Would you destroy this church?

                  Not a bad looking church, some remedial work needed

Photo: The Laitytude Blog

Bishop Burns of Menevia is at the centre of yet another controversy (see links at end of post).

He wishes to sell off an old church in the seaside town of Aberystwyth and build a sparkly new one.

So what? Good for Bishop Burns you might say, others....well.

You see, the new church will be built (if the good Bishop has his way) at a place called Penparcau and that, my dear friends is further than you can throw a druid, from the town centre. Quite a bit further, some 1.5 miles further in fact.

So what, one might ask, will happen to the old and the infirm, the elderly and the lame?

The Bishop says they can get a bus as he will organise services around the bus timetables but, as anyone with any knowledge of Wales knows only too well, rural buses on a Sunday are as rare as an EF Mass - and that means, pretty rare!

Again, Bishop Burns flags up the Health and Safety aspect of continuing to use the old church, plus the fact that it will cost £2.6 million to do it up.

Really?.......run that past me again my Lord.......2.6 million pounds? my builder Mike would do the job for a couple of thousand and, (I state this with no knowledge of the building other than reports received from those who should know and from observing the pics plus a little knowledge of renovation costs) a larger building company would, I am pretty certain, do a complete renovation for circa 200k.

What is it? A new roof, yes, a bit of structural reinforcing? yes, re-wiring and a new heating system? OK and then a coat of paint - job done!

Of course, there is the issue of the site of the present church, St Winefride's, being a high value bit of real estate....but don't let's go there....yet.

An overriding sadness regarding this issue is that there seems to be a split between those who want to stay and those who wish to go. I have no knowledge of how many there are in either faction; in a way, it doesn't matter.
The main issue is, to ensure that the old and the infirm etc., are still able to attend Sunday Mass as normal.

But the Bishop is reported by the BBC as stating that those who are for the move should get the others to pack it in. That would seem to be more than a tad divisive.

Here is how the Beeb reported on the matter - it's transcript so please bear with the format:


In a pastoral message, Bishop Burns, who is based in Swansea, said the church was not fit for purpose and could be closed on health and safety grounds.
Plans are to demolish St Winefride's and sell the land for housing.

"Tell the protesters politely to back off. Speak to them, or write to them”

 Quoted Bishop Thomas Burns.

In a message to parishioners Bishop Burns said a small number of objectors had already contributed to the project's heavy costs of £100,000.

He said: "My dear people, the above tactics that the protesters have used, including petitions and submissions to their local councillors, have brought us to a serious moment.
"Throughout these last few years, the structure of St Winefride's church has continued to weaken. It is in such a bad state that our insurers can no longer provide suitable cover for the deteriorating walls and roof if they should collapse.
"I am increasingly concerned about health and safety matters. Masonry and other bits and pieces have been coming down. I may soon have to make a decision about closing the church, to prevent risks to life and limb."
The church site in Queen's Road, which includes a dilapidated parish hall and presbytery, would cost the diocese more than £2.6m renovate, added the bishop.

But objectors claimed they had been shown no evidence the church was structurally unsound.
Appealing to his parishioners, Bishop Burns added: "Tell the protesters politely to back off. Speak to them, or write to them.
"You know who they are, and you also know that they do not represent your parish. They have contributed to the heavy costs that have already been incurred, amounting to over £100,000.
"Please tell them that enough is enough. They risk leaving Aberystwyth with no Catholic parish church at all."

Objectors said moving the church out of the town centre to Penparcau would make it difficult for older members of the congregation to attend services.

But the bishop said church services would be tailored to bus schedules, where possible.
An objector to plans for St Winefride's, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "The old church (St Winefride's), which has been there since the 1870s, is planned to be demolished because they say it's not fit for purpose. Some parishioners go along with this and others do not.
"We don't want the church to move out of the town centre."
The objector also questioned whether the church was structurally unsound although agreed it was in need of repair.


I don't think that saying "Tell them to politely back off, is a very good thing to say in the circumstances.

And to follow it through with a threat to the effect that the whole issue might end in no parish church whatsoever for Aberystwyth is just plain nonsense.

Aberystwyth is a fine seaside town with a resident population of c. 13,500 souls, a number that dramatically swells with the University students that live in the town, to around 21,500.

If you estimate the Catholic population (based very roughly on the information available online) as being a 5% average for England and Wales, that leaves Aberystwyth with some 1075 Catholics, not a bad sized parish for a Welsh rural town.

So, to talk of leaving them stranded without a church.....well, what do you think?

And, as far as arranging Mass times around the bus schedules I leave you with an extract from an online guide to the town:


Buses in Aberystwyth are a shambles: local operators change routes and times every few months with little or no notice. Even basic passenger information is lacking at bus stops. Taxi, walking or private car is usually less troublesome.

So, the best of British with that one, Bishop.



Links of interest:

* Traditionalists linked to paedophilia HERE
* British Government fails to provide for the troops HERE

54 Pro-Life Campaigner Arrests Outside White House

Courtesy of Life Site News

 

Over the weekend, 54 pro-life activists were arrested outside the White House. Their crime? Kneeling to pray.

Bryan Kemper, the founder of Stand True Pro-life Outreach, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that dozens of activists were breaking an ordinance that bans protesters from remaining stationary - allowing them to carry signs in front of the White House, but not to kneel in prayer - to draw attention to the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty through the HHS mandate.

The event’s organizer Rev. Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, told LSN, “In the HHS mandate, we see the greatest assault on religious freedom the history of our nation…We sensed there had to be a response from the church.”

The arrests, which are scheduled to continue Tuesday at noon, were the first part of a strategy “to send a clear message to President Obama and our elected officials that we can never comply with an unjust or immoral government mandate, which forces us to violate our core convictions, and we would rather to go jail before we comply. We will not comply.”

Click here for full story...

Another Lawrence: Terence Rattigan's Ross (1960)

Alec Guinness as T.E. Lawrence, in Ross's original run. (Source)

Groggy hopes his readers will indulge him one final excursion into Lawrence-iana. Last weekend I discovered that the Internet Archive has Terence Rattigan's play Ross: A Dramatic Portrait (1960) available for free, legal download. I'll offer a brief history of the play and review its contents, comparing its dramatic choices and depiction of T.E. Lawrence with David Lean's film.

A Tortured Genesis

Terence Rattigan (Source)

Ross began as a film project for the Rank Organization. In 1955, producer Anatole de Grunwald commissioned Rattigan to pen a screenplay based on Basil Liddell Hart's T.E. Lawrence in Arabia and After (1934). The movie was to be shot in Iraq, ruled by the descendants of Lawrence's ally Emir Feisal, with Anthony Asquith directing and Dirk Bogarde as Lawrence. However, in July 1958 Iraqi army officers overthrew Iraq's King Feisal II and the project was scrapped.

Rattigan's interest in Lawrence stemmed from a personal connection: in 1913 his father befriended Sir Ronald Storrs, later Lawrence's chief at the Arab Bureau. Rattigan read The Mint (1955), Lawrence's Royal Air Force memoir, and wondered why such a successful man would become a "gentleman ranker." Like Lean and Robert Bolt, he thought Deraa held the answer: "It was shattering to suspect what was in the back of his tremendous will power," namely repressed homosexuality. Michael Darlow says Rattigan, himself gay, "put more of himself into Ross than he had dared in any previous play."

Thus inspired, Rattigan reworked his script for the stage. Ross debuted at the Royal Haymarket Theater in London in May 1960, with Alec Guinness as Lawrence. It received positive reviews despite Sam Spiegel's efforts to suppress it. The resulting legal controversy, along with complaints by A.W. Lawrence about its portrayal of TEL only fanned public interest. The show went on to a Broadway run the following year with John Mills replacing Guinness.

In 1961 Ross again seemed destined for the screen. Herbert Wilcox, founder of the British National Company, purchased the rights and asked Rattigan to write the screenplay. With Lawrence of Arabia already in production, Sam Spiegel threatened to sue Wilcox; nonetheless, Wilcox announced Ross would proceed starring Laurence Harvey. Various legal battles made it fall through, and Ross joined past Lawrence projects (Alexander Korda's '30s version, a proposed Powell & Pressburger epic) on the cinematic scrapheap. In 1970 Ian McKellen featured in a TV adaptation, a far cry from the proposed epic.

Shaping the Drama

Lawrence (John Mills) meeting General Allenby (John Williams). From the 1961 Broadway production

The obvious difficulty in comparing Ross with Lawrence of Arabia is that one is a play, the other a film. Even discussing Lawrence's screenplay isn't fair, as budget allows for more characters and infinitely greater scope. Even so, we can compare the works' dramatic choices and characterization.

Rattigan bookends the play with Lawrence hiding in the RAF as "Aircraftman Ross." His insouciance irritates his superiors, who think he's mouthing off when he mentions dining with George Bernard Shaw and Lady Astor. He's nonetheless liked by his peers, whose chumminess allows Lawrence to "remember... what it was to feel like living" (42). Lieutenant Dickinson provides the dramatic catalyst, recognizing "Ross" and threatening to expose him to the newspapers.

Though overstuffed with characters, these scenes codify Ross's drama. Unlike Lean, Rattigan is less interested in Lawrence the myth than Lawrence the man. As we'll see, Ross provides a very definite picture of its protagonist. By showing Lawrence after the war, hiding yet hinting at his identity, awkwardly palling around with fellow rankers, Rattigan quickly establishes Lawrence's personality.

Rattigan provies exposition through a dream sequence. Journalist Franks gives a Lowell Thomas lecture recounting Lawrence's life in heroic fashion. Like the opening of Lean's film, various personages who've known Lawrence (Allenby, Auda abu Tayi, Ronald Storrs, Barrington) give conflicting responses about his importance and truthfulness. Rattigan's scene is more imaginative but serves the same function as Lawrence's funeral: Lawrence the legend, defined by those who knew him. This scene also provides exposition on the Arab Revolt.

Like Lawrence of Arabia, Ross depicts Lawrence's execution of an Arab murderer to avoid a blood feud. Lean and Bolt telescope two characters from Seven Pillars for potent dramatic effect, just before Aqaba. Rattigan more accurately shows the execution earlier and makes it a key character moment. Lawrence's outsider status legitimizes the execution but also serves as his entry into the Arab world. He must prove himself through violence.

Similarly, Lawrence sports Arab robes from his first scene in Arabia. In the film Lawrence only dons his costume after saving Gassim and being accepted as "El Aurens." Here, being an Arab is an integral part of his role. That said, Ronald Storrs disapproves, believing (not incorrectly) that Lawrence is enjoying himself too much. Both play and film feature Lawrence primping in his robes, relishing some "amateur theatricals."

Lawrence's initial meeting with Allenby provides another point of divergence. Lean provides a tense scene where Allenby manipulates Lawrence's vanity and desire for a confidant. In Ross, Allenby is both impressed and befuddled by Lawrence. Their chat is more amiable, even humorous: between strategy the two discuss poetry and gardening. There's no question of Lean's warped paternalism: Allenby and Lawrence here are respectful colleagues. No callow villain this Allenby, either: he's an honorable man who regrets ordering Lawrence back into the field.

Rattigan's most extreme re-interpretation concerns Deraa. He accurately depicts Lawrence's capture during a reconnaissance. But Ross shows the Turkish Bey recognizing Lawrence and ordering his defilement. He recognizes Lawrence's latent sexuality and determines to break his will. Thus Lawrence's rape is calculated villainy rather than an incidental atrocity. This invention is, to be kind, hard to swallow.

Rattigan's Lawrence

Lawrence (John Mills) plots Aqaba's capture with Auda abu Tayi (Paul Sparer).

Ross proves most effective examining Lawrence. While Lawrence of Arabia shows a mythic Lawrence, his true nature unknown even by himself, Ross provides a very down-to-earth hero. Eccentric, ambitious and tormented yes - but an identifiable person.

Rattigan views Lawrence as worshiping "a false God... the will" (32), pushing himself to great feats through determination. Lawrence achieves great things but doesn't view himself disproportionately. He strenuously argues against being sent back to the Arabs, fearing his unfitness but also disgusted by the Sykes-Picot Treaty (which Lawrence knows from the start). This is far more benign than the movie's megalomaniac who thinks he can work miracles.

Lawrence's puckish sense of humor and insouciance come off strongly. While Lean's Lawrence is an abrasive outsider in Cairo, Rattigan's Lawrence is well-liked by his RAF peers. This humor's present in flashbacks too, as when he bluffs a Turkish officer bribing Auda to turn Lawrence in. Ross shows an extremely likeable Lawrence, for all his faults.

Rattigan treats Lawrence's sexuality delicately. The play hints at homosexuality through his affectionate relationship with his servants Hamed and Rashed (Farraj and Daud surrogates), his love of Arab dress and his asceticism. Nonetheless, it seems latent until Deraa, when Lawrence is made violently aware of repressed feelings. Surely censorship played a role, but I imagine Rattigan's predilections prevented him from flouncy stereotyping.

Like Lean and Bolt, Rattigan shows Lawrence in decline after Deraa but approaches it differently. Rattigan shows Lawrence not "enjoying" the bloodshed unleashed at Tafas or his execution of Hamed, but simply too burned out to care. He's lost "the citadel of his integrity," he's had to execute Hamed and his superiors have betrayed the Arabs. By war's end he's thoroughly beaten, admitting himself "lost to all human feeling" (163) and eager to vanish from public life.

Some difference between Ross and Lawrence of Arabia was probably inevitable. After all, Lean's Lawrence features in a large-than-life epic. He needs to make a mark amidst gorgeous desert scenery, sweeping battle scenes and armies of extras. Hence Robert Bolt's accentuation of Lawrence's ego, sadomasochism and neuroses, his flamboyant posturing amidst tortured introspection. Striding a mere stage, Rattigan's Lawrence is more down-to-earth and approachable, yet no less compelling.

Conclusion

Lawrence with servants Rashid (Joseph Della Sorte) and Hamed (Cal Bellini).

We can only speculate how Ross would have functioned as a film. Certainly a movie would fill in the missing battle scenes, travels and spectacle the play only hints at. Leaving violent scenes like Hamed and Rashid's deaths off-stage weakens the drama considerably.

Rattigan nonethless succeeds on several levels. His Lawrence is both psychologically and biographically plausible, lacking Lean and Bolt's sensationalism. He does a better job presenting Lawrence and the Arab Revolt in its historical context. Finally, by focusing on Lawrence's post-war life he adds a fresh dimension to the drama.

Ross has two serious faults. First, its flat supporting cast. Of Lawrence's RAF colleagues only Dickinson stands out, a predictably treacherous villain. Allenby and Auda are well-drawn, but Storrs and Franks are flat and Barrington a boorish martinet. Rashed and Hamed are mostly defined by their own relationship. There's no foil like Ali, Lawrence's Arab double, or Colonel Brighton, who grows to admire Lawrence. Rattigan's Lawrence is a fascinating man surrounded by ciphers. Lean's Lawrence has far more interesting co-stars.

The Deraa scene is even more objectionable. Like Bolt, Rattigan finds it a handy explanation for Lawrence's mental decline. It's bad enough the Bey divines Lawrence's sexuality through an intelligence report. But to knowingly capture Lawrence, "destroy" him and let him go? This is a contrived plot device from a bad comic strip. I didn't buy Bane doing it to Batman in The Dark Knight Rises and it's even less acceptable in an historical drama.

Ross is a good play by a good playwright. While Rattigan hones nearer to the real Lawrence, his drama is more contrived and less powerful than the Lean/Bolt interpretation. In fairness though, Rattigan lacks 70mm photography and a cast of thousands to support his characterization.

Note on Sources

Background info on Ross comes from Kevin Brownlow's David Lean: A Biography (1996) and Piers Paul Read's Alec Guinness: The Authorized Biography (2003). Biographical info on Terence Rattigan comes from Terence Rattigan: The Man and His Work by Michael Darlow & Gillian Hodson (1979). Aside from the two sourced photos, all pictures taken from the Internet Archive upload of Ross linked above.

Previous articles in this series:

• Seven Scenes from Seven Pillars of Wisdom
• Lawrence of Arabia: The Film as Biography
• "Common humanity's the one thing you can't have"

A new war cry - "Forward boldly"

I have never met Christine Niles but she sounds like the sort of person it would be good to chat to over a gin and tonic after attending a Latin Mass.

I have followed Christine's Facebook page for some time now and it appears as if she has now taken a great step forward for the Faith.

                             "I would rather die than do a thing I know
                                 to be a sin or against the will of God"

Christine has established a Radio Station called, in St Joan of Arc's immortal words: "Forward boldly".

You may listen to it HERE

It sounds good, very good, and it is taking the battle forward in a great stride.

Huzzah! and, even, Hooray!

Irish Pro-Abortion Rally: Playing the Numbers Game

The Irish Times assessed that those who turned up to march for a 'pro-choice' Ireland were not a hill of beans. The pro-abortion lobby screamed injustice. A blogger has done the maths by the old-fashioned method of counting. It turns out the Irish Times were right and the headcount is around 850 campaigners. That's 850. Not 3,500 as some would like the people of Ireland and beyond to think. Thank God for bloggers and people who can count.

It makes you wonder what the size of the rallies for 'choice' were back in the 60s and 70s when the BBC was beaming the footage into the homes of the unsuspecting...

H/T Fr Ray Blake

Step Out of the Closet, But Don't Step Out of Line

 



Everett: Doesn't see himself as part of the gay 'community'

Long-time readers will be aware that at some point, I decided to moderate comments on this blog. This I decided to do, partly, because whenever I made unfavourable comments about homosexuality or homosexual culture in the light of the Catholic Faith, I was bombarded by rather unpleasant comments from God alone knows who.

This was despite the fact that I had already on numerous occasions gone out of my way to stress that as someone who has the condition known in the Church as 'same-sex attraction', a condition known in the wider World as 'gay'. Therefore, you would think, not being 'in the dark' about homosexuality and what it entails for the individual, with all its intricasies and complexities, that my view would be accepted as at least valid.

Perhaps a man with same-sex attraction is bound to get a hostile reception from the 'gay community' if he also gives assent to the teachings of a religion like that of the Catholic Faith? Yes, this is the case, but its not the whole story. The sad truth is that what is known as the gay 'community' do not actually like individuals thinking for themselves and holding reasoned opinions based on their own experience. For instance, anyone who comes out, but who comes out 'the other side' is derided and pretty much despised. Yet, to attract the ire of the 'gay community', you don't even have to start batting for the other team or showing an interest in the other team. All you have to do is to question the received wisdom of the age.

So, for example, Rupert Everett, an actor who has made no secret of his sexual identity, has apparently been receiving 'hate mail' from members of the 'gay community' because he is perceived to have 'let the side down' over his recent comments suggesting that he does not think it a good thing for children to be raised by two men in a sexual relationship with one another.

In fact, one gay activist, in his blog, has named Rupert the 'Bigot of the Week' for his comments challenging the received wisdom that 'gay dads' raising children works out just fine and dandy and what could possibly go wrong? Rupert doesn't appear to be coming at this from any particular religious angle. It's just his opinion, based, presumably, on what he knows of the love that dare not keep schtum and how that might cause some problems for the healthy development of the child raised in that environment. His actual words were:

'I can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.'

According to the Daily Mail, even, his comment sparked 'outrage'. But 'outrage' among whom, exactly? Could it be among the circles that campaign for gay liberation issues and their friends? The 'metropolitan elite'? God forbid that a homosexual should actually consider the interests of children who are now being used as pawns in the homosexual culture clash with Western civilisation that threatens, with 'gay marriage', to dismantle the institution of the family and put it back together again with a form of marriage and family indifferent to gender and biology.

The 'gay community' treat homosexuals as a single homogeneous group like the communists did 'the workers'. They take it upon themselves to speak for all homosexual people as if homosexuals are genetically programmed to nod our heads in agreement everytime someone from Stonewall comes on the telly to tell the rest of society to dispense with their previously held convictions of what constituted the family, marriage, or even normality. God help the gays who cross the picket line!

Worse than this, however, is the way in which those who have good will towards the plight of homosexuals in this World, like the liberal establishment in the media, government and the rest, take it upon themselves to advance the agenda of an extreme group of gay fanatics into society to the detriment to the common good of all, thinking that they are doing a favour to all homosexuals because, according to this vanguard, even those homosexuals who disagree with the agenda are 'backward types' who require re-education, along with the rest of the the non-homosexual world who don't believe the propaganda - and it is propaganda. If the 'gay marriage' and 'gay parenting' stuff was not propaganda, people would be allowed to freely challenge the doctrines of gay liberation without getting hate mail or being publicly scorned for having caused 'outrage' to a group who have little time to even consider the effects that being raised in a 'loving, gay household' might have upon the development and world-view of an impressionable young child.

Stick to your guns, Rupert. And don't let the b*ggers get you down. There are worse things than being excommunicated from the 'gay community'...

BBC in Sex Abuse Cover Up Scandal

Presumably, the BBC knew of this skeleton in the Jim'll Fix It closet while they were running  salacious and highly misleading stories concerning the Catholic Church in the run up to the Papal Visit. Despite the fact that this story is front page news in most newspapers today, the BBC don't seem too keen to report their role in the Saville saga.