Choose Christ, Or, Give The People What They Want?

Our feast today, St John Fisher and St Thomas More seems to grow in relevance every year. After our battle for marriage these last few months their stand for the integrity of marriage and fidelity to Christ in the face of the Henry VIII's tyranny certainly resonates and shines out as a beacon of hope and encouragement. 

The feast hits home more forcefully today after an experience I had this morning, one many many young priests have these days, particularly in Ireland. I had a lady on the phone ringing to buy a burial plot, she had rung the wrong parish but when she realised she was talking to me she started to rebuke me for my ministry and preaching.  She believes that I am driving people away because I am preaching a Gospel she does not agree with. She wants the Church to be more like the Protestants, she said: "If the Church was more like the Anglicans and the other Protestants I would be going and so would many other people". Reality and experience show otherwise as many an Anglican minister will tell you. I told her I had to preach what Christ preached and she asked me when I was going to cop myself on and get sense. "You going to stop it, now, do you hear me? You're going to stop it!" (she actually said that).

As her recriminations grew I decided to asked her to answer one question: which was more important: to choose Christ or to give people what they wanted? She said she would go for the people; it was apparent in the conversation that, sadly, the Gospel means nothing to her. As I tried to explain what Our Lord said about that she hung up. Her attitude is not uncommon in Ireland today, particularly among people of her age group, the middle aged to elderly. Whatever has happened that generation! I could try and surmise why this lady and many like her are the way they are, but I have said it before: the Church in Ireland has failed to preach the Gospel for last half century or so, and for many Irish Catholics the faith is nothing more than a social thing, a sentimental relic useful only to make people happy or when they need a little boost. Part of me feels like concluding that it will be almost impossible to bring these people back, they are so far gone and so resistant to change, and indeed many of them, like the lady today, so bitter. But such a conclusion defies hope, and we must always hope.

The martyrs today speak of a different approach to faith. They realized that we must choose Christ, the faith is about him and the redemption he offers and the Gospel he preached. It is not about keeping people happy or giving them what they want, if it was Henry would have been able to marry and divorce at will without any moral teaching to stir his conscience. The faith is not about being popular, it is about truth, mercy and salvation and people coming to embrace all of that. Many in the Church in Ireland today live under the delusion that if we are popular (bishops and priests) we will bring people back in: but Christ's experience teaches us otherwise. In an age which rejects truth and morality, to remain popular we would have to abandon them to keep in with the people, and then we lose faith ourselves; sadly many priests in Ireland do that and they are now doing great damage as we saw with the "media priests" during the referendum.

If only Jesus had been more careful, more pastoral, turned a blind eye, say nice things to keep people in, he would never have been crucified, he would have lived a long life with lots of nice people around him listening to him and having the craic.....and none of us would have been saved.  If only John Fisher had gone with the rest of the bishops of England and assented, he would have lived his last years in comfort and ease. If only Thomas More had consented, he would have had great success and honour in the kingdom, perhaps become an Earl or Marquis or even a Duke! But they didn't; they chose Christ rather than keep Henry happy because they knew what was right and what was wrong, what Christ required, and if that meant they stood alone, were attacked, faced ignominy, then so be it.

Pope Benedict wisely taught us during his pontificate that it is not numbers that matter, but fidelity to Christ. We priests and faithful should not dilute the Word of God to get people in, if we do, in the end, we will have nothing to offer and we lose everything. There may be fewer people going to Mass, but at least they want to be there, they are committed and trying to live Christ-centred lives, and we can begin working with them to reignite a new evangelisation. 

Yes it is hard to see people go, and those attached to the faith may well go to other priests and parishes where the Gospel has been replaced with the doctrine of nice so their comfort is not disturbed. Yes, we may be laughed at, rebuked, told to cop ourselves on, be blamed for the collapse of the Church (it seems it is adherence to the Gospel that has led to the decline of the Church in Ireland, or so I am told). Our brother priests may look at us sadly and say we really don't get it, we are ruining it for everyone. But in the end if we cannot remain true to Christ and what he requires of us, then there is no reason to remain in the ministry we would be better off out of it for ourselves and for the Church. John Fisher and Thomas More understood that, and even though it was not the popular thing they chose Christ because that is what being Christian really means.

Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith has a good article on the two martyrs in the Catholic Herald. 

Inherit The Earth

Regal tenant: Elizabeth I claims the world for herself

In our Gospel today we are told by Jesus that he has come to save the world, not to condemn it. It is an interesting teaching that should lead us to reflect on our place in the world. We often hear about the "values of the world" and how we should not make them the foundation of our lives, and that is true. The "values of the world" are those grounded in the merely materialist, eschewing the divine and transcendent, fallen human values rather than those of God. But, in a way, these "values of the world" are actually alien to the world, since the world was made by God and he has impressed his divine artistry on it. The world is passing away, but rather than turning into itself, as the "values of the world" do, it points to something greater than itself, to the Creator whose signature we see in the beauty of nature, in the wonder of the stars, in the fascinating host of creatures. 

As Christians we can tend towards shunning the world, we keep to ourselves in order to be pure - we might think we have to sit it out and await the Second Coming. Well, St Paul tackles that attitude in his letters to the Thessalonians - we cannot and should not withdraw from the world, we must live in it. And living in it, we are to change it. Let us not forget that the world belongs to us - it was made for the children of God and so it is ours - Jesus reminds us of this in the Beatitudes when he says that the meek shall inherit the earth. We do not make the world our basket (again, the meek - they are the ones who can see things correctly), but we make this world a better place, a forum in which our souls are prepared for heaven and all those wonderful gifts given to us by God can be used for his glory and the encouragement of our fellow pilgrims. We never forget that we are passing through, but as on every pilgrimage, the journey is important too.

Of course we cannot forget that the tenants have taken over the vineyard and many many times down the centuries the tenants have tried to dispossess the children of God. The tenants are themselves children of God, but in their way of life they have turned their back on him and so renounced that status. They take the world for themselves and seek to change it to suit themselves and those who still adhere to God's plan and way of life are alienated. It is through these tenants that the "spirit of the world" and the "values of the world" come into being. On conquered land they establish the city of the world while the children of God struggle to maintain the city of God, if I may use Augustinian terms. But our task, as children of God, is to reclaim our inheritance, our world, and Jesus announces this mission in our Gospel today. However we have to  be careful and discern as we engage in a mission of reconquest - it is not for the sake of the world, but for the souls of the tenants. They have built their cities, their fortresses, but they are more akin to prisons where they hold themselves captive lest the transcendent get them. It is like a gang of pilgrims who hijack the bus on the way to Lourdes and won't let any of us proceed to the shrine because they want to stay at the roadside cafe, but nobody gets anywhere then, and we'll eventually run out of tea!

Why such thoughts today? Well, looking around us in Ireland I see the tenants are building walls to keep us all in their fortress. The children of God are being dispossessed and alienated, there is now an insistence that we conform to the values the tenants have devised for themselves. 

I am reminded of Queen Elizabeth I's religious revolution. She said at the beginning of her reign that in terms of the religious question, she could not see into the consciences of men, nor did she intend to. It seemed as if she was going to tolerant of Catholics, but not so. She established the Church of England and then expected all of her subjects to conform regardless of their conscience, those who did not paid for it either through fines that impoverished them or with their lives. She replaced the Virgin Mary with herself, establishing the cult of Gloriana, and everything was to revolve around her and her desires, secular and religious. We see the same today. The tenants tell us that we can believe what we like as long as it is private, yet they do not mean what they say: they will expect us to conform in every way to what they decree, even at level of our conscience which must be violated if they see fit. This is how they mean to dispossess the children of God.

But the meek shall inherit the earth, the Lord has come to redeem the world, and our task is to participate in that mission. We are not cower in the trenches or privatize our faith and values, but we are to go out into the world and live them and live by them even if it challenges the tenants, even if it means we may have to suffer. This will require a good dose of courage (cardinal virtue!), stamina (they will try to break us down), love (for we do it for love of them, for the salvation of their souls as much as our own) and ingenuity (the wily wisdom of the serpent married with the innocence of doves), but the Lord will give the grace to do this. Of course prudence is important, but we must be careful not to turn prudence into a vice, an excuse to feed our fear. There are too many Christians in the trenches cowering beneath a white flag, trying to appease the tenants and announcing peace in our time for the sake of a quiet life. 

At prayer this morning I remembered that Archbishop Oscar Romero will be beatified on the 23rd May, the day after the gay marriage referendum here in Ireland. Is that a coincidence or a God-incidence? The ballot takes place on the feast of St Rita (a necessary patronage there), but if the tenants win, then Oscar Romero's life and struggle may well be an example and inspiration for us: he too had to stand up to a corrupt regime and unjust laws, he had to defy them. He knew that the world belonged to the children of God and they should not be dispossessed of that which God has given them. Yes, they are pilgrims, but they do not walk on another's property, they tread the path their Father laid for them. We should never forget this. May the soon Blessed Oscar intercede for us in these times and obtain from the Lord the courage, wisdom, prudence and zeal we need to face the challenges that lie ahead.

Dismantling The Virtuous

Two English bishops have reacted to the depiction of St Thomas More in BBC's series Wolf Hall, an adaption of author Hilary Mantel's novels Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies, both of which have won the Booker Prize. [See article here] Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury and Bishop Mark O'Toole of Plymouth have severely criticized Mantel and the BBC's depiction of More as a scheming villain, an unenlightened, humourless and severe man: a characterization very much in opposition to contemporary accounts where even his enemies recognized a singular good and learned man.  He is even being portrayed, Bishop O'Toole points out, as anti-woman when in reality he was far advanced in his attitude towards women for this time, making the education of his daughters as much a priority as for his son.

Given that Mantel's books, and the BBC's adaption are centred on Thomas Cromwell and really represent a panegyric for Henry VIII's most loyal and faithful servant in the dissolution of the monasteries and the establishing of his new church, it is probably to be expected that one of the foremost men who stood in the way should be demonized. As you read Mantel's books and watch the series you have to bear in mind that we are not dealing with objective or good history, we are dealing with a particular view which is profoundly anti-Catholic and every event and every character is to be seen in the light of that prejudice, most especially the sainted men and women who could not consent to Henry's schemes. 

In recent years some historians have been looking again at More, and in their revised histories the renaissance man of letters and virtue disappears to be replaced by a bigot who took pleasure in burning heretics. Such an approach to history takes modern attitudes and developments and apply them to the past rather than seeks to study and understand individual figures as they actually were in their own time. When this hermeneutic is adopted you do not discover history or historical figures as was, but rather events and figures distorted by modern prejudice. This hermeneutic does not shed light on past events or people, but rather lionizes the idiosyncrasies of the present. 

As explained in the article, St  Thomas, as Lord Chancellor, did some things we would not have done, or at least we think we would not have done them. One of his duties was to protect the integrity of the state, and according to the law of the time heresy was seen as an action against that integrity (it was not seen then as simply a religious matter) - in the eyes of civil law it created dangerous divisions and corrupted the subjects of the king. It had to be dealt with, and the punishment for those convicted of heresy was a mandatory death sentence. 

The death sentence remains on the statute books of many countries today and, agree with it or not, it is still carried out for crimes considered heinous enough to deserve it. There are good people opposed to it and there are good people who see it as necessary for certain crimes. The Catechism tells us that the state still has the competence to use the death penalty for serious crimes, but given developments in security and incarceration etc, it is probably no longer necessary, but it still leaves the option there. That is what we have come to understand, St Thomas More, as a man of his time, lived in another age with a different understanding.  He did not take pleasure in the execution of heretics - at one point he did say that the state and the people were safer now that a particular individual was gone. And lest we feel we can judge him let us not forget that we live in an age where we are told the mutilation and killing in utero of innocent human beings is not only permitted, but should be a right protected by international and state law: we cannot be throwing stones at anyone in another age. In the sixteenth century a few heretics were burned, today we wade through the blood of tens of millions of children. That is an awful reality many of our contemporaries are quite happy to ignore while trying to silence those who are working to stop it.

There was a time, not that long ago, when people respected others regardless of their point of view. In that age Thomas More was regarded by most people as a man of integrity and conscience and he was respected for it, even by those who disagreed with him. Indeed there are many in Anglicanism who admire him even though he was deeply opposed to the founding of their church because it constituted a break with the Church founded by Christ to facilitate a king who wanted rid of his wife to marry his mistress. Agree or disagree with him on that, he was admired for his commitment to what he believed. Today, however, such a man of integrity is no longer admired. Relativism and secularism have rendered those who stand by their sincerely held faith and views as dangerous, as bigots: integrity is no longer admired because it usually stands in the way of progress.

Thomas Cromwell is now the model, a man who shaped his views and opinions to facilitate the prevailing opinion, he could see when the winds were changing and from where they were blowing at any given time, so he changed too. In that Cromwell may well be a fairly modern figure, but a model? A man to be admired? No. However we can learn one lesson from the life of the real Cromwell - you may twist and turn to keep up with the fickle winds, but one day you will not be quick enough to change and before you have time to squirm the axe will have fallen. St Thomas stood his ground, lost his head but preserved his integrity and, we believe, won the crown of martyrdom and eternal life. Cromwell just lost his head.

A Saint Speaks To Ireland

For your reflection, the homily St John Paul delivered to the young people of Ireland during his visit in 1979. He has important things to say.

Given that Ireland has abandoned its Christian faith, we might do well to listen to what he advises: when we think we are above religion we have lost something important.  Something else is needed - something that can only be found in Christ. In Christ we discover the true greatness of our humanity, make us understand our dignity as human being created in the image and likeness of God.

The Old Chestnut, Again

 

No doubt you may have already heard that our Bishop here in Meath has been under attack for the last few days due to a recent issuing of directives with regard to Catholic funerals in our diocese.  First of all, some of these attacks have been purely personal against Bishop Smith, and that is unacceptable although predictable.  It seems now in our "tolerant" age when people of faith defend the orthodox teaching and practice of the faith they often come under personal attack.  But, as those involved in respectful debate understand, if you need to attack the person rather than the argument, then you seem to have no defence for your position.

 

With regard to the directives (here is a link to the Bishop's letter on the Diocesan website), they are not new nor the personal initiative of Bishop Smith, they are simply the normal practice expected of priests and Catholic faithful during a Catholic funeral liturgy, practices which were the norm and accepted by most up until about ten or fifteen years ago.   That these practices have now become unacceptable is very revealing with regard to the level of faith and fidelity among many today.  Indeed one commenter on a blog wrote that the eulogy was the best part of a funeral, all the rest was boring.  So the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the intercessions for the salvation of the deceased are all boring, and I presume, unnecessary in a funeral liturgy?  This is certainly a revelation.

 

Of course this represents a major shift in the understanding of what a Catholic funeral actually is.  Today many think a Catholic funeral is in fact a Protestant one, wherein the life of the deceased is celebrated and there is no need to pray for the person's soul since they are already in eternal glory in heaven, regardless of how they lived their lives.  But that is not the theology of the Catholic faith - it never has been.  A Catholic funeral is primarily a ritual in which the Church official joins the bereaved in offering prayer and intercession for the salvation of a person's soul, not presuming that they have gone straight to heaven, but offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that they may be delivered from Purgatory and come to share in the resurrection of the Lord.   Agree or disagree with this, that is what the Church understands and has always understood the Requiem Mass to be.  All texts are to be from Scripture or the official prayers of the Church, ie the liturgy.  In this context the mortal remains are buried in the hope of the resurrection. 

 

That is a Catholic funeral and the integrity of that has been lost over the years.  While that is the official liturgy, it does exclude personal expressions of grief and remembrance, but these take place, traditionally, outside the liturgy in other places.  In Ireland the tradition has been to eulogise either at the wake in the person's home, or at the graveside - the Oration.  Some have been implying that the eulogy is traditionally delivered in the church - there is no such tradition, that has only emerged in the last ten, fifteen, twenty years in Ireland.

 

With regard to this recent controversy, it might need to be pointed out that eulogies and funeral liturgies have been a bone of contention for a number of years, and every so often, usually during periods when news is scarce, the media whip up a storm over the issue and the Church is attacked yet again.  This time they are responding to Bishop Smith's directives, but in fact this is not the first time he has issued them - this is a reminder - the Church in Meath has been adhering to liturgical norms for many years and we priests have been trying to explain them to the faithful.

 

This debate is now generating more heat than light, and while people are offering opinions, few if any are prepared, it seems to me, to try and understand what a Catholic funeral actually is.  It seems in this radically secular age even sacred liturgy must now incorporate the secular even when the values of secularism radically contradict the faith of the Church, and it seems the ministers of the Church who are to be guardians of the Church's liturgy are not permitted to prevent this intrusion.  This is not only a sad development, but a dangerous one: it means that secularism must dominate even faith and the sacred.  Ultimately this is what this controversy is all about: the re-forming of the sacred according to the ideals of the secular. 

Christianity: A Public, Not A Private Faith

St John Wang Kuixin and his cousin St Joseph Wang Kuiju

Last Monday we celebrated the feast of the martyrs of China – a group of 120 men and women and children who were put to death for their Catholic faith between 1648 and 1930.  With such a large group we might be tempted to forget that each one of these martyrs has a personal story and made an individual decision to choose Christ and the Church knowing that it would mean death.  Among the martyrs are members of families arrested en masse for their faith and put to death in various ways. 

Today is the anniversary of the martyrdom of one of these martyrs, St John Wang Kuixin, whose martyrdom resonates with what is going on in Western society today.

St John was born in Qi County in Hebei Province in the north of China in 1875.  He was a devout Catholic who sought to live his faith as well as he could.  By the age of twenty-five he was married with children, serving his family humbly and passing on the Catholic faith to them.  In 1900 the Boxer rebellion broke out.  The Boxers were a nationalist/religious group who were trying to rid China of foreign influences including Christianity.  A fierce persecution was waging throughout China with countless Catholics being put to death by the Boxers.  Aware of the threat to their families John and his cousin Joseph Wang Kuiju (born 1863), also a fervent Catholic, decided to leave their native village and settle in another one where there was a large Catholic population. 

Loading their meagre possessions on wagons, the cousins and their families had no problem leaving and reached the safety of the other village.  Having left some stuff in their native place, the two cousins returned to collect them.  As they were on their way a heavy shower prevented their continuing the journey, and so they found shelter at an inn.  During a conversation in the inn it was discovered that the cousins were Catholic and the two had to defend their faith as the other guests were attacking their religion.  In the course of the debate, someone sent for the Boxers and as soon as they arrived, they beheaded Joseph on the spot.   John tried to escape, but he was caught and, for some reason, not killed.  He was arrested and brought before a local magistrate.

The magistrate seemed to be a kindly sort and he wanted to spare the young man’s life.  He urged John not to speak about his faith: he should keep it to himself: that way he would not offend anyone and his life would be spared.  But John could not accept such conditions – to hide his faith, to consign it to his “private life” was not what Christ asked his disciples to do.  In fact, for John, to do so was to deny Christ and the faith.  John refused.  With great reluctance, the magistrate handed him over to the Boxers.  On the 14th July 1900 John was put to death, invoking the Holy Name of Jesus as he went to his execution.

John and his cousin Joseph were canonised together by Blessed Pope John Paul II in the year 2000.

St John was asked to do what we are being told to do by our secular governments – to consign our faith to the private sphere and not allow it influence our public words and actions.  Catholic politicians, President John F Kennedy of the USA foremost among them, publicly disavow their Catholic faith and reassure the powers that be that they will not allow their “personal faith” interfere with their decisions.  We have Catholic politicians voting for abortion, civil partnership, gay marriage, euthanasia even though these contradict the moral teaching of the Church in which they claim to be in communion. And then they have the audacity to present themselves as Catholics in good standing and arrive at the altar to receive the Eucharist – and, unfortunately, clergy facilitate this by silence and giving them Holy Communion. 

St John Wang Kuixin’s martyrdom reveals the hypocrisy at the heart of this “double-think” or spiritual schizophrenia.  He also offers us an example of how we should act in the face of secularism’s pressure to make us deny our faith in public and tries to rid the public square of the Christian voice. 

The Celebration Of Faith

A happy St Patrick's Day to you all from Ireland.  As we celebrate the life and teaching of our patron saint, we pray that he will intercede for all your needs, and we ask you to pray for Ireland.

Today is the celebration of the mystery of faith - the Christian faith, which St Patrick taught.  He was not the first Christian missionary to Ireland - we already had Christians here, and even a number of Saints.  Neither was he the first bishop to the Irish - St Palladius was here before him.  St Patrick, however, seemed to have had a particular charism, he travelled around the country preaching the faith, converting and baptising, to an extent which had been unknown up to that time.  He initiated a spiritual revolution among a barbarian people, and for this he is the Apostle of Ireland.

So in our Masses we honour this holy man, our Father in faith, and our celebrations as Christians must first and foremost be founded on faith.  Yet, for many people "Paddy's Day" is not about faith at all.  As I said in my homily at Mass this morning, there are people in Ireland who are trying to wipe out Catholicism, and today they will be raising their glasses in honour of "St Paddy".  Meanwhile the rest of the world are dyeing their rivers green, eating cabbage and downing gallons of alcohol as they celebrate "Irishness".

The marriage of St Patrick and "Irishness" is only a recent phenomenon.  It developed in the 19th century when Irish Nationalists hijacked the feast of the Patron of Ireland to further their cause.  The St Patrick's Day parade was originally a civil rights march, and as for the leprechauns, the diddly dee and the clay pipes, well that's just stereotyping, and it drives some of us Irish crazy.  There are many who think we still live in thatched cottages, have red beards (even our women?) and sprinkle our conversation with "begorrahs".  God help us! 

Even worse than all this is that many of those out "drowning the shamrock" never darken the door of a church, and yet the man they celebrate was a man who wanted to bring the Irish to God, to keep them faithful to the Mass and to the practice of the faith.   There is no doubt that we need to reclaim St Patrick and his feast and begin to divorce it from nationalism.  Ironically, it makes no difference if one is Irish to celebrate this feast, it's all about Christianity.  Indeed today the British may well celebrate, not Irishness or the Irish among them, but that a son of Britain who left his people and his land to proclaim the Gospel among an alien people.  In this St Patrick serves as an important link between Britain and Ireland, a link which is firmly grounded in the Christian faith.  And, it seems, there may well be a church in Britain which was built by the Saint himself - see here for the article.

In other news: it seems it may be the end of the road for the Society of St Pius X: the Vatican has not accepted their response to the doctrinal preamble - it is inadequate for the restoration of full union. A friend said to me yesterday that it is all a game to the SSPX - they think that because the Pope desires reconciliation they can do what they want because they think the Pope will just bring them back in without their having to say they were wrong.  They will still continue to reject Vatican II.  It is an interesting position, and I think there is a level of truth in it.  Traddie blogs are convinced that reconciliation will take place without their having to move an inch because they are in the right, they believe. 

Well, if they do not move an inch, then there should be no reconciliation: they must accept Vatican II or stay where they are.  Many think this row is all about the liturgy and so they think that as Pope Benedict has given greater freedom for the celebration of the Extraordinary Form the way is open.  This row is not about the liturgy, it is about the Church's apostolate and her outreach to the men and women of our time, her holding to the truth, but also seeking to engage with those of other faiths and none.  The Society has until April to clarify its position: the ultimatum has been issued. The Vatican, it seems, may well be tired of playing games.

What could happen here?  Well one commentator said that it could lead to a declaration of formal schism, the reimposition of the excommunication on the bishops and priests, and an interdict on their lay followers.  We must pray for them.

The NYT and FFRF

I remember a conversation I had with a friend of mine a while ago, we were discussing the various attacks on the Catholic Church and our beliefs by non-believers and radical secularists.  He said that the reason they are so vicious, slanderous and untruthful was because they know the Church will not take them on: they know the Church will actually stand by Jesus Christ's teaching on forgiveness and turning the other cheek, so they are emboldened. 

Or as another friend of mine once said: "When a journalist libels the Catholic Church, he/she knows there will never be a libel case against them and that they can get safely into their car, turn the key and drive blissfully home unharmed."  The Catholic Church, despite all her faults and sins, still strives to take the Gospel seriously, so we can look at these attacks in that light - despite their griping, they know the Church stands by her values.  That said, it does not, and should not mean, we do not challenge the lies which have become common place.

There is a bit of furore in the US over another attack on the Church, this time by some crowd who call themselves the Freedom from Religion Foundation or FFRF (alot of Fs there!).  They have taken out an advertisement in the New York Times (surprise surprise) attacking the Church over her stance on contraception and other issues, and trying to persuade people to leave the Church.   Here's the Catholic League's take on it, and here's a copy of the ad itself.  

Now, to be honest, I have no problem with people inviting Catholics to leave the Church if those Catholics vehemently disagree with fundamental Church teaching: as St Dominic Savio used to say, we have to be true to ourselves.  Of course we want people to stay, to understand the fullness of the faith and to play their part in the Church.  But if people cannot stomach the moral teachings Christ has entrusted to the Church to uphold and teach, and are not prepared to reflect on them and pray and seek to understand why the Church holds them, then perhaps it is time to skip off somewhere else, as Archbishop Diarmuid Martin advised a short time ago.  We will, of course leave the door open and pray for them.

There is one part of the ad which is interesting - it's at the end: the subscription rates - it seems the Freedom from Religion Foundation is not free at all - there are dues, including an "After Life" subscription rate of $5,000, that got me chuckling.  I presume that bit is the 'spirit' which keeps their memory alive after members have thrown off the mortal coil and gone into oblivion?  And they say the Catholic Church is money mad!

The Baroness Impresses

Baroness Warsi, the British Conservative peer, is going down very well at the Vatican.  Having impressed Pope Benedict during his visit to Britain, she is leading a delegation from the UK marking thirty years of full diplomatic relations with the Holy See and seems to be impressing again with her thoughts on the role of religion in society.

Lady Warsi is a Muslim, yet her views and her speech to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, reveal just how close Catholicism and Islam can be when it comes to faith in the public square.  Her speech is well worth reading. 

She sees that religion has a vital role to play in public and political life - that should give the Church-state separationists a stroke.  In fact her thinking is very similar to Pope Benedict's in this area, and it has been noted that she has referred to and quoted from his writings.  There's interfaith dialogue for you.  Like Benedict she is reminding us believers that we should not hide our faith, nor conform it to secularism, but rather be confident in it.

Interestingly as a Muslim, she sees that Europe is inherently Christian and that the continent "needs to become more confident in its Christianity".   Plucking out the old apologetic for diminishing the position of Christianity in Europe, she says that is "a basic misconception: that somehow to create equality and space for minority faiths and cultures we need to erase our majority religious heritage."  If Benedict said that the liberal papers would be baying for his blood.  But the Baroness is correct.  She ends her speech with a humdinger: "Christianity is as vital to our future as it is to our past."

One quotation from the Baroness's speech is most interesting - something the Irish government should take careful note of - the embassy to the Holy See is in fact an important diplomatic mission for the benefits it brings to a country:

“The UK recognizes that, as the smallest state in the world, the Holy See has the widest global reach. It therefore seems inevitable that the UK with its global reach, historical and cultural interests should nurture, strengthen and promote our relationship.”

She also has something to say about ecumenism - something many of us have been saying for years in face of some who abandon or dilute the doctrines of their faith to get on with those of other religions:

“Interfaith dialogue works when we debate our differences, when we wear our beliefs on our sleeves. It’s not about you giving your version of God, and me giving my version of God. And us coming to some watered-down compromise. But about establishing our areas of consensus.”

I wish more Catholics could think like this Muslim lady.

UPDATE:

I note from the comments at the end of the Telegraph article on the Baroness's speech, that the secularists are furious, as one would expect.  Tolerance is not one of their strong points.

Matthew Cantirino of First Things, has an interesting article, referring to "Warsi's Wager" - that the time may be right for some sort of inter-religious coalition to counteract the growth of dictatorship by European secularism.  An interesting thought.

Catching Up

Back to the Hedge School: the future of Catholic schools in Ireland?

Getting time to blog has been difficult in the last week - various pastoral duties; yesterday was pretty busy.  So time, I think, for a little news round up so Father Director can get on his pony and rant for a bit - we all need a bit of a rant every now and again.  Famous last words which will be regretted, no doubt, as I sit in the rogue's gallery waiting for my turn in confession.   So "Charitas" as St Francis de Paolo would say.

My colleague over at the St Genesius blog has an interesting post on the ongoing discussions over the future of Catholic education in Ireland.  Our American and British readers will know all about this since they have been dealing with the assault on Catholic education for decades.  It seems that the draft proposals for Catholic schools (ie those the government decides to leave with us) are suggesting that religious education, and indeed ethos, be strictly kept to certain times and not permitted to "infiltrate" (my word) the rest of the curriculum.

Well, the Catholic Church's response to this should be brief and unambiguous: "Not on your Nellie!"  Here's where the new appointments to Irish Sees becomes important.  The new Irish bishops will need to be strong and indeed defiant in the face of such suggestions.  If these proposals are to implemented by the government, then the Church should refuse to accept them and refuse to implement them in our schools. 

Lest the fearful among us object - the Constitution of this country is on our side on this one, and we should use it.  I often ask myself, why is the Church in Ireland terrified to use the Constitutional protections we have and actually feel the need to negotiate a compromise when there is no need to do so?  There seems to be a fear of standing up to the government. 

We do not have to hand over schools.  Regardless of what Irish ecclesiastical figure says we should, there is no onus on us at all.  It is up to parents to decide if they want a Catholic education for their children.  If the majority do, then there is a need for lots of Catholic schools.  If secularists want non-denominational schools, they are entitled to them under the Constitution - so they go and set them up and the government must support them.  But why are they whining on about Catholic schools?  Is it the case that they do not want to go to the bother of setting up their own, they want to take the easy way out and take over ours?  Or is it a case they want to get rid of Catholic education altogether? 

Ironically, as has happened in other countries, when all this has been settled, and there are secular schools galore, there will be a clamour to get children into the remaining Catholic schools, and no doubt you'll find plenty of secularists among them. 

As for the suggestion that the display of religious artifacts "be inclusive of all belief systems".  With all due respect, if you pop into a Jewish or Muslim school you will not find a crucifix (which is offensive to Muslims by the way - they do not believe Jesus was crucified), nor a statue of Our Lady of Lourdes.  Nor, in a Catholic school, should we find statues of Hindu gods, Buddha or a mihrab. Nor should we celebrate the festivals of other faiths since many of these are offensive to our Christian faith.  How can we, as followers of Christ and as monotheists have our children, whom we are trying to catechize, celebrate Rama Navami, the feast of the birth of the god Rama?  Yes, we must teach our children respect for other religions, and something about them, but as for putting them on the same level as Christianity by celebrating the feasts and erecting shrines to other gods, that's not on.  Again, the response to this must also be decisive "No".

In other news, RTE is reeling (no pun intended) from the government's decision to hold an enquiry into the defamation of Fr Kevin Reynolds.  As we all know this case was horrific, and to be honest I am delighted things have turned out as they have: we need to expose the shoddy journalism which has become commonplace in a number of media organisations.  Here is one priest who did not sit down and take the accusations, and while I have little time for the ACP's ideological agenda, I think they have done the Church in Ireland a service by pushing Fr Reynold's case.  I know of too many cases where innocent priests and religious were not permitted to challenge accusations.  It was easier to pay the compensation and apologise, and so some superiors took that road rather than risk offending people in the current climate.   

The question is: how will this inquiry turn out?  Will RTE learn?  And will other stories which were not entirely true be investigated also?  Is this a single enquiry into one case, or will the government bite the bullet and conduct a thorough investigation?

The full implementation of the corrected translation of the Missal is upon us. On Saturday evening, with the Vigil Masses, all texts for the Mass must come from the new Missal - the old Missals are no longer to be used.  As you trot across the net you'll find many articles and blog posts on this, and many are not happy. One writer says the implementation of the new Missal is an act of Vatican Vandalism (some say the implementation of the vernacular Missal was another such act - I shall not comment).  What I find most amusing, is that the liberals who are protesting are in the same position as the traditionalists back in the Seventies - they do not want the change, they will resist it; they will cling to the old Missal for dear life.  I wonder if that irony has dawned on them.

My own experience has been positive.  In my parish my people have responded most generously to the new translation.  My daily Mass goers have the new responses off by heart.  Some have wondered why the change, and they have listened to the explanations.  For a number of weeks I devoted the Sunday homilies to the new translation and to a catechesis on the Mass in general and it was well received.  I think when people are introduced to the new translation with openness and enthusiasm, they respond.  A friend of mine, a layman, said that in parishes where the priests are positive and explain the changes and reasons for them, the people will be positive and welcome the translation; in parishes where priests are negative and rebellious, the people will be negative.  There is some truth in that. In the meantime I must pop out to the cemetery and find a nice spot to bury the old Missals - I don't like the idea of burning them.

And to end, today is the feast of the Martyrs of Vietnam: to all our brothers and sisters in that country, we wish you a happy feast day.  May the example of your holy martyrs, who offer the whole Church an outstanding witness to the Catholic faith, sustain you and all of us as we seek to live the Gospel with greater fidelity.

Among these martyrs is St Theophane Venard, a young French priest beheaded in Tomkin in 1861.  St Therese of the Child Jesus was a devotee of his: she had his photograph pinned to the curtain hanging over her bed as she was preparing for death.  She prayed to him often and sought his help in her suffering: I believe he obtained many graces for her.  There is something about Theophane which is very Theresian - a practitioner of the Little Way, I think.  May he watch over all of us in these times.  And to end, a photograph of Theophane, to print out and pin up over your bed just in case the angel of death decides to pop in for a chat.

St Theophane Venard, priest and martyr

(1829-1861)

No Smooching Here

Here's an interesting story - the Vatican has taken exception to an image Benetton clothing company was using for its advertising campaign - the photo shows the Holy Father and Muslim Sheikh Ahmed Mohamed El-Tayeb kissing, one of a number of photoshopped images of political leaders in passionate embraces.  Benetton has pulled the photo, thank God.  The Vatican tends to be very tolerate of offensive images, but this was one step too far.

I am delighted that the Vatican has decided to raise its voice - I think it tends to let too many things go, as does the Church in general, so much so that people think they can say what they like and offend Christians in any way possible in the sure knowledge that we will not raise a whimper in protest. 

Sometimes I think those who attack us rationalise their abuse by saying "Christians have to forgive, so if they object, we can throw the accusation of hypocrisy in their faces".  It reminds me of a incident when I was teaching: one of my students had misbehaved badly in class, and when I brought him out to check him, he said with a smirk "You're a priest, you have to forgive me and let me off."  I told him I did forgive him - from the bottom of my heart, but he was still being punished - for his own good".  That wiped the smile off his face: he got extra homework and a "blue card" (a demerit card). 

I am all in favour of forgiveness and putting up with bad behaviour and attacks with patience and prayer, but that tolerance has to be mitigated in each situation by assessing the effect of our tolerance.  Will our silence confirm and reinforce injustice, bad behaviour and indeed sin?   We also have to gauge the reaction to our objection - will we do more harm than good?    Looking at the Holy See's response to Enda Kenny's attack, for example, we see that it was measured, diplomatic but yet firm - the government did not like it and tried to make hay by insinuating that it was another example of now entrenched the Holy See was and unable to admit her mistakes.  But that was an anti-Catholic government's view - the interpretation of other nations was different: they saw the Holy See setting the record straight.  

In the interest of fairness we have to give Benetton their due, when the Vatican raised its objection, it took down the image - perhaps they thought to themselves "If the Catholics are objecting so strongly, the Muslims will be really peeved" - no one dares offend Muslims for fear of the consequences.   But they have apologised for offending the faithful, let's hope others will be as respectful in future.

I note another story this morning - from The Irish Catholic.  According to the paper the four Archbishops of Ireland are resisting attempts by the Vatican to reform the structure of Irish dioceses.  A number of people have suggested that our dioceses need to be reduced in number, a suggestion I agree with.  It appears Rome may well agree also, and so is considering changes which will form new dioceses with a Catholic population of 300,000 on average.  The story in The Irish Catholic says that the Archbishops want dioceses with an average population of 100,000.  

To be honest I do not think that would effect too many changes at all.  If this story is true, then I would advise that we cooperate with the Vatican - the time for resistance is over.  With an anti-Catholic government in place, a group of dissident priests doing everything they can to undermine the faith of the people in the communion of the Church universal, this is not the time for haggling with the Holy Father.   Time for us to die to self and realise that perhaps we may not be the right people to sort out the mess the Church in Ireland is in.  Yes, we can help and cooperate, but perhaps it is time to follow Peter.

UPDATE:   It seems the Vatican is actually going to take legal proceedings against Benetton.  Is this a first?  In another legal story: Irish priest, Fr Kevin Reynolds who sued RTE for their false accusations of his having raped and impregnated a young Kenyan girl has been vindicated in the courts.  RTE reached a settlement with him paying not only his costs and compensation, but being order also to pay aggravated damages - a punitive measure imposed by courts on guilty defendants.  While the amount RTE has to pay will not be revealed, it is reckoned to be at least in seven figures.  Here's RTE news' report on the settlement.  That should teach RTE - but will they learn the lesson??  We will see. 

Call To Arms

"The times, they are a-changing", Bob Dylan crooned, and so indeed they are.  Reading an article on the issue of "gay marriage" on the Catholic Herald website, I noticed a very good observation:  that the Church now sees that "we’ve gone beyond the point at which we are simply defending traditional marriage: more and more, this is seen as a question of defending our liberty to do it."  The battle is no longer to try and preserve the moral order, but to have the freedom to believe in a moral order.    That is where we are now, and that's frightening.

Despite all the talk of pluralism and tolerance, which we all know at this stage to be mere cosmetic and blah by the secularists, the Church is increasingly being polarised for her belief that there is an objective moral order.  We all know that attack has been going on for some time, but never before has it felt like we are really on the run.  For the first time in my life I feel like we Catholics are now being chased by the dogs - like the poor Jews in the streets of Nazi Germany.  As they were denied citizenship and indeed basic humanity for their faith and ethnicity, so too Catholics for our adherence to Judeo-Christian morality.

And to be honest, I think we should feel exhilarated by that.  It is in such times that we Christians flourish. The sheep are divided from the goats, and the Church gets her act together, rallying the troops and raising the standard of Jesus Christ.  The times are indeed a-changing, and it is time to let go of the defeatist, soft-core Catholicism which has been the hallmark of too many since Vatican II.   The time has come for hard-core witness and fidelity.  My colleague over at the St Genesius blog reveals how few Irish Catholics objected to our Taoiseach's disgraceful attack on the Pope - surely he must be told in no uncertain terms by faithful Catholics that his unwarranted vitriol was not music to the ears of all Irish Catholics - that many of us are ashamed of him and want to distance ourselves from his inaccurate remarks. 

Time to get the finger out, methinks.  Stop running and turn around to face the aggressors. As Scripture tells us, when we stand up to the devil he runs away from us: if such cowardice is noted of the prince of darkness, then it is even more so of his minions. 

Update: Irish Embassy To The Holy See

Donum Vitae blog alerted me to a marvellous homily delivered by Fr Richard Gibbons, curate at Our Lady's Shrine in Knock, on the recent decision to close the embassy.  Follow the link and listen to it.   The Irish Times reported on the homily also. 

Breda O'Brien also had an excellent column on the issue in Saturday's Times.   Her final sentence just sums it all up: "Ireland has few friends. We have been reduced to humbly accepting the stray crumbs from the negotiating table where the important players haggle. It hardly seems the time to burn any more bridges."  One would have thought that the government would have the wit to realise that.  But then is it a case that ideology is confounding common sense? 

Back To The Catacombs?

Back to where we started?  Christians arrested during Mass in the Catacombs



Remember how the secularists tell us believers that they just want religion out of the public space, but we are quiet free to practice our beliefs privately and behind the closed doors of our homes?  Well, we don't swallow that one nor agree with it, but if were to take the secularists at their own word, we see that they really don't mean what they say: and here is a good example which proves that point: a Californian family have been fined for hosting a Bible study group in the privacy of their own home.  

So now, dear people, did you ever think you needed a permit for a private prayer group at home?  Do we now need a licence for the family rosary?  Perhaps even planning permission for the May altar?  And, God forbid, perhaps even an act of parliament to permit a house Mass!  Ah, the freedom our friends the secularists offer us!  Where would be be without it?  Free, that's where!

On that note: anyone interested in starting St Genesius prayer groups in the home?  Get a few friends together for the rosary, some prayers and friendship?  If so give us a shout: info@stgenesius.com. 

Of Meat And Holy Things

It is well known that when Catholics abandon part of their faith, its practice or their heritage, the secular world takes it up and transforms it according to its own ideology.  We all know of the example of Gregorian Chant: as the hippy Masses unleashed folk, rock and sentimental pop on the liturgy, burning the old hymnals, the secular world and record companies took to Chant and made a fortune out of the few monastic communities who battled on singing the ancient music of the faith.  When priests and religious dropped black habits and clerical clothes for Hawaiian shirts and collars and ties, young Goths took to black and made it a statement for their lifestyle and beliefs. 

Two interesting stories in the news today remind me of two more Christian practices which many have abandoned but the secular world has embraced.  Fr Ray Burke has a brief post reminding the faithful in England and Wales that the rule of abstinence has returned: from today, by decree of the bishops Catholics in England and Wales are to abstain from meat (and yes, chicken is meat).   This may come as a shock to some.  When abstinence was abandoned, vegetarianism suddenly became a fashion.  When fasting was dropped, we suddenly heard of all these diet and de-tox practices which were good for the body and mirrored the old way of fasting in the Church - bread and water, or in the case of the de-tox - water and fruit.  I wonder if the Irish bishops would consider following their English and Welsh brothers?  After all, Pope Benedict in his Letter to the Irish asked that we offer our Friday penances in reparation for child abuse - reinstating the law of abstinence would be an excellent gesture.  Of course the leaders of the ACP would have stokes if that happened.

George Weigel in his weekly column is urging the Russian Orthodox Church not to pussyfoot on the issue of removing Lenin's body from public display and burying it.  I am reminded of the horror stories I was told of relics and bodies of the saints being buried or even discarded by many following Vatican II.  Skips, rubbish tips and dumps were filled with the bones, clothing and belongings of the canonised and beatified as the liberal theologians told the faithful, in particular the religious, that these things were not no longer needed  - the Church needed grow up and discard such superstitions as the veneration of relics.  As the years passed, though, many of these same people ended up in as practitioners of the New Age worshiping the elements and feeling the power that is in crystals (aka bits of glass or shiny stones).  

In Russia the bodies of the "saints" of the Soviet Union, the mass murderers Lenin and Stalin, were embalmed and put on the display for the "veneration" of the "party faithful" (aka everyone in Russia, whether they liked it or not): a practice learned from us Christians who preserve the sacred remains of our holy ones.  Stalin has been quietly removed and buried - Lenin's body still lies in state, but many want him out and interred.  It seems the Orthodox Church in Russia is hesitant to support this despite the fact that Lenin was responsible for the martyrdom of many Orthodox Christians. 

Thankfully respect for relics is growing again, although the secular world, primarily through eBay, is trying to cash in on this.  It is disgraceful that relics should be sold on the open market, but is is even more disgraceful that relics should fall into the wrong hands.  Relics are sacred and must be cared for - we do not own relics, we are merely custodians and part of that role is making provision for those relics in our care to ensure they are returned to Orders and congregations, or are passed into safe hands.  As for Lenin, well, I think we can bury him.

Today In The News...

Just when you think things can't get any worse, a new front is opening on the assault on the Church, this time courtesy of the retired Bishop of Derry, Dr Edward Daly.  In his new book he advocates for a change to the rule of celibacy in the Church.  We'll see where that goes.  Given what we are dealing with at the moment, this is most unhelpful.

I was watching last night's Frontline programme on RTE 1, hosted by Pat Kenny.  The topic was the Seal of the Confessional, and it was a most desperate production.  It should really be called "Flatline" because the atmosphere was deadening.  The usual suspects were there advocating that the Church should disregard the Seal: Minister Frances Fitzgerald was leading the attack, with Gina Menzies, Andrew Madden and a guy called Brendan with rearguard action.  On the other side were notables such as Fr Vincent Twomey, David Quinn and Rosemary Swords, leader of the Elijah Fellowship Community in Dublin, whose intervention was powerful and disarming.   Some legal voices were also heard and they pointed out that any legislation which sought to compel priests to reveal confessions would be unconstitutional and thrown out of court.  So at least it was good for the Minister to hear that fact.

Meanwhile another blow has been dished out to Enda Kenny by former Taoiseach Brian Cowen.  He has said that the Vatican was trying to assist the government in its investigations, but the commission established by the government used the wrong channels.  When told what channels to use the commission decided not to use them, and then accused the Vatican of refusing to cooperate.  It seems to me that there may have been another agenda at work here, and perhaps, it seems to me, an opportunity was "created" to show the Vatican in a negative light so as to embellish the report's critique of Catholicism.

In other news, it seems David Norris is thinking of getting himself back into the race for the park - to become the next President of Ireland.  It seems the people of Ireland want him to resume his campaign.  Ironic given recent events: another indication that there is a most unsavoury double standard at work in Ireland today.

London Burning

London is quiet again after the riots of the last few nights.  With 16,000 police on the streets last night the vandals didn't take a chance on rioting or looting in the capital, though the same cannot be said for young thugs in other cities in England.   I was watching Newsnight last evening and a panel was trying to figure out what was the cause of this dreadful behaviour.  As expected there were two quasi apologists who blamed society, the lack of funding and few opportunities: young people frustrated and rejected resort to violence in order to be heard.   That raised the shackles of some of the other panelists and if it wasn't for the host we might have had a riot in the BBC studios (no harm maybe!).

Well I have to say I agree in part with the "quasi-apologists" - there are many deprived people in London, as in many other cities in the world including Dublin, and deprivation and injustice can lead people to desperate measures.  However one has to also bear in mind that we are not dealing with a subspecies of human being - those engaged in this senseless violence in England are intelligent human beings (for the most part) and so their turning to mindless violence, thuggery and theft is not completely due to deprivation - there is something more.  When you look at social policies in the UK and other European countries you see a tremendous amount of resources and time going into disadvantaged social groups.  You see "minorities" receiving grants and special projects and even subject to "positive discrimination" in order to help them, but they still remain disadvantaged, still victims.  One has to ask why with all that we still see scenes like those in England?

Part of the reason for these riots, I believe, is the breakdown of morality and responsibility.  This generation, and the generation before them, have grown up with relativism and have been told that whatever they think is right is right - they have to honour their own truth.  Programmes have sought to instill a sense of self-affirmation, but in a way which has diluted responsibility and the moral imperative.  These youngsters do not know that they owe society a debt and must play their part in building it up - for them society owes them and so they nurse a grievance which turns to violence very easily when they do not get what they want: they do not have the moral resources to question themselves nor perhaps even the desire to serve others, and yet as responsible human beings this is part of life.  All of this emerges from the dilution of Christian values in the UK and other places, and so, in a sense, this rioting is the child born of anti-religious secularisation.

Another reason is the breakdown of family life and authority.  So imbued with the sense of their own autonomy, these young people do not accept any form of authority, and certainly not the rule of law as represented by the police.  Liberal attempts to transfer power and rights over children from the family to the state have neutered the family and with it destroyed the forum within which children learn to become moral and social beings.  While the state may put countless policies and measures in place to care for these children, and sometimes these are necessary for children in situations where their parents cannot or will not look after them properly, these measures cannot replace a father and a mother and the lessons they teach their children in the context of loving relationships.  A child growing up in a family must come to honour his parents and in this way develop a proper understanding of authority, of its place in society and the need to respect it.  Parents should give a human and loving face to authority, and when that is understood by the child, they do not harbour an automatic hatred of authority in the world.  They will need discernment of course, but they will not resort to violence as soon as an authority says "no" to them.

That said there are injustices in society and many are suffering from them.  But responsible human beings, and I am not even talking about religious people, will respond in a civilised way.  And here, I think we come to the issue: what we are seeing in these riots is the breakdown of civilisation - we have a young generation who have not been civilised - they are the modern equivalent of the barbarian - although the barbarian did have some values.  As post-modern ideology has sought to re-mould society and human beings in it attempts to establish a new world order, here it is on the streets of London.  Alasdair MacIntyre's prophecy in After Virtue is coming true: we are entering the Dark Ages where civilisation will collapse.  The social experiment has failed and now we have to pay the price.

But there is hope and that hope, I believe, is to be found in faith and in the Church.  MacIntyre says in his book that in the Middle Ages St Benedict, his order emerged and they preserved Western civilisation - the Church of the Dark Ages was not that of the Enlightenment philosophers's myth, but one which a repository for all that is good in human culture - she may need to be again.   As for those young people, well we will have to give them to Don Bosco, and seek to find ways to reach them: that is the job of the New Evangelisation, and watching the images of rioting and violence, you realise how big a task lies ahead of us.  But as Jesus says, for God all things are possible, so I suppose we just listen to Him, push the sleeves up and stuck in!

UPDATE: Just surfing the net to catch up on news.  Fr Tim Finigan has a wonderful blog post on the riots.  He is in Blackfen in London, so he's in the middle of it all.  He has some insights to share not unlike my own, but he has a bit of humour too and it has made my day!  I love what the rep from Waterstones had to say about the riots:   "We'll stay open; if they steal some books they might learn something!"  Excellent! Though I imagine Waterstones would be the safest shop in the city!   But Fr Finigan's own observation is priceless: "Witty, but to the point when you consider that in Peckham the Pound Shop was looted (seriously!) If only there were footage of someone swaggering triumphantly down Elm Grove waving a five-pack of sellotape and a bumper bag of wine gums."

Sweet Heart of Jesus

There is a wonderful article by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith in the Catholic Herald Online about today's great Solemnity, well worth a read.    He reminds us that today's feast is truly rich: a celebration of the Incarnation - a "feast of flesh" he calls it, but also a deeply intimate feast, one in which we are called to enter into the Heart of Jesus Christ - the Heart that was opened on the cross for us - opened to release grace out upon us, but opened also to be a door for us to enter into the life of God. 

St Veronica Giuliani

I think of the great Italian mystic, St Veronica Giuliani: when her mother was dying she confided each of her little children to a wound of the Lord - little Ursula, as she was then, was entrusted to the wound in the Lord's side.  It would prove providential - she entered into that wound and into the Heart of Christ to discover and, at the Lord's command, to reveal its secrets for all who seek to come to know and love Christ.

Badge of the Catholic rebellion in the Vendee (1793-1796)

Fr Lucie-Smith also reminds us of the place devotion to the Heart of Jesus has in history.  The martyrs of the French Revolution found strength in the devotion to face their deaths.  The uprising in Vendee (or counterrevolution I suppose) took the devotion as the rallying cry against the strident atheism of the revolutionaries.  The Sacred Heart was depicted on the flags of the Catholic insurgents - in fact the flag and arms of the region still depict the crowned Hearts of Jesus and Mary. 

In these troubled times the Heart of Christ must also be an inspiration, a strength and indeed a rallying call for us - a call to faith, hope and love - to heroic living.  There is a need for a new counterrevolution - a new order to undo the regime imposed by secularism and the promiscuity of the sexual revolution.  Of course that new order is very ancient - it is the way of the Gospel, but it is ever new since it has a relevance for all people in all ages.  The Heart of Jesus puts flesh on the Gospel and reminds us that ultimately the Gospel is Christ's - his word, his teaching, the path which can lead us to his life: the way to his Heart: the way of love.

Holy Martyrs

Today, as you know, is the feast of St John Fisher and St Thomas More, two of the stars of the English Church.  The story of their lives and martyrdom is well know, so there is no need to relate it, suffice to say that they were among the few who stood up to Henry VIII and perished for their fidelity to Christ. Like many before and after him, Henry could not understand why people would put God before their king or government - he firmly believed that as ruler he represented God and what he said was endorsed by God.  Many today still labour under that illusion.

Many of you will know St Thomas More through the film A Man For All Seasons, based on the play by Robert Bolt.  Both film and play are okay, but they fail to capture the real Thomas More.  As some have said, the Thomas of the film/play dies for conscience and may even have made it his god; the real Thomas More died for Christ and the Catholic Church - his conscience witnessed to these.  Good news, though, if you admire the Thomas More of the film/play, you'll really like the real McCoy: St Thomas was altogether greater personality than Bolt's character.  For one thing he was wittier. 

St John Fisher may seem a more distant figure to some.  He was a very different character to St Thomas.  He was more solemn, less politically astute, but just as holy and learned.  He was a venerable figure who oozed holiness and kindness.  He was prudent and thoughtful, a real academic (he had the biggest personal library in Europe at the time) but he was also a true pastor with a love for the poor.  Imagine a cross between Pope Benedict and Blessed Mother Teresa - that's him. 

St John was the confessor to Katherine of Aragon, so like it or not, he was in the middle of the whole divorce thing.  He recognised that she was true to her husband, unworthy as Henry was, and John remained true to her, guiding her and sustaining her spiritually in her own suffering during the whole affair.  He was tricked by Henry into making what was regarded as a traitorous statement.  He was the only bishop to remain true to the Pope: all the other bishops of England and Wales, when faced with a choice, chose their own heads and the new church Henry was constructing rather than the Pope and the Catholic faith. 

For that very reason I have a statue of St John Fisher on my desk (he's looking at me now!), to remind me that bishops are weak human beings, as we all are, and they need prayer if they are to remain true to God, the Church, the Pope and their duties.  And yes, sometimes it is good to pray that they are not put to the test as some may not have the strength to pass it, and their failure may scandalise the faith of the little ones - we have had personal experience of that in Ireland in recent years.  So, dear readers, pray for your bishop! 

Of course, the feast today reminds us of the challenges we face in these times, and they are not unlike the difficulties St John and St Thomas faced.  Today secular authorities are making unacceptable demands of religious people, asking us to accept and even promote things which are contrary to our faith. The whole gay marriage and adoption thing is one such issue, and it seems it will be the main motivation for the persecution of Christians in the decades to come.   We will need the strength of these two martyrs to overcome. 

The Case of St Vitalis: It Gets Worse

Further to my post yesterday on the sale of the skull of St Vitalis, more information is emerging, and I'm afraid it's not good.  This affair just gets seedier the more we go on.

In an interview on Irish radio yesterday the auctioneer said that the head had been bought by a Hollywood actor who wanted it for the "shock value".   This actor bought the head for €3,500, even though much higher bids were made - our bid was higher than this,  and there was another much higher again at €10,000.  The auctioneer admitted that these bids, from Irish bidders, were excluded from the auction because the owners wanted the head to go out of Ireland.  Now this is very odd given that they opted to put the head up for sale in an open auction in Ireland.  At the very least this is very strange and merits, perhaps, a more official investigation into how the auction was conducted. I am not an expert on codes of behaviour for auctioneers, but I do get a fishy smell here.

Apart from that I am deeply disturbed about the whole thing.   That the probable relic of a Saint was bought for its "shock value", the media interest, and even the auctioneer's own attitude on national radio, all of this is offensive not only to Catholics as we see the possible remains of one of our martyrs disparaged and traded as if mere consumer objects, but even on a human level that the earthly remains of a human being should become an object for such derision  is offensive.  That an actor should be the one to buy it for a lark is also sad - when I heard I was reminded why our Fraternity was founded - another actor that needs our prayers.

I suppose it must be prayers all round: the actor, the auctioneer, the family who sold it, the media leading the derision.  As a friend pointed out to me yesterday: "God will not be mocked" - and he won't.  So we will have to pray and leave things in the hands of God.

Reflecting on this whole affair, I suppose we should not be surprised that the secular world should be so callous when it comes to the most cherished treasures of the Church.  Following Vatican II thousands of relics were unceremoniously dumped, many rare ones being lost forever.  Some were buried, but others, unfortunately, were thrown into bins and rubbish skips.  I know of one situation where the sisters of a congregation had to relinquish their personal relics so they could all be disposed of.  If the Church and her representatives should treat relics with such contempt, why are we surprised when ignorant secularists do the same - at least they buy them to show them off to their friends - "shock value" is not as bad as pure contempt and embarrassment.

Thankfully in recent years, a new generation is rediscovering the significance of relics and the Church is trying to clamp down on the sale and abuse of them.  Relics, for us as Catholics, are cherished mementos of Our Lord and our saintly heroes.  They do not possess magical powers and we do not worship them: we venerate them as holy things.  We are not alone in this: the Buddhists preserve relics of Buddha and venerate them, and some Muslims honour the relics of their heroes - objects which belonged to Muhammad are held in great esteem by his followers (I wonder would the auctioneer have dealt with a relic of Muhammad in the same way as the head of St Vitalis - if he did he would now be in hiding).   Relics for us Catholics serve as reminders of the Saint or Blessed's presence.  If they are first class (pieces of the person's body or hair), we venerate the sacred remains as at their tomb, the remains of one who has become holy and who now stands in the presence of God.  They must always be treated with the utmost respect.

The sale of the skull of St Vitalis gives the impression that relics can be owned - they can't.  Those who have relics of a Saint or Blessed are no more than custodians for a time, and they have a duty to ensure that when they die, or if they give them as gifts, that they go to reliable people, or, even better, they go back to the Church, diocese or religious family from which they came.  So if you have relics you must be very careful and ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands.  By and large, to ensure this, the Church and many religious families will now only give first class relics to churches and members of the clergy.  This will also fulfil the requirement that they be used for the veneration of the faithful.  So if you have relics, make provision for them in your will.

If we learn anything from this sordid affair of the head of St Vitalis, is for us Catholics to be more protective of our holy things - how the Eucharist is treated is far worse than that dished out to relics.  We should use this situation as one which will lead us to a greater devotion, a deeper living of our faith.  And we must also learn to pray more, especially for those who make little of holy things.