St John Passion by James MacMillan

There is an elegantly written review by Damian Thompson in the Catholic Herald of the St John Passion by James MacMillan, which was premiered at the Barbican last Sunday.

I do so enjoy Damian's music reviews, reading them sort of makes up for missing the performance.
Here is an extract:

Elsewhere, there are hints of the refreshing Catholic truculence that we associate with MacMillan: the most piercing fanfares of all celebrate Christ's foundation of the papacy: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. (Alas, Dr Rowan Williams showed no signs of shifting uneasily in his seat at this moment.)

MacMillan is, as usual, lavish in his use of percussion: the huge chorus was separated from the orchestra by a veritable iconostasis of gongs, drums and tubular bells. Mightiest of all was the repeated double thud of the timpani.

Where had we heard it before? Ah, yes: Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man. There were fanfares for the uncommon man, too: shimmering trumpets representing the kingship of Jesus, their proclamation poignantly muted at the mention of the crown of thorns.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

The following memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of CDF to Cardinal McCarrick and was made public in the first week of July 2004.

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals's judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. [It would imply that a priest might reasonably presume a bishop or pastor had done his duty with regard to instructing and warning a prominent politician in this situation and therefore the priest must refuse Holy Communion.]

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. [or more seriously to vote for such a law as an MP or Government Minister] When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
reproduced as part of article by Sandro Magister

Election Comment

‘How much longer can the hated Gordon Brown cling on?’

(from The Spectator)

Cross barred from Wailing Wall

The rabbi of the Western Wall says officials barred visiting Irish church leaders from praying there because they were wearing crosses.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Sean Brady, Church of Ireland Archbishop Alan Harper and Presbyterian and Methodist Moderators John Finlay and Roy Cooper arrived Thursday at the wall in the Old City of Jerusalem without informing Israeli authorities, Brady told the Irish broadcast network RTE.
"We encountered some difficulty in gaining access. There was a difficulty about us wearing our crosses," he said. "We were under constraints of time... and we decided to move on."
The site's rabbi, Shmuel Rabinowitz, said all must respect its sanctity to Jews. "They were asked to remove the crosses, but they refused," he said.

Law may change to allow 'abortion on request'

According to the Telegraph

The law may be changed to allow “abortion on request” by ending the need for doctors to give permission for a termination, it has been disclosed.
The change is being backed by Lord Steel, the architect of Britain’s abortion laws, who has called for a more liberal regime to bring Britain into line with many Continental nations.
Under the existing Abortion Act, drawn up in 1967, a termination can take place only after two doctors formally agree that the procedure is medically necessary.
That requirement may become the subject of a Commons vote next month when MPs debate the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which could be used to amend Lord Steel’s 1967 Abortion Act.

Ascension

from the Curt Jester

The Apostles didn't meet in the upper room for six days and so this Holy Day of Obligation math doesn't quite work out.

I think that bishops who have decided this for their diocese should have to annually explain why this is too much of an imposition on Ash Wednesday. I would love to hear the argument why this is a good idea when on a non-Holy Day of Obligation like Ash Wednesday people seem to come out of the woodwork to get to Mass. Besides I totally hate the idea of a Holy Day of Obligation being seen as a imposition in the first place.
It is also annoying that in a universal Church I will watch the Pope on TV [tomorrow] celebrating the Ascension while I will have to wait for Sunday and of course in the Liturgy of the Hours you have to branch off from the normal course of readings for a little detour.

Here in the England and Wales, I too would like the Bishops to explain, every year why they have seperated us from Scripture and Tradition by moving this feast to the Sunday. I can't help but see it as another sign that "the world" is victorious, from them.

The Embryology Bill: What is at stake?

Expected to have its Second Reading in the House of Commons in May, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has already been the focus of controversy, with media attention given to the interventions of Church leaders and the call for the government to allow a free vote. But what does the Bill actually propose? Agneta Sutton examines some of the most contentious measures and the ethical issues they raise.

read her article on Thinking Faith.