A thought for today, General Election 2010

Milton! thou should'st be living at this hour:

LONDON, 1802.

Milton! thou should'st be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
Thy soul was like a Star and dwelt apart:
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea;
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life's common way,
In chearful godliness; and yet thy heart
The lowliest duties on itself did lay.

William Wordsworth London 1802

Hah!

Errrr what do you mean, exactly

First, a little story, a true one.

A few years ago, when I was working for a homelessness charity in London, a young pregnant client asked me to help her get an abortion.

When I told her that, as a Roman Catholic, I could not help with an abortion, but could suggest charities which could help her with preparing for the baby and finding a flat, she complained to the manager, who told me I could not continue to work for the organization, which was multicultural and valued and promoted all cultures. I was not open to the client’s culture.

I asked her if the organization practised religious discrimination, and reminded her that my application for the job had been supported by a reference from an openly Catholic priest.

She asked me if my anti-abortion stance was part of my “culture”. I replied, “No, part of my religion.” She relaxed at this, and said, ”We value and respect all cultures here, including yours.” Smart move.

And so the conversation ended and I kept my job, on the understanding that my religion was just a part of my “culture”, like enjoying poetry, or alcohol, or jazz, or wearing a tie - quite acceptable as a lifestyle choice, as long as it poses no threat to the social cohesion demanded by governments from the disparate people they try to control.

Culture and religion are not the same. For seriously religious people, their coreligionist are their tribe, their nation. Whoever shares my religion, whatever her or his ethnicity, colour, social class, personal hygiene, taste in music, shirts, or food, is someone I can understand: a sister or a brother.

The creation of a cohesive, easily malleable group of people is the aim of governments. To reach this goal, the divisive stony Decalogue of monotheistic religion must give way to the inclusive soggy ukase of the nanny state, which is, when challenged, of adamantine hardness.

Governmental insistence on “diversity” is interesting, because it is self-contradictory. The diversity of a Muslim, or a Catholic does not accept the diversity of someone who practises homosexual sex. The diversity of a practicing homosexual does not accept the diversity of a someone who states that such acts are against the natural law. Clearly diversity must pertain only to the cultural, not ethical, because ethical diversity raises too many problems and must therefore be eliminated.

So what is the solution for those in authority?


Among the methods used to erode ethical or religious diversity is ambiguity or imprecision. Nothing is right or wrong, but simply acceptable or unacceptable – but to whom? They word “culture” is used to cover religion, morality, dress, the arts, food – the list is long. This recourse to ambiguity is used not only by civil governments, but sometimes also by religious authorities. The ARCIC documents are an example. The old I.C.E.L. translation of the Mass, for example, used the phrase (of the bread before consecration) “it will become for us the Body of Christ”.

What do these words mean? Does “for us” mean “for our sake”, as in “my parents did a lot for me?”, or “in our opinion”, as in “for me, music is the greatest of the arts”. Is It the Body of Christ, only for us, not for everyone? There is no ambiguity in the Latin, but I am not so sure that there was no vagueness in the minds of the translators.

The books used twenty years ago in the preparation of my children for first Holy Communion avoided the divisive doctrine of Transubstantiation altogether. My parish priest in England when I asked him about this told me that my understanding of the Sacrament was too crude. “We have moved forward from all that”. Another weasel phrase – why do we always move forward, never sideways or backwards? Is theology also subject to Darwinian evolution, so that later is always better?

And what have we moved forward from? From plain speaking to anodyne obfuscation.

VERITAS IN CARITATE - truth in charity - is a fine motto. Truth curtailed by a desire to be tactful, or accepted, is not so fine. If no one knows what anyone means, no reasonable discourse is possible. Terms cannot be defined and no one can agree or disagree.

Truth perishes.

Sapphic lines (in the poetic sense, as in Sappho of Lesbos, not Sappho the lesbian) addressed to wiser people than me. It scans perfectly if read correctly.


A Humble Enquiry

“Let’s break bread together on our knees”, but the crumbs get
Into my turn-ups, and the sunrise blinds me,
And where does it say in the Gospels that Jesus
Was Lord of the Dance?* Eh?

And if it’s only bread, then what of the Real Presence?
Transubstantiation, the Eucharistic Fast, and
Holy Hours and Exposition? Have we chucked the Sacrifice
And opted for a picnic?

And why, when we pray the Litany of Saints, do we
Include Saint Martin Luther King, Saint Dalai Lama
And Saint Nelson Mandela? None of them is Catholic,
And two not even dead yet.**

And what of the Bishops of England and Wales? Who
Are they working for? Where are they sailing
In the bark of Peter? To the port of Heaven?
Or the shoal of confusion?

And can you explain please, who the Easter People
Are? Is it all OK now, no repentance?
Life is so cute, if you’ve the good fortune
To be liberal and Catholic,

And nuance the absolute, syncretise and sample,
Admire Tony Blair for sorting out that bigoted
Homophobe Benedict the Sixteenth's obsession
With objectively moral

Disorder. Come on you guys, I mean Bishops, own up!
You don’t believe all this stuff about Papal
Infallibilty. That’s just Pio No! No!
So long ago, too.

And what about those Martyrs, who never took advantage
Of the power of inclusive language to avoid such
Misunderstandings, or, maybe, understandings
As shortened their lives so?

Ha! Now I’ve got it! If Catholic means the same as
Universal, everyone, atheist, agnostic,
Practising and lapsed, burbling and rational
Is Catholic. No problem!



*Why not:
Bounce, then, wherever you may be,
For I like to bounce up and down - tee! hee!
I bounce up and down like a hyperactive flea,
For I am the lord of the bounce - tee! hee!

**
I heard this very "relevant" updating of the Litany
Of the Saints at Mass in a Catholic church in London,
A few years ago, but cannot for the life of me
Imagine who OK'd it.