Well, more controversy over the upcoming Narnia movie (opening tonight). Following on Liam Neeson's remarks, the producer of the movies Mark Johnson, responding to Neeson, said: “resurrection exists in so many different religions in one form or another, so it’s hardly exclusively Christian...We don’t want to favor one group over another … whether these books are Christian, I don’t know”. One would have thought he would have looked to the author of the Narnia books to see if they are Christian or not: even the quickest of glances would have confirmed they are. Sad to hear this because not only does this poor approach affect the movies and their interpretation of the books and their meaning, but also reveals that those involved seem not to have "got" Lewis at all, and if they have not "got" Lewis, then how can they understand the language of the books?
The Narnia books serve two purposes. One - they are good children's stories, entertaining, but also edifying. The other purpose, which is the main one given Lewis' interests and his life's work, is catechetical. He is exploring the faith through the genre of children's fiction, and using that medium to speak to children about Christ and the history of salvation which is presented in an ingenious way in the novels. This was not unique for Lewis, he wrote other fictional works, science fiction included, in which he explored the depths of the Christian message. Lewis (an Irishman I am proud to say!!) was one of the 20th century's great apologists and popular theologians, and one of the greatest Christian writers of all time, it is strange that those working on the film adaption of his works should be so ignorant....or are they? Is it simply a case of their not wanting to be seen to be "christian" since to be so is not cool in Hollywood?
Perhaps, anyway, all that said, they are still good movies and they can still be used to draw people's attention to what Lewis is teaching - that's our job, and I think we have the ability to do that.
I see the controversy over the rebuilding of a Greek Orthodox Church in lower Manhatten, New York, near ground zero is continuing. The church was destroyed in the 9/11 attack, and now the parish wants to rebuild its place of worship near the church's original site, but they are being prevented by the people who own ground zero despite an agreement which was made a couple of years ago in which the agency had entered into with the Orthodox Church. Interesting in the light of the support being given to muslims who want to build a new mosque and muslim centre in the area: even President Obama came out in support of that. Interesting. Double standards at work again? Christians cannot replace their church which was destroyed but another religious group can come in and build anew.
What a beautiful feast day - the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary - wow, that even sounds great. This feast is so rich in so many ways: for one thing it celebrates a dogma that Our Lady herself came to confirm - in her apparitions to St Bernadette in Lourdes, she confirmed what Blessed Pope Pius IX had defined in 1854, resolving the theological debate which had exercised the minds of many great theologians over the centuries. Of course this was a debate in which Our Lady took a major part. In her apparition to St Catherine Laboure in 1830 she gave us the prayer "O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee": let's face it, that's a major contribution if ever there was one.
Lots of stories surround this dogma. I find the one concerning St Bernard interesting. Few saints loved Our Lady as much as St Bernard. Spiritually he was nourished on her milk, as an apparition of Our Lady reveals. Yet he did not believe that she was conceived without sin - born sinless, yes; cleansed of original sin the womb, yes, but conceived as we all are with the sin of Adam. The story goes that Bernard appeared to a monk with a black stain on his habit. When asked what the stain signified, Bernard responded that it was his refusal to believe in the Immaculate Conception. True or false, not sure, but interesting.
Blessed John Duns Scotus
The unsung hero of this feast day has to be the Scottish Franciscan Blessed John Duns Scotus. He believed in the Immaculate Conception and wrote a great deal about it - his theology helped the Church in her reflections. I imagine if he was ever made a Doctor of the Church (no word of it, as far as I am aware), he could be the Doctor of the Immaculate Conception, or perhaps, the Marian Doctor (although that title could be given to St Louis Marie de Montford - why hasn't he been declared a Doctor? His writings have been hugely influential in the Church, even inspiring the thought of the one greatest popes in the Church, John Paul II). Blessed Duns Scotus was beatified by Pope John Paul in 1993.
In honour of our Holy Mother today, one of the most beautiful poems ever written about her - by Dante Aligheri from the Paradiso of The Divine Comedy.
Maiden yet a mother,
daughter of thy Son,
high beyond all other,
lowlier is none;
thou the consummation
planning by God’s decree,
when our lost creation
nobler rose in thee!
Thus his place prepared,
he who all things made
‘mid his creature tarried,
in thy bosom laid;
there his love he nourished,
warmth that gave increase
to the root whence flourished
our eternal peace.
Nor alone thou hearest
when they name we hail;
often thou art nearest
when our voices fail;
mirrored in thy fashion
all creation's good,
mercy, might, compassion
grace thy womanhood.
Lady, lest our vision
striving heavenward fail,
still let thy petition
with thy Son prevail,
unto whom all merit,
power and majesty,
with the Holy Spirit
and the Father be.
The third cinematic installment of the Chronicles of Narnia comes to our screens on Thursday: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I'm hoping to get to see it on Sunday evening, if the snow clears - we had a fall of half a foot last night in Rathkenny. The films are good enough, though a few changes have not helped - but then you expect film adaptations to differ. One thing about the movies is that they flesh out the novels and enhance our imaginative view of Narnia.
However, a little controversy has arisen in the last day or so. Liam Neeson, the Irish actor who voices Aslan, apparently sees the character as the embodiment not only of Our Lord, as C. S. Lewis intended, but also as Mohammad and Buddha. Now first of all I would go easy on the man. He lives in an age and works in a profession where artistic licence is heavily influenced by political correctness and Eastern philosophies and religions - a lot of actors dabble in Buddhism at some stage in their career, they are attracted to the meditation and apparent peace of the religion. As an actor he is trying to enter into the character of this great figure - Aslan, and probably sees him as a great soul (Mahatma, as the Hindus would call him), and so he compares Aslan with those considered to be great religious figures in the world.
Ironically, if that is the case, not only does he miss out on who Aslan is: he diminishes him (which I do not believe Neeson wants to do). Yet this approach reveals a failure to understand what this character symbolises, if one did understand it would be immediately clear that it is impossible to compare Aslan with any religious figure other than Christ. The moment which reveals who Aslan is, as fans of the novel have repeated in their response to Neeson's comparison, is that when he allows himself be sacrificed, and then, when all seems lost, rises to life again. This is Aslan's defining moment - it is also the moment when the reader realises that this symbolic character points to one figure and one figure only: Jesus Christ. To do otherwise is to ignore or to fail to understand this climatic event. But then again there are many Christians who do not understand the death and resurrection of Christ in their lives of faith, so Neeson is not alone.
From this event we can say, then, that Aslan is not Mohammad nor Buddha, nor Confucius nor Zoroaster nor L. Ron Hubbard nor can any parallels be made. With all due respect to those who believe in and follow these figures - none of these men allowed themselves be sacrificed for love and then rose from the dead. Aslan points to Christ and Christ alone. Mistake that and you lose not only the character of Aslan and what he does, you also lose Narnia which was sung into existence by a song sung by.....Aslan - another important moment in the novels. At the end of the series, Narnia goes out of existence, again at the prompting of.....Aslan. It is Aslan who judges the creatures at the end, and it is to Aslan's world that the "elect" go.
Political correctness has many shortcomings, but one of its greatest is its blandness: it is colourless and no where near the radical nature of many beliefs. Political correctness cannot fathom the scandal of the life and death of Christ, nor cope with the concept of his resurrection simply because it singles him out as different. Christ has to be reduced to the same level as every other "good" person, but as Fulton Sheen often taught in his theology lessons Jesus can be said to be many things, but he cannot be simply a "good" person. Nor is he a religious person or a founder - to make him such is to reduce him to a mere member of a pantheon of spiritual people. He is different, more fierce, more controversial, more radical. Like Aslan in the Narnia books, he is untamed and cannot be put in a box.
That is why Neeson's remarks are wrong, he tries to put Christ in a category and seeks to emulate the others who occupy that category: Christ is different, he defies categorisation. Those who do not believe in Christ will say I am biased - of course I am. But what I say is also objectively true. Mohammad never claimed to be God - every Muslim, casual, pious or fundamentalist will tell you that. Buddha never claimed to be divine, rather one who discovered the way of Enlightenment. Confucius was a philosopher etc, etc, etc. But Jesus did claim to be God. He is different from the others, see it as good or bad. He said he was the Way, Truth and the Life. He had a confidence and authority to say that. That's Aslan, the image for Christ. Rant over!
I love to scandalise the faithful today. Well, not in a sinful way. The one we celebrate today is so different from the image we have built up of him, and I like to upset, just a little, the sanitised image of St Nicholas of Myra. St Nicholas was very much like St John the Baptist, and while we have so many wonderful stories and legends of his charity and kindness, we also have one which reveals his true colour - and yes, it was red - but the red of righteous anger.
St Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, renowned for his holiness, charity and defence of orthodoxy. He had suffered for the faith, imprisoned during the persecution of Diocletian. He attended the Council of Nicea which met to deal with the heresy the priest, Fr Arius, was preaching. Nicholas may have been one of those holy confessors referred to by historians, who bore the scars of their suffering and met with Constantine at the beginning of the Council symbolising the reconciliation between the Roman Empire and the Church. Anyway, if he was scarred, he lost none of his fire. According to accounts which may be legend (but who cares it's a great story) during one of the debates, so fired up with zeal for the orthodox faith, Nicholas set upon Fr Arius and gave him a good slap (good man Nicholas!). For his zeal, the venerable Bishop of Myra, on orders from the Emperor and his fellow bishops, ended up in the clink for a few days to cool off (that reconciliation was short lived!). He had to eat humble pie, and ask forgiveness for his violent act.
So Nicholas was no cuddly grandfather sipping the whiskey as he trots around the globe shedding gifts - he was in the style of the great Bishop defenders of the Church - of Basil and Gregory, of Augustine and Ambrose, of Hiliary and Martin. That makes him an even more interesting and attractive figure. Now I would not recommend that we should go around clocking the heretics in our midst, if any should exist, of course. But his zeal might be no harm to emulate. That zeal was fueled by his intense love of Christ whom he knew to be God and man.
St Nicholas reminds us that the Saints cannot be sanitised, or dismissed - they are more that the categories we like to create for them. They are more complicated, yes they were sinners, but they were also great lovers, and that love transformed them so they saw that being a disciple of Christ was not a humdrum, stale or respectable affair - it is an adventure! That's a good Advent message for us all.
One interesting detail of the story of Nicholas at Nicea tells us that during the night, as Nicholas was reflecting on his behaviour, Jesus and Mary appeared to him. "Why are you in jail?" they asked him. "Because of my love for you", he said. Jesus then gave him a book of the Gospels, and Our Lady gave him the omophoron - he stole of a bishop. Consolation indeed, forgiveness too. Dare we say, also a pat on the back? Dear me, no!
Driving around in the snow makes one slow down, not only on the icy roads, but also in mind and heart, and lets one reflect on the better things in life. As I crawl to offer Mass and coming back, coupled with prayer, I like to listen to uplifting music (when I can escape the new programmes which I am addicted to, thanks to upbringing! I grew up in a household where current affairs was the main topic of conversation). At the moment the CD de jour is a selection of Puccini arias (are you surprised?). One of the most striking pieces is a recording of the beautiful aria from Act One of La Rondine (The Swallow), one of Puccini's lesser known operas.
The aria, Chi il bel sogno di Doretta, is achingly beautiful. In it the lead female character, Magda, sings of love - of her life which is devoid of love. Magda, you see, is a kept woman, living with a man she does not love - a marriage of convenience, only it's not a marriage. She longs for love, but sees no way of having it, and so for her it is mere foolishness. It is very sad and not unknown in the real world. I think Puccini sees the tragedy of many in this life, and particularly the tragedy in many women's lives. A Puccini heroine tends to be a troubled woman who gets the raw end of life and dies without hope, even though she has demonstrated great heroism, or made a great sacrifice. In fact the only Puccini heroine who makes it out alive is Turandot, and she's a piece of work. But she is a woman who is changed by love rather than one who is destroyed by it like the other heroines. As for Puccini heroes (tenors!), they are not as wholesome as the women they woo. Pinkerton from Madama Butterfly is the worst of the lot.
Puccini seems to have had serious issues when it came to love. He wrote the most hauntingly beautiful love songs, and yet in the end love is a destructive force for him. His own love life was problematic, and it actually reads like one of his operas. In 1909 he was accused by his own wife, Elvira, of having an affair with their maid, Doria Manfredi. The accusation was false, but it pushed the innocent Doria to commit suicide. Her family successfully sued Elvira for her malicious accusation and causing the death of the young girl - Puccini had to cover the settlement. This no doubt coloured his opinion of love in later life. But given that in his last opera love finally triumphs as a transforming force (and the heroine survives!) may indicate that as he got older he was moving toward a more positive position.
Yet love embracing sacrifice is the greatest thing - we are redeemed by it as Jesus goes to the cross out of love for us, and instead of being destroyed by his sacrifice, as are Puccini heroines, he rises to new and glorious life, which he offers to all of us. The real tragedy for Puccini and his heroines is that their sacrifices are not centred on Christ's, and so they fall. Tosca in her aria Vissi d'Arte describes how she adorned the image of Our Lady with jewels and flowers, but when she is faced with sacrifice she loses her hope (and ends up killing her oppressor).
However, another great composer provides us with an antidote to Puccini's seeming hopelessness. The troubled and struggling Francis Poulenc gives us the Christian view of love and sacrifice in his opera Les Dialogues des Carmelites based on Georges Bernanos's play of the same name. Set against the French Revolution it plots the last days and heroic martyrdom of the Carmelite sisters of Compiegne (now Blesseds). Unlike Butterfly, Tosco or Mimi, they go to their death ready for new life, rejoicing, singing the Salve Regina (in a pretty unnerving setting, to be honest with you!). Their sacrifice does not destroy them, but leads them into life. (To hear the final chorus from the opera, go here)
Interesting thoughts on this Sunday evening. Art can indeed lead us to reflect on issues of faith - von Balthasar understood that. Now, time for that aria from La Rondine, sung by the lovely Renee Fleming - (all my celibate readers please close your eyes, lest you fall into temptation!).
Once asked which St John I was called after - John the Baptist or John the Evangelist, I responded: both! I hope the gentleness of the beloved disciple will temper the wild flare of the Baptist in me. Not so sure whether I am having success there, you will have to ask my friends. It's my struggle and I own it.
Today's liturgy draws us to reflect on the Baptist - the Precursor. Jesus said that there was no greater man born than John the Baptist, and he was a force to be reckoned with. John is referred to by Isaiah, and he understood himself to be, a voice crying in the wilderness. Now that sounds beautiful and we can get all gushy about it, but it was hard. In terms of job description it would not have been the most desired - and it isn't it, especially today. Out in the wilderness, he was trying to prepare a stubborn and proud people for their Messiah. The fact that they had strange notions of what their Messiah would be like and what he would do did not make things easy for John. They expected a political leader, a great warrior in the style of King David and Judas Maccabeus, what was coming was far from their expectations. In the end, it was not about nations and politics, but faith and redemption, and John had to iron out the creases to help them see that. No easy job.
That is why John is such an attractive, and yes at times, a fierce figure. He had to be tough because there is no greater wall to break down than human pride, but he was also a man of deep faith and love. He was humble, because he was only the one preparing the way for Christ. As he said himself - he was not the message, but the one proclaiming it - Christ is the message, the Word, and he is greater than John, so John must decrease and he must increase.
Today's liturgy offers us the example of John for our Advent observance for a number of reasons. First among them is his role in preparing the way. John is the bridge between the Old and the New - the last of the Old Testament prophets, the first of the New Testament prophets. But we also see in his prophetic witness to the Word which was coming into the world, our own vocation as prophets in imitation of Christ - to witness to Christ in the world today and to prepare the way for the Second Coming. As the liturgy reminds us so often in these days, we are not only preparing to celebrate Christmas, we are also reminding ourselves that our lives should be a preparation for the Lord's Second Coming. So the voice of John the Baptist continues to roar down the centuries, crying now from heaven to us: Stay awake! Prepare the way!
Catching up on some world news, I see an interesting allignment of stories.
Asia Bibi, the Christian condemned to death in Pakistan for defending her faith, condemned under the country's blasphemy laws, goes into hiding with her family, as she awaits the result of an appeal. Now a Muslim cleric has put a price on her head. We must pray for her.
The Aid to the Church in Need reveals in its bi-annual report that Christianity is the most persecuted religion on earth - much of the persecution coming from Islam in the East and secularism in the West.
An Islamic alliance is sponsoring a draft resolution in the UN that seeks to create a global anti-blasphemy law.
America atheists put up a billboard proclaiming Christainity is not reasonable, and their religion is.
Not sure about you, but I see a pattern. It's hard being a Christian today - not fashionable or reasonable, it seems. We seem to be caught in an, albeit unwitting, unholy alliance between Jihadist Islam and aggressive secularist atheism. How do we respond - well, Jesus has the answer to that in the Gospel. But lest we get too disheartened, something to remind us of the beauty of our faith and its truth - something uplifting and positive, as we pray with hope.
The sublime Credo from Palestrina:
The wonderful Credo from Mozart's Mass in C Minor
And in honour of the Holy Mother, for the time that is in it:
Our parish church, St Louis and St Mary's in the snow, with the abandoned cars
"O Come Thou Thaw From On High"
Yes, dear friends, that is the great Advent anthem which is rising from the hearts, minds, voices and frustrations of the people of Ireland at this time. We are in the midst of one of the worst winters for years, breaking weather records every day - we do that a lot these times in Ireland, breaking records. The conditions are getting worse - snow is falling and building up. The UK is in as bad a state as we are. Our primary roads are in a bad state - never mind our secondary roads. The roads in my parish are in a very bad state - they have not been gritted or cleared since this started almost a week ago - our local council is struggling with the main roads.
I had five people at Mass last evening, - First Friday, which normally attracts a good crowd. I do not know how things will be for the Sunday Masses. The chapels of ease are in difficult spots - St Patrick's (Rushwee) is snowed under, St Brigid's (Grangegreeth) is up a huge hill and at this stage impassable. I was talking with my sacristan in St Patrick's and she expressed the hope we may get a thaw before the Vigil on Saturday evening, it seems this morning her hopes may be realised - this morning there seems to be a bit of a thaw, although it will take a few days - the roads are still treacherous. Things are bad out here in the country. We have not had post all week, and for the last few days the car park has been playing host to a few cars which have been abandoned for the duration.
Well, I suppose this is real Advent - we just have to wait for the thaw before normal life resumes, in the meantime we struggle on doing what we can, stumbling, skidding and sliding. Weather like this reminds us that we are not in control and we must, in the end, submit to forces greater than ourselves. If this is true of the weather, it is even more true of God. This is a lesson human beings have to learn for themselves. Pope Benedict said that each generation must discover Christ for themselves - in that personal encounter with him they find faith and the truth the Church holds dear and proclaims. But it is also true to say that each generation must discover the limitations of the human condition, and then the power of God's grace and love which can raise fallen humanity - to come to that insight we must encounter the cross - Christ on the cross who is in himself, in his perfect humanity, in his redeeming work, the sign of salvation. Alleluia - that is good news. This is a lesson we need to learn in Ireland today.
For those of you who face such winter weather every year, please bear with us. Our climate is so mild, we rarely have snow at this level, so we are unprepared. It seems that this may become the norm for us for the years to come. Looking back on our climate history, our winters were much colder than what we were used to in the last few hundred years: it seems our climate may be readjusting to what had been the norm up here in the North.
I see Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, niece of JFK has taken offence at Sarah Palin's critique of the late president's position on public office and religion. In an article published in the Washington Post, she tells us that Palin has got JFK wrong, and that his speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association was just what was needed. Palin disagrees.
I have referred to this speech, and JFK's schizophrenic division of personal life from public life before. It seems, reading Kennedy Townsend's article that some Kennedys at least still hold to that erroneous doctrine, as do numerous Catholic politicians the world over. Now I realise that religion cannot dominate politics - the marriage of the two has been disastrous for both. In reality there never has been a marriage, it has been a master-slave relationship for the most part - one always seemed to have dominated the other. In the past we have had religion dictate to politics, and also the opposite. Indeed we are now living in an age when politics seeks to control religion, as is obvious, for example, in Europe. What is required is a healthy relationship where there is mutual respect and which allows those involved in politics remain true to their faith and conscience, and for politics to see that this benefits society because people will then have the common good at heart. Of course, when politics has embrace the new religion of secularism, then this proposal is not so attractive.
I would have issues with Sarah Palin, but reading what she says about JFK's position I would have to agree with her when she says that he did not reconcile faith and politics, but rather "offered an equivocal divorce of the two". She is correct here and Kennedy Townsend is wrong. In fact I go further than Palin and say that JFK's position subjected faith to the secular and now forces believing Christian politicians to act and legislate in a way that is not only offensive to the tenets of their religion, but also demeans that religion, and places those politicians in a position where they must be censured by the authorities of their religion because of their actions against that faith. As a result of this we have had two generations of politicians, and a budding third, either violating their conscience, or disregarding it completely as they exercise their public office.
The effect of this is pure and utter blindness - the sort of blindness that leads Catholics who profess to believe in Christ (and who come forward to receive the Eucharist) legislating for and supporting the murder of innocent children in the womb, or sacrificing marriage and the stability of the family home for children, on the altar of equality. But there lingers in the future a dreadful reality which will quickly pull them out of their blindness.
Contrary to what JFK and his followers believe, they will be held responsible by God for these actions. They will not be able to plead a "healthy separation of faith and public life" when they stand before God at their judgement. They have acted against the teachings of Christ, they have violated or disregarded their conscience, they were "personally opposed" but fully supportive of inhuman crimes, they have desecrated the Sacred Eucharist and lead people into error by their actions and words. I will not judge individuals, it is not my place - and in saying what I am about to say I say so in the most general terms, not applying it to any individual; but as a priest I must warn those who live by such a false creed as JFK's, that such actions as these put them in danger of hell - and it will not be a case where they will be in hell for their public actions, but enjoy heaven for the private - the greater treachery will reveal how false the schizophrenic distinction actually is.
We must pray for our politicians and public figures who labour under the JFK delusion. We must also pray for our bishops that they will fulfil their duty to remind the members of their flock who live according to this delusion that their position is untenable and wrong, we must also pray that these bishops will not be afraid to speak and to do what is necessary to call their erring children back to their senses.
