Cormac was offered a peerage

Last week there was some fevered speculation, fueled by the Times, that Gordon Brown was set to offer Cardinal Cormac a secular peerage following his long awaited removal as Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.

Allegedly the subject was raised by Brown during his meeting with His Holiness the other week – leading HH to adopt the posture of all important people listening to Gordon Brown; nodding and politely agreeing to consider things while inwardly remarking how bad his breath was.

My initial reaction was incredulity. The Prime Mentalist was grabbing at straws to try and position himself next to any leader more in control than he. The Pope would surely never consider creating an unique exception to a global ban on clergy in politics for the well intentioned but surely unexceptional Cormac?

That said it was wryly noted in the clubhouse that some members thought Cormac already sat in the Lords’ with the rest of the Anglican Bishops. 

But beyond naughty humour little was made of it.

This week’s offer of a knighthood by Brown to the ageing and ailing whiskey priest of the US Senate, Ted Kennedy began to  sow serious seeds of doubt. As Blair sold honours to the highest bidder, Brown appears to be handling them out as souvenirs to foreigners.

I took it upon myself to make some phonecalls and do some delving. Having bought several pints in the Sport and Rec for some characters working for those left of the aisle, I can confirm the rhumour. Cormac has been offered a peerage.

It seems this was done following considerable pressure from the Labour Catholic caucus in the Commons who feel that some increased tribalism might save a few of the more marginal seats around the North West, especially in parts of Manchester.

I have no information about how His Holiness has taken to the idea but one can only assume the problem of having two “pre-eminent” Catholic Bishops in London would be sub-optimal and the precedent worrying.

Realignment

The real reason for the furore over Bishop WIlliamson’s remarks was that they gave an opportunity for those who oppose the Pope’s gently steering the Barque of Peter back towards its traditional course to oppose without appearing to attack directly.  A couple of hotheads on each side have acted like hotheads, SSPX priests seeming to be closet sedevacantists, or liberal mainstream priests outing themselves as anti-papalists, but the main battle is being savagely fought with the liberals using the secular media as their mercenary (and Boy! will they end up paying if they win).

The liberal “Spirit of Vatican II” Church, the Church of all-powerful Episcopal Conferences and Synods, the Church which seems to hold Ecumenism and Environmentalism to be doctrines as important for salvation as the Real Presence, the Church of the sleek and sinuous Cardinals who saw the light in the 1960s: has realised that it is in great danger of being swept aside by a Benedictine revolution, and that if they cannot capture the young people whom John Paul II made his own, and who seem to respond as well to Benedict XVI, they are doomed.

The weapon they have chosen is to accuse the Pope of one of the great secular sins: Holocaust denial.  It shows their desperation: they have no other choice, for how could they attack the Pope’s Catholicsm.  So they have ubnleashed forces they do not own and cannot control. 

The battle is about the Catholic Church’s place in a realigned Christianity: if the SSPX becomes a part of the Church, and Catholic-Orthodox relations improve, the return to the traditional course will become ever more marked; and as orthodoxy is reestablished within the Catholic Church, those whose views are more heterodox will find themselves increasingly isolated.

So of course they are fighting; but they do not understand what they are unleashing, and what will bring them down: we do.

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.  May God rebuke him, we humbly pray: and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust down to hell Satan and all the evil spirits who roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Styles of the Times

It is that time of year when one major sartorial season ends and another begins. As the nights close in and one feels more and more like there are ice cubs in one’s shorts during the stroll to work it is the time to bargain hunt. I am often shocked by how well one can dress buying Jermyn Street tailoring out of season.

As I rule I allow myself one new suit and jacket a year and trousers as my wife directs. Combine this with a shirt turnover of about two or three a year and there is all a man should need.  A total of around £450 per year (yes it is that cheap providing one waits six months to debut anything) sees me better dressed than my wages suggest I should be, and more over the suits I buy will last me decades.

This I compare to the snuffling oicks I see dressed for comparable prices by the likes of M&S and Burton and stand astounded. Branded clothing rightly costs over the odds, only the witless pay to wear someone else’s name across their chest, but people who pay £250 for a suit that looks flame retardant simply show laziness and lack of discernment. Quality, especially anonymous quality, often comes very cheap.

Perhaps the real root of this discrepancy is motivation rather than taste. I suspect most of the clothes sold in London are not bought with a purpose in mind (except perhaps the odd shiny grey two piece for that first court appearance) but rather just for the glutinous desire to purchase.

“Retail therapy” is a phrase I hear women in particular use more and more without irony, the idea that there is something cathartic in just buying things. Absent an openness to grace or knowledge of the Sacraments people genuinely seek fulfilment in oddly cut cardigans and lurid checked shirts, not to wear there but just seeking satisfaction in their purchase. Indeed this I view as being the main driving force behind the more ridiculous stylings we see in the high street; constant purchasing requires constant novelty and as a result fashions become ever more deranged and sensationalist until we get to a point where children run about with profanity scribbled across their clothes.

The result has seen the once best dressed island in the word become the prey of junk food tailoring such as H&M, Top Shop and the famous Primark – where women have been hospitalised competing to buy tee shirts they will most likely bin in a week.  

The myriad of cackling Sharon’s I see boarding the Underground at Bond Street, clutching their branded bin liners full of discount nylon exhibit all the signs of classic addiction; manic momentary highs followed by sulking melancholy.

The mission of the Church to offer a seasonal message of real value, a faith that actually satisfies and a hope that truly sustains is clear. But perhaps also there is something to be said for the little things, like dressing better.  

In Victorian England men who went about without a tie, proper hatting and not wearing a suit fit for the occasion were enjoined to go home and come back “dressed like a Christian”. Words we could all perhaps take to heart this season as we resist the latest fads.

Midas has ass’s ears

Greek antiquity tells the story of King Midas, who had a reputation for speaking without quite thinking things through. We are all pretty savvy about his problems with gold, but in the beginning he got his start being asked to judge a lute (or other fey grecian stringed thing) playing contest between the god Apollo and some other chap who’s name for the moment eludes me.

As the story goes, Apollo, being a god pretty much won the thing by a country mile. But Midas, feeling rash, decided in favour of the other guy. Apollo, also not known for long deliberation, blasted the other lute-ist (?) into oblivion and smacked Midas up the head informing him he had the ears of an ass – and lo! he grew a pair to illustrate the point.

I am going somewhere with this so bear with me.

 He was a little sensative about this was Midas and would go about wearing a silk cap to keep this schtum. The ancient Greeks were, by their own account, a tolerent and libretarian collection of persons but fuzzy ears was the limit apparently.

Anyway, this little ruse de chapeau, as the French foppishly call it, worked on everyone accept his barber who, wise man, kept it quiet. But the secret preyed on him; he lost sleep, refused his ruffage, for all we know he gave Mrs Barber the wrong impression entirely. Anyway he suffered.

Unable to take it any longer he dug a hole in the group and whispered “Midas has ass’s ears!” into said hole and filled it in.

Much relieved he returned home, flung his arms around the misses and probably ate the Greek equivalent of a roast dinner - so grape leaves and feta or something like that, but the important thing is he would have eaten well and slept a better man for unburdening himself.

But by sheer bad luck it seems reeds grew from his hole which whispered to the trees which in turn told the birds who told the flowers who told Prince Charles who spread it about the town. And the barber got the chop.

My point is it’s hard to keep things inside. That and we should all have a good grounding in the classics.

It has been almost two years since I posted here, I entred politics as a profession and was told to knock it off or else. But it has preyed on me like our unhappy barber. I think Mrs Capt. has taken about all she can of my rants and rambles about the house so now that I am in a new job slightly less front line I have started again.

As before, I can’t promise to be witty or informed or make much sense but at least I know you kind souls probably won’t dob me in to HRH Charles, he’s such a gossip you know.

Flying the Flag

More from the Ironic Olympics.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the American delegation has appointed a Darfur refugee to carry its flag into the ‘bird’s nest’ stadium tomorrow night for the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games. The move is being interpreted as a slight on China’s Sudanese policy (it sends arms to the Government and has conspicuously failed to support peace moves) but Jacque Rogge, head of the International Olympic Committee, has asked the Americans not to ‘get into propaganda exercises’.

Rogge would know about propaganda exercises. One of his own officials has accused him of cutting a secret deal with China to ensure that the international media is censored during the games. See this report at The Australian for details.

In case you were wondering, the Olympic Movement stands for the ‘respect for universal fundamental ethical principles’.

Say it ain’t so….

Please…

I thought we had gone over this before

Is there anything that can stop this?

Ten Questions For “Folk” Choirs

 

1. Why when many churches have perfectly adequate choir lofts do you have to stand in full view in front of/in the sanctuary?

 2. Why should a ‘folk’ group have a sound system roughly the size of a Rolling Stones tour ca. 1976?

 3. The GIRM provides for periods of silence in Mass. Have you read this?

 4. Why are folk groups nearly always ‘led’ by a woman – not very inclusive is it? (and if you are so keen on actuosa particpatio why is everything pitched for castrati?)

 5. Why do folk groups dress for a midweek trip to the pub rather than an encounter with the Lord God Almighty?

6. Why does every intro start “Dum-dum-dum-dum-chinga-dum-chinga-dum-chinga….”?

 7. Is there no folk setting for Faith of our Fathers or Sweet Sacrament Divine? (It’s always Eagle’s Wings  and the like)

8. Given that proper folk artists like Kate Rusby produce music which is by turns melodic, plaintive or joyous, how come most folk groups sound like The Wurzels?

9. Do you really have to start loud conversations immediately after Mass in/in front of the Sanctuary as you dismantle your equipment and as other people are making their thanksgiving after Mass?

10. How do I get rid of you?

The first day of spring

 Spring can truly be said to arrive when the Book arrives.  Spring arrived this morning.  Archivist Minor is, it must be said, hogging it somewhat, but I go to bed later than him. 

 It’s not on sale until Wednesday, so too much comment is deprecated.  But Mike Atherton’s article on Shane Warne is exactly what one would look for, as is Gillian Reynolds’ on Test Match Special.  The Outgrounds section does not cover Portugal – again! – while redeeming itself by covering cricket in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries where cricket is needed.  The Netherlands gets a page to itself!

 There are a few pages about events in the southern hemisphere as one might expect – I have not yet checked to see whether Cardinal Pell’s comments and our Captain’s rejoinder have been included.  There is an article about the “Barmy Army” which is “well balanced”.

The first skim suggests that this Book can fittingly join its predessors on Recusant Minor’s shelves: but only after Senior has had a decent read.

The Holy Kiss

So, the Kiss (or Sign) of Peace.

Yesterday, the Holy Father announced that an ‘investigation’ is underway into ‘the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another place, such as before the presentation of the gifts at the altar.’ I have a slightly anorak-ish interest in this much misunderstood aspect of the rite, so I thought I’d set down a few notes on the question.

First, this is no surprise. This ‘investigation’ had been asked for by the Synod of Bishops, and Cardinal Ratzinger had made the same suggestion a dozen or so years earlier in his book Spirit of the Liturgy, basing his suggestion, as he does in Sacramentum Caritatis, on the Lord’s command : ‘leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.’ (Matt 5:24)

At present, there are a number of Roman Catholic worshipping communities who are already well accustomed to this practice: the Ambrosian Rite of Milan has it at this point and the Neocatechumenal Way, the largest of the so-called ‘New Movements’ has for the last 20 years enjoyed an indult, ratified by Benedict XVI in 2005, which permits them to ‘transfer ‘ad experimentum’ the rite of peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.’ In the Congo, the Holy See has allowed the missal to be amended so that not only the Kiss of Peace but also the Penitential Rite is celebrated at this point.

In the eastern rites, of course, the Kiss of Peace is generally exchanged slightly later than the Holy Father has suggested, after the bread and wine have been brought to the altar but before the anaphora has begun.

But, what is the kiss of peace and why does it currently happen at the moment it does?

The first thing to note is that, insofar as things which have gotten into the liturgy have gotten there for a reason, the Kiss of Peace did not get there so that people could be reconciled with each other or even (at least not directly) so that they could give their desire for reconciliation a ritual expression.

In the early Church, the ‘Holy Kiss’ existed not just as part of the liturgy but as something which permeated the Christian life in a profound way. For example, the contemporary account of the martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicity recalls that they and their companions, at the last moment possible, embraced each other with a kiss ‘that they might accomplish their martyrdom with the rites of peace.’

Thus it was important to them not really as an expression of reconciliation between each other, but more as an expression of that profound and real peace that comes from Jesus Christ, ’a peace the World cannot give’ (Jn 14:27).  But what does it mean to have a peace the world cannot give? Where can we see this peace concretely? For the Early Church, this peace was expressed in the fact that by the grace of God they loved one another as Christ had loved them: the Peace of Jesus Christ is expressed in the loving unity of the christian community. Thus St Augustine says:  ’Peace He leaves with us, that here also we may love one another: His own peace He gives us, where we shall be beyond the possibility of dissension.’

And so it seems highly fitting that the Early Church used this intimate sign, the kiss, to demonstrate their loving unity. This is not an early example of what is referred to as ’horizontalism’ or ‘man-centred liturgy’ - these people were not celebrating a natural, sentimental attachment. They were celebrating the fact that whereas once, the power of sin imprisoned them in fear and hatred, unable to love anybody but themselves, they now found that, completely contrary to their own fallen nature,they loved one another with a selfless, Christ-like love.

They knew very well that this love was not their doing; they knew that they carried ’this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us’ (2 cor 4:7) It is this transcendent, supernatural love between the Christians, above anything else, which bewildered and infuriated their persecutors. Hence Tertullian says: ‘But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. “See”, they say, “how they love one another”, for they themselves are animated by mutual hatred; “see how they are ready even to die for one another”, for they themselves will sooner put to death.’ This love is the fulfillment of the ‘New Commandment”: ’Love one another even as I have loved you… by this love all men will know that you are my disciples’ (Jn 13 34-35)

Understood properly the Kiss of Peace, this sign of the unity of Christians, expresses in some way the very essence of what the liturgy is: the coming together of the whole Church, united in the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ, to worship and petition the Father in His name. Tertullian again: ’We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in.’

The first specifically liturgical reference to the Kiss of Peace is from the Apology of St Justin Martyr halfway through the second century. After the liturgy of the word ’we salute one another with a kiss, whereupon there is brought to the president bread and a cup of wine’. Josef Jungmann makes an important distinction here: the kiss does not precede the Liturgy of the Eucharist so much as it concludes the Liturgy of the Word. The two were, of course, seperate celebrations originally, and it is this joining together of the two liturgies which led to the practice of delaying the Kiss of Peace until after the anaphora.

This makes perfect sense: whereas originally the community would ratify the intercessions which closed the Liturgy of the Word (our modern day Prayers of the Faithful) by exchanging the Kiss, sign of the fraternal communion which binds them together as the body of Christ,  now their kiss expressed not only their unity in these intercessions but also their unity in the greatest prayer of the Christian Church, the very prayer, in fact, through which this unity was built. 

So, the kiss of peace originally had a meaning all of its own, and a very beautiful and nuanced one at that. Regrettably however, we must confess that after having all but disappeared for several hundred years, it has resurfaced as a  gesture lacking in both spiritual depth and pedagogical usefulness. The anonymity of our liturgical assemblies is certainly a barrier to it being properly understood and experienced in anything other than a cerebral sense, and I am afraid that the ‘updating’ of this meaningful gesture to something as mundane and everyday as a handshake has not helped either.

What the Holy Father is proposing, I would suggest, is not a complete moving away from this original meaning, but perhaps an attempt to alter the emphasis so that people will understand at least a little of its meaning – if the Kiss of Peace is an expression of our unity in the Peace of Christ Jesus, then reconciliation between the brothers and sisters is a neccessary aspect of that unity. In that sense, I tend to approve of the idea.

My great fear, however, is that in practice, the richness of the sign will be denigrated in favour of a sentimental understanding which transforms the Kiss of Peace into something purely human, a sort of liturgical equivalent of the superficial and emotive ’reconciliations’ which occur on daytime TV talk shows or soap operas. To avoid this, I think the words of the priest which precede this moved Kiss of Peace will need to be very carefully composed and that good catechesis will need to be given.

Sacramentum Caritatis

Since (perhaps a little surprisingly) nobody else seems already to have done so, I thought it might be nice for those who mightn’t have had the time to read the Holy Father’s exhortation yet, to provide a very brief summary of my personal impression of what the key points are, based on my initial reading of it during elevenses…

To begin with, my first impression of Sacramentum Caritatis is how rooted it is in what we might call the Spirituality of the Liturgical Movement. I could probably write a very mediocre essay on this, but I’ll just give the example of how The Holy Father refers continuously to  the Eucharist as Paschal Mystery, that beautiful phrase popularised by Odo Casel and Louis Bouyer, which presents us with not only with the sacrifice of Christ, but with His resurrection and ascenscion. For the Holy Father, as for the Council and for the Liturgical Movement, the liturgy of the Eucharist is the privileged moment when we can be drawn into this mystery of Christ’s pasch, of His passage ‘from this world to the Father’, as a foretaste of the journey which, if we persevere, we will complete at the end of time, when all things will be united in Christ.

The actuoso participatio of the faithful and the correct understanding of what that phrase means is also (unsurprisingly) a major preoccupation.

Secondly, this document will be a disappointment to those who have expected Benedict to enforce a ‘traditionalist’ agenda. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that certain bits of it are a surprise even to those of us who hoped for a moderately conservative agenda. Perhaps the most striking example in this regard will be the paragraph on the location of tabernacles. It had been widely mooted, not without reason given remarks he had made before his election, that the Holy Father would express a strong wish that the tabernacle be restored to its original position in the centre of the apse. I will attach the relevant snippet without further comment:

 The place where the eucharistic species are reserved, marked by a sanctuary lamp, should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel, and where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist, taking care not to place the celebrant’s chair in front of it. In new churches, it is good to position the Blessed Sacrament chapel close to the sanctuary; where this is not possible, it is preferable to locate the tabernacle in the sanctuary, in a sufficiently elevated place, at the centre of the apse area, or in another place where it will be equally conspicuous.

Furthermore, whilst the Holy Father joins the Synod in encouraging the use of Latin and Gregorian chant, and even takes a thinly veiled dig at the use of boisteourous pop music, he stops well short of ’laying the smackdown’ on anything to the contrary. Also, unless I’ve missed something, there is no reference to the orientation of liturgical prayer.

However, one concrete step the Holy Father has taken is to confirm the synod’s suggestion that large, international masses such as occur at the World Youth Days should take place in latin. Even the most ardent vernacularist would find it difficult to argue against such a sensible and moderate proposal.

There is also the suggestion that bishop’s conferences should think again about the curious modern practice of not bestowing the sacrament of confirmation until some years after First Communion, an inversion of the church’s ancient tradition that has effectively turned this sacrament into a sort of ‘farewell ceremony’ for rebellious teenagers.

One of the most intriguing aspects of this document lies hidden in the footnotes: it is the announcement that an ‘investigation’ has already commenced into the possible transition of the kiss of peace to before the offertory. The Holy Father himself argues that this ‘would serve as a significant reminder of The Lord’s insistence that we be reconciled with others before offering our gifts to God.’ I have a few thoughts on this which I’ll jot down later.

 The Holy Father concludes, much in the vein of Deus Caritas Est,  with an impassioned appeal that, by our reception of ‘the food of truth’, we should feel a duty to speak out against the economic and social injustice which disfigures God’s creation and attacks the dignity of millions of those for whom Christ’s blood has been shed.

Finally, he announces the compilation of a Eucharistic Compendium in order to assist the faithful develop their Eucharistic devotion. 

If there is a need in our own day for a revival of the Liturgical Movement, or for even, as the Holy Father once suggested, a ‘New Liturgical Movement’ is it too much to hope that this document will be its manifesto? As the confused liturgical decadence of the 1970s enters the final stages of its decay, there is great danger of the vacuum it leaves behind being filled by a sort of ill-informed, sneering, jingoistic deprecation of the liturgical reform, and even of the Council itself, which would be almost as fruitless as what went before it. In this climate, Pope Benedict seems to be charting a course towards moderation, charity and mature reflection.