The last bit is actually well worth reading, the last bit in fact it is beautiful and challenging, and if you want a good summary of Sacramentum Caritatis in a few words, and indeed much of Benedict's theology, it is there.
Dear brothers and sisters of Arundel & Brighton,
A priest brought me a message from one of our retired priests not long ago. It simply said, "Tell the bishop I don’t like his pastoral letters." That’s a fair enough comment: I’d be surprised if everyone did, but I would insist that everyone gets the chance to make up their own minds, in other words that you either hear or get the chance to read them.
A difference of opinion like that might reflect any number of things. It might reflect a difference in literary style, but I doubt it. It’s more likely to reflect a different view of church and ways of approaching the preaching of the gospel. I think that there has been a significant shift in homily style since the Vatican Council, and this is reinforced in Pope Benedict’s latest document on the Eucharist, Sacramentum Caritatis, the Sacrament of Charity or Love, following the Synod on the Eucharist in 2005. There he reminds preachers that "Generic and abstract homilies should be avoided. In particular, I ask these ministers to preach in such a way that the homily closely relates the proclamation of the word of God to the sacramental celebration and the life of the community." In other words, our life in Christ must be grounded in reality. But what reality?
The letters pages of the Catholic papers make interesting reading, not so much for what the letters say very often, but for what they speak about. I think it’s fair to say that the letters there, like many of the letters that I get, reflect strongly held views about different aspects of the life of the Church – the most common topics must be liturgy and statements on various moral questions. We seem to spend a great deal of energy discussing various theological and moral ideas.
A priest brought me a message from one of our retired priests not long ago. It simply said, "Tell the bishop I don’t like his pastoral letters." That’s a fair enough comment: I’d be surprised if everyone did, but I would insist that everyone gets the chance to make up their own minds, in other words that you either hear or get the chance to read them.
A difference of opinion like that might reflect any number of things. It might reflect a difference in literary style, but I doubt it. It’s more likely to reflect a different view of church and ways of approaching the preaching of the gospel. I think that there has been a significant shift in homily style since the Vatican Council, and this is reinforced in Pope Benedict’s latest document on the Eucharist, Sacramentum Caritatis, the Sacrament of Charity or Love, following the Synod on the Eucharist in 2005. There he reminds preachers that "Generic and abstract homilies should be avoided. In particular, I ask these ministers to preach in such a way that the homily closely relates the proclamation of the word of God to the sacramental celebration and the life of the community." In other words, our life in Christ must be grounded in reality. But what reality?
The letters pages of the Catholic papers make interesting reading, not so much for what the letters say very often, but for what they speak about. I think it’s fair to say that the letters there, like many of the letters that I get, reflect strongly held views about different aspects of the life of the Church – the most common topics must be liturgy and statements on various moral questions. We seem to spend a great deal of energy discussing various theological and moral ideas.
In the film Brokeback Mountain, there are two people who enter quite a deep relationship, but one of them seems unable to sustain it. Leaving that relationship, he enters another, but that, too, fails. The woman (this time) asks him why he left her, and he says that he didn’t think he was much fun any more. "I didn’t fall in love with fun," she says.
We can’t have relationships with ideas. We can only have proper human relationships with people. The way the gospel today expresses the reality of the resurrection is not in abstract terms, but in a picture of a very physical meeting between Jesus and the apostles. It is so physical and real that Thomas is invited even to put his hand into Jesus’ wounds.
One of the post powerful experiences of Easter is this great emphasis in the person of Jesus. We accompany him in his triumphant entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of the week and then follow him through the drama of his last meal with his friends, his betrayal at the hands of one of them, his arrest and execution as a criminal, and then his glorious triumph over death in the resurrection. None of this abstract. It is all personal and real. It asks us to fix our focus again on what is important. That is the person of Jesus Christ.
In our world today we see the tragic results of a focus on political ideologies rather than people. Wars are fought over principles, and innocent people’s lives are simply wasted and discarded like rubbish. It is a tragic indictment of our modern world, that ideas can be more important than people.
And where do we meet the person of Jesus? Again I would quote Pope Benedict’s letter on the Eucharist. There he quotes Saint Augustine who writes, "The bread that you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather what the chalice contains… is the blood of Christ. If you have received them properly, you yourselves are what you have received."
If we are to become Christ through our sharing in the Eucharist, it is important that we are aware of what we are doing, and that we prepare ourselves properly for it. The Pope reminds us that "Active participation in the Eucharist can hardly be expected if one approaches it superficially." He recommends a few moments recollection in silence before Mass, fasting, and – when necessary – the celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation. You have come to church for a personal meeting with your Lord and Saviour. Or did you think you’d just come to Mass?
This time of year is a particularly grace-filled moment. It allows us to re-connect more than any other time with the person of Jesus Christ, and reminds us that this is the crucial, the fundamental relationship, the one that leads us to the Father. I hope that this is indeed a grace-filled moment for you, and a time that you can look again not only at your relationship with Christ, but at other relationships too. It’s not ideas that have changed the world. It’s the people that have had them. And Jesus most of all.
With my good wishes and prayers.
Bishop of Arundel & Brighton
23 comments:
I feel sorry for the poor, old, retired priest, how dreadful to be publicly pilloried.
If you know who he is give him my commiserations, Father.
When I heard this letter in Hove, it was he I was think of, until the mention of that film, then I was too distracted and annoyed to listen to any more, the distraction continued, so I didn't go to Holy Communion.
I wish I heard yor sermon on Divine Mercy and healing which I was told was really good.
Thankyou for the flattery.
What is going on in your diocese? A Bishop actually spends a paragraph and a half to disagree with a retired priest who doe not tlike his pastoral letters!
Couldn't he go and see him, ring him, email him, better still invite him out for a meal and discuss it, but to stamp his foot in a pastoral letter... Good Heavens
You didn't highlight, "We can’t have relationships with ideas."
Studies show young men, especially, find it much easier to have a relationship with ideas such as honour, justice, peace, truth, freedom, heroism, martyrdom. Indeed these seem to be the ideals that attract them to priesthood. It seems only after taking on these ideals do they then incarnate them and "seek the face of Christ".
I thought you said that the last bit was good? Which bit?
"With my good wishes and prayers"
...that bit?
St Augustine & the Pope quotes are good, in comparison to first part and most previous letters it is very good
Dear Father Blake thank you for posting this. It seemed when you first mentioned it that +Kieron's fidelity and perhaps even 'affective maturity' was being brought into question.
Yes, it does appear as if he is equating normal and 'same sex' relationships. It is as if he is saying 'man and woman, man and man [and so logically it follow's, and cannot be denied] man and himself, man and child, man and animal, vegetable or mineral - it's all the same to him as long as we view those with whom we are in a sexual relationship with as 'people' without regard for [the Magisterium's divinely received] idea's[/laws]. This is how it came across to me. But, I fully trust that he has simply conveyed his thoughts in a clumsy way and that he will clarify the truth of the dignity of the human person and the purpose of human sexuality, at some later point.
If, by mentioning Brokeback mountain he is trying to relate to the lives of his people then he has clearly made a major gaff. Brokeback mountain remains a 'gay cult' film which simply received mainstream marketing, for obvious reasons. Although I have read a number of reviews, I know of no Catholics (at least under the age of 40 or 50) who would even think of going to watch it.
Through the grace of God may our bishops' be kept away from occasions of sin, not least those involving morally corrupt material which leave their minds in a dark muddle. It is clearly wrong for a bishop to appear to commend a film of this kind to his people, and this should be stated publicly. (The English Dominicans have a heavy burden to bear, which surely saddens us all, but may the same grief not be caused by any diocesan bishop).
He also touches upon concepts of 'reality'. We really must do more to get the now very dated, hippy, 'gaudium and spes' generation to rediscover St Thomas, like their much happier, level-headed and well adjusted younger counterparts.
Other than this, I though the pastoral was sound. It's therefore a good example of modernism at work in the 21st Century.
I can't help liking +Kieron. I sincerely hope that all of our bishops receive a razor sharp understanding of the nature and purpose of human sexuality. And that Our blessed Lord provides them with those who will advise them well in the future.
(I also commiserate, Father in that my expectations will naturally differ from those of his own priests' and people whose disappointment would be more personally felt).
I asked my parish priest about this letter, he said that he only played the recording because the Bishop seemed to defy priests not to.
I am surprised that he lacked the moral courage to resist something which is so out of step with Catholic teaching.
How sad that a Bishop should be so unjust as to place his priests in this situation, especially a Bishop who portrays himself as committed to Justice and Peace issues. I remember his letter on the evils of imported cut flowers.
If one was considering a vocation to the priesthood and wanted an orthodox bishop, where would one go in England?
Without doubt, to the current Archbishop of Birmingham, who has matured considerably since his days as a Westminster auxiliary. As he will no doubt, please God, be translated back to Westminster after the cardinal permanently retires, that would probably be the best Archdiocese, although the fact that their seminaries are said to be overrun with neo-cats is a drawback.
The Archbishop of Southwark is an effective administrator. He has been blessed with inheriting a large number of very fine priests which will help to ensure that that diocese runs very smoothly.
Many bishops here are due to retire within the next 4 to 5 years.
Marcus, you are the fourth person to ask this question on this blog since the New Year. Telephone me if you like.
A lot depends on how generous you are, to what degree you are willing to serve and to take up the Cross.
If you are able to ask the question about Orthodoxy then maybe God is calling you to a diocese where you will not be comfortable but where you are desperately needed.
In most dioceses you will find that there are many younger (and older) priests who are deeply concerned about passing on the authentic teaching of Christ.
"If you are able to ask the question about Orthodoxy then maybe God is calling you to a diocese where you will not be comfortable but where you are desperately needed."
Too much to ask anybody isn't it, Father?
Marcus' pursuit of an orthodox Bishop is interesting. The simple answer is that there isn't one in the UK. My advice is to go for an unambitious liberal Bishop because there is nothing worse than an ex-liberal who has mysteriously converted to conservatism for reasons of career advancement. Secondly, "liberal" bishops have no vocations so you might stand a chance of going to Rome as his only candidate for the priesthood that year instead of the local seminary (with all those weird neo-catholic candidates). Thirdly, so called conservative Bishops often succumb to the pressure of liberal quangos far more than liberal Bishops. These new quangos are often lay groups and committees who have ushered in a new era of "clericalism" far worse than the alleged "clericalism" which existed before the council. Lancaster Diocese is a classic example of a so called conservative diocese were wholesale financial corruption has taken place and is now under investigation by the Vatican.
Marcus, I would go for Hallam. The bishop is a committed liberal has no chance of promotion and is a very kind and dedicated man. His vocation's director is very holy and young. He has no vocations and because he is liberal he will stay out of your face.
Half the British bishops don't want to be Bishop. None of them share the vision of the Church as developed by JPII & BXVI so how possibly can they enjoy their current jobs?
I say downsize the episcopacy and increase the size of the dioceses accordingly - simple really. There were less Bishops and more Catholics 30 years ago - I mean 2x as many Catholics. We now have far too many Bishops for the number of church goers.
I also think that the UK should lose its "right" to two Cardinals. A token "Brit" working in the Vatican should be enough i.e. a Cardinal deacon with an office job. How Cormac and Keith were elevated is baffling. Indeed there are rumours that they got the wrong man in Scotland and Conti was meant to have been elevated but due to a clerical error (pun attended?) Edinburgh got the nod.
Not elevating Cormac would have been the best thing to have happened to the English Catholic Church in ages. It's measure of the mistakes surrounding his appointment (the interregnum was far too long in Westminster for a start), that if his resignation is now accepted, his succesor may well miss out on elevation for at least 5 years until Cormac is over 80. There is no way the UK church should have sent 2 voters into the 2005 conclave. The thought of sending 3 to the next (heaven forbid) is too awful to contemplate.
In a press conference before the conclave, Cormac claimed he was bringing a Jane Austen book with him to read into the conclave (presumably to stave off boredom). Indeed that sums his vision of Church leadership: it's all to do with cracking lame jokes about sport and popular culture, showing off to everybody in public as to what a nice guy you are.
Well, I know lots of nice people like Cormac but none of them have ever voted in a papal conclave and more importantly none of them would ever want to.
Which brings me back to my original point: can all the UK Bishops seriously claim they want to be in the job? That God has really called them to be successors to the Aposotles (and to elect the successor of Peter)? To actually teach and uphold the Catholic faith handed down to them?
What shame is there in answering no to the above questions?
Beware of people who have "matured considerably". The change in them is not always maturity, but ambition. Beware, too, of those who have their names in the Press at any opportunity. It may be a good thing: they may mean what they say; but they may be scoring points - all with an eye to future advancement.
Look instead, to those who keep out of the public eye; say their prayers; preach what the Church teaches; live humbly; reap abundant good fruit (many young priests; priests who are faithful to the Church and to Tradition) you will see where the next generation of good fruit is to come from.
Fr. Ray,
I do agree with the anonymous contributor who says that English dioceses should be amalgamated and down-sized — there are too many micro-dioceses in England whose existence is hardly justified given that the number of practising Catholics in England is in decline.
To take one example: if the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton had never been carved out of the Archdiocese of Southwark in the first place, the faithful in the former would have fared perfectly well under the governance of safe pairs of hands such as Michael Bowen and, latterly, Kevin McMahon, neither of whom would write pastoral letters that refer to gay movies.
I’m not so sure, however, that English bishops regret their status and pine for a return to parish life. It’s given a good many liberal-minded senior clergy a wonderful opportunity to inflict a revolution from above on the hapless faithful. The officers’ mess atmosphere of the Bishops’ Conference, the closing of ranks against the Monsignori, the frustration of controversial Roman “policies,” sipping port with the Apostolic Nuncio, comparing notes about the latest interesting article in the Tablet — I think most English bishops would be lost without all these things.
Fr Ray, can you recommend an orthodox British seminary course? Presumably only the Gregorian or Angelicum in Rome are available to British students where orthodox theology is available. Heythrop sounds a joke from what I have heard. Despite Fr Finnigan's presence at Wonersh, I know that Hermione Hollis now controls the place which sounds most unpromising. Ushaw is another strange establishment.
How do you suggest to a Bishop that you want to go to Rome? They will immediatedly assume that you are a careerist rather someone who wants to be exposed to some level of orthodoxy. On that point, why don't British students get sent to the Lateran - JPII's own university?
How do you "play" this one? Please advise?
I am sorry I know nothing about contemporary seminaries.
Maybe some other people might.
I applogise for being pompous, but neither do I know of a Successor of the Apostles named "Hermione".
I want Bishop Hollis and others to act with more dignity not less, name calling doesn't help, it just trivialises their position.
A particular Bishop might well be a trivial person but his office must always be respected, even if he himself does his best to undermine what Christ's Church teaches about his role.
From some of the stories that I have heard from seminarians and newly-ordained priests it sounds like a truly orthodox Catholic would be sorely put to the test in the Scottish and English seminaries.
If I were considering a priestly vocation I might look at the FSSP seminary. Although, so many young men are applying to Witzgradbach that they can only take a small percentage of applicants. They must be doing something right...
I have had to reject a number of comments, either because they contain hearsay or just plain libelous.
I believe in free speech and openness within the Church but I expect commentators to be, to some degree, moderate and charitable.
I was responsible for one of those comments for which I apologise. Father you are a great priest and I almost enjoy being censored by you!
A FSSP seminary in the UK would fill up in less than 2 years.
What struck me about a vocations weekend was the low morale of the clergy conducting it. The retreat master seemed to me to be suffering from depression. One Director of Vocations arrived drunk and stayed drunk the entire duration of the weekend. The quality of food, spiritual direction and retreat notes disgraceful.
Post a Comment