of '50s white bread conformity are fairly common in our politically correct society. But Haynes reflects not only the look but the attitudes of a '50s film, if the Hayes Office allowed more honesty. In this regard, Heaven puts similar nostalgic efforts like Steven Soderbergh's The Good German to shame.
Haynes shovels on the racist content with a trowel: Raymond's daughter gets stoned by neighborhood punks, a black boy closes a hotel pool by wading in the shallow end. Haynes handles the romance more sensitively, but Raymond's little more than a bland nice guy. Frank's characterization proves more interesting. Full of self-loathing, he picks up men in dingy bars and movie theaters, seeking a psychologist therapist (James Rebhorn) who subjects him to aversion therapy. Yet Frank's efforts at conformity further unhinge him. Homosexuality was then not only taboo but a crime, a mental disease; slammed brutally into the closet, Frank unwittingly destroys his family.
Julianne Moore gives a remarkable performance. Early on she gives a delightfully affected turn, cheerily playing up Cathy's image as "Mrs. Magnitech." Cathy's largely passive, confused by and reacting to currents around her, a character less worthy actresses would squander. But Moore finds the human core beneath the caricature, trapped by her role as wife and homemaker, yet unable to maintain the facade.
Dennis Quaid plays wonderfully against type, all confusion, anguish and self-loathing. Quaid walks a careful tightrope; we're sympathetic to Frank's inner turmoil, even though (or because?) he embraces the prejudices of his peers. Dennis Haysbert is quietly likeable, in a role allowing for little else. Patricia Clarkson (The Untouchables) does excellent work, turning on Cathy once she finds the rumors are true. Viola Davis (Doubt) appears as the Whittaker's maid.
As a cinematic exercise Far from Heaven is highly enjoyable. Whether its appeal stretches beyond cineastes is questionable, though there's certainly enough substance to engage a wide audience.
Wowzer!
I just watched the BBC's programme on Comet ISON. I'm not a science boffin, but I like this Comet from the start because it reminded me of Our Lady - all that blue and white. I also like the fact that after so much investigation scientists cannot work out this Comet. It's 'unpredictable'. Not too unpredictable I hope!
If it has survived, which is seems to have in some shape or form, it might be perfect timing for the procession St Mary Magdalen Church is having on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in Brighton. Do come if you are in the region. If I can remember, I'm going to try and invite some Coptic newsagents and Kebab shop owners. They love Our Lady even though most of these newsagents still sell porn and condoms in their shops.
The latest news on it is here. It seems to have scientists baffled. That's good. I love the fact they still aren't sure how water got here. We Catholics, we love a bit of mystery. Wow. That's pretty amazing footage. I'm a medievalist, so I'll be counting my beads...
Our Eucharistic Faith
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
The Gospel seem to present the Eucharistic discourse in St John in quite stark terms. Jesus spoke and taught with great clarity - especially on the controversy of the Real Presence. No parables are given by the Lord here. This is stark and authoritative teaching. That He would give His Body and Blood as food and drink for the life of the World continues to divide today. There are some who take care to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament and to kneel in order to adore the Eucharistic Jesus and some who think better of it. The Gospel presents the controversy as a bombshell that splits the disciples with only St Peter - the Prince of the Apostles - to defend the doctrine presented to them by responding that Jesus has the words of eternal life. The first Pope would go on to presumably defend this doctrine, as would all Popes who would follow him in succession.
It is fascinating that at this point in the Eucharistic discourse, the narrator decides to place within the account that line.
'Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.'
Those who 'would not believe' and those who would are tied to to the Eucharist and the Real Presence, not just to any general or vague aspect of Jesus's teaching. It seems to be the point on which people decide to depart from Jesus or to follow Him. This seems to be the fault-line running through the followers of Jesus. Notice that those who cannot accept this doctrine really do leave and we are not told whether they come back or not. They do not continue to follow Jesus, apart from the one who would betray Him, who had, we assume, stopped following him already in his heart. At no point does Judas, who sees Jesus in political (and then economic or currency) terms, seem to be a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and God, but only as a 'master' or as a teacher. Those who walk away and the one who will betray (note they are lumped together) cannot accept the doctrine that Jesus taught on the Real Presence - that He will be - is - the Bread of Life, our Eucharistic food.
On belief in His Divinity, so tied up with His giving of His flesh and blood to His followers, the Gospel of St John again shows Jesus starkly and clearly stating that belief in Him is necessary for salvation.
'Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.'
Jesus didn't 'take any prisoners' with His teaching and yet Pope Francis, who has said some more novel things about faith and justification, calls Him the greatest evangeliser - the evangeliser 'par excellence'. Neither, it seems, did Jesus do anything to stop those who He knew would either walk away, or betray Him. It seems that, right from the beginning, the acceptance of His message was more important to Him than the number of people who would accept it. He did not try to make His message more palatable, to remain relevant to the people or attract more followers. If the message of Jesus was popular for a time in His Ministry on Earth, everything would seem to have changed at this crucial moment, when He reveals the Eucharistic dimension of His Mission. His Truth was more important in His Earthly Ministry, than the number of people following Him.
Final Roll Call for Guild Meeting
Come to the Guild Meeting.
Email me at englandsgardens@googlemail.com and Fr Tim Finigan at blackfencatholic@gmail.com to confirm your attendance.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
My Boss and Capitalism
Tim Stanley has today written a neat little piece on Pope Francis's exhortation. Well worth reading. I don't have a big axe to grind against capitalism.
I work in a cafe in Brighton. My boss pays me not very much an hour. I think its just above the national minimum wage. I have no formal contract, so I cannot even speak of a 'zero hours contract'. There are no formal contracts for any of his employees.
He doesn't give sick pay to any of his employees. He doesn't give holiday pay to any of his employees and I guess if one of them needed it, there would be no maternity pay either. I am employed to work when he wants me or the cafe needs extra assistance. I am on a rota, but if the weather is bad they call me up and say, 'We don't need you today'. Well, I never know what the weather's really going to do, so I'm really his slave.
Meanwhile, he makes a lot of money, so I hear. Apparently, he's doing really well.
I ask you: Is the problem with this arrangement capitalism, or is my boss just a ****er?
I would sooner that my boss was free to run a cafe and screw his employees over in the process (which is, on the face of it, what he does, though we are all 'grateful for the work in these times of austerity') and get rich, than the State take over his cafe and run EVERYTHING, including cafes.
Yes, I know there are laws that cover this, but ultimately, it is catering and nobody at my workplace feels they can do anything about it because he can just find someone else who will do it his way. Let's face it, if he sacked us, he could always find some Polish workers or other immigrants who would probably be only happy to work in similar conditions.
I don't think I believe in 'structural sin' and its pretty recent for the Church to become obsessed with changing 'sinful' structures in society. Strange that at the same time, unjust laws, such as on abortion received less notice from Bishops. There is an element in the Pope's recent exhortation that focuses on the sinful 'structures' in society and capitalism, politics, etc, etc. We have heard so much of this recently from Bishops Conferences. I don't like it, though I do understand that as long as you talk about sinful 'structures' in society, people will believe you are relevant and nobody will be offended, because as long as the sin belongs to a structure than to people, then nobody will repent because the structures need to repent or undergo a 'conversion'...like the papacy, for instance...though I must confess I, unlike Bobby Mickens and Tina Beattie, did not hitherto understand the papacy to be a gross human evil blighting the Church and the World.
What I'm considering doing, however, is soon approaching my employer and saying something along the lines of this:
I think that's what St Anthony of Padua would do. By the way, this man is a Catholic!
Now, if you just extend this to multinational corporations, I think you'll get the gist that all companies are full of people just like my boss is a person, not a structure. The problem is not necessarily the corporations, yet I guess you don't get to the top without stepping on a few toes. The problem is people who work within them responsible for their company's rampant and ruthless activity, especially owners, with little time it seems to see to the examination of their consciences. I do not, for instance, believe that 'Primark' are evil. I do believe that there exist senior figures within Primark who are a bit like my manager only more so. The problem is Original Sin and unless the Holy Father has done away with it (and I do not believe he can) these kind of problems will always persist. In other words, 'The poor you have with you always.' People will always screw other people over for a bit of extra cash, so what can we do?
We cannot make avarice illegal without reverting to State control of everything. We can preach Christ Crucified. He conquers hearts, not institutions or structures. Preach repentance. Preach on the evil of avarice and how many souls end up in Hell because they loved money too much and worshipped it as their God while starving or neglecting the poor or refusing to acknowledge the labour of their workers with generosity. Jesus is Lord and Saviour and forgives every sin of every person who desires His forgiveness. He wants to change us. Jesus changes people's lives, not the lives of structures. Jesus cannot forgive 'structures' or 'systems'. He cares how you treat your employees and He will see justice done for the poor.
People forget that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is about a spiritual as well as moral reality. One of these guys goes to Heaven and one goes to Hell. Both destinations are everlasting. Christ maintained that how we treat the poor had not just effects which are temporal (poverty, suffering, hunger) for the poor, but eternal (damnation) for the rich! Unfortunately, I don't really pick up too much about Eternal Life or repentance in this exhortation. We all need repentance.
If you want to save your soul, as a Catholic, be generous, be kind, be forgiving and loving. If you have employees, treat them well! It is not rocket science. Jesus cares how we treat others - our neighbour. It is not about creating an earthly paradise of justice, peace, brotherhood and love, though this is a wonderful potential benefit of the primary reason for our existence - the Salvation of our souls through a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
This life is ultimately about saving your immortal soul. It is the choice between Jesus and Eternal Life or the Devil and Eternal Death. It is the choice between vice and virtue, Life or Death, avarice or liberality. The idolatry of money is obviously an issue for my boss. It's probably an issue for me. Avarice is a deadly sin, but it is a sin that belongs to people, not structures. It requires individual conversion to Jesus Christ to overcome it, like Pride, Lust and all of them. No sin can be conquered by the State. Jesus, it is He, who has conquered sin and death. He alone can lead us to the true liberty of the children of God. Say a prayer for my boss. He shares the same name as our Supreme Pontiff, though now that the papacy is to undergo a conversion, for how long a Pontiff is to be Supreme is now anybody's guess.
I believe in "trickle-down theory", but it seems obvious to me that it is people, not structures that do not desire money to necessarily "trickle down". St Francis of Assisi preached to people, not institutions. He preached repentance to people, not structures. He preached a relationship with Jesus Christ that leads to Eternal Life, not a vision of communitarianism for its own end, though I would never suggest this is the Holy Father's idea of Catholic Social Teaching. We will all die. We will all be judged. Our Lady had the Beatific Vision before her eyes at all times and I expect she was very, very kind to the poor. For Catholics, this is surely the only vision that will do. Nothing else will satisfy the human heart but Jesus and the love of Him!
I work in a cafe in Brighton. My boss pays me not very much an hour. I think its just above the national minimum wage. I have no formal contract, so I cannot even speak of a 'zero hours contract'. There are no formal contracts for any of his employees.
He doesn't give sick pay to any of his employees. He doesn't give holiday pay to any of his employees and I guess if one of them needed it, there would be no maternity pay either. I am employed to work when he wants me or the cafe needs extra assistance. I am on a rota, but if the weather is bad they call me up and say, 'We don't need you today'. Well, I never know what the weather's really going to do, so I'm really his slave.
Meanwhile, he makes a lot of money, so I hear. Apparently, he's doing really well.
I ask you: Is the problem with this arrangement capitalism, or is my boss just a ****er?
I would sooner that my boss was free to run a cafe and screw his employees over in the process (which is, on the face of it, what he does, though we are all 'grateful for the work in these times of austerity') and get rich, than the State take over his cafe and run EVERYTHING, including cafes.
Yes, I know there are laws that cover this, but ultimately, it is catering and nobody at my workplace feels they can do anything about it because he can just find someone else who will do it his way. Let's face it, if he sacked us, he could always find some Polish workers or other immigrants who would probably be only happy to work in similar conditions.
I don't think I believe in 'structural sin' and its pretty recent for the Church to become obsessed with changing 'sinful' structures in society. Strange that at the same time, unjust laws, such as on abortion received less notice from Bishops. There is an element in the Pope's recent exhortation that focuses on the sinful 'structures' in society and capitalism, politics, etc, etc. We have heard so much of this recently from Bishops Conferences. I don't like it, though I do understand that as long as you talk about sinful 'structures' in society, people will believe you are relevant and nobody will be offended, because as long as the sin belongs to a structure than to people, then nobody will repent because the structures need to repent or undergo a 'conversion'...like the papacy, for instance...though I must confess I, unlike Bobby Mickens and Tina Beattie, did not hitherto understand the papacy to be a gross human evil blighting the Church and the World.
What I'm considering doing, however, is soon approaching my employer and saying something along the lines of this:
"Look, you make loads of cash out of this cafe and you don't even give your staff a decent wage for our work, nor a contract, nor much else. Meanwhile, as well as robbing your staff of their basic working rights (I hate the word 'entitlements') this is a lovely cafe which could feed the homeless once a week in the evening, since it would amount to only a small percentage of the massive profit I am told you make out of this joint, and yet you still won't give water to customers in the summer for free, claiming that the water is off, when its not, even though you are minted because you are that stingy! Oh...and Jesus and Mary love you! Have you thought of coming back to Holy Mother Church full-time?"
I think that's what St Anthony of Padua would do. By the way, this man is a Catholic!
Now, if you just extend this to multinational corporations, I think you'll get the gist that all companies are full of people just like my boss is a person, not a structure. The problem is not necessarily the corporations, yet I guess you don't get to the top without stepping on a few toes. The problem is people who work within them responsible for their company's rampant and ruthless activity, especially owners, with little time it seems to see to the examination of their consciences. I do not, for instance, believe that 'Primark' are evil. I do believe that there exist senior figures within Primark who are a bit like my manager only more so. The problem is Original Sin and unless the Holy Father has done away with it (and I do not believe he can) these kind of problems will always persist. In other words, 'The poor you have with you always.' People will always screw other people over for a bit of extra cash, so what can we do?
We cannot make avarice illegal without reverting to State control of everything. We can preach Christ Crucified. He conquers hearts, not institutions or structures. Preach repentance. Preach on the evil of avarice and how many souls end up in Hell because they loved money too much and worshipped it as their God while starving or neglecting the poor or refusing to acknowledge the labour of their workers with generosity. Jesus is Lord and Saviour and forgives every sin of every person who desires His forgiveness. He wants to change us. Jesus changes people's lives, not the lives of structures. Jesus cannot forgive 'structures' or 'systems'. He cares how you treat your employees and He will see justice done for the poor.
People forget that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is about a spiritual as well as moral reality. One of these guys goes to Heaven and one goes to Hell. Both destinations are everlasting. Christ maintained that how we treat the poor had not just effects which are temporal (poverty, suffering, hunger) for the poor, but eternal (damnation) for the rich! Unfortunately, I don't really pick up too much about Eternal Life or repentance in this exhortation. We all need repentance.
If you want to save your soul, as a Catholic, be generous, be kind, be forgiving and loving. If you have employees, treat them well! It is not rocket science. Jesus cares how we treat others - our neighbour. It is not about creating an earthly paradise of justice, peace, brotherhood and love, though this is a wonderful potential benefit of the primary reason for our existence - the Salvation of our souls through a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
This life is ultimately about saving your immortal soul. It is the choice between Jesus and Eternal Life or the Devil and Eternal Death. It is the choice between vice and virtue, Life or Death, avarice or liberality. The idolatry of money is obviously an issue for my boss. It's probably an issue for me. Avarice is a deadly sin, but it is a sin that belongs to people, not structures. It requires individual conversion to Jesus Christ to overcome it, like Pride, Lust and all of them. No sin can be conquered by the State. Jesus, it is He, who has conquered sin and death. He alone can lead us to the true liberty of the children of God. Say a prayer for my boss. He shares the same name as our Supreme Pontiff, though now that the papacy is to undergo a conversion, for how long a Pontiff is to be Supreme is now anybody's guess.
I believe in "trickle-down theory", but it seems obvious to me that it is people, not structures that do not desire money to necessarily "trickle down". St Francis of Assisi preached to people, not institutions. He preached repentance to people, not structures. He preached a relationship with Jesus Christ that leads to Eternal Life, not a vision of communitarianism for its own end, though I would never suggest this is the Holy Father's idea of Catholic Social Teaching. We will all die. We will all be judged. Our Lady had the Beatific Vision before her eyes at all times and I expect she was very, very kind to the poor. For Catholics, this is surely the only vision that will do. Nothing else will satisfy the human heart but Jesus and the love of Him!
To Blackfen, the bloggers' parish of Our Lady of the Rosary
Memories of the inaugural meeting that determined the establishment of the Guild |
And, at 1pm a fine lunch in the Parish clubhouse (donations to be made for the victuals).
Finally, at 2.30pm an informal meeting.
All good, sound, orthodox Catholic stuff.
I look forward to it immensely.
If you are joining the merry throng, you may find the 'How to get to Blackfen' directions from the parish website helpful.
They are to be found HERE.
And, if you are unable to be there, please spare a prayer for the Guild and its followers.
So, there will be a brief intermission and posts will resume as normal on Monday 2nd December.
The Promethean Great Comet of 2013: Is it a Pelagian?
Space Station: "Houston. I think we have a Promethan Neo-Pelagian here. What do you make of it? Over."
Houston: "What the heck is a Promethean Neo-Pelagian? Over."
Space Station: "I don't know but it looks like we're about to find out. For the time being, check out this blog for an exploration of the subject. Over."
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
What has Wales done to deserve such treatment?
Oh, woe, woe and thrice woe, pity the poor afflicted Catholics of Wales.
Here we are, hungry for the Latin Mass and for the clear doctrinal teachings of Christ and what do we get?
A trinity of Bishops for the three dioceses of Wales who are most accomplished, it appears, in the episcopal art of sitting on one's hands.
At least Nero produced a good tune while Rome incinerated.
The lead Diocese (Archdiocese of Cardiff) embraces our capital city and a fair old slice of English borderlands.
But does it provide in accord with Summorum Pontificum?
Hardly at all. One or two doughty priests offer the Mass of all Time in far flung corners of the Archdiocese but that's it.
In fact, by my very rough reckoning, less than five per cent of diocesan priests are able to offer the Latin Mass.
Menevia is much the same.
Home to the National Shrine of Wales, Our Lady of Cardigan, (not that you would know it) it again offers lip service to those who follow the old rite.
Not that the work undertaken by those committed priests who minister to the traditional community is not appreciated. It is just that we should have more.
And, finally, the Diocese of Wrexham, under new management since last year when Bishop Peter Brignall was installed.
This Bishop is certainly following in his predecessor's footsteps (ahem).
The Diocese appears to have been either overtaken by Martians or the victim of a selective nuclear strike, judging by the resounding silence emanating from North Wales.
Just how, I wonder, has Bishop Brignall fulfilled his installation pledge of resolving to build up God's Church?
There's not much in evidence on the Diocesan website.
The Bishop's diary lists the usual vitally important series of diocesan meetings and then, for Holy Week we have Maundy Thursday replaced with 'The Lord's Supper' and Good Friday has disappeared to be replaced with a 'Celebration of The Lord's Passion.'
Nitpicking, I may be but I dislike the most serious and grave days in the liturgical year being subject to euphemisms.
To be a traditional Catholic in Wales in these troubled times you definitely need brains, or, rather, Brains.
No, this is not a call to the intellect (on this blog, you cannot be serious?) but it is a call to Brains bitter.
To be more specific, the Reverend James bitter from Brains Brewery in Cardiff.
I find the occasional pint, or two, of "the Rev" as it is colloquially known, goes a long way to reducing my blood pressure that is so subject to episcopal inadequacies.
But, I would forgo that pleasure if their Lordships stepped up to the mark and provided us with an EF Mass in every parish on every Sunday and Holyday.
That would certainly build up God's Church, if that is what the Bishops want.
Here we are, hungry for the Latin Mass and for the clear doctrinal teachings of Christ and what do we get?
A trinity of Bishops for the three dioceses of Wales who are most accomplished, it appears, in the episcopal art of sitting on one's hands.
At least Nero produced a good tune while Rome incinerated.
The lead Diocese (Archdiocese of Cardiff) embraces our capital city and a fair old slice of English borderlands.
But does it provide in accord with Summorum Pontificum?
Hardly at all. One or two doughty priests offer the Mass of all Time in far flung corners of the Archdiocese but that's it.
In fact, by my very rough reckoning, less than five per cent of diocesan priests are able to offer the Latin Mass.
Menevia is much the same.
Home to the National Shrine of Wales, Our Lady of Cardigan, (not that you would know it) it again offers lip service to those who follow the old rite.
Not that the work undertaken by those committed priests who minister to the traditional community is not appreciated. It is just that we should have more.
And, finally, the Diocese of Wrexham, under new management since last year when Bishop Peter Brignall was installed.
This Bishop is certainly following in his predecessor's footsteps (ahem).
The Diocese appears to have been either overtaken by Martians or the victim of a selective nuclear strike, judging by the resounding silence emanating from North Wales.
Just how, I wonder, has Bishop Brignall fulfilled his installation pledge of resolving to build up God's Church?
There's not much in evidence on the Diocesan website.
The Bishop's diary lists the usual vitally important series of diocesan meetings and then, for Holy Week we have Maundy Thursday replaced with 'The Lord's Supper' and Good Friday has disappeared to be replaced with a 'Celebration of The Lord's Passion.'
Nitpicking, I may be but I dislike the most serious and grave days in the liturgical year being subject to euphemisms.
To be a traditional Catholic in Wales in these troubled times you definitely need brains, or, rather, Brains.
No, this is not a call to the intellect (on this blog, you cannot be serious?) but it is a call to Brains bitter.
To be more specific, the Reverend James bitter from Brains Brewery in Cardiff.
I find the occasional pint, or two, of "the Rev" as it is colloquially known, goes a long way to reducing my blood pressure that is so subject to episcopal inadequacies.
But, I would forgo that pleasure if their Lordships stepped up to the mark and provided us with an EF Mass in every parish on every Sunday and Holyday.
That would certainly build up God's Church, if that is what the Bishops want.
Bones of Contention
Damian Thompson writes today on questions raised from His Holiness's latest Exhortation. Yes there are many. Here are a few of mine...
Question 1. Does the holder of the Office of the Papacy own it? Is it his possession or is he custodian and guardian of both the Office and the Deposit of Faith?
Question 2. The Lord Jesus Christ, Victorious Head of the Church, His Bride, calls every Pope to conversion and indeed all human beings to conversion. We are called as Catholics to continual conversion of life. The Office of the Papacy is not a human being, so what does the Pope mean?
Question 3. What would a 'conversion' of the Papacy look like? It's not a loft.
Question 4. Does Our Lord Jesus Christ get any say in this at all or is it something His Holiness would like to do since His Holiness is asking conversion of others? Has Our Lord been consulted? Has St Peter? My my, Your Holiness. Going by your words it would appear that you are ambitious, indeed!
A reader has also sent me an image of an interesting, if theologically problematic Rosary obtained from Fatima (of all places!). Pope Francis, Your Holiness, I am your spiritual child in God, but even if nobody around you sanctioned these Rosaries, you and the circus that surrounds you are beginning to terrify me...
We Have Seen the Humility...Now for the Ambition
There is lots of opinion out there on the Exhortation, but have you read it? |
Comment and opinion has already been fired into the world wide web concerning the Holy Father's exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. How did they read it so quickly? This new document is not easy to read at all and it is a confusingly long 'manifesto'. I am known to walk into a few cul-de-sacs when I write and sometimes suffer from what they call a 'butterfly mind'. Sometimes what I write just goes on and on. At such times, I think its most likely my 'ego' taking over. We Catholics know it as intellectual Pride.
Today, I spoke to someone who has written a piece on it having read the document (and this person was telling the truth). The individual said it was 'exhausting' that it "took five hours" - the average length of a Fidel Castro speech. I'm not sure if the individual meant five hours to write the article or five hours to read it. It is certainly not easy to digest. In fact, I've now read as much as I can without my eyes bleeding and I have to come back to it again and again. There are real nuggets in there, as well as some 'Hold on, what do you mean by that?' moments that we have come to expect, but its so long and dense it will take me ages to find them again. Much of it forms a kind of summary of the first nine months of this papacy, like a 'collected works' of the Holy Father's homilies and statements in the media - 'Thoughts of Pope Francis: Collected Works'.
Gosh, three paragraphs already! It is not that I come away from this exhortation with nothing, but I was hoping to find out more about the Pope's vision than I had already heard and read. The initial burning of my heart within me in the first thousand words gives way to torpor. Sorry -'I want to be completely honest in this regard'. It is so heartening to read Francis's defence of the unborn and the dignity of all human life, but within it, an enigmatic appeal to readers concerning his own power to change Church teaching is slightly disturbing:
“Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or ‘modernisations’. It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?
His Holiness surely need not sound apologetic for teaching the Truth. It may sound pedantic, but the Successor of St Peter need not say that in this regard 'I want to be completely honest', because we do not expect him to be anything else but honest. He is, after all, the Pope, who one would expect to be completely honest in every regard. Who is proof-reading this Pope? Would the individual please step forward because it sounds as if the Pope is saying to the abortion lobby, "Believe me, if I could change the truth...I would!' while it is in fact the Jesus Christ, Who is the Truth that sets us free.
Certainly, it is not progressive to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life, but is not the whole problem about 'progressive' solutions to human dilemmas that they degrade, diminish or destroy humanity? None of the progressive solutions are anything but 'final solutions' for humanity - part of the 'throwaway culture'. This is a theme that runs throughout abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, artificial contraception, human embryology, IVF and the list of crimes with which we are so familiar now as the 'Culture of Death'. I omit from this list homosexual unions known as 'marriage', because this global trend seems to have dropped off the Papal radar, but for an oblique reference to marriage being at times 'modified'. Presumably adherents of this branch of 'adolescent progressivism' will have to be 'let down gently' in the next exhortation.
'We have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?'
Who indeed? You can make a donation to The Good Counsel Network, who run on a shoestring of resources here. Obviously, the Holy Father is not suggesting that we accompany women to the abortion clinic and hold their hands during the murderous procedure or that rape or poverty is a justifiable solution to 'the painful situation' of pregnancy, but such words could be misinterpreted when taken out of their original context. Having just re-stated the Church's timeless teaching, some wily souls could read the Holy Father's words as a nudge and a wink to the emotive power of poverty and rape as situations in which the decision over whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term is assigned a 'special status'.
I say this only because this is the constant refrain of the pro-abortion lobby and a powerful tool in their propaganda for the war on women and children. So effective is it, indeed, that the Pope seemingly has to mention these instances so as to appear conciliatory in an era in which the US President believes that to give birth because of an 'unexpected' or unwanted pregnancy is to be 'punished' with a baby while promoting IVF as the way to be 'blessed' with a baby. The 'painful situation' alluded to is not the baby or pregnancy - it is the instance rape, or the situation of poverty, but will everyone realise that from the Pope's words? Most likely not.
To concede that pregnancy in a situation of extreme poverty is a 'painful situation' runs the risk of creating an 'idol of money' that puts a price on human life. It may sound cold, but the painful situation is not the arrival of a new baby, but extreme poverty and it should be noted that it is in countries and vicinities of extreme poverty that the population control junkies at the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - as well as respective Governments - plough their respective gargantuan piles of cash - not into education and poverty relief - but into 'new vaccines', abortion facilities, sterilisation and artificial contraception promotion to assist in the decimation of the African population! In fact, if these nations want Western 'aid' they have to accept our 'population control' ideas as conditions of that aid, a fact not mentioned by Pope Francis, but condemned by Pope Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate.
I note too, indeed, that on the issues of artificial contraception, sterilisation and the range of weapons in the arsenal of the population control billionaires and trillionaires, spread across the globe by such dynastic families as the Rockefellers and such global investors as George Soros, this Pope remains eerily silent. Everyone says this Pope's life is in danger from the mafia. Well, as long as he doesn't name names in the global war on humanity by a powerful elite of eugenically minded families who think they own the planet, frankly, I don't see it happening!
The Catholic Manifesto
At which point we come to the crunch of the blueprint which is either naive or a ladder step in what some would see as a grand deception, should The Catholic Manifesto ever be implemented. His Holiness is asking the powerful banking elite to be part of a restructuring of the global economy that places mankind and his environment first and that puts banking and the financial sector at the service of man for man's betterment and flourishing in all aspects of human life.
The kind of men who rule the World, the kind of men who own the gold, the kind of men who run the banking industry and notably, the media, the kind of men who His Holiness is addressing are not in the slightest bit interested in restructuring the economy in order that man might benefit and that the sanctity of life may be respected as human beings flourish in families and prosperity. They are, however, interested in 'restructuring' man so that he may better and more faithfully serve the economic model, whatever form or shape that takes.
It may be 'unbridled capitalism', or it may be that this 'model' will come to the end of its usefulness. Globalisation ensures that whether it is capitalism or communism or a perfect but barbaric synthesis of the two, the banking sector's particular ideology can be negotiable. For example, parts of the New York banking sector were happy to fund the Russian Revolution and sustain for a time that which came in its wake with never an apology or thought for the resulting 30-40 million dead people, so its not like the banking sector cannot be persuaded to buy into a 'big idea'. Today, China of controlled population infamy and zero human rights for everyone is where international investors are 'hedging their bets'.
The Holy Father desires that these people who work consistently, ruthlessly and conspiratorially against all for which Christ and His Church stands work with the Church to create a new and better society that places man and his needs at the centre of its economic life. Meanwhile, 'Why not turn to God and ask him to inspire their plans?' is a question that could be addressed to the elite banking sector as well as to politicians who so often do their bidding.
Well...
'No single act of love for God will be lost, no generous effort is meaningless, no painful endurance is wasted.' ~ Pope Francis
In reading this Exhortation, you will have fulfilled all three, thanks in part to Pope Francis's humility but largely also to his ambition. 'I dream of a “missionary option”' writes the Pope in his exhortation. Ah, Holy Father, I, yes, I too am a dreamer, but even I who am a dreamer knows that this 'Catholic Manifesto' will succeed only if either the Church is co-opted by the global banking elite from the inside as part of a New World Order with a One World Religion based on a Big Brotherhood Cult of Man that eliminates all who don't agree with it, or the banking elite convert to the Faith of Christ and worship Him as God. Hmm...which one's more likely as we approach the 100th anniversary of the visions of Fatima? Start 'hedging your bets' now, why not, or a spread bet on both?
Apologies, readers, for a post that is a little too long. If you don't applaud, obviously you'll be taken and outside and shot. There is much to recommend in the Holy Father's new exhortation, in terms of evanglisation, and his thoughts on the poor, but I encourage you to read it and discover these gems yourselves. Happy reading!
The magic Mass that makes children disappear
Our eldest daughter is, (Dg) a staunch traditional Catholic.
In fact, I vividly recall her words when, ten or more years ago, she left home for University and Mrs Linen and I held our breath to see if the ship would float or sink.
Our fears were groundless. As she was studying in Cardiff there was no chance of a Latin Mass but she reported how she had gone to a Novus Ordo on her first 'independent' Sunday and came away profoundly underwhelmed.
Her words ring in my ears today: "There's no need to worry Daddy, the new Mass was so bad it's certain that we are doing the right thing."
And now, as the mother of two small children and living on the northern boundaries of the Archdiocese of Westminster, she has returned to the new Mass despite her feelings towards it remaining unchanged.
Why? What could be the cause of such a move?
Well, Westminster is not exactly the hot hub of Latin Masses.
In fact they are as rare as a rib-eye steak in a vegetarian restaurant.
And, where they are available they are scheduled at times that make it virtually impossible for small children to attend. Not by chance, methinks.
So, our daughter has returned to the OF Mass and we applaud her move.
It is vital that small children grow into the Faith by means of practice and example and, in the absence of a Latin Mass, a vernacular one will do for the time being.
And, she reported, after her first Mass, on something quite magical that took place.
At the start of Mass the celebrant called all the children present up to the sanctuary whereupon, various lay people emerged from the shadows and led the children out of the church by a side door.
Naturally alarmed by such a move she retrieved our two grandchildren aged five and two respectively and received a studied glare from the priest as a result.
The Mass commenced and then, abracadabra, the children reappeared half way through, clutching sheets of paper with their artistic efforts.
You can imagine the scene, at a period of utmost importance in the Mass, when twenty five children mill around complete with their drawings.
And then, just as my daughter expected things to settle down, the children were taken away for a second time, never to be seen again.
Magic!
Actually, more like black magic really.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Walker
"It is not every man who's offered a country of his very own!" |
In the 1850s, American adventurer William Walker (Ed Harris) leads an unsuccessful invasion of Sonora, Mexico. Walker considers retiring, but his fiancee's (Marlee Matlin) death prompts him to conquer Nicaragua for Cornelius Vanderbilt's (Peter Boyle) railroad company. Leading a polyglot band of freebooters, known as the "Immortals," Walker liberates Nicaragua, appointing himself military commander while placing a pliant puppet in the Presidency. But Walker's regime grows more repressive, turning the Nicaraguans, Vanderbilt and his own men against him. Walker still considers himself a "man of destiny," confident that faith will see him through.
Politically and artistically, Walker is remarkably subversive. Besides shooting in Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua, Cox employs a rococo aesthetic, mixing period detail with riotous anachronisms. Characters drink Coca-Cola, read Newsweek and use IBM computers in 1850s Nicaragua. The incongruities extend further: Cox scores battle scenes to lively salsa music, employing slow motion and grisly blood squibs to make Sam Peckinpah blanch. Actors perform Julius Caesar in a riot-torn city. Vanderbilt appears in extreme close-up like an Eisenstein villain, an effect undercut by flatulence.
Filibustering was a long-standing tradition until the Civil War. Possibly the most famous is Aaron Burr, who left the Vice Presidency to claim the Louisiana Purchase as a private fiefdom. Contemporary with Walker, John Fremont established California's Bear Flag Republic, Narciso Lopez invaded Cuba and Irish-American Fenians constantly raided into Canada. Aside from Fremont these men failed, but sewed chaos abroad while commanding much admiration at home.
Historian Robert E. May frames filibustering as the logical extension of "Manifest Destiny." After all, 19th Century America expelled Native Americans and conquered half of Mexico, spreading destruction and slavery alongside democracy. Walker and Co. were merely small-time players in the same market. Likewise, Cox and writer Rudy Wurlitzer depict Walker as the Id of American adventurism, much as Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo equated the Mafia with Big Business.
Appropriately, Cox sends up the absurdity of aggrandizing epics. Walker provides a narration track that incongruously glorifies his squalid actions. (Anytime his troops "liberate" a town, it's accompanied by plunder and bloodshed.) Walker and his Nicaraguan lover (Blanca Guerra) speak in different languages, yet understand each other perfectly. This neatly pastiches the absurdity of standard biopics, transmogrifying historical figures into marble models. Walker borders on cartoon, yet surely the cinematic treatment doled out to, say, Lincoln and Gandhi isn't less ridiculous?
Similarly, Cox and Wurlitzer use Walker to deconstruct the "Great Man" view of history. Justifying his actions with abstractions about God and Democracy, yet admits he doesn't understand his own principles. He sees no incongruity between introducing slavery to Nicaragua and upholding "freedom." His grasp of military tactics consists of walking unarmed towards dumbfounded Nicaraguan troops. Ultimately Walker's campaign becomes not a political or moral crusade, but megalomania writ large.
Ed Harris gives arguably his best performance. Constantly reserved and intense, completely unironic, Harris mixes flinty determination, unlikely naivety and disturbing singlemindedness. Walker isn't so much power mad as blind to reality: he's determined to make an impact, regardless of (and oblivious to) the actual results. It's a masterful turn, humorous yet unsettling, that Harris sells beautifully.
It's Harris's show all the way, but Cox throws the supporting cast a few bones. Rene Auberjounois gets the best secondary role, as a German mercenary who holds Walker to ridicule. Bianca Guerra proves quite memorable as a Nicaraguan matron who seduces and tries to manipulate Walker. Peter Boyle sweats and farts through his scenes, a broad caricature of capitalist avarice. Marlee Maitlin gets some funny bits before bowing out early. Joe Strummer of The Clash, who also produced the soundtrack, cameos as one of Walker's men.
Walker was a colossal flop, damaging Cox's budding career. No doubt Cox's radical politics played a part in its failure, though his artistic excesses undoubtedly turned off mainstream audiences. Definitely not for all tastes, it's nonetheless a remarkable experiment.
Christmas is coming...Buy the Holy Father a Gift
Littlewoods are selling these delightful slippers for those cold winter months.
Buy the Holy Father a present for just £25.00.
Buy the Holy Father a present for just £25.00.
What abuses existed before Vatican II?
I promised a friend that I would write on my experiences (as a callow youth) in the years preceding the Second Vatican Council.
One question that she posed was: "There must have been abuses because the changes were accepted so quickly and readily" (my paraphrasing of her comments).
Well, I am sure there were abuses but whatever they were they were not recognised as such.
By and large, the Church in Westminster Diocese (which was the only region within my knowledge at that age) was boringly the same as it had been for many years. For centuries, in fact.
Mass was in Latin, not a Novus Ordo in sight.
Parishioners knew little of divorce and even less about cohabiting before marriage.
Admittedly, there were a few illegitimate children (morality tends not to fluctuate too much over the centuries).
Homosexuality was barely visible, not just in Catholic circles but in society generally.
Priests were not known as anything other than models of spiritual probity (although one or two rather nasty occurrences took place in the late 60s, especially in Chertsey, Surrey, a diversion beyond the boundaries of Westminster).
There was a sort of rather fierce disciplinarianism about many of the older priests and that was not altogether welcome or a good thing.
Discipline is one thing, control is another.
But, above all else, we had obedience within the ranks of the laity.
A level of compliance that would not be recognisable today.
We lived and breathed fealty to our Parish Priest, our Bishop and the Holy Father and the rupture of that loyalty may, I believe, may be the key to why the Catholic Faith changed more or less overnight from being an assured place of redemption to an uncertain retreat of those who believed in the concept of revolution.
The loyalty ruptured because of the changes that were taking place in society.
"Change is good" became a sort of silent mantra.
I recall the laity being called to a conference in Liverpool, possibly in 1962 or 1963.
There they were invited to "speak out" and give form to the concerns that they had regarding the Catholic Church.
This was heady stuff. No one had ever asked the opinion of the laity before.
In fact, the laity had never had a voice as such before. Now, suddenly, the chance arose to "out" your Parish Priest for being stern and strict.
But remember, we were still in the post war era. All of society was on the move challenging the code of conduct that existed.
The sixties was a period when the boundaries of decency were being dismantled daily.
'Lady Chatterley's Lover' was featured in the high courts and won the case against charges of obscenity in favour of freedom of speech.
Homosexuality, a criminal offence in 1960, was declared legitimate in the Sexual Offences Act of 1967.
London Theatres began to feature plays and musicals where nudity and promiscuity took centre stage, literally. A move that would have subjected them to prosecution only a few years earlier.
And the Beatles, Rolling Stones and other rock groups suddenly made anti establishment views fashionable.
Change was in the air and it infected most people.
The Catholic laity was not immune, they found their collective voice and began to think liberally (aided, by some of the clergy).
Requiem Masses began to be "joyful" occasions where the life of the deceased was celebrated and all thought of praying for the immortal soul forgotten.
My own parents, staunch Anglo Irish Catholics fell hook, line and sinker for all that was taking place.
Why? I cannot fathom a certain answer to that one.
They certainly did not subscribe to the popular calls for change and I can only put their ready acceptance of all that the Church threw at them down to blind obedience.
In the Reformation era, Catholics in England and Wales switched their allegiance from Christ and Rome to heresy and Canterbury within a remarkably short period of time.
And, in a similar time frame in the 1960s and 70s, Catholics moved from the doctrinal certainty of the Faith to a mishmash of liturgy and an uncertain concept of Christ's truth.
I recall attending Mass while on honeymoon in Dulverton in 1972 only to hear the 'Latin' Mass sung in English in a direct translation from the pre 1962 missal.
The singing was most definitely not plainchant but Gelineau psalm style.
Back home a few weeks later and the congregation at Mass began to vote with their feet and walk out after Holy Communion. Priests would stand in the porch in an attempt to stem the exodus.
Despite the fever of change, Mass in the vernacular did not appear to be meeting with approval.
I remember one Canon exhorting his flock by saying: "It's still the same Mass, you know".
But, of course, it wasn't the same Mass and many left the Faith. Laity, priests and nuns just got up and walked away, released by a breaking of the covenant of perceived and actual truth.
Were people unhappy with Latin? I don't think so. And, certainly the modern myth that Latin was unpopular because it was "gabbled" is just that, a myth.
Priests then spoke Latin fluently; it was their second tongue and, of course, it flowed and was more voluble as a result.
I believe that the only two factors influencing the faithful were the element of obedience and that of being caught up with the desire to 'change and modernise'.
Remember, this was the era of house renovation and DIY when people of impeccable taste would panel over Georgian doors with sheets of hardboard and hack off any architectural decorations of beauty that even hinted at being old or traditional.
Brass was replaced by plastic and good taste was cast to the wind.
All had to be hidden behind a façade of wood and plaster; all had to conform to modern tastes; all character and continuity with the past had to be eradicated.
And that really is a metaphor for the changes that swept through the Church.
One question that she posed was: "There must have been abuses because the changes were accepted so quickly and readily" (my paraphrasing of her comments).
Well, I am sure there were abuses but whatever they were they were not recognised as such.
By and large, the Church in Westminster Diocese (which was the only region within my knowledge at that age) was boringly the same as it had been for many years. For centuries, in fact.
Mass was in Latin, not a Novus Ordo in sight.
We had processions back then. Many processions especially in May and June |
Admittedly, there were a few illegitimate children (morality tends not to fluctuate too much over the centuries).
Homosexuality was barely visible, not just in Catholic circles but in society generally.
Priests were not known as anything other than models of spiritual probity (although one or two rather nasty occurrences took place in the late 60s, especially in Chertsey, Surrey, a diversion beyond the boundaries of Westminster).
And every parish had nuns (who looked and acted like nuns) |
There was a sort of rather fierce disciplinarianism about many of the older priests and that was not altogether welcome or a good thing.
Discipline is one thing, control is another.
But, above all else, we had obedience within the ranks of the laity.
A level of compliance that would not be recognisable today.
We lived and breathed fealty to our Parish Priest, our Bishop and the Holy Father and the rupture of that loyalty may, I believe, may be the key to why the Catholic Faith changed more or less overnight from being an assured place of redemption to an uncertain retreat of those who believed in the concept of revolution.
The loyalty ruptured because of the changes that were taking place in society.
"Change is good" became a sort of silent mantra.
I recall the laity being called to a conference in Liverpool, possibly in 1962 or 1963.
There they were invited to "speak out" and give form to the concerns that they had regarding the Catholic Church.
This was heady stuff. No one had ever asked the opinion of the laity before.
In fact, the laity had never had a voice as such before. Now, suddenly, the chance arose to "out" your Parish Priest for being stern and strict.
But remember, we were still in the post war era. All of society was on the move challenging the code of conduct that existed.
The sixties was a period when the boundaries of decency were being dismantled daily.
'Lady Chatterley's Lover' was featured in the high courts and won the case against charges of obscenity in favour of freedom of speech.
Homosexuality, a criminal offence in 1960, was declared legitimate in the Sexual Offences Act of 1967.
London Theatres began to feature plays and musicals where nudity and promiscuity took centre stage, literally. A move that would have subjected them to prosecution only a few years earlier.
And the Beatles, Rolling Stones and other rock groups suddenly made anti establishment views fashionable.
Change was in the air and it infected most people.
The Catholic laity was not immune, they found their collective voice and began to think liberally (aided, by some of the clergy).
Requiem Masses began to be "joyful" occasions where the life of the deceased was celebrated and all thought of praying for the immortal soul forgotten.
My own parents, staunch Anglo Irish Catholics fell hook, line and sinker for all that was taking place.
Why? I cannot fathom a certain answer to that one.
They certainly did not subscribe to the popular calls for change and I can only put their ready acceptance of all that the Church threw at them down to blind obedience.
In the Reformation era, Catholics in England and Wales switched their allegiance from Christ and Rome to heresy and Canterbury within a remarkably short period of time.
And, in a similar time frame in the 1960s and 70s, Catholics moved from the doctrinal certainty of the Faith to a mishmash of liturgy and an uncertain concept of Christ's truth.
I recall attending Mass while on honeymoon in Dulverton in 1972 only to hear the 'Latin' Mass sung in English in a direct translation from the pre 1962 missal.
The singing was most definitely not plainchant but Gelineau psalm style.
Back home a few weeks later and the congregation at Mass began to vote with their feet and walk out after Holy Communion. Priests would stand in the porch in an attempt to stem the exodus.
Despite the fever of change, Mass in the vernacular did not appear to be meeting with approval.
I remember one Canon exhorting his flock by saying: "It's still the same Mass, you know".
But, of course, it wasn't the same Mass and many left the Faith. Laity, priests and nuns just got up and walked away, released by a breaking of the covenant of perceived and actual truth.
Were people unhappy with Latin? I don't think so. And, certainly the modern myth that Latin was unpopular because it was "gabbled" is just that, a myth.
Priests then spoke Latin fluently; it was their second tongue and, of course, it flowed and was more voluble as a result.
I believe that the only two factors influencing the faithful were the element of obedience and that of being caught up with the desire to 'change and modernise'.
Remember, this was the era of house renovation and DIY when people of impeccable taste would panel over Georgian doors with sheets of hardboard and hack off any architectural decorations of beauty that even hinted at being old or traditional.
Brass was replaced by plastic and good taste was cast to the wind.
All had to be hidden behind a façade of wood and plaster; all had to conform to modern tastes; all character and continuity with the past had to be eradicated.
And that really is a metaphor for the changes that swept through the Church.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Latin Mass in Herefordshire
"O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee" |
On Sunday 8th December, Feast of The Immaculate Conception, there will be a sung Latin Mass at the monastery of the Poor Clares at Much Birch, Herefordshire at 6pm.
The Newcastle Emlyn Schola will be in attendance and thanks should go to the LMS Cardiff crew who are introducing some excellent communication initiatives proving that, even in a Diocese where the Latin Mass is, how shall I phrase it? About as popular as the Black Death, it is possible to break down barriers by means of good and positive actions.
At any rate, what better way to celebrate this great, great feast of our Mother?
Here is the address:
The Poor Clare Monastery
Much Birch
Hereford
HR2 8PS
A reflection on the war dead
Red for peace, white for ............ |
The red poppy is a symbol (as well as being a fund raising tool for disabled service men and women) of that sacrifice.
The link to the poppies of Flanders fields, almost as prolific as the German and Allied Forces corpses, is a poignant one that encourages us to remember with sorrow and gratitude.
It is not triumphalist, it does not represent war or victory or glorification of battlefield slaughter.
A kind reader commented on my Remembrance Sunday post, that he was not familiar with the white poppy campaign, one that, ostensibly symbolises peace rather than war.
This stance rather leads to a 'when did you stop beating your wife' situation as far as the red poppy wearer is concerned.
Those who wear the white poppy are, in my opinion, gravely deluded. They are ignorant.
We tend to link to opposites so, if the white poppy stands for peace, the red must stand for war.
Not so.
To me the white poppy represents not peace but pacifism and, again, with our love of opposites, it is assumed that, if you are anti pacifism you must be a warmonger
Again, not so.
I have little time for war but, equally, little respect for those who advocate pacifism at the time of war.
Many Quakers have struggled with their consciences and then, God bless them, signed up for duties as medics, stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers. Tasks often more hazardous than those undertaken by the troops.
There is no hiding place for the conscientious objector when your own country goes to war.
We are all bound to get behind our respective governments at such times and bind together for the common good.
Few of us wanted the Iraq War but, once committed, we should have supported our leaders and, above all, our military.
That is why the symbolism of the white poppy brigade is iniquitous and those who wear one should hang their heads in shame.
Was it Belloc who penned the lines:
"Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, but Roaring Bill ( who killed him) thought it right"
That should be writ large on the headstones of those who spurn the red for the white.
The Theology of the Pottery Chalice When Applied to Church Architecture
Cheap, functional, humble, simple, in keeping with the poor, humble, simple Nazarene, with no need for flying buttresses. Honestly. Flying buttresses! Whatever were they thinking?! Would the humble, simple, poor Nazarene recognise such extravagance?!
I've been having a debate about the evil pottery chalice on Facebook. In order to join it you'll have to go to my Facebook page. By all means offer your thoughts.
I've been having a debate about the evil pottery chalice on Facebook. In order to join it you'll have to go to my Facebook page. By all means offer your thoughts.
Flying buttresses: Why ever did they bother when a simple warehouse would have sufficed? |
Meanwhile there is a BBC report that the Pope has put me on display in Rome. Don't worry, readers, Deo volente, I am safe and well here in Brighton, Deo gratias!
Sunday, November 24, 2013
The Molly Maguires
If Hollywood is chary of addressing political revolutions, they've generally shied away from labor disputes. The late 19th Century saw labor-capital relations rendered into pitiless Social Darwinism. Among the more violent disturbances were the Haymarket Square Riot in 1886 Chicago; the Pullman railway strikes of 1893; and, in Groggy's own backyard, the Homestead steel strike of 1892. Few of these have made it onto film; one exception, John Sayles' Matewan (1987), depicts a bloody conflict in 1920s West Virginia.
From 1970 comes The Molly Maguires. Director Martin Ritt abandons safely-framed message films like Norma Rae and Hombre for a scabrous look at coal mining circa 1876. Dramatically uneven, it's mainly impressive for its grimly realistic staging.
Ne'er-do-well James MacParland (Richard Harris) arrives in a Pennsylvania mining town. Miner Jack Kehoe (Sean Connery) distrusts him, and with good reason: MacParland is a Pinkerton detective, assigned to infiltrate the Molly Maguires. The Mollies are a secret society of Irish miners who engage in sabotage and against the mine bosses. MacParland joins their activities, growing increasingly sympathetic as he witnesses the deprivation of the mining life. But MacParland soldiers on, realizing treachery is his only means of advancement.
The Molly Maguires confronts this subject matter head-on. We see children toiling in mines, employees bilked out of wages, impudent employees beaten by police. Realizing mass strikes only generate massive retaliations, the Mollies rely on subtle subversion. MacParland serves not only as informant but agent provocateur, spurring them on while tipping off his police handler (Frank Finlay). Each action only stacks the deck further: the mine bosses can call on police, Pinkertons and even soldiers to enforce their will. The smug local priest (Philip Bourneuf) inveighs against violence. But terrorism becomes the only means of protest against bosses who regard them as barely human.
More than the message, it's the dirtiness that sticks in the mind. Ritt provides several showy set pieces like the prolonged, wordless opening as Kehoe's men sabotage a mine, while James Wong Howe conjures some gorgeous widescreen photography. But Maguires' main impression is quiet desperation. Scenes impress with their authentic grubbiness, from the claustrophobic mines to the rough-hewn pub or the tiny company town. At one point, James takes lover Mary (Samantha Eggar) for a romantic picnic amidst a barren slagheap. Mining consumes every facet of their lives.
Such despair makes Maguires true to life, but it's not entirely satisfying. Dramatically the movie's rigged like a funnel, the downbeat conclusion essentially inevitable. Ritt and Bernstein work the standard informer plot through its usual paces, while James' romance with Mary merely eats up screen time. Maguires is less effective telling a story than being a slice-of-19th Century life - though it does the latter very well.
Richard Harris gives one of his best performances, uncannily subdued and tormented. Sean Connery matches him; his intense glowers speak more than pages of dialogue. Frank Finlay (The Three Musketeers) makes a pitiless villain. Samantha Eggar does respectable work as the required love interest; Anthony Zerbe gets a rare sympathetic part.
The Molly Maguires flopped big time in 1970 and remains obscure today. Understandably: it's relentlessly morose, unrelieved by humor or cathartic violence. Handsomely produced and well-acted, certainly memorable for all its flaws.
From 1970 comes The Molly Maguires. Director Martin Ritt abandons safely-framed message films like Norma Rae and Hombre for a scabrous look at coal mining circa 1876. Dramatically uneven, it's mainly impressive for its grimly realistic staging.
Ne'er-do-well James MacParland (Richard Harris) arrives in a Pennsylvania mining town. Miner Jack Kehoe (Sean Connery) distrusts him, and with good reason: MacParland is a Pinkerton detective, assigned to infiltrate the Molly Maguires. The Mollies are a secret society of Irish miners who engage in sabotage and against the mine bosses. MacParland joins their activities, growing increasingly sympathetic as he witnesses the deprivation of the mining life. But MacParland soldiers on, realizing treachery is his only means of advancement.
The Molly Maguires confronts this subject matter head-on. We see children toiling in mines, employees bilked out of wages, impudent employees beaten by police. Realizing mass strikes only generate massive retaliations, the Mollies rely on subtle subversion. MacParland serves not only as informant but agent provocateur, spurring them on while tipping off his police handler (Frank Finlay). Each action only stacks the deck further: the mine bosses can call on police, Pinkertons and even soldiers to enforce their will. The smug local priest (Philip Bourneuf) inveighs against violence. But terrorism becomes the only means of protest against bosses who regard them as barely human.
More than the message, it's the dirtiness that sticks in the mind. Ritt provides several showy set pieces like the prolonged, wordless opening as Kehoe's men sabotage a mine, while James Wong Howe conjures some gorgeous widescreen photography. But Maguires' main impression is quiet desperation. Scenes impress with their authentic grubbiness, from the claustrophobic mines to the rough-hewn pub or the tiny company town. At one point, James takes lover Mary (Samantha Eggar) for a romantic picnic amidst a barren slagheap. Mining consumes every facet of their lives.
Such despair makes Maguires true to life, but it's not entirely satisfying. Dramatically the movie's rigged like a funnel, the downbeat conclusion essentially inevitable. Ritt and Bernstein work the standard informer plot through its usual paces, while James' romance with Mary merely eats up screen time. Maguires is less effective telling a story than being a slice-of-19th Century life - though it does the latter very well.
Richard Harris gives one of his best performances, uncannily subdued and tormented. Sean Connery matches him; his intense glowers speak more than pages of dialogue. Frank Finlay (The Three Musketeers) makes a pitiless villain. Samantha Eggar does respectable work as the required love interest; Anthony Zerbe gets a rare sympathetic part.
The Molly Maguires flopped big time in 1970 and remains obscure today. Understandably: it's relentlessly morose, unrelieved by humor or cathartic violence. Handsomely produced and well-acted, certainly memorable for all its flaws.
Sunday Quiz
Leave a comment to guess.
Then find out the answer here.
The winner gets to admonish an Archbishop on the internet.
I understand the modern age presents many of us with difficulties, but I expect these are not all entirely unique to this age and I would have thought an Archbishop might issue a rallying cry to fidelity to Jesus Christ and the Magisterium. It would appear not on this occasion.
His Holiness Pope Francis despite some media splutters, is not swanning around advocating dissent (as can be read here). Despite his popularity with Bishops, I am not sure many Bishops understand His Holiness's vision. When was the last time you heard of a Bishop promoting the Divine Mercy Chaplet, the Holy Rosary and Confession within days of each other?
There is a way to rouse the faithful out of complacency and it starts with Bishops teaching the Faith without 'but's. To be Christian in the modern age is extremely counter-cultural, we may even stumble along the way, but we are called to be faithful to Jesus Christ and His Church. Bishops should encourage us all to be faithful to Jesus Christ.
His Holiness Pope Francis despite some media splutters, is not swanning around advocating dissent (as can be read here). Despite his popularity with Bishops, I am not sure many Bishops understand His Holiness's vision. When was the last time you heard of a Bishop promoting the Divine Mercy Chaplet, the Holy Rosary and Confession within days of each other?
There is a way to rouse the faithful out of complacency and it starts with Bishops teaching the Faith without 'but's. To be Christian in the modern age is extremely counter-cultural, we may even stumble along the way, but we are called to be faithful to Jesus Christ and His Church. Bishops should encourage us all to be faithful to Jesus Christ.
Good news! - Bishop 0 - Parishioners 1
Looks a perfectly good church, just needs a considerable bit of renovation. St Winefride's, Aberystwyth Picture: Save our St Winefride's |
Readers may recall the long drawn out battle of Aberystwyth where the local Bishop (Tom Burns) wished to sell off the old church to developers and build a nuchurch out of town.
Convenient financially for the Diocese of Menevia but not logistically for the parishioners.
Well, news has reached me today that the Bishop has shelved plans to build a new church out of town and (so I believe) reverted to the concept of renovating the old church.
I would not wish anyone to think that I am being triumphalist over this, far from it.
A great deal of money has been squandered on planning fees and so on.
It is a hollow victory in many ways.
But, it is a victory for the 240 or so parishioners who signed a petition to retain their accessible parish church and I think that a modest huzzah (no exclamation mark) may be allowed.
And, in all of this, spare a prayer for the Bish for whom it must have been a humbling experience, to back down; and for those who supported him.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Hunger Games (2012) pleasantly surprised me. Unusually for a YA lit adaptation, Gary Ross's film matched action with clever plotting and sharp characterization. Propelling Jennifer Lawrence to super-stardom was an added bonus. The sequel, Catching Fire, bites off more than it can chew; despite some interesting ideas, it's mostly a letdown.
Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Everdeen) becomes a national celebrity. She's forced into a stage romance with her partner Peta Melark (Josh Hutcherson), touring PanEm to bolster the regime. But she also becomes a symbol of rebellion, inspiring protest against PanEm's government. Fearing revolution, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) replaces the standard Hunger Games with the Quarterly Quel, pitting past winners against each other. Thrust back into the games, Katniss and Peta from a testy alliance with several tribunes, including over-helpful Finnick (Sam Claffin), ax crazy Johanna (Jena Malone) and tech savvy Beetee (Jeffrey Wright), in a new game masterminded by the spidery Plutarch (Phillip Seymour Hoffman).
Catching Fire works best in its first hour, exploring the Games' traumatic after effects. Katniss suffers shellshock over her role in the game, a celebrity with no control over her life. She and Peta aren't content being mouthpieces for the regime: when Katniss shows compassion for fallen friend Rue, she initiates a demonstration culminating in summary executions. Snow's government becomes a more substantial threat, troops launching mass arrests and razing entire villages. On some level, you almost wish Fire could elide the arena action entirely.
But Catching Fire must deliver the blockbuster goods, and that's where it falls down. The middle third merely rehashes the original: the gaudy ceremonies, Caesar's (Stanley Tucci) talk show, the training scenes and tearful departures. Act Three at least injects some variety: Director Francis Lawrence shoots the violence in more straightforward fashion than Gary Ross's handheld style, while new menaces like poisonous fog and some monstrous monkeys work reasonably well. Even with the new wrinkles, these passages are underwhelming; what was inventive the first time around makes little impact in Fire.
Catching Fire's main problem is less familiarity than narrative clutter. The movie's never dull exactly, but it certainly feels overstuffed at 146 minutes. Too much time is spent establishing plot points for future chapters, not allowing Fire to work as its own story (a common sequel ailment). The early themes and plot strands grow constricted by the need for violent action. Characters like Plutarch and a grizzled military officer (Patrick St. Esprit) appear fleetingly, presumably foreshadowing more prominent roles to come. At least Lawrence (or novelist Suzanne Collins, more likely) ends things on the perfect note.
Jennifer Lawrence does a stellar job selling Katniss's increasing despair and defiance. But Josh Hutcherson's Peta still feels flat, and Liam Hemsworth's stiff acting undercuts Gale's more substantial role. Nearly all the major players from the original return: Donald Sutherland gets a meaty upgrade from vaguely menacing bit player to sinister villain. Elizabeth Banks gives her heretofore goofy character surprising gravity. Woody Harrelson's character maintains the right balance between humor and pathos.
Catching Fire enlarges the supporting cast, to mixed effect. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is fine, but his actual character makes little impact. Similarly, while Jeffrey Wright's always welcome in any movie, his presence doesn't amount to much. Sam Claffin and Jena Malone fare better as two of the more prominent tributes.
Second installments of franchises tend to be difficult sells. You have to advance the story in new directions while delivering similar thrills to the first one; often they're more set-up than self-sustained. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire isn't anywhere near bad, but its main achievement is getting me excited for the third installment.
Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Everdeen) becomes a national celebrity. She's forced into a stage romance with her partner Peta Melark (Josh Hutcherson), touring PanEm to bolster the regime. But she also becomes a symbol of rebellion, inspiring protest against PanEm's government. Fearing revolution, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) replaces the standard Hunger Games with the Quarterly Quel, pitting past winners against each other. Thrust back into the games, Katniss and Peta from a testy alliance with several tribunes, including over-helpful Finnick (Sam Claffin), ax crazy Johanna (Jena Malone) and tech savvy Beetee (Jeffrey Wright), in a new game masterminded by the spidery Plutarch (Phillip Seymour Hoffman).
Catching Fire works best in its first hour, exploring the Games' traumatic after effects. Katniss suffers shellshock over her role in the game, a celebrity with no control over her life. She and Peta aren't content being mouthpieces for the regime: when Katniss shows compassion for fallen friend Rue, she initiates a demonstration culminating in summary executions. Snow's government becomes a more substantial threat, troops launching mass arrests and razing entire villages. On some level, you almost wish Fire could elide the arena action entirely.
But Catching Fire must deliver the blockbuster goods, and that's where it falls down. The middle third merely rehashes the original: the gaudy ceremonies, Caesar's (Stanley Tucci) talk show, the training scenes and tearful departures. Act Three at least injects some variety: Director Francis Lawrence shoots the violence in more straightforward fashion than Gary Ross's handheld style, while new menaces like poisonous fog and some monstrous monkeys work reasonably well. Even with the new wrinkles, these passages are underwhelming; what was inventive the first time around makes little impact in Fire.
Catching Fire's main problem is less familiarity than narrative clutter. The movie's never dull exactly, but it certainly feels overstuffed at 146 minutes. Too much time is spent establishing plot points for future chapters, not allowing Fire to work as its own story (a common sequel ailment). The early themes and plot strands grow constricted by the need for violent action. Characters like Plutarch and a grizzled military officer (Patrick St. Esprit) appear fleetingly, presumably foreshadowing more prominent roles to come. At least Lawrence (or novelist Suzanne Collins, more likely) ends things on the perfect note.
Jennifer Lawrence does a stellar job selling Katniss's increasing despair and defiance. But Josh Hutcherson's Peta still feels flat, and Liam Hemsworth's stiff acting undercuts Gale's more substantial role. Nearly all the major players from the original return: Donald Sutherland gets a meaty upgrade from vaguely menacing bit player to sinister villain. Elizabeth Banks gives her heretofore goofy character surprising gravity. Woody Harrelson's character maintains the right balance between humor and pathos.
Catching Fire enlarges the supporting cast, to mixed effect. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is fine, but his actual character makes little impact. Similarly, while Jeffrey Wright's always welcome in any movie, his presence doesn't amount to much. Sam Claffin and Jena Malone fare better as two of the more prominent tributes.
Second installments of franchises tend to be difficult sells. You have to advance the story in new directions while delivering similar thrills to the first one; often they're more set-up than self-sustained. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire isn't anywhere near bad, but its main achievement is getting me excited for the third installment.
The two Masses and a stark comparison
If you are a devotee of the new Mass, you may not wish to watch this video. It leaves you in no doubt as to which form of the Mass is the most profound, most reverent and most focused on the Holy Trinity.
There are, however, some OF Masses that have a far greater aura of sanctity than the example shown.
Where Latin is used and the Mass celebrated ad orientem.
But, even so, there is a stark difference between the two.
There are, however, some OF Masses that have a far greater aura of sanctity than the example shown.
Where Latin is used and the Mass celebrated ad orientem.
But, even so, there is a stark difference between the two.
We should not forget that many priests 'have' to celebrate Mass in the Ordinary Form.
Immense pressure would be brought to bear on them if they attempted to introduce the Mass of all Time, the Latin Mass.
O gentle Jesus, call Thy priests back to Thee.
Lay open their hearts to hear Thy call, and answer Thy call with fervour and a burning love to lead Thy flocks to Thee. Amen.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Mexico's Campion - Fr Miguel Pro SJ
Today, November 23rd, is the feastday of Blessed Miguel Pro, Mexican, Jesuit and Martyr for the Faith.
There are many heroic figures who died for their Faith in the 20th century but Miguel Pro must surely rank up there with St Maximilian Kolbe, St Teresa Benedicta and, of course, Blessed Titus Brandsma.
Fr Pro came from a large but relatively wealthy Mexican family.
He joined the Jesuit Seminary and, one year later, Mexico was embroiled in one of the most savage persecutions of Holy Mother Church.
Priests were executed in the streets, religious disbanded and many of the prominent Catholic laity disappeared never to be seen again.
Churches were desecrated and defiled being turned into stables much as in England and Wales in the times of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.
Fleeing from the anti Catholic government, Fr Pro completed his studies in Europe only returning to Mexico in 1926 suffering from a severe gastric complaint.
The persecutions were still in full flow but this did not cause the young priest to pause for thought.
He threw himself into the spiritual fight against the regime of President Calles.
He ventured into areas occupied by the authorities and visited houses fearlessly to bring the Sacraments to the young and old, the living and the dying.
Before long the police and militia targeted him as public enemy number one. And her had many escapes, often adopting a number of disguises to fool his pursuers.
On one occasion when being shadowed by the police, Fr Pro grabbed the arm of a young woman and embraced her as they walked up the street, throwing the police off the scent in the process.
A series of bomb attacks aimed at the Calles Government resulted in Fr Pro and two of his brothers, Humberto and Roberto being caught up in the dragnet following the blasts, innocent, as they were, of any involvement.
Without any trial, the authorities swiftly executed Fr Pro, only 36 years of age.
He was taken from his cell and marched into the prison yard where he refused a blindfold.
In the true style of a martyr he blessed the firing squad before declaring his innocence before Almighty God.
Kneeling in prayer he held his Rosary in one hand and a crucifix in the other, and then, standing against the bullet pocked wall, he spread out his arms to form a cross and cried out : "Viva Cristo Rey"
He fell as the rifle shots cracked out and a soldier delivered the coup de gras to the broken body.
That is very much a paraphrased version of a short but intensely spiritual life on earth, one that closely resembles that of St Edmund Campion in his final years.
Fr Pro was, by all accounts, a great wit but his humour never strayed into realms of immodesty.
In particular, I like the prayer that he wrote, it is a prayer for the sick and the troubled.
It is not a sweet, prayer couched in flowery words; it is not a prayer for the faint hearted.
But it comes straight from the heart of Blessed Miguel Pro and, as such, must surely be heard by Jesus Christ, Christ the King!
Prayer of Bl Miguel Pro
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)