Cuba prepares for Pope Benedict XVI's visit - Prisoners are released and Our Lady of Charity has toured the island

La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre, patroness of Cuba

In preparation for Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Cuba in the Spring, the island's President Raul Castro has granted an amnesty to nearly 3,000 prisoners. This gesture has been criticised by some as an empty gimmick, though many Cubans are overjoyed by the fact that the Pope's visit has already heralded such unexpected clemency by the usually oppressive Communist regime.

Many of those currently being released by the Cuban government are first time offenders, women, the physically and mentally ill, and those over 60 years of age - seven political prisoners were also released in the past week. Raul Castro's decision to pardon so many prisoners seems to be his way of celebrating Pope Benedict XVI's expected visit. The act itself reminds us of the Successor of St Peter's uniquely powerful ability to proclaim the Gospel: "He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release from darkness to prisoners" (cf Lk 4:18; Is 61:1).

The local Church in Cuba has also been preparing for the Papal visit, which is expected to take place sometime in March. Over the past 16 months the Caribbean island's patron saint, Our Lady of Charity of Cobre (La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre), has visited over 300 schools, prisons, hospitals and universities during an 18,000 mile pilgrimage of prayer. She was even recently venerated on Revolution Square - a place normally reserved for Communist party events. It is also estimated that over 5 million Cubans (over half the nation's population) came out to pay their tributes to the Blessed Virgin during her special tour - which was a preparation both for the Papal visit and for Our Lady of Charity's 400th anniversary in 2012.

Yesterday saw the final act in the Blessed Virgin's pilgrimage amongst her people, with a special Mass celebrated in her honour in central Havana. Needless to say, such public acts of devotion in Communist Cuba would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. The fact, therefore, that Catholics (and other Christians) can now worship relatively freely on the Caribbean island is testament both to Bl Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI's hard work in campaigning for freedom and justice on behalf of the Cuban people. It also witnesses to the courage of Cuba's  local bishops, priests and laypeople who kept the faith alight during the dark days of Fidel Castro's atheistic revolution.

As mentioned above, the Pope's visit to Cuba will coincide with the 400th anniversary of the miracle of Our Lady of Charity of Cobre, when her statue was mysteriously found by a slave boy and his masters in 1612. The story of this discovery and subsequent veneration of Our Lady under this title is both a fascinating and well documented one, whilst the devotion itself has had an immensely important role to play in Cuba's own cultural and political history.  As means of an introduction, then, I have prepared a short version of the story of La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre.

Our Lady of Charity of Cobre

Our Lady of Charity saves Los Tres Juanitos

One day in 1612, two indigenous Cuban brothers, called Juan and Rodrigo de Hoyos, sailed out to the Bay of Nipe with their young 10-year-old Black slave, Juan Moreno. (These companions are now known throughout Cuba as Los Tres Juanitos, or "the three Juans"). They had set off in the hope of finding salt in Bay's salt-mines, to use as preservative for meat at their local Barajagua slaughter-house. This was an important task, as meat was an essential element in the diets of those who worked and lived in and around the area, which was then called Santiago del Prado, but which is now known as El Cobre.

As the the two men and the boy approached the Bay of Nipe, there was such a violent storm that they thought their tiny boat would sink under the waves. The slave, Juan, had a great devotion to Our Lady and always wore a medal bearing her image as a sign of his filial love for her. In their anguish the three turned to the image on Juan's medal and began to ask for Mary's protection and help. Suddenly, the storm passed and the skies cleared - Our Lady seemed to have answered their prayers.

Soon after their deliverance, these three friends saw an object floating in the sea, which seemed to be coming towards them. At first, they thought it was a bird, but as they got closer it looked like a drowned woman. At last, they discovered that it was actually a statue of the Virgin Mary. She was carrying her Son on one arm and held a golden cross in her right hand. The statue was fastened to a board inscribed with the words: "Yo Soy la Virgen de la Caridad" ("I am the Virgin of Charity"). Bizarrely, the statue was also completely dry, even though it appeared to have been floating in the water for quite some time. The Virgin was also dressed in real clothes and had real hair! Her skin colour was that of a "mulata", or a woman of mixed race. Juan Moreno formally testified to the veracity of this story as an 85-year-old man in 1687, and his evidence can still be found in the General Archives of the Indies in Seville.

Needless to say, after finding this statue the three Juans forgot all about the salt they had gone out to find and returned home to Barajagua, where they told everyone about their amazing discovery. After investigating the statue, a local government official, Don Francisco Sánchez de Moya, ordered a small chapel to be built in honour of La Virgen de la Caridad. And within a short time, most of the local people had formed a great devotion to Our Lady under this new title.

Strange things, though, began to happen soon after the new chapel had been constructed. Our Lady of Charity would often disappear, only to be found again in various locations. One night, Rodrigo de Hoyos went to visit the statue, but was horrified to discover that La Virgen had disappeared. After locking the oratory, he went searching for her all night, but to no avail. When he came back to the chapel in the morning, though, he found the statue back on the altar where she should have been in the first place. After similar events, the people of Barajagua discerned that Our Lady of Charity wasn't happy with the area where her chapel had been built and wanted to be moved to El Cobre. So the chapel was moved. It was from then on that this image of the Blessed Virgin became known as Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre (Our Lady of Charity of El Cobre).

National Shrine of Our Lady of Charity

The township of El Cobre is based in the region called Oriente. It was in this area of the island that the first settlement in Cuba was made, called Baracoa. It was here also that Cuban slaves were first set free 1868. It is also the region where the island's first act of independence against Spanish rule took place. For these reasons, La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre has become synonymous with Cuba, its culture and the people's sense of nationhood.

At the request of veterans of the Cuban War of Independence, Our Lady of Charity of Cobre was declared the patroness of Cuba by Pope Benedict XV in 1916. She was subsequently solemnly crowned during the 1936 Eucharistic Congress in Santiago de Cuba. In 1977, Pope Paul VI raised her sanctuary to the rank of a minor basilica - now called Basílica Santuario Nacional de Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre (National Shrine Basilica of Our Lady of Charity). God-willing, Pope Benedict XVI will visit this shrine in March, where he will lead the people of Cuba in their celebration of Our Lady of Charity's 400th anniversary.

Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre, ¡Ruega por Nosotros!


[Images: 1 Our Lady of Charity of Cobre; photo attributed to Francisco Javier Arbolí and published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikimedia Commons. 2 An image of Our Lady of Charity saving the three Juans; image in the public domain and found on Google images. 3 The Basilica of Our Lady of Charity of Cobre; photo attributed to Escula and published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikipedia Commons]

New appointments to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications show how important this dicastery is to Pope Benedict XVI and the New Evangelisation

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York

It was reported yesterday that Pope Benedict XVI has made several new appointments to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. This dicastery's role is becoming more and more important as the Pope seeks to encourage all Christians to share their joy with others via means of modern social communications - which includes blogging and the new media. In encouraging a Christian presence within all forms of social communication, especially the new media, the Council offers invaluable support to another dicastery, the recently created Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelisation.

Four cardinals were appointed as members of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications yesterday. They include Cardinal Josip Bozanic, Archbishop of Zagreb; Cardinal Oswald Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay; Cardinal John Njue, Archbishop of Nairobi; and Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, Archbishop of Kinshasa. Cardinal Njue is known in his native Kenya as a great defender of human life, who has often spoken against abortion and has also pointed to the fact that condoms are not an effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV. Cardinal Monsengwo Pasinya is a member of one of the royal families of Basakata and was fundamental in drafting a new constitution for the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1990s. He is highly respected in Africa as a champion of human rights, a promoter of peace and as a courageous defender of the truth as an absolute and objective reality. Recently, he contested the results of this month's DRC Presidential elections, claiming they were "neither real nor just". Cardinal Pasinya is considered papabile - a possible successor to Pope Benedict XVI. Sadly, though, it doesn't seem as if his Archdiocese has much of an online presence.

Amongst the bishops who were appointed to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications yesterday is the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan. The others who will be joining him are Archbishop Mark Benedict Coleridge of Canberra and Goulburn; Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelisation; Bishop Manuel Jose Macario do Nascimento Clemente of Porto; Bishop Joseph Befe Ateba of Kribi; and Bishop Barthelemy Adoukonou, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Culture. Archbishop Dolan is well known for his outspoken defence of marriage and for opposing abortion - he even received a standing ovation during his Installation Mass for reaffirming the Church's mission "to embrace and protect the dignity of every human person, the sanctity of human life, from the tiny baby in the womb to the last moment of natural passing into eternal life." He also has his own blog, The Gospel in the Digital Age - a sign that he is well aware of the need to for Christians to be present online.

Several men and women were also appointed as consultors of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. Amongst those listed are Fr Antonino Spadaro SJ, Director of "Civilta Cattolica"; Fr Eric Salobir OP, General Assistant for Social Communications within the Dominican Order in France; Fr Augustine Savarimuthu SJ, Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Social Communications of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome; Sr Dominica Dipio OP, Associate Professor of Literature at the Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda; Antonio Preziosi, Director of "Giornale Radio Rai" and "Rai Radio Uno"; Marco Tarquinio, Director of the newspaper "Avvenire"; Mr Paul Wuthe, Secretary of the Media Commission of the Austrian Bishops' Conference; Mr Greg Erlandson, President of the Catholic Press Association in the USA; and Mr Gian Maria Vian, Director of "L'Osservatore Romano".

With such illustrious appointments, it seems that the Holy Father is keen to support the work of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. In this world of mass communications and social networking, the Church must adapt rapidly to new ways of proclaiming the Gospel. In that sense, the new members of this Pontifical Council have an important contribution to make to the life and mission of the the universal Church. We who use the new media and who have the privilege of being called Christian (even if we don't always honour that name) also have a need to seek guidance from the Holy Father and his Council for Social Communications, so that we can truly discern the Christ-like way "of being present in the digital world..., which is honest and open, responsible and respectful of others" (Pope Benedict XVI, Message for the 45th World Communciations' Day).

[Image: Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York; this image is attributed to CyWhite from Milwaukee and is published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikimedia Commons]

St Thomas Becket - "I am prepared to die for my Lord, so that in my blood the Church will attain liberty and peace"

A reliquary (left) containing relics of St
Thomas Becket,  Westminster Cathedral

This post is a bit 'late in the day' - although it is still (just about) the Feast of St Thomas Becket, the martyred Archbishop of Canterbury.

Today, I visited Westminster Cathedral to venerate some of St Thomas of Canterbury's relics, which are housed in a chapel dedicated to him there - also known as the Vaughan Chantry. Afterwards, I popped over to the Brompton Oratory, where, much to my delight, an old rite Mass was just about to be celebrated at St Joseph's Altar. Both being able to venerate the relics of St Thomas and attend an Extraordinary Form Mass on his Feast Day proved to be a cause of great joy for me.

In thanksgiving, then, I thought I would share a couple of photos of the Chapel of St Thomas of Canterbury at Westminster Cathedral, which were taken this afternoon. Also contained in this post is an account of St Thomas' martyrdom, which was written by one of the few innocent eyewitnesses at the horrific event - a man called Edward Grim. This witness was a clerk from Cambridge who happened to be at Canterbury for Vespers on 29 December 1170, the evening when King Henry II's knights murdered the holy man of God. Grim actually tried to defend St Thomas from the moral blows, but ended up being severely wounded himself. His record makes for interesting reading. Those who wish to read the full version of what I have reproduced below can do so at Fordham University's Internet Medieval Source Book site.

Edward Grim's account of the murder of Thomas Becket

After the monks took [Thomas] through the doors of the church, the four aforementioned knights followed behind with a rapid pace. A certain subdeacon, Hugh the Evil-clerk, named for his wicked offence and armed with their malice, went with them - showing no reverence for either God or the saints because by following them he condoned their deed. When the holy Archbishop entered the cathedral the monks who were glorifying God abandoned Vespers - which they had begun to celebrate for God - and ran to their father whom they had heard was dead but they saw alive and unharmed. They hastened to close the doors of the church in order to bar the enemies from slaughtering the bishop, but the wondrous athlete turned toward them and ordered that the doors be opened. "It is not proper," he said, "that a house of prayer, a church of Christ, be made a fortress since although it is not shut up, it serves as a fortification for his people; we will triumph over the enemy through suffering rather than by fighting - and we come to suffer, not to resist." Without delay the sacrilegious men entered the house of peace and reconciliation with swords drawn; indeed the sight alone as well as the rattle of arms inflicted not a small amount of horror on those who watched. And those knights who approached the confused and disordered people who had been observing Vespers but, by now, had run toward the lethal spectacle exclaimed in a rage: "Where is Thomas Becket, traitor of the King and kingdom?" No one responded and instantly they cried out more loudly, "Where is the Archbishop?" Unshaken he replied to this voice as it is written, "The righteous will be like a bold lion and free from fear," he descended from the steps to which he had been taken by the monks who were fearful of the knights and said in an adequately audible voice, "Here I am, not a traitor of the King but a priest; why do you seek me?" And [Thomas], who had previously told them that he had no fear of them added, "Here I am ready to suffer in the name of He who redeemed me with His blood; God forbid that I should flee on account of your swords or that I should depart from righteousness." With these words - at the foot of a pillar - he turned to the right. On one side was the Altar of the Blessed Mother of God, on the other the Altar of the Holy Confessor Benedict - through whose example and prayers he had been crucified to the world and his lusts; he endured whatever the murderers did to him with such constancy of the soul that he seemed as if he were not of flesh. The murderers pursued him and asked, "Absolve and restore to communion those you have excommunicated and return to office those who have been suspended." To these words [Thomas] replied, "No penance has been made, so I will not absolve them." "Then you," they said, "will now die and will suffer what you have earned." "And I," he said, "am prepared to die for my Lord, so that in my blood the Church will attain liberty and peace; but in the name of Almighty God I forbid that you hurt my men, either cleric or layman, in any way." The glorious martyr acted conscientiously with foresight for his men and prudently on his own behalf, so that no one near him would be hurt as he hastened toward Christ. It was fitting that the soldier of the Lord and the martyr of the Saviour adhered to His words when he was sought by the impious, "If it is me you seek, let them leave."

The Martyrdom of St Thomas, as found in the Chapel
of St Thomas of Canterbury, Westminster Cathedral

With rapid motion they laid sacrilegious hands on him, handling and dragging him roughly outside of the walls of the church so that there they would slay him or carry him from there as a prisoner, as they later confessed. But when it was not possible to easily move him from the column, he bravely pushed one [of the knights] who was pursuing and drawing near to him; he called him a panderer saying, "Don't touch me, Rainaldus, you who owes me faith and obedience, you who foolishly follow your accomplices." On account of the rebuff the knight was suddenly set on fire with a terrible rage and, wielding a sword against the sacred crown said, "I don't owe faith or obedience to you that is in opposition to the fealty I owe my lord King." The invincible martyr - seeing that the hour which would bring the end to his miserable mortal life was at hand and already promised by God to be the next to receive the crown of immortality - with his neck bent as if he were in prayer and with his joined hands elevated above - commended himself and the cause of the Church to God, St Mary, and the blessed martyr St Denis.

He had barely finished speaking when the impious knight, fearing that [Thomas] would be saved by the people and escape alive, suddenly set upon him and, shaving off the summit of his crown which the sacred chrism consecrated to God, he wounded the sacrificial lamb of God in the head; the lower arm of the writer was cut by the same blow. Indeed [the writer] stood firmly with the holy Archbishop, holding him in his arms - while all the clerics and monks fled - until the one he had raised in opposition to the blow was severed. Behold the simplicity of the dove, behold the wisdom of the serpent in this martyr who presented his body to the killers so that he might keep his head, in other words his soul and the church, safe; nor would he devise a trick or a snare against the slayers of the flesh so that he might preserve himself because it was better that he be free from this nature! O worthy shepherd who so boldly set himself against the attacks of wolves so that the sheep might not be torn to pieces! and because he abandoned the world, the world - wanting to overpower him - unknowingly elevated him. Then, with another blow received on the head, he remained firm. But with the third the stricken martyr bent his knees and elbows, offering himself as a living sacrifice, saying in a low voice, "For the name of Jesus and the protection of the church I am ready to embrace death." But the third knight inflicted a grave wound on the fallen one; with this blow he shattered the sword on the stone and his crown, which was large, separated from his head so that the blood turned white from the brain yet no less did the brain turn red from the blood; it purpled the appearance of the church with the colours of the lily and the rose, the colours of the Virgin and Mother and the life and death of the confessor and martyr. The fourth knight drove away those who were gathering so that the others could finish the murder more freely and boldly. The fifth - not a knight but a cleric who entered with the knights - so that a fifth blow might not be spared him who had imitated Christ in other things, placed his foot on the neck of the holy priest and precious martyr and (it is horrible to say) scattered the brains with the blood across the floor, exclaiming to the rest, "We can leave this place, knights, he will not get up again."

From Vita S. Thomae, Cantuariensis Archepiscopi et Martyris, ed. in James Robertson, Materials for the Life of Thomas Becket, (London: Rolls Series, 1875-1885) (7 vols.) Vol. II.

Modern translation by Dawn Marie Hayes, with some changes from American to British English made by me. This shortened text is reproduced under the conditions stated on the Fordham Medieval Source Book website, where the unedited version may be found.

Feast of the Holy Innocents - How the Church could benefit from a reintroduction of the Boy Bishop traditions

Westminster Cathedral's 2007 Boy Bishop
(source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee)

Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, when the whole Church commemorates those children who were killed by King Herod for the sake of the gospel. It is also one of the days that used to be connected to the Boy Bishop tradition - the others being St Nicholas' Day and certain local saints' days. The custom itself, which saw a boy (usually a cathedral chorister) replacing the local bishop for a day or a few weeks, was very popular in the Middle Ages. Sadly, it was suppressed in England during the Protestant Reformation, though continued in some parts of Europe well into the 20th century. In recent years, though, there have been a few attempts to revive this joyful and playful tradition throughout the universal Church.

Although each cathedral community had its own dates, liturgies and customs surrounding the election and installation of its Boy Bishop, most places shared certain things in common. Almost everywhere a chorister or schoolboy connected to a particular cathedral was either nominated by his masters or eleceted by his peers to become that year's temporary replacement to the local ordinary - during which he wore the mitre, pectoral cross, ring and also carried the crozier. Sometimes, a writing or translating competition was used to choose which boy was worthy enough to become that year's mock bishop.

Also common amongst the Boy Bishop traditions was the beautiful ceremony that saw the actual bishop giving up his throne and the boy's subsequent enthronement. During Vespers on the day upon which the Boy Bishop was installed - usually St Nicholas' Day (in England) or the Feast of the Holy Innocents (in most other places) - the local ordinary would step down from his seat during the Magnificat, at the words "deposuit potentes de sede" ("He casts down the mighty from their thrones"), whilst the child who had been elected would then immediately replace him during the singing of the "et exaltavit humiles" ("and He raises the lowly").

This beautiful semi-official liturgy acted as a sort of memento mori for the bishop and was also a means of encouraging children to strive towards their best potential - for nothing is impossible for God, and any boy could potentially become a bishop. The Boy Bishop tradition reminded prelates that God would permanently remove them from their thrones one day and that there were countless other generations waiting to serve Him. The custom, then, was not just a childish bit of fun for Christmas, but was also a powerful reminder to individualistic or power-hungry ecclesiastics that their offices and honours were not theirs to keep. Not only would they have to answer to future generations for the way they had led their dioceses, but they would also have to answer directly to the One who exalted them in the first place. The Boy Bishop customs also helped prelates to reflect on the fact that no-one in the Church is indispensable - not even a bishop. As Our Lord said: "Out of these stones, God can raise children for Abraham" (Mt 3:9).

Soon after his investiture, the Boy Bishop would be dressed in a mitre and cope and choose a curia or chapter for himself from amongst his friends and classmates. He would afterwards lead most of his particular cathedral's services either for the whole of Advent (if he was elected on the Feast of St Nicholas) or Christmastide (if he was appointed on the Feast of the Holy Innocents). In York, the Boy Bishop was invested with great solemnity and even went on a visitation of his diocese, whilst the one at Gloucester Cathedral was often lavished with gifts of money by members of the local aristocracy! In some places, the boy would only exercise his "office" for a day or two or just during Vespers on his particular cathedral's own saint's day - during which very popular sermons were preached (often better than the ones given by the real bishop!). Of course, a Boy Bishop could not celebrate the sacraments, so Masses and confessions continued to be celebrated and heard by priests belonging to the (real and adult) cathedral chapter.

Protestants viewed such joyful traditions with deep suspicion - especially puritans, who were not really known for their sense of humour! Also, both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were deeply suspicious of these subversive customs, even if the Church had had no problem with them for centuries. As the Boy Bishop tradition sees an ecclesiastical potentate replaced by a spotty teenager or child, many early Anglicans thought that if it continued this custom could destabilise (through mockery) their new or "reformed" episcopacy. So, although Mary Tudor revived the Boy Bishop custom in the mid-16th century, it all but disappeared by during the reign of her Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth I.

Westminster Cathedral's 2007 Boy Bishop with two members
of his chapter and Fr Tim Dean - then Chaplain to the
Choir School. (source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee)

In recent years, the Boy Bishop tradition has made a bit of a comeback. Several English cathedrals, such as Salisbury and Hereford, now keep this custom once more. Even Westminster Cathedral attempted to revive the Boy Bishop tradition a few years ago - though as far as I am aware this annual event has now stopped (publicly, at least). The photos in this post show ceremonies surrounding the installation of Westminster Cathedral's 2007 Boy Bishop. That year's Boy Bishop was elected after winning a writing competition at the Cathedral's Choir School. He then delivered a homily on St Gregory's Day - the Choir School's feast day. A blog post written in 2007 by Mgr Mark Langham, who was Administrator of Westminster Cathedral at the time, contains more images, as well as the prayers and rites that were used during the installation of that year's Boy Bishop.

There is something to be said for the Boy Bishop tradition. It reminds us all that being light-hearted can be immensely beneficial, especially as religion is prone to be taken far too seriously. It is also a wonderful way of reminding bishops that God will, one day, cast them from their thrones. Those bishops who spent the past few decades implementing their own version of Catholicism could therefore have done with a Boy Bishop - they might have realised then in a profound way that bishops are custodians of truth, which must be passed on from generation to generation, as opposed to being religious innovators. Those who think they have modernised their dioceses forever would know, if they had been replaced by a Boy Bishop, that the Church is bigger than they are, that God will probably undo all their work with the next generation, and that out of the mouths of babes shall pour forth wisdom (cf Mt 21:16).

Update: Fr Bede Rowe has left a comment, reminding us that Chavagnes International College (an acclaimed English language Catholic school based in France) maintains the Boy Bishop tradition. To read more about it, and to view photos of the 2011 Boy Bishop and the ceremonies surrounding his installation, please click here, here, here, here and here. Fr Bede Rowe has also found an old photo of a Boy Bishop here, who looks more like a Boy Pope!

[Images: Westminster Cathedral's 2007 Boy Bishop; source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee]

When is a vicar not a vicar? The Guardian's coverage of the "midnight mass brawl" at a Southampton Catholic church

St Edmund's RC church, Southampton
photo attributed to David Mainwood (see below) 

Many UK media agencies reported yesterday that worshippers were left distressed at St Edmund's in Southampton this Christmas as violence broke out amongst some of those who had found their way into the church during Midnight Mass.

According to the Daily Mail two men and a woman (the BBC mentions three men) who were not regular worshippers at St Edmund's came in to the building half-way through Mass and ended up throwing chairs at each other and then at members of the congregation. It seems that these characters may have entered the the church on their way from a drunken night on the town. From various reports it also appears that due to the nature of this unfortunate fracas the celebrant, Mgr Vincent Harvey, felt obliged to stop the Mass for several minutes in order to secure the safety of his flock.

This post is not so much concerned with the horrific details surrounding the unholy disruption of the Mass, but rather with a minor - but very telling - detail in the Guardian newspaper's reporting of it. Those who would therefore like to read more about the incident itself can do so here and here.

This is how Riazat Butt, the Guardian's religion correspondent, began her piece on the Midnight Mass fight at St Edmund's: -

"A vicar has said he feared for his parishioners' lives after a brawl broke out at the midnight mass he was leading on Christmas Eve." [Update 15:00 - the Guardian recently corrected this sentence, replacing "vicar" with "priest", stating "...This article was amended on 27 December 2011 to correct our erroneous description of Father Vincent as a vicar, to a priest" - which kind of means that the rest of this post is now redundant. Oh, well...]

Those of us based here in the UK will know that referring to a man as "a vicar" (in this context) almost always implies that he is a Church of England (Anglican) clergyman. From reading Riazat Butt's report, then, it would appear that the Guardian's religion correspondent is confused. Whilst obviously referring to a Catholic priest, Mgr Vincent Harvey, she has described him using what most would consider an Anglican form of address. Of course, Riazat Butt might be unaware of the various different meanings attached to the title "vicar" within both the modern Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. Even so, it says a lot about the left-leaning Guardian if its own expert in religious affairs doesn't seem to know that "vicar" when referring to a parish priest almost exclusively relates to Anglicanism.

Although the title "vicar" for a certain parochial clergymen originated in the pre-Reformation English Catholic Church, it is now commonly used in the UK as a generic term for all Anglican clerics - though some people, especially those with little knowledge of religious matters, also use the word to describe any Christian minister. The title "vicar" for parish priests here in England is a very ancient one, which dates back to the Middle Ages when some clergymen were appointed by secular or monastic landowners - acting vicariously for them as tithe-collectors. The title in relation to parochial clergymen used to have a significant meaning for hundreds of years, helping to differentiate - mainly for financial purposes - vicars from their more distinguished colleagues, known as rectors.

There might be some kind of reasoning behind Riazat Butt's eccentric description of Mgr Vincent Harvey as "a vicar", though, as he is in fact the Vicar General for the Diocese of Portsmouth. Of course, there is an enormous difference between what many understand a vicar (here in the UK) to be and the role and function of a diocesan vicar general - both offices are not only distinct but usually belong to two different Christian traditions. Although the Catholic Church in England and Wales no longer uses the ancient titles "vicar" and "rector" for its parochial clergy, they are still used when referring to specific offices within diocesan or ecclesiastical hierarchies. Vicars general, episcopal vicars and judicial vicars are men who help bishops run their dioceses, whilst vicars forane lead territorial divisions (deaneries) within a diocese. None of the men holding these offices are normally referred to as "a vicar" - especially when doing so would lead most people to assume they had joined the Anglican priesthood! Sadly, it appears that the religion correspondent at one of Britain's leading newspapers doesn't know this.

I also deliberately avoided dwelling on the fact that Riazat Butt chose not to use capital letters for "Midnight Mass". After all, such mistakes are to be expected in the left-leaning paper. The Guardian is so well-known for publishing misprints and typos that many (inspired by the satirical magazine, Private Eye) now jokingly refer to it as the Grauniad! But for a journalist who is supposed to be an expert in religious affairs to begin an article about a Catholic parish priest in modern-day Britain by calling him "a vicar" seemed so odd that I thought it worthy of comment.

Although the fact that three yobs were physically violent during Mass is depressing enough, the fact that a journalist specialising in religious affairs on a national newspaper doesn't seem to know the difference between the titles given to Anglican and Catholic clergy seems even more disheartening. Allowing someone who appears as clueless at Butt to report on religious matters may indicate that society as a whole has become religiously illiterate (as far as Christianity is concerned at least). It is also possibly a sign that secular news agencies are failing to realise the growing need for accurate religious reporting - religion is becoming more important, not less so. Having said that, most if not all the other papers that covered this story managed to get their facts right - no other journalist, as far as I know, referred to Mgr Vincent Harvey as "a vicar". It seems, then, that the Grauniad was merely abiding by its reputation!

[Image: St Edmund's Church (David Mainwood) / CC BY-SA 2.0]

A sonnet for Christmas, written from Our Lady's perspective

I really should stop writing poems, as I know that I am most definitely not a poet. Having said that, I decided to write this sonnet last night, probably as a substitute for a proper Christmas blog post. And having just attended Solemn First Vespers of Christmas at Westminster Cathedral, I guess now is an appropriate time to publish it...

However poor this silly little sonnet may be, it is my way of offering a small gift to Our Lord on his birthday as well as saying 'thank you' to the Blessed Virgin Mary for her commitment both to God and humanity. One day, my hope is that I will be able to be as sincere as she was when she declared: I am the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy Word.

I know this ode is not very good, and apologise in advance for any offence caused - literary or otherwise.

I recently took this image during a visit to
the Victoria and Albert Museum 

She who bore God

He moves. In me he lives – the one called love.
He is mine and I am his - my bright son.
Rising through me, he came down from above -
Behold the marvel that our Lord has done!

A shadow overcame our earthly fault,
It filled my longing with a warm embrace.
Then silence as Heaven found its new vault –
A garden where God formed a human face.

Salvation nurtured as the months passed by,
And time was changed within my fragile frame.
The Word no more beyond the hiding sky,
Creation no longer could be the same.

From my womb sprang forth life upon that morn –
He who had loved me before I was born.

Wishing all my readers a blessed, grace-filled and joyful Christmas. May Our Lord Jesus Christ be born anew in us today! 

Do you enjoy a flutter? If so, it might be worth backing the former Episcopal Bishop of Rio Grande, Jeffrey Steenson, to become the first Ordinary of the US Anglican Ordinariate

Jeffrey Steenson as the Episcopal
Bishop of Rio Grande

It was announced by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington a few weeks ago that the American Anglican Ordinariate will be erected on 1 January 2012. Already, it seems that nearly 70 Episcopalian priests are planning on joining the US Ordinariate, whilst a few former bishops have also been tipped to join. Several Anglo-Catholic and Anglican Use parishes will also be expected to seek formal membership of the new Ordinariate once it has been created in just over a week's time. It appears, too, that a few Traditional Anglican Communion (Anglican Church in America) congregations are keen to join the new structure - which will allow all these Anglican groups to retain their patrimony whilst also entering into full communion with Rome.

Last night, Virtue Online (The Voice of Global Orthodox Anglicanism) confidently reported that the former Episcopal Bishop of Rio Grande, Jeffrey Steenson, is expected to be appointed the US Ordinariate's new Ordinary. Steenson is already a Catholic priest, having left the Episcopal Church four years ago - following an Anglican ministry that lasted over 24 years. He entered into full communion with the Catholic Church in December 2007 during a private ceremony celebrated by Cardinal Bernard Law in Rome's Santa Maria Maggiore basilica. The former Episcopal bishop was subsequently ordained into the Catholic diaconate 12 months later, whilst Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe ordained him into the sacred priesthood in 2009. The Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe covers roughly the same area as the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande.

Since his ordination as a Catholic priest, Fr Steenson has been actively engaged in preparing for the erection of the US Anglican Ordinariate. He has been seen at several Anglican Use events and conferences, whilst he has also been helping Cardinal Wuerl to implement Anglicanorum Coetibus in the United States - a task that the Archbishop of Washington was asked to carry out by Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, Fr Jeffrey Steenson was actively present when Cardinal Wuerl announced the date chosen for the creation of the US Ordinariate.

It seems that a few recent leaks from inside the Vatican have confirmed that Steenson will most likely be appointed as the first Ordinary for the new US Anglican Ordinariate on 1 January 2012. Mary Anne Muller writing for Virtue Online states that she came into possession of a private communiqué late on Wednesday, which revealed that Steenson is being tipped for the Ordinariate's top post. It also seems that a second confidential source confirmed the contents of this communiqué, telling Mary Muller that: "Yes, Jeffrey Steenson will be the new Ordinary." Rumours have also been circulating on one or two blogs, all of which point to Jeffrey Steenson as the one most likely to be appointed the US Anglican Ordinariate's first Ordinary. Needless to say, Fr Steenson himself has not commented on these rumours - the ability to be discreet is a must for any prelate in the Church!

Fr Jeffrey Steenson was educated at Harvard Divinity School and also holds a doctorate from Oxford University. He currently resides in Houston, Texas, where he teaches at St Thomas University and St Mary's Seminary. In this capacity, it seems that Steenson has been instrumental in creating a tailored formation course for those Episcopal priests and bishops who will soon be seeking ordination as Catholic priests within the US Ordinariate. Considering his abilities as a Catholic priest as well as his vast experience as an Episcopal clergyman, it really does seem that Fr Jeffrey Steenson is more than suited to become the US Ordinariate's first leader. As a married man, though, Steenson - like Mgr Keith Newton of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham - will never be ordained to the episcopacy, even if he will have jurisdiction over the new canonical structure (if appointed Ordinary, of course). Although not a bishop, Jeffrey Steenson - if he does become the Ordinariate's Ordinary - will be allowed to wear the mitre, pectoral cross and ring.

I remember being at Westminster Cathedral on 1 January this year to witness three former Anglican bishops - including Keith Newton - being received into full communion with the Catholic Church. I was also at their ordination to the priesthood two weeks later. Both events, as well as the subsequent receptions of ordinary former Anglicans into full communion with Rome through membership of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, were extremely joyful and exciting for many within the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Sadly, though, since then it seems that things have slowed down considerably for the English Ordinariate. Of course, this was to be expected - especially after the initial rush. No excitement can or should last forever. Life's essential nitty-gritty work is often slow and boring.

Needless to say, then, the Catholic Church in America will probably find the next few weeks in its history to be very exciting ones indeed. One way of keeping the momentum going might be for the US Ordinariate to find itself a mother church as soon as possible. Not having a main Ordinariate church here in the UK seems to have added to the natural dampening of its exhilarating beginnings, and might even have caused second-wavers to think again about swimming the Tiber. Hopefully, if the US Ordinariate manages to find a church for its Ordinary without much fuss, the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham might then be given a boost in its own efforts to secure a mother church this side of the pond.

[Image: Jeffrey Steenson as the Episcopal Bishop of Rio Grande; source: The Black Cordelias]

A traditional Catholic reacts to a blasphemous poster of Our Lady by destroying it - But was this the right thing to do?

This image shows the offending poster after Arthur Skinner
had destroyed it - removing the more shocking elements

A few days ago a man referring to himself as a traditional Catholic decided to vandalise a controversial image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to the  New Zealand Herald, Arthur Skinner from the Catholic Action Group in New Zealand damaged the poster as he deemed it to be so offensive that he felt a responsibility to remove it.

The image showing the Virgin Mary holding a pregnancy testing kit with a shocked expression on her face had been commissioned by an Auckland Anglican church, St Matthew-in-the-City. This parish is already known for displaying controversial (some would say blasphemous) quasi-religious images - a few years ago its billboard depicted an extremely distasteful image of St Joseph and Our Lady in bed after sex (click here and scroll down to view - but be warned).

Whilst reacting to this story, many anti-Catholic commentators in New Zealand have not only criticised Skinner, but have also used this opportunity to take a dig at the Catholic Church as a whole. According to Richard Boock, who appears to be an embittered lapsed Catholic, Arthur Skinner's act of vandalism is further proof of Catholicism's "bullying" and "intolerant" attitude. Those who bother to read Boock's article will find his self-righteousness particularly bizarre, especially seeing that he begins his piece - with no apparent sense of irony - by referring to Catholics as "Micks" (an offensive and derogatory term for the Irish).

The vandalising of this poster was also linked by Boock to the much exaggerated clerical abuse scandals. How both things are connected is beyond me. It might be something to do, though, with the fact that the Auckland Anglican church which displayed the offensive poster of Our Lady seems to be very pro-homosexual, whilst - according to a much touted "liberal" myth - the Catholic Church hates homosexuals and also encourages paedophilia. It seems, then, that the world and its allies get on fine with progressive churches, especially when they all combine forces to attack Catholicism. But didn't Jesus himself promise that those who proclaim the truth will always be attacked and mocked by the world and that the Church would be pestered by false prophets?

Of course, many would agree that Skinner's actions were extreme, if not illegal - a fact that he himself seems to revel in. But what has one man's attempted (and possibly misguided) defence of Our Lady's honour got to do with mythical Inquisitorial bogeymen or hysterical scaremongering about so-called paedophile priests? It seems that whenever an opportunity arises for a spot of Catholic bashing, liberals and those with an axe to grind against the Church come scurrying out of the woodwork. It is also guaranteed that if a relatively controversial story involving a Catholic appears in the news, there will be an army of commentators out there waiting to link it to clerical child abuse.

Sadly, it seems that the one thing these commentators hate the most about Catholicism is that it will not bow to their secular or materialistic gods, or to modern sexual mores. Because the Church condemns sex outside marriage (including homosexual sex), her "progressive" enemies will stop at nothing to try and discredit her - hence their hysterical over-exaggerations about priestly child abuse. Also, because Catholics like Arthur Skinner are genuinely hurt and angry at seeing the Virgin Mary mocked, the Church as a whole finds herself condemned as "intolerant" - yet no mention is made of the intolerance shown towards Catholics and our feelings. One wonders why these same concerned "liberal" commentators don't argue that the protestant church which displayed the offensive image of Our Lady was actually being insensitive, if not intolerant, towards those Christians who love Mary - our mother, given to us from the Cross by Christ himself?

I have no idea who Arthur Skinner is, and haven't heard of the movement he belongs to. As far as I know, he might be representing himself or only a handful of others. I do admire his obvious love for the Virgin Mary, though. It is right and just that Christians should be angry when our heavenly mother is ridiculed and mocked - just as Christ was moved to anger by those who were defiling the Temple or just as we would be hurt and enraged to see our own physical mothers being humiliated. The fact that those committing blasphemy against Our Lady actually call themselves Christians is even more likely to cause offence and hurt. One might understand why a Satanist or some extremist atheist would revel in producing blasphemous images of the saints, but for Christians to do it is inexcusable. It is both a scandal and an open attack on those who sincerely follow the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Having said that, I think it was unfortunate that Skinner chose to act on his anger by resorting to a form of criminal damage in order to get his point across. Although his anger was and is legitimate, his actions might not have been. In vandalising the poster, Arthur Skinner appears either to have been trying to court media attention for his group or to have fallen into a deliberate trap - designed to make Catholics look like the ogres or intolerant fools that the world believes us to be. The evil one loves it when we react to his goading - which is why St Paul warns: "Even if you are angry, you must not sin; never let the sun set on your anger, or else you will give the devil a foothold" (Eph 4:26-27).

A bit of wisdom and prayer might have helped Arthur Skinner realise that whilst righteous anger might not be a bad thing, turning the other cheek is always a good reaction for a Christian to adopt. There is much to be said for rising above calculated attempts to hurt and mock. Rather than vandalising someone else's property - even if the poster was really offensive to Mary (and all true Christians) -  it might have been better for Arthur Skinner and his group to make acts of reparation instead? I am sure that many of them already have been doing this. In reflecting on this, I am reminded of some words from that well-known Marian hymn, I'll Sing a Hymn to Mary: "When wicked men blaspheme thee, I'll love and bless thy name". It's worth noting that this beautiful song does not say: "When wicked men blaspheme thee... I'll commit random acts of vandalism / take the law into my own hands"!

St Matthew-in-the-City church has succeeded both in creating controversy and mocking the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Christ and mother of all Christians. In so doing, I would question this church's real commitment to Jesus - who will not look kindly on those who unrepentantly deride his beloved mother. For that reason, and knowing that this isn't the first time that St Matthew's has attempted to steal the Christmas lime-light by displaying inappropriate images of the Holy Family, I can fully understand why Arthur Skinner felt so angry when he encountered this poster of Our Lady. Whether or not he should have vandalised it is another matter.

Personally, I believe that God will deal with unrepentant blasphemers in His own way. I also truly believe that Mary prays for the salvation of all those wicked men and women who mock her. We should join her in this act of mercy, offering the Rosary in reparation for those poor sinners who do not know what they are doing, or who are committing evil when they genuinely believe that their actions are for the good. We only have one life in which to repent, and no-one knows when his or her time on earth will come to an end. With that in mind, let us then offer our spiritual sacrifices this Christmas for those in most need of the grace of true conversion.

Those wishing to read the more about this story can do so on the Telegraph's website. After some thought, I decided not display the offending poster in its original state - it does appear in the above link, though.

[Image: The damaged poster of depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary outside St Matthew-in-the-City church, Auckland; source: The Dunedin School]

Is it now time to boycott Tesco? One of its senior executives brands Christians who are opposed to gay marriage as "evil"

"If people do not welcome you... shake the dust off your feet
as a witness against them" (Lk 9:5)

A few weeks ago I resisted the temptation to call for a boycotting of Tesco, one of the UK's leading grocery stores. At the time, the company had decided to reduce its charitable funding for Cancer Research UK in order to support London's annual gay pride parade. Although many Christians suggested that shopping at a gay-agenda supporting shop was incompatible with the gospel, I was guided by one of St Paul's admonitions to the Corinthians. He told the early Christians in that lascivious city that we must all sometimes associate with the sexually immoral (and their supporters) who are outside the bounds of grace, otherwise we "would have to leave this world" (1 Cor 5:10).

In the past few days, though, it has come to light that Nick Lansley, Head of Research and Development at Tesco, has gone one step further and declared himself against "evil" Christians - those who resist proposals to redefine marriage. According to the Christian Institute, Mr Lansley's comments appeared on his Flickr page, where he lists his employment as “Head of R & D at Tesco.com.” His exact words were: “I’m also campaigning against evil Christians (that’s not all Christians, just bad ones) who think that gay people should not lead happy lives and get married to their same-sex partners.” Lansley obviously doesn't realise that no real Christian would ever dream of supporting gay marriage - something that will always be a contradiction in terms.

The Telegraph reported yesterday that after these comments came to light, Tesco asked its head of research to remove them. A spokesman for the store said: "We are very sorry that anyone might have thought that there was any blurring of the boundary between his personal comments and his work for Tesco. We have therefore asked him to remove the comments, and he has done so." It seems, though, that no other form of disciplinary action has been taken against Nick Lansley by his employer.

One wonders what would have happened to Mr Lansley if he had declared - with the same apparent venom - that homosexuals or Jews opposed to the redefinition of marriage were also "evil". Believe it or not, most gay people, it would seem, aren't that bothered about redefining something that cannot be redefined by simple act of parliament - especially now that, here in the UK at least, they already enjoy all the legal privileges of marriage if they chose to enter a civil partnership. It is also a fact that the vast majority of other religions - not just Christianity - oppose gay marriage. One wonders why, then, didn't Nick Lansley chose to launch a campaign against these groups, too?

As the Christian Institute website points out, a housing manager from Manchester was demoted earlier this year for posting a moderate comment on Facebook in which he said he didn't think churches should be forced to host homosexual civil partnerships if they didn’t want to. By recording his personal opinion online, this housing manager was exposed to a media frenzy, was publicly humiliated by his employers and also lost 40% of his salary as punishment for his alleged "homophobia". Needless to say, many pro-homosexual commentators were also practically baying for his blood. Whilst this housing manager was demoted and lost a significant portion of his annual income for expressing a mild opinion about homosexual civil partnerships in church, it seems that Tesco couldn't care less that one of its senior executives was willing to refer to Christians as "evil" whilst also declaring himself to be one of its most senior employees.

According to the Telegraph, it also appears that there is hardly any demand at all for civil partnership ceremonies, let alone gay weddings, to be held within ecclesiastical or religious buildings. It seems that a study published last month by the government's Equalities Office showed that only six places of worship out of more than 40,000 across the country want to host civil partnership registration services. Yet both the British Prime Minister and gay-rights lobbyists appear convinced that there is such a huge demand for civil partnerships or gay weddings in church that pressing ahead with an unpopular change in the law is an absolute necessity of our times.

The Equalities Office's consultation on allowing civil partnerships ceremonies in church buildings (as well as mosques, synagogues, etc), also found that as many as 532 faith groups would "opt–in" to allow such events on their premises. Needless to say, these groups tend to be tiny independent religions or feel-good type sects, with no buildings of their own - so their desire to cater for gay union ceremonies is just wishful thinking. Of all those religious organisations that would allow same-sex union registrations on their premises, only congregations from four small pro-gay churches and two Quaker groups said that they actually would definitely consider "applying for approval of their religious premises for the registration of civil partnerships". In other words, only six buildings would or could be used as venues for those wishing to register their gay-union in a religious setting.

The government report also stated that "as many as 1,593 same-sex couples could want to hold their ceremonies in church each year." This means that each of the six religious congregations willing to host civil partnerships might have to deal with over 250 such ceremonies each year. An impossible amount, even for the biggest cathedral to have to deal with. Needless to say, with such a demand for religious gay partnership services (even if it is small in proportion to the overwhelming demand for real sacramental marriage) and not enough buildings available, it really does seem, then, that churches (especially those belonging to the state Church of England) might actually be forced through extra laws or judicial rulings to host such events in the not too distant future.

It is clear to me that neither Tesco nor the British government seem to care about the concerns of people of faith or about the fact that marriage can only exist in the proper sense between one man and one woman. Neither of these organisations, therefore, deserve to be supported by those who care about real justice, which is always wedded to the truth. For that reason, then, and especially as it seems that Tesco will probably not be demoting its head of research and development for calling Christians "evil", I urge all people of faith as well as all men and women of good-will to boycott this store. It might be inconvenient for some of us to avoid Tesco - a shop that seems to have invaded every street in Britain - but why should Christians give their money to an organisation that appears indifferent to the fact that one of its most senior employees openly hates them? Also, avoiding Tesco is hardly a sacrifice - especially seeing that the quality of food on offer in other stores is usually far superior anyway!

[Image: Tesco Express store at Trowbridge, Whiltshire; this work is attributed to rodhullandemu and is published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikimedia Commons]

Archbishop John Nienstedt issues a Prayer for Marriage - to be recited at Masses and before the Blessed Sacrament

Archbishop John Nienstedt: A man
with a zeal for souls and a determination
to save society.

In a recent letter to his flock, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis wrote of the duty incumbent upon Christians to defend the proper definition of marriage. The Archbishop also included a prayer in his letter, asking for God's help in promoting the passage of a "marriage amendment" to Minnesota's constitution, which would safeguard the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. He asked that the prayer be recited during Masses in his diocese as well as by those adoring the Lord truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. Archbishop Nienstedt's message to the people of St Paul and Minneapolis also mentioned that the current struggle to defend and define marriage within the civil sphere demanded a "three-fold approach."

Firstly, the Archbishop said that there was a need for Catholics to educate society concerning the meaning of marriage, and why we believe it is something that is fundamental and intrinsic to humanity. Secondly, he added that committed members of the Church should encourage other Catholics to support marriage and the family - it seems that many so-called Christians in the west are more than willing to ignore their duty to proclaim the gospel in its entirety, whilst they happily get swept along by the secularist tide. Thirdly, the Archbishop asked all Christians and people of good will to "pray and offer sacrifice for the success of all endeavors [sic] that seek to protect and promote marriage."

What follows is a brief discussion on the need to educate our fellow citizens on why marriage is so important - the first of the Archbishop's three suggestions on how we can all help to defend the family. Marriage really is so fundamental to the human race - and the world - that it cannot be messed about with. As Pope Benedict XVI has already shown us, it is entirely possible to defend the the true definition of marriage by using rational arguments from natural law - ones that all human beings can accept, even those opposed to religion or to God. All too often, the supporters of "gay marriage" believe that Christians only oppose their goals because of some verse or other in the Scriptures - a set of books that most gay rights lobbyists either reject or distort. Without detracting from the direct and absolute revelation that is the Bible, and because of the pressing need to teach all sections of society about marriage, many agree that it is often best to approach issues surrounding its definition (as well as other matters, such as abortion) not so much from the truths contained in Scripture (the word of God), but through reference to the world around us (created through the Word of God). As the American Declaration of Independence puts it, there are certain "truths self-evident" to all those are willing to study the universe with an objective mind.

It is a fact that marriage is neither owned by the state nor by any specific religion. Rather, it is grounded in a fundamental and intrinsic truth about humanity, namely that men and women compliment and need each other. Both sexes have a natural and properly ordered need to find an opposite sex partner (a husband or wife) so as to form a special, loving and life-giving bond. The name we give these special and exclusive bonds between men and women is marriage. There was a time, not so long ago, when everyone knew this. Sadly, we are now living in a world where people claim to know everything, although in reality lack basic knowledge about the simplest of things. We've forgotten the basics, whilst convincing ourselves that we are the wisest of all beings.

Although it is true to say that there have been various different sexual unions between humans throughout our history - same-sex partners, multiple partnered unions and even so-called marriages between humans and animals - these partnerships either weren't recognised as marriages within the societies in which they happened, or were aberrations from what has commonly and predominantly been defined as marriage throughout the centuries. Some societies even today recognise some form of same-sex unions or weird bonds between humans and animals (if you don't believe me, read this article), but yet manage to understand why there remains a fundamental difference between these disordered or highly disordered relationships and what we all commonly understand to be marriage - the coming together of one man and one woman to form a stable, loving, life-giving and profound union of the two sexes.

Even atheists, if they really are as rational as some of them claim to be, have to agree that marriage is and always has been defined as a bond between a man and a woman, who freely commit to each other whilst also seeking to create a family. In that sense, marriage isn't a just a wedding day, a party, a serious relationship or a fling - it is the bedrock of society, it is the most important of all human institutions. It is for that reason that all the world's major religions have sought to solemnise it, and why Jesus Christ gave it to the Church as a sacrament of his love for her.

The Church believes that she has a God-given duty to promote, defend and teach the truth - in and out of season. She teaches that murder is a grave sin, which is and always will be wrong; just as she also proclaims that those who oppress the poor will have to answer to God for their crimes, or that the lives of all men and women are sacred. In the same way, then, the Church also has to uphold the fact that marriage is a special state willed by God for the good of humanity. Even those who don't believe in God can still appreciate with some rational understanding that marriage is more than a mere partnership - it is different to civil unions or other forms of sexual partnerships. It brings together the two elements of humanity: male and female. It forms new life, fosters love and secures society.

Belittling marriage by attempting to broaden its definition to such an extent that it basically becomes meaningless is an extremely dangerous thing to do. It runs the risk of exposing our most cherished and important human institution to a deadly assault - one from which it might never recover. It might also lead, one day, to complete relativism in human relationships - to the extent that solemn vows become worthless, differences in the genders are destroyed, and marriage is open to all sorts of horrific misinterpretations. In less that two decades from now, some children might actually believe that a same-sex union is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman - even if their inner moral code will surely inform them, and anyone with any sense, that this is not really the case.

Surely, St Paul's letter to the Romans is amongst the most prescient in Scripture. Its first chapter should be compulsory reading in Christian households - for it describes our western, decadent and post-modernist world better than any philosophical tract or economist's theory. In this letter, the Paul teaches that the truth - or God - is entirely knowable through studying the world around us. Anyone with the slightest wisdom or intelligence can see how simple, accessible and beautiful truth is - open to all, especially those with humility and a willingness to be objective and properly rational (as opposed to the truncated "reason" spouted by some of out more egotistical leaders of atheism and nihilism).

According to Paul, those who reject that truth which is clearly observed in the laws of nature and the natural law must be blinded by some disorder - an egotism, a narcissism, a form of pride that is ultimately tragic and delusional. His letter to the Romans also teaches that one of the signals indicating a lost ability to be clear-thinking and rational - a collective exchanging the truth for a lie - is a general acceptance of disordered sexual behaviours and the ultimate abandonment of the one thing that keeps us all going: marriage. I really suggest that those who are genuine seekers after the truth should meditate with some effort upon the first chapter of St Paul's letter to the Romans. It really is the epistle of our times.

Two days ago, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, asked Church leaders to be more vocal in defending Christian morality and to be brave in the face of the dictatorship of relativism (although he might not have put it exactly like that). It is strange to note, then, that the same man has often shown himself to be fundamentally opposed to absolute truth and Christian teaching when it comes to ethical matters - even making "gay marriage" (surely one of the supreme goals of relativism's tyranny) one of his main political priorities. It seems that the Prime Minister sometimes appears to be like a prophet unable to heed his own warnings! To call for stronger moral guidance from the Church on the one hand, whilst destroying the moral fabric of the nation on the other, must surely rank as the summit of hypocrisy? This is why our political leaders need prayer - for they need the wisdom to defend what is right and the courage to reject what is wrong.

Therefore, I end this post with an adapted form of Archbishop John Nienstedt's Prayer for Marriage - which I have changed so that those of us living outside his diocese might be able to pray it, too. It seems that the bedrock of humanity, known as marriage - that beautiful union of male and female - is under attack in many parts of today's world. Those of us who seek to defend the human family need all the graces we can muster! For that reason, I urge you all to join with Archbishop Nienstedt's in his prayer and to actively work for the preservation of marriage.

Heavenly Father, 

Through the powerful intercession of the Holy Family, grant to all your children* the many graces we need to foster, strengthen, and support faith-filled, holy marriages and holy families. 

May the vocation of married life, a true calling to share in your own divine and creative life, be recognized by all believers as a source of blessing and joy, and a revelation of your own divine goodness.

Grant to us all the gift of courage to proclaim and defend your plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship of loving trust, compassion, and generosity, open to the conception of children. 

We make our prayer through Jesus Christ, who is Lord forever and ever. Amen.

* The original wording is "grant to this local Church"

[Image: Archbishop John C Nienstedt; source: A Catholic View via Google images]

Will Pope Benedict XVI attend the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin? If so, he might be comforted by the successful 19th Eucharistic Congress held at Westminster Cathedral in 1908

Cardinal Vannutelli giving Benediction to the crowd
after the "Hostless" Eucharistic Procession in 1908

There has been much speculation recently as to whether or not Pope Benedict XVI will visit Ireland next year for the 50th International Eucharistic Congress, held in Dublin. Earlier this year, the Irish government expressed open - and unjustified - anger towards the Holy See, and diplomatic relations between both states cooled considerably. In fact, with the recent closure of the Irish Embassy to the Holy See, it seemed certain that the current Irish government would never welcome a papal visit to Ireland. Yesterday, though, the Irish Times reported that the country's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Eamon Gilmore, had confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI is welcome to visit Ireland for next year's important Eucharistic Congress.

The concept of holding Eucharistic congresses was the brainchild of Bishop Gaston de Ségur, who organised the first one at Lille, France, on 21 June 1881. This event was held as a means for clergy and laity to bear witness to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It was also designed as a gathering of theologians with a specific interest in Eucharistic theology. Within a few years, Bishop de Ségur's concept had received papal approval and International Eucharistic Congresses began to be held. By 1890, over 150,000 people travelled to the Eucharistic Congress held in Antwerp, whilst the following Congress was held in Jerusalem only three years later.

Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in 1908

One of the most controversial and yet successful Eucharistic Congresses was held in London in 1908. The opposition to this event and the diplomatic problems caused by it were far graver than those currently facing next year's Congress in Dublin. As a result of lobbying by extremist Protestants prior to the London Eucharistic Congress, the British Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, had to intervene to stop Catholics from processing with the Blessed Sacrament through the streets of London. Referring to a clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act (1829) that banned any exercise "of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion, [and the wearing of] habits..., save within the usual places of worship of the Roman Catholic religion", some anti-Catholic agitators successfully argued that the event's planned Procession of the Blessed Sacrament was both unconstitutional and illegal.

As a result of his negative interfering in a peaceful religious parade, Asquith suffered politically and was also severely criticised by commentators in both the British and international press. He lost the important support of the majority of Catholic voters, too. Two members of his Cabinet even resigned over the affair. The first being the devoutly Catholic Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords, George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, who was angered by his Liberal government's anti-Catholic stance. The second being the Home Secretary, Herbert Gladstone (son of William Gladstone), whose insistence that Catholic processions involving the Eucharist were unlawful was eventually itself deemed illegal (or unjustifiable).

Archbishop (later Cardinal) Bourne at the
19th Eucharistic Congress in 1908

The 19th International Eucharistic Congress was held in the newly built Westminster Cathedral, London, from 9 - 13 September 1908. It had been invited to the city by the then Archbishop of Westminster, Archbishop Francis Bourne (who was subsequently raised to the cardinalate in 1911). The Eucharistic Congress was the first ever event of its kind to be held in an English speaking country. It was also the first time that a Papal Legate had visited England since the Reformation (Cardinal Reginald Pole) - Pope Pius X was keen to send a representative to this Congress at Westminster. For that reason alone, many British Protestants became quite paranoid about the whole thing - fearing that Rome was on the verge reconquering England through the use of its beautiful and powerful liturgies!

To add to the Protestant anxiety, the Papal Legate, Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli, had come to London with an array of other high-ranking ecclesiastics - the like of which had not been seen in England before (or many other places, come to that). In fact, it might even be true to say that no such gathering as this had been seen outside Rome for quite some time. Another six cardinals came with Vannutelli to London, witnessing with him to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (Sadly, one of these great men, the highly respected Cardinal Francois Mathieu, died in England shortly after the Congress had finished). These cardinals were joined by fourteen archbishops, seventy bishops and an innumerable amount of priests, religious and laity. One of the priests at the gathering was Father Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), who also met Winston Churchill for diplomatic talks in between visits to Westminster Cathedral for Eucharistic devotions. No wonder that some frightened Protestants thought that the Catholic Church had come back to reclaim what was rightfully hers!

Although the British government had effectively banned the Blessed Sacrament from the Congress's closing ceremony, a procession did take place - but without the Host. In fact, more people turned out for this procession to mark the closing of the Eucharistic Congress than had lined the route for Queen Victoria's funeral cortege a few years earlier. During the event, the Papal Legate wore his court dress, whilst many of the clergy were attired in choir dress, draping their habits and vestments over their arms in submission to the government's request that they abide by the letter of the Catholic Relief Act.

Cardinal Vannutelli, Papal Legate to the
19th International Eucharistic Congress in
London's Westminster Cathedral, wearing the
Eucharistic Congress medal (1908)

The procession also saw the Pope's representative attended by a guard of honour made up of eleven noblemen - headed by the Duke of Norfolk, Premier Duke and Earl Marshal of England. Although the procession lacked the Blessed Sacrament, throngs of people - both devout and curious - lined the route that began at Westminster Cathedral and went through Victoria and Westminster before returning to the Cathedral once more. After the procession, Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli gave Solemn Benediction from the Cathedral's balcony to the tens of thousands of worshippers who had gathered below.

One of the international newspapers that was highly critical of the British government's ban on the Eucharist from the streets of London was the New York Times - which was not then as anti-Catholic as it sometimes appears to be nowadays! Here are a few paragraphs from its report on the historic "Eucharistic" Procession (minus Blessed Sacrament) that took to the streets of London in September 1908: -

LONDON, Sept 13 - The great procession of Catholic clergy, which brought the Eucharistic Congress to an end, was held this afternoon amid scenes such as the English churchmen who planned it had never anticipated. Cardinal Vannutelli, the Pope's Legate, walked at the head wearing scarlet robes and hat, but not carrying the host. He was accompanied by a bodyguard of English peers, of whom the Duke of Norfolk was the most prominent and a concourse of Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, who were also attired in unceremonial robes instead of the vestments which it had been originally purposed they should wear.

No such throngs of people have been seen in London since Queen Victoria's funeral, if even then. The purpose of Archbishop Bourne, the head of the Westminster Diocese, and his associates, who arranged the programme, had been to have the host carried through the streets in the rear of Westminster Cathedral, so that the great body of Catholics who were unable to participate in any of the services within the cathedral should have an opportunity of joining in the Eucharistic observances and of seeing all the high ecclesiastics present in London on this memorable occasion.

The route of the procession was laid through the quiet streets adjacent to the Cathedral [Victoria Street, Horseferry Road and Vincent Square], and but for the unexpected partisan strife which a discussion of this ceremony brought on, it would probably have been solemnized quietly and in a reverent atmosphere. As it was, only a few were openly and demonstratively hostile. The Catholic element cheered heartily while the procession passed by and throughout the route, but there was heard also considerable "booing" of the sort the English people use in theatres to express displeasure at the play. [LOL!]

[...]

Pontifical High Mass at the 1908 Congress

When the congregation poured out of the edifice they found that the crowd was already assembling. Large forces of police were assisted by some 15,000 Catholics, who had volunteered to line the route, but even this strong army of men was unable at times to prevent the participants in the parade from being shouldered by the curious. Before the procession started vespers were [sic] sung within the Cathedral, at the conclusion of which the prelates passed down the nave, singing "Faith of Our Fathers" which was taken up by the congregation and the vast crowds without.

As the head of the procession appeared from the Cathedral doors a cheer went up, which was repeated as Cardinal after Cardinal came slowly out, followed by the Archbishops, Bishops, minor prelates of the Church, and a great army of white-surpliced men singing hymns. Most of the prelates carried their vestments over their arms, but the Legate was in full court dress, his scarlet robes and red hat lending distinction to his commanding figure. The hands of the Pope's representative, which were to have carried the Host, showered continual blessings upon the people, who reverently bowed the knee.

[...]

In the streets surrounding the cathedral the prelates passed through avenues of keeling adherents of their faith, the curious and any who might have come to jeer being crowded out of this vicinity. At one or two points further away, however, the processionalists had practically to force a passage through the crowds which broke through the police lines. At one place, where several streets converge [Westminster Cathedral's historian informs me that this was probably Strutton Ground], the crush was so great that the spectators broke up the procession, but the police, stationed at this point in strong force, managed eventually to clear a narrow lane, through which the Papal Legate and the others passed in single file.

On their return to the Cathedral the prelates marched around the interior of the edifice, the Legate carrying the Host as he would have done in the streets had not the Government interposed and objection.

Those who had been crowded out of the Cathedral were permitted to participate in the ceremony, as the Legate , robed in his vestments, appeared on the balcony outside the building and presented the sacred sacrament and pronounced the benediction. The vast assemblage that filled the square then sang hymns, and the members of the Catholic societies, with banners flying, marched through the streets to their halls and churches, some of them proceeding later to the stations where trains were waiting to take them back to the provincial centres whence they had come to attend the services. In the meantime the Papal Legate within the building pronounced the benediction and the congress closed. (comments in parentheses mine)

Medal from the 1908 Eucharistic Congress

Reading this account of the closing procession for the 19th International Eucharistic Congress reminded me of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to England last year - especially the Mass he celebrated at Westminster Cathedral and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament he gave in Hyde Park before a crowd of 80,000 young people. Many embittered opponents of Jesus Christ had tried their best to stop the Pope's visit to Britain last year, even threatening to take legal measures against the Pontiff. In the end, of course, it was Christ's enemies that were confounded, whilst - as happened at the 1908 Eucharistic Congress - Catholicism received a huge boost.

Needless to say, some enemies of the Church have been trying their best to stop the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin from being successful. They would undoubtedly prefer it if the event was stopped altogether and will do anything to try and prevent or dissuade Pope Benedict XVI from attending this significant Catholic celebration - a profoundly powerful witness to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. For that reason, then, I urge those who advise the Pope to encourage him to visit Ireland - for if Christ's enemies are already at the gate, a joyful triumph for his Church is guaranteed.

[Images: 1 Benediction at the end of the 1908 Eucharistic Congress held at Westminster Cathedral (London); source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee. 2 Herbert Asquith; this image is in the public domain; source: Wikimedia Commons. 3 Archbishop Francis Bourne at the 1908 Congress; source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee. 4 Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli; source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee. 5 Pontifical High Mass at Westminster Cathedral during the 1908 Eucharistic Congress; source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee. 6 A medal struck specifically for the the occasion of the 19th International Eucharistic Congress in London; source: eBid]